Undemocratic musings...

Critter7r · Jan 29, 2018

Korimyr the Rat said:
Wholly agreed. The problem lies in the fact that the only current alternative to democratic rule is autocratic rule, and if the human species is (as a rule) too stupid, selfish, and cruel to govern themselves... how much less qualified must we be to govern each other? Unless we can find or invent something more qualified to the task, liberal democracy is the least-worst system of government.

Emphasis, of course, on the liberal portion of liberal democracy with the "democratic" authorities being strictly and unforgivingly restrained by charters of human rights and enforceable standards for the moral justification of armed force. It's one of the reasons I am so enamored of the Pirate Party-- part of their core philosophy is "Quality Legislation", meaning that any legitimate government action must be justified by objective evidence of both an existing problem, and of the solution's effectiveness and efficiency at correcting the problem....

Finding "objective evidence" of a proposed solution's level of effectiveness in solving a problem is going to be a bit of a sticking point. Who gets to determine objectively if a given solution will cure a given problem?

It sounds interesting, but how do you put that into practice? Is reducing taxes a effective and efficient way to increase economic growth? Would the "slow economic growth" of 2016 even have been a problem worthy of enacting legislation? Who is going to objectively determine those things?

Tanngrisnir · Jan 29, 2018

Goshin said:
Thinking out loud.

Let's face it... "We the People", as a whole, are not very smart, and not very well-informed. Some of us are on an individual basis, yes, but as a whole we don't seem to act rationally or in our best interests or show much foresight.

The politicians we elect tend to be about the same, if not worse. We have Congresscritters who think islands can capsize and sink.

Our representatives are commonly better at winning elections than at governing; at projecting an image than being persons of character.

Our political parties are more concerned with elections, power and serving special interests than doing what's best for the nation.

In short we (the collective "we") do a rather crappy job of governing our nation.

Now there is no utopia and I'm not going to propose one; all institutions of man are flawed, the wonder is they work at all, not that they work poorly.

But so many of those who make decisions in our name are ill-informed if not wretchedly ignorant of much of what they decide upon... and to some degree this is a reflection of their voters.

It's enough to make one question democracy.

Over the past two centuries we've been moving more towards democratic forms.... now almost everyone can vote, and some agitate to restore criminals' right to vote or even illegal immigrants. Senators are popularly elected instead of appointed by the States to represent the States' interests.

^^^ All of this....

Yet the end result has been less than democratic, as special interests buy our representatives, whichever ones we elect, to represent them more than us.

Doesn't necessarily have a single thing to do with this ^^^^

What's the answer? I'm not sure. Campaign finance reform might help, a little. Maybe a higher bar for voting or holding office, some more meritocratic system. Maybe even mix in a small dose of technocracy.

It would go a long way, and going even further would be gov't funding of campaigns, but we're still living with results of Santa Clara vs. Southern Pacific and the utterly idiotic Citizens United, so it's not likely to happen soon or easily.

Critter7r · Jan 29, 2018

Lutherf said:
Simple solution. Less power at higher levels of government and more power at local levels. Smaller, limited government with the most accountability at the level where you can literally knock on the decision makers door keeps the problems from becoming national. Yep, it requires personal responsibility but it saves a lot of headaches farther down the road.

Can you map that out? it would seem to me that more power and responsibility at local levels wouldn't necessarily equal smaller government.

It sounds good on the surface, but what's the reality of it look like to you?

Serious question, no sarcasm.

Real Korimyr #9 · Jan 29, 2018

Critter7r said:
Finding "objective evidence" of a proposed solution's level of effectiveness in solving a problem is going to be a bit of a sticking point. Who gets to determine objectively if a given solution will cure a given problem?

It sounds interesting, but how do you put that into practice? Is reducing taxes a effective and efficient way to increase economic growth? Would the "slow economic growth" of 2016 even have been a problem worthy of enacting legislation? Who is going to objectively determine those things?

It is a moral position. It is not expected that anyone, including ourselves, will be capable of upholding it perfectly.

The important thing is that it is a statement of commitment to avoid writing laws based on mass hysteria and supporting policies that have failed to work.

Lutherf · Jan 29, 2018

Critter7r said:
Can you map that out? it would seem to me that more power and responsibility at local levels wouldn't necessarily equal smaller government.

It sounds good on the surface, but what's the reality of it look like to you?

Serious question, no sarcasm.

Perhaps "smaller" is the wrong term to use. What I'm talking about is a smaller national level government. I'm talking about limiting the scope of the federal government to something closer to what was outlined in the Constitution. The idea is to have the majority of political decisions which impact individual citizens to be made at the state or local level. For example, matters of education, social welfare and public health services should be primarily functions of the state, not the federal government.

Goshin · Jan 29, 2018

Critter7r said:
It'll remove the Under-30 crowd from the polling locations, for sure. And most of the Under-40 crowd, too.

Mostly. An 18yo who enlists and serves in wartime (or in a combat zone) could be franchised at age 22. In peacetime at age 26.

But most would be more like age 34 when they accumulated 16 points and got franchise. 16 years combined in college and productively working in the private sector as a norm. Maybe it takes a little longer for some. Maybe some remarkably unproductive people never make 16 points, and if so well, so be it.

Would that be bad? 18-25yo's already have one of the lowest voting rates. We restrict you from running for Congress until 25, Senate until 30, and Pres until 35. We do this on the theory that a certain level of maturity is necessary, and I rarely hear anyone dispute it or complain.

Anyway, it is just an idea. The appeal to me was requiring a person to show some modest level of accomplishment and general competence in the real world before they get to participate in governing society, since voting after all is the font from which flows legislation, regulation, and foreign policy decisions like whether to go to war. Pretty serious stuff to just let any random person engage in just because they managed to have an 18th birthday.

lurchadams · Jan 29, 2018

Goshin said:
Thinking out loud.

Let's face it... "We the People", as a whole, are not very smart, and not very well-informed. Some of us are on an individual basis, yes, but as a whole we don't seem to act rationally or in our best interests or show much foresight.

The politicians we elect tend to be about the same, if not worse. We have Congresscritters who think islands can capsize and sink.

Our representatives are commonly better at winning elections than at governing; at projecting an image than being persons of character.

Our political parties are more concerned with elections, power and serving special interests than doing what's best for the nation.

In short we (the collective "we") do a rather crappy job of governing our nation.

Now there is no utopia and I'm not going to propose one; all institutions of man are flawed, the wonder is they work at all, not that they work poorly.

But so many of those who make decisions in our name are ill-informed if not wretchedly ignorant of much of what they decide upon... and to some degree this is a reflection of their voters.

It's enough to make one question democracy.

Over the past two centuries we've been moving more towards democratic forms.... now almost everyone can vote, and some agitate to restore criminals' right to vote or even illegal immigrants. Senators are popularly elected instead of appointed by the States to represent the States' interests.

Yet the end result has been less than democratic, as special interests buy our representatives, whichever ones we elect, to represent them more than us.

What's the answer? I'm not sure. Campaign finance reform might help, a little. Maybe a higher bar for voting or holding office, some more meritocratic system. Maybe even mix in a small dose of technocracy.

Potential problems with all that, no doubt... but it isn't like we don't have plenty of problems with our current system.

Anyway, my musings of the day....

1. Get money out of politics.
2. Limit all elected officials to two terms.

Problem solved.

Goshin · Jan 29, 2018

lurchadams said:
1. Get money out of politics.
2. Limit all elected officials to two terms.

Problem solved.

I dunno about solved, but it would be a good start at least.

Goshin · Jan 29, 2018

I like Australian ballot too, or at least instant runoff.

<alt>doxygen · Jan 29, 2018

Goshin said:
Every candidate who is able to get on the ballot should have the same amount and quality of ability to address the public. Not just the 2 main parties.
End private campaign financing entirely, other than getting on the ballot to start with. Apportion a small amount of the budget for it.
No PACs. Private persons can run as many ads about an ISSUE as they wish, but if they mention a candidate there are some sort of consequences, such as it coming out of the candidates' allotment of public airtime.

Free speech means we have to allow lobbying, but no money or gifts or bennies or someone goes to prison.

We can end gerrymandering by doing away with districts entirely, at least for Fed or State office. Make it by county or just general statewide, the #N with the most votes are in.

We have too many reps trying to bring the pork home to their district already.

Really though we need to go further. Franchise (the right to vote and to run for office) should be something you earn, not something every idiot is handed on a silver platter at 18. "Here ya go kid... you flunked out of high school and can't read, but you get to choose who holds the nuclear button!" No.

Make it something everyone CAN earn, but not too easily. Several paths... 8 years active military service or 4 in wartime, for starters... or 16 reserve in peacetime. For non-military, maybe you have to accumulate 16 points. University degrees can earn 1-8 (8 being a doctorate) points. Every year spent in productive work in the private sector is one point. Maybe charitable work counts for points too, if it involves personal sacrifice (low or no pay and/or difficult conditions). Maybe you get points for raising children that stay out of jail and finish school, just a thought.

Accumulate your 16 points and you get sworn in as a Franchised Citizen... but first you take the Oath: "I solemnly swear (or affirm) to use my franchise to serve the best interests of the United States of America, to uphold the Constitution and the principle of Liberty for all my fellow citizens regardless of color, creed, party or other distinction."

If it is ever proven you've knowingly violated that oath, a jury can revoke your franchise and you no longer vote or hold office.

Lots of people won't like that, but it might actually help a bit.

I was with you there until you got to the "franchise" part. I totally agree that there are people who are too dumb or ill informed to vote, but there are people who come out military service that are still easily manipulated and quite the opposite of free thinkers. That and I've seen some of the tests that were used to keep blacks from being able to vote - tests whites were not given, or where whites were "helped".

Not sure what the answer is there, except we have to do a better job of educating people. What we seem to have now is a couple of powerful groups trying to get the upper hand when it comes to brainwashing the most people. The media is a mess and too many people just use it to double down their preconceived beliefs.

Goshin · Jan 29, 2018

Ok... limiting voting rights is extremely controversial and unlikely to pass muster, no matter how fair and reasonable.

So...

Instead how about raising the bar a smidge on candidates?

........

... okay I paused here to look over a report on the 113th Congress, with information on age, length of service, education, prior occupation, and so on.

https://www.senate.gov/CRSpubs/0b699eff-adc5-43c4-927e-f63045bdce8e.pdf

It's a very ethnically diverse bunch, lots of women and minorities. Almost all have some kind of education beyond high school, the vast majority have a bachelor's degree or better, a fair few have Masters, a few have Doctorates. Law degrees are common, medical degrees also.

The most common previous occupations were lawyer, business, or politics/government service.

20% served in the military, much higher than the general population.

You'd THINK we'd be rather well-served by such a Congress, wouldn't you?

And yet, it doesn't seem we are.

Goshin · Jan 29, 2018

Average length of service in congress about 9 years for reps and 11 for Senators.... so on average they're not serving all that long, so do we really need term limits?

OTOH we've had some that have been in there for 20, 30, 40 years... one for 57 years! Seniority means such a congresscritter could wield power out of proportion to others, holding chairmanships on multiple committees.

One person I never got to vote for or against could have unbalanced effects on legislation affecting me.

Maybe we do need term limits.

gdgyva · Jan 29, 2018

Goshin said:
Thinking out loud.

Let's face it... "We the People", as a whole, are not very smart, and not very well-informed. Some of us are on an individual basis, yes, but as a whole we don't seem to act rationally or in our best interests or show much foresight.

The politicians we elect tend to be about the same, if not worse. We have Congresscritters who think islands can capsize and sink.

Our representatives are commonly better at winning elections than at governing; at projecting an image than being persons of character.

Our political parties are more concerned with elections, power and serving special interests than doing what's best for the nation.

In short we (the collective "we") do a rather crappy job of governing our nation.

Now there is no utopia and I'm not going to propose one; all institutions of man are flawed, the wonder is they work at all, not that they work poorly.

But so many of those who make decisions in our name are ill-informed if not wretchedly ignorant of much of what they decide upon... and to some degree this is a reflection of their voters.

It's enough to make one question democracy.

Over the past two centuries we've been moving more towards democratic forms.... now almost everyone can vote, and some agitate to restore criminals' right to vote or even illegal immigrants. Senators are popularly elected instead of appointed by the States to represent the States' interests.

Yet the end result has been less than democratic, as special interests buy our representatives, whichever ones we elect, to represent them more than us.

What's the answer? I'm not sure. Campaign finance reform might help, a little. Maybe a higher bar for voting or holding office, some more meritocratic system. Maybe even mix in a small dose of technocracy.

Potential problems with all that, no doubt... but it isn't like we don't have plenty of problems with our current system.

Anyway, my musings of the day....

money is, has been, and will continue to be the problem

buying your candidate is the "in thing"

so my proposal...i have said it before...is to eliminate all monies going directly to candidates

they cant receive one nickel...nor can any election committee in their name...

anyone that wants to contribute to a campaign...local, state, or federal sends it to a clearing house (ran by a cpa firm)

the cpa firm in turn cuts checks to the candidates without giving donors names....and we limit the amounts as follows

3k on national elections
2k on state elections
1k on local elections

you and your wife at most could give 6k to a candidate....and no, the kids will have to send their own checks if OVER 18

think about it....no PACS, no SUPERPACS....we get most of the money out of politics

now if we could get the idiots in congress to pass such a law

Sampson Simpson · Jan 29, 2018

Goshin said:
Thinking out loud.

Let's face it... "We the People", as a whole, are not very smart, and not very well-informed. Some of us are on an individual basis, yes, but as a whole we don't seem to act rationally or in our best interests or show much foresight.

The politicians we elect tend to be about the same, if not worse. We have Congresscritters who think islands can capsize and sink.

Our representatives are commonly better at winning elections than at governing; at projecting an image than being persons of character.

Our political parties are more concerned with elections, power and serving special interests than doing what's best for the nation.

In short we (the collective "we") do a rather crappy job of governing our nation.

Now there is no utopia and I'm not going to propose one; all institutions of man are flawed, the wonder is they work at all, not that they work poorly.

But so many of those who make decisions in our name are ill-informed if not wretchedly ignorant of much of what they decide upon... and to some degree this is a reflection of their voters.

It's enough to make one question democracy.

Over the past two centuries we've been moving more towards democratic forms.... now almost everyone can vote, and some agitate to restore criminals' right to vote or even illegal immigrants. Senators are popularly elected instead of appointed by the States to represent the States' interests.

Yet the end result has been less than democratic, as special interests buy our representatives, whichever ones we elect, to represent them more than us.

What's the answer? I'm not sure. Campaign finance reform might help, a little. Maybe a higher bar for voting or holding office, some more meritocratic system. Maybe even mix in a small dose of technocracy.

Potential problems with all that, no doubt... but it isn't like we don't have plenty of problems with our current system.

Anyway, my musings of the day....

You are spot on, we should all be angry about what is going on. I don't quite get how right wingers aren't as pissed as liberals at how horrible our congressmen are. How horrible Citizens United was. SCOTUS is supposed to protect us, and they let us down. THE government works for who funds their campaigns, there is no denying it.

We should all be united in our disgust of Trump basically filing teh White house with swamp creatures who want to dismantle the government and allow the greedy rich to make even more money while screwing us over.

Goshin · Jan 29, 2018

Sampson Simpson said:
You are spot on, we should all be angry about what is going on. I don't quite get how right wingers aren't as pissed as liberals at how horrible our congressmen are. How horrible Citizens United was. SCOTUS is supposed to protect us, and they let us down. THE government works for who funds their campaigns, there is no denying it.

We should all be united in our disgust of Trump basically filing teh White house with swamp creatures who want to dismantle the government and allow the greedy rich to make even more money while screwing us over.

I'd have been more with you if you'd left out the partisan bits.

Trump is a symptom, not the disease.

Critter7r · Jan 29, 2018

gdgyva said:
money is, has been, and will continue to be the problem

buying your candidate is the "in thing"

so my proposal...i have said it before...is to eliminate all monies going directly to candidates

they cant receive one nickel...nor can any election committee in their name...

anyone that wants to contribute to a campaign...local, state, or federal sends it to a clearing house (ran by a cpa firm)

the cpa firm in turn cuts checks to the candidates without giving donors names....and we limit the amounts as follows

3k on national elections
2k on state elections
1k on local elections

you and your wife at most could give 6k to a candidate....and no, the kids will have to send their own checks if OVER 18

think about it....no PACS, no SUPERPACS....we get most of the money out of politics

now if we could get the idiots in congress to pass such a law

I'd take it a step further and collect all donations to candidates into one pool and dole them out equally. I also like the idea (that someone else here mentioned) of requiring media outlets to be required to carry a certain number of candidate ads free of charge, and equally available to all candidates, for the privilege of obtaining FCC approval. (There would have to be a vetting process to determine who was actually a "candidate", though).

Any remaining needs of our election process not covered by donations should be paid for thru tax revenue.

gdgyva · Jan 29, 2018

Critter7r said:
I'd take it a step further and collect all donations to candidates into one pool and dole them out equally. I also like the idea (that someone else here mentioned) of requiring media outlets to be required to carry a certain number of candidate ads free of charge, and equally available to all candidates, for the privilege of obtaining FCC approval. (There would have to be a vetting process to determine who was actually a "candidate", though).

Any remaining needs of our election process not covered by donations should be paid for thru tax revenue.

we dont need "ads"....at least to the extent that we have had them

every four years, the airwaves become filled with drivel from the guys with the biggest coffers

no....

the money will be scarce with my idea....they wont be able to buy million dollar ad buys

let them do town halls...and debates...and actual interviews with newspapers (do we have real journalists who can do this anymore?)

that is how they get their message out there....and social media will be more of the "trending" types

maybe we can even get away from the negative blitz ads....one hopes

JoeTrumps · Jan 29, 2018

I think the last election showed the person with the most money doesn't always win. Hillary outspent Trump more than 2 to 1. You see where that got her. Reading a book on the Grammy awards.

Critter7r · Jan 29, 2018

JoeTrumps said:
I think the last election showed the person with the most money doesn't always win. Hillary outspent Trump more than 2 to 1. You see where that got her. Reading a book on the Grammy awards.

maybe not, but the person spending the least money sure as **** didn't win.

lurchadams · Jan 29, 2018

Goshin said:
I dunno about solved, but it would be a good start at least.

What else do you think should be done?

Goshin · Jan 29, 2018

lurchadams said:
What else do you think should be done?

Dust off and nuke DC from orbit? It's the only way to be sure. :lamo:

lurchadams · Jan 29, 2018

Goshin said:
Dust off and nuke DC from orbit? It's the only way to be sure. :lamo:

Whoa! Ok I prefer my way, also someone else suggested eliminated gerrymandering which I agree with as well. That, taking money out of politics and limited terms should do it, IMO.

Goshin · Jan 29, 2018

lurchadams said:
Whoa! Ok I prefer my way, also someone else suggested eliminated gerrymandering which I agree with as well. That, taking money out of politics and limited terms should do it, IMO.

Just trying to keep a sense of humor about it all, since there's very little I can do about any of it.

radcen · Jan 29, 2018

Goshin said:
Ok... limiting voting rights is extremely controversial and unlikely to pass muster, no matter how fair and reasonable.

So...

Instead how about raising the bar a smidge on candidates?

........

... okay I paused here to look over a report on the 113th Congress, with information on age, length of service, education, prior occupation, and so on.

https://www.senate.gov/CRSpubs/0b699eff-adc5-43c4-927e-f63045bdce8e.pdf

It's a very ethnically diverse bunch, lots of women and minorities. Almost all have some kind of education beyond high school, the vast majority have a bachelor's degree or better, a fair few have Masters, a few have Doctorates. Law degrees are common, medical degrees also.

The most common previous occupations were lawyer, business, or politics/government service.

20% served in the military, much higher than the general population.

You'd THINK we'd be rather well-served by such a Congress, wouldn't you?

And yet, it doesn't seem we are.

And yet they're human, too... corruptible by money and/or power.

I tend to believe that the vast majority originally get into politics for the right reasons, then become corrupted as time goes by. I also believe that, while the money is great, most are actually corrupted more by the power.

radcen · Jan 29, 2018

Term limits are a horrible idea. They would actually make things worse.

As far as campaign finance reform, I'd prefer we do "can't vote, can't contribute". You can only contribute to a particular candidate if you can physically walk into the voting booth and vote for them. Corporations can't vote, so corporations can't contribute. A guy in Florida cannot contribute to a Senate candidate in Utah, but can to a Senate candidate in Florida. Plus, immediate 100% disclosure of who and how much. I don't care how much they raise, just that it be limit to actual constituents and be 100% above board.

Undemocratic musings...

Not Myself, I'm a Replica of Me

Burned Out Ex-Mod

Zoom Warrior

Burned Out Ex-Mod

Burned Out Ex-Mod

"I want MY WALL!"

Burned Out Ex-Mod

Burned Out Ex-Mod

Burned Out Ex-Mod

Zoom Warrior

Burned Out Ex-Mod

Zoom Warrior

Burned Out Ex-Mod

Phonetic Mnemonic ©

Phonetic Mnemonic ©

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency