Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

dogma wrote:

40kFSU wrote:We are a representative republic. Our representatives are supposed to vote as we want them to.

No, they're supposed to vote how they want to, which may or may not be related to what we want.

40kFSU wrote:
A democracy is simple majority, which is mob rule. The genius of our founding prevents this.

Rule by the majority is indeed a type of democracy, but since no government that holds democracy as a value has ever been based entirely on majority rule it seems silly to delimit the set "Democracies" according to that criteria.

Its sort of like saying that communism has never been practiced because no one has ever gotten past the dictatorship of the proletariat.

I hate to say it but Dogma is right on those points.

Dogma, I think you are making a distinction without a difference. Our representatives are supposed to vote as we say. Thats what primaries and general elections are supposed to sort out. The problem is they usually don't. Which is why we are in the current mess. Not sure what you mean about the majority rule and democracy. I think we agree on this, we are just looking at it from different angles.

captain collius wrote:they are supposed to vote based on what is in the best interests of their constiuents.

I think you mean "reelection," not "constituents."

Often the two coincide (when it comes to spending money). Sometimes they do not (when it comes to not spending money).

40kFSU wrote:Dogma, I think you are making a distinction without a difference. Our representatives are supposed to vote as we say. Thats what primaries and general elections are supposed to sort out. The problem is they usually don't. Which is why we are in the current mess.

Actually I would argue we're in the current mess, though as messes go this one isn't all that bad, precisely because our representatives vote based on what their people want. That the average person's opinion on politics is considered interesting and relevant is a great tragedy. To quote myself quoting a former professor: "Average people are average, and average isn't very good."

Regardless, there is a significant difference between representatives voting as they please, and representatives voting according to the whim of those they represent. Our system is set up to encourage the former, not the latter.

How to reform Congress?

1) We, the people, need to vote out all the incumbants. Every single one of them. This decision is based on the fact that none of them can manage to work together to get the things that need to be done, done. In the rest of the world, this is called termination due to non-performance.

2) Repeat every two years until they start listnening to what the people want them to do.

3) Institute term limits.

4) The FCC has offical, legal control over the airwaves. Brodcast liscences need a clause specifying that they must provide x number of hours of polical advertising as their legal obligation to be able to rent that particular segment of the airwaves, and that these hours must be divided evenly between all cantidates. Further purchase of politcal adverising is banned.

5) With the major need for campaign finances gone, now we can work on overhauling campaign finance rules. Corporations need not apply. Strict limits on how much TOTAL can be accepted, and that amount should be appropriate for transit to and from personal appearances. Business class, not 1st (if they have cash they can upgrade). 3 Star hotels and restaurants, not 5 Star. In short, like a businessperson, not visiting royalty.

Amounts in excess of that get treated for what they are.... Bribes.

Alternately:

1) Screw it. Every year the 100 people/corporations that pay the most taxes get a Senator. The next 250odd get a Congressman. Sure, they'll ALL be corrupt and cronies of big busines... but is that really any diffent from what we have now? But you can bet your bottom dolllar they'll work together better; their corporate overlords won't let them NOT do it. And at least this way Corporations and really wealthy individuals won't be hunting so hard to NOT pay their taxes. Bonus for the people: since Congressional personell now work for their appointing agent, the appointing agent also handles their salary and benefits, including retirement and medical.

Or we could say the top 100 taxpaying corporations get a Senator, the top 250 taxpaying individuals get a Congressman. Make sure at least one house (theoretically) won't be domintated by corporations.

2) The President remains elected by the people. Enact reforms #4 and #5 above so he doesn't need to be rich to run. Now the FBI has only ONE guy to watch for corruption and won't waste time on trying to keep Congress honest. President can still Veto; Congress looses the override. Ideally, the president proposes laws, budgets, and appointments; Congress only passes them.

40kFSU wrote: Our representatives are supposed to vote as we say.

Well, supposedly they get elected to represent the people because their political views are in line with the people's, meaning that what they'd vote for is what the people would vote for. They vote for what they want, but there's the assumption that what they want is what the people who elected them want.

"Average people are average, and average isn't very good."

As said by the great Hat: "The plebs are morons."

Most people wouldn't know what was in their best interest if I slapped a sign on it, added in a neon-light set up, and then parked it in front of their house 24/7.

LordofHats wrote:

Most people wouldn't know what was in their best interest if I slapped a sign on it, added in a neon-light set up, and then parked it in front of their house 24/7.

Or Perhaps they know what is in there best interest and it's not what YOU think is in thier best interests.

And if I were to tell someone they shouldn't talk on the phone and drive, they'd probably still do it. Some things are debatable. Some things are just plain common sense.

LordofHats wrote:
Most people wouldn't know what was in their best interest if I slapped a sign on it, added in a neon-light set up, and then parked it in front of their house 24/7.

Well, they generally know what is in their immediate best interest. If you ask the average person what they want and what they need they'll probably be able to give you a good account of both, while also keeping both categories neatly separated. Hell, they'll probably even be able to tell you the easiest way to get those things.

The problem is that politics aren't really about the immediate interests of a single person, but the abstract, collective interests of a nation and most people don't have the knowledge base to intelligently consider such things.

I've always found it funny, really, that the people who won't bat an eyelash over being told they don't know calculus, or geometry, or stoichiometry are often the same people that get bent out of shape when they're told they don't know politics or policy. Both are specialized fields of knowledge, but they generally aren't treated that way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vulcan wrote:
4) The FCC has offical, legal control over the airwaves. Brodcast liscences need a clause specifying that they must provide x number of hours of polical advertising as their legal obligation to be able to rent that particular segment of the airwaves, and that these hours must be divided evenly between all cantidates. Further purchase of politcal adverising is banned.

There's actually a Southeast Asian country that does something like this, Malaysia I think.

What's that odd red white And blue animal symbol? My eyes started bleeding and I passed out when I looked at it. Woke up and my wallet was empty and there was a hippie in my front yard setting up a commune and complaining about the 1%.

As opposed to the other one where you wake up and your wallet is flat-out gone and you've been set to fighting your neighbor over some silly religious issue instead of worrying about where your wallet went?

Well, they generally know what is in their immediate best interest. If you ask the average person what they want and what they need they'll probably be able to give you a good account of both, while also keeping both categories neatly separated. Hell, they'll probably even be able to tell you the easiest way to get those things.

The problem is that politics aren't really about the immediate interests of a single person, but the abstract, collective interests of a nation and most people don't have the knowledge base to intelligently consider such things.

I've always found it funny, really, that the people who won't bat an eyelash over being told they don't know calculus, or geometry, or stoichiometry are often the same people that get bent out of shape when they're told they don't know politics or policy. Both are specialized fields of knowledge, but they generally aren't treated that way.

Probably because it's easier to assimilate Politics to morality, praxiology and other common human experiences. I'd say that at some point they did pretty much adequate, but you are right, they no longer are assimilable. Unfortunately, today, an intelligent person with good morals isn't a good prospect for most political positions, if that person doesn't have certain specific knowledge (economy/praxiology/law being the most obviously important ones).

Kid_Kyoto wrote:#2 End Filibusters - Why should an already undemocratic chamber (North Dakota has as many votes as California? Really?) be made even less so.

Because the House of Representatives was given the ability to represent the People, the Senate was given the ability to represent the States. Or do you want to screw us over even further, as we only have one Representative to Californias many?

That, and since our Mcdonalds' pays people $15 an hour minimum wage, and our lack of economic collapse BEFORE the Oil Boom up here, we are obviously doing something right that the rest of the lot of you should take into consideration.



Honestly, if we are going to reform congress (And I bleleive we should), we are going to have to do something about the usage of the Media. Something would have to magically happen to where people start being told what's actually going on, not the news groups' political agenda (Fox is most prominent, but every news orginazation is guilty of this, no exceptions...)

Slarg232 wrote:

Kid_Kyoto wrote:#2 End Filibusters - Why should an already undemocratic chamber (North Dakota has as many votes as California? Really?) be made even less so.

Because the House of Representatives was given the ability to represent the People, the Senate was given the ability to represent the States. Or do you want to screw us over even further, as we only have one Representative to Californias many?

That, and since our Mcdonalds' pays people $15 an hour minimum wage, and our lack of economic collapse BEFORE the Oil Boom up here, we are obviously doing something right that the rest of the lot of you should take into consideration.



Honestly, if we are going to reform congress (And I bleleive we should), we are going to have to do something about the usage of the Media. Something would have to magically happen to where people start being told what's actually going on, not the news groups' political agenda (Fox is most prominent, but every news orginazation is guilty of this, no exceptions...)

Don't be silly Slarg. California is clearly more deserving of a greater representative share in the Senate. I mean by representative democracy at the state level they have managed to take the WORLD's 8th largest economy and send it spiraling into the gakker with massive state level public debt, rampant violence, etc. etc. THOSE are the people I want in charge screw this equal State representation garbage.
Look at the kind of disaster Dakota is in (pick one I suppose), those people couldn't govern a toilet.

Agree with everything KK, especially number five. I'm sure a big percentage of voters just show up with intention of voting for whoever aligns with them on the form. Making them do some sort of research on the candidates would at least stop a little bit of the ignorance.

This is supposed to be a democracy. Enough of these freaking games in congress. We have a system that's entirely incompetent and polarized on everything, to the point of obsurdity. Ideally, we give power to out representatives, and they should serve by our terms, not theirs.

No bribes either. No gifts, no incentives. Nothing. Enough of freaking lobbyists.

AustonT wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:

Kid_Kyoto wrote:#2 End Filibusters - Why should an already undemocratic chamber (North Dakota has as many votes as California? Really?) be made even less so.

Because the House of Representatives was given the ability to represent the People, the Senate was given the ability to represent the States. Or do you want to screw us over even further, as we only have one Representative to Californias many?

That, and since our Mcdonalds' pays people $15 an hour minimum wage, and our lack of economic collapse BEFORE the Oil Boom up here, we are obviously doing something right that the rest of the lot of you should take into consideration.



Honestly, if we are going to reform congress (And I bleleive we should), we are going to have to do something about the usage of the Media. Something would have to magically happen to where people start being told what's actually going on, not the news groups' political agenda (Fox is most prominent, but every news orginazation is guilty of this, no exceptions...)

Don't be silly Slarg. California is clearly more deserving of a greater representative share in the Senate. I mean by representative democracy at the state level they have managed to take the WORLD's 8th largest economy and send it spiraling into the gakker with massive state level public debt, rampant violence, etc. etc. THOSE are the people I want in charge screw this equal State representation garbage.
Look at the kind of disaster Dakota is in (pick one I suppose), those people couldn't govern a toilet.

Us ND people have good heads on our shoulders. Southern Dakota-ers don't know their right hand from their left.

California is the big example of Dogma's point, isn't it? Part of their budgetary issues being due to direct ballot initiaties that the citizens voted into law, like Proposition 13.

How about during debates all candidates are asked the same questions. The repub primaries divided question time based on polling, pushing out the new guys(paul, Huntsman) how ar ethey supposed to gain support when they speak for 5 mins in a 2 hour debate?

The debates are another thing that needs overhauling. Right now it's privately-run by agreement between the two major parties, and deliberately designed to let them sideline and exclude third parties and minor candidates, keeping them minor.

The debates should be a mandatory part of the process and run neutrally by the government, not by the Dem and Repub parties.

The same should go for re-districting, I cant be apart of my sons jury, I have a vested interest, so why do politicians get to draw the districts that affect theiry jobs?

Everyone always talks about how the average voter is so stupid, and so poorly informed. And they always assume they're talking about some other voter, and never themselves.

Frazzled wrote:We don't we just don't want them screaming allah akhbar and blowing up the Empire State Building.

And we don't want Americans screaming 'Tea Party' and blowing up the world economy.

I think you'd have to agree our preferred method to date, posting on internet boards, is a little less interventionist than your preferred method, invading other countries.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Easy E wrote:The Senate all ready has a number of ways to kill any legislation before it gets to the floor. Plus, there are other governmental Checks and Balances in place. The Filibuster should be a "last Resort" and only in an extreme emergency option, not an everyday matter of procedure.

The problem comes that you're relying on people's good intentions and political judgement that they'll only use the fillibuster as a last resort. The only thing stopping them from using the fillibuster as an everyday matter of procedure was the general expectation that one shouldn't do that sort of thing. In the post war period, up until roughly the mid-90s, those kinds of gentleman's understandings worked well in the culture you had in Washington, but that culture has changed, every piece of legislation has been magnified into a do or die contest.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

40kFSU wrote:We are a representative republic. Our representatives are supposed to vote as we want them to. A democracy is simple majority, which is mob rule. The genius of our founding prevents this.

A republic is just a country without a monarch.

The system in which you elect people to legislate and govern on their behalf is a representative democracy. That is, it's still a democracy, but instead of direct democracy you vote in representatives.

In this way, the US, because it has no king, is a republic with representative democracy. On the other hand, the United Kingdom, which also elects individuals into government, is a constitutional monarchy with representative democracy.


It's also more than a little ridiculous to claim the founding fathers saw past direct democracy and to representational democracy. Given direct democracy was utterly beyond the capabilities of any nation at the time (even today it'd be a technical nightmate if any nation was silly enough to try it), but multiple countries had already begun to develop systems of representative democracy (including the one you fought for independance from - indeed one of the complaints you had was being denied representation in that parliament) the claim that the founding fathers were geniuses in ignoring direct democracy is complete twaddle.

The founding fathers showed great foresight and set many firsts for the world. The best way to honour those achievements is to state what they actually did do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kid_Kyoto wrote:Majoritarianism is mob rule - 99 Romans vote to throw 1 Christian to the lions
Democracy is majority rule with protection for the rights of the minority
Republic is indirect majority rule wtih increased protection for the will of the minority.

We're a republic.

No, seriously, Republic just means you don't have a king. That's all the word means.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

40kFSU wrote:Dogma, I think you are making a distinction without a difference. Our representatives are supposed to vote as we say.

No, they're supposed to vote according to their best judgement. That's the whole point of why electing representatives is better than direct democracy - you're putting in place people who then learn about the issues and their countless complexities, and come to a reasoned, sensible conclusion... as opposed to people at home who watch half of one Dateline special and figure they've got the issue figured out better than them stupid Washington people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:Actually I would argue we're in the current mess, though as messes go this one isn't all that bad, precisely because our representatives vote based on what their people want. That the average person's opinion on politics is considered interesting and relevant is a great tragedy. To quote myself quoting a former professor: "Average people are average, and average isn't very good."

And more to the point, while the average person is probably smart enough to be able to form a reasoned, intelligent opinion on political issues, the simple fact is that almost no-one does this. They have jobs to work, children to raise, football games to watch and all kinds of other issues.

Ask them about Afghanisatan and they might utter something about how it's terrible all those soldiers have been killed, and maybe they might declare that America has to stay the course, or that success is impossible... and the simple fact is they do not have the information needed for that last bit to be anything but a guess most likely based on their personal biases. They know nothing about actual troop deployments, the success of various operations, the capability of each Afghani civil unit, the effect of reform drives in the Afghani government government, or any other issue that is essential to forming a proper opinion.

They don't know any of that, nor should they be expected to. That's why, instead, we elect people who then have the job of learning all that stuff and making decisions based upon it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Exalted Pariah wrote:The same should go for re-districting, I cant be apart of my sons jury, I have a vested interest, so why do politicians get to draw the districts that affect theiry jobs?

Because the formation of an independant electoral office appears to be, culturally and perhaps also systemically, beyond the USA.

sebster wrote:Everyone always talks about how the average voter is so stupid, and so poorly informed. And they always assume they're talking about some other voter, and never themselves.

Sebs, I love you.