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.

Forget this world. We should just, like, just, get on a bike and just ... go.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Of course it would... it forces the current congress-critters on record.

The electoral and voting histories of all members of Congress are currently public record.

It's not the same and you know it...

Okay... let's change gears.

How do you feel about the 17th Amendment? Specifically, the calls to have it repealed?

Repeal would be interesting if state legislatures would actually care about their states and not their parties. Not that the voting public is any different now. 10-15 years ago Oklahoma voted very much Democrat in state elections, but send Republicans to DC. Without the 17th the Democrat controlled legislators would likely have send democratic senators to DC instead to pad their own numbers.

Political parties ruined a whole lot of things...

 whembly wrote:

It's not the same and you know it...

Yes, it pretty much is. All Congressional proceedings are matters of public record, unless otherwise stipulated by statute or Congressional regulation. All this "blank slate" proposal would do is force members of Congress to justify the existence of tax exemptions in the course of Congressional proceedings, which you do not think are sufficiently transparent.

 whembly wrote:

Okay... let's change gears.

How do you feel about the 17th Amendment? Specifically, the calls to have it repealed?

I'm not sure.

It would make the Senate a legitimate upper house, but in doing so make state politics more important. I suppose that's a good thing from state's rights perspective, but the majority of state politicians are either insane or horribly corrupt*. After some time they would be chased out of office, as making state politics more important would draw more attention to the matter; but the transition would be hell.

I was once for the repeal of the 17th, but now I see very little benefit and a very high cost.



*Corruption (nebulously defined) and proximity to the people keeping you in power are directly proportional, and not just in government.

 d-usa wrote:
Repeal would be interesting if state legislatures would actually care about their states and not their parties. Not that the voting public is any different now. 10-15 years ago Oklahoma voted very much Democrat in state elections, but send Republicans to DC. Without the 17th the Democrat controlled legislators would likely have send democratic senators to DC instead to pad their own numbers.

It's not a silver bullet...

But I think on a state-to-national level, it'll curb the federal encroachment into what should be left to the state. I'd also argue it'll strengthen the 10th amendment a bit (because, now it's a joke).

Political parties ruined a whole lot of things...

O.o

Would you prefer a parliment system (ala, AU / UK / Canada)?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

It's not the same and you know it...

Yes, it pretty much is. All Congressional proceedings are matters of public record, unless otherwise stipulated by statute or Congressional regulation. All this "blank slate" proposal would do is force members of Congress to justify the existence of tax exemptions in the course of Congressional proceedings, which you do not think are sufficiently transparent.

It's a reset button dogma... it puts the issue "back to the top".

Maybe a better way is to incorporate a sunset date on all exemptions/tax laws so that it's touched regularly.

 whembly wrote:

Okay... let's change gears.

How do you feel about the 17th Amendment? Specifically, the calls to have it repealed?

I'm not sure.

It would make the Senate a legitimate upper house, but in doing so make state politics more important. I suppose that's a good thing from state's rights perspective, but the majority of state politicians are either insane or horribly corrupt*. After some time they would be chased out of office, as making state politics more important would draw more attention to the matter; but the transition would be hell.

I was once for the repeal of the 17th, but now I see very little benefit and a very high cost.



*Corruption (nebulously defined) and proximity to the people keeping you in power are directly proportional, and not just in government.

I'd agree it would be ugly during the transition... but, I'd argue that the corruption is in part of the 17th.

However, we need both individuals and state governments to have “direct input in the national government”... that is, individual votes for Representative and State Officials vote for Senators.

If the Senators were beholden to their state's elected officials, big federal laws would be scrutinized through the lenses of how well the states can implement/enforce/adapt these proposed laws. Case in point: Obamacare could've been written MUCH better had the states had better input. Instead, about 35 states are NOT participating in the "State Exchange", leaving the Federal Government holding bag to make the mad scramble on the mandated dates. (that's why we're seeing waivers and postponements).

Instead they are beholden to the machine of "Washington lobbyists, campaign funders, national political consultants, and other national advocacy organizations.” Or in other words... Senators don't really care about what the Boston, Albany, Harrisburg, Springfield, Lincoln, Little Rock, Atlanta, Austin, Sacramento, Carson City, etc crew says. So, hello "K Street".

The irony is that the failed attempt to pass gun control legislation by the U.S. Senate.... Who did they blame for the defeat? Not the Senate... they blamed a lobby (the NRA). Ironic, eh?

Parliamentary systems still have political parties.

As long as you have political parties, and people making a living of these parties, you will have a system where people are more concerned about their party being in power instead of their party actually doing anything.

Not that I have any solution on how to fix that or how to create a political system without political parties.

 d-usa wrote:
Parliamentary systems still have political parties.

As long as you have political parties, and people making a living of these parties, you will have a system where people are more concerned about their party being in power instead of their party actually doing anything.

Not that I have any solution on how to fix that or how to create a political system without political parties.

Yeah, I do wish there's a way to lower the current barriers of allowing more parties into our system.

The 2-party system sucks.

 whembly wrote:

It's a reset button dogma... it puts the issue "back to the top".

It does put the issue "back to the top", but it isn't a "reset button"; for the reasons I've already given.

 whembly wrote:

If the Senators were beholden to their state's elected officials, big federal laws would be scrutinized through the lenses of how well the states can implement/enforce/adapt these proposed laws.

They already are, which is part of the reason why 35 states won't participate in the exchanges.

 whembly wrote:

Instead they are beholden to the machine of "Washington lobbyists, campaign funders, national political consultants, and other national advocacy organizations.” Or in other words... Senators don't really care about what the Boston, Albany, Harrisburg, Springfield, Lincoln, Little Rock, Atlanta, Austin, Sacramento, Carson City, etc crew says. So, hello "K Street".

They care about them in the sense that they represent voters or supporters. Getting their electorates to vote for them is important as the relevant Senators want to be elected to office.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Parliamentary systems still have political parties.

As long as you have political parties, and people making a living of these parties, you will have a system where people are more concerned about their party being in power instead of their party actually doing anything.

Not that I have any solution on how to fix that or how to create a political system without political parties.

Yeah, I do wish there's a way to lower the current barriers of allowing more parties into our system.

The 2-party system sucks.

Agreed.

How 'bout this idea?

For tax returns, placing the deadline to file one’s taxes one day before the next federal election as opposed to mid-April.

 whembly wrote:
How 'bout this idea?

For tax returns, placing the deadline to file one’s taxes one day before the next federal election as opposed to mid-April.

What would that accomplish?

 whembly wrote:

Yeah, I do wish there's a way to lower the current barriers of allowing more parties into our system.

The 2-party system sucks.

All else being equal, do you think a 3 party system would be superior?

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:
How 'bout this idea?

For tax returns, placing the deadline to file one’s taxes one day before the next federal election as opposed to mid-April.

What would that accomplish?

Um... so that the voters vividly remembers their tax outlays? Or, conversely, what exemptions/rebate/loopholes they were allowed to use...

*shrugs*
Not sure really...

 whembly wrote:

Yeah, I do wish there's a way to lower the current barriers of allowing more parties into our system.

The 2-party system sucks.

All else being equal, do you think a 3 party system would be superior?

Well... I'd like more than that... but, even a 3 party system ought to be better-ish since it should encourage compromise.

Like say, a full-fledge libertarian party. (Green Party?)

What do you think? You're in the trenches so to speak with American Politics.

 whembly wrote:

Um... so that the voters vividly remembers their tax outlays? Or, conversely, what exemptions/rebate/loopholes they were allowed to use...

I'm sure that most voters who care enough to use exemptions, rebates, and loopholes can recall how much they paid in taxes. The remainder would most likely file their taxes at the deadline and refrain from voting, as doing a thing associated with the federal government two days in a row is commonly believed to be annoying.

 whembly wrote:

Well... I'd like more than that... but, even a 3 party system ought to be better-ish since it should encourage compromise.

Like say, a full-fledge libertarian party. (Green Party?)

What do you think? You're in the trenches so to speak with American Politics.

If you want a multi-party system the first steps are the elimination of the Electoral College and FPP voting, the latter of which cannot be done en masse without a Constitutional Amendment.

As to what I think: "...the big fish eat the little fish, and I keep on paddling."

 Cheesecat wrote:
The most comfortable and prosperous countries in the world are all democratic so democracy must be doing something right.

Spurious relationship much? *smh*

Surely the constitution of the USA allows new political parties to be formed and run for election. The difficulty is getting them to a viable level when the two incumbent parties are so rich and powerful.

New parties have arisen in other democracies.

States, some much more than others, make it hard to form political parties.

Oklahoma is home to some of the most restrictive ballot access laws for political parties in the nation.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Um... so that the voters vividly remembers their tax outlays? Or, conversely, what exemptions/rebate/loopholes they were allowed to use...

I'm sure that most voters who care enough to use exemptions, rebates, and loopholes can recall how much they paid in taxes. The remainder would most likely file their taxes at the deadline and refrain from voting, as doing a thing associated with the federal government two days in a row is commonly believed to be annoying.

Can't argue that... just spitball'n dude.

 whembly wrote:

Well... I'd like more than that... but, even a 3 party system ought to be better-ish since it should encourage compromise.

Like say, a full-fledge libertarian party. (Green Party?)

What do you think? You're in the trenches so to speak with American Politics.

If you want a multi-party system the first steps are the elimination of the Electoral College and FPP voting, the latter of which cannot be done en masse without a Constitutional Amendment.

As to what I think: "...the big fish eat the little fish, and I keep on paddling."

I'd be alright with getting rid of the Electoral College and FPP only if the 17th Amendment is repealed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
States, some much more than others, make it hard to form political parties.

Oklahoma is home to some of the most restrictive ballot access laws for political parties in the nation.

Yup... so much this.

I want to be able to form the GW-fanboi party... whereas I'd advocate for paid holidays to support tournaments and subsidy for gaming munchies.

Grndhog89 wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
The most comfortable and prosperous countries in the world are all democratic so democracy must be doing something right.

Spurious relationship much? *smh*

Know of any nice dictatorships?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Surely the constitution of the USA allows new political parties to be formed and run for election. The difficulty is getting them to a viable level when the two incumbent parties are so rich and powerful.

New parties have arisen in other democracies.

One of the big problems here is the voting system. First Past the Post is objectively quite terrible. It discourages voting for minor parties.

Lets say there are 2 parties, Republicans (R) and Democrats (D), and the election will probably be a 51/49 R/D split. Your preference is R>D. But now a third party Libertarians (L) is introduced, and your preferences are L > R > D. But you know that L aren't actually that popular, and the real race is between R and D. Lets say, 10% of people are like you and want to switch their vote from R to L. However if they do that, the split becomes 41/49/10 R/D/L split and D wins.

Voting more accurately according to your preferences in FPTP actually makes it less likely that your preferences are realised. You can't express that you prefer L>R>D, only that you like L. Giving rise to the phenomenon 'a vote for anyone except the ones who come first is a vote for those who come second.'


A system like Instant Runoff Voting lets you indicate that you like L > R >D. If L doesn't get 50% of the votes, any votes for L are given to the voter's second preference. So in the above situation, after L loses then his 10 votes go to R and R wins.
There are a number of mathematical criteria you can use to judge a voting system by. Some are mutually exclusive, and some of them might not be valid depending on what you want out of the system.
Shultz voting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method) is considered to be a very good method - but it's too damn complicated to explain how it works to the majority of the population (just look at the math in the link).

To encourage more parties, the voting method needs to change. Not *just* the voting method, but it without changing the voting then other changes won't have the needed effect.

We have the same system in the UK. We have still managed to develop a number of new parties over the years -- Labour, SNP, Plaid Cymru, and Green Party -- some of these are minority / regional in appeal.

 Cheesecat wrote:

Grndhog89 wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
The most comfortable and prosperous countries in the world are all democratic so democracy must be doing something right.

Spurious relationship much? *smh*

Know of any nice dictatorships?

It depends. Am I in charge of the dictatorship?

I've been to a few countries, generally when things were not so OK with them...

There is nothing wrong with democracy. It's all in how you determine who is allowed to vote....

In this country you have to be a citizen, over a certain age and not have been a convicted felon and that’s why this country is going down the drain sooner or later.....

When the United States Constitution was signed you had to own property (land to be specific) to be able to vote. The last state to remove that restriction did so in 1856. The country has been going downhill since...

This is not a new issue….

Aristotle

"If the majority distributes among itself the things of a minority, it is evident that it will destroy the city,"

Jim Quinn on discussing the history of taxation and property rights in the United States in 2008

"Originally, if you didn't own land, you didn't vote, and there was a good reason for it: because those without property will always vote away the property of other people unto themselves, and that's the beginning of the end." Quinn added: "But, oh no, that was -- that was just too mean-spirited." Moments earlier, Quinn said, "Now -- I mean, I can hear the appeal to the masses: 'It's not fair, it's not the American way that you don't get to vote,' but let me ask you a question: If I don't own anything, what kind of a problem do I have with voting for a measure -- a tax, a law -- that takes somebody else's property and gives it to me? I have no stake in personal property ownership 'cause I don't have any. Now, back in the day, when this was the law of the land, anybody who wanted to vote needed to step up to the plate, achieve, get a stake in America, and then vote."

If you want to see where America is going look to Zimbabwe, once known as the bread basket of Africa... They did forced land reform where the government took the land and democratically gave it to lots of its voters who knew nothing about farming. Less than 5 years later there was mass starvation...The country changed from being the bread basket of Africa to just being a basket case...People do not care for what they have not earned…

No one would let someone sit down at a poker table and play without bringing a stake into the game and we still call that gambling. Why gamble with a nation?

Why should anyone without a stake in America get to vote? It was a mistake to change that part of the Constitution…

As to felons not being able to vote…that is actually determined by the states. I think once someone has served their time they should be allowed to vote, if they own property (land of course)….

The extreme point of the “you must have a stake in the country to vote in it” view was expressed by Robert Heinlein in his book Star Ship Troopers. (Read the book, it's better than the movie)

Heinlein's Terran Federation is a limited democracy, with aspects of a meritocracy in regard to full citizenship, based on voluntarily assuming a responsibility for the common good.

Suffrage can only be earned by those willing to serve their society by at least two years of volunteer Federal Service – "the franchise is today limited to discharged veterans", (ch. XII), instead of, as Heinlein would later note,

anyone "...who is 18 years old and has a body temperature near 37 °C.

Democracy is too precious to leave in the hands of someone who has not earned it....

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
I've been to a few countries, generally when things were not so OK with them...

There is nothing wrong with democracy. It's all in how you determine who is allowed to vote....

In this country you have to be a citizen, over a certain age and not have been a convicted felon and that’s why this country is going down the drain sooner or later.....

When the United States Constitution was signed you had to own property (land to be specific) to be able to vote. The last state to remove that restriction did so in 1856. The country has been going downhill since...

I'm pretty sure America is a lot better place to live in today than 1856, but if that is means going downhill to you then you have a pretty strange way at looking at things. Also why should owning property be the qualifier for voting? Doing so will just misrepresent the population even more as

many college students, poor people, etc wouldn't be able to vote.

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
Some stuff about property owners should be the only one to vote...

I disagree with this premise...

Back in those days, most forms of taxation were on property owners and trade/tariffs.

Nowadays, everyone it taxed in some way shape or form... so, everyone should have a vote.

Maybe the better question is this: How can we get better visability on how much we are tax and how it's being spent?

Well, we should only let people who have served the nation vote. That way they have prove their devotion to the country.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
I've been to a few countries, generally when things were not so OK with them...

There is nothing wrong with democracy. It's all in how you determine who is allowed to vote....

In this country you have to be a citizen, over a certain age and not have been a convicted felon and that’s why this country is going down the drain sooner or later.....

When the United States Constitution was signed you had to own property (land to be specific) to be able to vote. The last state to remove that restriction did so in 1856. The country has been going downhill since...

I'm pretty sure America is a lot better place to live in today than 1856, but if that is means going downhill to you then you have a pretty strange way at looking at things. Also why should owning property be the qualifier for voting? Doing so will just misrepresent the population even more as

many college students, poor people, etc wouldn't be able to vote.

That would be my point...

A large number of States started the abolition of property qualifications to vote in 1812 and finished except for one State by 1860. The last holdout was 1865.


Now look at the chart.........

The Public Debt

The U.S. gross debt amount from 1800 to present.

Year Gross debt
amount
1800 $82,976,294
1805 82,312,151
1810 53,173,218
1815 99,833,660
1820 91,015,566
1825 83,788,433
1830 48,565,407
1835 33,733
1840 3,573,344
1845 15,925,303
1850 63,452,774
1855 35,586,957
1860 $64,842,288
1865 2,680,647,870
1870 2,480,672,428
1875 2,232,284,532
1880 2,120,415,371
1885 1,863,964,873
1890 1,552,140,205
1895 1,676,120,983
1900 2,136,961,092
1905 2,274,615,064
1910 2,652,665,838
1915 3,058,136,873
1920 $25,952,456,406
1925 20,516,193,888
1930 16,185,309,831
1935 28,700,892,625
1940 42,967,531,038
1945 258,682,187,410
1950 257,357,352,351
1955 280,768,553,189
1960 290,216,815,242
1965 320,904,110,042
1970 389,158,403,690
1975 576,649,000,0001
1980 $930,210,000,0001
1985 1,945,941,616,460
1990 3,233,313,451,777
1995 4,973,982,900,709
1999 5,656,270,901,633
2000 5,674,178,209,887
2001 5,807,463,412,200
2002 6,228,235,965,597
2003 6,783,231,062,744
2004 7,379,052,696,330
2005 7,932,709,661,723
2008 9,377,557,217,133
2012 16,053,068,476,695


In 1815 it almost doubles.

Look at the next figure after 1835.

Politicians realize the new voters, not being land owners themselves, do not understand you have to pay for what you buy and the voters will not hold them responsible.

Just to make it simple the national dept will never be paid off, the politicians have no reason to because a large number of voters really do not care...as long as the politicians give them free food, free phones, free college Pell grants.....fill in your favorite government giveaway.

This country will never get out of dept as long as welfare, food stamps and other handouts exist and those handouts will never go away if people can vote for politicians who will give it to them.

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
The Public Debt

The U.S. gross debt amount from 1800 to present.

Why would debt be your only qualifier in how great the US is doing? What about technological advancements, increased life expectancy, more entertainment, better laws, etc ,etc.

Politicians realize the new voters, not being land owners themselves, do not understand you have to pay for what you buy and the voters will not hold them responsible.

I don't know of anyone of 18 years old who doesn't understand that you have to pay for what you buy.

Just to make it simple the national dept will never be paid off, the politicians have no reason to because a large number of voters really do not care...as long as the politicians give them free food, free phones, free college Pell grants.....fill in your favorite government giveaway.

Why would you assume people receiving government benefits don't care about debt? You could just tax people more while still keeping the benefits that way the costs aren't so bad.

This country will never get out of dept as long as welfare, food stamps and other handouts exist and those handouts will never go away if people can vote for politicians who will give it to them.

It's better that then having them starve and die cause there's no services to take care of them plus welfare, food stamps, higher minimum wage, etc if managed right can turn some people into contributing members of society who go to work, own property and pay taxes help alleviate the

debt.

 Easy E wrote:
Well, we should only let people who have served the nation vote. That way they have prove their devotion to the country.

Service guarantees citizenship.

Would you like to know more?

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:


*Lots of rubbish*

What's to prevent the landowners from simply voting for stuff THEY haven't "earned"? What's preventing them from simply perpetualizing their power advantage?

Your entire premise is flawed anyway. I can't remember who here on Dakka said it, but it goes something like this:

"A poor person has significantly more interest in his or her country than a rich person, because the rich person can alwaysmove funds or assets somewhere else. The poor person is gak outta luck if the government programs he's dependent on go away". Owning land doesn't mean you've got a bigger stake in the country than someone who doesn't, it just means you own more land.

That was in reds8n's sig for a while, if it's not still there.