Maybe even dismalist.
Mandatory farm drip irrigation and fertilization. Cuts down on water waste and toxic run-off.
World wide carbon tax. As d has noted, efficient solution, and IMHO of crucial importance for future generations.
UBI below a specified income level.
Some form of single payer health care.
More and better child a elder social programs.
Ongoing and better care for those with mental and physical challenges.
Some of the above are matters of will, some of innovation and better thinking as well.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on August 26, 2022, 02:04:21 PM
Maybe even dismalist.
Mandatory farm drip irrigation and fertilization. Cuts down on water waste and toxic run-off.
World wide carbon tax. As d has noted, efficient solution, and IMHO of crucial importance for future generations.
UBI below a specified income level.
Some form of single payer health care.
More and better child a elder social programs.
Ongoing and better care for those with mental and physical challenges.
Some of the above are matters of will, some of innovation and better thinking as well.
Absolutely, jimbo, I'm with you. The stuff I bolded, the carbon tax and the UBI, are, or should be, uncontroversial, and for good reason. I would call the carbon tax imperative. Otherwise, we're just messing around, expensively.
Now,
not using farm drip irrigation [I've seen no other in northern Italy] is like burning too much carbon, a negative externality. Water is too cheap. Tax it. Would solve the US West's water shortages, too, while we're at it.
US health care is fucked up big time, in all kinds of ways, and for all kinds of historical reasons. "Single payer" assumes too much, namely that it is the single payer by itself that solves all woes. [Do not go to the NHS in the UK. They got no room for you.] Nay. My favorite model is the Swissies
https://www.commonwealthfund.org/international-health-policy-center/countries/switzerland (https://www.commonwealthfund.org/international-health-policy-center/countries/switzerland) [do read it] --
mandatory [to eliminate selection bias] health insurance, competitively provided, over half privately financed, with a big out of pocket. [One can give money to the poor so they can afford this stuff.] The Swissies spend about 12% of GDP on health, compared to our 18%, and they look pretty healthy to me, in sharp contrast to how my neighbors look.
Special care can be folded into the health insurance scheme.
Child care is a personal problem, not subject to market failure. 'Ya can't afford a kid, don't have one.
Quote from: dismalist on August 26, 2022, 02:28:11 PM
Absolutely, jimbo, I'm with you. The stuff I bolded, the carbon tax and the UBI, are, or should be, uncontroversial, and for good reason. I would call the carbon tax imperative. Otherwise, we're just messing around, expensively.
No UBI. Since you specialize in the dismal science, I'll recommend Tyler Cowen's reservations centered on the importance of the work ethic.
Anon: that's why I specified an income level ceiling. Is there no maximum level you'd agree to?
Quote from: Anon1787 on August 26, 2022, 03:16:49 PM
Quote from: dismalist on August 26, 2022, 02:28:11 PM
Absolutely, jimbo, I'm with you. The stuff I bolded, the carbon tax and the UBI, are, or should be, uncontroversial, and for good reason. I would call the carbon tax imperative. Otherwise, we're just messing around, expensively.
No UBI. Since you specialize in the dismal science, I'll recommend Tyler Cowen's reservations centered on the importance of the work ethic.
Problem with current, numerous, individual and specific welfare programs is means testing. That makes the marginal tax rate for the poor so high as to make the rich blush. It pays to stay poor!
Getting rid of all this stuff and substituting a negative income tax can be made to confront the poor with much more reasonable marginal tax rates. Watch that work ethic get activated and the poor become richer as it no longer pays to stay poor!
For incentives, it's all about the margin, not the average.
Thus, I'd even be quite generous.
ETA last sentence in response to jumbo's question to anon####.
Oh, I thought it was going to be fora policy we were talking about.
Nevermind.
M.
Better judicial review.
Better and fairer criteria for reversing guilty verdicts when there is good evidence for innocence.
Campaign spending limits, and a limit, free speech taken into account, on the types of political campaign advertisements which can be shown on TV and on social media.
A penny tax on every attempted phone call, to eliminate telemarketing calls.
All posted prices must include all taxes.
Ban all help wanted ads that ask for two years of experience for entry level jobs. If they don't have entry level jobs then require the employer to tell you where exactly you are supposed to get that experience if not with them.
Require all internships to be open to people who are not currently enrolled in college.
Stop cuts to the USPS which 90% of people oppose. (I made up that figure but it seems realistic)
Require all single-stall public restrooms to have an occupied/vacant indicator on the door handle mechanism.
(It's not a big issue, but is anyone opposed?)
Quote from: FishProf on August 28, 2022, 02:10:19 PM
Require all single-stall public restrooms to have an occupied/vacant indicator on the door handle mechanism.
(It's not a big issue, but is anyone opposed?)
Require all public restrooms to charge an entry fee, nowadays easily payable by credit card instead of quarters. That'll keep them vacant enough!
We just have different ways of rationing. Mine will provide more semi-public toilets. :-)
I'm not interested in rationing public restrooms.
Why are you?
Quote from: FishProf on August 28, 2022, 06:12:32 PM
I'm not interested in rationing public restrooms.
Why are you?
If you put up traffic lights, you inform people of the ration. If you charge, you inform and can also build more restrooms. :-)
What's to stop someone from swiping their card while someone else is in there?
Sounds like someone has control issues, or potty-training issues....or both...
M.
I'm for the Pissoir (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pissoir).
That will solve most of the payment controversy.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on August 28, 2022, 06:48:38 PM
I'm for the Pissoir (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pissoir).
That will solve most of the payment controversy.
There's a gender disparity there. So, totally illegal.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on August 26, 2022, 03:27:53 PM
Anon: that's why I specified an income level ceiling. Is there no maximum level you'd agree to?
My preferred amount would be far too low to be politically palatable and the very simplicity of UBI would seem to make it too easy to keep increasing.
Quote from: dismalist on August 28, 2022, 07:04:51 PM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on August 28, 2022, 06:48:38 PM
I'm for the Pissoir (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pissoir).
That will solve most of the payment controversy.
There's a gender disparity there. So, totally illegal.
That's just plumbing. Make some of these (https://www.greenbelly.co/pages/best-female-urination-devices) free to all, and the problem is solved.
Quote from: Anon1787 on August 28, 2022, 08:07:33 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on August 26, 2022, 03:27:53 PM
Anon: that's why I specified an income level ceiling. Is there no maximum level you'd agree to?
My preferred amount would be far too low to be politically palatable and the very simplicity of UBI would seem to make it too easy to keep increasing.
It shouldn't have a ceiling, because then
that threshold causes problems. As someone said, it should be administered like a negative income tax, so there's no cliff to fall off above a certain income, the tax would just reach zero. That would also mean that the tax would become positive for higher incomes, so it could be set up to be overall revenue-neutral for the government. (That would also make it easy to keep it from getting out of whack; if it was set up to be revenue neutral, increasing the amount would mean shifting the break-even point and/or raising it for higher incomes, so taxpayers (i.e. voters) would be very aware of it.)
Quote from: dismalist on August 28, 2022, 07:04:51 PM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on August 28, 2022, 06:48:38 PM
I'm for the Pissoir (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pissoir).
That will solve most of the payment controversy.
There's a gender disparity there. So, totally illegal.
Crap. Good point. I guess only guys pee in France.
Nuclear family, good. Obesity, not good.
Quote from: marshwiggle on August 29, 2022, 04:26:35 AM
It shouldn't have a ceiling, because then that threshold causes problems. As someone said, it should be administered like a negative income tax, so there's no cliff to fall off above a certain income, the tax would just reach zero. That would also mean that the tax would become positive for higher incomes, so it could be set up to be overall revenue-neutral for the government. (That would also make it easy to keep it from getting out of whack; if it was set up to be revenue neutral, increasing the amount would mean shifting the break-even point and/or raising it for higher incomes, so taxpayers (i.e. voters) would be very aware of it.)
You're much more hopeful than I am that it could be kept revenue neutral.
Quote from: mahagonny on August 29, 2022, 04:13:37 PM
Nuclear family, good. Obesity, not good.
But which policies? Make everyone eat a lot of broccoli?
Quote from: Anon1787 on August 29, 2022, 05:02:53 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on August 29, 2022, 04:13:37 PM
Nuclear family, good. Obesity, not good.
But which policies? Make everyone eat a lot of broccoli?
Maybe someone can take it from here. I am less familiar with the forum conversations of late, but it seems to be society itself lacks the consensus about basic values that it once had.
Quote from: mahagonny on August 29, 2022, 07:16:47 PM
Quote from: Anon1787 on August 29, 2022, 05:02:53 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on August 29, 2022, 04:13:37 PM
Nuclear family, good. Obesity, not good.
But which policies? Make everyone eat a lot of broccoli?
Maybe someone can take it from here. I am less familiar with the forum conversations of late, but it seems to be society itself lacks the consensus about basic values that it once had.
Okay, I'll bite. Switch crop subsidies from corn and grain to vegetable production (I know, dismalist would probably prefer none at all, but I'm assuming they'll be here in some form). Bring the price of produce down compared to grains. Definitely no need to subsidize high fructose corn syrup, and corn ethanol is way overrated as a fuel source.
Quote from: jimbogumbo on August 29, 2022, 07:46:08 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on August 29, 2022, 07:16:47 PM
Quote from: Anon1787 on August 29, 2022, 05:02:53 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on August 29, 2022, 04:13:37 PM
Nuclear family, good. Obesity, not good.
But which policies? Make everyone eat a lot of broccoli?
Maybe someone can take it from here. I am less familiar with the forum conversations of late, but it seems to be society itself lacks the consensus about basic values that it once had.
Okay, I'll bite. Switch crop subsidies from corn and grain to vegetable production (I know, dismalist would probably prefer none at all, but I'm assuming they'll be here in some form). Bring the price of produce down compared to grains. Definitely no need to subsidize high fructose corn syrup, and corn ethanol is way overrated as a fuel source.
Absolutely, jimbo: US requirements to use ethanol [here, from corn] means the world price of corn is higher than otherwise, and poor people in the rest-of-the-world who depend on corn go hungry.
This policy is made the same way as all the other policies made by the
baptists and the bootleggers. The baptists, here the climate worry warts, start off by claiming to do something for an apparently morally good cause, preventing global warming. The bootleggers, here the corn growers, support this political move, cause it gets them money. Then, the baptists move on to another cause, I don't know, there are so many, say "buying local". The bootleggers stay in the political fights and keep collecting.
Quote from: Anon1787 on August 29, 2022, 05:02:53 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on August 29, 2022, 04:26:35 AM
It shouldn't have a ceiling, because then that threshold causes problems. As someone said, it should be administered like a negative income tax, so there's no cliff to fall off above a certain income, the tax would just reach zero. That would also mean that the tax would become positive for higher incomes, so it could be set up to be overall revenue-neutral for the government. (That would also make it easy to keep it from getting out of whack; if it was set up to be revenue neutral, increasing the amount would mean shifting the break-even point and/or raising it for higher incomes, so taxpayers (i.e. voters) would be very aware of it.)
You're much more hopeful than I am that it could be kept revenue neutral.
Actually, I think a lot of programs would be made sustainable by being
required to be revenue-neutral and/or with funding tied to something like the median income, so that changes over time are predictable and aren't set up to be manipulated by whatever government of the day to buy votes by either increasing or cutting funding.
So in the case of UBI, being *revenue-neutral means it's a one-time shift in the tax system. Also, by making the amount based on the median income, then it would rise and fall with the rest of the economy.
(*Of course one of the biggest challenges with setting it up would be that it would replace a whole bunch of programs that are provided by different
levels of government, so negotiating that would be a huge undertaking.)
Quote from: mahagonny on August 29, 2022, 07:16:47 PM
it seems to be society itself lacks the consensus about basic values that it once had.
Such as widespread overt institutional racism?
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on August 30, 2022, 12:59:18 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on August 29, 2022, 07:16:47 PM
it seems to be society itself lacks the consensus about basic values that it once had.
Such as widespread overt institutional racism?
Wahoo, you accuse me of exaggeration.
Overt institutional racism???? Overt racism is illegal, and "institutional" (or "systemic") discrimination is, by definition, subtle and indirect. So to be both "overt" and "institutional" it would seem to have to be indirect, but with some sort of stated goal (to be overt) of racial discrimination.
Got an example?
Quote from: Anselm on August 28, 2022, 01:56:52 PM
All posted prices must include all taxes.
Stiffer penalties for littering.
Quote from: marshwiggle on August 30, 2022, 01:28:16 PM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on August 30, 2022, 12:59:18 PM
Quote from: mahagonny on August 29, 2022, 07:16:47 PM
it seems to be society itself lacks the consensus about basic values that it once had.
Such as widespread overt institutional racism?
Wahoo, you accuse me of exaggeration. Overt institutional racism???? Overt racism is illegal, and "institutional" (or "systemic") discrimination is, by definition, subtle and indirect. So to be both "overt" and "institutional" it would seem to have to be indirect, but with some sort of stated goal (to be overt) of racial discrimination.
Got an example?
"Overt: done or shown openly; plainly or readily apparent, not secret or hidden."
Redlining.
Segregated military units.
Segregated education. Brown vs. BoE was 1954.
Jim Crow laws were enforced until 1965.
Do you really not know all this stuff? These are what made widespread overt institutional racism illegal---although it has still been an uphill battle.
Look up why we needed a Civil Rights Act in 1964. One of the ways we study ancient cultures is to see what laws they have enacted----that tells us what they were dealing with. What were we dealing with in 1964?
Unless the "generations" with "basic values" you refer to are those since 1965 or thereabouts----or our late-Boomer / early Gen X generation----at which point I chuckle dismissively in your direction and ignore you from here on out. We are the generation which largely rejected a great many of the "basic values" that stunted our country for so long. We then invented others of our own...
Whatever you have been doing for the last three months has not made you more rational about politics, I see.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on August 30, 2022, 09:55:14 PM
Unless the "generations" with "basic values" you refer to are those since 1965 or thereabouts----or our late-Boomer / early Gen X generation----at which point I chuckle dismissively in your direction and ignore you from here on out. We are the generation which largely rejected a great many of the "basic values" that stunted our country for so long. We then invented others of our own...
As John McWhorter said, I'd like to go back to about 1992, where the laws and social attitudes were generally focused on peoples' common humanity. Things
regressed in the 2000's with the rise of the social justice cult and identity politics.
So that was after "overt institutional racism" was gone, for a generation or so.
Quote from: marshwiggle on August 31, 2022, 04:42:45 AM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on August 30, 2022, 09:55:14 PM
Unless the "generations" with "basic values" you refer to are those since 1965 or thereabouts----or our late-Boomer / early Gen X generation----at which point I chuckle dismissively in your direction and ignore you from here on out. We are the generation which largely rejected a great many of the "basic values" that stunted our country for so long. We then invented others of our own...
As John McWhorter said, I'd like to go back to about 1992, where the laws and social attitudes were generally focused on peoples' common humanity. Things regressed in the 2000's with the rise of the social justice cult and identity politics.
So that was after "overt institutional racism" was gone, for a generation or so.
The practice is over, but the effects go on and on for generations.
Well, speaking of values, the consensus is gone on obesity. Obesity is a big problem in the USA today. One statistic, something like 53% of Black women are obese. Not only is there a lot of it, people in the media, Hollywood, music business, et al are trying to make it beautiful. It's a disservice to our children to neglect to identify healthy living habits. How do you identify policies that are good for everyone when you don't even know what your values are?
Quote from: marshwiggle on August 31, 2022, 04:42:45 AM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on August 30, 2022, 09:55:14 PM
Unless the "generations" with "basic values" you refer to are those since 1965 or thereabouts----or our late-Boomer / early Gen X generation----at which point I chuckle dismissively in your direction and ignore you from here on out. We are the generation which largely rejected a great many of the "basic values" that stunted our country for so long. We then invented others of our own...
As John McWhorter said, I'd like to go back to about 1992, where the laws and social attitudes were generally focused on peoples' common humanity. Things regressed in the 2000's with the rise of the social justice cult and identity politics.
So that was after "overt institutional racism" was gone, for a generation or so.
It's so funny the way people think.
1992 was not remarkably different from 2022 in regard to people's social attitudes. If anything, we are far more empathetic and accepting of the differences between people now than we were back then with the racial turmoil of the 70s and the hedonism of the '80s still lingering in the air. There is something about the 30 or 40 year golden past that makes people nostalgic, righteous, and just plain silly. Sing: "We could use a man like Herbert Hoover again!"
And, of course, people see what they want to see in politics and social issues, like your buddy, McWhorter (who complains a lot). If there is "regression" it is the rise of racism and xenophobia poorly disguised as patriotism. That's just old school.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on August 31, 2022, 07:49:06 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on August 31, 2022, 04:42:45 AM
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on August 30, 2022, 09:55:14 PM
Unless the "generations" with "basic values" you refer to are those since 1965 or thereabouts----or our late-Boomer / early Gen X generation----at which point I chuckle dismissively in your direction and ignore you from here on out. We are the generation which largely rejected a great many of the "basic values" that stunted our country for so long. We then invented others of our own...
As John McWhorter said, I'd like to go back to about 1992, where the laws and social attitudes were generally focused on peoples' common humanity. Things regressed in the 2000's with the rise of the social justice cult and identity politics.
So that was after "overt institutional racism" was gone, for a generation or so.
It's so funny the way people think.
1992 was not remarkably different from 2022 in regard to people's social attitudes. If anything, we are far more empathetic and accepting of the differences between people now than we were back then with the racial turmoil of the 70s and the hedonism of the '80s still lingering in the air. There is something about the 30 or 40 year golden past that makes people nostalgic, righteous, and just plain silly. Sing: "We could use a man like Herbert Hoover again!"
And, of course, people see what they want to see in politics and social issues, like your buddy, McWhorter (who complains a lot). If there is "regression" it is the rise of racism and xenophobia poorly disguised as patriotism. That's just old school.
So do you honestly think
more people are racist or xenophobic now than 30 years ago? If they're older than 30, did they become more racist, and if so why? If they're younger than that were they indoctrinated into it, and by who? Do racists have a higher birthrate than others? If not, how are there more?
I don't know whether xenophobia is on the rise, but I do know that it is more prevalent among those who identify as democrats. A greater percentage of democrats report that they would not be friends with or date a conservative than the portion of conservatives who say they would not date or be friends with a liberal.
Quote from: mahagonny on August 31, 2022, 08:51:55 AM
I don't know whether xenophobia is on the rise, but I do know that it is more prevalent among those who identify as democrats. A greater percentage of democrats report that they would not be friends with or date a conservative than the portion of conservatives who say they would not date or be friends with a liberal.
Firstly, look up the definition of "xenophobia."
Secondly, the Repubs have gone insane. Somehow they swept you along with them.
Here's a proposal. How about legislation that would allow criminal charges against utility corporations that hike their rates massively when there is clearly no justification. In a single month my land line bill went up by $16. My cell bill went up by $10 in the same month. I get only basic services with both--the landline doesn't even come with long distance--and in one fell swoop I'm suddenly being charged over $300 a year more for phone service! They can't claim supply chain or fuel cost issues here, either. It's nothing but raw corporate greed. Dropping the landline is not really an option in my case, because I'm effectively required to be on call through that number whenever I'm at home.
Does the library cover that bill already?
When I've worked jobs where I had to have phone service structures that I wouldn't have otherwise used, I turned in my phone costs with my expenses and was reimbursed (say, international calls I wouldn't have made, or service types I didn't use myself)
For my most recent EA job, in fact, it was covered completely....they bought the phone and paid all the bills because I didn't use it for my own use much at all beyond my own, usual, occasional local family/friend calls (and the ED wanted me to have unlimited service, anyway, so there was no extra for that).
I realize those may be apples and oranges, in your situation, but maybe you could either ask the phone co. about usage, since you're working for a non-profit, or the library board to pick up the difference?
It shouldn't have to come out of your pocket, it seems to me (I realize that may also not be how they see it...).
I'd at least ask...as E. Roosevelt said, "Never be the instrument of your own oppression."
M.
Publicly funded elections for any party that managed 5% of the vote in the last election.
The end of the Electoral College.
Ranked choice voting.
Election day becomes a national holiday & voting is mandatory for all over the age of 18.
Elections monitored by non-partisan, non-elected officials.
In a primary, the top 2 vote getters in each district go on to the general.
A minimum of 3 viable political parties in any state or federal election.
I have ZERO expectation any of these will ever come to pass. At least not until the overwhelming majority of citizens come to see our electoral process as broken beyond easy repair and/or at least stop viewing the opposition as enemies of the state who must be hunted down and eliminated because "our way of life is under attack."
QuoteElection day becomes a national holiday & voting is mandatory for all over the age of 18.
Really? Interesting. I have declined to vote for either candidate when I didn't feel informed enough to make the responsible choice. I would just skip that one and vote on the others.
Quote from: secundem_artem on September 01, 2022, 01:16:28 PM
Publicly funded elections for any party that managed 5% of the vote in the last election.
The end of the Electoral College.
Ranked choice voting.
Election day becomes a national holiday & voting is mandatory for all over the age of 18.
Elections monitored by non-partisan, non-elected officials.
In a primary, the top 2 vote getters in each district go on to the general.
A minimum of 3 viable political parties in any state or federal election.
I have ZERO expectation any of these will ever come to pass. At least not until the overwhelming majority of citizens come to see our electoral process as broken beyond easy repair and/or at least stop viewing the opposition as enemies of the state who must be hunted down and eliminated because "our way of life is under attack."
Quote
Publicly funded elections for any party that managed 5% of the vote in the last election.
You're gonna get a lot of parties. There's gold in them 'thar hills!
QuoteThe end of the Electoral College.
The beginning of the tyranny of the majority.
Quote
Ranked choice voting.
Don't need it if we don't pay to have more parties.
Quote
Election day becomes a national holiday & voting is mandatory for all over the age of 18.
Don't know why voting should be mandatory. Voting over age 21 would be better, 40 until 60 would be best. :-)
QuoteElections monitored by non-partisan, non-elected officials.
Such people don't exist. Where I live, we have political hacks watching each other, hawk like. That's fine.
QuoteIn a primary, the top 2 vote getters in each district go on to the general.
Nay, in the primaries we use Ranked Choice Voting. That'd take out the nut jobs.
Quote
A minimum of 3 viable political parties in any state or federal election.
Ah, coalition politics! The smallest party or parties will have the most influence.
Quote
I have ZERO expectation any of these will ever come to pass.
Thank God! System is working. Don't fix it.
Which is preferred - tyranny of the majority (getting rid of the electoral college) or tyranny of the minority (what we now have)?
We have 28 Republican governors and 22 Democratic governors. Of State legislatures, 30 are Republican, 17 are Democratic, and 3 are split. No minority is running anything.
The US Senate has a slim Democratic majority and the US House of Representatives has a respectable Democratic majority. Sure, it's hard for the Democrats to do stuff with the filibuster, but a minority can't do stuff at all.
Thus, the President can't do everything he wants to. That's the way it was designed. No tyranny of the majority.
Maybe the US Supreme court? Which didn't ban abortion, but rather left it up to the States, in which majorities can decide, rather than force the same policy on every State.
Quote from: waterboy on September 02, 2022, 06:59:39 AM
Which is preferred - tyranny of the majority (getting rid of the electoral college) or tyranny of the minority (what we now have)?
As with the criticisms of the Senate, claiming that it's rule of minority requires that you nationalize the electorate into one group rather than 50 (plus DC) distinct electorates of sovereign political communities in our federal--not unitary--system. Speaking of federalism, political polarization is exacerbated by nationalizing every issue.
Quote from: Anon1787 on September 02, 2022, 10:19:54 AM
Quote from: waterboy on September 02, 2022, 06:59:39 AM
Which is preferred - tyranny of the majority (getting rid of the electoral college) or tyranny of the minority (what we now have)?
As with the criticisms of the Senate, claiming that it's rule of minority requires that you nationalize the electorate into one group rather than 50 (plus DC) distinct electorates of sovereign political communities in our federal--not unitary--system. Speaking of federalism, political polarization is exacerbated by nationalizing every issue.
Part of this perception is due to population imbalance among the 50 states. Here are the populations of the 16-17 colonies in 1790: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1790_United_States_census
Quote from: jimbogumbo on September 02, 2022, 01:02:21 PM
Quote from: Anon1787 on September 02, 2022, 10:19:54 AM
Quote from: waterboy on September 02, 2022, 06:59:39 AM
Which is preferred - tyranny of the majority (getting rid of the electoral college) or tyranny of the minority (what we now have)?
As with the criticisms of the Senate, claiming that it's rule of minority requires that you nationalize the electorate into one group rather than 50 (plus DC) distinct electorates of sovereign political communities in our federal--not unitary--system. Speaking of federalism, political polarization is exacerbated by nationalizing every issue.
Part of this perception id due to population imbalance among the 50 states. Here are the populations of the 16-17 colonies in 1790: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1790_United_States_census
Article 5 doesn't make an exception for an increase in the size of population differences among the states (which increases the danger of majority tyranny). You could create more states out of the larger states but that would be politically difficult.
Quote from: Anon1787 on September 02, 2022, 01:33:24 PM
Quote from: jimbogumbo on September 02, 2022, 01:02:21 PM
Quote from: Anon1787 on September 02, 2022, 10:19:54 AM
As with the criticisms of the Senate, claiming that it's rule of minority requires that you nationalize the electorate into one group rather than 50 (plus DC) distinct electorates of sovereign political communities in our federal--not unitary--system. Speaking of federalism, political polarization is exacerbated by nationalizing every issue.
Part of this perception id due to population imbalance among the 50 states. Here are the populations of the 16-17 colonies in 1790: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1790_United_States_census
Article 5 doesn't make an exception for an increase in the size of population differences among the states (which increases the danger of majority tyranny). You could create more states out of the larger states but that would be politically difficult.
The idea of breaking up States is a good one, not to affect the Electoral College, but to make State policy more congruent with peoples' wishes. If States were more homogeneous, their majorities would tyrannize fewer people.
A favorite of mine, held since my late teen years in New York City, is to make NYC its own State. It would be 110% Democratic. The rest of the State would be 80% Republican. Would not affect the Senate, but would make a lot of people in the current New York State very happy.
As for getting rid of the Electoral college, I don't want to be ruled by Californians. Hell, even Californians are leaving California!
Quote from: dismalist on September 01, 2022, 01:49:12 PM
QuoteThe end of the Electoral College.
The beginning of the tyranny of the majority.
Quote
Also known as a fair and equitable vote that represents one citizen, one vote...
...or as someone once said, "Who wants the majority of the population deciding on their own fate"...
...and the end of the Republicans in their current radical form, which is why they are so afraid of getting rid of the EC.
Quote from: dismalist on September 01, 2022, 01:49:12 PM
Thank God! System is working. Don't fix it.
It does work. And for that reason the Republicans felt the need to lie about the election and attempt sedition at the Capitol.
Quote from: secundem_artem on September 01, 2022, 01:16:28 PM
Publicly funded elections for any party that managed 5% of the vote in the last election.
The end of the Electoral College.
Ranked choice voting.
Election day becomes a national holiday & voting is mandatory for all over the age of 18.
Elections monitored by non-partisan, non-elected officials.
In a primary, the top 2 vote getters in each district go on to the general.
Yes.
Voting is mandatory in Australia - makes sure everyone comes out and encourages people to take an interest.
Ranked choice voting works really well in San Francisco.
Quote
A minimum of 3 viable political parties in any state or federal election.
Not sure how you would enforce that?
Still I might replace it with...
Independent nonpartisan commission draws district/electoral maps to focus on local community needs, not partisan gerrymandering. Worked very well in California.
Quote
I have ZERO expectation any of these will ever come to pass. At least not until the overwhelming majority of citizens come to see our electoral process as broken beyond easy repair and/or at least stop viewing the opposition as enemies of the state who must be hunted down and eliminated because "our way of life is under attack."
And, our current political power structure, for both parties and major stakeholders/donors who give to both parties, is designed to take advantage of the
bugs features in the way things were designed.
Sometimes I think Ds and Rs are just Coke versus Pepsi. The branding is different but still they are just caffeine, bubbles, and sugar water.
Crackdown on gerrymandering.
Quote from: secundem_artem on September 01, 2022, 01:16:28 PM
Publicly funded elections for any party that managed 5% of the vote in the last election.
The end of the Electoral College.
Ranked choice voting.
Election day becomes a national holiday & voting is mandatory for all over the age of 18.
Elections monitored by non-partisan, non-elected officials.
In a primary, the top 2 vote getters in each district go on to the general.
A minimum of 3 viable political parties in any state or federal election.
I have ZERO expectation any of these will ever come to pass. At least not until the overwhelming majority of citizens come to see our electoral process as broken beyond easy repair and/or at least stop viewing the opposition as enemies of the state who must be hunted down and eliminated because "our way of life is under attack."
Mandatory voting sounds great, except that I have met the people you are talking about. I would bet, at least half the public has very little understanding of the issues or candidates. Why would you want them influencing the results? It would end up being even more of a reality tv show.
Term limits.
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on September 03, 2022, 05:47:29 AM
Term limits.
We have those at the State level and it's a disaster. The only people who know what is going on are lobbyists and staffers.
Quote from: ciao_yall on September 03, 2022, 07:17:16 AM
Quote from: evil_physics_witchcraft on September 03, 2022, 05:47:29 AM
Term limits.
We have those at the State level and it's a disaster. The only people who know what is going on are lobbyists and staffers.
I'm very partial to term limits, indeed a single term. One problem it solves is that elected officials start campaigning for re-election the day they start their office. And I see that non-stop campaigning is inimical to the whole point of representative democracy -- coupling popular wishes with some expertise.
But to develop and use that expertise, and attract good candidates, the term would have to be very long, say 15 years. I got no problem with that for Senators. The House, which is supposed to represent the people's whims of the moment [though the Senate is a strong competitor for that task] presents a conundrum. You can't leave a single term at two years, for if you did, only part-timers would run, i.e. the independently wealthy. Even four years would be problematic. Perhaps choose the House members at random.
Nor do I have a problem with 18 year terms for Supreme Court judges, not on any political grounds, but because on average in our dotage we kinda' lose it.
I don't even have a problem with two six-year terms for Presidents.
Quote from: dismalist on September 03, 2022, 08:53:51 AM
But to develop and use that expertise, and attract good candidates, the term would have to be very long, say 15 years. I got no problem with that for Senators. The House, which is supposed to represent the people's whims of the moment [though the Senate is a strong competitor for that task] presents a conundrum. You can't leave a single term at two years, for if you did, only part-timers would run, i.e. the independently wealthy. Even four years would be problematic. Perhaps choose the House members at random.
Several years ago, a friend of mine proposed a lottery system for (Canadian) senators. It would be like jury duty, but as you note it would eliminate lobbying for re-election, and virtually everyone would come in without any partisan connection. It would be interesting to see some country try that out.