Slashdot Mirror
US Midterm Elections Discussion
November 4th will be election day in the U.S. Though the presidential race is still forming, this midterm election has lots of close races that may give a hint about the likely outcome in 2016. Many pundits and pollsters see a strong chance that Republicans will gain a majority in the Senate in Tuesday's election. Think of the discussion attached to this post as the place to discuss the election: candidates, political advertising, voting technology, and the wisdom of voter ID laws. If you are voting, this chart of poll closing times might be useful. (And, as with the similar post from 10 years ago today, you can take a look at the current poll to see what the Zeitgeist looks like for Slashdot readers, and mentally fill in the past tense, if you're one of the many early voters; not much room in the poll question field.)
Gotta get First Vote!
Okay, I'll bite on the clickbait subject. How again is this News For Nerds?
And that's horseshit.
It needs to be a mandated holiday at all levels, with elections taking place at the same time everywhere.
We're definitely getting a new Governor, and likely a new Senator too.
Think of the discussion attached to this post as the place to discuss the election:...
Yeah...you mean a giant flame fest.
Sometimes I think the Slashdot editors treat Slashdot like a Fire Ant hill...poke it and watch them all scurry around furiously. I bet the popcorn is popped and the drinks are being poured at Slashdot headquarters right now.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Do Democrats Always Win Close Statewide Elections?
. For whatever reason, when statewide races are decided by less than 1 point, Democrats win almost three-quarters of the time. When the margin opens to 1-2 points, that advantage dissipates, and the Democrats win only half the races:
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
drinking the click-bait Kool-Aid. Vote, or do not, there is no try.
I hope the Republicans will skip shutting down the government this year. I was out of work for eights months after they shut down the government last year for nothing. I'm still trying to recover from the Great Recession after being out of work three of the last six years and filing Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2011. These hissy-fits in Washington don't help anyone.
Meet the new boss. Same as the old.
Nothing will change until the system itself is changed. Not just the people in it.
Doesn't matter to me. The democrats weren't doing anything with it. Let's watch them cry about it if they lose it. Anybody who votes for either is part of the problem. The opportunity to Clean The House is yours to lose. If you don't take the chance, go call somebody who gives a damn.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
After the 2008 elections we were told the Republican Party was defunct; Democrats had an overwhelming and apparently permanent majority in both houses of Congress and a lock on the White House. Nancy Pelosi was rewriting the House rules to consolidate her control over her own party while Harry Reid had a super-majority in the Senate that prevented the Republican minority from blocking his agenda.
How quickly things changed. A Republican elected to replace Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts? Unthinkable! Pelosi being voted out of the Speaker's job two years later. Republicans gaining enough seats in state legislatures that the Democrats complained about them redrawing congressional districts (*cough* pot meet kettle *cough*). And it looks like the front runner for the Democrats' Presidential candidate in 2012 will be 70 year old Hillary Clinton.
The Democratic challenger Schauer has pulled within the margin of error of most polls in the last few weeks. Gov. Snyder and the Republican legislature have run roughshod over Detroit and much of the state and along with a visit by President Obama, his opposition is motivated. It may come down to the weather on Tuesday.
suffering from pronoia
The Democratic challenger Schauer has pulled within the margin of error of most polls in the last few weeks. Gov. Snyder and the Republican legislature have run roughshod over Detroit and much of the state and along with a visit by President Obama, his opposition is motivated. It may come down to the weather on Tuesday.
Detroit sunk itself - the logical endpoint of Democratic policies as the city finally ran out of other people's money to spend.
Nate Silver is still calling it for the Republcans, though it's getting tighter. Here's hoping he's right and the polls are skewed.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/fea...
suffering from pronoia
I dont live in the USA but if I did, I would be voting and my #1 question would be "Which candidate is going to do what is necessary to fix the economy and create jobs". That said, everything I have seen indicates that US politicians dont care about fixing the economy or creating jobs, just about lining the pockets of Wall Street with money pulled from the pockets of the little guy.
The Senate was created because the states with the largest population would have more influence in Congress.
Now the states with the smallest population have the largest influence on the Senate.
Why do you idiots only have a memory lasting six years? Patriot Act was one of the worst violations of freedom as was the massive expansion of the NSA and creation of the TSA. Those happened on the previous watch. Stop being stupid.
Actually the Patriot Act was extended by Obama in 2011, extended just long enough to cover his 2nd term. Obama owns the Patriot Act. More importantly, Obama **uses** the Patriot Act. He could have ordered the Justice Department, the FBI and all the other agencies under executive branch control to stop using it, but he **chose not too**.
The Democratic challenger Schauer has pulled within the margin of error of most polls in the last few weeks. Gov. Snyder and the Republican legislature have run roughshod over Detroit and much of the state and along with a visit by President Obama, his opposition is motivated. It may come down to the weather on Tuesday.
Detroit sunk itself - the logical endpoint of Democratic policies as the city finally ran out of other people's money to spend.
yeah, right, and here comes our rescuer:
Rand Paul courts the black vote
http://thehill.com/homenews/se...
suffering from pronoia
... Republicans have been wanting to kill off science education, women's reproductive rights, immigration reform, same-sex marriage ...
No, wait.
Sorry.
Republicans are going to tackle the Top Threat to America.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
States ditch electronic voting machines yay!
The Republicans won the house after losing popular vote.
That is actually just trivia since neither side is trying to achieve the popular vote. Both sides are allocating their time, money, personnel and other resources to achieve the electoral/districts(*) vote. For the popular vote to be a meaningful statistics it would need to be what one side was actually going for. As it is the popular vote is merely highly correlated with the electoral/districts vote so it occasionally goes the other way, just trivia when it happens.
Losing sides like to bring up irrelevant statistics to console the fans. In politics its sometimes the popular vote. In football it may be how many yards did the team move the ball while they had possession. That's interesting and all, but yardage was not what the team trying for. Just like the popular vote was not what the political party was trying for.
(*) Note that we are talking about the nationwide results, the results in all districts, not the results in one particular district. Gerrymandering is a problem, it is a local phenomena, and both parties actively engage in it. Gerrymandering is done at the state level, so whatever party controls the state legislature gets to gerrymander to give their party an advantage in federal elections. Thus there is a certain amount of canceling out in the US congress. In no way should this be interpreted to say gerrymandering is not a problem, it is
Stalin has been quoted as saying "The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything". I'm not sure whether that is an accurate quote or translation, but it is a thought-provoking statement. In the U.S. outright voter fraud is possible but rare. A better statement would be "The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who choose the candidates decide everything." In the U.S. you can have a "free and fair" election, but generally only have the "choice" of only two candidates (Tweedledee and Tweedledum) for a given office. They have a good time pissing away money artificially trumpeting the illusion that there are differences between the candidates, but in the end you get two candidates who will pretty much do the same as the other once elected. People and corporations with deeper pockets than mine have already guaranteed that either one of the two will do their bidding when elected. The real election has already occurred.
Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!
Vote for Bernie in 2016!
I'll note that the Dems changed the rules so you don't need the 60 votes to override for TWO things: A) Judicial nominations below the Supreme Court level and B) Executive nominations below the cabinet level and in no other situations.
There were no changes to the filibuster for legislation (though personally I'd have loved to see it change from 60 votes to stop debate over to 40 votes to continue debate), and Mitch McConnell has indicated in the past that he doesn't see changing that should he become Majority Leader this fall.
As for the filibuster, I'd love to see it change just on the basis of "If you say you want to continue debate, don't say that then leave town." I'm fine with continuing "debate" (not that they ever actually debate the items they're delaying/killing), but by god if you're going to do it you'd better care enough to actually stick around.
fencepost
just a little off
The whole red vs blue + blue vs red mess is not leading us to better governance. Its broken. So is money. If the objective were just to -have- the office, the current ad campaigns would be suitable so many political ads are about why the other guy sucks... not why they are the suitable candidate. Then, there is no accountability after being elected. To lead and govern the people, to protect them from each other, and from outside entities (etc). To enjoy life as we all see fit, without destroying the enviroment, or keeping anyone else from enjoying theirs. Legislating on facts, and not on beliefs...you know, by and for the people. Sure, there is a huge $$$ divide in our nation, one would hope that those "with" would have earned it thru supporting the culture, the people and society by doing something relevant. Like elected office, its not about having money, its a medium of exchange. Who else thinks both processes are broken (money and politics), and we need to be lead/governed by those that want more consituents to enjoy a better life as interpreted in the changing world we are in. Do we need a rehash of our consitution to get back on track? Lets create a wikipedia page set for candidates, so candidates can be understood, elected and held accountable. Another Wiki page for the role of money as we evolve off barbaric mediums like bills/coinage.
Time for a new Political party in the US (or two!) One is off the rails Other cant pony up a leader.
If you step back and look at the history of scandals associated with political power, you might notice that, in general, Democrat scandals have tended to involve sex and drugs, and hurt a few people (along with the status of a high political office). Meanwhile, in general, Republican scandals have tended to involve money and power, and hurt thousands or even millions of people. It's tempting to predict that, if the Republicans gain control of the Senate, some sort of money/power scandal will result. One example: They might repeal part of Obamacare, the part that the Supreme Court associated Congress' power to tax --while keeping the part that requires everyone to get insurance. Because, after all, the majority owners of most big insurance companies are, largely, Republicans, and therefore would directly financially benefit from such a scandalous change. Remember that the preceding is just a possibility/example. If some sort of money/power scandal does happen, it will take time to plan, time to become manifested, and time to be discovered/exposed. So, it will be a while before anyone knows for sure, whether or not it was smart to give Republicans control of the Senate.
For myself, the next candidate who seems reasonably competent will get my vote, doesn't matter what party.
And that is the only way in which real reform will occur. Voting for the more competent regardless of party, voting punitively against the misbehaving or those that act against the public good regardless of party.
Loyally voting for your party makes a person irrelevant. Their party can ignore them because they have their vote, the other party can ignore them because they cannot attain their vote.
Belonging to a party is fine, just don't let them think they get your vote automatically. If they put up a weak candidate, if the incumbent has a history of misbehaving or acting against the public interest then sorry, maybe next time.
Politics is darwinian. Votes are the true currency of politics. If votes are spent wisely, and punitively, politicians will adapt accordingly. This is how real reform can be achieved.
One phrase I have not heard this election cycle is "Tea Party Candidate", nor have I seen any coverage of any Tea Party anything. They need to bring all that back, that much more fun to watch.
s/©//g
...since I was eligible to vote. I was discussing the current state of political affairs with my mother this weekend and told her that I would be voting on Tuesday, but for the first time in my life I felt as though my vote wont make a difference at all. In my state (Maryland), if I vote for the Democratic candidates it's the status quo. If i vote for the Republican candidates it's the equivalent of thumbing my nose at the Democrats. If I vote for the third party (Libertarian) candidate it's just pulling votes away from one of the two candidates who will end up winning. If I write in a candidate, I'm throwing my vote away.
I feel very sad about this. It really is a shame.
Shut up brain or I'll stab you with a Q-Tip. - Homer Simpson
Impeach now, Impeach tomorrow, Impeach forever.
There goes US economy.
Everyone will be distracted, and the terrorist will slip in.
How about a voting captcha?
Captcha ideas:
1. I am who I say I am.
2. I am a registered voter.
3. I have not, and will not vote twice.
4. I understand what I'm voting on.
This may not be very thorough, but it would at least get some of the complete moron votes removed. Ideally there would be enough captcha questions that you couldn't give a complete moron a list of what to vote for and be able to provide the answer to the captcha also.
And when the sample size increases, the trend moves toward equilibrium. I think this is a great example of someone not understanding statistics.
In an article that starts with an anecdote from 1986, and evaluating a Republican worry "Ever since 1986", why is the data only examined from 1998 ?
In 16 years of data for 50 states, there should be about (16/6) * 2 + (16/4) for each state, or about 266 elections. That's 6 year Senate terms, and 4 year terms for governors. 20 out of a subset of 27 hardly seems relevant - that's 1% out of 10% of the sample size.
If we take this quote at the bottom:
And combine it with the opening salvo:
It is fairly self explanatory.
The part that doesn't make sense is all the time spent on a case of Chicago voter fraud from 1982. The article characterizes it as "at least 100,000 fraudulent votes had been cast in Chicago alone", implying there is more to the story. The linked article is all about Chicago.
That last paragraph makes me really suspicious of this crackpot. That I can't access the data to check for missed analysis opportunities kinda bothers me. Maybe he's not a crackpot, let's see if I can find something to support that?
He basically says "Don't read too much into this" right there. But you apparently did.
Joe Biden is a square shooter. Joe Biden for 2016.
Huh. Are you for him or against him? Because your link makes him look pretty good.
Getting black men out of jail for drugs, giving Detroit billions in tax breaks, and getting ghetto black kids into rich white schools.
So what, are those all code words for something sinister?
US politicians don't address a question like that due to the answer being implicit in party affiliation. Any Republican that suggested there was a way to fix the economy and create jobs OTHER than shrinking government to the size where you can drown it in a bathtub would never make it past the Republican primary. Similarly, any Democratic candidate that implied there were any other barriers to fixing the economy and creating jobs OTHER than basic economic inequality and the deck being stacked against the little guy would never make it to the general election.
Are there any other countries in the world which do not enforce Voter ID for voting. I am pretty sure most of Europe and Asia insists on Identification before voting.
I am not an American. I was shocked when I first realised that the US doesn't need ID for voting.
... Vote in fear that the other guy might win, again.
The actual legislation that has been signed under President Barack "Lawnchair" Obama has been a continuation of the conservative agenda of the past 20+ years in Washington. The only reason the GOP voted against the health insurance bill of 2010 (which they have forced the country to call "Obamacare", even though Obama had nothing to do with its writing or contents) was because they didn't want him associated with actually doing something about the health care problems in this country (even though it didn't do shit). Not only was that bill in particular the largest corporate handout in the history of government, and a gift to the industry behind some of the largest lobbying groups to buy politicians from either side (indeed the insurance industry owns politicians on both sides) but it was about as pro-huge-business as you can get.
If you don't like the health insurance bill, the GOP won't fix it. Hell, most of the republican candidates have proposed to repeal it - and then replace it with the same fucking thing.
In other words all that has happened in the past couple decades here politically is that the democrats have shifted rightward to the positions where the republicans were 20 years ago, and the republicans have shifted rightward off into lala land. There is no center, and there sure as hell isn't a left. You have no choice on the ballot that will get us off this track, all you can do is vote for the velocity.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Yes, I know MMP has been ret-conned into "Mixed Member Proportional" but I remember the ads run during the campaign to switch New Zealand from FPP to MMP and I *know* what I heard.
Anyway, tell me that this NZ Herald article http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10887551 on the relationships between the Greens and Labour coalition doesn't sound like something that a US paper could have written about the relationships between the TEA Party and the Republicans...
Or how about this article http://www.nzcpr.com/extremism-mars-election-race/ about how dirty the races have become this year and how NZ is practicing its own brand of gerrymandering to guarantee who gets elected to the Maori seats.
I believed that shite 20 years ago, but time has shown that MMP is ultimately little better than FPP was.
Nice theory, but the problem is (and has been for some time) that no matter *who* you vote for, you get the same type of person: one who follows the path the money lays out. There will be no reform. It's over. Welcome to the oligarchy.
Wrong. You missed an important point, punitively voting against an incumbent who misbehaved or went against the interests of the people regardless of whether he represents your party or not. This will discipline politicians, this will bring about reform.
You are making a classic mistake by focusing on money. Votes are the true currency of politics, a 1%'er has no more votes than a 99%'er, its still a one person one vote system. Money is just a tool to persuade the uninformed in search of those votes. The fallacy of money controlling politicians, the true secondary status of money in politics, is evidenced by the two most power lobbies in the US. The NRA and the AARP. These organization do not wield immense power because of their financial contributions. Their true power lies in their literal millions of highly motivated members who will show up on election day and will vote their particular interest over all other considerations.
Money only appears to dominate because voters do not exercise their power. Basically voters are currently creating a power vacuum by abdicating their power of control. It is truly as simple as this: a 1%'er has no more votes than a 99%'er. Money can not control things unless the 99% allows it too. True reform will only come when voters exercise their power, especially so in a punitive manners.
Note that party loyalty is part of the problem with respect to money in politics. It takes away the punitive power of voters when an incumbent goes against the interests of the people in service to monied interests.
People who have to fill 24 hours on a cable news channel make this too complicated. Obama's medical insurance BS cost every single last person money. Like a lot of money. Everyone is voting Republican as a retaliation or the Democrats are simply staying home. That is just about all there is to this election as far as hard numbers are concerned.
It doesn't make any difference what so ever for the next two years regardless of which party of assholes controls the Senate. Neither party in their wildest dreams is going to get enough seats to break a filibuster on their own, much less get enough seats to override a Presidential veto. And if a Republican controlled Senate forces another shutdown, Millionaire Mitch will, once again, be proven to be a liar, since one of his campaign promises has been that he will allow no more shutdowns if he becomes Majority Dumbfuck of the Senate.
So ultimately, no matter who wins on Tuesday, America loses for at least two more years.
And this has absolutely nothing to do with "News For Nerds".
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
It doesn't matter who wins: the Republicans and the Democrats are two sides of the same coin.
- Obama didn't dismantle any of the horrible stuff put in place by GWB (Patriot Act, Guantanamo, etc.). He just built his own abuses on top.
- If the Republicans win, they will not dismantle any of the horrible stuff put in place by Obama. They will just build a new layer on top.
What the US needs is a new coin.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
What does this have to do with tech again? Ever since the Dice takeover, this place has turned into the Huffington Post (i.e. political circle jerk)
Nothing of substance is at issue in this election. Petty bickering about social issues for public consumption will continue unabated as both parties continue their usual pandering to Wall Street. The only bills that will make it to the president and be signed will be those that exclusively benefit the ruling class.
Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
The Corruption of DC is why the Tea Party is hated. They are people who want a smaller government and vote that way. They want a smaller trough and the pigs do not like it. The media focuses on small issues to divert attention away from the efforts to shrink the federal government. Drug addicts do not trust someone who is not an addict too.
Do Democrats Always Win Close Statewide Elections?
Democrats win almost three-quarters of the time
So, that would be "no" then. Betteridge never fails.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
In the gubernatorial race on the Democrat side is Gina Raimondo - someone who I don't like very much because much of her background seems falsified. Then on the Republican side there's Alan Fung, current mayor of Cranston, RI. I worked with Alan at the RI Dept. of Attorney General and he didn't strike me as the sharpest crayon in the box then and doesn't now.
The moderate party is running Robert Healey who I actually like.
And for mayor I have the choice of Jorge Elorza and his One Providnece baloney - as all his FB posts are in Spanish, Daniel Harrop a Republican who is a bigot, and Buddy Cianci, the twice convicted former mayor. I'm leaning heavily toward write-in for that.
As to the federal side - no competition to speak of. Same for my local rep and senator.
I thought that was because absentee and provisionary ballots tend to favor Democrats, and they are only counted when the race is close.
I read the internet for the articles.
We are being bombarded over here in NC with campaign advertising by Planned Parenthood (paid for by the blood of aborted babies). Apparently there is a "republican war on women".
In a primary you vote for the individual. You chose the lesser of all the evils.
In the general election you vote for the party because the individual doesn't matter. Once elected you vote as the party tells you to vote or you won't get to run again.
Case in point: Kay Hagan D-Sen NC voted against gun control. Why? NC is a big gun state and doesn't want it. BUT she was only able to make that vote because she was GIVEN PERMISSION to vote that way since the Dems had enough votes that they could spare hers. Otherwise she has voted 96% of the time with Obama.
When you vote tomorrow, don't look at the name, look at the party. That's all that matters.
If you like the way the country is going, if you feel the economy is moving in your favor, taxes are being used properly and you enjoy paying them (even though taxpayers are now in the minority) and you want to continue supporting everything Obama wants, pull D. If you don't, pull R. QED.
When all else fails and the truth gets in the way of your opinion/agenda, just play the race card, that always works.
...I can hardly believe how much has changed since then!
It's almost as though we're part of some political theater that's designed to give the impression of distinct choices while actually maintaining the status quo nearly entirely.
Because it's not possible to run for the offices of power without money.
In Georgia, we have some millionaire business people and children of former Politicians - Nunn and Carter (OK, gradson of Pres, Jimmy). I WISH a regular guy like a mgr of Joe's Tire could run.
all the more reason to vote for the man
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
I guess your opinion of "run roughshod" differs from that of the local liberal Detroit Free Press.
http://www.freep.com/story/opi...
And, how quickly he moved the city through bankruptcy.
http://www.freep.com/story/new...
Detroit had been run into the ground through massive corruption and democratic policies. And now you're going to complain that someone cleaned up the mess?
Just another day in Paradise
Voting doesn't do any good unless you can put people in who will behave differently. And you can't.
lol. The innocence of a child. Let me explain it to you. First, the voters are offered the choice between a (WONDERFUL! FABULOUS!) cheeseburger, or a (TERRIFIC, MATCHLESS!) cheeseburger. This is couched in marketing terms: "Our cheeseburger is best!" But the cheeseburgers are assembled from the same parts, taste exactly the same, and only differ in the marketing. The Voters get duly enthused about the marketing, and then -- always -- they pick and eat one of the identical cheeseburgers, same results, every time. Then indigestion arrives, the voters are disconcerted "I thought I bought the better cheeseburger!" and maybe, just maybe, they abandon their brand loyalty, and next time, they choose the OTHER cheeseburger. And so it goes. The cheeseburgers are identical. Unless you can get a steak on the table (and you can't, that's what the party machines exist to ensure), it's cheeseburgers all the way down.
Voting for who gets in office does nothing. The only people who get in are people who will take benefits in return for taking specific positions. The only steering force on legislation is that of those people who reward the legislators for painting within the lines the powerful define for them. And by powerful, I mean, wield benefits.
They don't wield ANY power other than financial and sweetheart deals. Republican, Democrat, Independent... they'll all do what they're told in return for now-n-later benefits. All voting does is chooses between a shit sandwich and a turd croissant.
Read your own sentence. "Appears" to dominate? No, it DOES dominate. Your contention that the voters could turn that around is entirely speculative. The observation that money controls and has for some time is not speculative, it's a statement of fact. If you think you have a means that will get the couch potatoes up and thinking critically and voting for candidates the party machines have not carefully selected for compliance, then please get started. There's been no significant sign of voters doing anything but voting R or D for the vast majority of the legislatures. Go ahead. Get voters to "exercise their power." I'll be your number one fan. But I'm not going to hold my breath. Because the forces arrayed against such a thing are monumental.
Face facts: The 99% do allow it. No one has been able to change it. So your speculation is worthless. In order for it to have any applicability at all, you have to put it into practice. And forgive me for doubting you personally, but I'm not reading anything that says you know how to change the status quo: and so money will almost certainly *continue* to control the process. There is *no* question that it does so at this time and has for many years.
That's correct in the sense that not paying directly locks them out of the benefits manipulating such payments brings to the wealthy.
But it is important to note that they pay plenty of taxes anyway. When they pay $100 to a plumber, on average, $30 or so goes right to the government (and more of it goes to the government as the plumber hands the money over to others, for instance, his electrician.) Then there are taxes like road taxes that are paid at the pump and can't be worked around by most due to the need to drive from here to there. Then there are taxes on producers, for instance, farmers and ranchers, who have to build the payment of those taxes into the selling price of their products. So in the end, the "zero income tax" person pays plenty of taxes. Even the roughest ally-dweller with his bottle of cheap hooch pays in. They just can't claim any of it.
Tax loopholes are for the wealthy. Taxes, however, fall on everyone's shoulders and there is NO way out.
The system was specifically designed to thwart the tyranny of the majority who could just ignore any minority. The system was specifically designed to encourage compromise. Today we have little compromise, so nearly nothing gets done. The system is working as designed. You really don't want straight majority rule. Minority groups of all kinds would have little to no protection.
The proportional representation that you refer to is how the House of Representatives works. The House is supposed to represent the people. The founders recognized that states as a whole also had interests, so the Senate was designed to represent state interests. Hence two senators from every state, so big states can not ignore the little states. Such an arrangement was absolutely necessary to get small states to ratify the constitution.
That said, the will of the people can still largely be enacted, within reason and protection of minority groups, in the current system. The problem is the people who are being elected to the House and Senate, they don't fear the voters. They know that about 1/3 will vote for them merely because of party. They know another 1/3 are ill-informed and persuadable by fair means and foul. The problem is with the voters, not the design of the system. Seriously, you want a system with competing centers of power that have to cooperate to get things done.
As I said, the problem is with the voters. Politicians do **not** fear the voters Fear of the voters is at the heart of keeping politicians honest and responsive to the interests of the people. Votes are the true currency of politics and a 1%'er have no more votes than a 99%'er. If the 99% ignored party and voted for the more capable and voted punitively against the misbehaving and those that go against the people's interest politicians would start to pay attention to the 99%. Politics is darwinian. Getting into office requires votes. Deprive a politician of votes and no amount of money makes a difference. The Republican House Minority leader recently lost an election where he spent millions and his opponent spent $150,000. This was a rare instance where the voters voted in a punitive manner. Much more of this is needed against members of both parties.
Because it's not possible to run for the offices of power without money.
Untrue. Though out their term nearly all politicians will fear the NRA and AARP.
You logic fails quite easily. Why do they need that money? It is for the next election. They want to be re-elected. However if voters develop the habit of voting punitively, of kicking out an incumbent who misbehaves and goes against the people's interest, then politicians will avoid angering the people so they vote punitively. No amount of money will save a candidate when voters demonstrate a willingness to vote punitively.
Again, votes are of primary importance. Money is of secondary importance. There is merely a false impression that money is primary because voters do not exercise their power. They overwhelmingly return incumbents to office regardless of their conduct. This is what needs to change. Focusing on money is focusing on a symptom not the underlying disease.
That distinction is one worth making.
The AC reply to you has it right. Your post willfully misrepresents what is in the article to trick people into not reading it. It's an old game on Slashdot.
It's a pity so many people are either being taken in by it, or modding you up. Congratulations on a successful fraud.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Mod up.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
There are two sides to that argument.
Yes, automatically voting for a party makes you "irrelevant" in some sense. But voting for the best local candidate will not help to reform elections either. Imagine you are a Democrat with a dilemma. The Republican party regularly puts forth a slate with a disproportionate number of crackpots and misogynists. Sure those candidates may not be in your state. Perhaps the Republican in your state is significantly better than the Democrat. But voting contrary to your party is still in effect a proxy endorsement of the looney toons who will be elected in other states.
Had to try and sell off all that public art before someone could try and stop it.
NAFTA, for short. Not the fault of the people or politicians of Detroit that their economy was gutted by sellout officals in D.C.
Snyder has found some magic way to deal with the cities massive contraction in population? A way to deal with all the abandoned buildings while maintaining services to the people still living there? No? Then what are you talking about?
You know who doesn't like the "tyranny of the majority"? The minority who are in power. The basic premise seems to be "you shouldn't make decisions because you might do something bad to someone else".
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
NAFTA? That's ripe. I haven't heard anyone pull that out of their asses in ages. Detroit was on a death spiral long before that. The city's tax rates, and corrupt government helped force business out. My grandfather ran a tool & die shop there in the 60s...it was good times. Dad decided to move his box business to Rochester in the 70s because the city was going to hell back then. I personally left in the early 80s because of the massive unemployment...way before NAFTA.
Just another day in Paradise
You know who doesn't like the "tyranny of the majority"? The minority who are in power. The basic premise seems to be "you shouldn't make decisions because you might do something bad to someone else".
I think the basic premise of the founding fathers was to avoid mob rule.
I despise the term "founding Fathers" so patriarchal, so overly reverent. It's reminiscent of fascist hero worship. Mob rule is another term for the sam fallacy. Basically you're too stupid to make your own decision, you should only choose which one of us will make them for you. An easy argument to sell and maintain when you look at the standard of American political debate.
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
I despise the term "founding Fathers" so patriarchal ...
Well it is a historical fact that they were entirely male, and they had an important role in the creation of a nation.
... so overly reverent. It's reminiscent of fascist hero worship.
So you are taking one of "those" classes in college :-). There is absolutely nothing inherently fascist about revering a "hero". "Heroes" of both sexes exist, of nearly all political schools of thought, of nearly all philosophies, of nearly all disciplines of science, or nearly all the arts, etc.
Mob rule is another term for the sam fallacy. Basically you're too stupid to make your own decision, ...
That is what a mob often is. Surrendering yourself to a charismatic leader(s) or to group thought.
... you should only choose which one of us will make them for you. An easy argument to sell and maintain when you look at the standard of American political debate.
And sophomoric political advocacy and debate as well. :-)