I, for one, do not welcome our new Neoliberal overlords.
I do not welcome the non-choice between a self-worshipping neoliberal, and a neoliberal for sale to the highest bidder.
I do not welcome the continuation of the intentional decline in real wages for the last fifty years, by both parties and all their immoral members, foolishly and viciously elected.
I do not welcome the change from a policy of lies, to a policy of brazen and unveiled support of Reaganomics and Corporatocracy.
I do not welcome the only allegedly progressive candidate, who gives secret speeches to financial executives which the public is not allowed to know or hear, but who subsequently give her hundreds of millions of dollars, and who the very next day claims unabashedly that Wall Street hates her.
I do not welcome a President who gives secret speeches, and directs noise machines at press microphones, who in no respect believes in or supports the freedom of speech, or of the press, which are imperative to democracy and liberty.
I do not welcome the convergence of two extremist parties into a single-party system, unified in their Feudal, Neoliberal policies, and differentiated only by superficial social positions already decided by the Supreme Court of the United States.
I do not welcome the claiming of an historic title, the first female President of the United States of America, by a woman who cares not for the people, nor liberty, nor justice, nor equality, nor peace, nor any of the virtues which ought adorn the bearer of such history.
I do not welcome the last, greatest evidence of the failure of Democracy to the selfishness, ignorance, and vice of the masses.
I do not welcome the Feudalism which marches doggedly, bringing a close to three hundred years of Liberty, against all nature, which may never come again.
- I do not welcome the last, greatest evidence of the failure of Democracy to the selfishness, ignorance, and vice of the masses.
I know this is going to sound like a broken record thing that people have nitpicked over centuries and sounds like silliness every time you hear it, but I have a clear reason for making the nitpick for my argument. We are not in a democracy, we are in a representative republic. In a democracy everyone has a vote on every issue, in a representative republic you elect representatives to vote on issues for you.
The main issues with our country are actually failures to adapt to this proper representation as the federal government has increased in power and the population has increased dramatically. Many say that the solution to this is to reduce the power of the federal government, but that's not exactly an easy task sometimes (even if it's a good goal). An easier task is to increase the representation of the people.
We currently have a population of 323.7 million people in the United States. When the country did its first census in 1790, we had a population of roughly 3.9 million people.
We currently have 537 elected representatives in the federal government (435 House, 100 Senate, 1 President, 1 Vice President). In 1790 we had 13 states, and 95 representatives in the federal government (67 House, 26 Senate, 1 President, 1 Vice President). Appointments by elected officials don't really count in my mind since you elected the people who did the appointing, and had no real say in the matter.
(please fact check these numbers, some of them were a little hard to get accurate on)
So this means that in 1790 we had a ratio of 24.36 representatives per million people. This number actually kind of surprised me since I guess I didn't realize we already had 3.9 million people around by 1790.
Anyway, in 2016 we have 1.687 representatives per million people. It's 14.43 times less representation than we originally had.
Compare that to the monarchy, where one non-elected person was representing at 0.2564 per million people. We are rapidly approaching the level of representation of the original monarchy that our country revolted against in the first place, so expect political dissatisfaction and civil unrest to rise as people feel the system is "rigged" when in reality it just hasn't adjusted appropriately to our increasing population.
Honestly I don't really know how we could have ever thought we could be adequately represented by our governmental structure, but these representative ratios have plummeted quite rapidly over the years and fixing those ratios could make a significant impact.
I recently heard someone argue that the biggest problem in the US government today, is the 17th Amendment.
The 17th Amendment changes Senators to be directly elected by citizens. Whereas previously US Senators were elected by local state legislatures.
Today, the vast majority of people don't care about local elections. People vote for President and, hopefully, Congress, and ignore the rest, or at best vote along party lines. The argument is, if national positions are elected by local representatives, people will care about local elections, which in practice have a much greater effect on citizens' everyday lives.
This guy went so far as to argue that all federal positions—President, Senate, House—should be elected by State legislatures, and State, by local city or county governing bodies. So citizens would only vote for their immediate local city councils and mayors. And thus, they would vote locally, and pay attention to local issues.
I'm not completely convinced, I can certainly think of issues with taking the Republic that far, but I can also see the advantages.
It's pretty east to use the 17th amendment itself as a case-controlled experiment in whether the 17th amendment was a net negative. Doing so, it's really easy to make an argument in favor of direct election of senators, and really difficult to make one against (if we're using data and history and not some specious hypothetical argument about local accountability).
I mean in the types of legislation that have been passed since senators have been directly elected. I'm thinking of the new deal, the GI Bill, the civil rights act, and so on. This of course isn't evidence that these laws wouldn't have been passed otherwise, but they're all consequences of people demanding action from the federal government, which seems easier if you have some say in who's passing the laws. It's not as if only good people became senators before the 17th amendment. There were a number of rebel leaders who assumed Senate seats after the civil war, for example. I think we should go further and destroy the electoral college, and add a lot more representatives, so that we can get closer to equal representation. The Senate is insular enough even when we do have a voice in who's there.
I mostly agree with you b_b. Has anyone else been literally capable of throwing a rock at someone at work without even standing up, yet officially if you want a response from them you have to communicate to your boss, they have to communicate to their boss, that boss communicates with a parallel position, it goes down the chain a few layers back to the person, then you are relaying through 10 people what could be said out loud in 5 seconds? I once communicated directly with someone at an organization and got reamed by the managerial roles for doing it rather than going through "official channels". I remember having a beer later with the guy I communicated directly to and it was clear it wasn't him complaining and that he was quite glad that I communicated to him directly, just the middle managers going berserk for no reason.
It's annoying and frustrating, just like sending messages through local officials before reaching your senators. Revoking the 17th amendment just leads to more unnecessary bureaucracy in government.
That being said, there is an issue with people not paying attention to local elections, but this proposed solution actually makes Senators turn into appointed positions like judges. As I was saying in my original post, I don't really consider appointed positions as representatives. If they can be considered representatives, those appointed positions also hire and fire employees underneath them (essentially the same as appointing), so technically the entire federal government and every employee would indirectly be "representatives" for us, which I think everyone can agree isn't really the case.
We definitely have a culture issue with focusing on federal elections pretty much exclusively, but I don't think any change in government would change that. People would still think the federal government was responsible for their political choice and just demand it goes to their Senator, get more frustrated, and cause more civil unrest and frustration with government.
I think the only way to solve the local/federal issue is through culture, but our culture seems to think the presidency is a dictator anyway with every president in the last 100 years spending time pushing legislation through Congress instead of exclusively being the head of the executive branch. I think people just think of the three branch system as separation of powers exclusively, and not separation of responsibility. What we need is a president who will STFU about what policies he/she will be pushing through Congress and have a real debate on what they want to do with the executive branch itself.
Some of that is difficult to achieve when the majority of the executive branch is clouded in secrecy even from legislators. Transparency in the executive branch is really a key thing we need to move this country forward, and every elected president that ran on a transparency platform has done the exact opposite (Obama comes to mind in particular here). Great, we have a way to petition the government for a response on something. That's not real transparency, and they can't even respond to all of the petitions that have gone past the threshold.
I think that might be a reason people want to vote for Trump as well. They think he'll "tell it like it is" and start explaining government, but in reality he's just going to make his public interactions a series of Twitter flame wars and the few times he actually attempts to explain what's going on in government he's just going to show his complete moronic idiocy on how things really work and botch the whole thing and mislead the public with false information. Unfortunately, we'll have no way to fact check him when he's talking about secretive procedures so when he says something we'll have no idea if he's telling the truth because his track record of telling the truth is spotty at best.
So the real solution is proposed best by Bill Burr: video
- “They won’t just come out and say it. Nobody has the balls to say it. Look, 85 percent of you have to go. That’s it! That. Is. It. I have been bitching about the population problem for three specials in a row! Waiting, for some politician to have the balls to bring it up, but they won’t do it. We live in a democracy. A democracy. You can’t be honest in a democracy. You need the votes. You can’t run with that as your platform. Coming out there." He puts the mic in the stand and begins bellowing: "‘AND IF I’M ELECTED, I WOULD IMPLEMENT A PROGRAM TO IMMEDIATELY ELIMINATE AT LEAST 85 PERCENT OF YOU! THIS PLANET CANNOT SUSTAIN THE SHEER NUMBERS – LET ME FINISH! – THIS WILL NOT BE ARBITRARY. UNDER YOUR SEATS IS A MULTIPLE-CHOICE QUESTIONNAIRE. IF YOU DID NOT BRING A PENCIL, YOU’RE ALREADY OUT! You can’t do that. You gotta be nice. You got to be fucking nice. Especially in this day and age, man. Everybody getting in trouble. All these god-damned groups out there bitch-moaning and complaining, and anytime anybody says anything – ‘You offended the group!’ – you’ve got to apologize.”
- this proposed solution actually makes Senators turn into appointed positions like judges. As I was saying in my original post, I don't really consider appointed positions as representatives.
You're arguing for Direct Democracy over Republic.
There are many advantages to a Republic, arguably the biggest of which is protection of minorities. In Direct Democracy, the 51% can and will oppress the 49%. The Republic insulates against that.
James Madison does a great job explaining the theory of the Republic in Federalist No. 10.
I'm actually not for a direct democracy, simply more representatives in our existing representative republic. I just wanted to make the distinction so we could discuss the structure of a representative republic and not confuse our structure with a democracy. I understand the tyranny of the majority, and we already basically have it even in our representative republic because of our ratio of representation. It can happen in either structure, but the representative republic only works if you continuously increase representation in line with the population.
That also gets into why we have a bicameral legislature as well, since the original founders weren't entirely convinced that just direct correlation of population (House of Representatives) would adequately represent smaller states. I agree with this, I just think there should be more senators and more congressman both.
- we already basically have it even in our representative republic because of our ratio of representation. It can happen in either structure
Certainly.
- more representatives in our existing representative republic
How would you go about accomplishing that, without worsening the tyranny of the majority?
- there should be more senators and more congressman both.
How does that solve the problem?
- It's annoying and frustrating, just like sending messages through local officials before reaching your senators. Revoking the 17th amendment just leads to more unnecessary bureaucracy in government.
I agree. I have had the good fortune of having personal meetings with both of Michigan's senators, and I can all but guarantee that would never have happened if they didn't get held to account by the voters now and then. It's a really amazing thing, actually.
- I think that might be a reason people want to vote for Trump as well. They think he'll "tell it like it is" and start explaining government, but in reality he's just going to make his public interactions a series of Twitter flame wars and the few times he actually attempts to explain what's going on in government he's just going to show his complete moronic idiocy on how things really work and botch the whole thing and mislead the public with false information. Unfortunately, we'll have no way to fact check him when he's talking about secretive procedures so when he says something we'll have no idea if he's telling the truth because his track record of telling the truth is spotty at best.
Yes, laughable, really. The man is on record as saying that lying is part of his everyday interactions, but that so long as he gets his, why should it matter? This is the type of thing he says on record, and for some reason people take it as evidence of his honesty. If the big bad wolf tells you he's going to eat you, you should believe him.
- I do not welcome the Feudalism which marches doggedly, bringing a close to three hundred years of Liberty, against all nature, which may never come again.
I lost you there. Who was experiencing 300 years of liberty?
Here's a view that might give some comfort: Politics follows economics; economics follows technology, and technology isn't slowing down. The foundations of the power structures that you identify are dissolving.
- Who was experiencing 300 years of liberty?
The West has experienced three hundred years of unprecedented liberty, freedom, and social mobility. I was saying it appears to be ending, at least in the US.
By all evidence, Liberty is an anomaly against nature. Natural Selection creates Plutocracy. Money is power, and the masses fail the Prisoner's Dilemma and are unable to work together against it, excepting rare charismatic leaders, most of whom immediately create another dictatorship after revolution anyway.
- The foundations of the power structures that you identify are dissolving.
I hope so. But I think your argument doesn't take into account game theory. That is, that the masses will always fail the Prisoner's Dilemma. Technology or not, the public will never be able to suppress the power of wealth if they can't work together, and all of human history suggests they can't.
- If there was hope, it must lie in the proles, because only there, in those swarming disregarded masses, eighty-five percent of the population of Oceania, could the force to destroy the Party ever be generated.
- But the proles, if only they could somehow become conscious of their own strength, would have no need to conspire.
- Until they become conscious they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious.
—Nineteen Eighty-Four
- The West has experienced three hundred years of unprecedented liberty, freedom, and social mobility. I was saying it appears to be ending, at least in the US.
I see what you are saying; but the point I was making is that only recently has that liberty been available (albeit in lesser measure) to woman and non-white men.
- By all evidence, Liberty is an anomaly against nature. Natural Selection creates Plutocracy. Money is power, and the masses fail the Prisoner's Dilemma and are unable to work together against it, excepting rare charismatic leaders, most of whom immediately create another dictatorship after revolution anyway.
I'm not so certain. Economic exclusion is what enables power. I don't know whether or not technology will increase or decrease economic exclusion in the longer term. Technology is changing much too fast, and politics far too slow to make reliable projections at this time.
Human nature varies on scale, and it depends a lot on the possibilities of interaction, and how boundaries are drawn. Aside from the centralized administration of services like Uber and Airbnb, IMO they indicate positive possibilities for granular economic models.
- Aside from the centralized administration of services like Uber and Airbnb, IMO they indicate positive possibilities for granular economic models.
I think Distributed Systems might be the next big revolution. I hope it is, actually.
By "distributed systems", I mean any decentralized service, physical or digital. Decentralised transportation, Uber without a company behind it. Decentralised internet, both physical connections—weather balloons, microsatellites, take your pick—and the web servers we connect to. Currency. Everything.
It's a hard problem. It's mathematically hard. But we're just now developing both the mathematics and computational power for it to be possible, for the first time in history.
That might be your Technological → Economic → Political revolution. I'm still skeptical; this is mostly a tangent. But it's possible. Decentralisation will be a big revolution, if it happens.
It's my hope. I just lobbied insomniasexx to be a curator of The DAO, yesterday. :)
I share a lot of your frustration.
That said, I'm becoming increasingly convinced that we're going about this the wrong way. I think we're all, regardless of political orientation, looking for a messiah.
Our leaders don't really reflect any of us, but rather than taking ownership ourselves, we just keep hoping the next person will fix it all, and then we can go back to ignoring the wider world. And we're reaping the fruit of that now.
I welcome your your line of reasoning and well documented list of grievances.
I thought of you (and a few others) this morning when I heard the news. I am not happy about it - but I knew some of you feel (the bern) even more deeply and would be a bit wrecked and disillusioned today.
Sorry mate.
New?
Neoliberalism has been the dominant economic ideology and championed by US presidents for more than 30 years
- Able? No. I have a day job
I was struggling to to come up cogent reply to this sentiment, but I realized you did it for me.
- I do not welcome the last, greatest evidence of the failure of Democracy to the selfishness, ignorance, and vice of the masses.
I don't know you. I don't know your financial or employment situation. But I know that thousands of fast food workers managed to shoulder a significant financial burden when they conducted strikes for a livable minimum wage.
You really couldn't make time for a couple of hours of making yourself heard on this point that you felt passionately enough about that you posted about it here?
You're right, it's more complex than that. I also don't think it makes a difference. I'm not capable of organising a mass protest. Living in a big city, I see lone protesters outside the Capitol all the time. I also see nobody caring. If there were a mass protest in my city, I might go. But even then, those fast food workers didn't succeed. The minimum wage wasn't raised. No laws were passed. Nobody in power cared, and nothing happened.
- You really couldn't make time for a couple of hours of making yourself heard
I could. But I wouldn't be.
I have written and called congressmen. I got cookie-cutter replies, and nothing changed. They didn't care.
Ever signed one of the White House "WeThePeople" petitions? I have. Ever read the Obama Administration's responses when one gets enough signatures? They're all the same. Cookie-cutter "We know it's a problem, and we're going to do everything we can that doesn't involve actually doing anything."
I'm tired of participating in the illusion of democracy.
For so many reasons, I wouldn't be surprised if a good bit of content on this thread resonates with a number of us. Though, when it comes to this:
- I'm tired of participating in the illusion of democracy.
Yet, the disillusionment in government yields to this:
- Are you willing to protest in the street?
- Willing? Yes. Able? No. I have a day job.
I think the appropriate question from here is:
Then what's the next course of action?
-
To stay would be to accept and grind through discomfort.
To stay and attempt to make a difference from the inside? Well, we've seen enough of that, I think.
To leave would be trading levels of security, rights, 'liberties', for others of different shapes and sizes; which, more than likely, down the line will surface its own institutional problems.
-
What are the [feasible] options left, if not, unthought of?
It's been argued civilisations require a frontier to be healthy. Frontiers have a lot of advantages for the stability of the old country. It gives the restless and adventurous a place to go. It gives people dissatisfied with the government or the society a place to go. It gives the government a place to send dissidents and criminals, those unable to integrate with society, allowing them to choose between prison and the frontier.
Overall, It makes the old country less dynamic, but more stable.
It also gives each individual greater choice in their environment, and presumably greater happiness.
- But "voting" for a third party is not voting, it's protesting
If your slightly less shitty mainstream candidate is at risk of loosing because you voted for a 3rd party then you are going to force their platform in your direction. Or your are going to allow your 3rd party candidate to get enough of a foothold to get federal election funding for next time. Then they will become an even more real threat in 4 years.
- Meh that's like saying voting for sanders isn't voting.
I couldn't disagree more. Sanders is running in the Primary of one of the Two Parties. If he wins their nomination, he becomes one of the Two Parties.
Third parties cannot win in a First Past the Post system. It's not a low chance. It's zero chance. No third party has ever won in a US Presidential election (discounting party system changes, which aren't actual third parties).
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting#Tactical_voting
- Its a BS argument that the mainstream parties use to discourage you from voting for someone that actually represents you interest.
The exact opposite. Trump wants you to vote Green, to take votes from Hillary. And Hillary wants you to vote Libertarian, to steal votes from Trump. The Two Parties want you to vote for the third party closest to their opponent. If Bernie ran on a third-party ticket, he would only steal votes from Hillary, and throw the election for Trump. That's how First Past The Post works.
- If your slightly less shitty mainstream candidate is at risk of loosing because you voted for a 3rd party then you are going to force their platform in your direction
That's the sole argument for voting third party instead of mainstream, in FPTP: the nuclear option. If you're willing to, for all practical purposes, vote for Trump, in order to encourage Hillary more to the left, you can Press the Red Button. But the net effect is the same as not voting. So, as far as "pushing to the left" goes, there's no difference whether you vote third party or don't vote.
- That's the sole argument for voting third party instead of mainstream, in FPTP: the nuclear option. If you're willing to, for all practical purposes, vote for Trump, in order to encourage Hillary more to the left, you can Press the Red Button. But the net effect is the same as not voting. So, as far as "pushing to the left" goes, there's no difference whether you vote third party or don't vote.
In a 2 party system every voter has the choice to vote -1, 0 or +1 for a candidate. By voting 3rd party aren't voting "For" trump you are just not canceling out a trump supporters vote. Unless you live in a swing state where the two candidates are 5-8% there is no real reason for you to cancel out someones vote with your own because there is no reason to win by a larger margin. The only time it could be a problem is if two candidates are really closely polling in your state, then you may wish to vote for the "Lesser evil" as opposed to the better candidate.
Ha, thats how I feel too. Trump isn't bad enough IMO that I will vote for Hillary to spite his supports.
This election is really all about Trump. Do you vote for him, against him or neutral. I have seen absolutely no reason to vote "FOR" Hillary, only that a vote for her is one against Trump.