IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 25th July 2022, 06:28 PM   #41
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 36,111
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
What are you talking about? Equalizers are not evenly distributed. If I say this gun is the great equalizer, it doesn't mean everyone has that that gun, or that people with more guns do not have an advantage, or that everyone should have a gun.

All it means is that my weaker self can use the gun to blow the brains out of someone stronger and smarter than me, but without the gun.
Or weaker, or equal, or anything else. If you need a gun to be equal to a six year old in a tent, a gun won't solve it, not even if you throw in spurs and a hat.
__________________
Like many humorless and indignant people, he is hard on everybody but himself, and does not perceive it when he fails his own ideal (Molière)

A pedant is a man who studies a vacuum through instruments that allow him to draw cross-sections of the details (John Ciardi)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th July 2022, 09:34 PM   #42
gnome
Penultimate Amazing
 
gnome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,574
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
But where is the line? Can people canvas for a candidate? What if a candidate has way better canvassers than another candidate?
I don't know if there's a single, simple answer to that question. My only claim is that there should be something to limit the power of wealth on politics. How much to do so is an open question.
__________________

gnome is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2022, 12:08 AM   #43
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 20,952
Originally Posted by gnome View Post
My only claim is that there should be something to limit the power of wealth on politics.
What is that something?

International experience is that no legislative action will curb the influence of the wealthy. Have you got a measure that would work or are you more interested in sending the "right" message?
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2022, 04:16 AM   #44
BobTheCoward
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 22,789
Originally Posted by gnome View Post
I don't know if there's a single, simple answer to that question. My only claim is that there should be something to limit the power of wealth on politics. How much to do so is an open question.
I think this approach to the problem is fundamentally immoral.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2022, 04:48 AM   #45
gnome
Penultimate Amazing
 
gnome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,574
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I think this approach to the problem is fundamentally immoral.
How so?
__________________


Last edited by gnome; 26th July 2022 at 04:53 AM.
gnome is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2022, 04:53 AM   #46
BobTheCoward
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 22,789
Originally Posted by gnome View Post
Again I ask, then why have a democracy at all? Why not just allow people to control their own property and have no government at all?
I think that is a better question for you. Your interests in democracy seem utilitarian. If so, you would be the first to ditch democracy when it starts inconveniently generating more harm than good and a better option becomes available.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2022, 04:55 AM   #47
gnome
Penultimate Amazing
 
gnome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,574
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
What is that something?

International experience is that no legislative action will curb the influence of the wealthy. Have you got a measure that would work or are you more interested in sending the "right" message?
I disagree. We cannot eliminate undue influence of the wealthy, does not mean we cannot reduce it.

Why do I have to have the perfect solution in order to acknowledge a problem? I would consider proposals besides ones that I think of myself, and so I do not marry myself to any one solution. Isn't that better than deciding there's only one way to do something?
__________________


Last edited by gnome; 26th July 2022 at 04:56 AM.
gnome is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2022, 05:15 AM   #48
shuttlt
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,096
Originally Posted by gnome View Post
I disagree. We cannot eliminate undue influence of the wealthy, does not mean we cannot reduce it.

Why do I have to have the perfect solution in order to acknowledge a problem? I would consider proposals besides ones that I think of myself, and so I do not marry myself to any one solution. Isn't that better than deciding there's only one way to do something?
This reminds me of criticisms of regulation. It's often the big players in a particular industry whose money allows them to write the rules that then serve to keep out competition. It's going to be the same people who we are complaining are unduly influenced by money and outside interests who will be writing, and enforcing these rules the rules to keep out money and outside interests..... My gut is that somehow it would end up disproportionately impacting outsider candidates.

Hypothetically, if you were able to reduce the amount of money explicitly spent on campaigning, you would be increasing the importance of implicit kinds of support like friendly mainstream and social media platforms. If there was any question that these weren't neutral, you might be making the overall problem worse.

Not saying don't do it, but it's a mountain to be climbed.

Last edited by shuttlt; 26th July 2022 at 05:16 AM.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th July 2022, 07:46 AM   #49
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 20,952
Originally Posted by gnome View Post
I disagree. We cannot eliminate undue influence of the wealthy, does not mean we cannot reduce it.

Why do I have to have the perfect solution in order to acknowledge a problem? I would consider proposals besides ones that I think of myself, and so I do not marry myself to any one solution. Isn't that better than deciding there's only one way to do something?
You don't have to come up with a solution by yourself but you need to have more than "there should be something to limit the power of wealth on politics".

It's like saying "there should be less pollution" or "there should be greater equality" etc. Few people would disagree with such principles but without a workable hypothesis on how to achieve it, you are simply complaining about the universal gravitational constant.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2022, 04:50 PM   #50
Trakar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trakar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 12,637
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Why? Why would you want that? what is this obsession with limiting people speaking?
?? Where did I say anything about wanting to eliminate speech??

I merely want every individual to have an equal volume and reach to their political speech.
__________________
Trakar
"By doubting we come to inquiry, and through inquiry we perceive truth." — Peter Abelard
"My civilization can do anything!" - David Brin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i275AvgVvow)
Trakar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2022, 05:29 PM   #51
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 60,375
Originally Posted by Trakar View Post
?? Where did I say anything about wanting to eliminate speech??

I merely want every individual to have an equal volume and reach to their political speech.
Even if you take the money out, that is a utopian and impossible dream.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.

Last edited by dudalb; 27th July 2022 at 05:30 PM.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2022, 07:44 PM   #52
BobTheCoward
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 22,789
Originally Posted by Trakar View Post
?? Where did I say anything about wanting to eliminate speech??

I merely want every individual to have an equal volume and reach to their political speech.
?? Where did I say anything about wanting to eliminate speech??
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2022, 08:24 PM   #53
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Dharug & Gundungurra
Posts: 16,809
Pretty simple: By constitutional amendment, make voting mandatory, with a trivial penalty for non-compliance.

So why do that if it appears to offer no change from the current situation? First, it supports the position that anyone preventing a valid US citizen from voting, or corrupting the voting process to effectively achieve the same outcome, is breaking the law.

How is this different? Citizens can demand with constitutional authority that voter registration and polling stations and mail-in voting, etc. be made readily available to them, not made difficult or scarce or non-existent in an effort to prevent certain people voting. Failure to do so is violating their constitutional rights. And we wouldn't want that!

A secondary effect is that politicians would no longer have to waste effort door-knocking or pleading to "get out and vote". Or in trying to prevent people voting. The act of voting would already be guaranteed to happen. So what they would need to do instead was to actually argue for their views and policies on their merits (or lack thereof, or fifths of whisky, etc.) Have at it.
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015

Last edited by Norman Alexander; 27th July 2022 at 08:25 PM.
Norman Alexander is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th July 2022, 10:12 PM   #54
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 36,111
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
Pretty simple: By constitutional amendment, make voting mandatory, with a trivial penalty for non-compliance.

So why do that if it appears to offer no change from the current situation? First, it supports the position that anyone preventing a valid US citizen from voting, or corrupting the voting process to effectively achieve the same outcome, is breaking the law.

How is this different? Citizens can demand with constitutional authority that voter registration and polling stations and mail-in voting, etc. be made readily available to them, not made difficult or scarce or non-existent in an effort to prevent certain people voting. Failure to do so is violating their constitutional rights. And we wouldn't want that!

A secondary effect is that politicians would no longer have to waste effort door-knocking or pleading to "get out and vote". Or in trying to prevent people voting. The act of voting would already be guaranteed to happen. So what they would need to do instead was to actually argue for their views and policies on their merits (or lack thereof, or fifths of whisky, etc.) Have at it.
I like that first point. I also seem to recall that there have been some studies made in other areas that suggest an opt-out works better than an opt-in. I wouldn't be surprised if voter turnout improved even without fines. If you had to get permission not to vote (fine only on failure to do that) it might still work.
__________________
Like many humorless and indignant people, he is hard on everybody but himself, and does not perceive it when he fails his own ideal (Molière)

A pedant is a man who studies a vacuum through instruments that allow him to draw cross-sections of the details (John Ciardi)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2022, 01:08 PM   #55
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 60,375
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
Pretty simple: By constitutional amendment, make voting mandatory, with a trivial penalty for non-compliance.

So why do that if it appears to offer no change from the current situation? First, it supports the position that anyone preventing a valid US citizen from voting, or corrupting the voting process to effectively achieve the same outcome, is breaking the law.

How is this different? Citizens can demand with constitutional authority that voter registration and polling stations and mail-in voting, etc. be made readily available to them, not made difficult or scarce or non-existent in an effort to prevent certain people voting. Failure to do so is violating their constitutional rights. And we wouldn't want that!

A secondary effect is that politicians would no longer have to waste effort door-knocking or pleading to "get out and vote". Or in trying to prevent people voting. The act of voting would already be guaranteed to happen. So what they would need to do instead was to actually argue for their views and policies on their merits (or lack thereof, or fifths of whisky, etc.) Have at it.
Sorry, but I just don't think forcing people who don't want to vote to vote will solve anything.
I notice the other nations are not falling over themsleves to follow Australia with mandatory voting..for good reason.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2022, 01:10 PM   #56
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 60,375
I see the whole issue of individual liberty is considered to be a minor point with many here.
I tyhink mandatory voting strikes at the very heart of individual freedom. if I don't want to vote, I should not have to.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2022, 01:32 PM   #57
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 22,555
We could do quadratic voting: if you don't vote, you can safe up votes for an issue you really care about.
__________________
“Don’t blame me. I voted for Kodos.”
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2022, 01:56 PM   #58
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 60,375
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
We could do quadratic voting: if you don't vote, you can safe up votes for an issue you really care about.
If you want to kill democracy, that would be a great way to do it.
We are getting a lot of ideas in this thread that sound great in a college/pusedo intellectual bull session, but would be a disaster if actually tried. This is one of them.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.

Last edited by dudalb; 28th July 2022 at 01:57 PM.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2022, 03:45 PM   #59
shuttlt
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,096
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
Sorry, but I just don't think forcing people who don't want to vote to vote will solve anything.
I notice the other nations are not falling over themsleves to follow Australia with mandatory voting..for good reason.
One of the consequences of mandatory voting is that you create a huge voting block of people who are not engaged enough to vote unless you force them. Every time you create a new voting block you reduce the power of old ones. When you allow criminals to vote, you create a criminal interest group for politicians to serve and reduce the power of the non-criminal interest group.

What is going to be the effect of swinging politics towards people who have no interest in politics? Will it reduce the limited extent that politicians are held to account if such a huge percentage of the electorate aren't even paying attention to the limited extent that the people who can actually be bothered to vote are? If you look at turnout by educational level, it's the "less than 9th grade education level" that you are really increasing bigly.

Maybe these people will be energised by voting and suddenly become interested in politics, but I doubt it. Even more than today, elections would be decided by people who don't consume news, and don't know who the candidates are.

Last edited by shuttlt; 28th July 2022 at 03:46 PM.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th July 2022, 05:01 PM   #60
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 36,111
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
One of the consequences of mandatory voting is that you create a huge voting block of people who are not engaged enough to vote unless you force them. Every time you create a new voting block you reduce the power of old ones. When you allow criminals to vote, you create a criminal interest group for politicians to serve and reduce the power of the non-criminal interest group.

What is going to be the effect of swinging politics towards people who have no interest in politics? Will it reduce the limited extent that politicians are held to account if such a huge percentage of the electorate aren't even paying attention to the limited extent that the people who can actually be bothered to vote are? If you look at turnout by educational level, it's the "less than 9th grade education level" that you are really increasing bigly.

Maybe these people will be energised by voting and suddenly become interested in politics, but I doubt it. Even more than today, elections would be decided by people who don't consume news, and don't know who the candidates are.
Why stop there. Why not demand that potential voters take a test to insure that they're interested enough, and consuming the right news?
__________________
Like many humorless and indignant people, he is hard on everybody but himself, and does not perceive it when he fails his own ideal (Molière)

A pedant is a man who studies a vacuum through instruments that allow him to draw cross-sections of the details (John Ciardi)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th July 2022, 01:23 AM   #61
shuttlt
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,096
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
Why stop there. Why not demand that potential voters take a test to insure that they're interested enough, and consuming the right news?
I'm just saying what the obvious consequence is. If you think a democracy focused on people who don't know what they are voting for and just voting tribally would be a good thing, then terrific, go for it. I'm sure it would suit politicians. There is of course some significant element of that in democracy now, this would just push it further that way. There is quite a bit of economics literature on the race to the bottom that this kind of expanding of the franchise sets up. But again, if maximizing the number of people who vote in some search for the Rousseauian "will of the people" is some absolute good, then go for it. It's certainly not a healthy democracy in the since American's in the 1830s would have understood it.

Last edited by shuttlt; 29th July 2022 at 01:24 AM.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th July 2022, 02:33 AM   #62
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 20,952
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
One of the consequences of mandatory voting is that you create a huge voting block of people who are not engaged enough to vote unless you force them the wrong sort of people.
ftfy.

Optional voting tends to favour conservative/wealthy voters.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th July 2022, 02:47 AM   #63
shuttlt
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,096
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
ftfy.

Optional voting tends to favour conservative/wealthy voters.
Politics favours such people anyway. Throwing a bunch of uniformed, unmotivated people at them who need to be herded is hardly going to put the common man in charge.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th July 2022, 07:16 AM   #64
Trakar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trakar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 12,637
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
Even if you take the money out, that is a utopian and impossible dream.
If the wealthy, and those catering to them, dominate and hold control over the political system, all freedoms, and democracy itself, will always be little more than impossible dreams.
__________________
Trakar
"By doubting we come to inquiry, and through inquiry we perceive truth." — Peter Abelard
"My civilization can do anything!" - David Brin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i275AvgVvow)
Trakar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th July 2022, 07:42 AM   #65
Trakar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trakar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 12,637
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
You are presuming that money is equally distributed; actually, you presume that those with little influence have more of it.
Because if money is an equalizer, than equal amounts of money cancel each other out.

In other words - you are wrong.
He isn't wrong, he is merely adopting the perspective of the current corrupt system, and defending it as it is always defended by those who prefer the corruption they know and enjoy to a system which threatens the privilege and power of those benefitting from it currently.
__________________
Trakar
"By doubting we come to inquiry, and through inquiry we perceive truth." — Peter Abelard
"My civilization can do anything!" - David Brin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i275AvgVvow)
Trakar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th July 2022, 08:49 AM   #66
Trakar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trakar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 12,637
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
But where is the line? Can people canvas for a candidate? What if a candidate has way better canvassers than another candidate?
So long as neither the candidate, nor any group of supporters, are paid with private money, no big deal. Each candidate can divvy up their share of the equal public money each candidate will receive to run their campaign on, they are free to choose whatever method(s) they think will give them the best shot to win their individual elections.
__________________
Trakar
"By doubting we come to inquiry, and through inquiry we perceive truth." — Peter Abelard
"My civilization can do anything!" - David Brin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i275AvgVvow)
Trakar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th July 2022, 08:55 AM   #67
shuttlt
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,096
Originally Posted by Trakar View Post
If the wealthy, and those catering to them, dominate and hold control over the political system, all freedoms, and democracy itself, will always be little more than impossible dreams.
But, this is true of all political systems. You always have a small elite who control the political process, the flow of information etc. They can be corrupt, or noble.... but it is never ordinary people who hold control the political process.

Last edited by shuttlt; 29th July 2022 at 08:58 AM.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th July 2022, 08:57 AM   #68
Trakar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trakar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 12,637
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Quadratic voting would be an equalizer.
Quadratic voting, sounds pretty expensive, and could probably still be overwhelmed by a small number of the upper tier of our Plutocracy which has more wealth at their disposal than the overwhelming majority of the population combined.
__________________
Trakar
"By doubting we come to inquiry, and through inquiry we perceive truth." — Peter Abelard
"My civilization can do anything!" - David Brin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i275AvgVvow)
Trakar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th July 2022, 08:59 AM   #69
BobTheCoward
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 22,789
Originally Posted by Trakar View Post
So long as neither the candidate, nor any group of supporters, are paid with private money, no big deal. Each candidate can divvy up their share of the equal public money each candidate will receive to run their campaign on, they are free to choose whatever method(s) they think will give them the best shot to win their individual elections.
And then is just a system that doesnt recognize free speech?
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th July 2022, 09:00 AM   #70
Trakar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trakar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 12,637
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
But, this is true of all political systems. You always have a small elite who control the political process, the flow of information etc. They can be corrupt, or noble.... but it is never ordinary people who hold control the political process.
That's because once such power structures are established the only way to change things is through a revolution, and/or societal collapse.
__________________
Trakar
"By doubting we come to inquiry, and through inquiry we perceive truth." — Peter Abelard
"My civilization can do anything!" - David Brin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i275AvgVvow)
Trakar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th July 2022, 09:00 AM   #71
shuttlt
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,096
Originally Posted by Trakar View Post
Quadratic voting, sounds pretty expensive, and could probably still be overwhelmed by a small number of the upper tier of our Plutocracy which has more wealth at their disposal than the overwhelming majority of the population combined.
It's not just wealth, it is organization and shared purpose.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th July 2022, 09:04 AM   #72
Trakar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trakar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 12,637
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
And then is just a system that doesnt recognize free speech?
Why, every one is free to express their own political views, as well as to join or form free association political groups, they just aren't allowed to collect or use private money to amplify their voice, unless it is a portion of the public money their candidate chooses to donate to the group.
__________________
Trakar
"By doubting we come to inquiry, and through inquiry we perceive truth." — Peter Abelard
"My civilization can do anything!" - David Brin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i275AvgVvow)
Trakar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th July 2022, 09:05 AM   #73
shuttlt
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,096
Originally Posted by Trakar View Post
That's because once such power structures are established the only way to change things is through a revolution, and/or societal collapse.
No it isn't. What you are talking about is the elite becoming corrupt. An elite whose main interest is to line it's pockets is a corrupt elite. It is always an elite who are in power though, never the common man. That has never happened and never will happen.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th July 2022, 09:07 AM   #74
BobTheCoward
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 22,789
Originally Posted by Trakar View Post
Why, every one is free to express their own political views, as well as to join or form free association political groups, they just aren't allowed to collect or use private money to amplify their voice, unless it is a portion of the public money their candidate chooses to donate to the group.
....can I write my thoughts on a candidate on my computer, and print out multiple copies? That costs money. That is using private money to amplify my voice.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th July 2022, 09:10 AM   #75
Trakar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trakar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 12,637
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
It's not just wealth, it is organization and shared purpose.
I don't see how that changes anything, at least not in a system where private money is not allowed to be used, in connection with any political activity, only part or all of the equal shares of Public money given to each candidate.

This would probably need to have some regulatory oversight to keep the system from being gamed.

BTW- sorry for all the single posts, I've been on jury duty for the last couple of weeks, so I didn't stop in as frequently as I should have, it's long and hard work supporting plaintiffs in their pursuit of justice against corporate Defense law teams! I'll start combining responses as I finish catching up!
__________________
Trakar
"By doubting we come to inquiry, and through inquiry we perceive truth." — Peter Abelard
"My civilization can do anything!" - David Brin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i275AvgVvow)

Last edited by Trakar; 29th July 2022 at 09:17 AM.
Trakar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th July 2022, 09:20 AM   #76
shuttlt
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,096
Originally Posted by Trakar View Post
I don't see how that changes anything, at least not in a system where private money is not allowed to be used, in connection with any political activity, only part or all of the equal shares of Public money given to each candidate.

This would probably need to have some regulatory oversight to keep the system from being gamed.
It will make very little difference. A corrupt elite will not be stopped by this, in the highly unlikely event that it would get in their way they won't implement it, and a noble elite won't need it.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th July 2022, 09:37 AM   #77
Trakar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trakar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 12,637
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
....can I write my thoughts on a candidate on my computer, and print out multiple copies? That costs money. That is using private money to amplify my voice.
Hey you can go down to every polling place and vote as often as you want, but just as that is likely to result in criminal consequences. There are a lot of ways to game the current system, but we have oversight systems in place to address these crimes. A similar oversight system would undoubtedly be put into place to handle those who just cannot help but try to game a system such as I am proposing.

If you want to use a personal webpage to express your political views to whomever cares to visit your page, I can see ways that this could be an acceptable grey area, so long as it conformed to guidelines established by the oversight authority for such personal political expression websites.

Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
It will make very little difference. A corrupt elite will not be stopped by this, in the highly unlikely event that it would get in their way they won't implement it, and a noble elite won't need it.
Rules and Laws have always existed, unsurprisingly, violations and the criminals who commit them, have always existed as well.
Are you advocating we throw up our hands and go with anarchy?
__________________
Trakar
"By doubting we come to inquiry, and through inquiry we perceive truth." — Peter Abelard
"My civilization can do anything!" - David Brin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i275AvgVvow)

Last edited by Trakar; 29th July 2022 at 09:42 AM.
Trakar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th July 2022, 09:41 AM   #78
BobTheCoward
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 22,789
Originally Posted by Trakar View Post
Hey you can go down to every polling place and vote as often as you want, but just as that is likely to result in criminal consequences. There are a lot of ways to game the current system, but we have oversight systems in place to address these crimes. A similar oversight system would undoubtedly be put into place to handle those who just cannot help but try to game a system such as I am proposing.

If you want to use a personal webpage to express your political views to whomever cares to visit your page, I can see ways that this could be an acceptable grey area, so long as it conformed to guidelines established by the oversight authority for such personal political expression websites.
Okay, yeah,your ideas amount to rendering the concept in most of the western world of political free speech as non existent.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th July 2022, 09:51 AM   #79
shuttlt
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 10,096
Originally Posted by Trakar View Post
Rules and Laws have always existed, unsurprisingly, violations and the criminals who commit them, have always existed as well.
Are you advocating we throw up our hands and go with anarchy?
I'm saying that we should work within the realm of the possible rather to try to invent systems of voting to achieve things that can't be achieved. Part of reason you have the statement from Adams about "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." is because for any of the things you are talking about to work, you need the people they are constraining to be moral. If you look at DC and do not see a a moral group of people, no election system is going to save you.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th July 2022, 10:27 AM   #80
Trakar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trakar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 12,637
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
...Pretty simple: By constitutional amendment, make voting mandatory, with a trivial penalty for non-compliance.
...how about some non-trivial, but relatively minor, reward and responsibility for those who choose to vote, which would be unavailable to those who choose not to vote?

Originally Posted by bruto View Post
I like that first point. I also seem to recall that there have been some studies made in other areas that suggest an opt-out works better than an opt-in. I wouldn't be surprised if voter turnout improved even without fines. If you had to get permission not to vote (fine only on failure to do that) it might still work.
Well, the general idea is to not only get people to vote, but to get the population to achieve better understanding and actual participation in the national, state and local governances. That's why I lean more toward rewarding those who participate, rather than punishing those who abstain.

Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
I see the whole issue of individual liberty is considered to be a minor point with many here.
I tyhink mandatory voting strikes at the very heart of individual freedom. if I don't want to vote, I should not have to.
I can understand and agree with your position as stated.

Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
One of the consequences of mandatory voting is that you create a huge voting block of people who are not engaged enough to vote unless you force them...If you look at turnout by educational level, it's the "less than 9th grade education level" that you are really increasing bigly...
(apologies for taking a cookie cutter to your post)

I can certainly see a major push by some quarters to push for much better elementary and middle school civics and current affairs coursework!

My flippancy aside, I agree with your sentiment, thus the idea of adding a minor reward, and responsibility, for those who want to vote, and allowing those who choose not to vote to lead their lives as they choose sans the reward and the responsibility of participating in local, state, and federal politics.

Originally Posted by bruto View Post
Why stop there. Why not demand that potential voters take a test to insure that they're interested enough, and consuming the right news?
Who gets to make the tests and teach the classes to prepare for the test? There are very good reasons for outlawing poll testing as a filter for keeping "undesirable" people from voting
__________________
Trakar
"By doubting we come to inquiry, and through inquiry we perceive truth." — Peter Abelard
"My civilization can do anything!" - David Brin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i275AvgVvow)

Last edited by Trakar; 29th July 2022 at 10:29 AM.
Trakar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:31 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.