Our government is broken -- Here's how to fix it (1 Viewer)

[gianmarco]

Worth the watch

Maybe a pipe dream, but.....

 

[Joe Bryant]

Quick question - are the studies they qoute in the video generally accepted as correct?

Thought the thing about the chance an idea becomes law had zero connection to the public support for the issue was interesting. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

Another thought.

And I know this has actual accurate names for the idea and it's something that's been discussed for ages - how do folks feel about the idea of having (presumably) our best and most capable leaders making decisions for the population compared to putting every issue to a popular vote?

 

[Stealthycat]

Well first off, we've NEVER been a Democracy. She's got it all wrong there. 

The impact on environment she mentioned ... the US is one of the least contributing countries to global pollution, if all the other countries of the world would meet what we do it would make a huge difference. 15% is what is estimated the US contributes to CO2 emissions. Many countries still dump their trash in the oceans.

About the voting system. Elected Representatives and Senators don't HAVE to bend to lobbyists and special interested nor do they have to be bought and paid for by huge donor's. That's a system THEY accept and have implemented, not us the people. They can change it, right now, at Federal levels. 

I'm all about making 3rd party's viable - and they are already getting there. Automated voter registration ...and voting from home ... that opens huge doorways for fraud. I'd be more inclined to have a national voting day, another holiday I think. If voting means anything to a person, its worth 30 minutes to stop on your way to work to vote or early vote isn't it ?

Vouchers for voting? Where does that money come from? I don't understand that. 

Now, she/they are right in how that is a means to change. Absolutely. The elected people should represent their constituents .... and overall the message is decent and motivating and changes do cascade from local to state to Federal

I'd say cap campaigns .... a flat line of how much each can spend, no more, no less. $1.4 for Hillary and $1.0 billion for Trump is absolutely nuts.

 

[the moops]

The impact on environment she mentioned ... the US is one of the least contributing countries to global pollution, if all the other countries of the world would meet what we do it would make a huge difference. 15% is what is estimated the US contributes to CO2 emissions. Many countries still dump their trash in the oceans.
 

On a per capita basis, the US is at 15%. Well well above China, India, Japan, Russia, etc.

 

[Captain Cranks]

.About the voting system. Elected Representatives and Senators don't HAVE to bend to lobbyists and special interested nor do they have to be bought and paid for by huge donor's. That's a system THEY accept and have implemented, not us the people. They can change it, right now, at Federal levels. 
 

What incentive do they have to change something that they implemented and works for them unless the people they represent demand it?

 

[timschochet]

Another thought.

And I know this has actual accurate names for the idea and it's something that's been discussed for ages - how do folks feel about the idea of having (presumably) our best and most capable leaders making decisions for the population compared to putting every issue to a popular vote?

Worst possible idea. See Brexit. 

 

[gianmarco]

Another thought.

And I know this has actual accurate names for the idea and it's something that's been discussed for ages - how do folks feel about the idea of having (presumably) our best and most capable leaders making decisions for the population compared to putting every issue to a popular vote?

You can't put every issue to a popular vote.  You have to entrust the elected leaders to make decisions.  That's why we choose elected leaders based on some of their stances and policies.  However, when those elected leaders then ignore those policies because of party politics and/or lobbyist  influence, then that's a problem.  That horizontal line showing no change at all whether there is 0% vs. 100% public support, if accurate, is a big problem. 

And, I do think there are SOME public policies that should be put to a vote.  If there is overwhelming support, then it should be adopted.  Issues such as marijuana, abortion, gambling would be things that fall along those lines, IMO.

 

[gianmarco]

I don't have nearly the insight into whether or not something like this would work, but I wonder what would happen if we completely removed any party affiliation.  Abolish political parties completely.  Very few people are 100% on one side vs the other anyway.  Then there's no need to follow any party lines.  You vote/legislate as you campaigned and as your constituents want you to.  I know it'll never happen, but....

 

[timschochet]

Excellent excellent film. 

Usually when I watch or read the sort of thing, I am always far more impressed by the presentation of the problems than I am of the solutions presented. So once again I loved the first half but was prepared to reject whatever came next. But to my astonishment, at least at first glance, the solution is thoughtful and just might work. 

Thanks so much for sharing this; I’m going to try to send it to everyone I know. 

 

[Stealthycat]

On a per capita basis, the US is at 15%. Well well above China, India, Japan, Russia, etc.

per capita still doesn't change the fact that the US could literally go 100% green today .... and still the earth would be highly polluted by all the other countries

not that I'm against change .... in fact, more and more I want to ban single use plastics and migrate more to electric cars. 

 

[timschochet]

I don't have nearly the insight into whether or not something like this would work, but I wonder what would happen if we completely moved any party affiliation.  Abolish political parties completely.  Very few people are 100% on one side vs the other anyway.  Then there's no need to follow any party lines.  You vote/legislate as you campaigned and as your constituents want you to.  I know it'll never happen, but....

I do disagree with you on this point. Our two party political system has worked very well for us. The corruption and influence has gotten bad and thats what we need to fix. But we don’t need to change the two party system IMO. 

 

[Stealthycat]

What incentive do they have to change something that they implemented and works for them unless the people they represent demand it?

none

except that more and more, people are understanding and seeing and voting accordingly .....I hope

gotta start somewhere and because of that, I do like the video overall

 

[Stealthycat]

I do disagree with you on this point. Our two party political system has worked very well for us. The corruption and influence has gotten bad and thats what we need to fix. But we don’t need to change the two party system IMO. 

do you oppose a strong 3rd party?  just curious if one arose to equally challenge DNC/GOP how you'd think it'd go ? 

 

[timschochet]

There will never be a strong 3rd party. If a 3rd party ever arises, it will effectively destroy one of the two existing powerful parties and we will be back to 2 parties again. 

The key political argument in this country will always be liberal vs conservative (which means, ultimately, change vs resisting change.) 

 

[Joe Bryant]

The key political argument in this country will always be liberal vs conservative (which means, ultimately, change vs resisting change.) 




 

I know this is the literal definition, but I don't think this is accurate at all. 

Let's say the conservative stance in 2009 on Gay Marriage was not allowing it. And the Liberal stance on Gay Marriage was allowing it.

Now it's obviously the law of the land to allow it. 

Does the Liberal position on Gay Marriage now become not allowing it? That would be change. 

Are you saying the current position many Conservatives have that they don't want abortion to be legal is a Liberal position?

I think most everyone looks at the parties based on their stance on the issues that are important to them. Then they align with the positions that are like them. I think change is a minor conditional consideration. 

 

[timschochet]

I know this is the literal definition, but I don't think this is accurate at all. 

Let's say the conservative stance in 2009 on Gay Marriage was not allowing it. And the Liberal stance on Gay Marriage was allowing it.

Now it's obviously the law of the land to allow it. 

Does the Liberal position on Gay Marriage now become not allowing it? That would be change. 

Are you saying the current position many Conservatives have that they don't want abortion to be legal is a Liberal position?

I think most everyone looks at the parties based on their stance on the issues that are important to them. Then they align with the positions that are like them. I think change is a minor conditional consideration. 

I should have added that changing something back to the way it was previously is still a conservative position. So if abortion was once illegal, and you would like it to be illegal once again, you are still expressing an essentially conservative position: let’s bring things back to the way they were. 

Now you’re correct that exceptions can be found. Certain issues don’t really fit into the liberal vs conservative dichotomy: offhand, for instance, immigration, international affairs, many others. But as a general rule liberals support change and conservatives oppose change. Almost my entire life I’ve been a conservative based on this principle; I’ve been on the whole very happy with the way things are and detest disruption. Now however I find myself in favor of certain changes which I believe to be of utter necessity, so Ive switched. Maybe someday I can go back. 

 

[Stealthycat]

The key political argument in this country will always be liberal vs conservative

this is true I think .... even though I'd bet 65% of people are truly moderate in their views vs conservative / liberal

 

[Joe Bryant]

I should have added that changing something back to the way it was previously is still a conservative position. So if abortion was once illegal, and you would like it to be illegal once again, you are still expressing an essentially conservative position: let’s bring things back to the way they were. 

Now you’re correct that exceptions can be found. Certain issues don’t really fit into the liberal vs conservative dichotomy: offhand, for instance, immigration, international affairs, many others. But as a general rule liberals support change and conservatives oppose change. Almost my entire life I’ve been a conservative based on this principle; I’ve been on the whole very happy with the way things are and detest disruption. Now however I find myself in favor of certain changes which I believe to be of utter necessity, so Ive switched. Maybe someday I can go back. 

Just seems like a really bad way to define something. Is today's bourbon staying legal a conservative or liberal position? 

Seems infinitely better to define the position one supports by the actual position. Not whether it's changed recently or not. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

And sorry. I'll drop this as it's a dumb tangent on my part. I just saw it and it reminded me I'd seen a few times. No desire to go back and forth with Tim on this all day. 

 

[gianmarco]

And sorry. I'll drop this as it's a dumb tangent on my part. I just saw it and it reminded me I'd seen a few times. No desire to go back and forth with Tim on this all day. 

Because you'll never win before getting beat into submission by volume alone 

 

[timschochet]

Because you'll never win before getting beat into submission by volume alone 

Nah. I’m not going to press it.

My larger point is that we’re a 2 Party country. We always have been, and I see no reason why this won’t continue. Also, I think it’s a good thing. 

 

[urbanhack]

There will never be a strong 3rd party. If a 3rd party ever arises, it will effectively destroy one of the two existing powerful parties and we will be back to 2 parties again. 

The key political argument in this country will always be liberal vs conservative (which means, ultimately, change vs resisting change.) 

No it’s not.  It’s control and money by influences and organizations which have their interests in mind and not that of the people. We are never going to get anywhere 

 

[gianmarco]

No it’s not.  It’s control and money by influences and organizations which have their interests in mind and not that of the people. We are never going to get anywhere 

This.

Which is why it needs to be fixed.

 

[sho nuff]

Nah. I’m not going to press it.

My larger point is that we’re a 2 Party country. We always have been, and I see no reason why this won’t continue. Also, I think it’s a good thing. 

I disagree that it’s a good thing.  The status quo now isn’t working.  Two party system at this point just leads to constant opposition at all costs to get re-elected.  There is no real find common ground on so many topics.

I also am unsure when we ever see a split into three.  As I don’t think the short term of that would be good either.  It would likely split one party and the other (if they stay intact) would likely dominate for a bit until one of the three pulls in the moderates.  For example if the Bernie/AOC types split...the current GOP will rally and take over short term IMO.  Until those moderates on the right come a bit left (which would also force the moderates on the left to move a bit more to the right to bring them in.

 

[wikkidpissah]

I like it. I've had no hope for American politics since Citizens United and watching Obama get inhaled by the system in 6 months and have long suggested a grassroots movement toward a reform party (i think Donald Trump may actually own licensing on the capitalization of those 2 words from when he ruined that political party in 2000) as the only way to beat the current system. But this might be a more effective modern way to go grassroots. If it got legs, i'm sure political will and perhaps a political faction could grow around the movement and we might have something. The next charity bet i make around here will go to representUS.

In case you feel "it's time" but feel it's hopeless taking on media & megaliths, watch this. Ralph Nader has a bad name now because of the effect he had on the 2000 Presidential election, but he's the only guy who's really reformed anything in this country and, still relevant & feisty @ 85yo, he uses the middle part of his appearance at the DC Politics & Prose bookstore (an excellent series of lectures on the Youtube, btw) in support of his most recent tome to go into how small & simply change has always begun in this country. It may give you some faith.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The key political argument in this country will always be liberal vs conservative (which means, ultimately, change vs resisting change.) 


 

I know this is the literal definition, but I don't think this is accurate at all. 

I think Arnold Kling’s formulation is helpful. It’s still an oversimplification, but it fits about 98% of the time instead of the 65% that change vs. resisting change works. (Numbers I got from my derrière.)

Kling talks about different axes — that are orthogonal to each other — along which a given political issue can be analyzed.

The axis that conservatives emphasize is civilization versus barbarism. Conservatives favor civilization — they are wary of anything that can lead to chaos or unexpected danger. They are tough on crime, they fear the quick adoption of new social rules, they are wary of outsiders, etc.

The axis that liberals most care about is oppressors versus the oppressed. They side with the oppressed. This explains their different views from conservatives on things like mandatory minimum sentences, gay marriage, illegal immigration, etc.

(The axis that libertarians emphasize is liberty versus coercion.)

Kling doesn’t claim that the emphasis on different axes are causative. Conservatives don’t consciously start from an explicit analysis of civilization versus barbarism on a given issue and then deduce their position on, say, immigration from there. It’s merely correlative. But the correlation seems extremely strong, and an outside observer can do an excellent job of predicting what the conservative (or liberal or libertarian) position will be on a given subject by analyzing it in terms of those axes.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Worth the watch

Maybe a pipe dream, but.....

This is an awesome video that is in line with what I was already thinking. The most important issues right now are not object-level stuff like abortion or whatever, but rather meta-level stuff concerning our system of democracy itself. The influence of special interests, gerrymandering, voter suppression, and so on. I’m fully on board with focusing primarily on fixing those things.

The video introduced a concept to me that I’d never heard of or thought of before: voter vouchers. I think it’s brilliant.

Reducing the influence of special interests without screwing other things up is a really hard problem. The “solutions” I’d previously seen proposed have come with terrible expected side effects, IMO. Trying to overturn Citizens United, for example, would solve one aspect of the problem, but at the expense of doing terrible harm, IMO, to freedom of political speech — which, on the meta-level, seems even more important.

I’ve also been leary of things like public funding of campaigns because choosing who gets the funding seems a bit problematic from the outset, and susceptible to much bigger problems over time (as incumbents try to manipulate the process in favor of incumbents). Term limits could partially offset that latter problem, but come with problems of their own.

But if I understand the concept of voter vouchers correctly, that seems like a great idea with little chance of being corrupted, IMO. Give everyone a $100 voucher that they can use only to contribute to campaigns. (Maybe separate vouchers for federal versus state or local campaigns.)

This would hugely reduce candidates’ reliance on dark money from special interests without allowing current politicians to choose winners and losers. I’m disappointed that I hadn’t thought of it myself. After thinking about it for a little over a minute, I can’t even think of a significant downside to it.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I go into these things with a lot of skepticism, I expected to see a lot of unrealistic and oversimplified stuff, perhaps some unconstitutional proposals and a ton of naivete. I was pleasantly surprised by this, and agreed with almost everything they said.

A lot of good ideas in there, and more importantly the correct plan to implementing them- targeting state and local elections. That's why I push so hard for donations to Data for Progress state legislature candidates rather than national candidates.

I am skeptical that you could ever get conservative buy-in for this. I suspect that polling support for it is because it's in the abstract, and that when conservatives realize that stuff like fixing gerrymandering, automatic voter registration and more transparency in political donations will almost certainly kneecap the GOP they will no longer support it. I would love to be proven wrong, however.

 

[The Commish]

Worth the watch

Maybe a pipe dream, but.....

This is an awesome video that is in line with what I was already thinking. The most important issues right now are not object-level stuff like abortion or whatever, but rather meta-level stuff concerning our system of democracy itself. The influence of special interests, gerrymandering, voter suppression, and so on. I’m fully on board with focusing primarily on fixing those things.

The video introduced a concept to me that I’d never heard of or thought of before: voter vouchers. I think it’s brilliant.

Reducing the influence of special interests without screwing other things up is a really hard problem. The “solutions” I’d previously seen proposed have come with terrible expected side effects, IMO. Trying to overturn Citizens United, for example, would solve one aspect of the problem, but at the expense of doing terrible harm, IMO, to freedom of political speech — which, on the meta-level, seems even more important.

I’ve also been leary of things like public funding of campaigns because choosing who gets the funding seems a bit problematic from the outset, and susceptible to much bigger problems over time (as incumbents try to manipulate the process in favor of incumbents). Term limits could partially offset that latter problem, but come with problems of their own.

But if I understand the concept of voter vouchers correctly, that seems like a great idea with little chance of being corrupted, IMO. Give everyone a $100 voucher that they can use only to contribute to campaigns. (Maybe separate vouchers for federal versus state or local campaigns.)

This would hugely reduce candidates’ reliance on dark money from special interests without allowing current politicians to choose winners and losers. I’m disappointed that I hadn’t thought of it myself. After thinking about it for a little over a minute, I can’t even think of a significant downside to it.

It's going to be an incredibly tough battle.  You see how certain federal officials are labeling bills with these concepts in them, if they are even acknowledging their existence.  I've advocated many times on this board that the solution(s) to our problem(s) would be better addressed at the lower levels of government allowing them to bubble up.  I'm on board  

 

[gianmarco]

I go into these things with a lot of skepticism, I expected to see a lot of unrealistic and oversimplified stuff, perhaps some unconstitutional proposals and a ton of naivete. I was pleasantly surprised by this, and agreed with almost everything they said.

A lot of good ideas in there, and more importantly the correct plan to implementing them- targeting state and local elections. That's why I push so hard for donations to Data for Progress state legislature candidates rather than national candidates.

I am skeptical that you could ever get conservative buy-in for this. I suspect that polling support for it is because it's in the abstract, and that when conservatives realize that stuff like fixing gerrymandering, automatic voter registration and more transparency in political donations will almost certainly kneecap the GOP they will no longer support it. I would love to be proven wrong, however.

The fact that SC is posting here and agreeing with some of it is shocking, tbh.  And encouraging.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Best way to fix the government?  Term limits.

You can only re-run for a position (sans President) after you have been out for two terms.

If we didn't have term limits for Presidents our current president would probably be Barack Obama instead of Donald Trump. Sometimes artificial limits work out well, sometimes they don't. 

Personally I think if the goal is move towards a small-d democratic ideal and to amplify the voice of the people, it doesn't make a lot of sense to tell the people they can't vote for a person they want to vote for.

 

[sho nuff]

If we didn't have term limits for Presidents our current president would probably be Barack Obama instead of Donald Trump. Sometimes artificial limits work out well, sometimes they don't. 

Personally I think if the goal is move towards a small-d democratic ideal and to amplify the voice of the people, it doesn't make a lot of sense to tell the people they can't vote for a person they want to vote for.

I don’t think he was saying remove term limits for President.  Just making the exception for his new rule of waiting two years after a term to run for something else.

Like a Senator terming out then running for the house immediately wouldn’t be allowed but could run for POTUS.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I don’t think he was saying remove term limits for President.  Just making the exception for his new rule of waiting two years after a term to run for something else.

Like a Senator terming out then running for the house immediately wouldn’t be allowed but could run for POTUS.

Right, I'm using the fact that we have term limits on Presidents and it's resulted in an epic disaster as evidence that the broader idea of term limits is a bad one. They are just as likely to result in a downgrade as they are an upgrade. More likely in fact, once you account for the value of experience and the shrinking of the candidate pool and whatnot.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Right, I'm using the fact that we have term limits on Presidents and it's resulted in an epic disaster as evidence that the broader idea of term limits is a bad one. They are just as likely to result in a downgrade as they are an upgrade. More likely in fact, once you account for the value of experience and the shrinking of the candidate pool and whatnot.

It's more complicated, though, because one term of Trump may not be an epic disaster. But 12 terms of Trumps (including his children) may well be an epic disaster, and term limits help prevent that in case some of our other checks (against rigging elections, etc.) don't hold up.

 

[TobiasFunke]

It's more complicated, though, because one term of Trump may not be an epic disaster. But 12 terms of Trumps (including his children) may well be an epic disaster, and term limits help prevent that in case some of our other checks (against rigging elections, etc.) don't hold up.

I guess. Like I said, sometimes it will help, sometimes it will hurt.  Depends on the incumbent and the situation. Given that, I think we should choose the option that gives voters more freedom over the one that gives them less.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I think we should choose the option that gives voters more freedom over the one that gives them less.

So if voters support term limits ... ?

 

[wikkidpissah]

It's more complicated, though, because one term of Trump may not be an epic disaster. But 12 terms of Trumps (including his children) may well be an epic disaster, and term limits help prevent that in case some of our other checks (against rigging elections, etc.) don't hold up.

Trump's a symptom of Broken America anyway, not a cause. Just a guy looking to be branded "Most Famous" when America wanted anybody else and someone without a filter

 

[TobiasFunke]

So if voters support term limits ... ?

Then I guess that would be fine, so long as that support is local and not a Constitutional amendment or something. I don't like the idea of people in New York telling people in Idaho who they can and cannot elect to represent them. But that aside the American voter has the same right to self-sabotage as everyone else.  I'm just explaining why I don't support them and I don't think others should.

I have other reasons for not liking them too. I have spent a lot of time on the Hill.  The idea of not having anyone with significant experience on committees that deal with stuff like intelligence or financial services or energy seems a bit shortsighted.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The arguments for Presidential term limits are different from those for Congressional term limits.

Let's stick to Presidential.

I think we'd all mostly agree that voter suppression is bad. I'd argue that doing away with Presidential term limits is more likely to increase attempts at voter suppression than to decrease them.

Personally, I think being President would be a terrible job. I wouldn't want it. But it seems to appeal to certain other people.

Let's say that Individual 1 (not necessarily that Individual 1, but just a John Doe) really wants to be President, and not just for one term, but for life.

He wins the election and now seeks to maximize his chance for reelection.

There are various strategies he might pursue, separately or in combination.

1. He could do a really good job at increasing national welfare and world peace and hope the people like it.

2. He could cater to special interests, which might be roughly as effective as the first strategy.

3. He could use constitutionally questionable tactics like suppressing the votes of people demographically likely to support his opponent.

4. He could use outright illegal means like rigging the election as frequently happens in certain other countries.

I think both the incentive and the ability to use the last two strategies increase if there are no term limits.

 

[KCitons]

I mentioned this awhile back in a different thread. Politicians need to be bound by a contract. If you run on a platform of fixing infrastructure, creating jobs, building a wall, or any number of things. It should be documented and have accountability. If you fail to move the needle, you're impeached. You can use the argument that you don't control the other branches, but that won't matter. If you can run on a promise, you should have solutions to reach those promises. Regardless of who holds the power. Otherwise, step aside and let someone else take your place. 

 

[KCitons]

Impeachment isn't necessary.  Just vote them out in the next election.

Too much damage (or lack of progress) in 4 years. The conventions are held in July of election years. Elections are held in November. If a person can convince the population in 5 months to vote for them, then they should be able to show progress within 1 year. 

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Quick question - are the studies they qoute in the video generally accepted as correct?

I haven't looked into it, but I doubt it. It strikes me as similar to the observation that height has no correlation with production among NBA players. It's statistically true, but it misses some important stuff (such as that height helps getting into the NBA in the first place).

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Another thought.

And I know this has actual accurate names for the idea and it's something that's been discussed for ages - how do folks feel about the idea of having (presumably) our best and most capable leaders making decisions for the population compared to putting every issue to a popular vote?

I think the U.S. Constitution strikes about the right balance. @Yankee23Fan might come quibble about the 17th Amendment.

 

[Juxtatarot]

I’m still trying to understand this voter voucher idea.  Does the government provide $100 (or whatever is decided) for each registered voter to be used for the campaigns of his/her choosing? National, state or local?  Would other forms of contributions be banned? 

One concern is fraud.  A group could offer someone $50 cash to use a voucher in a certain way.

 

[Juxtatarot]

I think Arnold Kling’s formulation is helpful. It’s still an oversimplification, but it fits about 98% of the time instead of the 65% that change vs. resisting change works. (Numbers I got from my derrière.)

Kling talks about different axes — that are orthogonal to each other — along which a given political issue can be analyzed.

The axis that conservatives emphasize is civilization versus barbarism. Conservatives favor civilization — they are wary of anything that can lead to chaos or unexpected danger. They are tough on crime, they fear the quick adoption of new social rules, they are wary of outsiders, etc.

The axis that liberals most care about is oppressors versus the oppressed. They side with the oppressed. This explains their different views from conservatives on things like mandatory minimum sentences, gay marriage, illegal immigration, etc.

(The axis that libertarians emphasize is liberty versus coercion.)

Kling doesn’t claim that the emphasis on different axes are causative. Conservatives don’t consciously start from an explicit analysis of civilization versus barbarism on a given issue and then deduce their position on, say, immigration from there. It’s merely correlative. But the correlation seems extremely strong, and an outside observer can do an excellent job of predicting what the conservative (or liberal or libertarian) position will be on a given subject by analyzing it in terms of those axes.

This makes a lot of sense to me.

Where do you view business regulation/deregulation on the civilization/barbarism axis?

 

[supermike80]

At first I was going to stop watching because who is Jennifer Lawrence..I generally reject celebrities lecturing me. They live in a world that does not come close to representing where the bulk of us normal Americans live.

However I did watch.  Fundamentally I agree with one point. The $$.  In the opening they said if 100% of people agree with a topic or 0% agree, the likelihood of passage is the same.  Soooooo that, to me, means automatic voter registration, and ending gerrymandering is a worthless exercise.  Special interests still control what gets passed.  And some would argue the American people have no business passing laws based on popular opinion because fundamentally we are not nuanced enough to understand it all(nuclear treaties anyone), or only concerned about ourselves, rather than the greater good.

They said something like 34% of people see them selves as independents..Polls like that need more meat.  Like the one that says 87% of people would vote for an anti corruption act.  Well sure.  I'm sure 87% of people would vote to have fresh water too.  As a rule, polls like that aren't worth much without knowing what was asked and how much information the person polled received.  

In the discussion about the 3 parts to the foundation, they mentioned corruption. And here was the detail behind it.  "Everyone is fed up about corruption."  Literally, that was all the time spent on 1/3 of the foundation for their platform.  No plan behind how we change that--this lecture was all about voters. 

I saw a lot of small, fairly go no where ideas about changing how we vote, who votes etc(even though they said that's a waste of time) but almost nothing on how we control the special interests money going into the candidates campaign funds outside of building a "movement" (whatever that means) on a state by state basis.

I mean yeah, I'm all for changing things up.  But if you don't go after the $$ then you have no chance of doing anything about it.  

And as a final thought, I do like watching Jennifer Lawrence walk around on my computer screen.

 

[Nathan R. Jessep]

Right, I'm using the fact that we have term limits on Presidents and it's resulted in an epic disaster as evidence that the broader idea of term limits is a bad one. They are just as likely to result in a downgrade as they are an upgrade. More likely in fact, once you account for the value of experience and the shrinking of the candidate pool and whatnot.

To me, what resulted in the epic disaster is precisely what this video is talking about. A broken system. 

 

[Nathan R. Jessep]

I don't have nearly the insight into whether or not something like this would work, but I wonder what would happen if we completely removed any party affiliation.  Abolish political parties completely.  Very few people are 100% on one side vs the other anyway.  Then there's no need to follow any party lines.  You vote/legislate as you campaigned and as your constituents want you to.  I know it'll never happen, but....

Are you spying on me? I had a conversation a couple of weeks ago and  I brought up 2 points. 1) how terrible the two-party system had become  and 2) voting without any reference to political party, and perhaps even without names, would completely change the game.  You know, where people would actually have to inform themselves on issues and policies rather than just voting the party, or voting for who mom and dad voted for.  And yeah, I know it'll never happen. 

I saw this video last week and found it quite intriguing, and immediately wondered how the FFA pundits might pick it apart.   Glad to see that it did have some legit merit.

 

[gianmarco]

Are you spying on me? I had a conversation a couple of weeks ago and  I brought up 2 points. 1) how terrible the two-party system had become  and 2) voting without any reference to political party, and perhaps even without names, would completely change the game.  You know, where people would actually to inform themselves on issues and policies rather than just voting the party, or voting for who mom and dad voted for.  And yeah, I know it'll never happen. 

I saw this video last week and found it quite intriguing, and immediately wondered how the FFA pundits might pick it apart.   Glad to see that it did have some legit merit.

:hugz: