Democracy is great — when it works, which is far less often than advertised. The history of U.S. war policy since World War I ended has largely been attempts to clean up the mess from failed democracies. And we are well on the way of becoming a failed democracy ourselves.
The Constitution has no provision for Social Security, Medicare, or a federal war on drugs.
Well duh - The founders didn't consider it government's job to take care of people ever. They gave us life, liberty, property, and happiness, in the idea that we would take care of ourselves.
Why should the government give me money for retirement or medical care, or care about drugs? Each of those fall on individuals. That's why the founders didn't even want a standing army. Each state was supposed to take care of itself, and the DC crowd were only there for wars and peace treaties.
Consider this: The states made peace with the natives and didn't have many problems. Then the central DC bunch took over and broke treaties right and left.
If you want the government to provide for your retirement, your medical care, or your drug war, then get ready for the same government to deny you those things if you don't toe the line.
The usual solution pushed by third party advocates is Ranked Choice voting —
Hell no. Alaska tried that and lost a senate seat because the people didn't know how to choose a runner up. The first across the line should win, and if there's a run-off needed, then it should be done.
As for elections, we need to keep the press out of election cycle and let all the votes be counted.
Political parties would still exist. They could fund their own primaries or hold caucuses and conventions to decide whom to back. But it would then be up to party members to show up and vote -- and have enough discipline to abide by their caucus' decision.
I think Political parties should die. Each candidate should stand on his own, including paying for his election shit. The fedgov shouldn't be doing that. Why should my tax money go to some politico making 100k a year? let him fund his own campaign.
But if the U.S. is going to do nation-building, let's do it right.
How about not at all. What works here doesn't work in Afghanistan, or Russia, or Yemen. It barely works here.
Look man, I'm a voting systems geek myself, but this is way downstream from the real issue: physical security of the votes. That is the issue of the times, not range vs STV (STV of course, but eh)
The turnover rate of Congress is TINY. The opposition candidates are often perfunctory.
The party of Drill Baby Drill cannot win in most college towns. A party of Let's Be Serious about energy can. You may prefer Drill Baby Drill, so stick with that in South Dakota. But to have truly contested elections on the Left Coast you need something different.
Less Bad is important.
And competition between parties which are equally bad is still better than no competition. You get people watching the process and exposing corruption.
The Constitution has no provision for Social Security, Medicare, or a federal war on drugs.
Well duh - The founders didn't consider it government's job to take care of people ever. They gave us life, liberty, property, and happiness, in the idea that we would take care of ourselves.
Why should the government give me money for retirement or medical care, or care about drugs? Each of those fall on individuals. That's why the founders didn't even want a standing army. Each state was supposed to take care of itself, and the DC crowd were only there for wars and peace treaties.
Consider this: The states made peace with the natives and didn't have many problems. Then the central DC bunch took over and broke treaties right and left.
If you want the government to provide for your retirement, your medical care, or your drug war, then get ready for the same government to deny you those things if you don't toe the line.
The usual solution pushed by third party advocates is Ranked Choice voting —
Hell no. Alaska tried that and lost a senate seat because the people didn't know how to choose a runner up. The first across the line should win, and if there's a run-off needed, then it should be done.
As for elections, we need to keep the press out of election cycle and let all the votes be counted.
Political parties would still exist. They could fund their own primaries or hold caucuses and conventions to decide whom to back. But it would then be up to party members to show up and vote -- and have enough discipline to abide by their caucus' decision.
I think Political parties should die. Each candidate should stand on his own, including paying for his election shit. The fedgov shouldn't be doing that. Why should my tax money go to some politico making 100k a year? let him fund his own campaign.
But if the U.S. is going to do nation-building, let's do it right.
How about not at all. What works here doesn't work in Afghanistan, or Russia, or Yemen. It barely works here.
> , we need to keep the press out of election cycle
Ok, so we abolished the First amendment then.
Look man, I'm a voting systems geek myself, but this is way downstream from the real issue: physical security of the votes. That is the issue of the times, not range vs STV (STV of course, but eh)
Come on m8, more suspicious than 4am dumps caught on camera?
We're past election now, or at least for the foreseeable future.
Every bit of error correction helps.
And as I wrote before, you get LOCAL candidates keeping an eye on things. That is, people who actually live in the now corrupt districts.
So, you think congressional elections are all peaches now? You do have local candidates with the backing of a national party, after all.
The turnover rate of Congress is TINY. The opposition candidates are often perfunctory.
The party of Drill Baby Drill cannot win in most college towns. A party of Let's Be Serious about energy can. You may prefer Drill Baby Drill, so stick with that in South Dakota. But to have truly contested elections on the Left Coast you need something different.
Less Bad is important.
And competition between parties which are equally bad is still better than no competition. You get people watching the process and exposing corruption.