politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
They way to fix things is voting reform. But it can't be just any reform.
We have to ditch Ordinal voting systems. Every single one of them leads to some degree of two party dominance, with voters having to prioritize strategy over their own needs, because not doing so means they will be actively punished.
Cardinal systems are the only way to escape. Strategic voting becomes less necessary and less impactful.
My current favorite system is STAR. It takes all the great ideas of the best cardinal voting system (Score) and adds in an automatic runoff that greatly reduces the impact of clone candidate attacks.
the only voting system i endorse is consent-and-consensus
Do you mean something like Approval?
https://electowiki.org/wiki/Greatest_possible_consensus_winner
Approval would vastly improve things, but has some drawbacks. Score is like Approval, but a bit more so, and then STAR takes Score and adds to it again to be an even better system.
The systems above all break two party dominance, or rather they make it impossible to enforce two party dominance. Ordinal systems on the other hand, all fall victim to Arrow's theorem, and thus reinforce two-party dominance.
no, i mean total consensus.
So unanimous consensus? As in, something akin to expecting the tooth fairy to come wipe for you? There's no such system.
The closest thing is called Approval, and even with that system, there will be people who go away unhappy. Just far fewer of them than under any other voting system,
Perfect consensus only happen if there are dozens or even hundreds of people running for office, and only then if the voters have perfect knowledge of every candidate.
lots of groups practice consensus.
Small groups. Not large nations.
That's the key difference. A tiny group of people can reach consensus, a large group literally cannot. Not when electing a representative, or even setting policy through direct voting.
>large nations.
>electing a representative, or even setting policy through direct voting.
i don't like those things.
Ah, a libertarian house cat.
That always ends.
baby, i'm an anarchist
The origins of the word libertarian were actually closest to being anarchist. But that shit doesn't work.
The whole, no government just neighbors who talk to each other sounds great on paper, but fails the second the community has more than about 150 people.
There's a reason why Amish and Mennonite communities formally split at 150 people. Because our brains cannot handle it.
>The origins of the word libertarian were actually closest to being anarchist.
"libertarian socialists", yea. it's great that you mentioned the amish but you didn't finish explaining why they are relevant: anabaptists are the majority of christian anarchists.
Again, you cannot have anything like an anarchist paradise because there are too many people. Full stop.
Tiny communities who separate themselves away from everyday society can sort of do it, but they either have to go to extreme lengths to not integrate or they are completely dependent on the larger society. Just like house cats, who wouldn't know what a mouse is if one crawled across their nose.
All because of Dunbar's number and our brains not being able to maintain anything like a community larger than about 150 people. And that's with roughly 40% of a given person's social energy actively devoted to maintaining those 150 relationships.
Saying that you'll only accept that sort of "governance" is exactly like saying that you'll only accept Bigfoot as president. The response to both are the exact same.
>you cannot have anything like an anarchist paradise because there are too many people. Full stop.
except every time there has been
Name some that had communities of more than 150 people. I'll wait because you cannot.
why do they need more than 150 people? but if you insist, you can look into northern madagascar or exarcheia
Greece and Madagascar are both places with actual governments...
That doesn't help your brain-dead arguments at all. And again, the 150 people mark is due to the very structure of your brain. It cannot handle anything more than 150 relationships.
That's you, me, and every living human on the planet. 150 is the mean maximum number of social relationships that anyone can have.
To get around this maximum number of relationships and still get things done, we as a species invented organization and governance.
If you try to run a community without taking this physiological limitation into account, your community will fail. Sometimes to bears.
ignoring evidence against your position indicates a lack of intellectual honesty. are you moving the goalposts toward your very own no-true-scotsman?
I've been very upfront about the 150 number. You've just been too caught up in your make believe world of nonsense to notice.
i cited two societies that passed it, but you found some other reason to dismiss them. if that's not moving the goal posts or setting up a no-true-scotsman then i guess i should get a refund for my degree.
Two that you claim rule by consensus, but two places that, in fact, do not.
Both places have actual national governments and hold actual elections.
those societies don't recognize the rule of the people you claim rule them.
House cats don't recognize their owners ruling over them, but they're 100% dependent regardless.
And that's what you remind me of the most, a house cat who has never eaten anything except the food put into your bowl, but completely convinced that you're the best hunter in the world, not understanding anything about where the food comes from or how any of it actually works.
>And that's what you remind me of the most, a house cat
dehumanizing me indicates that this has gone beyond mere insults, and undercut any claims you might have to intellectual honesty or moral highground.
the bar for your apology has risen significantly, and you've already indicated you wouldn't meet a much lower standard.
You are obsessed with an apology that you will never get.
I've not directly insulted you, but have repeatedly insulted your narrow ideas of governance, but if that's all you are, then you might need hobbies.
calling the freedom fighters of exarcheia or the sheep farmers of madagascar "house cats" who depend on others to feed them is dehumanizing and inaccurate. they fought for every inch of land and every scrap of food.
Squatters and farmers, both are dependent on the larger societies around them, even if they outwardly claim otherwise.
Don't get me wrong, squatting is cool as fuck, but even when sticking it to the man, you're still dependent on his world.
Hell, Exarcheia even goes against your own picture of a perfect society, they used a form of direct democracy with actual voting on policy.
Policy that was enforced throughout the camps.
Circling back to farmers, again, you hit that 150-person limit on community size without some form of policy abstraction. i.e. some form, any form, of governance and policy.
i'll accept your apologies for insulting me.
And I'll not do that.
Although I do sort of feel like I'm arguing with a child obsessed with Santa Claus while I'm pointing out that the North Pole is fucking melting.
more insults
You have fairly thin skin. Although the second was closer to an actual insult than the first. The first was calling your argument stupid. As in, it is, me telling you to do better.
The second was saying that I feel like I'm arguing with someone whose arguments so far are akin to believing in Santa Claus. Closer to an actual insult, but still not making it personal or actually attacking you.
i'll accept your apologies
And you'll not get them, because your arguments so far have been stupid. Do better.
>Saying that you'll only accept that sort of "governance" is exactly like saying that you'll only accept Bigfoot as president.
no. i wouldn't accept bigfoot as president. we should destroy the office of the presidency.
The response is, go sit at the little table, the adults are talking.