Waaaaaaaaaay off topic now

32 minutes ago, Cpt ObVus said:

America would also be in a significantly better place if our politics were based more on a parliamentary system, with more than two political parties. The two party system leads to an endless us-v-them partisanship which at best makes it difficult to get anything done, and at worst leads to half the country almost literally hating the other because their fundamental values are systematically violated by the other side. If we were broken up into numerous smaller political factions that actually were forced to build coalitions and cooperate in order to get anything done, the democracy would be far healthier.

There also needs to be a more direct democratic system installed here, where the votes of the populace aren’t filtered through party committees and delegates and electoral colleges. The DNC is developing a pattern of suppressing progressive candidates in favor of establishment moderates, and Republicans haven’t actually won a popular presidential vote in decades, yet somehow they “win” about half the elections.

Honestly, I’m pretty sure the whole thing ought to be leveled and overhauled and rebooted, with some lessons learned.

Except a parliamentary system that requires the formation of coalitions gives much greater influence to radical parties, who need a much smaller voting bloc to merit a seat at the bargaining table. The US 2-party system forces each party to moderate and play to the middle, which is good for stability and incremental change.

Further, the US system has too much “direct democracy” as it is (we need to go back to appointing, rather than electing, senators). A prudent, stable government needs to balance accountability and representation with sober judgement. And “the people” are never a good bastion of sober judgement.

Recommended reading:

Reflections on the Revolution in France

The Federalist Papers

History of the Peloponnesian War (mainly for analysis of Athenian leadership and politics)

The Old Regime and the French Revolution

Yes I’m a firm believer that broad church, power fo powers sake parties need to be broken into small parties that more directly represent a specific world view.

The problem in the U.K is the first passed the post system. Our democracy is predicated on two parties, the winner taking all ( as far as forming the executive goes) and a formal strong single opposition party.

The other issue is the Bizarre fallacy that plays out in which you are voting for an individual and not a party. But everyone votes for the persons party whatever the individual, even if they are a horror show of a local MP placed in a safe seat by the party as they are a power player in party politics.

4 hours ago, Drasnighta said:
Australia Requires you to *Turn up to Vote*, take the Voting Slip, and attend a Booth.

Nothing is said about actually filling out a slip in any way.

Spoiling your ballot is illegal - but since it’s a secret ballot no one can be prosecuted.

Telling others to spoil their ballot is also illegal and can be prosecuted.

@GhostofNobodyInParticular - even if you don’t absolutely support any candidate absolutely are you really suggesting that you have not even a slight preference one way or the other? Remember, under this system a congressional election might have a dozen candidates - from eco left to far right to centrist weirdoes. If you have no preference at that level perhaps you should run.

29 minutes ago, LTD said:

Spoiling your ballot is illegal - but since it’s a secret ballot no one can be prosecuted.

Telling others to spoil their ballot is also illegal and can be prosecuted.

@GhostofNobodyInParticular - even if you don’t absolutely support any candidate absolutely are you really suggesting that you have not even a slight preference one way or the other? Remember, under this system a congressional election might have a dozen candidates - from eco left to far right to centrist weirdoes. If you have no preference at that level perhaps you should run.

... Even if I explicitly did that, I’d have to be extradited first....

29 minutes ago, LTD said:

even if you don’t absolutely support any candidate absolutely are you really suggesting that you have not even a slight preference one way or the other?

I can't speak for Australia, but there are Americans who are like this, defiantly so. Probably not enough to poison the idea; the increased power of misinformation is more of a concern.

Mandatory voting is probably better than 60% turnout, but I generally don't believe in "answers" for a political system, only varying degrees of effectiveness.

55 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

... Even if I explicitly did that, I’d have to be extradited first....

If you ever wanted to come home, now is the time!

(Jk - I know you have to stick it out with the Yukon crew)

@The Jabbawookie I agree. But higher levels of effectiveness are solutions. I’m ultimately waiting for the parousia and the implementation of a libertarian theocracy, but in the meantime I’ll settle for enforceable representative democracy.

1 hour ago, LTD said:

@GhostofNobodyInParticular - even if you don’t absolutely support any candidate absolutely are you really suggesting that you have not even a slight preference one way or the other? Remember, under this system a congressional election might have a dozen candidates - from eco left to far right to centrist weirdoes. If you have no preference at that level perhaps you should run.

No, I imagine there may be a slight leaning one way or the other. However, that doesn't mean much. If you think, of several candidates, that one will make a slightly smaller yet still large mess of things, that still means there is a large mess of things being made. Why vote for the mess-makers? Not voting is itself a vote, in that it is a vote of no-confidence in the candidates. Thus, forcing people to vote is forcing them to do something against their better judgement. There are many reasons for not voting. One can be apathy, sure, but another can be a political action in and of itself, so shouldn't it be respected?

Yes, but to prove it isn’t apathy you need to turn up, even if not to vote.

31 minutes ago, LTD said:

Yes, but to prove it isn’t apathy you need to turn up, even if not to vote.

Why must you prove it?

7 minutes ago, GhostofNobodyInParticular said:

No, I imagine there may be a slight leaning one way or the other. However, that doesn't mean much. If you think, of several candidates, that one will make a slightly smaller yet still large mess of things, that still means there is a large mess of things being made. Why vote for the mess-makers? Not voting is itself a vote, in that it is a vote of no-confidence in the candidates. Thus, forcing people to vote is forcing them to do something against their better judgement. There are many reasons for not voting. One can be apathy, sure, but another can be a political action in and of itself, so shouldn't it be respected?

My personal lord and savior, the late Great George Carlin, was a brilliant comedian, champion of free speech, and had a hilarious comedy routine wherein he declared that voting in the U.S. was meaningless:

I have eternal respect for George Carlin and truly believe he was the greatest person whose life spanned the 20th and 21st centuries; however, I don't agree with him that voting is meaningless. That's why I've voted in every election since I reached voting age and will continue to vote in the future.

It's true that the U.S. is, essentially, a two-party system because a viable third-party has never emerged in American politics. However, a non-vote "vote" never counts. It doesn't matter if you believe voting contributes to the problem or the whole system is rigged. A non-vote is basically taking your hands off the steering wheel while driving a car. Other people might steer that car safely down the road or drive that car off a cliff, but you chose to do nothing either way.

There are more than 2 candidates in virtually every election for a political office (for any district with a meaningfully large population). You don't have to vote for a Democrat or Republican; you can vote for a third-party candidate, if you choose, and express your dissatisfaction for the two main political parties that way. Even if you are essentially throwing your vote away, you are actively participating in the democratic process. It's the principle that matters, not the result.

I personally subscribe to the Diaper Theory of Democracy: Politicians are like diapers; they should be changed often and for the same reason.

That is why I always vote against the incumbent candidate in every election. I believe that every politician is inherently and irredeemably corrupt; therefore, as long as we choose to have a Representative Democratic system of government, we must mitigate every elected politician's corruption by limiting them to a single term in office. No exceptions, ever.

Conveniently, there is a political party that aligns with my beliefs and values, which, tragically, has never been elected to political office of any significance -- and might never be in my lifetime. 🌎 This enables me to reconcile my beliefs with my voting philosophy.

That said, I must admit that I am Canadian, and for better or worse, the stakes of our elections, even our federal elections, aren't as high as in the U.S. If I was an American citizen, I would absolutely vote for one of the two main political parties over the other, because as bad as they are, the other party is objectively and factually worse. So the decision is basically between punching myself in the balls or pressing the self-destruct button on Earth...

... Or, just kick back in a lounge chair, crack open a beer, and get drunk while watching funny YouTube videos on my smartphone, while the world burns.

I may be a Cynic, but I'm not an a**hole.

Wow.... this kinda got out of hand.

Just want to apologize for starting conflict, I know now more than ever is not the time for it. I originally posted this because in the struggle not to become bogged down with depression of the overwhelming news I thought what I saw as a glimmer of hope might not only help me, but help other people who are struggling too. When you live in times of great uncertainty, all you can do is do your best, and hope. And even if most people would criticize foolish belief, I look to Gandalf, who famously said, "There was never much hope. Just a fool's hope."

I hope everybody is safe and well. My thoughts are with you all.

20 minutes ago, Reavern said:

It's true that the U.S. is, essentially, a two-party system because a viable third-party has never emerged in American politics.

That has only been the case since after the 1860s, I believe. Certainly, at least 4 parties existed before then. I do not recall how long afterwards they may have continued for.

20 minutes ago, Reavern said:

However, a non-vote "vote" never counts. It doesn't matter if you believe voting contributes to the problem or the whole system is rigged. A non-vote is basically taking your hands off the steering wheel while driving a car. Other people might steer that car safely down the road or drive that car off a cliff, but you chose to do nothing either way.

There are more than 2 candidates in virtually every election for a political office (for any district with a meaningfully large population). You don't have to vote for a Democrat or Republican; you can vote for a third-party candidate, if you choose, and express your dissatisfaction for the two main political parties that way. Even if you are essentially throwing your vote away, you are actively participating in the democratic process. It's the principle that matters, not the result.

That assumes one does not also want to express one's dissatisfaction with the 3rd party. Which, if the case, returns one to the original problem - no matter how many candidates there are, if they are all problematic, why vote for them?

20 minutes ago, Reavern said:

I personally subscribe to the Diaper Theory of Democracy: Politicians are like diapers; they should be changed often and for the same reason.

Given the above, there is the consideration that nobody who runs for office is worthy of it, so why give it to them? If it is the principle that counts, would not sticking by them by not voting for a fundamentally disagreeable candidate be preferable to voting for voting's sake? In which case, naturally, there would be nobody elected to office, which indicates a fundamental flaw in the system of government, that one cannot elect those who do not run, and doesn't wish to elect those who do.

7 minutes ago, Battlefleet 01 Studios said:

Wow.... this kinda got out of hand.

Just want to apologize for starting conflict, I know now more than ever is not the time for it. I originally posted this because in the struggle not to become bogged down with depression of the overwhelming news I thought what I saw as a glimmer of hope might not only help me, but help other people who are struggling too. When you live in times of great uncertainty, all you can do is do your best, and hope. And even if most people would criticize foolish belief, I look to Gandalf, who famously said, "There was never much hope. Just a fool's hope."

I hope everybody is safe and well. My thoughts are with you all.

I’m sorry, but I’m going to ask you to stay on topic.

12 minutes ago, GhostofNobodyInParticular said:

That assumes one does not also want to express one's dissatisfaction with the 3rd party. Which, if the case, returns one to the original problem - no matter how many candidates there are, if they are all problematic, why vote for them?

The most obvious solution that you've overlooked is running for political office yourself and voting for yourself.

But that would obviously conflict with your real objective: doing nothing.

3 minutes ago, Reavern said:

The most obvious solution that you've overlooked is running for political office yourself and voting for yourself.

But that would obviously conflict with your real objective: doing nothing.

There is also the issue of one not trusting one's self to run a country.

Just now, Reavern said:

The most obvious solution that you've overlooked is running for political office yourself and voting for yourself.

But that would obviously conflict with your real objective: doing nothing.

It's entirely possible they know they lack the necessary experience. Even if that's not the case, a lot of people are either unable to do so without jeopardizing their livelihoods from the time investment, or are straight-up unelectable for any number of reasons.

Then there are anarchists, who object to the premise.

I would consider the most obvious solution to be voting for a write-in candidate (alright, technically that could be yourself); it doesn't carry the consequences of losing a campaign.

34 minutes ago, GhostofNobodyInParticular said:

There is also the issue of one not trusting one's self to run a country.

I don’t think we are out of hand. I am only reading these in a positive way - even GNIPs sad sacking is just GNIPs being GNIPs.

A pleasant conversation between friends.

That said, @The Jabbawookie is wrong and everything he stands for is abhorrent.

16 minutes ago, LTD said:

That said, @The Jabbawookie is wrong and everything he stands for is abhorrent.

42 minutes ago, Piratical Moustache said:

On the topic of multiple parties in the USA prior to 1860, this is more or less correct. The Democrats were the dominant party. The Whigs were in collapse, and the know-nothings were a true "America First" party that opposed Catholic immigration. The Republicans rose out of the ashes of the Whigs (Abe Lincoln was a Whig Congressman), and incorporated a lot of know-nothings. The Republican platform in 1860 included higher tariffs in order to protect US industry.

There were four major candidates for President in 1860, but only because the Democrats couldn't agree on a Candidate and split three ways. Idea for an alternative history novel: Stephen Douglas is the ONLY Democratic candidate in 1860, wins the election against Lincoln, and it ends up being the North that secedes... What happens next? Go!

45 minutes ago, LTD said:

There were four major candidates for President in 1860, but only because the Democrats couldn't agree on a Candidate and split three ways. Idea for an alternative history novel: Stephen Douglas is the ONLY Democratic candidate in 1860, wins the election against Lincoln, and it ends up being the North that secedes... What happens next? Go!

Same thing as real life, the North wins, because of their larger population and massive lead in industrialization.

Just now, ianediger said:

Same thing as real life, the North wins, because of their larger population and massive lead in industrialization.

Perhaps. But without the motivation? The North kept fighting because they were peeved at the South seceding. They certainly weren't in it for abolition (or at least not a sufficient majority).

10 minutes ago, LTD said:

Perhaps. But without the motivation? The North kept fighting because they were peeved at the South seceding. They certainly weren't in it for abolition (or at least not a sufficient majority).

True, I guess it'd depend on outside backing. If another country, say, Britain or France, supported the South, it could galvanize the North to continue fighting as they'd see it as an outsider interfering in "family business".

I just want to say, for my part, that I absolutely am taking this as an interesting and mostly idle conversation. I was a philosophy major in college; I find this sort of intellectual roundabout relaxing and strangely reassuring. People are still people.

I’m also old enough to have learned that if it starts getting upsetting, I can just show myself out. I would encourage anyone who finds this sort of thing (either in general, or in this specific case) to do the same.

I think, given the times, it’s inevitable that some politics and current events talk might bleed into even our plastic spaceship forums, and I’m personally okay with it, if we can confine it to this one particular thread, and it remains civil... which it seems to have, so far.

Getting back to it, the great Douglas Adams once said something to the effect of, “On no account should anyone who wants to be in charge be allowed to have the job,” and unfortunately, this is true in all but very rare cases. I think one of the problems that comes with political office is that, overwhelmingly, those who end up in power also tend to end up forgetting what ought to be a fundamental truth: that they are performing a SERVICE to the people they represent. They ought not be in office to command, so much as to aid and guide. In America, politicians have far too much access to wealth and power, and it is (usually) irredeemably corrupting.