Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I've heard that you can report your illegal revenue to the IRS and they won't even bother reporting you because you paid your taxes and thus they no longer care about what you do. That's how single-minded they are.

Of course, it may not be true.

[Lagslayer]

If the revenue is illegal, can't they confiscate it? Suddenly jumps from 10% or whatever to 100%.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

No, the courts have ruled that income being illegal does not mean that special tax rulings such as that are applied to it. The courts have stated that if that were the intention of the tax code Congress would have created legislation for that, and they haven't.

[Reelya]

As I've said in the past, I'm a big fan of IRV or Alternative Vote (AV) as it's known here in the UK, and actively campaigned for it in the (failed) referendum last year.

I also don't think it's an especially good idea in the US. Certainly not in isolation.

If you did a straight replacement of the current FPTP system with and AV system would see more votes for third parties, but not much actual change in their profile. You would not see many - if any - more seats won, and probably not much in the way of attention paid to the third parties in the first place.

For the USA, I'd say you want to spend more effort on growing third parties. That suggests to me one of two methods;

1) Move to a strongly proportional multi-member system. This is the only way I can imagine Green and/or Libertarians getting anywhere near the House. As Nadaka says, you would need some legal changes to make this work. My preference for such a system would be Single Transferable Vote (STV), which is just a multi-seat version of IRV/AV, and just as easy to use.

2) Move to a public finance system where parties are financially rewarded for their election performance, in partnership with a move to an AV system.

Basically you create a funding pool for elections, with a minimum amount distributed to each candidate. Candidates running for parties that entered the previous election are then eligible for more money from the pool related to the first choice votes they received in the previous election.

Actually, I'm in Australia where we have IRV, but we call it Preferential voting here. Third parties become much more important, because each party hands out "how to vote" pamphlets at the polls, with their suggested preference order. Lot's of people follow the ordering of their favorite parties (sheeple, i know), which makes minor party support strategically important, even if they don't win.

The larger parties will incorporate policies from aligned minor parties in order to secure their "preferences", e.g. they encourage their supporters to select candidates in an order which has some strategic benefit. Using that, the Greens party here for example has been able to have a good deal of influence on the Labor party's environmental policies.

Australian Parliament is bicameral, with a house of Representatives, 1 member per electorate elected by IRV and a senate which is proportional by state (multi-member basically), and uses a modified version of IRV. The senate always has a number of minor parties and independents, often holding the balance of power between the two main parties.

[Dsarker]

And don't forget that one of the larger parties is a coalition of two parties proper!

[Reelya]

they mostly act as one party though, but with overt "Town Mouse" and "Country Mouse" factions.

[palsch]

The larger parties will incorporate policies from aligned minor parties in order to secure their "preferences", e.g. they encourage their supporters to select candidates in an order which has some strategic benefit. Using that, the Greens party here for example has been able to have a good deal of influence on the Labor party's environmental policies.

I just don't see this happening or mattering in the USA.

In the end the polarisation and lack of third parties on the national stage will reduce every election to the binary choice of GOP or Democratic, no matter what the few marginalised third parties have to say about it. IRV/AV/PV alone doesn't do much to change that because it doesn't do much to offer those third parties actual influence or power that the major parties need to take account of.

Again, it's a great (single candidate) system, but falls down when there is such a strong binary party system.

[Descan]

Isn't... that what we're talking about? Different systems the US could implement to mitigate the two-party system...?

[palsch]

Isn't... that what we're talking about? Different systems the US could implement to mitigate the two-party system...?

Yes, and my point is that AV/IRV/PV alone wouldn't mitigate the system. That it's a great way to hold elections, but on it's own does nothing substantial to promote third parties and that supporting it for that reason is misguided. Not that there aren't other reasons to support it, but my own view of the matter is it only really comes into its own in a system that already has multiple viable parties.

Look at the post Reelya originally replied to to see my own proposals. And there is a current discussion of STV over in the election thread.

[da_nang]

Good news, everyone! Update on the NDAA.

[palsch]

Good news, everyone! Update on the NDAA.

Don't get excited. That's not likely to last.

Everything I've seen about this suggest that the judge made some extremely perplexing mistakes and decisions.

1) While she states that, "[t]he government has not stated that such conduct ... does not fall within § 1021(b)(2)," this is only because she rejected such a statement. The government did make a narrow statement (referring only to the conduct described in the court findings) after the preliminary injunction. She only took into account the lack of a statement before that first ruling, ignoring their later (and actual) position.

2) She largely ignores DC circuit precedent. While the DC rulings are not binding on her court, they do define the current state of detention law as applicable to the AUMF. Given the government's main argument was that the current AUMF detention authority -as shaped by DC case law - is functionally identical to the NDAA detention authority, her ignoring DC court rulings is dismissing the government case by definition.

3) The few DC court rulings she does mention seem to have been read wrongly. Take this example.

4) She completely ignores the Feinstein Amendment, which states;

    Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

Again, this was the government's position in the case, directly written into the law in question. Her dismissal of this section was without any good justification.

5) Her ruling isn't especially clear as to it's extent. The government, as policy, views AUMF and NDAA detention as functionally identical. Does striking down one and saying people can't be detained under the NDAA also mean people can't be detained under the AUMF, or does it mean that people can be detained in exactly the same (supposedly unconstitutional) manner under the previously tested and judicially described AUMF detention scheme? She doesn't address this at all.

There is more, but I'm off for booze.

[SalmonGod]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[scriver]

Hehe, "Occupy [Our Own Event]"
Or maybe that's the joke. I'd be there if I was a New Yorker, anyway. It's strange that they didn't get any Big big names, though, I seem to recall a few that was sympathetic to the cause last year. Possible they didn't want them, of course.

I do hope they got permission for this one, though. Unlike protests, a completely unspontaneous, loud festival would actually be all right for the police to put down, and given the track record, I'm not sure the NYPD wouldn't jump on the chance to deliver a handful of unwarranted violence while they're at it. I'm keeping the old Ebba Grön song "We're Only In It For the Drugs" on hold.

...No, it's not about drugs, it's about the Man clamping down on the early Punk movement (,maaan). The only reference to drugs is in the first lines.

[SalmonGod]

Tom Morello's a very big name, but he's the only one I recognize.

Edit:

Remember the cop in Florida who sparked a massive debate a few months back, because he tazed a girl as she was running away and put her in a coma?  Now he's shot an innocent man, and this apparently isn't the first time.

[Techhead]

I thought I recognized Tom Morello, but then I realized I was thinking for Ryan Scott.

EDIT: I am so very sorry.