Print

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

[MaximumZero]

We could always a) get our politicians to take clear stances on things, b) compile those stances into an easy to read, colorful brochure, and c) then mail them en masse to houses.

Okay, yeah, a) will never happen, but a man can dream, right?

[Frumple]

It's a beautiful dream, MZ. Gave me this momentary vision of politicians not only having to have clear stances, but also having a logic style proof of their reasoning behind it, with a minimum number of sources and peer review for logic inconsistencies. I'd love to be able to see something like that, a clear cut premise->conclusion by way of the laws of logic manifesto* alongside plain language descriptions of the position.

Never going to happen, but damn, it'd be beautiful.

*E: I'm suddenly curious if someone's ever done something like that to a press release or whatev'. Would probably be hilariously pitiful.

[MaximumZero]

We should make it a law that all politicians must have actual beliefs or non-beliefs or apathy or whatever about the positions they're taking, and that they have to be honest about them. Then again, getting all of the politicians to be honest would take a lot of facepunching. I'm pretty sure I don't want to wear my arms down to nubs.

[Frumple]

Could re-purpose those rail-road spike driving machines for facepunching. Put a boxing glove or something at the end of a spike.

Or just hire people on rotation for the facepunching. It'd probably take long enough and involve such volume of facial fisticuffs that we'd be able to employ at least a couple thousand people.

And hey! Job creation. Who knew

Though we'd need a population of dishonest politicians to keep people employed, I guess. Kinda' like the private prison stuff, just with, uh. Politicians. Or something. We'll go with that.

[G-Flex]

Well, we already do in a lot of cases. Many felons, for one. Folks that can't afford to get to the voting booths or understand (/afford to do) distance voting. People that don't know how to find out when the voting occurs. Etc., so forth. And honestly, at least in the states, a small pre-vote quiz would probably knock a lot of well educated people out of voting eligibility, too; strictly partisan voters who know nothing of the opposition or who they're voting for, ferex.

If they know nothing of the opposition or who they're voting for, then in this context they're hardly "well-educated" even if they are in a more general sense.

Also: Those examples you listed are unfortunate aspects and limitations of the system. The system is generally designed to be as accessible as possible, which is why long-distance voting is even a thing.

I'unno, I just can't help but see a mandatory voting system degenerating to the degree that everyone that's not voting now doing the voting equivalent of "Just answer C on everything." That wouldn't help the democratic process at all. There'd either need to be some kind of check for basic understanding or very strong social pressures toward informed voting.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of mandatory voting at all. However, I'm even less a fan of limiting people's right to vote.

[Montague]

I don't know, because a reasonable person might assert an opinion untill somebody explains why they are wrong or they otherwise question the validity of their opinion. It's why politicians like to flip-flop on issues and why they tend to behave more moderate and compromise more once they are actually elected. I think the US system is designed to do that, with everyone reaching a reasoned compromise or only agreeing on nessicary actions, while shooting down each other's more ideological or extreme legislation. Is basically why the system is actually sort of broken right now, with parties refusing to cooperate on anything.

So really, an uncompromising, completely consistant politician is only a good thing if they happen to be exactly correct with every stance they take or otherwise that politician will be ineffective, because everything he does will just be countered by the opposition and he'll just spend his term trying to shoot down everyone else's ideas. Sort of how I imagine Ron Paul to do if he was president. He'd sit there and veto everything that reached his desk and congress would kill everything else.

Also, mandatory voting is probably a bad idea. Mandatory education for voting would be to controversial, since people would claim it would be biased to one party or another and maybe it discriminates against dumb people or something.

I'd just make the polls open on Saturday, or make it a national holiday on a friday. More people would vote if they had the time.

[mainiac]

"None of the above"

Before discussing limitations of a system in the abstract sense, it's a good idea to look at the international experience and figure out if someone figured out the answer to your problem a century before you were born.

[MaximumZero]

I don't know, because a reasonable person might assert an opinion untill somebody explains why they are wrong or they otherwise question the validity of their opinion. It's why politicians like to flip-flop on issues and why they tend to behave more moderate and compromise more once they are actually elected. I think the US system is designed to do that, with everyone reaching a reasoned compromise or only agreeing on nessicary actions, while shooting down each other's more ideological or extreme legislation. Is basically why the system is actually sort of broken right now, with parties refusing to cooperate on anything.

So really, an uncompromising, completely consistant politician is only a good thing if they happen to be exactly correct with every stance they take or otherwise that politician will be ineffective, because everything he does will just be countered by the opposition and he'll just spend his term trying to shoot down everyone else's ideas. Sort of how I imagine Ron Paul to do if he was president. He'd sit there and veto everything that reached his desk and congress would kill everything else.

The thing about politicians, at least here in the states, is that the vast majority are doing nothing more than pandering to the public to get votes. They don't have more than a couple consistent values apiece, and even those are subject to change at essentially random and with no explanation. There is no, "So, someone explained this whole 'womens rights' thing to me, and I understand it a little more clearly now. I'm changing my stance on abortion because of it." No, they just say one thing in one place if it's popular, another in the next place to grab votes there, and go back and forth like a reciprocal saw. This country needs leaders, not people with ethics straight out of a Groucho Marx quote: "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." The reason that I'm for political leaders actually adhering to this is that yes, the politics of this country are, at this time, built entirely on compromise. However, you have to have a reasonably solid starting place before you can come to any reasonable compromise.

[ed boy]

We could always a) get our politicians to take clear stances on things, b) compile those stances into an easy to read, colorful brochure, and c) then mail them en masse to houses.

We should make it a law that all politicians must have actual beliefs or non-beliefs or apathy or whatever about the positions they're taking, and that they have to be honest about them.

That would require lots of candidates to present a simplified version of their beliefs, and would result in pretty much everyone being misrepresented in many ways.

[MaximumZero]

These are people who give hours upon hours of speeches. Why would they have to give anything but full disclosure? Also, we live in an age of ridiculously easy information gathering. We could put up a website with a shitload of links to youtube with each speech attached to each article. Sure, some people may go off the handbook alone, but you could always asterisk stances that may require more explanation.

[mainiac]

This sounds like an idea to achieve parliamentary results but in a roundabout, unreliable fashion.  If you want to vote for a slate of positions then why not vote directly for a slate of positions with a parliamentary system?

[GlyphGryph]

The thing is, the american system isn't supposed to be an never was supposed to be about "issues" - it's always supposed to have been about finding the smartest, most capable guy for the job (of passing good laws and representing our regional interests).

Much as I like that ideal, we don't seem to be particularly good at achieving it. Bah, partisanship... Start with "solutions" and then expend all your effort looking for justifications as to why you were right all along. It's retarded as all hell.

[mainiac]

The thing is, the american system isn't supposed to be an never was supposed to be about "issues"

But it doesn't work that way so it's really past time we updated our voting processes to reflect that.

[Aqizzar]

I officially need to take a break from politics.

I woke up this morning having a lucid dream about hosting a cable "news" show, being lumbered with moderating a couple talking heads bashing/praising Obama, while I played with an interactive map of the Keystone Pipeline.  Interestingly enough, the pro-Obama person was a bit more ethnic than usual.  Then it turned into The Boondocks.

Anyway.

I was busy all weekend, and didn't even notice the Nevada primary came and went.  Apparently nobody here did either.  I hear they had some crazy counting fuckup and took like two days to produce an official result, but that's nothing new.  The more interesting point might be that Romney won with an exact 50.1% majority, but still actually counted something like fifteen thousand less votes than he did four years ago, in an election that saw 20% less turnout altogether.  That sounds significant to me.

I'll get around to updating the OP sooner or later.

[GreatJustice]

I officially need to take a break from politics.

I woke up this morning having a lucid dream about hosting a cable "news" show, being lumbered with moderating a couple talking heads bashing/praising Obama, while I played with an interactive map of the Keystone Pipeline.  Interestingly enough, the pro-Obama person was a bit more ethnic than usual.  Then it turned into The Boondocks.

Anyway.

I was busy all weekend, and didn't even notice the Nevada primary came and went.  Apparently nobody here did either.  I hear they had some crazy counting fuckup and took like two days to produce an official result, but that's nothing new.  The more interesting point might be that Romney won with an exact 50.1% majority, but still actually counted something like fifteen thousand less votes than he did four years ago, in an election that saw 20% less turnout altogether.  That sounds significant to me.

I'll get around to updating the OP sooner or later.

It was absolutely silly. They took well over 24 hours to finish the count, had to recount three times, there were shenanigans regarding the counting, and its looking like a state-wide recount is inbound because of problems in Washoe.