09 November

[Belsnickel]

What spurred this was that in one of the email dumps there was a link to this 2014 study that was shared: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/princeton-experts-say-us-no-longer-democracy

tl;dr: Princeton study said we are an oligarchy.

We probably talked about this study when it came out, and I'm sure that many of us agreed with some points. It got me thinking about what will happen after the election, though. Because I think that more and more people will be feeling this way.

We are, of course, not a pure democracy. No such thing exists. We are a republic where we elect officials to represent our interests. At least in theory. I am rather fond of Dahl's point of view on things, and so would like to think we are a polyarchy. But in truth it is hard to really see it as such given current events.

So what do you think? Are we still a democratic nation? Do our politicians represent us? Most importantly, what do you think should be done to fix it?

Trust in government is extremely low, depending on the poll you look at it could be an all time low, but even if it isn't it is very close. Policy mood is also interesting right now, the most conservative it has ever been in 70 years. Policy mood typically has a negative correlation to the party in the White House (a liberal POTUS results in a conservative shift, and vice versa), so with Clinton winning it will just continue to move further and the distrust will continue to grow. Clinton will be a one term POTUS and it will be the GOP's election to lose, just like this one.

The RNC will move to a super-delegate system, like the DNC has. What I would love to see would be a move to the ranked/alternative/instant-runoff voting system combined with publicly funded elections. Will never happen, but those are the two things I would most like to see. I've said before that I would like to see a new constitution happen and there was a lot of disagreement, I get that, but I am sticking by that. I would like to see it, though, it's not something I see as a need quite as much as the election changes.

So what do you think

[JustWinBaby]

I don't see publicly funded elections changing much - the real grift and cronyism comes in the way of joining corporate or becoming a lobbyist after a political career....or getting paid millions for speeches and books.

The only real path to change is term limits to keep power from being concentrated among career politicians - that's the real influence for sale, and those transactions really aren't deposits to a campaign account.

And if you really want to screw-up the economy, handcuff the corporations from any defense/intervention against disastrously ignorant pandering and demagoguing - the corruption and negative externalities cut both ways.

[Benton]

I've been banging the oligarchy drum since I got interested in politics, 14-15 years ago.

My thinking is, once you get beyond your local representation (city councils in metro areas, county government or state reps in more rural areas), then you don't have representation. Beyond that — mostly when you're talking about people who represent hundreds of thousands of constituents — it becomes about access and networks. It's not really just a money issue, access to lawmakers (and therefore influence on how legislation is shaped) is more of a system of influence.

And when I say it's limited to your local representation, a good example of that is the drama over the SC bathroom bill.

It started out as a city trying to answer concerns of residents by raising the minimum wage. That's it. It might have effected some of the surrounding areas indirectly, but it was mainly aimed at the people represented by city government. Outside forces intervened and it morphed into the bathroom bill, which effected not just the state, but the nation.

I don't really think there is much fixing it, outside of moving to a model where smaller segments have more authority. No lawmaker at any level can effectively make laws that benefit and improve life for everyone when they represent such large numbers. It's just not feasible. Look at a state like Kentucky where one third is mountains and coal mines, one third is more industrial and the other third is more farms and recreation. You can't realistically pass a law that's going to treat all three areas fairly. And states like Illinois and California are worse as far as needs for their diversity. As long as you've got one guy representing so many, you aren't going to be able to reflect the needs of the community.

But — for better and worse — we've been moving further and further away from state's rights since the Civil War. Since at least WWII, states have been moving further away respecting the identity of their cities. So, no, I don't think that the situation is going to improve.

[*bfine32*]

Do away with the two party system.

[JustWinBaby]

(10-21-2016, 04:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Do away with the two party system.

Except we could, if that's what the people really wanted.  If a 3rd party can't combine for more than 10% in THIS election year, it's not happening for a long, long time (if ever - Libertarians have been around 35 years or more and still barely a blip on the radar).

I also don't see evidence that countries with multiple parties are any more cordial (opposite, actually) or more effective/productive.

There are obviously many good reasons and issues to be handled by a centralized govt.  But it's also true the  more centralized you are, the more our individual votes have limited ability to shape our individual lives.

I would love to see more power returned to state and local govt.  Unfortunately the career politicians using that as a path to wealth only ever want more power and influence.  Term limits are the only way to start moving the needle.

[*bfine32*]

(10-21-2016, 04:47 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Except we could, if that's what the people really wanted.  If a 3rd party can't combine for more than 10% in THIS election year, it's not happening for a long, long time (if ever - Libertarians have been around 35 years or more and still barely a blip on the radar).

I also don't see evidence that countries with multiple parties are any more cordial (opposite, actually) or more effective/productive.

There are obviously many good reasons and issues to be handled by a centralized govt.  But it's also true the  more centralized you are, the more our individual votes have limited ability to shape our individual lives.

I would love to see more power returned to state and local govt.  Unfortunately the career politicians using that as a path to wealth only ever want more power and influence.  Term limits are the only way to start moving the needle.

I wasn't even talking about more parties, I was talking about no parties. Let your platform and record speak for itself.

[Belsnickel]

(10-21-2016, 04:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I wasn't even talking about more parties, I was talking about no parties. Let your platform and record speak for itself.

As much as I'd like to see that, it will never happen. Even if we do away with one of the big things parties do (campaign fundraising) there are still too many things parties are handy for.

[Dill]

(10-21-2016, 03:16 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So what do you think

I think the level of instruction in civic knowledge needs to be increased at the high school and college level. And it needs to include some basic information on social phenomena such as moral panics and demagogic scapegoating--some criteria for recognizing when they occur and diverse examples, historical and contemporary. Also helpful would be modeling of civil debating, contrasted with forms of (now electronic) demagoguery and PR manipulation which scorn evidence-based arguments. (Just heard a segment of "Savage America" while driving home.)

No amount of tinkering with parties and the Constitution will matter if this problem is not fixed. Just as the "new economy" requires a higher percentage of college-degreed labor, so does the "old Republic" now require a higher level of civic knowledge.

I am not in favor of term limits for politicians any more than for doctors, generals or auto mechanics. The more experience the better.

But I would like to see limits on campaign spending and a law requiring a 2-5 year waiting period before anyone leaving office can work as a lobbyist.

[Rotobeast]

(10-21-2016, 03:16 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: What I would love to see would be a move to the ranked/alternative/instant-runoff voting system combined with publicly funded elections. Will never happen, but those are the two things I would most like to see. I've said before that I would like to see a new constitution happen and there was a lot of disagreement, I get that, but I am sticking by that. I would like to see it, though, it's not something I see as a need quite as much as the election changes.

So what do you think

I can't remember the details of your proposal concerning The Constitution, but otherwise I'm totally with you.

[6andcounting]

(10-21-2016, 05:19 PM)Dill Wrote: I think the level of instruction in civic knowledge needs to be increased at the high school and college level. And it needs to include some basic information on social phenomena such as moral panics and demagogic scapegoating--some criteria for recognizing when they occur and diverse examples, historical and contemporary. Also helpful would be modeling of civil debating, contrasted with forms of (now electronic) demagoguery and PR manipulation which scorn evidence-based arguments. (Just heard a segment of "Savage America" while driving home.)

No amount of tinkering with parties and the Constitution will matter if this problem is not fixed. Just as the "new economy" requires a higher percentage of college-degreed labor, so does the "old Republic" now require a higher level of civic knowledge.

I am not in favor of term limits for politicians any more than for doctors, generals or auto mechanics. The more experience the better.

But I would like to see limits on campaign spending and a law requiring a 2-5 year waiting period before anyone leaving office can work as a lobbyist.

I agree completely, but Democrats would just use their newfound knowledge to confirm why they hate Republicans while ignoring their party and literally themselves doing the exact same thing. And Republicans would just use their newfound knowledge to confirm why they hate Democrats while ignoring their party and literally themselves doing the exact same thing.

My contention being if people don't have the initiative to learn, or at least pay attention, to become more informed, forcing them to learn it isn't going to make receptive to actually use their force fed knowledge in a useful or constructive way.

[Belsnickel]

(10-22-2016, 02:25 PM)6andcounting Wrote: I agree completely, but Democrats would just use their newfound knowledge to confirm why they hate Republicans while ignoring their party and literally themselves doing the exact same thing. And Republicans would just use their newfound knowledge to confirm why they hate Democrats while ignoring their party and literally themselves doing the exact same thing.

My contention being if people don't have the initiative to learn, or at least pay attention, to become more informed, forcing them to learn it isn't going to make receptive to actually use their force fed knowledge in a useful or constructive way.

Not to mention that instruction on the topic, just like media, is presented with bias. It is inescapable.

[JustWinBaby]

(10-21-2016, 05:19 PM)Dill Wrote: I am not in favor of term limits for politicians any more than for doctors, generals or auto mechanics. The more experience the better.

Maybe if Congress was actually run like a business, but I don't see what we get for that experience.  "Dealmaking" isn't that hard or difficult when you have good ideas in a non-partisan atmosphere.  Experience, as in experience on committees (and presumably based on some real life/business experience prior) is definitely great, but in Congress committee choice is more like "this will be fun for a bit" or "I have an interest in a bill coming thru there this year".

Political "experience" usually is about deal making, arm twisting, fundraising and ass kissing....and lying....I don't see where we get any real value from any of that.   When that's the qualification to get something done - again a lot because of power accumulated without term limits - what you don't have is a lot of qualified people CAPABLE of doing something good.

[xxlt]

(10-21-2016, 03:16 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: What spurred this was that in one of the email dumps there was a link to this 2014 study that was shared: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/princeton-experts-say-us-no-longer-democracy

tl;dr: Princeton study said we are an oligarchy.

We probably talked about this study when it came out, and I'm sure that many of us agreed with some points. It got me thinking about what will happen after the election, though. Because I think that more and more people will be feeling this way.

We are, of course, not a pure democracy. No such thing exists. We are a republic where we elect officials to represent our interests. At least in theory. I am rather fond of Dahl's point of view on things, and so would like to think we are a polyarchy. But in truth it is hard to really see it as such given current events.

So what do you think? Are we still a democratic nation? Do our politicians represent us? Most importantly, what do you think should be done to fix it?

Trust in government is extremely low, depending on the poll you look at it could be an all time low, but even if it isn't it is very close. Policy mood is also interesting right now, the most conservative it has ever been in 70 years. Policy mood typically has a negative correlation to the party in the White House (a liberal POTUS results in a conservative shift, and vice versa), so with Clinton winning it will just continue to move further and the distrust will continue to grow. Clinton will be a one term POTUS and it will be the GOP's election to lose, just like this one.

The RNC will move to a super-delegate system, like the DNC has. What I would love to see would be a move to the ranked/alternative/instant-runoff voting system combined with publicly funded elections. Will never happen, but those are the two things I would most like to see. I've said before that I would like to see a new constitution happen and there was a lot of disagreement, I get that, but I am sticking by that. I would like to see it, though, it's not something I see as a need quite as much as the election changes.

So what do you think

Nice post.

I think anyone who is not in the top 1% would be hard pressed to present compelling evidence that his or her interests are represented by the federal government.

I think it is impossible for two parties to represent the interests of 300 million people, and I think it is impossible for fewer than 1,000 elected officials to represent the interests of 300 million people. We need more elected representatives to dilute the power in D.C. and we need a plurality of parties, not extreme conservative and not quite as extreme conservative, which is what we have now (the irony being not so extreme is labeled as liberal beyond anyone's wildest imagination, LOL).

The ranked/alternate system is also superior, but Americans by and large are both too disinterested and too stupid to demand/understand it.

[xxlt]

(10-21-2016, 04:47 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Except we could, if that's what the people really wanted.  If a 3rd party can't combine for more than 10% in THIS election year, it's not happening for a long, long time (if ever - Libertarians have been around 35 years or more and still barely a blip on the radar).

I also don't see evidence that countries with multiple parties are any more cordial (opposite, actually) or more effective/productive.

There are obviously many good reasons and issues to be handled by a centralized govt.  But it's also true the  more centralized you are, the more our individual votes have limited ability to shape our individual lives.

I would love to see more power returned to state and local govt.  Unfortunately the career politicians using that as a path to wealth only ever want more power and influence.  Term limits are the only way to start moving the needle.

Look more closely.

[fredtoast]

(10-22-2016, 06:28 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Maybe if Congress was actually run like a business, but I don't see what we get for that experience.  "Dealmaking" isn't that hard or difficult when you have good ideas in a non-partisan atmosphere.  Experience, as in experience on committees (and presumably based on some real life/business experience prior) is definitely great, but in Congress committee choice is more like "this will be fun for a bit" or "I have an interest in a bill coming thru there this year".

Political "experience" usually is about deal making, arm twisting, fundraising and ass kissing....and lying....I don't see where we get any real value from any of that.   When that's the qualification to get something done - again a lot because of power accumulated without term limits - what you don't have is a lot of qualified people CAPABLE of doing something good.

It does take skill to be a politician and get stuff done.  Electing people with no experience will just make things worse.

Term limits does nothing but undermine the will of the public. If you don't want career politicians then don't elect career politicians.  you have made it clear that you don't think that influence of money has anything to do with who is elected, so how do these "career politicians" keep getting re-elected.

[fredtoast]

(10-21-2016, 03:49 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I don't see publicly funded elections changing much - the real grift and cronyism comes in the way of joining corporate or becoming a lobbyist after a political career....or getting paid millions for speeches and books.

And if you really want to screw-up the economy, handcuff the corporations from any defense/intervention against disastrously ignorant pandering and demagoguing - the corruption and negative externalities cut both ways.

That is some pretty interesting logic.

Money does not influence who gets elected, but if we take the money out of the elections then the wrong people will get elected.

Anyone else see a problem with that argument?

[fredtoast]

(10-21-2016, 04:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Do away with the two party system.

Can't do that because the two parties control all the money.

Third parties can't compete because they can't raise the money to.

[JustWinBaby]

(10-22-2016, 09:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: That is some pretty interesting logic.

Money does not influence who gets elected, but if we take the money out of the elections then the wrong people will get elected.

Anyone else see a problem with that argument?

Interesting logic, indeed.  That's not what I said.  Try to follow along.

[JustWinBaby]

(10-22-2016, 08:10 PM)xxlt Wrote: Look more closely.

You've obviously never watched CSPAN.

[JustWinBaby]

(10-22-2016, 09:15 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It does take skill to be a politician and get stuff done.  Electing people with no experience will just make things worse.

Only because of cronyism and power brokers.  You don't get near as much of that with term limits.

Again, good ideas don't require arm twisting in a bipartisan atmosphere.  "Getting stuff done" in the current environment is political horse trading and has little to do with good ideas.