06-26-2018, 04:44 PM
(06-26-2018, 04:11 PM)WychesWarrior Wrote: For me, the whole gay marriage thing had a very easy compromise. Give homosexual couples a "civil union" that allows them the access to healthcare, tax breaks, and other benefits they sought, while not calling it a "marriage" that seems to be the crux of the argument against it. Win, win. That's where I agree with what SSF was saying. We never even got presented with a compromise that could have appeased both sides. As for the EC, it's what we have, and have had for a long time. If we abolish it, we must come up with a way that does not allow a handful of metro areas to speak for the rest of the country.
As to your response directly, I couldn't agree any more. The oligarchy is in full effect.....
The only way the compromise you propose works is if government calls all legal marriages civil unions. If the government were to continue calling straight unions marriages and create a special class, then we get into the "separate but equal" territory which was shot down previously in a different context.
As for the EC, why? If the POTUS is elected by the whole eligible population, then why should it matter the distribution of the votes if the populous as a whole voted and that was the outcome? I do think switching to RCV should happen for it, though.
(06-26-2018, 04:14 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I dare say this is one of the biggest - if not the biggest - issue with our government today: the lack of compromising. It seems like both sides stick to their guns no matter how extreme the position is and refuse to seek out a compromise.
I had a little back and forth with a conservative person I follow on Twitter that works at RSI. She was discussing how amazed she was at how little policy (including laws) are made based on evidence. Instead, it is based almost exclusively on special interests, "gut" feelings, things of that nature. Evidence based policy is the goal for people like me, and this includes many think tanks out there as well as most public servants, but it just doesn't happen.
I was talking about how true this was and how even though this person and I would likely disagree on many things, we would be able to provide evidence for our positions. Evidence can point you in different directions, but the data helps to provide a (nearly) objective starting point at which to compromise and come to an agreement. We haven't been able to collect data to the degree we are able to today until very recently, but in the past 30-40 years there has been an attack on the wonks. The people whose job it used to be to craft policy have been pushed out of Congressional offices and replaced with lobbyists that are writing the legislation. The wonks that are left in the government are not consulted as they once were, officials preferring to give deference to special interests that will then cut them checks come campaign time.
This, of course, ties into my theme these past couple of days. We have a government that is being run by corporations and the wealthy elite, and not in our best interests. But working to rely on more evidence based policy decisions would also allow for more compromise in government because at least there could be a degree of good faith about the other side of the debate. Right now there is none.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
