Political reform

[Weave]

Found an interesting podcast this morning discussing why our political system is broken, and what some of the fixes might be.  There is some interesting concepts here.  It's a long read (or listen).  But I think the points regarding what is broken and why are probably more right than wrong.  And the fixes are interesting.  The perspective is that politics is an industry, not a public service, and the problem solving was attacked from an industry POV.  It's a good Sunday read/listen.  If reading, get through/past the first couple of paragraphs.  The subject matter picks up after.
Freakonomics - politics as an industry

Quote

It’d be one thing if this large industry were delivering value to its customers — which is supposed to be us, the citizenry. But Gehl and Porter argue the political industry is much better at generating revenue for itself and creating jobs for itself while treating its customers with something close to disdain. Kind of like the cable TV industry on steroids. And the numbers back up their argument. Customer satisfaction with the political industry is at historic lows. Fewer than a quarter of Americans currently say they trust the federal government. In terms of popularity, it ranks below every private industry. That includes the healthcare and pharmaceutical industries, the airline industry — and, yes, cable TV.

 

Quote

Perhaps most important, the two parties rig the election system against would-be disrupters. The rules they set allow for partisan primaries, gerrymandered congressional districts, and winner-take-all elections.

 

Quote

 

We have a chart in our report that just selects some, what we call landmark-type legislation over the last 50, 60 years. And if you go back even 20 or 30 years ago, the landmark legislation was consensus.

For instance: the Social Security Act of 1935 had 90 percent Democratic support and 75 percent Republican. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 had 60 percent Democratic support and, again, 75 percent Republican.

Now, for the last decade or two, that’s been the opposite pattern. The only way landmark legislation gets passed is one party has enough votes to pass that by itself.

The Affordable Care Act, also known as ObamaCare, was passed in 2010 with zero Republican votes in Congress. President Trump’s 2018 tax-reform bill? Zero Democratic votes.

 

 

There is some interesting ideas about primaries, about winner take all elections, and gerrymandering.

 

 

[Eleven]

1 hour ago, Weave said:

Quote

Perhaps most important, the two parties rig the election system against would-be disrupters. The rules they set allow for partisan primaries, gerrymandered congressional districts, and winner-take-all elections.

 

Wow, they really went out on a limb there.

Edited November 4, 2018 by Eleven

[Samson's Flow]

On 11/4/2018 at 7:32 AM, Weave said:

Found an interesting podcast this morning discussing why our political system is broken, and what some of the fixes might be.  There is some interesting concepts here.  It's a long read (or listen).  But I think the points regarding what is broken and why are probably more right than wrong.  And the fixes are interesting.  The perspective is that politics is an industry, not a public service, and the problem solving was attacked from an industry POV.  It's a good Sunday read/listen.  If reading, get through/past the first couple of paragraphs.  The subject matter picks up after.
Freakonomics - politics as an industry

 

 

There is some interesting ideas about primaries, about winner take all elections, and gerrymandering.

 

 

Thanks for the read Weave - that was certainly interesting! The two political party Duopoly just seems so powerful in its current iteration that I have a hard time believing reform is possible without some sort of legal intervention.

I am intrigued by their solutions of non-partisan primaries and ranked order voting. Those seem like they would work and are not impossible to implement. 

[Eleven]

Here's my proposed solution: 

All married couples:  One person votes R, straight down the line; the other, D.

All unmarried persons vote for third-party candidates.

If we can stick together for a few election cycles, we can rid ourselves of the two-party system.

[TrueBlueGED]

11 hours ago, Eleven said:

Here's my proposed solution: 

All married couples:  One person votes R, straight down the line; the other, D.

All unmarried persons vote for third-party candidates.

If we can stick together for a few election cycles, we can rid ourselves of the two-party system.

No, we can't. The only way to "rid ourselves" of the two-party system is for institutional change: ditch first-past-the-post elections and single member districts for multi-member districts and proportional representation.

Moreover, voter behavior will not change in the aggregate without institutional changes. Voters respond to institutional structures, and those must change first.

[Eleven]

4 minutes ago, TrueBlueGED said:

No, we can't. The only way to "rid ourselves" of the two-party system is for institutional change: ditch first-past-the-post elections and single member districts for multi-member districts and proportional representation.

Moreover, voter behavior will not change in the aggregate without institutional changes. Voters respond to institutional structures, and those must change first.

It was tongue-in-cheek...

[TrueBlueGED]

4 minutes ago, Eleven said:

It was tongue-in-cheek...

I missed that, sorry. But if there's one thing that triggers me, it's people waxing poetic about how "if ONLY people would vote 3rd party, everything would change!" 

[Eleven]

Just now, TrueBlueGED said:

I missed that, sorry. But if there's one thing that triggers me, it's people waxing poetic about how "if ONLY people would vote 3rd party, everything would change!" 

Would you like me to poetically wax?

Because all I have is The Lorax.  

He fought for the trees.

And for a nice breeze.

He was not a third-party candidate,

But once, he took a gal on a date.

At a factory, they parked.

But then a dog barked.

And the Lorax got no action that night.

[LTS]

12 minutes ago, TrueBlueGED said:

I missed that, sorry. But if there's one thing that triggers me, it's people waxing poetic about how "if ONLY people would vote 3rd party, everything would change!" 

Well, it is true. If people did actually vote for the 3rd party candidates thing would change.  The problem is that rarely do enough people vote for them and by the time any decent 3rd party gains ground in the eye of the constituents one of the major parties "adopts" the idea and kicks the third party away from the table.

[Eleven]

9 hours ago, LTS said:

Well, it is true. If people did actually vote for the 3rd party candidates thing would change.  The problem is that rarely do enough people vote for them and by the time any decent 3rd party gains ground in the eye of the constituents one of the major parties "adopts" the idea and kicks the third party away from the table.

Or the third party implodes, like Perot's Reform Party, which actually stood a chance until he left a leadership vacuum.

Edited November 7, 2018 by Eleven

[Hank]

2 hours ago, Eleven said:

Or the third party implodes, like Perot's Reform Party, which actually stood a chance until he left a leadership vacuum.

I think Perot had a real shot if he had a different VP, that guy killed him. 

[TrueBlueGED]

14 hours ago, LTS said:

Well, it is true. If people did actually vote for the 3rd party candidates thing would change.  The problem is that rarely do enough people vote for them and by the time any decent 3rd party gains ground in the eye of the constituents one of the major parties "adopts" the idea and kicks the third party away from the table.

Even if your dream happened and everyone voted third party, it wouldn't be a permanent change. The party that lost its support to the third party would just dissolve and we'd be back to two. We're not getting a stable third party system as long as we have single member districts and first-past-the-post elections. 

[Samson's Flow]

1 hour ago, TrueBlueGED said:

Even if your dream happened and everyone voted third party, it wouldn't be a permanent change. The party that lost its support to the third party would just dissolve and we'd be back to two. We're not getting a stable third party system as long as we have single member districts and first-past-the-post elections. 

I've heard this a couple times but not sure I understand what it means fully. Anyone care to elaborate?

[Hank]

38 minutes ago, Samson's Flow said:

I've heard this a couple times but not sure I understand what it means fully. Anyone care to elaborate?

I have no idea what this means either, some edjumacation on this would be appreciated. 

[TrueBlueGED]

37 minutes ago, Samson's Flow said:

I've heard this a couple times but not sure I understand what it means fully. Anyone care to elaborate?

It just means whoever gets the most votes wins. Some states have a majority requirement for some offices, but most races only require a plurality. 

[Weave]

Not sure where to put this, so I'll put it here.  What if George Bush was never elected President?

Our system is going to continue to spiral downhill as long as win at all costs comes before good governance.

Summary of the article... A death bed confession by a Republican strategist of the late 80's reveals that the front runner to win the '88 election was set up and framed. 

What troubles me most is that we, the electorate, have evolved since '88. We have evolved into an electorate that is willing to accept immoral behavior as long as it benefits our team.  The most common comments regarding the election on the online version of my county's news all share the same message, "I plugged my nose and voted for Collins because it is more important that the Republicans keep control of the House".  Last week a friend of mine voiced a similar sentiment about the need to make sure Collins gets re-elected.  Never mind he's facing trial for Wire Fraud and Securities Fraud.

And here's Collins comments to the media on election night.  "I set a strategy, I think you'll see tonight that my strategy worked perfectly, it's about winning," Collins said. "Clearly, the media is not part of our strategy."   We've re-elected a man who has no intention of being accountable.  To anyone.

In 1988 getting your picture taken on a yacht with a pretty young girl was enough to get you out of politics.  Today, you can be accused of sexual assault by multiple women, have affairs with porn stars, or be under indictment for felonies, and have no political repercussions.

I was never one that bought into the idea that we have lost our moral compass.  That statement always felt like it was coming straight from the Jerry Falwell.  Today, I think LTS is correct.  We the people have lost our moral compass.  I have never felt so much concern that we are nearing the end of the Great Experiment.

So here it is, Wednesday.  My House representative is on the minority side.  He won't be on any committees.  He's being investigated by the House Ethics committee.  And he'll probably spend more time on his legal defense than he will on legislating.  NY27 is going to be unrepresented for the next 2 years.  But this is better than the other team getting a chance.

[Eleven]

2 hours ago, TrueBlueGED said:

It just means whoever gets the most votes wins. Some states have a majority requirement for some offices, but most races only require a plurality. 

Georgia, notably, is going through this right now.  It requires a majority.  

[LTS]

17 hours ago, TrueBlueGED said:

Even if your dream happened and everyone voted third party, it wouldn't be a permanent change. The party that lost its support to the third party would just dissolve and we'd be back to two. We're not getting a stable third party system as long as we have single member districts and first-past-the-post elections. 

Honestly I don't want everyone to vote a third party, I would just live to see a third party thrown into the mix such that there were was more nuance to our governance.  Imagine a place where it's 40/40/20 split.  I would love to see that... but we won't.  I would actually prefer to see proportional representation, but that's never going to happen.

12 hours ago, Weave said:

Not sure where to put this, so I'll put it here.  What if George Bush was never elected President?

Our system is going to continue to spiral downhill as long as win at all costs comes before good governance.

Summary of the article... A death bed confession by a Republican strategist of the late 80's reveals that the front runner to win the '88 election was set up and framed. 

What troubles me most is that we, the electorate, have evolved since '88. We have evolved into an electorate that is willing to accept immoral behavior as long as it benefits our team.  The most common comments regarding the election on the online version of my county's news all share the same message, "I plugged my nose and voted for Collins because it is more important that the Republicans keep control of the House".  Last week a friend of mine voiced a similar sentiment about the need to make sure Collins gets re-elected.  Never mind he's facing trial for Wire Fraud and Securities Fraud.

And here's Collins comments to the media on election night.  "I set a strategy, I think you'll see tonight that my strategy worked perfectly, it's about winning," Collins said. "Clearly, the media is not part of our strategy."   We've re-elected a man who has no intention of being accountable.  To anyone.

In 1988 getting your picture taken on a yacht with a pretty young girl was enough to get you out of politics.  Today, you can be accused of sexual assault by multiple women, have affairs with porn stars, or be under indictment for felonies, and have no political repercussions.

I was never one that bought into the idea that we have lost our moral compass.  That statement always felt like it was coming straight from the Jerry Falwell.  Today, I think LTS is correct.  We the people have lost our moral compass.  I have never felt so much concern that we are nearing the end of the Great Experiment.

So here it is, Wednesday.  My House representative is on the minority side.  He won't be on any committees.  He's being investigated by the House Ethics committee.  And he'll probably spend more time on his legal defense than he will on legislating.  NY27 is going to be unrepresented for the next 2 years.  But this is better than the other team getting a chance.

The party uber alles.  Sadly that's how many voters see it.  Even worse when they're out there supporting Collins.  That situation is a total turd blossom.

[Samson's Flow]

14 hours ago, Weave said:

Not sure where to put this, so I'll put it here.  What if George Bush was never elected President?

Our system is going to continue to spiral downhill as long as win at all costs comes before good governance.

Summary of the article... A death bed confession by a Republican strategist of the late 80's reveals that the front runner to win the '88 election was set up and framed. 

What troubles me most is that we, the electorate, have evolved since '88. We have evolved into an electorate that is willing to accept immoral behavior as long as it benefits our team.  The most common comments regarding the election on the online version of my county's news all share the same message, "I plugged my nose and voted for Collins because it is more important that the Republicans keep control of the House".  Last week a friend of mine voiced a similar sentiment about the need to make sure Collins gets re-elected.  Never mind he's facing trial for Wire Fraud and Securities Fraud.

-snip-

So here it is, Wednesday.  My House representative is on the minority side.  He won't be on any committees.  He's being investigated by the House Ethics committee.  And he'll probably spend more time on his legal defense than he will on legislating.  NY27 is going to be unrepresented for the next 2 years.  But this is better than the other team getting a chance.

The bolded is infurating to me, as someone who votes for both Republican and Democratic candidates based on who I think is actually best qualified/most aligns with my values. I don't claim to be some sort of political genius, but literally 30 mins worth of Google research can get you a good idea of each candidate's policy stance and qualifications. Most people I know spend more time researching their fantasy football team than the effing election candidates.

Voting blindly along party lines and the "us against them" mentality is perpetuating electing bad/corrupt candidates. We're all Americans ffs.

Edited November 8, 2018 by Samson's Flow

[Eleven]

46 minutes ago, Samson's Flow said:

The bolded is infurating to me, as someone who votes for both Republican and Democratic candidates based on who I think is actually best qualified/most aligns with my values. I don't claim to be some sort of political genius, but literally 30 mins worth of Google research can get you a good idea of each candidate's policy stance and qualifications. Most people I know spend more time researching their fantasy football team than the effing election candidates.

Voting blindly along party lines and the "us against them" mentality is perpetuating electing bad/corrupt candidates. We're all Americans ffs.

I do the same thing you do, although in a lot of cases (especially judges), I know the candidate so I don't have to do the research.  But I had no problem voting for Chris Jacobs (who, in addition to being a good guy, straightened out the mess that Kathy Hochul left at the Clerk's Office) or Mickey Kearns.  They're Republicans, but not Trumpists.  

[Samson's Flow]

21 minutes ago, Eleven said:

I do the same thing you do, although in a lot of cases (especially judges), I know the candidate so I don't have to do the research.  But I had no problem voting for Chris Jacobs (who, in addition to being a good guy, straightened out the mess that Kathy Hochul left at the Clerk's Office) or Mickey Kearns.  They're Republicans, but not Trumpists.  

Funny - those were two that I "crossed the aisle" for as well. 

[darksabre]

Ranked choice voting seems to have worked out so well in Maine that the GOP is super pissed about it. 

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a25137613/miane-ranked-choice-voting-republican-lawsuit/

https://www.pressherald.com/2018/11/15/final-ranked-choice-vote-count-slated-for-noon/

 

[Weave]

3 hours ago, darksabre said:

Ranked choice voting seems to have worked out so well in Maine that the GOP is super pissed about it. 

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a25137613/miane-ranked-choice-voting-republican-lawsuit/

https://www.pressherald.com/2018/11/15/final-ranked-choice-vote-count-slated-for-noon/

 

Quoting from the suspicious packages thread:

Quote

 

It is not disingenuous, its the rules/law.

 

 

Somehow I'm thinking that there is a sudden change in that mindset given this result.

Given how contrived our election results have become, I'm open to trying this.  It can't be any worse than gerrymandered results from a cherry picked field.

Edited November 16, 2018 by Weave

[darksabre]

16 hours ago, Weave said:

Quoting from the suspicious packages thread:

 

Somehow I'm thinking that there is a sudden change in that mindset given this result.

Given how contrived our election results have become, I'm open to trying this.  It can't be any worse than gerrymandered results from a cherry picked field.

It seems like the only viable pathway to breaking up the two party system. Give people the option to vote for who they like and who they don't like. "Anyone but ____" isn't a bad way to do things. 

[Weave]

49 minutes ago, darksabre said:

It seems like the only viable pathway to breaking up the two party system. Give people the option to vote for who they like and who they don't like. "Anyone but ____" isn't a bad way to do things. 

I wonder how Maine got it through their legislature.  It's not in the best interests of either major party to allow this change.  I'd hesitate to call it viable for that reason alone.