Forms of government and political systems.

[Duke Nukem]

It really annoys me when people say campaign donations mean democracy is a sham and the US is the same as North Korea.

No country is the same as North Korea, but the excess of money in politics is a corrupting force. It simply makes it so the haves get to influence things far more than the have-nots. Unfortunately, this was probably inevitable.

 

[Dudeofteenage]

The government programs proposed are usually unsustainable, even with the high tax rates that California already has

I'm confused, I thought the Californians voted themselves low taxes in the 80s and that's why you have so many unfunded mandates.

 

[AnOminous]

I'm confused, I thought the Californians voted themselves low taxes in the 80s and that's why you have so many unfunded mandates.

That's property taxes. California has done things so well that they're both under and overtaxed in generally awful ways.

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

No country is the same as North Korea, but the excess of money in politics is a corrupting force. It simply makes it so the haves get to influence things far more than the have-nots. Unfortunately, this was probably inevitable.

In what way is money corrupting the system? It's not like they can just cram money into valet boxes, the worst they can do is drown out messages from other parties with advertisements.

Lyndon Johnson only had a budget of eight million and Barry Goldwater had sixteen million & Lyndon Johnson utterly crushed Barry Goldwater in 1964.

Also, rich candidates that fund themselves do not traditionally win.

 

[Duke Nukem]

In what way is money corrupting the system? It's not like they can just cram money into valet boxes, the worst they can do is drown out messages from other parties with advertisements.

It certainly ensures that third parties don't have a fair chance to get their message out, for one. Also, lobbyists tend to throw money at lawmakers any time the companies they work for are about to not get their way. This stuff is certainly nothing the founders could have foreseen.

 

[Adamska]

It certainly ensures that third parties don't have a fair chance to get their message out, for one. Also, lobbyists tend to throw money at lawmakers any time the companies they work for are about to not get their way. This stuff is certainly nothing the founders could have foreseen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Democratic–Farmer–Labor_Party
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_Party_of_Minnesota

I dunno, seems like they can when they bother to actually go local; which they never seem to do. Most of them seem to only give a shit about big state positions or the presidency without trying to build a support base to me. Hell, they go years without bothering to front a candidate and most 3rd parties seem to be created by petty sore losers.

Kindly explain examples of lobbyism affecting the lawmaking process of congress. Cite an example; because I could reason why lobbying is a good thing and why it can be annoying beyond just appealing to emotion.

And how do you know what the founders would want and would do with different knowledge? Because these are the same people who originally wanted the senate to be non-electable offices, hated the notion of a popular vote deciding the presidency, and restricted voting rights by wealth. Seems they'd disagree with you really hard to me.

 

[Duke Nukem]

I am perfectly aware that many of the third parties don't really have much of a support base, but it's extremely difficult to do so, because although there are plenty of people who would readily vote for a third party, they're more afraid of not getting counted for anything, so that's part of the reason it's so hard for anyone who isn't behind one of the two 800 pound gorillas to get a word in edgewise. Not that there's really much difference between the two...

I would like to hear an example of how lobbying is a good thing, but I'm not going to hold my breath on that. I will do my research on this before coming to a conclusion, though, but I have my doubts. Sure, lobbying groups may be a good way for certain interests to get heard, however, not everyone gets heard equally, and in practice, those with the deepest pockets get the most influence regardless of their position. It's one of the reasons this country's health care system is so fucked up, even now.

I never said I knew what the founders would have done, but I have some serious doubts they'd be happy with corporate entities influencing politics the way they do at times. It seriously disrupts the law-making process, either way. Sure, they weren't perfect, either, but they had some good ideas, and those ideas should not be swept away simply due to a few imperfections.

 

[Adamska]

I am perfectly aware that many of the third parties don't really have much of a support base, but it's extremely difficult to do so, because although there are plenty of people who would readily vote for a third party

That doesn't explain why most of the time they don't bother in trying for local elections where votes have the most impact.

they're more afraid of not getting counted for anything, so that's part of the reason it's so hard for anyone who isn't behind one of the two 800 pound gorillas to get a word in edgewise.

How do you know that there's a big core of potential third partiers? The three common identifiers are Democrat, Republican, and Independent. And while Independents are among the biggest in group size, they often just lean slightly one way or another.

Not that there's really much difference between the two...

Topkek, that's pure pathos right there and blatantly wrong:

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Democrat_vs_Republican

I would like to hear an example of how lobbying is a good thing, but I'm not going to hold my breath on that.

There are lobbyists who focus on environmental health (EarthJustice) and human rights (Human Rights Watch), both of which would hardly be considered evil things. And they often serve as policy advisors due to having knowledge about the topic they represent, which takes a load off of the busy government official who needs to juggle so many topics and issues at once.

I will do my research on this before coming to a conclusion, though, but I have my doubts. Sure, lobbying groups may be a good way for certain interests to get heard, however, not everyone gets heard equally, and in practice, those with the deepest pockets get the most influence regardless of their position.

Not really, since companies often have to fight each other with money, and the politicians that come in often don't have to listen to the ones that didn't back them. The money used is honestly diluted, and while nasty in the fact it takes noticeable amounts of money to get shit done, it also means that significant resources are needed just to maintain the status quo, as most lobbyists like to fight for.

It's one of the reasons this country's health care system is so fucked up, even now.

Depending on what you think of the matter determines my response on this: let's just say that while you complain about money affecting politics, about half of the government's spending is stuck on social programs alone.

I never said I knew what the founders would have done, but I have some serious doubts they'd be happy with corporate entities influencing politics the way they do at times. It seriously disrupts the law-making process, either way. Sure, they weren't perfect, either, but they had some good ideas, and those ideas should not be swept away simply due to a few imperfections.

Congrats; they were indeed very anti-corporatism due to their experiences with and seeing the worst cases of this in the form of the East India Company and also despised the Massachussetts Bay Company, which controlled the economy of New England pre-revolution. I would note however that they also supported enterprise however, since many of them were entrepreneurs in one way or another. They also had a thing for voting by wealth. They were pro-business as a whole, but not a big fan of powerful and long-lasting corporations.

 

[Dudeofteenage]

It certainly ensures that third parties don't have a fair chance to get their message out, for one.

At the risk of repeating myself, the big barrier to Third Parties is the electoral system.

I dunno about that considering that in the UK, minority governments (which is usually the only reason a coalition forms anyway) tend to not last long .

You're confusing two things. A minority government is a government that doesn't command a majority in the House, a coalition is two or more parties joining together to try to create a majority in the House. It's possible to have a minority coalition but fairly unusual.

Both are quite rare in the UK since most UK elections end up with one party having a clear majority. But if we do look at the UK's minimal history of coalitions and minorities, we had a coalition government between 2010 and 2015 which served a full term, and we had a minority government in 1974 which became a majority after a second election in the same year. Before that the only coalition was the wartime Labour/Tory grand coalition which was a supermajority coalition and lasted the whole duration of the war.

If you want to look at countries where coalitions and/or majorities are a common feature, continental Europe offers the most case studies, and generally they have a pretty good record of serving full terms. Italy is the well known exception to the rule but most political scientists put the instability of Italian coalitions down to other features of Italian politics (e.g. secret ballots on votes of confidence)

 

[Duke Nukem]

At the risk of repeating myself, the big barrier to Third Parties is the electoral system.

Sad but true. Honestly, there's no clear path to any real, positive change, at least in my lifetime.

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

those with the deepest pockets get the most influence regardless of their position.

Except for Lendon Johnson & Ross Perot.

I never said I knew what the founders would have done, but I have some serious doubts they'd be happy with corporate entities influencing politics the way they do at times. It seriously disrupts the law-making process, either way.

Also, lobbyists tend to throw money at lawmakers any time the companies they work for are about to not get their way. This stuff is certainly nothing the founders could have foreseen.

Okay.

Not that there's really much difference between the two...

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Democrat_vs_Republican

Kindly explain examples of lobbyism affecting the lawmaking process of congress. Cite an example; because I could reason why lobbying is a good thing and why it can be annoying beyond just appealing to emotion.

The burden of proof is on you, @Duke Nukem. You need to prove your position, not Adamska.

Because these are the same people who originally wanted the senate to be non-electable offices, hated the notion of a popular vote deciding the presidency, and restricted voting rights by wealth.

Adamska already addressed this point, which implies you ignored him. Don't jump to conclusions as to what your opponents write, it makes you look desperate. We've already provided mounds of evidence to support our claim and the most you've done is repeatedly appealed to emotion, give us revenge ratings on unrelated posts in other threads & generally attempted bully your opponents into submission through said revenge ratings & being evasive when addressing rebuttals.

edit:removed various personal attacks.- Vitriol

 

[Dudeofteenage]

Sad but true. Honestly, there's no clear path to any real, positive change, at least in my lifetime.

Is changing the electoral system really so inconcievable? Other countries have done it.

Except for Lendon Johnson & Ross Perot.

I hate to be pedantic, but this keeps bugging me. It's Lyndon Johnson. And Johnson didn't run against Goldwater in '64 - it was Goldwater vs Kennedy.

 

[Adamska]

Is changing the electoral system really so inconcievable? Other countries have done it.

Indeed, we're kind of an odd duck considering most constitutions aren't that old. Besides we've done major reforms to the structure of government in the past (Senate being brought in by election, presidential succession, ticket splitting, franchise expansion, legality on certain topics). If the people are concerted enough in wanting it, an abolition of the electorate would happen... though I'd hate it considering I come from a small state. Same with other small states, which'd lose a fuckton of voice in favor of the giants.

I hate to be pedantic, but this keeps bugging me. It's Lyndon Johnson. And Johnson didn't run against Goldwater in '64 - it was Goldwater vs Kennedy.

Point. The earliest elements of the election were Kennedy v. Goldwater, but his assassination in November of '63 makes it more of a Johnson v. Goldwater IMHO.

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

Sad but true. Honestly, there's no clear path to any real, positive change, at least in my lifetime.

We just legalized gay marriage, elected a not-white person as president & legalized Marijuana in multiple states.

 

[Duke Nukem]

Is changing the electoral system really so inconcievable? Other countries have done it.

It's not likely to happen any time in the the near future, I'm sure attempts have been made, but at the end of the day, nothing seems to get through. The simple act of limiting campaign spending was shut down on the notion that it interfered with "free speech." It's a strange conclusion to come to, but whatever.

The burden of proof is on you, @Duke Nukem. You need to prove your position, not Adamska.

Adamska already addressed this point, which implies you ignored him. Don't jump to conclusions as to what your opponents write, it makes you look desperate. We've already provided mounds of evidence to support our claim and the most you've done is repeatedly appealed to emotion, give us revenge ratings on unrelated posts in other threads & generally attempted bully your opponents into submission through said revenge ratings & being evasive when addressing rebuttals. You are intellectually dishonest.

The other posters have posted some halfway decent evidence to support their claims, and I will take their views into account. All you have ever done in this thread is spam negative ratings, with little exception. Instead of using words to back up your own position, which you should have done in the first place, if you wanted some sort of civil discourse. However, you have proven unable to do so so far, and I'm no longer interested in addressing anything you have to say.

I will address their points as time permits.

 

[Dudeofteenage]

If the people are concerted enough in wanting it, an abolition of the electorate would happen...

What do you mean by this?

 

[Adamska]

What do you mean by this?

I meant that if there was enough consistent interest in it, that the Electoral College's abolishment could pass via amendment. You might wanna fix your quote, since I said that, not @MarvinTheParanoidAndroid .

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

The other posters have posted some halfway decent evidence to support their claims, and I will take their views into account.

Which means you're only gonna pretend to. Enough of your empty bravados, stand your ground.

All you have ever done in this thread is spam negative ratings, with little exception.

Instead of using words to back up your own position, which you should have done in the first place, if you wanted some sort of civil discourse.

https://kiwifarms.net/threads/forms-of-government-and-political-systems.13122/page-2#post-1025336
https://kiwifarms.net/threads/forms-of-government-and-political-systems.13122/page-2#post-1025459
https://kiwifarms.net/threads/forms-of-government-and-political-systems.13122/page-2#post-1025483

Edited to remove personal attacks.- Vitriol

 

[Duke Nukem]

We just legalized gay marriage, elected a not-white person as president & legalized Marijuana in multiple states.

I don't have a problem with gay marriage, and the legal status of marijuana is nebulous at best. While a few states do allow it to some degree, it's still federally illegal, and there have been many cases of state-legal dispensaries getting raided by the DEA for various reasons.

Just because a not-white person is in office doesn't mean he's going to be a good president, though. Personally, I don't understand America's obsession with race, but that's just me. Maybe one day, it won't be such a big deal, but I don't think that's likely to happen for some time.

It's nice to see you're actually attempting to make a decent post though.

 

[AnOminous]

It certainly ensures that third parties don't have a fair chance to get their message out, for one. Also, lobbyists tend to throw money at lawmakers any time the companies they work for are about to not get their way. This stuff is certainly nothing the founders could have foreseen.

One pretty common practice for the largest of the corporate donors is to use their "speech" to support the two major party candidates, because their money is of the opinion, apparently, that both candidates should be elected.

This buys an opinion on issues related to that donor, who can always pull support from one candidate or the other.

If the Democratic and Republican candidate have identical "opinions" on a legislative issue, then the "voter's will" doesn't matter in the slightest. If you vote for a Democrat, you will get legislation favoring XYZ Corporation. If you vote for a Republican, you will get legislation favoring XYZ Corporation.

Part of the entire concept of democracy is that voters, through the electoral system, can turn the public will into actual government policy outcomes.

If the outcomes are the same regardless of so-called public will, then elections are meaningless, at least with respect to those issues.

More and more of those issues are shared by both parties, who will not rock the boat and oppose the people who pay for them to have their jobs.

Given the proper circumstances, a two-party system can be as meaningless a sham as a single-party system.