4 ms·

And how, if we try to throw out the entire system, do you expect that to happen when it is clearly against the interest of the two major parties? That's why I

And how, if we try to throw out the entire system, do you expect that to happen when it is clearly against the interest of the two major parties? That's why I said the push shouldn't be to burn down the whole system, it should be minor changes that both major parties can agree to implement. You can't shoot for the moon if you can't even get a launch pad.

logfromblammo 9y ago
The probability of it happening within the current system is zero. The probability of it happening spontaneously after nuking the current system from orbit is infinitesimal. The expected value calculation from throwing out the current system is strongly negative, whereas the expected value from maintaining the status quo gains at about 2%-4% per year. Therefore, the likely course of action is clear. Such reforms will never be implemented, and I will essentially be permanently disenfranchised. I can react to this inevitability with outraged dismay, or with grim resignation. I know what would make me happy, and that it makes sense, and also that it will simply not happen, because this representative democracy is a sham. I can try to ruin things for everyone else because it isn't fair, or I can accept them as they are and take my pathetic, lopsided share of that 2%-4%. I'll take the latter. If, however, the status quo implodes on its own, or explodes because someone got rid of it, I'd be all too happy to try to push the new thing that replaces it towards a better direction.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 9y ago
> And how, if we try to throw out the entire system, do you expect that to happen when it is clearly against the interest of the two major parties? If eliminating the existing system is the goal, the way it is achieved is (as has been the case for many changes which aren't supported initially by the major parties) to first move it by, and in States which have, citizen initiative processes which supercede the preferences of elected partisan politicians.
- scaryspooky 9y ago
  That was exactly my point. Small changes make larger impacts than asking to nuke everything.

logfromblammo 9y ago

The probability of it happening within the current system is zero. The probability of it happening spontaneously after nuking the current system from orbit is infinitesimal. The expected value calculation from throwing out the current system is strongly negative, whereas the expected value from maintaining the status quo gains at about 2%-4% per year. Therefore, the likely course of action is clear. Such reforms will never be implemented, and I will essentially be permanently disenfranchised. I can react to this inevitability with outraged dismay, or with grim resignation. I know what would make me happy, and that it makes sense, and also that it will simply not happen, because this representative democracy is a sham. I can try to ruin things for everyone else because it isn't fair, or I can accept them as they are and take my pathetic, lopsided share of that 2%-4%. I'll take the latter. If, however, the status quo implodes on its own, or explodes because someone got rid of it, I'd be all too happy to try to push the new thing that replaces it towards a better direction.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

dragonwriter 9y ago

> And how, if we try to throw out the entire system, do you expect that to happen when it is clearly against the interest of the two major parties? If eliminating the existing system is the goal, the way it is achieved is (as has been the case for many changes which aren't supported initially by the major parties) to first move it by, and in States which have, citizen initiative processes which supercede the preferences of elected partisan politicians.

scaryspooky 9y ago
That was exactly my point. Small changes make larger impacts than asking to nuke everything.