4 ms·

While I agree this is horrible, mandatory ethics would have zero effect because: 1. Some people will need jobs. 2. Ethics are subjective. 3. Some people won't

While I agree this is horrible, mandatory ethics would have zero effect because: 1. Some people will need jobs. 2. Ethics are subjective. 3. Some people won't care. The correct solution would be in trying to vote in less authoritarian politicians. Americans haven't done a very good job of that over the last century.

FLUX-YOU 9y ago
>1. Some people will need jobs. People are probably less likely to stand up when economic inequality widens and they have a cozy software engineer position.
mschuster91 9y ago
> The correct solution would be in trying to vote in less authoritarian politicians. That requires a system where people actually have a meaningful vote... e.g. it's impossible in China, and for what its worth Chinese ethics are way, way different than typical Western-sourced ethics. In the US, the ability of people to have a meaningful vote has been largely dismantled by a number of bad factors: 1) gerrymandering leading to situations where a Democrat won't run in a Republican stronghold (or, less often, the other way around) 2) the Electoral College leading to a situation where despite losing the popular vote, the respective candidate does win the presidency (as happened with Trump and I believe also with George W) 3) states with "fixed" political leanings get largely ignored and campaigning largely takes place in contested/swing states. 4) voter disenfranchisement: in Germany, voting is generally on Sundays as most people do not have to work on weekends, thus improving turnout compared to the US where voting is on a Tuesday for whatever reason; also in the US there are all sorts of measures to make it harder for poor or minority people to vote, including weird arbitrary ID requirements.
- lend000 9y ago
  Numbers 1, 2, and 3 can all be fixed, and fixing those fix number 4. For gerrymandering, there are plenty of proposals around requiring districts conform to some set of geometric rules. The electoral college issue gets a lot of attention, but the more fundamental problem is first-past-the-post voting. What we really need is approval-based voting (i.e. I approve of candidates A and B; whoever has the most approvals wins). Such would eliminate the incentive to solely vote for the lesser of two evils. The electoral college has a bigger influence than when the Constitution was written due to the even higher concentrations of people in urban centers -- the idea makes sense though, perhaps with some math we can find a compromise. Regardless, FPTP is much more serious. Easy to pass any legislation that changes voting and threatens all the incumbents? Not without a HUGE push, which I don't see happening anytime soon but why not try?
  - mschuster91 9y ago
    > Numbers 1, 2, and 3 can all be fixed, and fixing those fix number 4. How? There is no incentive for the entrenched party to change the rules.
    - lend000 9y ago
      > Easy to pass any legislation that changes voting and threatens all the incumbents? Not without a HUGE push, which I don't see happening anytime soon but why not try? Agreed. Open to ideas.

FLUX-YOU 9y ago

>1. Some people will need jobs. People are probably less likely to stand up when economic inequality widens and they have a cozy software engineer position.

mschuster91 9y ago

> The correct solution would be in trying to vote in less authoritarian politicians. That requires a system where people actually have a meaningful vote... e.g. it's impossible in China, and for what its worth Chinese ethics are way, way different than typical Western-sourced ethics. In the US, the ability of people to have a meaningful vote has been largely dismantled by a number of bad factors: 1) gerrymandering leading to situations where a Democrat won't run in a Republican stronghold (or, less often, the other way around) 2) the Electoral College leading to a situation where despite losing the popular vote, the respective candidate does win the presidency (as happened with Trump and I believe also with George W) 3) states with "fixed" political leanings get largely ignored and campaigning largely takes place in contested/swing states. 4) voter disenfranchisement: in Germany, voting is generally on Sundays as most people do not have to work on weekends, thus improving turnout compared to the US where voting is on a Tuesday for whatever reason; also in the US there are all sorts of measures to make it harder for poor or minority people to vote, including weird arbitrary ID requirements.

lend000 9y ago
Numbers 1, 2, and 3 can all be fixed, and fixing those fix number 4. For gerrymandering, there are plenty of proposals around requiring districts conform to some set of geometric rules. The electoral college issue gets a lot of attention, but the more fundamental problem is first-past-the-post voting. What we really need is approval-based voting (i.e. I approve of candidates A and B; whoever has the most approvals wins). Such would eliminate the incentive to solely vote for the lesser of two evils. The electoral college has a bigger influence than when the Constitution was written due to the even higher concentrations of people in urban centers -- the idea makes sense though, perhaps with some math we can find a compromise. Regardless, FPTP is much more serious. Easy to pass any legislation that changes voting and threatens all the incumbents? Not without a HUGE push, which I don't see happening anytime soon but why not try?
- mschuster91 9y ago
  > Numbers 1, 2, and 3 can all be fixed, and fixing those fix number 4. How? There is no incentive for the entrenched party to change the rules.
  - lend000 9y ago
    > Easy to pass any legislation that changes voting and threatens all the incumbents? Not without a HUGE push, which I don't see happening anytime soon but why not try? Agreed. Open to ideas.