46 ms·

I don't disagree. I believe both parties have deeply rooted issues with corruption. On the levels that I am most knowledgeable about, the trend is roughly true

I don't disagree. I believe both parties have deeply rooted issues with corruption. On the levels that I am most knowledgeable about, the trend is roughly true. For example, Dems are the party of gun control while simultaneously militarizing police (a bipartisan effort). The moves to licensing and excessive taxation for what should be fundamental rights (e.g licenses to operate businesses, high taxes on your primary residence) is another trend that concerns me, but quickly goes out of the scope of what can be readily discussed on a forum. My view is that both parties seek power on whatever levels they can get it. That's why I am for the abolition of political parties altogether, and a move towards a more direct democracy (public veto).

edmundsauto 6y ago
Direct democracy is worse - take a look at how California has been hurt by their referendum and recall processes. (Prop 13, first and foremost)
- Proziam 6y ago
  California has among the least efficient and effective governance models on the planet, overall. Switzerland also has a direct democracy, but they make it work quite well for them. Notably, they've seemed to enjoy just not doing what the EU wants. They've kept their own money, maintained military neutrality, and also maintained an extremely well-armed population. Implementation probably matters more than the model. That said, I still prefer certain models because it aligns better with my personal principles.
  - edmundsauto 6y ago
    I'm not well read on the subject, but you appear to know what you're talking about. What do you see as the crucial differences (especially structural) between the two implementations?
    - Proziam 6y ago
      This topic gets complicated fast but it boils down most simply to: 1. Options in representation. California is essentially a single-party state. Switzerland has substantially more options in this regard. 2. California is freaking huge, Switzerland is not. Because of this, you have dramatically different interests between different regions in California contrasted with more homogeneous needs in Switzerland. 3. The population of Switzerland is not nearly as diverse as California. They speak several languages there, but overall you have a group of people with very similar cultural and historical values. 4. This point would require a small novel, but in essence California abuses the system to go around the process rather than go through it. You could describe this as the contrast between cooperative governance (Switzerland) and adversarial governance (California). In short, if we stuck with George Washington's suggestion to lower the maximum size of congressional districts to one representative per 30,000 people, California might be in better shape. It probably would have also been beneficial to listen to Alexander Hamilton when he called parties “the most fatal disease.”
      - edmundsauto 6y ago
        Points 2 and 3 don't seem to be things we can modify. Are they barriers to an effective implementation, or will the increased size + diversity be more friction but not a blocker? For points 1 and 4, those sound like symptoms to a more rudimentary problem. I don't know what that problem is, but my guess is its something systemic and structural.
        Proziam 6y ago
        Points 1 & 4 could be solved either via elimination of the party system (unlikely) or if one of the several initiatives to break up California succeed (also unlikely). Simply put, the problem is that when you have one party in control there's very little incentive for them to work cooperatively with the people. Points 2&3 are could also be solved by dividing the state up so that each region could self-govern. Given that this is unlikely, I have a hard time imagining a solution. It's extremely hard to make "city folk" understand what's going on in rural areas, and vice versa. Worse, our current political climate is such that demonizing the other group is seen as a morally acceptable thing to do, almost always without really understanding them in the first place. The first step to solving these problems in California is to close the political divide and get the people to work together to establish better representation.

edmundsauto 6y ago

Direct democracy is worse - take a look at how California has been hurt by their referendum and recall processes. (Prop 13, first and foremost)

Proziam 6y ago
California has among the least efficient and effective governance models on the planet, overall. Switzerland also has a direct democracy, but they make it work quite well for them. Notably, they've seemed to enjoy just not doing what the EU wants. They've kept their own money, maintained military neutrality, and also maintained an extremely well-armed population. Implementation probably matters more than the model. That said, I still prefer certain models because it aligns better with my personal principles.
- edmundsauto 6y ago
  I'm not well read on the subject, but you appear to know what you're talking about. What do you see as the crucial differences (especially structural) between the two implementations?
  - Proziam 6y ago
    This topic gets complicated fast but it boils down most simply to: 1. Options in representation. California is essentially a single-party state. Switzerland has substantially more options in this regard. 2. California is freaking huge, Switzerland is not. Because of this, you have dramatically different interests between different regions in California contrasted with more homogeneous needs in Switzerland. 3. The population of Switzerland is not nearly as diverse as California. They speak several languages there, but overall you have a group of people with very similar cultural and historical values. 4. This point would require a small novel, but in essence California abuses the system to go around the process rather than go through it. You could describe this as the contrast between cooperative governance (Switzerland) and adversarial governance (California). In short, if we stuck with George Washington's suggestion to lower the maximum size of congressional districts to one representative per 30,000 people, California might be in better shape. It probably would have also been beneficial to listen to Alexander Hamilton when he called parties “the most fatal disease.”
    - edmundsauto 6y ago
      Points 2 and 3 don't seem to be things we can modify. Are they barriers to an effective implementation, or will the increased size + diversity be more friction but not a blocker? For points 1 and 4, those sound like symptoms to a more rudimentary problem. I don't know what that problem is, but my guess is its something systemic and structural.
      - Proziam 6y ago
        Points 1 & 4 could be solved either via elimination of the party system (unlikely) or if one of the several initiatives to break up California succeed (also unlikely). Simply put, the problem is that when you have one party in control there's very little incentive for them to work cooperatively with the people. Points 2&3 are could also be solved by dividing the state up so that each region could self-govern. Given that this is unlikely, I have a hard time imagining a solution. It's extremely hard to make "city folk" understand what's going on in rural areas, and vice versa. Worse, our current political climate is such that demonizing the other group is seen as a morally acceptable thing to do, almost always without really understanding them in the first place. The first step to solving these problems in California is to close the political divide and get the people to work together to establish better representation.