4 ms·

It really is amazing how someone manages to be on the wrong side of seemingly everything, and yet is locked into office past the point of senility.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
vkou 5y ago
This means that either your calibration mechanism for 'wrong side' is flawed, or the system is rigged in a way that it consistently produces bad outcomes. Speaking for myself, am shocked and outraged that red senators and other congresscritters are consistently on the wrong side of seemingly everything, yet they keep getting elected. Of course, my political calibration mechanisms are quite in tune.
- Zak 5y ago
  Feinstein is weirdly not aligned with the left or the tech industry given where she's from. Her strong anti-drug and anti-encryption stances are easy examples. If I had to pick a single organizing principle to describe her positions it would be a bureaucratic sort of authoritarianism (as distinguished from the strongman authoritarianism of someone like Donald Trump). I do believe the system is rigged in a way that consistently produces bad outcomes. The US Senate is structured to reward voters for keeping incumbents in office, and plurality voting virtually guarantees two dominant parties.
- reincarnate0x14 5y ago
  Feinstein's hard authoritarian and surveillance state preferences haven't endeared her to many people who are also shocked and outraged by the usual collection of utterly repugnant red senators, so option B there.
- orthecreedence 5y ago
  > the system is rigged in a way that it consistently produces bad outcomes. Yes. That one. "Real" change (ie, still a useless liberal democracy, but at least a bit more in service to the people) would start with voter reform and getting rid of FPTP entirely.
  - astrange 5y ago
    You wouldn't like the results of either of those if you like "extreme" positions. - The most popular replacement for FPTP (which is biased away from centrism) is RCV (which is biased towards it). - FPTP does turn it into a two-party system, but US parties are weak. They don't control who joins them, who gets elected, or how anyone votes. In the UK you can actually get fired from the party for voting wrong.
    - orthecreedence 5y ago
      I don't care about "extreme" positions in the context of liberal democracies. I can confidently say that there are great improvements we can make within them while also supporting abolishing them entirely. I like to be at least somewhat pragmatic. RCV/STV is absolutely an improvement on FPTP in almost every way. As far as strong vs weak parties, that seems to be an issue with the UK. FPTP and weak-parties are separate sets. You could have FPTP with closed party membership, or RCV/STV with weak parties.
- randallsquared 5y ago
  > the system is rigged in a way that it consistently produces bad outcomes. The system doesn't have to be rigged to produce bad outcomes. Most outcomes are bad, so only a system which is nearly perfect has any hope of producing good outcomes.
noobermin 5y ago
Another arrow in my quiver for why the US is honestly not a country to bet on for the next 20 years.
- astrange 5y ago
  The only countries with better demographic trends than the US are in Africa.
  - sydthrowaway 5y ago
    India?
orthecreedence 5y ago
Yeah once in a while she does something and I think "ok, that makes sense." But she's generally a broken clock.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

vkou 5y ago

This means that either your calibration mechanism for 'wrong side' is flawed, or the system is rigged in a way that it consistently produces bad outcomes. Speaking for myself, am shocked and outraged that red senators and other congresscritters are consistently on the wrong side of seemingly everything, yet they keep getting elected. Of course, my political calibration mechanisms are quite in tune.

Zak 5y ago
Feinstein is weirdly not aligned with the left or the tech industry given where she's from. Her strong anti-drug and anti-encryption stances are easy examples. If I had to pick a single organizing principle to describe her positions it would be a bureaucratic sort of authoritarianism (as distinguished from the strongman authoritarianism of someone like Donald Trump). I do believe the system is rigged in a way that consistently produces bad outcomes. The US Senate is structured to reward voters for keeping incumbents in office, and plurality voting virtually guarantees two dominant parties.
reincarnate0x14 5y ago
Feinstein's hard authoritarian and surveillance state preferences haven't endeared her to many people who are also shocked and outraged by the usual collection of utterly repugnant red senators, so option B there.
orthecreedence 5y ago
> the system is rigged in a way that it consistently produces bad outcomes. Yes. That one. "Real" change (ie, still a useless liberal democracy, but at least a bit more in service to the people) would start with voter reform and getting rid of FPTP entirely.
- astrange 5y ago
  You wouldn't like the results of either of those if you like "extreme" positions. - The most popular replacement for FPTP (which is biased away from centrism) is RCV (which is biased towards it). - FPTP does turn it into a two-party system, but US parties are weak. They don't control who joins them, who gets elected, or how anyone votes. In the UK you can actually get fired from the party for voting wrong.
  - orthecreedence 5y ago
    I don't care about "extreme" positions in the context of liberal democracies. I can confidently say that there are great improvements we can make within them while also supporting abolishing them entirely. I like to be at least somewhat pragmatic. RCV/STV is absolutely an improvement on FPTP in almost every way. As far as strong vs weak parties, that seems to be an issue with the UK. FPTP and weak-parties are separate sets. You could have FPTP with closed party membership, or RCV/STV with weak parties.
randallsquared 5y ago
> the system is rigged in a way that it consistently produces bad outcomes. The system doesn't have to be rigged to produce bad outcomes. Most outcomes are bad, so only a system which is nearly perfect has any hope of producing good outcomes.

noobermin 5y ago

Another arrow in my quiver for why the US is honestly not a country to bet on for the next 20 years.

astrange 5y ago
The only countries with better demographic trends than the US are in Africa.
- sydthrowaway 5y ago
  India?

orthecreedence 5y ago

Yeah once in a while she does something and I think "ok, that makes sense." But she's generally a broken clock.