4 ms·

> The US has, without a doubt, the most accessible and open democracy in the world. Take just for example the state legislatures. This is a shockingly sheltere

> The US has, without a doubt, the most accessible and open democracy in the world. Take just for example the state legislatures. This is a shockingly sheltered view. You must have no exposure to European democracy at all. > Yet literally anyone can get elected to the state house of Indiana Nope, this is false. You must have enough money, free time and access to media and advertising in order to that. It's just a positive feedback loop and it doesn't actually matter if legally anyone can run if practically nobody can. > Anyone who thinks our system isn't democratic isn't really trying. You haven't thought this through.

Georgelemental 4y ago
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/11/05/politics/ed-durr-steve-sweeney-new-jersey-senate-district-3/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2021/11/05/politics/ed-durr-steve-sw...
- guerrilla 4y ago
  Flukes happen and they don't change the fact that your chances are still close to zero in general. If FOX news (or whatever) didn't like him, he would have certainly lost. Don't forget the selection bias: people will be filtered by whether they are what the people in control want. Similar to the propaganda model: You don't need to tell people what to write at your newspaper if you never hire people that wouldn't just write what you want anyway.
  - 6510 4y ago
    I have told this story many times and I will tell it again: Since there are so many candidates in the US presidential elections and they nearly all have youtube channels, facebook pages, twitter etc, I was curious how much attention they are getting. The first 2 is easy, they are plastered all over the media and everyone around the world knows them on a first name basis.... but when I looked at random candidates on the long list it was amazing to see the 2 digit numbers. Some didn't get enough attention to account for friends and relatives. Truly shocking was that the green party had youtube videos with 100-250 views. This is such a mind blowingly small number that it doesn't account for any of the media. All those journalists around the world had to write about the top 2 candidates, they wrote tirelessly every day, again and again... Not one of them had the idea to have a looksie what just the number 3 was talking about. That voters collectively didn't give a rats ass about anyones program is one thing but that journalists collectively wrote 1 article on average about half the candidates. Most honestly told the reader they had no idea what their program was about. So there you have it, the digital age provided us with hard data that demonstrates how no one in the world did their homework. No one bothered to inform themselves before voting. They all looked to others for information but those others didn't have any. I therefore conclude we need a voting diploma. We bill everyone for 200 bucks and if they fail the exam government keeps the money. Long in advance the voter gets a randomly chosen list of 20 candidate with 500 chars for each of their top 3 agenda points. The test is multiple choice and you have to match the headlines of the agenda points with the candidates. I'm sure there are people who don't agree but I think it is fair to never listen to them. Don't read what they write. Glaze over when they talk to you and think of puppies.
    - RugnirViking 4y ago
      there is a very good reason that nobody looks at a third party candidate: it would be foolish to vote for them, no matter how closely your views might align to them. Assuming you had any preference at all of which of the major parties get in, by voting for a third party instead of one of them, you in fact increase the chance the other will win. This is a fundamental issue of this kind of voting system, and there are many alternate systems that do not have this crippling, paralysing flaw. For example, look at many northern european democracies, which have ranked choice or proportional votes, and sure enough they often have several-way coalitions of much more reprasentative parties governing them
      - 6510 4y ago
        Coalitions are not needed. Politicians, regardless of their personal agenda, are interested in what the voters want. They might not agree with it, they might not do what the people want, they are always interested. The other candidates, however small, provide valuable insights to them. It shows how far they can push their own agenda. People can display their self-less submission by voting for the top 2 candidates regardless what they represent. It sends a strong signal that they can do whatever they want. All countries get a bunch of stuff right and makes a spectacular mess from other things. Each of those spectacles should have one or more dedicated candidates and people who are sick and tired of it should vote for such candidate. The agenda, most of the time, can be a summary of examples of other [western] countries getting it right. While original ideas are definitely possible you can have countless [shall we say] boring topics that are absolutely worth representing. Such party may draw an utopian or extreme picture, it may even be unrealistic. If people vote for it it will eventually send a message to those politicians who always win the election each and every time. In turn they can propose or implement a trimmed down / mild version of it or explain why they are against it. There might be truly silly ideas worth investigating but the winning candidate cant spend his finite time in office addressing the silly things. Unless there is a significant number of people who don't think it is silly at all. The only chance for such a party to win is if the issue is ignored or escalated to the point everyone is fed up with it. Long before that one of the bigger candidates will absorb that juicy bag of votes. Its a slow process but it works.

Georgelemental 4y ago

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/11/05/politics/ed-durr-steve-sweeney-new-jersey-senate-district-3/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2021/11/05/politics/ed-durr-steve-sw...

guerrilla 4y ago
Flukes happen and they don't change the fact that your chances are still close to zero in general. If FOX news (or whatever) didn't like him, he would have certainly lost. Don't forget the selection bias: people will be filtered by whether they are what the people in control want. Similar to the propaganda model: You don't need to tell people what to write at your newspaper if you never hire people that wouldn't just write what you want anyway.
- 6510 4y ago
  I have told this story many times and I will tell it again: Since there are so many candidates in the US presidential elections and they nearly all have youtube channels, facebook pages, twitter etc, I was curious how much attention they are getting. The first 2 is easy, they are plastered all over the media and everyone around the world knows them on a first name basis.... but when I looked at random candidates on the long list it was amazing to see the 2 digit numbers. Some didn't get enough attention to account for friends and relatives. Truly shocking was that the green party had youtube videos with 100-250 views. This is such a mind blowingly small number that it doesn't account for any of the media. All those journalists around the world had to write about the top 2 candidates, they wrote tirelessly every day, again and again... Not one of them had the idea to have a looksie what just the number 3 was talking about. That voters collectively didn't give a rats ass about anyones program is one thing but that journalists collectively wrote 1 article on average about half the candidates. Most honestly told the reader they had no idea what their program was about. So there you have it, the digital age provided us with hard data that demonstrates how no one in the world did their homework. No one bothered to inform themselves before voting. They all looked to others for information but those others didn't have any. I therefore conclude we need a voting diploma. We bill everyone for 200 bucks and if they fail the exam government keeps the money. Long in advance the voter gets a randomly chosen list of 20 candidate with 500 chars for each of their top 3 agenda points. The test is multiple choice and you have to match the headlines of the agenda points with the candidates. I'm sure there are people who don't agree but I think it is fair to never listen to them. Don't read what they write. Glaze over when they talk to you and think of puppies.
  - RugnirViking 4y ago
    there is a very good reason that nobody looks at a third party candidate: it would be foolish to vote for them, no matter how closely your views might align to them. Assuming you had any preference at all of which of the major parties get in, by voting for a third party instead of one of them, you in fact increase the chance the other will win. This is a fundamental issue of this kind of voting system, and there are many alternate systems that do not have this crippling, paralysing flaw. For example, look at many northern european democracies, which have ranked choice or proportional votes, and sure enough they often have several-way coalitions of much more reprasentative parties governing them
    - 6510 4y ago
      Coalitions are not needed. Politicians, regardless of their personal agenda, are interested in what the voters want. They might not agree with it, they might not do what the people want, they are always interested. The other candidates, however small, provide valuable insights to them. It shows how far they can push their own agenda. People can display their self-less submission by voting for the top 2 candidates regardless what they represent. It sends a strong signal that they can do whatever they want. All countries get a bunch of stuff right and makes a spectacular mess from other things. Each of those spectacles should have one or more dedicated candidates and people who are sick and tired of it should vote for such candidate. The agenda, most of the time, can be a summary of examples of other [western] countries getting it right. While original ideas are definitely possible you can have countless [shall we say] boring topics that are absolutely worth representing. Such party may draw an utopian or extreme picture, it may even be unrealistic. If people vote for it it will eventually send a message to those politicians who always win the election each and every time. In turn they can propose or implement a trimmed down / mild version of it or explain why they are against it. There might be truly silly ideas worth investigating but the winning candidate cant spend his finite time in office addressing the silly things. Unless there is a significant number of people who don't think it is silly at all. The only chance for such a party to win is if the issue is ignored or escalated to the point everyone is fed up with it. Long before that one of the bigger candidates will absorb that juicy bag of votes. Its a slow process but it works.