4 ms·

"If democracy doesn't return the result we want we'll rig the system to return that result anyway"

glompers 3y ago
George Washington in his transfer of power farewell speech warned Americans to avoid factionalism, right? But never mind that. Our party base (true speaking for either franchise that extracts rents from the need for electoral viability now) are more patriotic than that dude. Or we only have to outrun the slower party in order to successfully outrun the grizzly bear of being less best for the country. No other accountability applies for very long if your faction can still pull back ahead as the better one for some projective new future of America, but both factions by their own definition will always outrun the other in that shadow race.
- PrimeMcFly 3y ago
  The problem is you have half the country severely lacking in education and their thoughts and ideas about what is best for the country don't correspond to reality.
  - georgeplusplus 3y ago
    And Whose reality exactly is that? Have you lived outside the US? Socialites in expensive lavish cities are the minority in the world by far. The majority is what you just described, poverty, and lack of education to start. To them you are like Maria Antoinette telling them just eat cake from your cushy little San Fran bubble.
    - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
      It's not anyone's reality, it's reality, period. Yes, I've lived outside the US - I'm not even from the US. I've lived in 5 different countries. I don't really care how it seems. Ignorance, and offense at having that ignorance called out, is not a sufficient reason to burn a country to the ground and violate the rights of citizens. If it were up to that poor uneducated half of the US, most of them would push for the US to be closer to Gilead.
      - georgeplusplus 3y ago
        It’s your opinion they’re burning it to the ground but the fact they have survived, and will continue to survive, without your way of thinking and education, speaks volumes. Walk a mile in their shoes before you Insult and attack their way of life and thinking. that is the definition of ignorance in of itself
        PrimeMcFly 3y ago
        They survive because the non-ignorant half is propping them up while they are trying to drag them down. > Walk a mile in their shoes before you Insult and attack their way of life and thinking You're making a ton of assumptions here to make a point that has no bearing on mine.
        georgeplusplus 3y ago
        OK cause that makes sense they’re just sitting on their asses waiting for the good smart people like you to do something. Good argument there.
        PrimeMcFly 3y ago
        They are not waiting for the good smart people to do something because they think the good smart people are corrupt, and believe stupid conspiracy stuff like q anon and trafficking children in pizza restaurant basements. You seem to be remarkably out of touch.
PrimeMcFly 3y ago
If people can't be trusted to vote responsibly (i.e. not voting in someone openly talking about being a dictator, openly racist, openly bigoted), then I'm fine with bypassing the vote. It's a flawed system anyway. Ridiculous that everyone should have a say.
- swores 3y ago
  > "Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time..." - Winston Churchill (Since it's the second quote of his I've used in this thread, I'd like to actively clarify that despite being British I am a long way from being a fan of Churchill, but he does have some good quotes attributed to him!) So when you say "It's a flawed system anyway. Ridiculous that everyone should have a say." - do you have a better system in mind, that works better than existing forms of democracy?
  - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
    Actually, yes! Thank you for asking. First I should point out how utterly ridiculous it is that with all the data we have access too, all our analytical capability and ability to model and simulation, there are not many people working on alternate systems, and anything people come up with is not taken seriously. People would rather poke holes in anything new, even if it has less problems than our current system. I do have a rough idea for a system, it's based on a lot of research, but only exists as a lot of rough notes - I haven't taken the time yet to properly organize and write everything out, it's a big project. Basically though, it tries to solve some of the problems of representative democracy like we have in the US. Some example differences (which I'm not sure if I can devote time to defending in this thread, I just list them as examples) by: - Removing elections for many positions, having them appointed or offered to people from a qualified pool - possibly even assigning them the duty of serving in such a position, not unlike jury duty. - Giving people in positions of power more power to act unilaterally, while still having their actions subject to review, a cross between SCOTUS and a jury of qualified individuals randomly selected. - Ensuring leaders must act based on current science and knowledge, not personal feeling or intuition - these are not things the general population should be voting on, even indirectly. - Many more referendums for big issues, rather than just having elected representatives make the decision, or worse, fail to make the decision. Basically, many more elements of a meritocracy, much less influence and say from the population, while still ensuring they have a voice. It would be a much less democratic representative democracy in the best way possible, although I suppose it could still fall under that same umbrella.
swores 3y ago
It's an interesting (and scary/depressing) subject to think about - what proportion of people would or wouldn't find that acceptable in even more extreme circumstance? Let's imagine a hypothetical political party and its presidential nominee that had an official policy of "if we get elected, we will nuke every country in the world except our own, and if we don't get destroyed in return we'll then move on to use our military to murder every white person in America" (hopefully that's extreme enough and far enough from actual policies for anyone to read it as a dig against a particular party!), and imagine 51% of the country supported this party and these policies. How many people would go "well fair enough, democracy!"? It's a bit like that old line attributed to Churchill: > Churchill: "Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?" > Socialite: "My goodness, Mr. Churchill... Well, I suppose... we would have to discuss terms, of course... " > Churchill: "Would you sleep with me for five pounds?" > Socialite: "Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!" > Churchill: "Madam, we've already established that. Now we are haggling about the price" It's easy (for some people, though I don't condone this view) to look down on prostitutes as being immoral and disgusting if nobody would offer you more than £5, but how many people with that view would be willing to bend their ethics if they genuinely had an offer of tens of millions in return for having sex one time? Likewise, it's easy to say we should respect democracy when both sides genuinely want what's best for as many people as possible but disagree on how to achieve that, but what about if democratic voting leads to having a leader like Stalin, or Idi Amin, or Putin? Put another way: if you sincerely believe either that all Democrats are evil and trying to wipe out white people and destroy Christianity, or you believe that Republicans are all literally the same as Hitler and will do as much harm, in either case (despite neither view being accurate) if it's a genuine belief then isn't the ethical reaction to oppose them even if undemocratic? (As a non-American I can't claim to be an expert on what the worst, most-exaggerated claims made against each of Biden and Trump are, so insert whatever they are to replace the examples above.) One problem is when you get leaders who genuinely will do evil things and yet manage to be popular enough to win elections; the second problem is when you have enough people believing conspiracy theories and bad faith claims about a party that make them look evil. Neither is an easy problem to solve.
- cragfar 3y ago
  > It's an interesting (and scary/depressing) subject to think about - what proportion of people would or wouldn't find that acceptable in even more extreme circumstance? "Right side of history" isn't used just to sound cool. It's to embolden opinions like his. Same with the description of "just a bunch of old white men".
glompers 3y ago
“a republic, if you can keep it.” - Franklin

George Washington in his transfer of power farewell speech warned Americans to avoid factionalism, right? But never mind that. Our party base (true speaking for either franchise that extracts rents from the need for electoral viability now) are more patriotic than that dude. Or we only have to outrun the slower party in order to successfully outrun the grizzly bear of being less best for the country. No other accountability applies for very long if your faction can still pull back ahead as the better one for some projective new future of America, but both factions by their own definition will always outrun the other in that shadow race.

PrimeMcFly 3y ago
The problem is you have half the country severely lacking in education and their thoughts and ideas about what is best for the country don't correspond to reality.
- georgeplusplus 3y ago
  And Whose reality exactly is that? Have you lived outside the US? Socialites in expensive lavish cities are the minority in the world by far. The majority is what you just described, poverty, and lack of education to start. To them you are like Maria Antoinette telling them just eat cake from your cushy little San Fran bubble.
  - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
    It's not anyone's reality, it's reality, period. Yes, I've lived outside the US - I'm not even from the US. I've lived in 5 different countries. I don't really care how it seems. Ignorance, and offense at having that ignorance called out, is not a sufficient reason to burn a country to the ground and violate the rights of citizens. If it were up to that poor uneducated half of the US, most of them would push for the US to be closer to Gilead.
    - georgeplusplus 3y ago
      It’s your opinion they’re burning it to the ground but the fact they have survived, and will continue to survive, without your way of thinking and education, speaks volumes. Walk a mile in their shoes before you Insult and attack their way of life and thinking. that is the definition of ignorance in of itself
      - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
        They survive because the non-ignorant half is propping them up while they are trying to drag them down. > Walk a mile in their shoes before you Insult and attack their way of life and thinking You're making a ton of assumptions here to make a point that has no bearing on mine.
        georgeplusplus 3y ago
        OK cause that makes sense they’re just sitting on their asses waiting for the good smart people like you to do something. Good argument there.
        PrimeMcFly 3y ago
        They are not waiting for the good smart people to do something because they think the good smart people are corrupt, and believe stupid conspiracy stuff like q anon and trafficking children in pizza restaurant basements. You seem to be remarkably out of touch.

PrimeMcFly 3y ago

If people can't be trusted to vote responsibly (i.e. not voting in someone openly talking about being a dictator, openly racist, openly bigoted), then I'm fine with bypassing the vote. It's a flawed system anyway. Ridiculous that everyone should have a say.

swores 3y ago
> "Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time..." - Winston Churchill (Since it's the second quote of his I've used in this thread, I'd like to actively clarify that despite being British I am a long way from being a fan of Churchill, but he does have some good quotes attributed to him!) So when you say "It's a flawed system anyway. Ridiculous that everyone should have a say." - do you have a better system in mind, that works better than existing forms of democracy?
- PrimeMcFly 3y ago
  Actually, yes! Thank you for asking. First I should point out how utterly ridiculous it is that with all the data we have access too, all our analytical capability and ability to model and simulation, there are not many people working on alternate systems, and anything people come up with is not taken seriously. People would rather poke holes in anything new, even if it has less problems than our current system. I do have a rough idea for a system, it's based on a lot of research, but only exists as a lot of rough notes - I haven't taken the time yet to properly organize and write everything out, it's a big project. Basically though, it tries to solve some of the problems of representative democracy like we have in the US. Some example differences (which I'm not sure if I can devote time to defending in this thread, I just list them as examples) by: - Removing elections for many positions, having them appointed or offered to people from a qualified pool - possibly even assigning them the duty of serving in such a position, not unlike jury duty. - Giving people in positions of power more power to act unilaterally, while still having their actions subject to review, a cross between SCOTUS and a jury of qualified individuals randomly selected. - Ensuring leaders must act based on current science and knowledge, not personal feeling or intuition - these are not things the general population should be voting on, even indirectly. - Many more referendums for big issues, rather than just having elected representatives make the decision, or worse, fail to make the decision. Basically, many more elements of a meritocracy, much less influence and say from the population, while still ensuring they have a voice. It would be a much less democratic representative democracy in the best way possible, although I suppose it could still fall under that same umbrella.

swores 3y ago

It's an interesting (and scary/depressing) subject to think about - what proportion of people would or wouldn't find that acceptable in even more extreme circumstance? Let's imagine a hypothetical political party and its presidential nominee that had an official policy of "if we get elected, we will nuke every country in the world except our own, and if we don't get destroyed in return we'll then move on to use our military to murder every white person in America" (hopefully that's extreme enough and far enough from actual policies for anyone to read it as a dig against a particular party!), and imagine 51% of the country supported this party and these policies. How many people would go "well fair enough, democracy!"? It's a bit like that old line attributed to Churchill: > Churchill: "Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?" > Socialite: "My goodness, Mr. Churchill... Well, I suppose... we would have to discuss terms, of course... " > Churchill: "Would you sleep with me for five pounds?" > Socialite: "Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!" > Churchill: "Madam, we've already established that. Now we are haggling about the price" It's easy (for some people, though I don't condone this view) to look down on prostitutes as being immoral and disgusting if nobody would offer you more than £5, but how many people with that view would be willing to bend their ethics if they genuinely had an offer of tens of millions in return for having sex one time? Likewise, it's easy to say we should respect democracy when both sides genuinely want what's best for as many people as possible but disagree on how to achieve that, but what about if democratic voting leads to having a leader like Stalin, or Idi Amin, or Putin? Put another way: if you sincerely believe either that all Democrats are evil and trying to wipe out white people and destroy Christianity, or you believe that Republicans are all literally the same as Hitler and will do as much harm, in either case (despite neither view being accurate) if it's a genuine belief then isn't the ethical reaction to oppose them even if undemocratic? (As a non-American I can't claim to be an expert on what the worst, most-exaggerated claims made against each of Biden and Trump are, so insert whatever they are to replace the examples above.) One problem is when you get leaders who genuinely will do evil things and yet manage to be popular enough to win elections; the second problem is when you have enough people believing conspiracy theories and bad faith claims about a party that make them look evil. Neither is an easy problem to solve.

cragfar 3y ago
> It's an interesting (and scary/depressing) subject to think about - what proportion of people would or wouldn't find that acceptable in even more extreme circumstance? "Right side of history" isn't used just to sound cool. It's to embolden opinions like his. Same with the description of "just a bunch of old white men".

glompers 3y ago

“a republic, if you can keep it.” - Franklin