4 ms·

Ah yes, segregation at the polles. The true definition of freedom and democracy.... Give me a break.

anon191928 1y ago
we are seeing what democracy leads to. Intel stake bought via democracy? lol. give me a break
JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> segregation at the polles I disagree with it. But I think it is worth discussing. We don’t have universal suffrage. The most-successful democracies in history never did. In our day-to-day lives and commerce we weigh opinions based on their source. And the current system isn’t working, in many cases because the majority votes for something stupid.
- dragonwriter 1y ago
  The current system isn't working because, we know from comparative study of modern democracies, the US has all of the features that contributed maximally to disfunction: strong presidential system, unequal legislative representation, and first-past-the-post single-member-district elections for both houses of the national legislature. We could fix those peoblems, or we could add additional problems by layering even more broken systems that the US (among others) has tried before and rejected on top of the existing problems.
  - jfengel 1y ago
    I don't believe that fixing those problems would solve the underlying issue, which is that the voters themselves have a deep antipathy towards each other. We could alter the rules to try to reduce the effects of it, but I don't expect it to reduce the underlying division that leads us to push the rules to (and past) the breaking point. Plus, of course, there is little appetite for any given set of fixes. We can easily calculate who will benefit, and because of the division I mentioned, half the people will oppose the change just to avoid losing influence. I'm hard pressed for a solution short of starting over from scratch, which would at least make some of the existing alliances moot.
    - dragonwriter 1y ago
      > I don't believe that fixing those problems would solve the underlying issue, which is that the voters themselves have a deep antipathy towards each other. The evidence is very strong that the reduction of the dimensionality of discourse and the polarization are a direct result of those features of the electoral system. > I'm hard pressed for a solution short of starting over from scratch, That's not only not a solution, it is not even an actual option. You can't start from anywhere except where you are.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > which is that the voters themselves have a deep antipathy towards each other They don’t. The only solutions to deep-rooted antipathy are forgiveness and annihilation. We aren’t anywhere close to that, despite what idiots want to manufacture. > I'm hard pressed for a solution short of starting over from scratch This is meaningless at best, stupid at worst.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    None of this is an argument for or against playing with the notion of one (citizen, non-felon, adult) person one vote.

anon191928 1y ago

we are seeing what democracy leads to. Intel stake bought via democracy? lol. give me a break

> segregation at the polles I disagree with it. But I think it is worth discussing. We don’t have universal suffrage. The most-successful democracies in history never did. In our day-to-day lives and commerce we weigh opinions based on their source. And the current system isn’t working, in many cases because the majority votes for something stupid.

dragonwriter 1y ago
The current system isn't working because, we know from comparative study of modern democracies, the US has all of the features that contributed maximally to disfunction: strong presidential system, unequal legislative representation, and first-past-the-post single-member-district elections for both houses of the national legislature. We could fix those peoblems, or we could add additional problems by layering even more broken systems that the US (among others) has tried before and rejected on top of the existing problems.
- jfengel 1y ago
  I don't believe that fixing those problems would solve the underlying issue, which is that the voters themselves have a deep antipathy towards each other. We could alter the rules to try to reduce the effects of it, but I don't expect it to reduce the underlying division that leads us to push the rules to (and past) the breaking point. Plus, of course, there is little appetite for any given set of fixes. We can easily calculate who will benefit, and because of the division I mentioned, half the people will oppose the change just to avoid losing influence. I'm hard pressed for a solution short of starting over from scratch, which would at least make some of the existing alliances moot.
  - dragonwriter 1y ago
    > I don't believe that fixing those problems would solve the underlying issue, which is that the voters themselves have a deep antipathy towards each other. The evidence is very strong that the reduction of the dimensionality of discourse and the polarization are a direct result of those features of the electoral system. > I'm hard pressed for a solution short of starting over from scratch, That's not only not a solution, it is not even an actual option. You can't start from anywhere except where you are.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > which is that the voters themselves have a deep antipathy towards each other They don’t. The only solutions to deep-rooted antipathy are forgiveness and annihilation. We aren’t anywhere close to that, despite what idiots want to manufacture. > I'm hard pressed for a solution short of starting over from scratch This is meaningless at best, stupid at worst.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  None of this is an argument for or against playing with the notion of one (citizen, non-felon, adult) person one vote.