7 ms·

Of course, none of this actually matters anymore. The corporo-verlords have bought both parties. The only way is parliamentary system with proportional represen

Of course, none of this actually matters anymore. The corporo-verlords have bought both parties. The only way is parliamentary system with proportional representation. This isn't a political statement, just that hackers should investigate how to hack the system into that form. One clever hack is being done by John Koza (inventor of genetic programming) to do away with the electoral college http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/about.php http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/about.php . Some more hacking is needed.

drivebyacct2 14y ago
Why do people love to act like both parties are the same? Is it just errant, broad pessimism? I understand wanting more options or not liking either available option but they're not the same. They don't have the same values, beliefs, principles, policies or experiences. They have many things in common, but they're not the same and it's not useless to talk about them and their perception in the polls.
- antoko 14y ago
  Not that I speak for the GP but for me personally it is a question of relative similarity. My values compared to either one of the two main US parties are very different. Given that the relative similarities of the two parties it means they are effectively "the same". If I instead compare and contrast them with each other, obviously I can too can see that they are not "the same"
- elsurudo 14y ago
  The point isn't that they're "the same". It's that they're the same _where it matters_. That they are both bought and paid for by the same corporate money. Where do the hundreds of millions to fund the campaigns come from? You don't think that those interests might, you know, want something in return? All mainstream political "discussion" is simply a distraction from the true issues. To think anything else is just naive.
  - drivebyacct2 14y ago
    >It's that they're the same _where it matters_. Quite frankly, that's bullshit. Romney/Ryan advocate a rollback of my rights and continued (or furthered) discrimination against me. That's only one small social issue that they differ on and they differ on policies that involve much more substantive issues. Maybe you're privileged or fortunate enough to not be affected by tax rates, women's rights legislation, gay rights issues, and more, but many of us aren't. Those issues matter and that's why some support Romney and some support Obama.
    - marshallp 14y ago
      I wouldn't consider those really substantive compared to drawback of the military-industrial complex, radical increase in nasa/science funding, full free national health-care (including dentistry), overhaul of the education system (along the lines advocated by khan academy), ending the drug war, ending corporate welfare (and maybe even corporate personhood), and probably other major ones I can't think of right now.
      - drivebyacct2 14y ago
        Those issues affect me every, single day in a tangible primary fashion. The other problems, yes, are frustrating. Romney and Obama differ on how the feel towards funding that military industrial complex, and in a telling way given what you're discussing and the nature of the industrial complex. As for national health-care, education, science, etc, they very noticeably and very starkly differ as well. ... I feel like you just supported what I was saying. My second post was simply an example of how they differ in meaningful ways.
        andreasvc 14y ago
        This is not an either/or discussion. I see what you mean, that there is a very tangible difference between the current two candidates. On the other hand, two is a very limited choice. A lot of first world countries have multi-party systems and have some form of social democracy. Perhaps if it weren't for the first-past-the-post electoral system, the US might be a social democracy as well.
- colanderman 14y ago
  If they weren't similar, then it would behoove them to become more so, lest the other party move to sway undecided voters. Plurality voting ensures that there are two major parties, and that they are as similar as possible without ceding ground to third parties.
  - ryanwaggoner 14y ago
    The big risk isn't 3rd parties, it's just not voting, as about half of our citizens decide to do. And for example, it's hard to see the Republican party try to capture undecided voters with more centrist policies without pissing off the right-wing portion of their party, who won't go vote for the green party, but will instead: 1) Not vote 2) Start something like the Tea Party 3) Toss the incumbents out because they weren't extreme enough This is happening on the left as well; we're becoming way more partisan as a country, and slowly but surely removing all the moderates from Congress.
    - pc86 14y ago
      Half is optimistic. In non-presidential year congressional elections it's not uncommon to have less than 1 in 3 voting. In true off-year elections in odd years where most folks are voting on lower court judges (in my state, anyway), local representatives on councils and school boards, it's much closer to 1 in 5 or less. There are just over 600 people in my ward of my township. 67 people voted in 2011 for the Council seat that was up. It's disgusting. I would posit that the cause is somewhat different, though: the partisan zealots are the ones that vote in every single primary and general election. For those of you who vote for POTUS and that's all, there are actually two elections every year. The country as a whole I think is more moderate than 99% of our elected officials, but the country as a whole isn't voting. It's largely straight-ticket people voting, especially in off years. This results in Members of Congress becoming more extreme because those are the people voting for them.
      - antoko 14y ago
        I'm not sure how much of this is actually due to voter apathy. Whilst I agree with promoting civic engagement it may not directly address this issue. The reason the country is becoming more partisan is more likely due to the benefits of incumbency, and the insane level of gerrymandering we allow. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering#United_States
- andreasvc 14y ago
  The GP didn't say that they're the same, just that they're in the hands of corporations. Now that may or may not be true, but I think it's obvious that a two party state is very sub-optimal.
- justin66 14y ago
  > Why do people love to act like both parties are the same? Is it just errant, broad pessimism? On the contrary, it's not necessarily pessimism, the people who feel that way are probably just rather focused on the issues where the candidates are depressingly similar. For example if you want to see military spending massively reduced, the financial system reformed in fundamental ways to reduce systemic risk, or massively increased gasoline taxes to cover infrastructure improvements or green energy development, you probably feel badly served by both parties and their candidates right now. On the other hand, if you're a gay man who wants to get married and start a family, or a redneck who wants to be able to carry your .357 magnum wherever you want whenever you want, or a rich guy who wants to keep your taxes as close to zero as can be achieved under the current two party system, the party differences are rather more obvious to you. It's not really a question of pessimism, just the way people prioritize things. A person who has a lot of strong interests in the first category of issues (where the parties are rather similar, or just similarly useless) might be a lot more likely to say the parties are the same than a person whose strong interests are in the other set of issues.
- jeffool 14y ago
  I've come to see people saying that as "they are the same in areas I particularly care about." Now, what those similar areas are, is usually the same. Corporate influence. (Usually, anyway. It can change.) The importance of those similar areas to other people is unaddressed in this concern. Key is that the opinion holder see this as a larger issue in their, or everyone's lives, even if others (you, me, anyone) may disagree.
anon102012 14y ago
A "parliamentary system" means a system where legislative elections are held and the party or coalition of parties that garners a majority then forms the executive branch of the government, and one member of the legislature is chosen to serve as the "prime minister" or head of the executive branch. Americans would never accept a system that did not allow them to select their chief executives (presidents, governors, mayors).
- marshallp 14y ago
  Hackers should hack them into it.
  - anon102012 14y ago
    Why? If you want PR, you can have that with a presidential system. See Brazil as an example. Americans have had presidential systems since before the country was founded (the colonial governments), have enjoyed virtually unparalleled stability with them, and show no eagerness to abandon them. In fact, the UK, one of the oldest parliamentary democracies in the world and the originator of the "Westminster System" used in most Anglophone countries, moved towards presidentialism with the Local Government Act 2003 that allowed directly-elected mayors, such as London's colorful Boris Johnson.
ryanwaggoner 14y ago
This isn't a political statement, just that hackers should investigate how to hack the system into that form. Haha...I love this. The only way to do government is full-blown communism, with a little genocide mixed in for good measure. This isn't a political statement, but someone should figure out how to make this happen. Of course it's a political statement!
- marshallp 14y ago
  Yeah, sure, whatever you say.
- andreasvc 14y ago
  Why do you make it seem as if that second part in italics is a quote when it's not? You're arguing against a straw man.
Jach 14y ago
Here, sample some of this: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2008/04/open-letter-to-open-minded-progressives.html http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2008/04/open-le...

drivebyacct2 14y ago

Why do people love to act like both parties are the same? Is it just errant, broad pessimism? I understand wanting more options or not liking either available option but they're not the same. They don't have the same values, beliefs, principles, policies or experiences. They have many things in common, but they're not the same and it's not useless to talk about them and their perception in the polls.

antoko 14y ago
Not that I speak for the GP but for me personally it is a question of relative similarity. My values compared to either one of the two main US parties are very different. Given that the relative similarities of the two parties it means they are effectively "the same". If I instead compare and contrast them with each other, obviously I can too can see that they are not "the same"
elsurudo 14y ago
The point isn't that they're "the same". It's that they're the same _where it matters_. That they are both bought and paid for by the same corporate money. Where do the hundreds of millions to fund the campaigns come from? You don't think that those interests might, you know, want something in return? All mainstream political "discussion" is simply a distraction from the true issues. To think anything else is just naive.
- drivebyacct2 14y ago
  >It's that they're the same _where it matters_. Quite frankly, that's bullshit. Romney/Ryan advocate a rollback of my rights and continued (or furthered) discrimination against me. That's only one small social issue that they differ on and they differ on policies that involve much more substantive issues. Maybe you're privileged or fortunate enough to not be affected by tax rates, women's rights legislation, gay rights issues, and more, but many of us aren't. Those issues matter and that's why some support Romney and some support Obama.
  - marshallp 14y ago
    I wouldn't consider those really substantive compared to drawback of the military-industrial complex, radical increase in nasa/science funding, full free national health-care (including dentistry), overhaul of the education system (along the lines advocated by khan academy), ending the drug war, ending corporate welfare (and maybe even corporate personhood), and probably other major ones I can't think of right now.
    - drivebyacct2 14y ago
      Those issues affect me every, single day in a tangible primary fashion. The other problems, yes, are frustrating. Romney and Obama differ on how the feel towards funding that military industrial complex, and in a telling way given what you're discussing and the nature of the industrial complex. As for national health-care, education, science, etc, they very noticeably and very starkly differ as well. ... I feel like you just supported what I was saying. My second post was simply an example of how they differ in meaningful ways.
      - andreasvc 14y ago
        This is not an either/or discussion. I see what you mean, that there is a very tangible difference between the current two candidates. On the other hand, two is a very limited choice. A lot of first world countries have multi-party systems and have some form of social democracy. Perhaps if it weren't for the first-past-the-post electoral system, the US might be a social democracy as well.
colanderman 14y ago
If they weren't similar, then it would behoove them to become more so, lest the other party move to sway undecided voters. Plurality voting ensures that there are two major parties, and that they are as similar as possible without ceding ground to third parties.
- ryanwaggoner 14y ago
  The big risk isn't 3rd parties, it's just not voting, as about half of our citizens decide to do. And for example, it's hard to see the Republican party try to capture undecided voters with more centrist policies without pissing off the right-wing portion of their party, who won't go vote for the green party, but will instead: 1) Not vote 2) Start something like the Tea Party 3) Toss the incumbents out because they weren't extreme enough This is happening on the left as well; we're becoming way more partisan as a country, and slowly but surely removing all the moderates from Congress.
  - pc86 14y ago
    Half is optimistic. In non-presidential year congressional elections it's not uncommon to have less than 1 in 3 voting. In true off-year elections in odd years where most folks are voting on lower court judges (in my state, anyway), local representatives on councils and school boards, it's much closer to 1 in 5 or less. There are just over 600 people in my ward of my township. 67 people voted in 2011 for the Council seat that was up. It's disgusting. I would posit that the cause is somewhat different, though: the partisan zealots are the ones that vote in every single primary and general election. For those of you who vote for POTUS and that's all, there are actually two elections every year. The country as a whole I think is more moderate than 99% of our elected officials, but the country as a whole isn't voting. It's largely straight-ticket people voting, especially in off years. This results in Members of Congress becoming more extreme because those are the people voting for them.
    - antoko 14y ago
      I'm not sure how much of this is actually due to voter apathy. Whilst I agree with promoting civic engagement it may not directly address this issue. The reason the country is becoming more partisan is more likely due to the benefits of incumbency, and the insane level of gerrymandering we allow. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering#United_States
andreasvc 14y ago
The GP didn't say that they're the same, just that they're in the hands of corporations. Now that may or may not be true, but I think it's obvious that a two party state is very sub-optimal.
justin66 14y ago
> Why do people love to act like both parties are the same? Is it just errant, broad pessimism? On the contrary, it's not necessarily pessimism, the people who feel that way are probably just rather focused on the issues where the candidates are depressingly similar. For example if you want to see military spending massively reduced, the financial system reformed in fundamental ways to reduce systemic risk, or massively increased gasoline taxes to cover infrastructure improvements or green energy development, you probably feel badly served by both parties and their candidates right now. On the other hand, if you're a gay man who wants to get married and start a family, or a redneck who wants to be able to carry your .357 magnum wherever you want whenever you want, or a rich guy who wants to keep your taxes as close to zero as can be achieved under the current two party system, the party differences are rather more obvious to you. It's not really a question of pessimism, just the way people prioritize things. A person who has a lot of strong interests in the first category of issues (where the parties are rather similar, or just similarly useless) might be a lot more likely to say the parties are the same than a person whose strong interests are in the other set of issues.
jeffool 14y ago
I've come to see people saying that as "they are the same in areas I particularly care about." Now, what those similar areas are, is usually the same. Corporate influence. (Usually, anyway. It can change.) The importance of those similar areas to other people is unaddressed in this concern. Key is that the opinion holder see this as a larger issue in their, or everyone's lives, even if others (you, me, anyone) may disagree.

anon102012 14y ago

A "parliamentary system" means a system where legislative elections are held and the party or coalition of parties that garners a majority then forms the executive branch of the government, and one member of the legislature is chosen to serve as the "prime minister" or head of the executive branch. Americans would never accept a system that did not allow them to select their chief executives (presidents, governors, mayors).

marshallp 14y ago
Hackers should hack them into it.
- anon102012 14y ago
  Why? If you want PR, you can have that with a presidential system. See Brazil as an example. Americans have had presidential systems since before the country was founded (the colonial governments), have enjoyed virtually unparalleled stability with them, and show no eagerness to abandon them. In fact, the UK, one of the oldest parliamentary democracies in the world and the originator of the "Westminster System" used in most Anglophone countries, moved towards presidentialism with the Local Government Act 2003 that allowed directly-elected mayors, such as London's colorful Boris Johnson.

ryanwaggoner 14y ago

This isn't a political statement, just that hackers should investigate how to hack the system into that form. Haha...I love this. The only way to do government is full-blown communism, with a little genocide mixed in for good measure. This isn't a political statement, but someone should figure out how to make this happen. Of course it's a political statement!

marshallp 14y ago
Yeah, sure, whatever you say.
andreasvc 14y ago
Why do you make it seem as if that second part in italics is a quote when it's not? You're arguing against a straw man.

Jach 14y ago

Here, sample some of this: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2008/04/open-letter-to-open-minded-progressives.html http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2008/04/open-le...