5 ms·

The ability of the public to challenge the government in court and win on an issue like this is a large part of why America is so successful - the citizens are

The ability of the public to challenge the government in court and win on an issue like this is a large part of why America is so successful - the citizens are what removes government rot and keeps the system running well.

thinkling 12y ago
Oh how I wish I agreed with that. I recognize the huge value of a healthy justice system, but at the same time (a) there's so much we still cannot get through this type of legal process (National Security Letters, anyone), and (b) there's so much systemic rot that cannot be addressed this way (e.g., campaign financing) or in any other way that seems tractable to me.
- Normati 12y ago
  It's quite tractable, stop voting for the same two parties that keep causing the problems over and over again. The trouble is, most of your voting neighbors don't mind so they perpetuate the problem - there's the downside of democracy, two wolves and a sheep.
  - chrisbennet 12y ago
    Not sure why you got downvoted, but you make a good point. Political parties change their "offerings" when they lose votes. Analogy: When 2 large competing grocery chains start loosing business to small organic stores the big stores will start carrying organic food. The small organic store will never dominate the big stores but they can cause the big guys to change.
  - colordrops 12y ago
    I fully agree that voting for third parties is the way to go, but currently the public has been propagandized to believe that voting third party is wasting your vote, or even worse, causing harm. They are convinced that their vote is wasted by a propaganda video going around that describes the US system as a "first past the post", in which it is impossible for third parties to win. They are convinced that third party voting is harmful as it supposedly causes a spoiler effect. As long as people are brainwashed against voting third party by these flawed memes, the problem will remain intractable.
    - Eupolemos 12y ago
      I am one of the "brainwashed" people - perhaps you could present some arguments why you think my belief is wrong? (I see my belief as simple mathematics)
      - CWuestefeld 12y ago
        History - while America has always been governed primarily by two parties, that set of two has changed a couple of times. Originally, it was the Whigs and the Democratic Republicans. In the mid-1800s, the Republicans were a new party, and Lincoln wound up being the first president from that party. Interesting to note that the guy who freed the slaves was a Republican, while it was the Democrats who tried to maintain slavery. During the Civil Rights movement, the parties got confused about who their core constituencies were, leading to the major shift leading to the alignment we see today. While I'm far from confident that it's happening, it's entirely possible that today's problems like ubiquitous surveillance, brutality of a militarized police force, etc., together make up enough of a sea change in public opinion that the Parties are again susceptible to getting lost. Witness flip-flop of many people in condemning GWB while failing to protest Obama's own similar actions, or vice-versa.
      - colordrops 12y ago
        If you voted based on mathematics, you would see that you are mistakenly conflating your individual vote with the behavior of the general populace. For example, with the presidential vote, except in a couple small districts in swing states, your vote is completely irrelevant. Your single vote is both not enough to swing the state you are in, and even if it were, it's within the error margins for that state. If it ever got close enough to where one vote decides it (and it never has), it would be a court deciding the vote anyway. So since your individual vote doesn't matter, you might as well vote your conscience and not pragmatically.
      - chrisbennet 12y ago
        My comment above yours might answer that (a "wasted" vote isn't wasted if it causes change). A few years ago I watched a TV program about Ralph Nader and it changed the way I voted. Like most people, I had been voting for the least worst guy who I thought could win. I think that you probably do so as well. I probably did that for the first 20+ years. Now ask yourself: "How is that working out for me? Has it made a long term positive difference?" The major parties really can't afford to cater to our interests, at least not in deed. We frankly can't pay them enough. Unless they are independently wealthy, they can't afford to run for another term if they don't satisfy the wishes of their donors [their true constituents]. Side with your voters against the guys funding your campaign(s) - no more money for you!
  - Quanticles 12y ago
    C.G.P. Grey has an entire series on why our voting system forces a two-party system. The issue isn't getting your neighbour to change their voting habits, the issue is changing the system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-ts=1422579428&v=s7tWHJfhiyo&list=EC7679C7ACE93A5638&x-yt-cl=85114404 https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-ts=1422579428&v=s7tWHJfhi...
shard972 12y ago
I wouldn't call this case much of a success just yet. It shouldn't take 4 years to get a legal opinion on currently enforceable laws.

thinkling 12y ago

Oh how I wish I agreed with that. I recognize the huge value of a healthy justice system, but at the same time (a) there's so much we still cannot get through this type of legal process (National Security Letters, anyone), and (b) there's so much systemic rot that cannot be addressed this way (e.g., campaign financing) or in any other way that seems tractable to me.

Normati 12y ago
It's quite tractable, stop voting for the same two parties that keep causing the problems over and over again. The trouble is, most of your voting neighbors don't mind so they perpetuate the problem - there's the downside of democracy, two wolves and a sheep.
- chrisbennet 12y ago
  Not sure why you got downvoted, but you make a good point. Political parties change their "offerings" when they lose votes. Analogy: When 2 large competing grocery chains start loosing business to small organic stores the big stores will start carrying organic food. The small organic store will never dominate the big stores but they can cause the big guys to change.
- colordrops 12y ago
  I fully agree that voting for third parties is the way to go, but currently the public has been propagandized to believe that voting third party is wasting your vote, or even worse, causing harm. They are convinced that their vote is wasted by a propaganda video going around that describes the US system as a "first past the post", in which it is impossible for third parties to win. They are convinced that third party voting is harmful as it supposedly causes a spoiler effect. As long as people are brainwashed against voting third party by these flawed memes, the problem will remain intractable.
  - Eupolemos 12y ago
    I am one of the "brainwashed" people - perhaps you could present some arguments why you think my belief is wrong? (I see my belief as simple mathematics)
    - CWuestefeld 12y ago
      History - while America has always been governed primarily by two parties, that set of two has changed a couple of times. Originally, it was the Whigs and the Democratic Republicans. In the mid-1800s, the Republicans were a new party, and Lincoln wound up being the first president from that party. Interesting to note that the guy who freed the slaves was a Republican, while it was the Democrats who tried to maintain slavery. During the Civil Rights movement, the parties got confused about who their core constituencies were, leading to the major shift leading to the alignment we see today. While I'm far from confident that it's happening, it's entirely possible that today's problems like ubiquitous surveillance, brutality of a militarized police force, etc., together make up enough of a sea change in public opinion that the Parties are again susceptible to getting lost. Witness flip-flop of many people in condemning GWB while failing to protest Obama's own similar actions, or vice-versa.
    - colordrops 12y ago
      If you voted based on mathematics, you would see that you are mistakenly conflating your individual vote with the behavior of the general populace. For example, with the presidential vote, except in a couple small districts in swing states, your vote is completely irrelevant. Your single vote is both not enough to swing the state you are in, and even if it were, it's within the error margins for that state. If it ever got close enough to where one vote decides it (and it never has), it would be a court deciding the vote anyway. So since your individual vote doesn't matter, you might as well vote your conscience and not pragmatically.
    - chrisbennet 12y ago
      My comment above yours might answer that (a "wasted" vote isn't wasted if it causes change). A few years ago I watched a TV program about Ralph Nader and it changed the way I voted. Like most people, I had been voting for the least worst guy who I thought could win. I think that you probably do so as well. I probably did that for the first 20+ years. Now ask yourself: "How is that working out for me? Has it made a long term positive difference?" The major parties really can't afford to cater to our interests, at least not in deed. We frankly can't pay them enough. Unless they are independently wealthy, they can't afford to run for another term if they don't satisfy the wishes of their donors [their true constituents]. Side with your voters against the guys funding your campaign(s) - no more money for you!
- Quanticles 12y ago
  C.G.P. Grey has an entire series on why our voting system forces a two-party system. The issue isn't getting your neighbour to change their voting habits, the issue is changing the system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-ts=1422579428&v=s7tWHJfhiyo&list=EC7679C7ACE93A5638&x-yt-cl=85114404 https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-ts=1422579428&v=s7tWHJfhi...

shard972 12y ago

I wouldn't call this case much of a success just yet. It shouldn't take 4 years to get a legal opinion on currently enforceable laws.