Kawasaki Concours Forum
Mish mash => Open Forum => Topic started by: gPink on January 28, 2016, 03:32:52 PM
-
It's winter...forum seems slow...so here is a bit of light reading in keeping with the election season. This was published in 2010 but is extremely relevant today. Agree or disagree but try to keep it civil so the sword doesn't fall. ;)
http://spectator.org/print/39326 (http://spectator.org/print/39326)
-
To be honest, I only made it through about 40% of the article. It actually only took about 10% to conclude that "burning this Muther to the ground" is the appropriate course of action. With a few exceptions, we haven't had a politician thet was worth a damn in my lifetime. Honest and politician are mutually exclusive.
Until voters can no longer be bribed by "entitlements", we are fighting a losing battle. Collapse and restructure are only a hair's breadth away from being the only viable remedy.
-
Here is a copy and paste from the COG
The thread was titled "I'm glad I'm on the way out not in" , due to the warming of the earth
This is Gpinks reply , I thought Politics is NOT allowed here?
What more can you expect from the leftist 'Government is God' crowd. The high priests of the left have convinced their congregation that self-flagellation with the global warming whip is the only way to salvation. And like the Inquisition, the heretics must be purged and cleansed of their sins. Deniers must be not only silenced but destroyed so there is no longer a voice of opposition.
-
I'm honored that you saved that one, cuda. It was one of my better rants. :) Are you not taking it a bit out of context? What's it got to due with the current discussion? And if the powers that be decide to move this, we'll still be able to carry on the with the fun elsewhere. ::)
-
Until voters can no longer be bribed by "entitlements", we are fighting a losing battle.
+1
As long as there is a huge underclass, people who are not productive can continue to vote for more spending (mostly for themselves) and less taxes (of course for themselves). There is no hope of ever paying off the debt or even just balancing the budget. And the giving up of rights for the promise or illusion of "safety" cuts right across every demographic and class.
The lack of instant runoff voting coupled with an archaic electoral college concept make it impossible to break out of a two-party system (both of which want ever larger government with more power and never ending spending and corruption).
-
This is Gpinks reply , I thought Politics is NOT allowed here?
Depends how it goes..stays civil, stays here. Doesn't, then off to the Arena.
-
:)
Like I said....out of context from the original thread. Must have struck a nerve though, ::)
-
I can't believe it!
-
It's both a gift and a curse but I have learned to adjust.
-
It's both a gift and a curse but I have learned to adjust.
It is difficult having super-powers...
-
With great power comes great responsibility.
-
Quite.
-
What two party system? There's no difference between D and R.
We could break out of the "two party system" if the voters would stop voting for the party and vote for a candidate.
-
Now might be the time,Cholla. We have a third party candidate running in each of the two major parties.
-
Now IS the time!
-
Now might be the time,Cholla. We have a third party candidate running in each of the two major parties.
Who are they?
-
Who are they?
Trump is a Populist running as a Republican and Bernie is a Socialist running as a Democrat.
-
Now IS the time!
Not really. The way it works now is that very, very few people are willing to vote *FOR* who they really want in one of the other parties or independents because they are too scared their vote will allow someone they DO NOT want to win will win (they are throwing their vote away). So they are "forced" to vote for someone else. This is why we are all trapped. The only way to prevent that is with IRV (instant runoff voting), so each voter can rank candidates. Then one can vote primarily for who he really want to win, and if they don't have a majority, that vote then goes to next rated candidate, and so on. With such a system, one's vote is never wasted.
-
Not really. The way it works now is that very, very few people are willing to vote *FOR* who they really want in one of the other parties or independents because they are too scared their vote will allow someone they DO NOT want to win will win (they are throwing their vote away). So they are "forced" to vote for someone else. This is why we are all trapped. The only way to prevent that is with IRV (instant runoff voting), so each voter can rank candidates. Then one can vote primarily for who he really want to win, and if they don't have a majority, that vote then goes to next rated candidate, and so on. With such a system, one's vote is never wasted.
Just wondering, where it that method being used today?
-
Not really. The way it works now is that very, very few people are willing to vote *FOR* who they really want in one of the other parties or independents because they are too scared their vote will allow someone they DO NOT want to win will win (they are throwing their vote away). So they are "forced" to vote for someone else. This is why we are all trapped. The only way to prevent that is with IRV (instant runoff voting), so each voter can rank candidates. Then one can vote primarily for who he really want to win, and if they don't have a majority, that vote then goes to next rated candidate, and so on. With such a system, one's vote is never wasted.
Interesting. I've thought for a long time that we should have runoff voting. I've never considered the concept of instant runoff. Sounds like a pretty good idea. I have the same question as Wally. Wondering if this is currently being used anywhere.
-
Not really. The way it works now is that very, very few people are willing to vote *FOR* who they really want in one of the other parties or independents because they are too scared their vote will allow someone they DO NOT want to win will win (they are throwing their vote away). So they are "forced" to vote for someone else. This is why we are all trapped. The only way to prevent that is with IRV (instant runoff voting), so each voter can rank candidates. Then one can vote primarily for who he really want to win, and if they don't have a majority, that vote then goes to next rated candidate, and so on. With such a system, one's vote is never wasted.
Max, half the voters aren't smart enough, by their own leaders admission, to bring a photo ID to the polling place. How do you think they're going to figure out I R V? Remember Chad?
-
Chad who? Was he a member here?
-
I think because we are all so used to our own political system that often, we do not even realize that there are other, very different political systems available and actually in common use. And actually, we are hobbled by our voting system (called 'First past the post' where we vote for one person per voting slot) not only due to the system itself (First past the post will always result in a two- party system where no other candidates have a viable choice in a wide- area vote) but further hampered by our own system of using the Electoral College, plus gerrymandering.
The best explanation of FPTP voting I know of is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo)
Further, the same gentleman does a pretty good job of explaining gerrymandering: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mky11UJb9AY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mky11UJb9AY)
Many countries use a collective system of voting, if not directly for candidates (more than one vote per slot, per person) then via enough political parties that they must form a coalition gov't made up of several parties. Take a look at the German system for example.
The Electoral College was invented to solve problems of time and communication but is now carried forth due to the concept of 'state's rights'. In the US, we elect out presidents.... poorly.... but back to the point, we elect them by having 'states' vote for them, not the general public. This is really a form of fixed- line gerrymandering. As I live in RI, one of the most democratic states in the Union (the party, not real democracy, we hate that here and prefer corruption and simple bad ideas where good ideas and methods would work so much better), my vote is basically wasted no matter how I vote in a Presidential election, because the state of RI will ALWAYS cast all votes for the Democratic candidate.
Brian
Interesting. I've thought for a long time that we should have runoff voting. I've never considered the concept of instant runoff. Sounds like a pretty good idea. I have the same question as Wally. Wondering if this is currently being used anywhere.
-
Just wondering, where is that method being used today?
The Wikipedia page does a good explanation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting) and it has examples of where it is used.
Here is a whole site that is dedicated to the issue:
http://www.fairvote.org/ (http://www.fairvote.org/)
Nothing will ever really change until we get rid of the stupid and archaic electoral college and voting system.
-
To be honest, I only made it through about 40% of the article. It actually only took about 10% to conclude that "burning this Muther to the ground" is the appropriate course of action. With a few exceptions, we haven't had a politician thet was worth a damn in my lifetime. Honest and politician are mutually exclusive.
Until voters can no longer be bribed by "entitlements", we are fighting a losing battle. Collapse and restructure are only a hair's breadth away from being the only viable remedy.
Agreed. For some years now I've advocated something so ridiculous that it would never be done, but I had fun throwing it out there:
Close down D.C. and move the gubmint to Dubuque, IA. Congress gets the convention center, which is about big enough to fit 35 people and a coffee machine. That abandoned Motel 6 on the west end of town is the new White House. And that Eagles Lodge over city hall becomes the new SCOTUS digs.
Every 50 years, the gubmint pulls up roots and moves somewhere. It forces the lawyers, the lobbyists, and the mob to start from the ground up and by the time 50 years rolls around, they'll have screwed it up so badly it's time to do it again -- next stop, Buffalo, NY.
-
Max, half the voters aren't smart enough, by their own leaders admission, to bring a photo ID to the polling place. How do you think they're going to figure out I R V? Remember Chad?
Actually, VOTING using instant runoff is easy, you just rank the candidates. If it were a list, you just rank them with numbers (1, 2, 3), or on a touchscreen, you can drag the candidates so they appear in order. It can also be presented by computer as a series of one-on-one questions.
The hard part is actually computing/tabulating the votes. It is a lot more complex than our stupid plurality voting. It is not something that could have been realistically done a hundred years ago. But with computers, it is a snap.
Here is one explanation for calculations:
https://youtu.be/oHRPMJmzBBw
Here is an older one, but I like it.... it also shows a simple ballot:
https://youtu.be/wqblOq8BmgM
-
Chad who? Was he a member here?
Hanging Chad? (Just a guess . . .)
-
Yeah, FL really took a beating on that one but really only because the vote was so closely scrutinized in that particular state. I am quite confident that many people in all states cannot vote properly, FL simply got the spotlight shone directly on those ballots (1/2 vote (hanging chad), 2 or 3 votes, no vote other than a punch impression, etc.).
Brian
Hanging Chad? (Just a guess . . .)
-
We, the people, can come up with 100 good ways to change things but since the elected officials would have to vote on it and pass the necessary laws, it ain't gonna happen. They will no NOTHING to jeopardize their current way of life.
WE ARE DOOMED!
-
Sadly, I think that you are right.
-
We, the people, can come up with 100 good ways to change things but since the elected officials would have to vote on it and pass the necessary laws, it ain't gonna happen. They will no NOTHING to jeopardize their current way of life.
WE ARE DOOMED!
Call a Convention of States an propose amendments to the Constitution. Propose these Constitutional Amendments:
1. Change the Electoral College method or implement another.
2. Term limits for Congressmen and Senators (Including repeal of the 17th amendment. Give the Senate election back to the states legislatures like it was originally in the Constitution.)
3. Term limits for Supreme Court justices.
4. Balanced budget amendment.
5. Repeal of the 16th amendment, or more closely define the income tax system that can be used.
6. Pay raises for all three branches of the Federal government must be approved by popular vote every four years. No more voting their own raises.
I'm sure there are others, but I need to get back to work. Any amendments agreed upon by the Convention of States would be voted on by the states just like any other Constitutional amendment. 38 states must ratify to become law.
Let the rock throwing begin!!
-
I like it all except for the state legislatures voting for the Senators. I trust my state legislatures even less than Congress.
-
Call a Convention of States an propose amendments to the Constitution. Propose these Constitutional Amendments:
1. Change the Electoral College method or implement another.
2. Term limits for Congressmen and Senators (Including repeal of the 17th amendment. Give the Senate election back to the states legislatures like it was originally in the Constitution.)
3. Term limits for Supreme Court justices.
4. Balanced budget amendment.
5. Repeal of the 16th amendment, or more closely define the income tax system that can be used.
6. Pay raises for all three branches of the Federal government must be approved by popular vote every four years. No more voting their own raises.
I'm sure there are others, but I need to get back to work. Any amendments agreed upon by the Convention of States would be voted on by the states just like any other Constitutional amendment. 38 states must ratify to become law.
Let the rock throwing begin!!
I hear ya Wally, and agree with these changes. However I wouldn't trust the delegates to the convention and they would have the power to do WAY more harm than good.
-
Call a Convention of States an propose amendments to the Constitution. Propose these Constitutional Amendments:
1. Change the Electoral College method or implement another.
2. Term limits for Congressmen and Senators (Including repeal of the 17th amendment. Give the Senate election back to the states legislatures like it was originally in the Constitution.)
3. Term limits for Supreme Court justices.
4. Balanced budget amendment.
5. Repeal of the 16th amendment, or more closely define the income tax system that can be used.
6. Pay raises for all three branches of the Federal government must be approved by popular vote every four years. No more voting their own raises.
I'm sure there are others, but I need to get back to work. Any amendments agreed upon by the Convention of States would be voted on by the states just like any other Constitutional amendment. 38 states must ratify to become law.
Let the rock throwing begin!!
I agree with everything you said except giving the Senate election back to the states legislatures. Plus, you need to specify instant runoff voting in #1. :)
Hell will freeze over a few quadrillion times first, of course.
-
Not to mention, a Constitutional Convention opens THE ENTIRE CONSTITUTION to "modification" and/or "revision". Bad idea. No good could come of it.
-
I hear ya Wally, and agree with these changes. However I wouldn't trust the delegates to the convention and they would have the power to do WAY more harm than good.
Deziner, you got your comment in while I was writing my response, but this answers your question too.
The whole worry about a "runaway convention" is based on a false premise. First off, the Convention of States is not a Constitutional Convention, per se. They're not able to create a new Constitution. They can only come to an agreement as to new amendments to the current Constitution, or repeal of earlier ones, that they'd then propose for ratification. This is the same thing that the Congress has the power to do today, but are way to gridlocked to do anything. Then, the Convention of States' proposed amendments would individually go through the same process of being ratified by 3/4 of the states. It's all covered in Article Five of the Constitution. It's just like the first ten amendments. Twelve were proposed and the states only ratified ten of them.
Here's an explanation for you from Wikipedia:
Article Five of the United States Constitution describes the process whereby the Constitution, the nation's frame of government, may be altered. Altering the Constitution consists of proposing an amendment or amendments and subsequent ratification. Amendments may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures.[1] To become part of the Constitution, an amendment must be ratified by either—as determined by Congress—the legislatures of three-fourths of the states or State ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states.
-
I agree with everything you said except giving the Senate election back to the states legislatures. Plus, you need to specify instant runoff voting in #1. :)
Hell will freeze over a few quadrillion times first, of course.
The founding fathers set up two houses of Congress.
The "people's house" was the House of Representatives. Those people were elected by the population to represent the people's interest, elected to two year terms so they could throw the bums out if they weren't doing the will of the people.
The Senate was elected by each states' legislature (Article 1, Section 3) with the purpose of representing the will of the state within the framework of the Federal government. The idea of a popular election of Senators was soundly defeated by the founding fathers (10-1 in the original Constitutional Convention). The longer term was to help "temper" the more volatile nature of the House. They were there to prevent the states' powers from being swallowed up by the federal government.
This was changed by the 17th Amendment.
-
I have a faster way to implement "term limits" but will only discuss them person to person. At a location of my choosing. The walls have ears.
-
. They were there to prevent the states' powers from being swallowed up by the federal government. This was changed by the 17th Amendment.
So we can see how well THAT worked. Now the Fed has all way too much power, does whatever it wants, ignores the Constitution, and holds the States hostage at every turn by passing invalid laws, creating zillions of "agencies" all producing what amount to laws, using withholding of "funds" to get what it wants, or by claiming "interstate commerce" for anything it likes. It is so huge and employs so many people (both directly and indirectly) that it can never be scaled back. And it continues to get bigger every year and in the process amassing a 19 TRILLION dollar debt that grows by over $10,000 PER SECOND.
We changed from the USA ("United States of America") to the FSA ("Federal State of America").
-
I was ready to watch the whole thing come down back in '08. Before it happened they would give a mortgage to an almost dead dog without a job. All to prop up a scheme to sell packaged securities with bogus ratings certified by the rating services who were paid by the investment houses that knew the securities were bad. It was a complete cluster that lots of people should have gone to jail for. Maybe a few did. Instead they printed a bunch of cash to bail the whole thing out and promised it would never happen again. Now if you have cash in the bank you get to see what's it's worth once a month. It's not worth S***.
-
They even passed a law protecting the perps that facilitated the crash...it's called Dodd/Frank act.