Are our Politically Parties counter-intuitive?

[doG]

Are our Politically Parties counter-intuitive?

I don't know that counter-intuitive is the right descriptive term, I would use counter productive. IMO a 2, 3,4,....party system will never represent the diversity of the population of 300+ million people. The collapse of a system to 2 parties is the result of the desire for power since any 1 party in a 2 party system will have more weight than it would in a system with more parties. IMO this has happened because the majority of those seeking a position as a representative weren't genuinely interested in representation but power as a primary motivation for seeking office.

 

If I had my way the House of Representatives would have 10,000 representatives or more. 400 or so would go to Washington to write law as they do now but representatives in the general population would vote on those laws, not those representatives writing the law. It would add a check and balance to the current system of legislation which has broken since the cap on representation was introduced. I would add a similar check and balance to the Senate as well.

[rigney]

What does that even mean... "Turn our world upside down?"

 

The stock market is up almost 60% since Obama took office. There has been positive private sector job growth for 27 straight months under Obama. Corporate profits are higher than they've EVER been. Government spending is down more than it's been since the Korean war drawdown, he's spending less than Reagan did at this same time in his presidency, and size of government is shrinking overall. He's lowered taxes for 95% of americans. He's killed more terrorists than Bush did, including Bin Laden. He ended the war in Iraq and has been bringing troops home from Afghanistan, but he didn't close Guantanamo, he didn't implement single payer healthcare, and has more than doubled spending on border enforcement and has deported record numbers of undocumented immigrants (more than 1.2 million in his first 3 years in office, which is more than Bush2 did in both terms).

 

I mean, seriously... At what point will people realize that their narrative is patently false when even briefly compared to reality and facts?

 

So, I ask again... What does that even mean that Obama will "turn our world upside down?" It sure looks like he's doing exactly what the Republicans claim to admire and support, and yet that's the response?

 

I hate to ask what you've been smoking"? But I must ask, WHAT ARE YOU SMOKIN"? Edited June 9, 2012 by rigney

[Moontanman]

I hate to ask, "What are you smoking"? But I must ask, WHAT ARE YOU SMOKIN"?

 

Smells a lot like reality to me rigney...

[doG]

I hate to ask, "What are you smoking"? But I must ask, WHAT ARE YOU SMOKIN"?

Attacking the poster is not debating the content of the post Mr. Ad Hominem. Do you not have any legitimate points to counter with?

[rigney]

Attacking the poster is not debating the content of the post Mr. Ad Hominem. Do you not have any legitimate points to counter with?

 

Mr. Ad Hominem? My My!

[D H]

I don't know that counter-intuitive is the right descriptive term, I would use counter productive.

That's the term! Counter-intuitive was counter-intuitive, but I also knew it wasn't counter-preservative.

 

 

IMO a 2, 3,4,....party system will never represent the diversity of the population of 300+ million people. The collapse of a system to 2 parties is the result of the desire for power since any 1 party in a 2 party system will have more weight than it would in a system with more parties. IMO this has happened because the majority of those seeking a position as a representative weren't genuinely interested in representation but power as a primary motivation for seeking office.

There's nothing nefarious here. That we have a two party system is a consequence of how we elect officials. The dominant scheme in the US is winner-take-all. Suppose every House district in some state voted 50.1% for one party, 49.9% for the other. All of the representatives from that state will come be members of the same party. The representation is completely out of proportion compared to the vote. That winner takes all tends to create stable two party systems is called Duverger’s Law.

 

If I had my way the House of Representatives would have 10,000 representatives or more.

Not "or more". That would be unconstitutional. The Constitution says "The number of representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one representative." The population is just over 300 million. Divide by 30,000 and you get 10,000 as the constitutional upper limit on the number of representatives. More than 10,000 representatives would require a constitutional amendment. Your 10,000 figure would not. It would just require an act of Congress. They would have to amend the law it passed just over a century ago that fixed the number of representatives at 435.

 

Note that your 10,000 representatives might well be counter productive (too many cooks spoil the broth!) and it would probably still result in a two party system if those representatives are chosen by winner-take-all. You would have to fundamentally change how the representatives are chosen to get away from a two party system.

 

 

Addendum

Here's the web site for an organization that advocates for something very close to your 10,000 representatives: http://www.thirty-thousand.org/index.htm.

 

Second Addendum, "Article the first"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_the_First

Edited June 9, 2012 by D H

[doG]

You would have to fundamentally change how the representatives are chosen to get away from a two party system.

And that would be the key. One idea I would propose for such a system is to continue to elect 1 representative for congressional districts sized such that the current enumeration that results in 435 representatives would continue. We just don't have room for 10,000 representatives in the House of Representatives and legislative debates would be never ending and stagnant. These representatives would never again for on the laws they write though, they'd have no say on the passage of laws they write.

 

Instead I would favor a system where members of the community would access legislation and vote on it. There would be approximately one representative for every 30,000 people that would act as electors to vote on pending legislation. They would be chosen at random, or indirectly, from people that put their name in the hat. They would not be chosen by any direct votes solicited from the population based on their promise to lean this way or that on the issues. They would have no more weight than the general population in influencing the representatives in Washington to write any particular legislation. They also would not do this as a job for compensation. It would be a community service for them as they maintained their careers at regular employment.

 

At any rate, it's just a thought but I feel it would offer better representation than we have now.

[Phi for All]

You would dare refer to Obama as a "Right Wing" conservative?

 

The following is a thing I saw on Google

 

We all want the same things in life. Freedom; a chance at prosperity; as few people suffering as possible; healthy children and crime-free streets. The argument is how to achieve these goals?

 

LIBERALS – believe in government action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all. It is the duty of government to alleviate social ills, protect civil liberties of individual human rights. Believe the role of government should be to guarantee that no one is in need. Liberal policies generally emphasize the need for "The government to solve problems".

 

CONSERVATIVES – believe in personal responsibility, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values, a strong national defense and a government serving as "referee only", to assure people the freedom to pursue their goals. Conservatives generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve problems, not the Federal Government acting as; Big Brother.

Obviously your definitions are from a conservative bias, not from the position of a middle-of-the-road moderate. Let me amend the Liberal part for you:

 

LIBERALS – believe the government should represent the most effective, special-interest free and cost-efficient way to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all. It is the duty of the people to ensure that government is able to alleviate those social ills that make the most sense for it to do, protect civil liberties of individual human rights through smart, fair use of tax revenues. Believe that government revenues should be used to guarantee that no one is left destitute, not to further add to already adequately profitable business markets. Liberal policies generally emphasize the need for "The government to solve problems where normal market solutions are in conflict with the end goal".

 

You see, the true liberal stance, as I see it, is not for the government to fix everything, but to ensure that everyone has a minimum subsistence level that reflects the greatness of the country, and that government programs should be used when for-profit market processes aren't the best answer (such as prisons, where the idea is to keep true bad guys off the streets and try to rehabilitate the ones that can be rehabilitated, not to make a profit from growing the prison populations). If anything is counter-intuitive about our political parties, it's in their concept of the other guys.

[rigney]

doG

They would have no more weight than the general population in influencing the representatives in Washington to write any particular legislation. They also would not do this as a job for compensation. It would be a community service for them as they maintained their careers at regular employment.

 

I totally agree with your statement. Money and power corrupts! Even with the best of intentions, people too long in these positions get to believing they have all the right answeres to our problems. When in reaity, they have just slowly moved away from their moral compass.

[iNow]

I hate to ask what you've been smoking"? But I must ask, WHAT ARE YOU SMOKIN"?

I don't understand why you posted this. I shared a post full of nifty things called facts, and then asked you to please clarify the statement you had made given facts like the ones I shared. Your reply is to ask me what I'm high on? I don't understand. I asked you to clarify a comment you previously made. Now it seems I'm asking you to clarify two. That one and this one.

[rigney]

I don't understand why you posted this. I shared a post full of nifty things called facts, and then asked you to please clarify the statement you had made given facts like the ones I shared. Your reply is to ask me what I'm high on? I don't understand. I asked you to clarify a comment you previously made. Now it seems I'm asking you to clarify two. That one and this one.

 

I'm not quite sure what you're asking about the second one? The firat was a bit deep for me to research so I just made light of your findings. You're just a little too serious for this 80 year old brain to get a grasp on. I think you understand where I'm coming from though.

[iNow]

No, I don't. You said that if Obama gets another four years he will turn our world upside down. What do you mean by that?

[rigney]

No, I don't. You said that if Obama gets another four years he will turn our world upside down. What do you mean by that?

 

I'm just saying that we can't keep this "runaway" train on the tracks another 4 years. Probably 90% of the people I'm acquainted with have said they will not vote for Obama under any condition come November. Me, I simply don't like his arrogance. And that's much better than what some leftist have expressed about cutting Chaneys heart out and throwing it at his dead behind. While I don't particularly like Romney either, he seems to be the lesser of two evils. doG probably summed it up best by advocating we get rid of a "paid" Congress and put honest folks in office that have no agenda other than to actually help the common man. Edited June 10, 2012 by rigney

[Phi for All]

And while I don't particularly like Romney either, he seems to be the lesser of two evils.

Romney represents everything I think is wrong with American politics. Ultra-wealthy businessmen shouldn't be allowed that much influence over the processes that regulate their businesses. And I hate that his companies own both retail AND media, I just think that's a bad idea, conflicts of interest all the way round.

 

doG probably got it right by advocating thatwe get rid of a "paid" Congress and get a bunch of honest folks in there that actually want to help the people.

The key part of doG's concept, the part you forgot to quote, is the "chosen randomly" part. That's the only way to have a chance that some "honest" folks are going to slip through the cracks into the process, imo.

[iNow]

I'm just saying that we can't keep this "runaway" train on the tracks another 4 years.

I presume then that you're referring to the debt issue? Is that correct?

 

If so, folks should realize that the biggest reason debts and deficits have risen like they have is because tax revenues are down (high unemployment) at the same time that social safety net spending is up (unemployment insurance, medicaid, and food stamps). Interestingly, the single-minded focus on the debt NOW NOW NOW will very likely make it larger later. A depression like we're in is not the time to focus on debt and deficit reduction. It's a time to focus on reducing unemployment. This will decrease the draw on social safety net programs, increase tax revenues, and also stimulate the economy through the multiplier effect thus creating MORE revenues and FEWER claims for poverty assistance.

[doG]

The key part of doG's concept, the part you forgot to quote, is the "chosen randomly" part. That's the only way to have a chance that some "honest" folks are going to slip through the cracks into the process, imo.

Actually there's two key parts. The other is to prevent those that write the laws from voting on them. This would increase the difficulty of abusing legislative practices like earmarks for example.

[iNow]

How would you address bribes and kickbacks... Other ways to influence the vote?

[doG]

How would you address bribes and kickbacks... Other ways to influence the vote?

Who would you bribe? The 435 people writing the law or the 10,000 voting on whether or not to pass it? Who would get kickbacks? There would be no incentive to give either to those writing law because they would no longer have the power to pass it. Similarly, bribe and kickbacks to those voting on the laws would have no input on what laws are written for them to vote on or the content of those laws.

 

In the system I imagine we would have one body of elected representatives writing law in Washington and people in the community, like those currently chosen for jury duty, reviewing and voting on the laws written by the representatives. There's no need for the community voters to even be known when the law is written. It's like not knowing who your jurors are going to be when you commit a crime.

[rigney]

Who would you bribe? The 435 people writing the law or the 10,000 voting on whether or not to pass it? Who would get kickbacks? There would be no incentive to give either to those writing law because they would no longer have the power to pass it. Similarly, bribe and kickbacks to those voting on the laws would have no input on what laws are written for them to vote on or the content of those laws.

 

In the system I imagine we would have one body of elected representatives writing law in Washington and people in the community, like those currently chosen for jury duty, reviewing and voting on the laws written by the representatives. There's no need for the community voters to even be known when the law is written. It's like not knowing who your jurors are going to be when you commit a crime.

 

Regardless of what system we wind up with, there will always be corruption in parts of it. My suggestion is to keep the train on track regardless of who the damned engineer is! Don't let each of them make tracks on their own. There are enough laws on the books today to keep a staff of a 10,000 attorneys busy just trying to interpret them. It seems to be the norm that, well; I'm in office now; so let me put some bills on the floor and to hell with whether they make sense or not, we'll eventually need them. Full time politicians are the ones we should be getting rid of. It's like the crack Pelosi made about the health cae plan; "Well you'll have to wait and read it to see what's in it. That is a crock of shi-! But it's basically how politicians go about making our laws. Other than the president, politicians should be allowed to serve only one 4 year term and most of our problems would be solved regardless of who's in power. The longer a person holds the reins the more likely they are to become corrupt, whether it's politics or religion.

 

Romney represents everything I think is wrong with American politics. Ultra-wealthy businessmen shouldn't be allowed that much influence over the processes that regulate their businesses. And I hate that his companies own both retail AND media, I just think that's a bad idea, conflicts of interest all the way round.

 

What is ultra-wealthy? Does that mean a Bill Gates or a Romney should never be president? Or this new kid on the block that just made billions from "face book"? Wrong!!! As I say, I don't particularry like Romney; but to use his wealth as the wedge between right and wrong is a small crutch to lean on. Do you think for a moment this new kid (what's his name) with the billions he made from face book is going to give it away to a bunch of free loaders? Hell no. It has taken Romney many years and shrewd investments to amass what fortune he has. And I would rather trust him than a fly by nighter that no one knows anything about. My reference being Obama of course. Until he wrote his books, he was as obscure as an outer space alien. Obama is worth millions himself. I just don't know how many and from where? But then, I don't mind him being rich, it's just that he knows nothing of industry and I cant stand that smug and arrogant demeanor of his. Edited June 11, 2012 by rigney

[Moontanman]

 

Obama is worth millions himself. I just don't know how many and from where? I don't mind him being rich, it's just that I cant stand that smug and arrogant demeanor of his.

 

 

 

 

Pot kettle black rigney...

[Phi for All]

Other than the president, politicians should be allowed to serve only one 4 year term and most of our problems would be solved regardless of who's in power. The longer a person holds the reins the more likely they are to become corrupt, whether it's politics or religion.

I can get behind this. I'm still a bit undecided on whether career politicians are necessary or detrimental.

 

What is ultra-wealthy? Does that mean a Bill Gates or a Romney should never be president? Or this new kid on the block that just made billions from "face book"? Wrong!!! As I say, I don't particularry like Romney; but to use his wealth as the wedge between right and wrong is a small crutch to lean on. Do you think for a moment this new kid (what's his name) with the billions he made from face book is going to give it away to a bunch of free loaders? Hell no. It has taken Romney many years and shrewd investments to amass what fortune he has. And I would rather trust him than a fly by nighter that no one knows anything about.

I have a big problem with how much power businesspeople have over our politics through lobbying and direct manipulation. I don't like it as a social liberal and anyone who calls themselves a fiscal conservative and a free-market supporter shouldn't like all the catering to special interests, no-bid contracts and subsidization of enormously profitable sectors. Business is always going to scream about how unfair regulation is, and how free-market principles are the backbone of this country, and then when they get into office they turn around and cut deals that shame those same free-market principles.

 

I didn't say anything about wealthy people being barred from the presidency. I'm saying we should have learned better from the Bush years about special interests and letting businessmen stack politics in their favor. It's time to put our home back in order, and the current business models are NOT what's best for the US economy as a whole. If Big Business has it's way, they'd have all the regs tied up in their favor, all their top execs would pay no taxes and their entire workforce would be overseas, while barely employed Americans would be paying the taxes to keep the roads under their delievery trucks.

 

My reference being Obama of course. Until he wrote his books, he was as obscure as an outer space alien. Obama is worth millions himself. I just don't know how many and from where? But then, I don't mind him being rich, it's just that he knows anything of industry and I cant stand that smug and arrogant demeanor of his.

Wow, smug demeanors must really be your kryptonite for it to blind you to all the good stuff Obama has been doing for the country. I'm not 100% on what he's done, I never am with ANY president, but I have to admit he's done a lot with such a house in shambles. After the spending spree Bush went on, it's nice to see government spending reigned in by someone most people call a tax-and-spend liberal. What did you call Bush, rigney, a small-government conservative?

[rigney]

I can get behind this. I'm still a bit undecided on whether career politicians are necessary or detrimental.

 

 

I have a big problem with how much power businesspeople have over our politics through lobbying and direct manipulation. I don't like it as a social liberal and anyone who calls themselves a fiscal conservative and a free-market supporter shouldn't like all the catering to special interests, no-bid contracts and subsidization of enormously profitable sectors. Business is always going to scream about how unfair regulation is, and how free-market principles are the backbone of this country, and then when they get into office they turn around and cut deals that shame those same free-market principles.

 

I didn't say anything about wealthy people being barred from the presidency. I'm saying we should have learned better from the Bush years about special interests and letting businessmen stack politics in their favor. It's time to put our home back in order, and the current business models are NOT what's best for the US economy as a whole. If Big Business has it's way, they'd have all the regs tied up in their favor, all their top execs would pay no taxes and their entire workforce would be overseas, while barely employed Americans would be paying the taxes to keep the roads under their delievery trucks.

 

 

Wow, smug demeanors must really be your kryptonite for it to blind you to all the good stuff Obama has been doing for the country. I'm not 100% on what he's done, I never am with ANY president, but I have to admit he's done a lot with such a house in shambles. After the spending spree Bush went on, it's nice to see government spending reigned in by someone most people call a tax-and-spend liberal. What did you call Bush, rigney, a small-government conservative?

 

I'll not go there, but I honestly thought the world of young George's Dad. Edited June 11, 2012 by rigney

[zapatos]

CONSERVATIVES – believe in personal responsibility, free markets, individual liberty...

It seems to me that individual liberty is much more cherished by liberals than conservatives. For example, gay rights, civil rights, voting rights, women's rights, etc. are traditionally liberal causes.

 

Conservatives are more inclined to limit gay rights, voting rights, civil rights, women's rights, etc. In addition to limiting these rights they also seem to be more inclined to limit personal liberties through laws such as the Patriot Act.

 

I kow there will be exceptions in either group, but I don't see how this trait could even remotely be considered conservative over liberal.

[imatfaal]

The key part of doG's concept, the part you forgot to quote, is the "chosen randomly" part. That's the only way to have a chance that some "honest" folks are going to slip through the cracks into the process, imo.

 

 

Actually there's two key parts. The other is to prevent those that write the laws from voting on them. This would increase the difficulty of abusing legislative practices like earmarks for example.

 

doG/Phi

 

There are interesting papers being written about the benefits of the sorts of polity you are suggesting and not just from pol-sci

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/apr/16/improbable-research-politicians-random-selection

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.1224

[rigney]

It seems to me that individual liberty is much more cherished by liberals than conservatives. For example, gay rights, civil rights, voting rights, women's rights, etc. are traditionally liberal causes.

 

Conservatives are more inclined to limit gay rights, voting rights, civil rights, women's rights, etc. In addition to limiting these rights they also seem to be more inclined to limit personal liberties through laws such as the Patriot Act.

 

I kow there will be exceptions in either group, but I don't see how this trait could even remotely be considered conservative over liberal.

 

Take a look at this. http://www.yorkblog.com/onlyyork/2012/01/12/things-said-in-1955-i-love-it-when-a-plan-comes-together/ I can remember long before things got out of hand and wound up in the state they are today, but I still haven't a firm grasp on total reality???

The next link shows what can be done by sheer talent. Yes, it's an illusion done with smoke and mirrors, but one also done as a demonstration of skills. Politicians don't even come close. http://www.youtube.com/embed/wChk5nY3Kzg

Edited June 11, 2012 by rigney