If the U.S. is in the economic toilet the rest of the world is also, take the recent recession as an example, global trade with the U.S. is too important for the global economy that if the U.S. “fell” it would drag the rest of the world with it.
“Vote quality” just sounds like old landowner noble highbred elitist bullshit again. I’ve always found those who say that voters aren’t informed enough to make good decisions to be a bunch of wannabe despots, who like to believe their doing things for “the greater good.”
"If you make people think they’re thinking, they’ll love you; but if you really make them think, they’ll hate you." —Don MarquisAh, I think perhaps I wasn't clear on the setting.
The American government is corrupt, the economy is not in the toilet.
Also, vote quality is not about restricting the right to vote, it is about improving the rights of voters against political tactics (ie. politicians that attempt to reduce the value of your vote by making it more meaningless) that curtail it. So as an example, you might vote for a political party based on their anti-corruption campaign, but you in fact get even more corruption when they are voted in. That would be called a "low-quality" vote.
Also, it's easy to get cynical about how much votes mean regardless of how informed voters are. After all, the field of choices before us is pretty narrow. So do you want 7/8 of the money that should be serving you to go to corporate interests, or just 5/6?
I can sort of see a concept of "vote quality" working, but you can't measure it objectively. I'd recommend basing it on the fact that people often vote against their own interests, for various reasons. Every vote has quality, but for whom?
edited 25th Feb '11 7:25:21 PM by Durazno
Possibly. I'd like to avoid situations of direct violence to overcome democracy. I know people like to say American democracy is "totally broken" but that is far from the case today. It's just... bad.
One idea I was thinking of was having Pentagon generals have to go into general elections. That way high power interest groups can skew who is in charge of the military and influence military policy in that way.
Try looking at most US presidents between Jackson and Hoover(with the exception of Roosevelt, Taft, and Wilson) for historically similar precedents to what you're writing about.
https://soundcloud.com/rich-justice-hinmen Too white for the black kids, too white for the white kids.Corruption in the US government from the past was handled with lots of money passes and the vague occasional threat of violence by the mafia. If it's going to be corrupt, it's probably going to happen by a lot of rich people with less than good intentions getting in.
The rest of the world probably improved democracy by including better technology in the matter, a system where everyone can vote easily and be informed about the situation, letting people pass bills in a speedy but agreed upon manner.
Not quite sure how to tackle the third point.
The thing about making witty signature lines is that it first needs to actually be witty.There are other things I wanted in the setting, primarily that the USA feels that it has progressed via a lot of seemingly democratic changes but actually undermine said democracy. For instance, if they were to allow general elections for the Pentagon, it could be said to be more democratic because military decisions are now heavily influenced by public vote. On the other hand, if in reality, the system is basically hijacked money-wise so that only corporate-backed candidates can be elected, it makes the situation much worse because the military-industrial complex would be firmly entrenched. Add on top that, an argument that since you vote in it, it can't possibly be corrupt and any suggestion otherwise makes you a fringe lunatic.
Money changing hands is an interesting one. I suppose with anonymous donations and limitless campaign spending, one could achieve that in the high pace technological future. Just wire money to your best buddy and send him encrypted emails about what legislation he should be pushing for.
I wanted a lot of grass-roots style organisers who really push hate ideologies and fear tactics, such as "He's gay" or "That man wants to take away your guns" and so on, so it feels very democratic but is well funded by unions or corporations to push public opinion. Much like how gay marriage dominated American politics in the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq, despite thousands dying in a foreign country.
So what I'm seeing for the gilded age
- Sensationalist news versus factual news
- Patronage practiced to gain votes
- Protectionist policies to help out domestic corporations owned by the Robber Barons
- Imperialist and expansionist foreign policy
- Mudslinging political campaigns
- General corruption with respect to bribery, kickbacks, inefficiency, waste
So there are some things I would want changed for the setting:
- Filibuster rules are eased so that very few senators can raise the threat to stall legislation indefinitely
- Elections expanded for Pentagon, education boards, hospital administration
- Foreign control of megacorporations and unions (rather than just corporations), through share ownership, mergers and other activities (Canada is working under a half-dictatorship who uses crown corporations to facilitate this activity)
- (Foreign and domestic) Intelligence agencies funding grass-root organisers who do the mudslinging in American politics
- In this case, no protectionist attitude in the government but it can be in the people
- Legalised patronage would be good, versus just acknowledged patronage (warping the concept of "This is a free country I should be able to do what I want")
- Rampant militarism and constant involving in foreign wars

I'd just like some help in formulating some ideas on a rather opinionated subject.
The story is set twenty minutes into the future into dystopian United States. Basically, congress, presidency are highly corrupt and the populace completely complacent about the situation. Everyone in America believes they're the number one world with the most powerful military force but in reality, they're completely controlled and totally broken. (This is meant to be similar to the end of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth)