TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

The General US Politics Thread

Go To

Nov 2023 Mod notice:


There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.

If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines before posting here.

Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.

If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules when posting here.


In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.

Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM

Inhopelessguy Since: Apr, 2011
#48076: Jan 24th 2013 at 2:16:54 PM

Well, constituencies used in Proportional Systems are incredibly hard to gerrymander if you have three or more members per district. You can't exactly split voter blocs if your voter blocs can easily vote for their chosen party no matter how you draw the boundaries. tongue

Lawyerdude Citizen from my secret moon base Since: Jan, 2001
Citizen
#48077: Jan 24th 2013 at 2:20:43 PM

I thought about Mixed-Member Proportional Representation before. It's a little complicated, but seems like a good system. A State would basically comprise one or more huge multi-member districts. I would be fascinated to see a state try that out.

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.
Inhopelessguy Since: Apr, 2011
#48078: Jan 24th 2013 at 2:23:23 PM

That's interesting. But why would you want that? Parliamentary systems use MMS (we call it Additional Member System in Britian) to make sure that the Executive (which is pooled from Parliament) actually has a working majority that won't fall apart at the seams. The US has no such need.

Lawyerdude Citizen from my secret moon base Since: Jan, 2001
Citizen
#48079: Jan 24th 2013 at 2:33:41 PM

It would be to ensure, to as much as is possible, that a State's congressional delegation more accurately reflects the will and desires of the people of that State.

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.
Inhopelessguy Since: Apr, 2011
#48080: Jan 24th 2013 at 2:45:04 PM

But surely isn't that what proportional systems do? A mixed-member proportional system adds an element of FPTP to balance out the proportional part; which is less representative than true PR.

Lawyerdude Citizen from my secret moon base Since: Jan, 2001
Citizen
#48081: Jan 24th 2013 at 2:55:30 PM

An element of FPTP would still allow voters to choose an independent candidate if they wanted, or vote for a candidate that they like personally, but who happens to be in a different party. Like a Democrat voting for a moderate-leaning Republican over a more radical Democrat. Unless I'm totally missing the way MMP works. That's where you vote for a district candidate and a party, right? So a state that normally gets 10 Representatives would instead have 5 larger districts, and the other 5 would be used to apportion the statewide party support, correct?

edited 24th Jan '13 2:57:02 PM by Lawyerdude

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.
Inhopelessguy Since: Apr, 2011
#48082: Jan 24th 2013 at 3:00:59 PM

It depends on the proportional of seats you allocate to each type, but generally its 50:50, ie 5 FPTP, and 5 PR.

What you want is multiple candidate selection, which occurs in STV. STV is an ordinal (ie ranked) system where you can rank your chosen candidate(s). If there are four seats in a constituency, you can rank up to four candidates 1 - 4.

(In a four-seat constituency, it is effectively four rounds of vote counting to select each seat)

tclittle Professional Forum Ninja from Somewhere Down in Texas Since: Apr, 2010
Professional Forum Ninja
#48083: Jan 24th 2013 at 3:17:59 PM

A federal judge has banned "Professional Protestor" Rives Miller Grogan from D.C. after his anti-abortion protest antics at Obama's inauguration.

"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."
Lascoden ... from Missouri, USA Since: Nov, 2012
...
#48084: Jan 24th 2013 at 3:33:13 PM

"Professional Protester"?

boop
DrTentacles Cephalopod Lothario from Land of the Deep Ones Since: Jul, 2012 Relationship Status: Having tea with Cthulhu
Cephalopod Lothario
#48085: Jan 24th 2013 at 3:38:19 PM

I'm assuming it's code for "I hate the very concept of getting a job."

TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
DrTentacles Cephalopod Lothario from Land of the Deep Ones Since: Jul, 2012 Relationship Status: Having tea with Cthulhu
Cephalopod Lothario
#48087: Jan 24th 2013 at 3:49:00 PM

New Filibuster Deal, the major party would no longer need 60 votes, the minority parts gets 2 amendments to the bill

I don't like it. *angry old man face* Just use the current majority to hammer it through.

Belian In honor of my 50lb pup from 42 Since: Jan, 2001
In honor of my 50lb pup
#48088: Jan 24th 2013 at 4:29:15 PM

Looking through the comments on that one is actually infomitive this time.

I like the fact that it means more bills will pass the Senate. I also agree with those commentors that I would prefer forcing the Senators to be present in order to filibuster.

I'm also not particularly happy about the minority party being able to add 2 admendments to any bill. But before I say any more about that, I want to see how well this bill works and what sorts of admendments will be added to various bills.

Yu hav nat sein bod speeling unntil know. (cacke four undersandig tis)the cake is a lie!
Trivialis Since: Oct, 2011
#48089: Jan 24th 2013 at 4:37:43 PM

The Republicans are saying that they're not able to amend bills because of the majority leader (“filling the tree," according to the link within the article). That's probably why that was added.

I wonder if this reform will have a long-lasting impact and permanently change the meaning of filibuster.

Belian In honor of my 50lb pup from 42 Since: Jan, 2001
In honor of my 50lb pup
#48090: Jan 24th 2013 at 4:50:09 PM

Oh, I understand "why" (or at least the reason given), but the way the article is worded there are a number of things thatcould happen and I want to take a "wait and see" approach.

For example, an amendment that the Republicans know that the Dems would not vote for would halt a bill even more than a filibuster. And who decides the amendments that are added?

edited 24th Jan '13 4:50:58 PM by Belian

Yu hav nat sein bod speeling unntil know. (cacke four undersandig tis)the cake is a lie!
DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#48091: Jan 24th 2013 at 6:02:17 PM

Senator Feinstein (D-CA) introduces stringent assault weapons ban

This strikes me as a bad political move

Governor Jindal: GOP is a ‘populist party’

Senator Manchin (D-WV) says he's working with NRA on universal background check bill

This is a party that seems to be trying to drag America, kicking and screaming, back into some twisted corporate dominated version of the 50s.

Wasn't that the 1980s?

edited 24th Jan '13 6:04:39 PM by DeviantBraeburn

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#48092: Jan 24th 2013 at 6:05:37 PM

Jindal I disagree. If I were remaking the US from the ground up I'd have at least twice as large of a government. I guess I must not be a rational person.

Also lol at them being the populist party. At least he's not a corporate shill but that doesn't mean his policies are good.

Lawyerdude Citizen from my secret moon base Since: Jan, 2001
Citizen
#48093: Jan 24th 2013 at 6:06:54 PM

Wasn't that the 1980s?

Pretty much, except the 80s had better music, more cocaine, and AIDS.

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.
DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
DevilTakeMe Coin Operator from Wild Wasteland Since: Jan, 2010
Coin Operator
#48095: Jan 24th 2013 at 6:17:22 PM

[up][up][up] Feinstein's bill has already been argued as pretty much counterproductive, since she's literally stated that she's targeting manufacturers and the law-abiding public and not criminals. Patrick Leahy introduced his bill that targets firearms trafficking which I think will have far more support from both sides.

Glove and Boots is good for Blog!
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#48096: Jan 24th 2013 at 6:22:01 PM

[up][up]I wish he'd explain what he wanted to change.

Also what is so complex about the current tax code? I hear that claim a lot but it's never been substantiated.

edited 24th Jan '13 6:22:18 PM by Kostya

DrTentacles Cephalopod Lothario from Land of the Deep Ones Since: Jul, 2012 Relationship Status: Having tea with Cthulhu
Cephalopod Lothario
#48097: Jan 24th 2013 at 6:25:24 PM

[up] From what I hear from Tomu, it's complex at times, yes, but nothing is there without a reason. This is just another case of them trying to get loopholes for their corporate masters, I'll wager.

deathpigeon Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
#48098: Jan 24th 2013 at 6:26:44 PM

No, this is an attempt to make the tax code more regressive.

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#48099: Jan 24th 2013 at 6:29:16 PM

[up][up]Probably. If they'd cite specific things and say why they need to be gutted I'd be more in favor of it.

I have an idea for a simpler code though.

  • Families making over 250k receive no deductions and are taxed at the following brackets:
    • 250k-40%
    • 500k-50%
    • 750k-60%
    • 1 million-70%
    • 5 million and up-75%.
  • Capital gains are subject to these same brackets.
  • Corporations in the top bracket pay a 50% tax rate with deductions capable of amounting to no more than 10%.

If any of that is stupid then please tell me why. I'm not an expert on tax policy by any stretch of the imagination.

[up]Okay, what is the difference between progressive and regressive tax systems? I get that one applies the same rate while another changes rates based on income but I'm not sure if there's more to it than that.

edited 24th Jan '13 6:31:57 PM by Kostya

deathpigeon Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
#48100: Jan 24th 2013 at 6:35:52 PM

[up] Progressive taxation redistributes wealth from the rich to the poor. Regressive taxation redistributes wealth from the poor to the rich.


Total posts: 417,856
Top