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

deathpigeon Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
#50001: Feb 18th 2013 at 8:59:24 PM

Uh, no, I don't. I'm pointing out that in the House of Representatives, the Representatives don't vote in-line with their states but, more often than not, in-line with their party. As I said, no state gets any representation in the House. Only districts get representation in the House. That's what we have right now, not something that we think might happen if we abolish the Senate.

Texas gets so much attention because of the Electoral College. The Electoral College gives it a lot of power in choosing the president, and that power is currently firmly in the hands of the Republicans, though that might change soon.

It would be easy to ignore or act against any single district, if the majority of the other districts will benefit, which is why I prefer decentralized direct democracy to having just the House.

DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#50002: Feb 18th 2013 at 9:26:03 PM

Direct Democracy to decide the Presidency means that the coasts and a handful of interior cities decide the election. Everyone else would be irreverent.

True. But the electoral system means that a few key swing states decide the Presidency, and everything else is irrelevant. So its not like much changes.

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
deathpigeon Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
#50003: Feb 18th 2013 at 9:28:19 PM

Except, as was pointed out, that's not actually true. It would only be true if everyone in the different regions voted for the same person for the purpose of voting for the same person, which, btw, is exactly what the Electoral College does.

TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#50004: Feb 18th 2013 at 9:28:37 PM

It's not true. A 70% in the coasts and cities states isn't enough to completely override the entirety of the area in between.

deathpigeon Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
#50005: Feb 18th 2013 at 9:30:10 PM

It would be if they voted together, but it is highly doubtful that they would.

TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#50006: Feb 18th 2013 at 10:06:12 PM

<Shrugs>

Let the majority be the majority. It's not like anyone's endorsing letting California dictate local law in Minnesota.

AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#50007: Feb 18th 2013 at 10:33:25 PM

The states get representation via having a certain amount of members allowed due to their population. Yes, they are there to represent districts; they are also there to represent their state's interests as well. That's why they're called STATE REPRESENTATIVES and not district representatives. In general, they tend to represent state interests more, as perceived through their party affiliation. Remember, we're not getting rid of our state level organization, and how we assign seats would remain the same. And the power would still accumulate in the populated areas, just this time without anything to balance things out.

Taking away the balance of the Senate would just wreck things.

deathpigeon Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
#50008: Feb 18th 2013 at 10:35:55 PM

They're SUPPOSED TO represent the states' interests. However, representing their state's interest doesn't get them elected. Representing their district's interests does.

PhilippeO Since: Oct, 2010
#50009: Feb 18th 2013 at 11:12:53 PM

Did state interest actually exist ? How many american have different state from five or ten years ago ? With greater mobility, local loyalty and local interest should matter less.

Pykrete NOT THE BEES from Viridian Forest Since: Sep, 2009
NOT THE BEES
#50010: Feb 19th 2013 at 1:22:08 AM

To a degree your interests will shift as you move around. I mean, I've met a whole lot of cityfolk that came out to OSU and mysteriously stopped supporting a lot of farming regulations that sounded totally reasonable to their model of the world before they got close enough to a farm to learn the kind of constraints farms actually operate on. Conversely, I've met a lot of suburbanites that quickly dropped more conservative ideas of wages and benefits after moving to the city for a cushy job, getting laid off, and finding that minimum wage barely pays rent for one if you're lucky, much less other needs of basic subsistence.

Unfortunately, mobility issues mean that happens a whole lot less in the former direction because cities are currently nigh-inescapable population traps. Getting rid of the Senate means city-minded legislation gets rammed through on the federal level and screws over everyone in flyover country — and then let's get ready to eat NO FOOD because nobody can afford to grow it.

edited 19th Feb '13 1:27:39 AM by Pykrete

Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#50011: Feb 19th 2013 at 4:01:12 AM

Well, why should "the states" have any say in how the federal government is run? The federal government makes laws that affect the nation, while state governments handle matters pertaining to their states.

I know that Athens had a very innovative means of avoiding regional politics (which would otherwise have occurred in Attica; it was a bigger world back then); Cleisthenes split the various demes of Athens up into ten tribes, each with members in the city, the country and the coastal region. So maybe we could randomly assign people to voting districts upon registration, making sure each of the Congressional seats has members in every state?

...no, I have no idea how that would work.

deathpigeon Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
#50012: Feb 19th 2013 at 4:07:47 AM

The method I prefer is decentralized direct democracy. Each community, which is self-defined, decides on issues that affect themselves through voting on them directly. For deciding on issues that affect multiple places, the communities affected by the issue would tally up votes in their community and then all the communities would compile the counts for each side in all the communities affected and decide on it that way. Rather than mucking around with how to run the federal government, we decentralize things and make things truly be one person one vote.

Greenmantle V from Greater Wessex, Britannia Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: Hiding
V
#50013: Feb 19th 2013 at 4:10:03 AM

Each community, which is self-defined

Um...what if they overlap?

Keep Rolling On
deathpigeon Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
#50014: Feb 19th 2013 at 4:14:29 AM

So what if they are? I mean, say, people in Harlem form a community and the people of New York City form a community. They could do that. People could be in both. All that would be the issue is when something affects two overlapping communities, but that can be simply rectified by the communities having member lists and comparing them so that they don't count people's votes twice. If something affects Harlem, and the people of Harlem want to form a community to deal with it, then they should go right ahead regardless of whether or not New York City has already done so. If something affects New York City, and the people of New York City want to deal with it, then they should go right ahead, regardless of whether or not Harlem has already done so.

Plus, there would probably be overlap when workplaces form a community to vote on things affecting the workplace and there are people who commute to get to the workplace.

I honestly see the potential for overlap as a perk, not a flaw.

edited 19th Feb '13 4:16:12 AM by deathpigeon

Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#50015: Feb 19th 2013 at 4:35:41 AM

@deathpigeon: As I've said before, an anarchist system only works if everyone in the world is committed to the project (not only the dissolution of any nation-state that might oppose the Free and Equal Communities, but also the excision of any memes that might become toxic to the system's functioning).

On another socialist topic, the idea of a Guaranteed Basic Income makes quite a lot of sense if we can know that, unto eternity, the vast majority will choose to work, but I also completely understand the Republicans' counterpoint; it will mean that they will have to pay to subsidize not only those who can't find decently-paid work, but also the small percentage of people who choose not to work, and the Republicans have a right to not want that.

deathpigeon Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
#50016: Feb 19th 2013 at 5:15:14 AM

I disagree. It can work in smaller areas than the entire world. Past anarchist experiments only failed when vastly larger forces who had proven themselves to have powerful militaries invaded. Specifically the Fascists in Spain under Franco and the Bolsheviks in Russia. I consider this no more proof of the inability for anarchism to function than the successful invasion of France by Hitler is proof that democracy doesn't work or the defeat of the White Army by the Bolsheviks is proof that monarchies don't work.

Honestly, the reason that anarchist societies don't tend to last very long is that they tend to appear in times of turmoil, such as the Spanish Civil War and the Russian Civil War, so they appear during times when people are likely to be at war with them because they aren't those people. However, in the time they did exist, they functioned well, despite not being large systems (Anarchist Catalonia mainly being confined to Catalonia, though anarchism cropped up in other places in Southern Spain such as Aragon, and the Free Territories of Ukraine being only a part of Ukraine, specifically south-eastern territories). The Free Territories of Ukraine lasted a whole two years during the Russian Civil War, despite being enemies to the Red Army, the White Army, and Ukrainian Nationalists.

Another possible alternative to minimum wage is job guarantee. Job guarantee would mean that the government would be able to create jobs that have a certain wage which is guaranteed to unemployed people who wish to take one. This would mean that employers would be forced to have wages above the wage given by the guaranteed job in order to have workers. This guaranteed job could be anything from fixing roads to farming fields.

Belian In honor of my 50lb pup from 42 Since: Jan, 2001
In honor of my 50lb pup
#50017: Feb 19th 2013 at 6:01:27 AM

You seem to be having a nice debate here, so I won't interfere. Just want to point out one other thing about how our national elections work:

The way it is set up, with each voting location reporting in as soon as possible and in different timezones, makes no sense. If you actually "watch the election", nobody cares what happens in the western states because the election is often decided long before then. You can even have various eastern states be "decided" before people get off work for the day in western states. You never hear about "breaking news" on the outcome of the elections in California or Washington.

Alaska and Hawaii are in even worse positions. "Why should I care about the presidential vote when that election has been done for hours?" Considering that that vote is the one that brings people out to vote in the first place, I would not be surprised if they have low turn-out percentages compared to the rest of the nation. I wonder how may political adds they even get...

Yu hav nat sein bod speeling unntil know. (cacke four undersandig tis)the cake is a lie!
Wildcard Since: Jun, 2012
#50018: Feb 19th 2013 at 6:08:45 AM

That is why I'm saying our current system doesn't work. Under a Direct Democracy one person's votes could actually matter.

Greenmantle V from Greater Wessex, Britannia Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: Hiding
V
#50019: Feb 19th 2013 at 6:10:08 AM

@ Belian: How about what Canada does on Election Night — basically, there's no reporting of election results until the Polls close on the West Coast?*

edited 19th Feb '13 6:10:22 AM by Greenmantle

Keep Rolling On
Belian In honor of my 50lb pup from 42 Since: Jan, 2001
In honor of my 50lb pup
#50020: Feb 19th 2013 at 6:16:39 AM

That is exactly what I would prefer. Though Hawaii (and maybe Alaska) might want to vote the previous day and not hold all the votes back even longer...

And you could even report on the state elections in our current method. Just save the Presidential results until everyone has voted. The predictions based on the local elections could provide the tension that the media craves.

edited 19th Feb '13 6:17:29 AM by Belian

Yu hav nat sein bod speeling unntil know. (cacke four undersandig tis)the cake is a lie!
Linhasxoc Since: Jun, 2009
#50021: Feb 19th 2013 at 6:53:11 AM

Belian: honestly, in my experience, it doesn't actually work that way (except for Alaska/Hawaii, but those are safe states). Sure, a lot of electoral votes come in when the polls on the East Coast close, but by the time the swing states–which are the ones that actually decide the election–come in, voting on the West Coast is either closed or nearly so. If voters in California or Texas decide not to go to the polls because the entire South minus Florida went Republican, well, that's just dumb.

DrTentacles Cephalopod Lothario from Land of the Deep Ones Since: Jul, 2012 Relationship Status: Having tea with Cthulhu
Cephalopod Lothario
#50022: Feb 19th 2013 at 8:53:30 AM

Honestly, I like the bicameral way it works. It keeps things like the cities deciding "Fuck the central states, we're going to oil drill all over the place/approve the keystone XL/deny air" The main problem, in my mind, is lack of a popular, (non first past the post) vote for the president, and lack an independent redistricting convention.

Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#50023: Feb 19th 2013 at 12:32:03 PM

Independent redistricting, election administration and vote counting should be handed to non-partisan bodies. Giving it to state governments is basically ensuring that elections will be, to one degree or another, corrupt or unfair. Before we talk about eliminating the Electoral College we need to address this issue.

Also I guess, according to Senator Graham, "radical" now means "not a neo-con and nominated by Obama".

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/17/republicans-still-question-hagels-nomination/

edited 19th Feb '13 12:35:51 PM by Rationalinsanity

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
Belian In honor of my 50lb pup from 42 Since: Jan, 2001
In honor of my 50lb pup
#50024: Feb 19th 2013 at 12:52:27 PM

"There were a lot of Democrats on Capitol Hill that don't believe he was the best choice"

Of course they dont. He is a Republican.

...I'm not sure if I want to laugh or cry right now.

Yu hav nat sein bod speeling unntil know. (cacke four undersandig tis)the cake is a lie!
Ramidel Since: Jan, 2001
#50025: Feb 19th 2013 at 6:37:19 PM

@deathpigeon: I disagree; I think that the fact that anarchists have always fallen to the bigger hammer and never gotten their act together effectively enough to resist enemy forces to be evidence against the stability of an anarchist region (for lack of a better replacement word for "state"). Plus, of course, there's also the risk that if anarchist communities did "get their act together" and create a functional army, that army would become an organization of its own, and quis custodiat applies to any such force.


Total posts: 417,856
Top