Two-party death spiral is killing us

[dblack]

Ranked choice voting is something I cannot support.

Why not?

If I cannot get behind a single candidate 100%, then I don’t vote for any candidate for that position.

You seem to be missing the point. Ranked choice doesn't prevent you from continuing to do exactly the same thing. It just gives you the option to rank the other candidates if you choose. It wouldn't change how you vote, it would simply remove the "lesser-of-two-evils" excuse from the voting rationale.

 

[dblack]

I agree. Corporatism is a huge problem for the American people and has been for a long time. It has hollowed out many communities throughout the country. The two parties not only failed to stop this disaster, they supported it. Because they are both bought and paid for by big corporations.

Corporatism is a largely misunderstood term. What does corporatism mean to you?

 

[dblack]

Countries where political consensus isn't an issue aren't doing much better ...

View attachment 583423

That's not consensus. It's the opposite. It's the end game of the two-party death spiral.

 

[dblack]

what quantifies that though?

Consensus isn't about a specific quantity. It's a qualitative and expresses the intended goal. It's the opposite of the in-your-face, majoritarian view expressed by the quote "elections have consequences".

We can have very little consensus, like we have now, where every vote results in a slim majority beating up on the "other side", with the bitter losing side refusing to accept the results.
Or we can have a lot of consensus where the winning candidate, or proposition, is at least acceptable to those who don't get their way. That's what ranked choice voting promotes - it encourages and promotes "winners" who are more acceptable to the opposition, who won't be targets for impeachment as soon as they're sworn in.

 

[dblack]

The less political consensus, the better ... a completely stalemated and ineffectual Congress is the best of all possible outcomes.

The point of consensus isn't to stymie the opposition. It's to find, and act, on points of agreement, and to refuse to act if no such agreement exists. It accomplishes the same thing - the parties can still block each other if there is no consensus - but it allows for the government to still act in cases where we can find agreement.

Again, consensus is the opposite of "elections-have-consequences". A consensus candidate would never say that. Instead, they'd say - "this is what my party wants, but we're going to try to find something that's at least acceptable to everyone."

 

[iamwhatiseem]

It’s pretty clear to some of us the oligarchy runs the country. They get what they want. The people have the power to change this, if we come together. However, we’re probably more divided than ever.

Unfortunately few Americans see the truth. If you talk about income inequality and the resulting consequences of concentrating enormous wealth into the hands of a few individuals, you are immediately denigrated as a communist by a certain segment of Americans. These Americans fail to see that wealth means political power, in our crony capitalist system.

If you point out that the extreme wealthy and the big corporations they run receive government protections and benefits (socialism) while the people labor under a capitalist system, you’re again labeled a commie.

So it goes in the land of the free.

Amen
I am conservative to the core.
But the hive mentality of the American public demands that if someone brings up wealth concentration, they are immediately branded as a liberal. (really it is concentration of ownership that begets wealth)

 

[PinktheFloyd88]

For my money, the biggest problem we have in US politics today is the lack of consensus. Partisan idiocy undermines everything we do, costing us money and lives. Our system actively discourages consensus and blocks out alternatives. Time to fix it.

Ideas?

I think both ranked-choice voting (to get rid of LO2E) and multi-rep districts (to reduce gerrymandering) would help a lot. Of course the problem is that any reform has to make it through the two-party shitshow before it can be implemented. And the partisans have an vested interest in preventing that.

I love when folks act like both parties are the same lol

One is full of insurrectionists and hates Democracy. There is no comparison

 

[dblack]

I love when folks act like both parties are the same lol

One is full of insurrectionists and hates Democracy. There is no comparison

You seem to have missed the point widely. I'm certainly not saying both parties are the same. Where did you get that from?

 

[gipper]

I love when folks act like both parties are the same lol

One is full of insurrectionists and hates Democracy. There is no comparison

The most corrupt systems are those where politicos are in total agreement ... they agree to grab everything they can get their hands on.

The more weak the political system, the less opportunity for corruption.

After all, you can't sell influence if you wield no influence.

Unfortunately that doesn’t really apply to our system today. Our government now wields enormous power and it is terribly corrupt.

 

[gipper]

Corporatism is a largely misunderstood term. What does corporatism mean to you?

Fascism. The alignment of government and big corporations.

 

[dblack]

Fascism. The alignment of government and big corporations.

Thanks. Just curious. When I use the term, I'm usually referring to the style of government referenced here: Corporatism - Wikipedia :

Corporatism is a collectivist, political ideology which advocates the organization of society by corporate groups, such as agricultural, labour, military, business, scientific, or guild associations, on the basis of their common interests.[2][3] The term is derived from the Latin corpus, or "human body". The hypothesis that society will reach a peak of harmonious functioning when each of its divisions efficiently performs its designated function, such as a body's organs individually contributing its general health and functionality, lies at the center of corporatist theory. Corporatism does not refer to a political system dominated by large business interests, even though the latter are commonly referred to as "corporations" in modern American legal and pop cultural parlance; instead, the correct term for this theoretical system would be corporatocracy. However, the Cambridge dictionary says that a corporate state is a country in which a large part of the economy is controlled by the government.

 

[gipper]

Thanks. Just curious. When I use the term, I'm usually referring to the style of government referenced here: Corporatism - Wikipedia :

It certainly is a style of government.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Thanks. Just curious. When I use the term, I'm usually referring to the style of government referenced here: Corporatism - Wikipedia :

It is one of those terms that has "unofficial" meanings.
Which is why I always say "modern corporatism". Generally understood as market globalism/mass mergers etc. beginning in the 1980s.
It was a massive shift in how businesses operate.
Essentially - the priorities of the company prior to the 1980s was the customer/consumer. In the 1980s the priority shifted to the stockholders. All decisions went from the customer/consumer as the core - to share prices.

 

[dblack]

It is one of those terms that has "unofficial" meanings.
Which is why I always say "modern corporatism". Generally understood as market globalism/mass mergers etc. beginning in the 1980s.
It was a massive shift in how businesses operate.
Essentially - the priorities of the company prior to the 1980s was the customer/consumer. In the 1980s the priority shifted to the stockholders. All decisions went from the customer/consumer as the core - to share prices.

So, it sounds like "modern corporatism" doesn't really have anything to do with government. Am I missing something?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

So, it sounds like "modern corporatism" doesn't really have anything to do with government. Am I missing something?

It has everything to do with government.
Much like the old corporatism in ancient Greek, it basically means that owners of commerce have a direct say in governance. An oligarchy basically.
And America is absolutely more of an oligarchy today than a Republic.
Our election system still operates as a republic, but that is where it ends and the corporatism - oligarchy begins.

 

[Anathema]

Why not?

I live in a Black/White and Good/Evil world. There is no room for middle ground. That’s also part of why I don’t cast a vote in many elections… there’s no candidate on the Right side of things.

You seem to be missing the point. Ranked choice doesn't prevent you from continuing to do exactly the same thing. It just gives you the option to rank the other candidates if you choose. It wouldn't change how you vote, it would simply remove the "lesser-of-two-evils" excuse from the voting rationale

If you could vote for another candidate then I don’t think you should be voting for any candidate. That’s how I do things. Honestly I’d rather have the greater of two evils most of the time… it makes it easier to know what I should be fighting against.

 

[dblack]

It has everything to do with government.
Much like the old corporatism in ancient Greek, it basically means that owners of commerce have a direct say in governance. An oligarchy basically.
And America is absolutely more of an oligarchy today than a Republic.
Our election system still operates as a republic, but that is where it ends and the corporatism - oligarchy begins.

Ok, so it's not just how corporations are organized, it's corporate collusion with government. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

For my money, the biggest problem we have in US politics today is the lack of consensus. Partisan idiocy undermines everything we do, costing us money and lives. Our system actively discourages consensus and blocks out alternatives. Time to fix it.

Ideas?

I think both ranked-choice voting (to get rid of LO2E) and multi-rep districts (to reduce gerrymandering) would help a lot. Of course the problem is that any reform has to make it through the two-party shitshow before it can be implemented. And the partisans have an vested interest in preventing that.

Bad ideas abound in you!

 

[dblack]

I live in a Black/White and Good/Evil world. There is no room for middle ground. That’s also part of why I don’t cast a vote in many elections… there’s no candidate on the Right side of things.

Ranked choice voting isn't about middle-ground.

If you could vote for another candidate then I don’t think you should be voting for any candidate. That’s how I do things.

I can't really parse what you're talking about here. Or what it has to do with consensus, nor ranked-choice-voting.

Honestly I’d rather have the greater of two evils most of the time… it makes it easier to know what I should be fighting against.

Huh?

 

[Rigby5]

If we want to get this Nation; especially our Society and Government fixed we most definitely have to start agreeing on the definitions of Right and Wrong. If not, the problems cannot be corrected.

The Government cannot fix Government Those repairs need to be made from outside the arena of Government and Public Service. From The People.

Ranked choice voting is something I cannot support. If I cannot get behind a single candidate 100%, then I don’t vote for any candidate for that position.

I disagree.
You most likely are NEVER going to get representatives you agree with perfectly, so the best you can hope for is one you can at least tolerate.
There are too many diverse opinions, so if you are going to wait for agreement, nothing will ever improve at all.

Of course government can fix government.
In fact, no one else can.
But you have to ensure the elected representatives are at least reasonably honest and half way intelligent.

If you don't vote against the worst candidates, then you increase their chances of getting in a totally making things worse instead of better.
Ranked voting allows you to vote against bad candidates, and is vastly superior to not voting at all.