A Sincere Request For Political Ideas/Thoughts

[_subgenius]

Given where things are at this point, what can be done?

Ban all corporate lobbyists.

But allow the mom-n-pop lobbyists?

[Tator]

So do any of you think that if, under some fantasy, the Supreme Court severely restricted gerrymandering, progress could be made?

I think it might, and it's the least unlikely of scenarios.

Right now because districts are so gerrymandered, politicians worry mostly about being primaried from the extremes of their party. That's why their positions become more and more extreme. In addition, it's why they are not willing to consider compromise with the other side.

If districts were not so severely gerrymandered, then politicans would have to work to appeal to a more varied population. It seems to me that they would start moving towards the center more in that case.

Obviously, there are many other factors contributing to this problem, but most of them are out of our control. (such as cable/social media polarization, and the faulty reasoning of the human brain)

[_EAllusion]

It's looking like the Wisconsin gerrymandering case is going to be reversed 5-4. That's what blocking Obama's the Supreme Court nominee and Trump's narrow win will give the country.

Gerrymandering has been around since forever, but the advent of modern computers and ever more sophisticated data-mining and algorithms has made it ever more efficient. Ending it isn't a pancea, but it is a major drag on how our democracy operates. It does encourage partisanship and radicalization of the parties, but probably more importantly it distorts the representative nature of democracy. It's easy to say "that's the system!" but the system is screwed up and we can do better.

I think the single biggest problem in our country is propagandistic right-wing media. I don't know what the solution is. If the center-left portion of the country ever goes down the same path, and I don't think they're inherently immune to it, we are screwed beyond belief.

[_Quasimodo]

It would be interesting to see if bias and party affiliation could be eliminated in favor of distilling candidates down to key job-oriented criteria. I know, it's crazy. But I suspect if we couldn't be assigned to a high school to cheer for and yell, "we're number 1!" but instead could only pick based on real criteria we'd find people knew more about Trump's opponent's positions and could look themselves in the mirror knowing they had actually chose against voting for a person rather than not voting for a caricature of a person...

Back to Parliament (sorry)

There are two main parties in British Parliament right now. Labour and Conservative. There are twelve (I think) parties that have members in Parliament. Some more right wing oriented and some more left.

In the US, people of various political beliefs have to choose between one of only two parties. The Tea party folks have to join with the Republicans and Sanders supporters had to be Democrats to vote their beliefs.

I think more viable parties would reduce the angst quite a bit and allow a more representative vote in Congress. The Republican party is near a schism right now. There are two competing philosophies. This is probably the reason that the Republicans can't pass any legislation right now, even though they have a majority in both houses.

[_EAllusion]

2 party systems are supposed to be stabilizing and a moderating force compared to multi-party systems. That's because coalition-building happens internal to the party and should result in candidates that have broad appeal within the party to win nominations. This requires appealing to multiple special interests and a diverse range of views on the political spectrum. Center-left or center-right covers a lot of ideological ground. In multi-party systems, coalition building happens more external to the party and this can cause more chaotic upheavals in government.

This was such conventional wisdom that I learned it as basic fact in comparative political science about 20 years ago.

This remains true, in the more nuanced sense understood in poli sci, in the Democratic party. Something unanticipated has happened in the Republican party, though. Part of the story is that primary elections are such low-turnout affairs that highly active special interests can dominate the process.This has happened more on the Republican side that the Democrats'. A tiny fraction of the public can determine who represents parties and this wipes away the moderating effect a two party dominant system is supposed to have. Progressive groups are trying to do the same thing with Democrats, but they are behind in their efforts. Another part of the story is right-wing media seems to have a radicalizing effect on Republican primary voters.

We've gotten to the point that they can nominate someone like Donald Trump for the presidency and we're all like, "Yeah, that's Republicans for you." Even Republicans think that.

[_Choyo Chagas]

2 party systems are supposed to be stabilizing and a moderating force compared to multi-party systems.

yes

one party systems are more moderated and more stabilized. see north korea.

or, today, hungary.
a few years ago there was communism/socialism - call it as you want.
elections have won by 99.6% ; the remainders (0.04%) were null and void, as voters have drawn penises to the ticket, by the way there was only one candidate on the paper...

NOW there is a 2/3+ majority, which makes a real one-party-system. the parliament is a vote-machine.

not only one party; one leader...
in his backyard there was built a stadium (seats for 3,500 people, while the total population of the village is under 1,700)

Many allegations of corruption have surfaced regarding the stadium, as Hungary's current prime minister, Viktor Orbán (known for his passion for football) spent much of his childhood in the village, and Pancho Arena was built just meters away from his Felcsút estate. Although the stadium was not built directly from government funds, companies that provided the lion's share of the funding won several high-value public procurement procedures during Orbán's prime ministership. In addition, Orbán's government passed laws granting benefits to companies supporting sport investments. Allegations were fuelled by the fact that the stadium seats 3,500 people, while the total population of the village is under 1,700.

see ...
and ...

do you see the stadium?

do you see the house? don't you see? don't you see the problem?

[_Ceeboo]

Some very thought provoking and interesting posts.
This is how I had hoped the thread would evolve - so thanks to all who have contributed.


Peace,
Ceeboo

[_beastie]

It's looking like the Wisconsin gerrymandering case is going to be reversed 5-4. That's what blocking Obama's the Supreme Court nominee and Trump's narrow win will give the country.

Gerrymandering has been around since forever, but the advent of modern computers and ever more sophisticated data-mining and algorithms has made it ever more efficient. Ending it isn't a pancea, but it is a major drag on how our democracy operates. It does encourage partisanship and radicalization of the parties, but probably more importantly it distorts the representative nature of democracy. It's easy to say "that's the system!" but the system is screwed up and we can do better.

I think the single biggest problem in our country is propagandistic right-wing media. I don't know what the solution is. If the center-left portion of the country ever goes down the same path, and I don't think they're inherently immune to it, we are screwed beyond belief.

Yes, unfortunately, that's why I rated the Supreme Court restricting gerrymandering as relatively unlikely, but still possible. McConnell has seriously altered the future of this country, and not in a good way.

I agree that propagandistic right-wing media is a huge problem, but I think that's out of our control. We don't want to go down the road of censorship, and as long as there is huge money to be made at this, it will continue. That's why, although it will only help a little, I'm hoping the Supreme Court steps up. I'm desperate for any help at this point.

[Guest]

So, I wanted to know what y'all think can be done at this point?

..

How can a civil debate of ideas return?
....

Given where things are at this point, what can be done?

Well. I think you have to look at politics as an exercise in pragmatism rather than idealism. There never was and there will never be an era where idealism is the reality other than being a marketing tool.

American voting behavior isn't driven by idealism, but rather fixed characteristics which are more or less age, race, income, religious affiliation, and geographic location. Swing voters kind of exist, but “Moderate” voters, I would argue, don't exist. "Independents" vote just as reliably for one party or another as those who are party members in most cases based on those fixed characteristics.

So. What's our ground truth regarding politics and what you brought up in your OP?

Elections are not about persuasion, they’re about mobilizing your people to vote.

As evidenced on this forum and others people’s views are extremely entrenched, as is their allegiance to one party or another. This means that politicians are not trying to get you over to their side; they’re trying to rile up people who are already likely to be on their side to get them to go out and vote.

This is why we see less and less substantive policy arguments *cough* Trump *cough* —because you’re only talking to those predisposed to support you in the first place. What you are trying to do is get those people angry or enthusiastic enough to go to the polls for you. So, how do you induce those emotional responses in people?

Advertising. Marketing. Theater.

The vast majority of advertisements are going to be paid for by the campaign, the Party, or various interest groups. All of these groups of people want the broadest, least specific message possible dog whistling their base.

I would absolutely assert that no variance in a final vote choice between candidates is attributable to policy issues, which are several orders of magnitude less important than partisanship, age, geography, etc to the voter. They don't give a crap about policy which is for the most part starting to get into the nuts and bolts of governing.

The American voter wants his team to win because he or she already knows what the team stands for. The ownership, ie the Party, is resposible for creating a product that'll induce fan interest. The more over the top ownership is the more interest, money, and support it'll get. So that's the reality of our political discourse. You have rabid fans and mascots and thumping music and t-shirt cannons. It is what it is.

- Doc

[_Ceeboo]

Hey Cam!

Well. I think you have to look at politics as an exercise in pragmatism rather than idealism. There never was and there will never be an era where idealism is the reality other than being a maarketing tool.

American voting behavior isn't driven by idealism, but rather fixed characteristics which are more or less age, race, income, religious affiliation, and geographic location. Swing voters kind of exist, but “Moderate” voters, I would argue, don't exist. "Independents" vote just as reliably for one party or another as those who are party members in most cases based on those fixed characteristics.

So. What's our ground truth regarding politics and what you brought up in your OP?

Elections are not about persuasion, they’re about mobilizing your people to vote.

As evidenced on this forum and others people’s views are extremely entrenched, as is their allegiance to one party or another. This means that politicians are not trying to get you over to their side; they’re trying to rile up people who are already likely to be on their side to get them to go out and vote.

This is why we see less and less substantive policy arguments *cough* Trump *cough* —because you’re only talking to those predisposed to support you in the first place. What you are trying to do is get those people angry or enthusiastic enough to go to the polls for you. So, how do you induce those emotional responses in people?

Advertising. Marketing. Theater.

The vast majority of advertisements are going to be paid for by the campaign, the Party, or various interest groups. All of these groups of people want the broadest, least specific message possible dog whistling their base.

I would absolutely assert that no variance in a final vote choice between candidates is attributable to policy issues, which are several orders of magnitude less important than partisanship, age, geography, etc to the voter. They don't give a ____ about policy which is for the most part starting to get into the nuts and bolts of governing.



The American voter wants his team to win because he or she already knows what the team stands for. The ownership, ie the Party, is resposible for creating a product that'll induce fan interest. The more over the top ownership is the more interest, money, and support it'll get. So that's the reality of our political discourse. You have rabid fans and mascots and thumping music and t-shirt cannons. It is what it is.

- Doc

Freaking great post Cam!

As a matter of personal opinion, it's not only one of the best ones I have read on MDB - It's one of the best ones I have read anywhere.

Thanks for adding it to the thread.

Peace,
Ceeboo