is the right really "against democracy" (Page 6/10)
BingB AUG 22, 02:45 PM

quote
Originally posted by NewDustin:

Rather than frothing at the mouth about how secure or compromised our elections are, we ought to be looking at how well they serve the goal of helping enact effective policy. Here's another hill I'll die on: US politics are too combative and identity-driven, and the 2-party system is entirely to blame for it. We could resolve that in short order by adopting a more proportional voting system that has less incentive -and ability- to thumb the scale for any single party.



Agree 100%.

But we have to do more than just changing the voting system. We also have to take money out of elections. The two major parties have all the money locked up. So we need publically funded elections.

We don't need a big third party at all. Just a handful of seats would start forcing both of the major parties to actually **gasp** compromise **gasp** in order to pass legislation to help the country.

williegoat AUG 22, 02:46 PM
Don't you have some baskets to weave?
BingB AUG 22, 03:29 PM

quote
Originally posted by williegoat:

Don't you have some baskets to weave?


Better a basket than your tangled webs.
NewDustin AUG 22, 04:37 PM

quote
Originally posted by williegoat:
We aren't really "going at each other". This thread was started as an attempt at trolling.

The right is no more against democracy than we are against Ketchup. We just don't put ketchup on corn flakes.


This is exactly what I mean. The thread started by going after one side politically, and has been conceptualized around bizarre lines. I love the ketchup and cornflakes analogy; it's perfect here.


quote
Originally posted by BingB:
If you support repealing the 17th Amendment then you are against democracy because repealing the 17th Amendment takes the right to vote away from the citizens and gives more power to the government.


The 17th Amendment is a flawed attempt to address a flawed attempt to discourage parties from forming (or 'faction' in founding father vernacular). By now we've done enough democracy experimentation on countries in Central/South America to know that while you can't actually address 'faction' you can mitigate it with electoral system. It just doesn't work the way the founders understood things, or how we understood them in 1912.



quote
Originally posted by BingB:
Agree 100%.

But we have to do more than just changing the voting system. We also have to take money out of elections. The two major parties have all the money locked up. So we need publically funded elections.

We don't need a big third party at all. Just a handful of seats would start forcing both of the major parties to actually **gasp** compromise **gasp** in order to pass legislation to help the country.


Bah and humbug to that no need for a 3rd party part. We don't just just need a big third party, we need a 4th, 5th, 6th...
Money in politics is not the same level of problem outside of winner-take-all, 2-party systems (though it still can be an issue). There are considerable diminishing returns in trying to influence elections via money where 9 parties control power and make consensus decisions via alliances that might change at any given time over any given topic. I agree proportional representation isn't enough to solve that alone, but it would reduce the symptoms to the point where you actually might be able to address them.

I don't have a strong stance on publicly funded elections. I'm not convinced it would be necessary or that it would have positive impact where corruption is concerned. I'm also not reeaallly all that well-informed on them. Is there a 2-party country that is employing them effectively at a national scale?

[This message has been edited by NewDustin (edited 08-22-2024).]

olejoedad AUG 22, 05:46 PM

quote
Originally posted by BingB:
And I am pointing out how easy it is to confirm that Jefferson never said that.

And how shocking it was that you doubled down on being wrong instead of doing some very basic research.



My research was done long before you posted your reply.

You even argue when someone agrees with you.
BingB AUG 22, 09:05 PM

quote
Originally posted by olejoedad:


My research was done long before you posted your reply.

You even argue when someone agrees with you.




You made TWO posts claiming that both Snopes and I were wrong before you decided to try and research it yourself.
olejoedad AUG 22, 09:25 PM
Clueless.....still.

Don't see that changing anytime soon for you.
BingB AUG 22, 10:51 PM

quote
Originally posted by olejoedad:

Clueless.....still.

Don't see that changing anytime soon for you.



Oh, you are right. I did make a mistake.

you did not make TWO posts before doing any research. You actually made THREE posts claiming that Snopes and I were wrong before doing any research yourself.


One:



quote
Originally posted by olejoedad:
Where's the proof of your claim?

You ALWAYS post proof of your claims.

You're starting (?) to look desperate and stupid.




Two



quote
Originally posted by olejoedad:

snopes?

Really?



That website has been discredited for bias so many times.....

You aren't even good at deflection.


Three



quote
Originally posted by olejoedad:

Your search was on 'mob rule', which was not in the quote attributed to President Jefferson.

You are a victim of willful ignorance by believing Snopes.

Start getting your info from multiple sources.


You did not just "double down" on being wrong. You "tripled down".
Yellow-88 AUG 28, 10:00 AM

quote
Originally posted by cliffw:


No, no you haven't posted proof that we are a democracy.



Proof? We are a Democratic type government simply by comparison to other types.
cliffw AUG 29, 06:48 PM

quote
Originally posted by Yellow-88:
Proof? We are a Democratic type government simply by comparison to other types.



Putin, Kin Yong Bong (N Korea], Maduro of Venzuala, always get 99% of the votes when running for office, We are a democracy type of society but we are a Republic.