Author Topic: The end of democracy in the USA?  (Read 47731 times)

Offline Echnaton

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1490
Re: The end of democracy in the USA?
« Reply #45 on: July 27, 2012, 07:22:25 PM »
I will say that there are a few churches which I'd love to see lose their tax-exempt status
I don't even think religious institutions  should merit tax-exempt status based solely on that self-description.
The main help to religious institutions is the exemption form property taxes that would otherwise cause them to be unable to afford to keep their buildings.  There is something to be said for allowing non profit community organizations an exemption from having property taxed as if it were used for commercial purposes.    In Texas, a place of worship and contiguous property is exempt.  But if the church leases spaces in its parking lot, then it become subject to taxes.  The exemption is not just for churches but for a wider class of organizations such as cultural centers and museums.   It is a provision that allows cultural organizations to exist. 
The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new. —Samuel Beckett

Offline Not Myself

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 217
  • Unwanted Irritant
Re: The end of democracy in the USA?
« Reply #46 on: October 06, 2012, 11:35:41 PM »
I've been having a bit more of a think about this, and I'm starting to veer towards the scenario presented in the article I linked, the Weimar Germany one. How's this for a nightmare:

Are you perchance the author of this one?

http://www.theglobaledition.com/canada-beefing-up-border-patrol-in-event-romney-wins-presidential-election/
The internet - where bigfoot is real and the moon landings aren't.

Offline Peter B

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1268
Re: The end of democracy in the USA?
« Reply #47 on: October 08, 2012, 01:22:51 AM »
I've been having a bit more of a think about this, and I'm starting to veer towards the scenario presented in the article I linked, the Weimar Germany one. How's this for a nightmare:

Are you perchance the author of this one?

http://www.theglobaledition.com/canada-beefing-up-border-patrol-in-event-romney-wins-presidential-election/
:-) No, but I wouldn't mind claiming credit...

Quote
Canadian citizens have reportedly complained that these illegal immigrants are “creating an organic-broccoli shortage and renting all the good Susan Sarandon movies”.
LOL!

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3787
    • Clavius
Re: The end of democracy in the USA?
« Reply #48 on: October 08, 2012, 01:58:58 PM »
It may be nostalgia, but I sense a polarization in United States politics too.

Over my lifetime I've voted in a fairly non-partisan fashion.  Not so lately.  I've become quite disaffected toward the Republican party, mostly for their brazenly partisan politics.  I think this polarization is not entirely in my head, as this latest Congress seems to have acquired the lowest approval rating in recent (and perhaps all) memory.  Thirty years ago there was still partisan politics.  But at least both sides made a better effort to couch their partisanship in ostensibly good governmental measure.  These days it's hard to see where the GOP is trying to do any good; it's all about thwarting the opponent's agenda, even if that agenda objectively makes sense.

Now from my time abroad in Europe, I take a measure of comfort in the predictability and "stability" of American government.  Coalition politics are an order of magnitude more confusing and unproductive, in my opinion, than anything I've seen in the United States.  I've never been to Australia, but I've been very close to Cuba.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 2211
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: The end of democracy in the USA?
« Reply #49 on: October 08, 2012, 02:58:05 PM »
I mean, when one of your people in leadership states that your party's number-one goal is to prevent the opposition from winning again--and no one in leadership says, "No, that's crazy; our number-one goal is [thing that helps the people you serve]," that's a sign that you need to rethink things.  Or else your constituents need to vote you out.
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

"Conspiracy theories are an irresistible labour-saving device in the face of complexity."  --Henry Louis Gates

Offline Echnaton

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1490
Re: The end of democracy in the USA?
« Reply #50 on: October 08, 2012, 03:00:22 PM »
But at least both sides made a better effort to couch their partisanship in ostensibly good governmental measure.

The GOP, my former party of preference, is so overrun by fundamentalism and statism to the point that it is hard to satirize them.  They discuss the principle of limited government for tactical political gain completely ignore it in action.
The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new. —Samuel Beckett

Offline DataCable

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 138
Re: The end of democracy in the USA?
« Reply #51 on: October 08, 2012, 05:34:02 PM »
They discuss the principle of limited government for tactical political gain completely ignore it in action.
Some have noted that the GOP seems to want a government just small enough to fit in a woman's uterus.
Bearer of the highly coveted "I Found Venus In 9 Apollo Photos" sweatsocks.

"you data is still open for interpretation, after all a NASA employee might of wipe a booger or dropped a hair on it" - showtime

DataCable2015 A+

Offline Peter B

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1268
Re: The end of democracy in the USA?
« Reply #52 on: October 09, 2012, 11:09:46 AM »
These days it's hard to see where the GOP is trying to do any good; it's all about thwarting the opponent's agenda, even if that agenda objectively makes sense.

Something similar is happening in Australian politics too, with the Liberal Party (conservative, right of centre) under Tony Abbott's leadership often opposing legislation purely to frustrate the governing Australian Labor Party. I'm not sure what their motive is, but I could pick one or more of (a) be able to go to the electorate at the next election and say the government didn't achieve much while in office, (b) psychologically wearing down the government in the hope they'll make a tactical error which will convince the cross-benchers to change their allegience and put the Liberals into power before the next election, or (c) punishing the ALP for outbidding them in the post-election negotiations which the ALP won.

Quote
Now from my time abroad in Europe, I take a measure of comfort in the predictability and "stability" of American government.  Coalition politics are an order of magnitude more confusing and unproductive, in my opinion, than anything I've seen in the United States.

Coalitions aren't necessarily of themselves worse than one-party governments. The need to compromise on party agendas can often mean the more extreme policies of some parties get moderated. On the other hand, Israel is an example where minority religious parties seem to wield power well out of proportion to their numbers in the Knesset. And Germany of the 1920s and post-WW2 Italy are two more examples of the paralysis which can occur when no one party can dominate the political scene.

For what it's worth, I read somewhere that the political system in a country (or whatever) determines almost universally what sort of politics that country experiences. Single member electorates lead to two-party politics, while some form of proportional representation or multi-member electorates lead to multiple parties and coalition governments.

Quote
I've never been to Australia, but I've been very close to Cuba.

You know you'd be most welcome any time you wanted to visit Australia!

But as far as politics goes, readers may remember the commentary I wrote on the old board about our federal election in 2010. It resulted in neither major party achieving a majority, and the balance of power being held by Independents. After a few weeks of negotiations the ALP was able to form a government.

The price has been high, as Prime Minister Gillard was almost immediately forced by the Greens to agree to a price on carbon, something which she had very clearly ruled out a couple of days before the election. The result was that the ALP's support in polls absolutely collapsed. The ALP has also often been its own worst enemy, with erratic performances by ministers (the Indonesian Abbatoirs affair), highly irregular behaviour by a Government politician while he was a union official, naive negotiating (expecting that the Opposition would want to reach an agreement with the Government about refugee processing when a lack of agreement only hurt the Government), and barefaced politicking (nominating an unpopular Opposition politician as Speaker purely to gain another vote in the House, only to have his sordid behaviour lead to his resignation as Speaker).

Nevertheless, the Government has gained ground in polls in recent months, probably with people wondering whether the Liberals would be any better in government, and suspecting that Tony Abbott would be a less successful PM than Julia Gillard. This is partly fuelled by increasingly unpopular policies being implemented by conservative state governments.

The ugly side of politics has also stepped up in recent months, with a constant stream of highly sexualised or personal abuse of the PM. One of the more egregious examples came when a radio shock jock associated with the Liberal Party claimed (supposedly in rough jest) that the PM's father had died of shame because of her lies. I haven't been that impressed with Gillard as a Prime Minister; she was an excellent minister, and is apparently a very pleasant and intelligent person, but she has often failed to manage the political scene, presenting no coherent vision of what her Government stands for to voters, having an inane public speaking style, and seemingly unable to provide decisive leadership to the party. But the abuse she's been subjected to goes way beyond mere criticism of her performance and displays an ugly misogynist streak which Tony Abbott as Opposition Leader has cautiously exploited.

So while next year's federal election may have originally seemed like a walk-up start for Abbott and the conservative side of politics, things may be getting closer. This in turn suggests the Liberal Party may actually need to develop and release a few policies of their own, which should be a good thing for voters.

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 2211
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: The end of democracy in the USA?
« Reply #53 on: October 09, 2012, 02:06:07 PM »
For what it's worth, I read somewhere that the political system in a country (or whatever) determines almost universally what sort of politics that country experiences. Single member electorates lead to two-party politics, while some form of proportional representation or multi-member electorates lead to multiple parties and coalition governments.

The US has a certain amount of proportional representation, though it's always been intended to be the least-powerful branch of the government.  The House of Representatives was part of the Great Compromise of the Constitutional Convention, and it was generally considered that gentlemen would be Senators.
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

"Conspiracy theories are an irresistible labour-saving device in the face of complexity."  --Henry Louis Gates

Offline Halcyon Dayz, FCD

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
  • Contrarian's Contrarian
Re: The end of democracy in the USA?
« Reply #54 on: October 09, 2012, 08:14:03 PM »
Proportional representation means that if a party gets 13% of the votes, they get 13% of the seats.

In a FPTP system people who vote for the wrong party aren't represented at all.
Hatred is a cancer upon the world.
It rots the mind and blackens the heart.

Offline Echnaton

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1490
Re: The end of democracy in the USA?
« Reply #55 on: October 09, 2012, 09:55:39 PM »
Proportional representation means that if a party gets 13% of the votes, they get 13% of the seats.

In a FPTP system people who vote for the wrong party aren't represented at all.
I don't know how all states do elections, but in Texas we do not have a FPTP system.  The winner must have 50% + 1 of the votes.  If this does not occur in the general election, the top two candidates will face each other in a runoff.  The presidential election is the only one that has a plurality winner and winner take all for electoral votes. 

The more un-democratic property of our electoral systems is the gerrymandering of districts to provide seats for for each party that are essentially un-changeable.  That feature is one of the reasons we have such a partisan split in government, because candidates win safe seats by appealing to the most energized outliers of their parties in the primary elections allowing them to ignore the center and independent voter.   The way Congressional districts are drawn, there is almost never a runoff. The place I live has been in a Republican district for over fifty years, only changing the Representative when one retires.  But several surrounding neighborhoods have been moved into other districts because of the changes in the demographics.  It is really depressing for an independent.   
The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new. —Samuel Beckett

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 2211
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: The end of democracy in the USA?
« Reply #56 on: October 09, 2012, 10:03:53 PM »
Proportional representation means that if a party gets 13% of the votes, they get 13% of the seats.

In a FPTP system people who vote for the wrong party aren't represented at all.

Ah.  Some of the books I've read have used incorrect terminology.  Thank you.
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

"Conspiracy theories are an irresistible labour-saving device in the face of complexity."  --Henry Louis Gates

Offline Peter B

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1268
Re: The end of democracy in the USA?
« Reply #57 on: October 09, 2012, 11:39:57 PM »
The more un-democratic property of our electoral systems is the gerrymandering of districts to provide seats for for each party that are essentially un-changeable.  That feature is one of the reasons we have such a partisan split in government, because candidates win safe seats by appealing to the most energized outliers of their parties in the primary elections allowing them to ignore the center and independent voter.   The way Congressional districts are drawn, there is almost never a runoff. The place I live has been in a Republican district for over fifty years, only changing the Representative when one retires.  But several surrounding neighborhoods have been moved into other districts because of the changes in the demographics.  It is really depressing for an independent.

Fortunately here in Australia we have an independent public sector agency, the Australian Electoral Commission, which sets boundaries and runs federal elections. I'm pretty sure each state has an equivalent agency. People who are politically active aren't allowed to apply for jobs at the AEC. And they pretty much keep gerrymandering out of the federal game. It hasn't always been that way at the state level, with (usually but not always) conservative parties setting boundaries which worked to maximise the value of their votes.

Having said that, it's a fact of life that certain parts of any country are going to be strongly in favour of one party or another, simply because of it happens to be where a lot of factory workers or business people live. Of the two federal seats in Canberra, the seat of Canberra has been held by the Labor Party for something like 55 of the 63 years it's been in existence, while the seat of Fraser has been held by the Labor Party without interruption since it was created in 1974.

Offline smartcooky

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1959
Re: The end of democracy in the USA?
« Reply #58 on: October 10, 2012, 01:02:51 AM »
Fortunately here in Australia we have an independent public sector agency, the Australian Electoral Commission, which sets boundaries and runs federal elections. I'm pretty sure each state has an equivalent agency. People who are politically active aren't allowed to apply for jobs at the AEC. And they pretty much keep gerrymandering out of the federal game. It hasn't always been that way at the state level, with (usually but not always) conservative parties setting boundaries which worked to maximise the value of their votes.

I heard a rumour once that Joh Bjelke Petersen was going to change his name by Deed Poll... to Gerry Mander Petersen

If you're not a scientist but you think you've destroyed the foundation of a vast scientific edifice with 10 minutes of Googling, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong.

Offline ka9q

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3014
Re: The end of democracy in the USA?
« Reply #59 on: October 10, 2012, 11:27:48 PM »
The US has a certain amount of proportional representation,
The US federal government has many elements of what we communications engineers call a nonlinear combining function. I'm thinking mainly of the Electoral College, where the winner of the popular vote usually wins the election, but in certain oddball cases the loser of the popular vote can get elected. This last happened in 2000.

The US House of Representatives could also be seen this way, even though representatives are apportioned according to population (unlike the Senate, which has 2 per state regardless of population). For starters, each state has at least one representative no matter how small its population, so this creates a slight bias towards small states that is such a prominent feature of the Senate.

And, as already been pointed out, gerrymandering is common. It takes advantage of these representative nonlinearities to concentrate the voters who support the party out of power into as few districts as possible, which they will hold overwhelmingly, while setting up small but comfortable majorities in as many districts as possible for the party in power. This can also result in the House often reaching results that would not be obtained if the issues were put to a straight national public vote.