Politics What policies will actually fix Western Democracy

[Big_Birdy]

When do the final results get published?

Couple of weeks I think

 

[PACatter]

If most people live in two states then elections should be essentially decided by those two states. It's people that matter not theoretical constructs called States. Equal weight for every person. Electoral collages are rubbish. Even the guy who just won because of them thinks so.

That response tells me that you don't understand why the country is called "The United States" in the first place, instead of just "America".

 

[Seeds]

End corporate influence in politics and public policy.

Fixed.

It is the number one thing that is needed. But there are many more. This is due to the following: New technology, humans irrationality towards change, the tyranny of the majority, the existence of rent seekers with large voting power (for example housing investors), the fact the majority of our public systems were developed in a time when most people were theists and we now have so much more information about what drives human nature and human happiness then what we did 50-100 years ago and the fact the rest of the world has greatly change. All these things mean that adjustments to government and policy can improve our standard of living.

 

[Seeds]

That response tells me that you don't understand why the country is called "The United States" in the first place, instead of just "America".

I get why it's called that. But it doesn't mean it's the best outcome. There is no reason for it given people in the states are free to migrate to other states. As soon as we give people differential voting power then why would we stop at states. Why not give people differential voting power based on intelligence or education, or on how much taxes they pay. In fact those two options probably have some merit unlike state based differential voting. The current electoral vote system probably gives more weight to the uneducated then the educated which is perverse. It's the opposite of a meritocracy.

 

[Seeds]

I would seriously disagree that free trade has been great for the developing world. It has certainly made a lot of corrupt politicians rich and increased their non-democratic grip on their people.

There are suicide nets in Chinese factories for a reason, likewise Bangladeshi sweatshops are some of the most dangerous places on earth.

Unless worker safeguards are in place (driving up the cost of labour) a person in a developing nation is likely to be getting exploited pretty severely and working hours that are not conducive with living a good life.

Not everything is perfect with the trade process and some foreign firms have done some unsavoury things due poor industry regulation in developing countries and corrupt political systems that enabled bribery. But these things existed in these countries before the foreign companies came. It's just some of the foreign companies exploited these weak regulations and corrupt systems.

You can't deny the massive growth and rise in living standards that has occurred in many countries that have employed a manufacturing export based strategy that was only possible due to free trade. The living standards of those in Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia , China and some Eastern European economies have all risen at rates unheard of in human history thanks largely to trade, investment and technology transfer. Other countries such as India and Thailand have benefited to a lesser degree.

Commodity export developing regions have not done so well from free trade due to the fact that you don't need as many local workers to dig up commodities as you do with producing manufactured goods and commodities have tended to be found in developing economies with highly corrupt political systems such as those in Africa, the Middle East and Latin america. However that doesn't mean free trade is the cause of the problems and can't help them as well. The cause is the corrupt political processes that puts all the gains in the hands of a few elites. Fix the corruption and then free trade will benefit those economies as well.

Get rid of free trade then the majority of developing economies workers will move back into the agriculture fields where the living standards are often incredibly low. Just look at the proportion of the world that lived in poverty in the late 1970s when the free trade process begun compared to now.

 

[VineyIsLORD]

Not everything is perfect with the trade process and some foreign firms have done some unsavoury things due poor industry regulation in developing countries and corrupt political systems that enabled bribery. But these things existed in these countries before the foreign companies came. It's just some of the foreign companies exploited these weak regulations and corrupt systems.

You can't deny the massive growth and rise in living standards that has occurred in many countries that have employed a manufacturing export based strategy that was only possible due to free trade. The living standards of those in Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia , China and some Eastern European economies have all risen at rates unheard of in human history thanks largely to trade, investment and technology transfer. Other countries such as India and Thailand have benefited to a lesser degree.

Commodity export developing regions have not done so well from free trade due to the fact that you don't need as many local workers to dig up commodities as you do with producing manufactured goods and commodities have tended to be found in developing economies with highly corrupt political systems such as those in Africa, the Middle East and Latin america. However that doesn't mean free trade is the cause of the problems and can't help them as well. The cause is the corrupt political processes that puts all the gains in the hands of a few elites. Fix the corruption and then free trade will benefit those economies as well.

Get rid of free trade then the majority of developing economies workers will move back into the agriculture fields where the living standards are often incredibly low. Just look at the proportion of the world that lived in poverty in the late 1970s when the free trade process begun compared to now.

A lot of this, especially in relation to the regions you mention, is only an improvement because those areas were absolutely decimated by war in living memory.

 

[PACatter]

I get why it's called that. But it doesn't mean it's the best outcome. There is no reason for it given people in the states are free to migrate to other states. As soon as we give people differential voting power then why would we stop at states. Why not give people differential voting power based on intelligence or education, or on how much taxes they pay. In fact those two options probably have some merit unlike state based differential voting. The current electoral vote system probably gives more weight to the uneducated then the educated which is perverse. It's the opposite of a meritocracy.

I'm honestly unsure you know how the electoral college works.

If enough people migrate to another state, that state will get increased electoral votes. Electoral votes are based on 2 votes for every state (representing the senators from that state) and proportional votes based on population (the larger the population, the more representatives are in the house - each state gets as many additional electoral votes as they have representatives). Should enough people migrate, the electoral votes will migrate as well. The electoral college is completely linked to the population. That's not state-based differential voting, that population-based representative voting - which is why the system is called a representative democracy, not a common democracy, a meritocracy, or anything else.

As far as supposing the electoral vote system gives more weight to the uneducated, that is presumptuous and insulting.

 

[Bestbird]

Any policies that encourage a resonable sharing of the wealth to ensure a strong middle class.

This ain't happening now which is why we are having these unusual election results.

 

[JackOutback]

Just to add to some of the points made, introducing proportional representation in the lower house would break the two-party system and provide immediate improvement. Probably one of the simplest changes that could be made.

 

[SBYM]

The problem with the electoral college exists at a state level - it is the option of the state to use methods such as proportional allocation or district allocation (Maine and Nebraska do the latter), however, most of them continue with the winner-take-all approach. If states chose to follow these methods instead of going with the current winner-take-all, it would better portray the feeling of the country without jeopardizing state or rural rights. In all likelihood, Trump still would've snuck it out even with these methods, but it would certainly be closer and likely would still not be called either way.

Interesting to see Maine is also going to go with preferential voting (instant-runoff voting) from 2017.

Never in a million years do I think it would happen in any more than a handful of states. The US seems to me to be incredibly resistant to change, and the time and energy it would take to explain a new system to the electorate makes it a sitting duck, as evidenced by the many states that have toyed with it, but never implemented it.

 

[Seeds]

A lot of this, especially in relation to the regions you mention, is only an improvement because those areas were absolutely decimated by war in living memory.

You could argue it was the decimation of war in Japan and Korea that enabled high growth rates. But plenty of countries go through wars and then go through economic stagnation afterwards with only a brief infrastructure rebuild period. Japan and Korea boomed after their wars with income per capita levels rising far ahead of where it was before the wars in large part due to the USA influence in opening up their markets to trade along with helping build strong political institutions. China was also decimated by world war 2. Why did japan go through a high economic growth phase in the fifties, sixties and seventies whereas China didn't really begin theirs until the nineties?

 

[Seeds]

Any policies that encourage a resonable sharing of the wealth to ensure a strong middle class.

This ain't happening now which is why we are having these unusual election results.

It makes you wonder how a party that directly advocated policies to support a strong middle class would go. Most western countries have parties for the upper classes and the lower classes but none that primarily focus on the middle class despite both the upper and lower class parties pretending to do so.

 

[Seeds]

I'm honestly unsure you know how the electoral college works.

If enough people migrate to another state, that state will get increased electoral votes. Electoral votes are based on 2 votes for every state (representing the senators from that state) and proportional votes based on population (the larger the population, the more representatives are in the house - each state gets as many additional electoral votes as they have representatives). Should enough people migrate, the electoral votes will migrate as well. The electoral college is completely linked to the population. That's not state-based differential voting, that population-based representative voting - which is why the system is called a representative democracy, not a common democracy, a meritocracy, or anything else.

As far as supposing the electoral vote system gives more weight to the uneducated, that is presumptuous and insulting.

Ofcourse electoral college votes move with population. It would be insanely stupid if they didn't. But electoral colleges will always give unequal weights to each persons vote until it becomes the same thing as the popular vote and at that point electoral colleges are meaningless. There is a difference between why something exists and should it exist. If the European Union ever become a single political union then I'm sure some smaller countries will negotiate to get higher proportional weights for their own citizens as part of the deal for joining. But that doesn't make it the fairest and best outcome.

 

[VineyIsLORD]

You could argue it was the decimation of war in Japan and Korea that enabled high growth rates. But plenty of countries go through wars and then go through economic stagnation afterwards with only a brief infrastructure rebuild period. Japan and Korea boomed after their wars with income per capita levels rising far ahead of where it was before the wars in large part due to the USA influence in opening up their markets to trade along with helping build strong political institutions. China was also decimated by world war 2. Why did japan go through a high economic growth phase in the fifties, sixties and seventies whereas China didn't really begin theirs until the nineties?

Because th Americans spent a shitload of taxpayer money rebuilding Japan and Korea while going to war with China.

China also had a civil war.

Free trade had precisely zero to do with it.

 

[Total Power]

You could argue it was the decimation of war in Japan and Korea that enabled high growth rates. But plenty of countries go through wars and then go through economic stagnation afterwards with only a brief infrastructure rebuild period. Japan and Korea boomed after their wars with income per capita levels rising far ahead of where it was before the wars in large part due to the USA influence in opening up their markets to trade along with helping build strong political institutions. China was also decimated by world war 2. Why did japan go through a high economic growth phase in the fifties, sixties and seventies whereas China didn't really begin theirs until the nineties?

What you are saying makes a lot of sense, unfortunately the person you are talking to is equivalent of banging your head again a brick wall. The Liberal policies of Xiao Ping post Mao had a lot to do with the rise of China.

 

[Seeds]

Because th Americans spent a shitload of taxpayer money rebuilding Japan and Korea while going to war with China.

China also had a civil war.

Free trade had precisely zero to do with it.

rebuilding implies getting them back to where they were pre war. It's doesn't explain the astronomical level of improvement beyond their pre war gdp levels. Explain that?

Also the American war was in Korea, not China. Explain using some sort of sensible logic how that war destroyed China but somehow South korea flourished to levels far exceeding per war levels. And the China civil war was over in 1950. What happened in the 30 years after that?

I get you have wedded yourself to an ideology that you must vigorously defend in your mind. But your ideology is wrong and it's hurting real solutions to problems that we all see. No one teaches Marxism in Economics courses anymore because it's assumptions have been proven fundamentally wrong. The political ideology that is behind Marxism is also, frankly, insanely bizarre and also has been proven fundamentally wrong by what science has learned about the human brain and nature in the past 40 years. Marxism is dead and support for it is never ever going to achieve anything other than preventing real solutions from being found. The key to achieving real change when problems present in society is a group of people uniting under a common cause. This will never happen as long as some people continue to fall back on an outdated incorrect ideology such as Marxism as there are too many educated people who see the significant flaws in it and the two groups can't unite. Ironically it was the Russian communists that taught us the power of uniting people in achieving real change. It's time Marxists recognized this fact (as well as read some modern economics textbooks).

 

[PACatter]

Ofcourse electoral college votes move with population. It would be insanely stupid if they didn't. But electoral colleges will always give unequal weights to each persons vote until it becomes the same thing as the popular vote and at that point electoral colleges are meaningless. There is a difference between why something exists and should it exist. If the European Union ever become a single political union then I'm sure some smaller countries will negotiate to get higher proportional weights for their own citizens as part of the deal for joining. But that doesn't make it the fairest and best outcome.

The problem there is, arguing that it shouldn't exist because it changed this election is ignoring that it has, with the exception of four presidential elections out of 58, coincided with the popular vote. 93% success rate is not exactly a great reason to change things around. Not to mention, 1 of those "successes" was blatantly ignored by Congress, where the popular candidate, both in popular vote and electoral college, did not reach the necessary numbers, so Congress opted to select his opponent, as is their right by law.

Not to mention that, if the popular vote was used, how exactly do you decide it in a country where voting is not mandatory? Clinton did not win a majority of votes cast, and if you consider those who are eligible but declined or otherwise failed to vote, she only won the approval of about 26.4% of American voters, versus about 26.2 for Trump. Is that really a decision by popular vote then? Seems to me the popular vote was "none of the above."

Therein lies one of the reasons why the electoral college is needed, albeit in a reformed version - in the wake of non-mandatory voting, it helps to accommodate for the non-voting citizen on a state-by-state basis. Going by popular vote does not accommodate for those who can't make it, don't make it, or simply don't care either way. You can't assume that someone from the next county over in North Dakota knows any better than someone in California what a Fargo citizen wants - however, because of localized economics, religious- and race-centered districts, and other factors, it is at least a safer assumption. That's one of the many reasons why the electoral college works.

 

[VineyIsLORD]

rebuilding implies getting them back to where they were pre war. It's doesn't explain the astronomical level of improvement beyond their pre war gdp levels. Explain that?

Also the American war was in Korea, not China. Explain using some sort of sensible logic how that war destroyed China but somehow South korea flourished to levels far exceeding per war levels. And the China civil war was over in 1950. What happened in the 30 years after that?

I get you have wedded yourself to an ideology that you must vigorously defend in your mind. But your ideology is wrong and it's hurting real solutions to problems that we all see. No one teaches Marxism in Economics courses anymore because it's assumptions have been proven fundamentally wrong. The political ideology that is behind Marxism is also, frankly, insanely bizarre and also has been proven fundamentally wrong by what science has learned about the human brain and nature in the past 40 years. Marxism is dead and support for it is never ever going to achieve anything other than preventing real solutions from being found. The key to achieving real change when problems present in society is a group of people uniting under a common cause. This will never happen as long as some people continue to fall back on an outdated incorrect ideology such as Marxism as there are too many educated people who see the significant flaws in it and the two groups can't unite. Ironically it was the Russian communists that taught us the power of uniting people in achieving real change. It's time Marxists recognized this fact (as well as read some modern economics textbooks).

Yes the American war was in Korea. But China were significantly involved.

I wasn't saying China were devastated by the Korean war, only that they were at war with America at the time.

Rather than simply assert that Marxism is an incorrect ideology, could you explain why you believe that from an ideological point of view? I know its only your opinion, but id be interested to hear your logic.

 

[Seeds]

The problem there is, arguing that it shouldn't exist because it changed this election is ignoring that it has, with the exception of four presidential elections out of 58, coincided with the popular vote. 93% success rate is not exactly a great reason to change things around. Not to mention, 1 of those "successes" was blatantly ignored by Congress, where the popular candidate, both in popular vote and electoral college, did not reach the necessary numbers, so Congress opted to select his opponent, as is their right by law.

Not to mention that, if the popular vote was used, how exactly do you decide it in a country where voting is not mandatory? Clinton did not win a majority of votes cast, and if you consider those who are eligible but declined or otherwise failed to vote, she only won the approval of about 26.4% of American voters, versus about 26.2 for Trump. Is that really a decision by popular vote then? Seems to me the popular vote was "none of the above."

Therein lies one of the reasons why the electoral college is needed, albeit in a reformed version - in the wake of non-mandatory voting, it helps to accommodate for the non-voting citizen on a state-by-state basis. Going by popular vote does not accommodate for those who can't make it, don't make it, or simply don't care either way. You can't assume that someone from the next county over in North Dakota knows any better than someone in California what a Fargo citizen wants - however, because of localized economics, religious- and race-centered districts, and other factors, it is at least a safer assumption. That's one of the many reasons why the electoral college works.

If cost of changing the system was significant then you could accept something with 93 percent accuracy. However the cost of switching to the popular vote is zero. We after all already count the popular vote. So that argument is mute. The popular vote is the popular vote of those who are willing to vote. That's just as good if not better then the popular vote of everyone even if lots of those people forced to vote have no interest in politics. And the electoral college system has the exact same issues. I'm not sure why you even suggested that line of argument? Did I miss something?

 

[Seeds]

Yes the American war was in Korea. But China were significantly involved.

I wasn't saying China were devastated by the Korean war, only that they were at war with America at the time.

Rather than simply assert that Marxism is an incorrect ideology, could you explain why you believe that from an ideological point of view? I know its only your opinion, but id be interested to hear your logic.

Off the top of my head. Here's a very rough go. I'm sure there are plenty of holes here given I haven't taken proper time to think about this.

From an economic perspective it's three fold.

No matter how good the intentions are of a centralised body it can't distribute goods to meet consumers wants as there is no endogenous price system in a Marxist world. Each consumer is different and has different desires for goods and services. A central body simply does not have the cognitive power to even get close to achieving the average utility from goods and services distribution that can be achieved under a capitalist society . The Marxist system does produce higher utility for those worse off under a pure capitalist system where some end up with nothing cos they won't or can't work. However, this can be fixed in a capitalist system with social welfare for the very worst off and proportional taxes based off wealth.

A Marxist system also can't invent new technologies at the same pace as a capitalist system as it simply doesn't incentivise people to invent new goods as well as under a capitalist system. The capitalist system has its faults in primarily allocating funding to new investments that only have immediate monetary/productive value. But Marxism also has the same problem (if it's productivity capability isn't obvious then a Marxist system isn't going to allocate resources to it) plus Marxism often discourages inventions in technologies that involve creative destruction in existing systems. If workers with certain skills are suddenly going to have no use for their skills with a new technology then Marxists weren't going to invest in such a technology. Capitalists would.

A Marxist system also does not incentivise people to work to the same degree as under a capitalist system. There is simply to much to be gained from free riding off others. Historical evidence has prooven this time and time again across communist systems where workers simply worked at much slower paces and rarely tried to improve the efficiency of their work.

The political ideology is more difficult to argue as there are different streams of political ideology amongst Marxists given some have tried to adjust the ideology to solve its problems.

The Blank Slate concept of human nature that underlined much of communist thought for 75 years has been proven incorrect by neuroscience and the various life sciences. Human minds have been found to be made up of innate modules that can't be moulded to suit the ideal human of the centralised party. Humans need incentives to act, will free ride if it's beneficial to do so, are motivated to treat family kin differently from non family members, desire their own autonomy from others and get angry if they feel like others aren't pulling their weight. Many Marxists believed these features of human nature could change because they believed human nature was purely a product of culture. Change the culture and they can change humanity. They have been proven wrong on this point by science. Culture is limited in what it can achieve in changing human desires and nature.

Many Marxists also believed in a social consciousness that was greater than the sum of individual consciousness. Humans have been found to share feelings and moods which can create a sense of elevation when we are in crowds operating towards a singular goal. But all the feelings are still felt at the individual level. Their is no higher level of consciousness beyond the individual level. Thus human individuals is the end, not simply a means to a higher purpose as proposed by some Marxists.

Some Marxists I have found simply believe individuals desires and feelings are often wrong and not valuable and use this view on humans to discredit a lot of the benefits of dispersed knowledge systems over centralised knowledge systems. Only with education or insight from the centralised body can individuals learn to have the right desires and feelings under this view of humanity. The life sciences have found some truth in this to a degree. Humans don't necessarily know what actions will make them happiest. They often spend lots of effort desiring status goods such as big houses and fancy cars only for them to give them nothing more than a momentary rush of happiness. However, whilst a centralised body can help by providing more information to individuals about how their body and minds work, indviduals are still different and the way they should act to maximise their happiness should still ultimately depend on their own decison making process. And in any case when Marxists were thinking about which goods/actions were desirable they weren't really thinking about what makes people happier, they were more thinking about things that fit with their own personal tastes which was often disliking anything that was associated with the rich and liking things that were associated with the poor. It's a bizarre ideology.

 

[Procrastinator35]

In the U.S anyways....The monopoly of the Duopoly must be both opposed & broken....It's likely already too late.

 

[VineyIsLORD]

Ok it seems you're confusing state capitalist states like the user with communism and socialism.

Its completely understandable but incorrect.

 

[Procrastinator35]

Ok it seems you're confusing state capitalist states like the user with communism and socialism.

Its completely understandable but incorrect.

Are you addressing me?

 

[Seeds]

Ok it seems you're confusing state capitalist states like the user with communism and socialism.

Its completely understandable but incorrect.

Care to elaborate?

 

[Seeds]

In the U.S anyways....The monopoly of the Duopoly must be both opposed & broken....It's likely already too late.

Any ideas how you fix this? It's pretty much broken in Australia too. Yes we have the greens but they will never seriously challenge for a majority.