US Elections 2010

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

Then it will never, ever be a level playing field. As it is now, only rich people can run for office. An average joe will never be elected simply because they cannot bypass the massive financial barrier to entry that is campaigning.

Sometimes I think we should just eliminate voting altogether and have our representatives randomly selected by computer...

While campaign finances need to be severely regulated, I'm not sure giving everyone (including joke candidates) an equal share of tax payer money is a good idea.

The way we do it in France (I'm not saying it's perfect or anything) is that each party has to raise money (and there are rules on where from and how much). And if the candidate gets more than 5% of votes, they get reimbursed.

[Kaijo]

Campaign finance is a tricky subject. I kinda like what we have now (limits if you use government money), but we just need a few changes.

If you decide to not use government funds, then you have no limits. But also, your finances have to be tracked, and if there is any fraud, then you are dropped from the race. In addition, your largest donors have to be made prominently known; both companies and individuals, right there on the voting sheet.

Money from other sources will always be used to help a candidate campaign; the best we can do is have it accurately tracked and made known in a prominent manner.

The other thought I had, was to tax people not using the government funds(because you don't want limits), and to use those taxes to help other people's campaigns. Say, 10-20% of what you take in is taxed and put in the general election fund.

[synaesthetic]

I like the idea of making all the campaign funding sources visible. Then any voter could easily educate themselves as to which candidates were perhaps being "swayed" by substantial donations...

[Nosauz]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

I like the idea of making all the campaign funding sources visible. Then any voter could easily educate themselves as to which candidates were perhaps being "swayed" by substantial donations...

It's clear that voters aren't willing to do the due diligence or when confronted with the facts, aren't willing to accept the reality. If you watch the recent video of "Restoring Honor" gathering on the mall, you can see that when confronted with facts people are not willing to accept things that don't fit their world view, the only way to help in the accepting of facts is to promote education. There are probably many people if educated would be more susceptible to the facts but that's just not the case, at least if your voting on something you should make an informed decision. In the end I think we need to stop representative democracy and vote on issues instead of people who represent many different answers for issues. Also they need to fix the ability to add riders to bills, especially if the rider is not even related to the legislation being discussed.

[Kaijo]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

I like the idea of making all the campaign funding sources visible. Then any voter could easily educate themselves as to which candidates were perhaps being "swayed" by substantial donations...

There are other groups that do track the funding, and to a degree, they have to declare it... but it's not made real prominent. The change I'd make, would be to require a candidate to make it available (such as on their website), and also list the major donors and the amounts right on the voting sheet.

[bayoab]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

I like the idea of making all the campaign funding sources visible. Then any voter could easily educate themselves as to which candidates were perhaps being "swayed" by substantial donations...

The current law already says that anything over a certain amount must be declared. There are already sites that catalog this information such as opensecrets.org

[FDW]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

you might be too young to remember this but California actually ran better when there was no term limit. Every since the term limit proposition pass it has taken the legislator longer and longer to come up with a budget. And at least to me it seems like outside interest has a bigger influence on the Assembly then before Term limits.

Well, we can thank Willie Brown for the term limits, but in all honesty, the source of state's budget evils is prop 13. (That and the incessant Stonewalling by Republicans in the legislature that will block any raise in taxes for any purpose simply because they are TEH EVOLZ, and also the downright retarded 2/3 majority needed to pass new taxes at the ballot box.)

[Kaijo]

Rather than term limits, I'd like to see age limits in politics. If you're older than 60 (or even 50), then you can't run for office. I'm sick of seeing decrepit guys with Alzheimers in office, who don't have a clue about modern technology, or the way culture has changed. "Series of tubes" anyone?

[Nosauz]

Originally Posted by Kaijo

Rather than term limits, I'd like to see age limits in politics. If you're older than 60 (or even 50), then you can't run for office. I'm sick of seeing decrepit guys with Alzheimers in office, who don't have a clue about modern technology, or the way culture has changed. "Series of tubes" anyone?

Although I hate Ted Stevens for his insipid stupidity, he did love Alaska, and as the senator of Alaska he did a hell of a job getting that bridge to nowhere, and getting them pork. In the end he did what was right for his state and for the principal that Alaska is important which I'm fine with, because he had his state in mind. What I hate are those corporate shills, that bend over backwards for corporations in an attempt to hand over American political power to the corporations instead of empowering their constituents.

[Ricky Controversy]

Originally Posted by Kaijo

Rather than term limits, I'd like to see age limits in politics. If you're older than 60 (or even 50), then you can't run for office. I'm sick of seeing decrepit guys with Alzheimers in office, who don't have a clue about modern technology, or the way culture has changed. "Series of tubes" anyone?

Definitely see where you're coming from, but often times the people who understand modern technology and culture best are people who are in the 50+ age range, because the technologies that are ubiquitous or of going concern to a period's 20-to-30-somethings are things that the 50-to-70-year-old crowd were in on the ground floor of and helped develop. They have seen the evolution of the trend from square one, and this can be a helpful contrast to the neophyte enthusiasm of the youthful sector.

I think the types of people you're really talking about are our esteemed *cough* MBA holders. XD

Part of the problem, really, is that even when you strip away the more pragmatic realities about what people vote the way they do, even the ideal core of votership is just that 'people vote on what they care about'...which is good in principle, except that most people don't care about things that are actually relevant to the health or advancement of a nation, and this goes back to the lack of public awareness etc., etc.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by Kaijo

Rather than term limits, I'd like to see age limits in politics. If you're older than 60 (or even 50), then you can't run for office. I'm sick of seeing decrepit guys with Alzheimers in office, who don't have a clue about modern technology, or the way culture has changed. "Series of tubes" anyone?

Someone’s been watching a little too much Logan's Run and Wild in the Streets ; (I think Vexx and Seiji might have a few choice words for you about age and technology...).

Realistically, age is not that important to technology. Specifically it is attitude that matters more. Even if a 70 year old Senator has no idea how the internet works, as so long as they are willing to accept that technology is constantly changing, and are willing to hire the proper people to dumb down the issues for them (no one expects any elected official to know everything, but we do expect them to hire those that do), then age is not a factor. What blocks technological progress in Congress is more arrogance and the simple desire to not change with the times ('if it ain't broke, don't fix it'), both qualities of which can be found in the younger generations as well as the older (though, I'll admit the later quality would probably more likely develop with age).

[Nosauz]

Originally Posted by james0246

Someone’s been watching a little too much Logan's Run and Wild in the Streets ; (I think Vexx and Seiji might have a few choice words for you about age and technology...).

Realistically, age is not that important to technology. Specifically it is attitude that matters more. Even if a 70 year old Senator has no idea how the internet works, as so long as they are willing to accept that technology is constantly changing, and are willing to hire the proper people to dumb down the issues for them (no one expects any elected official to know everything, but we do expect them to hire those that do), then age is not a factor. What blocks technological progress in Congress is more arrogance and the simple desire to not change with the times ('if it ain't broke, don't fix it'), both qualities of which can be found in the younger generations as well as the older (though, I'll admit the later quality would probably more likely develop with age).

Still series of tubes... basically he regurgitated the telecom/broadband lobby's message. It's the idea that older or even inept representatives don't do their job descriptions in understanding the issues, and much like their electorate are easily manipulated by false information.

[Ricky Controversy]

Originally Posted by Nosauz

Still series of tubes... basically he regurgitated the telecom/broadband lobby's message. It's the idea that older or even inept representatives don't do their job descriptions in understanding the issues, and much like their electorate are easily manipulated by false information.

Right. James's point was that this is something that happens across age ranges, though, not just to older politicians. If there's a risk associated with late-running political careers, it's the potential for a given electorate to become so acclimated to a figure that 'because he has always been there' is the sole reason they remain in office. Here in Massachusetts, that was a reason I heard quite often from people who voted for Ted Kennedy. They didn't know anything about his politics, his voting record, etc. They just knew that he was a senator when they were kids or before that, and so they kept voting for him.

[Nosauz]

Originally Posted by Ricky Controversy

Right. James's point was that this is something that happens across age ranges, though, not just to older politicians. If there's a risk associated with late-running political careers, it's the potential for a given electorate to become so acclimated to a figure that 'because he has always been there' is the sole reason they remain in office. Here in Massachusetts, that was a reason I heard quite often from people who voted for Ted Kennedy. They didn't know anything about his politics, his voting record, etc. They just knew that he was a senator when they were kids or before that, and so they kept voting for him.

It's one thing for the electorate to be uninformed but it's another for a elected official to be so woefully uninformed, it's the blind shepherding the blind, and the shepherd is a wolf in a farmers clothing. Especially when elected officials take on stature that seems untouchable by the common layman. In the end it is the responsibility of both the electorate and the officials in doing due diligence but as long as the elected officials promote this anti-intellectualism/anti-reason whether they be democrat/republican/independent are doing a massive disservice to this nation and to their constituencies. It's easy to blame the electorate for being uneducated but the elected officials that are elected desperately try to maintain the status quo and they should not be exempt from the blame.

[synaesthetic]

The electorate is pretty uneducated, because America in general is pretty uneducated. And this isn't that surprising. Primary school isn't designed to teach your kids anything; it's a prison to keep them locked up for half the day so adults can do the things that keep the country going. It's a government-sponsored babysitting service.

We'll always have a dumb electorate if we don't educate our kids, and a lot of politicians, a lot of corporate overlords, don't want a smart citizenry. They want dumb, materialistic worker drones that gobble up whatever they excrete as long as they keep their bank accounts filled to the brim. School isn't strict enough, they focus too much on the NCLB testing to keep the funding flowing.

The lefty "everyone's a winner" and "self-esteem" attitudes are a big part of the problem. They've got it backwards! Confidence and self-esteem are results of being successful and competent, not causes of success and competence.

We all know what a failure at life with too much confidence/arrogance is--a douchebag.

When people suck at something, they should be told they suck at something. It's hard to correct a problem if you don't even know you have it. Plus, kids growing up in a school system that's afraid to even tell them they're stupid--much less properly discipline them for being stupid--are going to grow up thinking that they're the cat's ass and the world is their oyster, only to discover the harsh reality fairly quickly--meanwhile annoying the hell out of everyone else with their whiny-emo behavior.

tl;dr version: Primary school needs to be a lot more like college, America could use a massive dose of meritocracy.

[MeoTwister5]

Meritocracy has been dead for years, even more so now when personal worth is measured as a direct proportion to the amount of Ben Franklins in your wallet, regardless of whether they were used to sniff cocaine or whatever.

In whatever case, kids are pretty much being taught in the US and in many parts of the world that money is all you need to succeed and get what you want and stuff. A downside of the capitalist mentality? Probably, but I'll chalk it up to the notion that to become rich (materially and monetarily) you have to throw away the rest of your humanity to the altar of currency. I guess being rich in character has lost its place in a world where money works and human kindness does not.

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

Meritocracy has been dead for years, even more so now when personal worth is measured as a direct proportion to the amount of Ben Franklins in your wallet, regardless of whether they were used to sniff cocaine or whatever.

I know, and it really makes me sad.

Sometimes I feel angry and upset that here I am, busting my ass and going into debt for a degree in electrical engineering, with lots of hard science and math--to get a career in which I'm actually going to try and do something, create something that advances the human race as a whole...

... yet I'll make far less money than people who argue with other people for a living. I tell my friend Becky (who is in law school) this all the time, and she just laughs at me.

[Nosauz]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

The electorate is pretty uneducated, because America in general is pretty uneducated. And this isn't that surprising. Primary school isn't designed to teach your kids anything; it's a prison to keep them locked up for half the day so adults can do the things that keep the country going. It's a government-sponsored babysitting service.

We'll always have a dumb electorate if we don't educate our kids, and a lot of politicians, a lot of corporate overlords, don't want a smart citizenry. They want dumb, materialistic worker drones that gobble up whatever they excrete as long as they keep their bank accounts filled to the brim. School isn't strict enough, they focus too much on the NCLB testing to keep the funding flowing.

The lefty "everyone's a winner" and "self-esteem" attitudes are a big part of the problem. They've got it backwards! Confidence and self-esteem are results of being successful and competent, not causes of success and competence.

We all know what a failure at life with too much confidence/arrogance is--a douchebag.

When people suck at something, they should be told they suck at something. It's hard to correct a problem if you don't even know you have it. Plus, kids growing up in a school system that's afraid to even tell them they're stupid--much less properly discipline them for being stupid--are going to grow up thinking that they're the cat's ass and the world is their oyster, only to discover the harsh reality fairly quickly.

tl;dr version: Primary school needs to be a lot more like college, America could use a massive dose of meritocracy.

Ugh... public education this, public education that. It's all rabble rabble. I graduated from the public school system at the top 20 of my class, I had 60hrs+ of college credit when I entered the university system, it's all about how well the students take advantage of the system. I had classes where I learned more in a regular class than an a class designated AP that gave me college credit. Just because you lean toward progressive ideals doesn't mean your a softy anti competition. In fact i believe the blind "patriotism" that people spew about how great America is great and somehow endows the people of this nation with greatness in fact a contributing factor to this "every body can do anything you want" it's a recruitment tactic for the republicans, by saying if we cut taxes on the rich you too also can be rich. The fact is some people are more competitive than others whether your a conservative or a liberal. Also the myth that America is a meritocracy is also what frustrates me, college admissions should strictly be about grades you receive but even in a meritocracy there are back doors and this is highly prevalent especially in China where from High school-> college admissions are all based on test scores.

I've heard the platitude so often that it makes me sick: "I'm American so I don't have to work harder, I'm already the best" This isn't just a "lefty" ideal, this is just the populace influenced by the warhawks and the politicians who constantly reinforce into us that we are the best. Being the best comes from competing, clawing from the bottom to the top, fighting the pyramid to prove your the best, but look at what the conservatives are trying to do, dismantling science and math that have strict ways to measure ourselves. Oh well keep being delusional and keep blaming the left for the lack of competition, your wrong but you can still do that because it is your pejorative.

Actually you can even put some blame on the structure of society into this too, you no longer have to be the best crafter, you have to the best seller, the best man/woman able to manipulate money, instead of producing a tangible or useful product. Instead the brokers far out make the creators/innovators. What value is there to be a leader in anything? Hell, why do I love sports? it's still relatively a meritocracy compared to all the other pyramids that people have to climb, as long as you have innate skill and are a hardworker you can make it, same goes for the creative works although it's still sad how much publishing makes. In the end, as long as scientists are making 80k tenured at college institutions and a publisher makes 5 billion more people will gravitate to publishing than actually producing science.

[Mentar]

Please excuse me for being late to the party, but this was too much to simply overlook...

Originally Posted by justinstrife

I'll respond in reverse order with your points.

Exactly how is the Fairness Doctrine constitutional? And where exactly do you want it enforced?

Obama is doing more harm than good [...] not continuing the Bush Tax Cuts, running up the National Debt to epic record numbers,

This is my question: It should be obvious that the Bush Tax Cuts, especially for the hyper-wealthy, contributed massively to the National Debt. Loss of tax revenue during budget deficit times translates 1:1 into National Debt.

How can any human being, endowed with reason, honestly believe that "the tax cuts pay for themselves", aka "due to the (alleged) stimulation of the tax cuts, the generated extra revenue is as high as the tax revenues lost or even more".

Naturally, this is obviously bullshit. But somehow people are successfully being convinced that this is the case. Can you explain to me how you do it?

[Ricky Controversy]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

I know, and it really makes me sad.

Sometimes I feel angry and upset that here I am, busting my ass and going into debt for a degree in electrical engineering, with lots of hard science and math--to get a career in which I'm actually going to try and do something, create something that advances the human race as a whole...

... yet I'll make far less money than people who argue with other people for a living. I tell my friend Becky (who is in law school) this all the time, and she just laughs at me.

I hope you're not genuinely trying to argue that electrical engineering is a more meritorious pursuit than law. XD

But on the point of education and the politics surrounding it, I agree that emulating the collegiate model is good whenever possible. A school functions best, I feel, when it is an entity unto itself, responsible for its results with its individual students in order to obtain the money it needs to survive. State-sponsored schools that are evaluated mostly on a district-by-district basis using broad, generic standards are generally going to be either pretty terrible, or wildly imbalanced.

The one year of public High School I attended was a real shocker because I ended up in the latter type of school. The upperclassmen prestige was all that was valued there, so the Advanced Placement teachers were in most cases multiple doctorate holders, and worked the asses off of the students that made the cut for their class. The district office passed it along to the state that our school had amazing performance on the AP exams and SAT IIs--which incidentally are both far too easy--and that was all they needed to know. They didn't hear about the 25% freshman drop-out and failure rate, or the 13% delinquency rate in underclassmen, or any of that stuff. If the schools were subjected to individual scrutiny, you bet your ass that would be dealt with swiftly.