I like social democracies in general. Good social safety net, elected governments, many parties. Not flawless, but nothing is.
Health care reform was a victory for the government budget and fiscal prudence and a humanitarian victory for the uninsured. It was also a victory for sound policy. If that’s not good enough for you, I question your morals. Seriously.
Given Wall Street’s multi-billion dollar lobbying against Dodd-Frank, the news that they own both parties will come as a shock to them. Here’s a goto website on the financial crisis: the authors believe that Dodd-Frank didn’t go far enough by the way: http://baselinescenario.com/
I partially agree with you though. My take is that some form of oligarchy is the natural way of things, albeit broken up by bursts of reform. While we don’t have the broad-based prosperity of 1950-1972, this isn’t ancient Rome either. And some important institutional levers of racial oppression were broken during the 1960s. What we have is one party made up of crazies and those afraid of being primaried by crazies. The other party is a mixture of liberals, moderates and conservatives. Your choice.
The marginal tax rate on hedge fund managers is now 14-15%. Obama wants to raise it to 40%, which would still be below the level of Eisenhower-Nixon-early days of Ronald Reagan. Those aren’t small differences.
Voting allows incremental changes to occur. Helps make revolutions moot. Not every change has to be a revolution. The only reason voting is moot now is that the dems are no long an effective check on corporate power. Clinton triangulated the left out of existence.
Elections matter a great deal. No nation has managed to abolish politics, as in the shoveling of public money to various beneficiaries for political reasons, including corporations. What’s more, there is very little corporate looting going on that the public nearly unanimously disapproves of. If we could all agree that corporate welfare was bad, even if the corporations involved are sympathetic, then politicians would feel forced to vote against corporate welfare. But as long a lot of us support various subsidies and bailouts, it doesn’t do any good to complain that some of those subsidies and bailouts go to corporations we don’t approve of. it is easier to oppose an idea in principle and just take it out of consideration than it is to tailor an idea into a program that works the way the public wants it to work.
I have been on this same corner now since I know better, and that was over four decades ago. In all that time, I have never once thought “Whoa, change is happening too fast, not enough time to adjust, gotta go slow, take our time here…” Not once. I have always been dissatisfied with the pace of change and progress.
And so what? Gonna do the same things anyway. Going to press for more justice, more equality. Going up against money and power, its not weird that we lose so often, its weird that we ever win! It doesn’t have to be 24/7/365, you can take a break, go fishing, watch a baby sleep, charge up your batteries. Like St. Paul said, without love and joy, you’re like a bell with the clap. Or without the clap. Something like that.
We are up against the most powerful people in the most powerful nation that ever existed. So, no, it ain’t gonna be easy. And yes, we have to. And you already know why.
Too big to fail? The financial crisis and bailout of the big banks? Sure those things were necessary. But I think it’s fair to say that the public would rather not witness a repeat performance. Thus the need for financial reform, notwithstanding the absence of Republican support for it.
That’s not a problem. That’s a symptom of the problem of winner-take-all/first-past-the-post elections.
Actually, Republicans want to fix too big to fail, Democrats did not. The Republican philosophy is to let banks fail, just get them down to the point where they don’t pose systemic risk if they do. The Democratic philosophy is Leave No Corporation Behind, so micromanage them instead so they can’t fail.
There aren’t just two parties. There are dozens of political parties in the United States. The thing is that most people don’t want to vote for any of those other parties. The only way those third parties are going to get an equal share of the pie is by throwing democracy out of the picture.
Things like proportional representation, top-up party slates, single-transferable voting, automatic runoff voting, etc., aren’t “throwing democracy out of the picture.” Indeed, they’re more democratic than what we have now.
No the Republican policy is to promise that there won’t be further bailouts. Very different.
It’s certainly true that both parties are beholden to the bankers. But Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) was known as the ATM for the banks: if they wanted more lenient regulation, he was the go-to guy. During the Dodd-Frank financial reform debate in early 2010, newly elected Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts was referred to as an ATM for the bankers – meaning that whenever they needed some more cash, they would stop by his office. It was not paper money he was handing out, of course, it was something much more valuable – rule changes that conferred a greater ability to take on reckless risk, damage consumers, and impose higher future costs on the taxpayer.
Mr. Brown had this ability because he represented the final vote needed to pass Dodd-Frank through the Senate. He could have asked for many things – including greater consumer protection, a more thorough investigation into mortgage practices, and reforms that would have cleaned up unscrupulous lenders. He asked for none of those changes – or anything else that would have made the financial system safer and fairer.
Instead, Senator Brown’s requests were designed to undermine the Volcker Rule – i.e., he was opposing sensible attempts to limit the ability of big banks to place highly dangerous bets (and to blow themselves up at great cost to the rest of us). Mr. Brown seems to have been particularly keen to allow big banks to invest in hedge funds of various kinds – and the Boston Globe reported recently that he has continued to push in this direction behind the scenes.
Such risky investments earn high returns when times are good (and big bonuses for senior executives), but they also imply large losses when something goes wrong. The special interests involved naturally like, “heads I win, tails you lose”, but this is absolutely not in the broader social interest. Banks with FDIC-insured deposits absolutely should not be allowed to engage in such speculative activities. This was the original insight of former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker – and it remains the right view today. This from an allegedly moderate Republican. Volker was a conservative appointed by Carter and re-appointed by Reagan. His rule has no chance of being passed by a Republican Congress. Defending the Republicans on this score is shameful.
They’re all designed to give fringe political parties that only get one percent of the votes thirty percent of the results.
Your hyperbole is not funny. Proportional representation means that 12% of the vote gets 12% of the seats. If a majority of Americans want the 700 Club to rule them, that will still happen.
But 1% of the electorate getting 30% of the power? Actually, that’s what our plurality system does in effect. Tiny interest groups can demand concessions from the great big coalition.
What hyperbole? I was stating the literal facts. Look them up.
Look at the 2008 Presidential election. There were over 130,000,000 votes cast. There were 148 people running for President. How much support do you imagine 3 through 148 got? The third biggest candidate in the race was Ralph Nader (who ran as a non-party independent). He got 738,720 votes - which is less than one percent. Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate, was fourth in votes with 523,713.
That’s the reality. The United States doesn’t have any third parties that are the equivalent of the UK’s Liberal Democrats or Canada’s Liberals. There are no political parties in the United States that approach the two big parties in voter support.
I didn’t know Little Nemo was against proportional representation.
Look. They use it in most democratic countries. It’s not like we’re talking about cold fusion or something. Personally, I favor the German approach where you get zero reps until you can clear a 5% hurdle. I’d also penalize parties that get less than, say, 15-20% of the total. Small parties deserve voice, but not power. Otherwise you get squirrelly single-issue operations that trade their support for their own narrow cause. Christian conservatives might deserve their own party. But truck drivers do not.
If we had to have proportional representation (I’m not its biggest fan), I’d also give a kicker to the party with the most votes. I think there’s something to be said for coming in first, even without a majority.
In the same vein, I also don’t like that 100% of a vote can be transferred in many preferential systems. “You’re my first choice” and “you’re my second choice” are, IMO, very different statements, so an electoral system should treat them accordingly and discount votes each time they move.
The problem is, we elect people to represent districts and states. Parties are irrelevant. Just as moving to a popular vote system and away from the electoral college fundamentally changes our nation from a federalist system to a strong central government system, switching from “guy with the most votes wins” to proportional representation would institutionalize the party system. Parties could then do things like expel members or force them to vote against the interests of those who elected them.
So you want a voting system that penalises small parties but boosts the winner? Then First Past the Post (your present voting system for the House) should be the one for you! 
Sounds like Single Transferable Vote, which is used in Ireland and in the Australian Senate. However, it is only really workable when multiple offices are being elected - so it would work for Congressional elections, but not for your presidency.
I’m kind of fine with that. I’m not saying it’s not flawed, but I’ve never been quite convinced that it’s so much worse than the others.
STV doesn’t devalue votes for that reason, though. It just devalues them because that’s the only fair way to pick which votes to move when there’s a surplus (rather than randomly picking 10% or however many of them out of the stack, they just move every ballot 0.1 times). I think there should be a further drop in value in addition to that. Perhaps throw the choice the vote is on underneath it as a(nother) divisor.
Oh I agree Lord Feldon. I’m comfortable with FPTP myself (Brit here).