This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1prosfilaes
Forking off "What is Brexit?": http://www.librarything.com/topic/225661
As madpoet noted ( http://www.librarything.com/topic/225661#5630933 ), there's a lot of hostility towards the form of the vote on that thread, namely a referendum. I'm sort of a fan of representational democracy for having people who should know what's going on do the voting. But I agree with madpoet in that "If the side you had wanted to win had won, referendums would be wonderful!"
As madpoet noted ( http://www.librarything.com/topic/225661#5630933 ), there's a lot of hostility towards the form of the vote on that thread, namely a referendum. I'm sort of a fan of representational democracy for having people who should know what's going on do the voting. But I agree with madpoet in that "If the side you had wanted to win had won, referendums would be wonderful!"
3John5918
>1 prosfilaes: "If the side you had wanted to win had won, referendums would be wonderful!"
That's making a huge assumption about why people are challenging the referendum.
I would accept whichever side were to win in referenda which had certain basic safeguards built in.
The main safeguard would be that for significant constitutional amendments (which is what this particular vote effectively was) there should be more than just a simple majority. This is already the case for constitutional amendments in many countries in the world.
The other thing which is troubling about this particular referendum is that the UK is made up of four countries, but the result did not take into account the democratically-expressed views of all four. It's not such a problem in general elections, as each constituency elects someone to represent their interests so there is a regional spread within parliament. But in a referendum such as this a majority from a different country gets to decide for, say, Scotland.
There is more to democracy than simple mathematics. In some countries, the president is elected not purely on a simple majority but s/he also has to get a certain percentage of votes in a majority of the regions of the country, so that in theory a single large region cannot impose a president on the whole country.
I'm sort of a fan of representational democracy for having people who should know what's going on do the voting
So am I. With the best will in the world, can we say that any of us were properly informed about the issues? The media seemed to be treating this as entertainment, rather than the most serious and far-reaching decision the UK had to make in half a century or more. Campaigning on both sides relied heavily on lies (now being admitted publicly) and grandstanding. Nobody on either side actually expected that people would vote to leave, so it could be argued that this was not actually the main aim of the referendum. For the Tories it was about internal leadership struggles, and to a lesser extent strengthening their position vis a vis UKIP. Those who wanted to remain probably didn't take it as seriously as they should have done. And for many voters, it was more a protest vote demonstrating their disaffection and dissatisfaction with the political establishment, a bit like mid-term local council elections.
So in my view the process was flawed and needs to be challenged in its own right, not simply because I disagree with the result.
Edited for clarity
That's making a huge assumption about why people are challenging the referendum.
I would accept whichever side were to win in referenda which had certain basic safeguards built in.
The main safeguard would be that for significant constitutional amendments (which is what this particular vote effectively was) there should be more than just a simple majority. This is already the case for constitutional amendments in many countries in the world.
The other thing which is troubling about this particular referendum is that the UK is made up of four countries, but the result did not take into account the democratically-expressed views of all four. It's not such a problem in general elections, as each constituency elects someone to represent their interests so there is a regional spread within parliament. But in a referendum such as this a majority from a different country gets to decide for, say, Scotland.
There is more to democracy than simple mathematics. In some countries, the president is elected not purely on a simple majority but s/he also has to get a certain percentage of votes in a majority of the regions of the country, so that in theory a single large region cannot impose a president on the whole country.
I'm sort of a fan of representational democracy for having people who should know what's going on do the voting
So am I. With the best will in the world, can we say that any of us were properly informed about the issues? The media seemed to be treating this as entertainment, rather than the most serious and far-reaching decision the UK had to make in half a century or more. Campaigning on both sides relied heavily on lies (now being admitted publicly) and grandstanding. Nobody on either side actually expected that people would vote to leave, so it could be argued that this was not actually the main aim of the referendum. For the Tories it was about internal leadership struggles, and to a lesser extent strengthening their position vis a vis UKIP. Those who wanted to remain probably didn't take it as seriously as they should have done. And for many voters, it was more a protest vote demonstrating their disaffection and dissatisfaction with the political establishment, a bit like mid-term local council elections.
So in my view the process was flawed and needs to be challenged in its own right, not simply because I disagree with the result.
Edited for clarity
4bnielsen
>3 John5918: Also referendums are rare, so the theme of each referendum should be carefully chosen and carefully phrased. Typically it is a yes/no question but the problem is quite complex, so deciding on yes/no is also not easy for the voter.
I don't really like referendums. Either you get a very clear result, i.e. 90%/10%, which means that it was silly to ask for a confirmation of the obvious. Or you get a 52%/48% result which is the recipe for splitting the country. A lot of questions are better left unasked.
I don't really like referendums. Either you get a very clear result, i.e. 90%/10%, which means that it was silly to ask for a confirmation of the obvious. Or you get a 52%/48% result which is the recipe for splitting the country. A lot of questions are better left unasked.
5proximity1
...With the best will in the world, can we say that any of us were properly informed about the issues?"
By God, Yes! you're God damned right "we were properly informed" !!!
Your logic is circular and laughably self-defeating:
The general public did not impose the decision to allow a referendum of the question here on their political elite. No! That decision was taken as the prerogative of those who you tell us are better placed to do our thinking for us. And so they did! So, in the end, the British voters took the course set out for them by their ruling betters, those smart people in Parliament whose political judgment you so trust. They said, through their duly-elected Prime Minister, "Here--take this question and, by a simple majority, take a vote on it."
Similarly, in their "wisdom," they set the parameters and modalities of the vote: Indeed, a simple majority, nothing "more." It's called majority-rule, not minority-rule!
But, but, but!... the motives were tainted!, you cry. The Tories were all caught up in their own internal party-machinations. This was done from base motives! Nobody really expected the "Leave" camp to actually win! It wasn't meant to be a serious measure, you see! Now that we see that a majority really could vote to "Leave," we must do it all again--but with "safeguards" for (I.e. against) democracy : we need to require a minimum turn-out of, let's see--72% turned out already--better make it 75%. 80% or more should be even better but people would probably find that asking too much. If only we could require unanimity--like they do in certain cases within the E.U., for example, when someone needs permission to go to the toilet.
"The media seemed to be treating this as entertainment, rather than the most serious and far-reaching decision the UK had to make in half a century or more."
Well, gee!: welcome to safe, secure, Blairite Britain. What do you propose? Should we put off all such cases until a responsible press evolves spontaneously?
"Campaigning on both sides relied heavily on lies (now being admitted publicly) and grandstanding. Nobody on either side actually expected that people would vote to leave, so it could be argued that this was not actually the main aim of the referendum."
That is more of the kind of deeply insulting bullshit which so marked the entire cynical "Better Together" campaign.
This was a clearly-drawn referenfum. The choices were clear. The stakes were clear. People's expectations--that this was serious business in which the outcome would count --that was clear!
If Parliament chooses to repudiate this vote, it shall be responsible for the even greater contempt which such a repudiation should invite and inspire.
6bnielsen
>5 proximity1: Also the proposed rule of min 75% turnout means that the next time all "Remain" voters should just stay at home. (They are 72% * 48% that is more than 34%, so if they stay at home the turnout will be at most 66% and the proposal will thus fall even though it gets 100% of the votres.)
7LolaWalser
>1 prosfilaes:
If the side you had wanted to win had won, referendums would be wonderful!"
No, they wouldn't. It would just mean you were dumb lucky, for once. I'm very glad the Irish referendum on marriage for gays turned out the way it did, but I'd never in a million years have suggested a referendum on such a topic. It's nice most Irish (who voted in it) think gay people deserve equal marriage rights, but their opinion is irrelevant to the justice of treating gays as equals. Just like the opinions of Croats and Slovenes who voted negative on the same topic in their referendums are irrelevant to the essential rightness of treating gays as equals.
There's a reason for conducting politics through and with politicians. Just look at the fuckwits who voted to leave without having a clue what they were voting for (or against, especially!), or even not believing it's going to matter.
Have referendums on the colour of the year or what to call a football mascot, by all means. Do politics the sane, difficult way.
If the side you had wanted to win had won, referendums would be wonderful!"
No, they wouldn't. It would just mean you were dumb lucky, for once. I'm very glad the Irish referendum on marriage for gays turned out the way it did, but I'd never in a million years have suggested a referendum on such a topic. It's nice most Irish (who voted in it) think gay people deserve equal marriage rights, but their opinion is irrelevant to the justice of treating gays as equals. Just like the opinions of Croats and Slovenes who voted negative on the same topic in their referendums are irrelevant to the essential rightness of treating gays as equals.
There's a reason for conducting politics through and with politicians. Just look at the fuckwits who voted to leave without having a clue what they were voting for (or against, especially!), or even not believing it's going to matter.
Have referendums on the colour of the year or what to call a football mascot, by all means. Do politics the sane, difficult way.
8John5918
>7 LolaWalser: Have referendums on the colour of the year or what to call a football mascot, by all means
Recently the British were given the chance to vote on the name for a brand new arctic research ship, a serious contribution to humankind's scientific knowledge, etc, etc. The winning name was "Boaty McBoatface", by a huge margin. Fortunately the powers that be had the good sense to ignore the popular voice and christen the ship "RRS Sir David Attenborough".
Seems the Great British Public (or at least the English and Welsh part thereof) have carried the same "Boaty McBoatface" spirit over into the EU referendum.
Recently the British were given the chance to vote on the name for a brand new arctic research ship, a serious contribution to humankind's scientific knowledge, etc, etc. The winning name was "Boaty McBoatface", by a huge margin. Fortunately the powers that be had the good sense to ignore the popular voice and christen the ship "RRS Sir David Attenborough".
Seems the Great British Public (or at least the English and Welsh part thereof) have carried the same "Boaty McBoatface" spirit over into the EU referendum.
9LolaWalser
>8 John5918:
But how ironic that Boaty McBoatface got blocked from on high, but the decision that will affect hundreds of millions of people for generations won't be.
Boaty--no go! UK splitting up--well, the people have spoken.
But how ironic that Boaty McBoatface got blocked from on high, but the decision that will affect hundreds of millions of people for generations won't be.
Boaty--no go! UK splitting up--well, the people have spoken.
10proximity1
>6 bnielsen:
bnielsen makes an excellent point-- and shows why super-majorities in very hotly and narrowly disputed matters are a recipe for stalemate.
Any minimum turn-out requirement of 75% or more would present an insurmountable obstacle to any group with "only" 74.9% of the people solidly behind an initiative since this would mean in practice just what bnielsen points out: the minority faction can scuttle the vote just by staying home--in fact, that is the _only_ way that such a faction could be sure to prevail since, otherwise, merely by voting, they'd be contributing to achieving the required minimum turn-out. This makes such a requirement a positive incentive against the minority faction's participation.
bnielsen makes an excellent point-- and shows why super-majorities in very hotly and narrowly disputed matters are a recipe for stalemate.
Any minimum turn-out requirement of 75% or more would present an insurmountable obstacle to any group with "only" 74.9% of the people solidly behind an initiative since this would mean in practice just what bnielsen points out: the minority faction can scuttle the vote just by staying home--in fact, that is the _only_ way that such a faction could be sure to prevail since, otherwise, merely by voting, they'd be contributing to achieving the required minimum turn-out. This makes such a requirement a positive incentive against the minority faction's participation.
11proximity1
>3 John5918:
... " In some countries, the president is elected not purely on a simple majority but s/he also has to get a certain percentage of votes in a majority of the regions of the country, so that in theory a single large region cannot impose a president on the whole country."
Yes-- and that is very simply an anti- democratic measure.
You mistake minority-rule for a "democratic" strength. It is not. It's the antithesis of democratic practice. Under the system you tout, the minority in just one region can prevent --and so impose its will on --a majority from electing its preferred candidate.
Why is that to be preferred?
... " In some countries, the president is elected not purely on a simple majority but s/he also has to get a certain percentage of votes in a majority of the regions of the country, so that in theory a single large region cannot impose a president on the whole country."
Yes-- and that is very simply an anti- democratic measure.
You mistake minority-rule for a "democratic" strength. It is not. It's the antithesis of democratic practice. Under the system you tout, the minority in just one region can prevent --and so impose its will on --a majority from electing its preferred candidate.
Why is that to be preferred?
12John5918
>11 proximity1:
No, you mistake mathematics for democracy. It is not "minority rule", but respect and protection for the minority. Participative democracy is more than just participation in a single voting exercise; rather it is more to do with mechanisms allowing all (or as many as possible) of the people to participate in an ongoing process.
Unbridled mathematical majority rule can and in some times and places has become the tyranny of the majority. On the other hand there are plenty of examples where people have been mature enough to put pure mathematics second to finding a healthy way forward for the nation - Northern Ireland, South Africa in the five years immediately after liberation, power-sharing governments in Kenya and Zimbabwe - and in fact many (most?) nations in the world have done so as a matter of course by requiring more than simple majorities for constitutional amendments.
No, you mistake mathematics for democracy. It is not "minority rule", but respect and protection for the minority. Participative democracy is more than just participation in a single voting exercise; rather it is more to do with mechanisms allowing all (or as many as possible) of the people to participate in an ongoing process.
Unbridled mathematical majority rule can and in some times and places has become the tyranny of the majority. On the other hand there are plenty of examples where people have been mature enough to put pure mathematics second to finding a healthy way forward for the nation - Northern Ireland, South Africa in the five years immediately after liberation, power-sharing governments in Kenya and Zimbabwe - and in fact many (most?) nations in the world have done so as a matter of course by requiring more than simple majorities for constitutional amendments.
13madpoet
The problem with electing representatives to study an issue and vote for you is that those politicians are also beholden to their (usually corporate) sponsors. They have a conflict of interest, and often show it by voting against the interests of the people. Referendum are the only way for the voters to have a direct say on an issue. The more direct the democracy, the more real it is.
14madpoet
Opponents of referendum seem to have a mistrust of the general population. They can't be trusted with making weighty decisions. Look: they named a boat a silly name! How can you trust people like that!
Our elected representatives have done such a wonderful job over all these years, keeping us out of debt, bringing peace to the Middle East, solving global warming and global poverty. Yes, they have done a bang-up job! Why distrust them? Why seek a better way? The people might screw things up if you let them have real democracy...
Our elected representatives have done such a wonderful job over all these years, keeping us out of debt, bringing peace to the Middle East, solving global warming and global poverty. Yes, they have done a bang-up job! Why distrust them? Why seek a better way? The people might screw things up if you let them have real democracy...
15prosfilaes
>14 madpoet: Our elected representatives have done such a wonderful job over all these years, keeping us out of debt, bringing peace to the Middle East, solving global warming and global poverty.
Keeping us out of debt: I'm pretty sure a plebiscite for more taxes and fewer social programs will not fly.
Bringing peace to the Middle East: From what I understand, a lot of the political issues around Israel are because leaders of countries like Egypt, Iran and Iraq, even non-democratic leaders, have found it politically costly to negotiate with Israel. The people of those countries are against Israeli occupation of Jerusalem and the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians. The people of Israel are for those things. There's no magic plebiscite that will solve that problem.
Solving global warming: Stop driving and flying places. Give up living in places where you need air conditioning. Stop whining about gasoline prices. If Americans could do these things, then I might believe that they could solve their part in global warming. Until then, why should I expect that Americans unwilling to make changes in their personal lives would pass laws that would demand those changes in their personal lives?
Solving global poverty: So the people who didn't want to support the rest of the EU are going to solve global poverty if given a chance? Or the people who complain about how much the US gives out in foreign aid?
Three of those things aren't done because the voters are not willing to take the costs connected to them. The fourth one is not done because there are multiple groups that join politically only in the UN that disagree strongly, and can and have ignored the UN on the subject. A world government might have a plebiscite on the subject, but even then, good luck enforcing it.
Keeping us out of debt: I'm pretty sure a plebiscite for more taxes and fewer social programs will not fly.
Bringing peace to the Middle East: From what I understand, a lot of the political issues around Israel are because leaders of countries like Egypt, Iran and Iraq, even non-democratic leaders, have found it politically costly to negotiate with Israel. The people of those countries are against Israeli occupation of Jerusalem and the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians. The people of Israel are for those things. There's no magic plebiscite that will solve that problem.
Solving global warming: Stop driving and flying places. Give up living in places where you need air conditioning. Stop whining about gasoline prices. If Americans could do these things, then I might believe that they could solve their part in global warming. Until then, why should I expect that Americans unwilling to make changes in their personal lives would pass laws that would demand those changes in their personal lives?
Solving global poverty: So the people who didn't want to support the rest of the EU are going to solve global poverty if given a chance? Or the people who complain about how much the US gives out in foreign aid?
Three of those things aren't done because the voters are not willing to take the costs connected to them. The fourth one is not done because there are multiple groups that join politically only in the UN that disagree strongly, and can and have ignored the UN on the subject. A world government might have a plebiscite on the subject, but even then, good luck enforcing it.
16theoria
>13 madpoet: What nation is a direct democracy?
17proximity1
>12 John5918:
No wonder contemporary British politics compares badly to an unsupervised collection of two-year-olds.
Tell me: how are most powerless minorities' rights safe when a powerful minority can thwart even a clear majority ? While you're busy taxing me for a lack of care for minority-rights, the local politicos in Cleveland, Ohio and in Philadelphia have already decided where the little "free-speech-zones" are to be located and fenced-off.
Somebody wake me when you get around to votes for women and emancipation of the colored races.
18proximity1
(Generally)
Your political "Miranda"-rights :
1) You have the right to remain politically stupid, ignorant, unaware and complacent.
2) You have the right to any permutation of the above.
3) Anything you say, think or do while politically stupid, ignorant, unaware and complacent can and will be used against you--everywhere.
4) You have the right to inform yourself. If you give up the right to inform yourself, then God help you!
5) There is no God.
19proximity1
From Off-guardian. org
" Brexit and the Diseased Liberal Mind"
by Jonathan Cook
" The enraged liberal reaction to the Brexit vote is in full flood. The anger is pathological – and helps to shed light on why a majority of Britons voted for leaving the European Union, just as earlier a majority of Labour party members voted for Jeremy Corbyn as leader.
" A few years ago the American writer
Chris Hedges wrote a book he titled the Death of the Liberal Class. His argument was not so much that liberals had disappeared, but that they had become so coopted by the right wing and its goals – from the subversion of progressive economic and social ideals by neoliberalism, to the ethusiastic embrace of neonservative doctrine in prosecuting aggressive and expansionist wars overseas in the guise of “humanitarian intervention” – that liberalism had been hollowed out of all substance.
" Liberal pundits sensitively agonise over, but invariably end up backing, policies designed to benefit the bankers and arms manufacturers, and ones that wreak havoc domestically and abroad. They are the “useful idiots” of modern western societies.
" Reading this piece on the fallout from Brexit by Zoe Williams, a columnist who ranks as leftwing by the current standards of the deeply diminished Guardian, one can isolate this liberal pathology in all its sordid glory." ... ...
" And here, wrapped into a single paragraph, is a golden nugget of liberal pathology from Williams. Her furious liberal plea is to rip up the foundations of democracy: get rid of the democratically elected Corbyn and find a way, any way, to block the wrong referendum outcome. No love, solidarity, unity or empathy for those who betrayed her and her class.
' There hasn’t been a more fertile time for a Labour leader since the 1990s. The case for a snap general election, already strong, will only intensify over the coming weeks. As the sheer mendacity of the leave argument becomes clear – it never intended to curb immigration, there will be no extra money for the NHS, there was no plan for making up EU spending in deprived areas – there will be a powerful argument for framing the general election as a rematch. Not another referendum, but a brake on article 50 and the next move determined by the new government. If you still want to leave the EU, vote Conservative. If you’ve realised or knew already what an act of vandalism that was, vote Labour.'
20reading_fox
>4 bnielsen: although they don't have to be rare. Switzerland has several every year https://www.ch.ch/en/votes/
It works for them.
It works for them.
22andyl
>20 reading_fox:
For some value of works.
Some referenda in Switzerland gets quite low turnout. Some produce results which are controversial and overly polarising or which have unintended consequences. They can be overly influenced by populism rather than rational decisions. Finally referenda often end up as just a way to signal dislike of a government regardless of whether the issue is of interest.
For some value of works.
Some referenda in Switzerland gets quite low turnout. Some produce results which are controversial and overly polarising or which have unintended consequences. They can be overly influenced by populism rather than rational decisions. Finally referenda often end up as just a way to signal dislike of a government regardless of whether the issue is of interest.
23John5918
>22 andyl: They can be overly influenced by populism rather than rational decisions. Finally referenda often end up as just a way to signal dislike of a government regardless of whether the issue is of interest.
These are two key concerns for me, particularly when the issue being voted on is effectively irreversible, unlike general elections which can be reversed after five years.
For those who think that taking extra precautions when doing something irreversible is an affront to democracy, it's worth noting that voting to remain is not irreversible. A remain vote could easily be overturned by a second referendum in the future (as indeed the Scots are already discussing with regard to their independence referendum). A leave vote can't.
Edited for clarity
These are two key concerns for me, particularly when the issue being voted on is effectively irreversible, unlike general elections which can be reversed after five years.
For those who think that taking extra precautions when doing something irreversible is an affront to democracy, it's worth noting that voting to remain is not irreversible. A remain vote could easily be overturned by a second referendum in the future (as indeed the Scots are already discussing with regard to their independence referendum). A leave vote can't.
Edited for clarity
24reading_fox
"Finally referenda often end up as just a way to signal dislike of a government regardless of whether the issue is of interest."
Which appears to have been the case for a substantial number of people in the Brexit vote.
Which appears to have been the case for a substantial number of people in the Brexit vote.
25madpoet
>16 theoria: "What nation is a direct democracy?"
The founders of the first republic might have asked the same question.
Direct democracy is becoming more common, though, with more countries holding referendums. And with technology, it is possible now for every citizen of a country to stay informed about proposed legislation and to vote. That was just not possible in the 18th and 19th Centuries, when representative democracy began in Europe, North America, Australia, etc.
On matters of constitutional change and other vital matters, the people have the right to make the decision themselves-- whether they choose 'right' or 'wrong'.
When it comes to decisions such as the question of Scottish independence, what is the alternative to a referendum? The Scottish parliament couldn't just declare independence-- the British government wouldn't accept it. A referendum, on the other hand, where the people speak directly, cannot be ignored. And if it is ignored, Scottish nationalists would have no choice left but to fight a guerilla war for their independence, as political means had been exhausted. Surely, a referendum is preferable to that!
The founders of the first republic might have asked the same question.
Direct democracy is becoming more common, though, with more countries holding referendums. And with technology, it is possible now for every citizen of a country to stay informed about proposed legislation and to vote. That was just not possible in the 18th and 19th Centuries, when representative democracy began in Europe, North America, Australia, etc.
On matters of constitutional change and other vital matters, the people have the right to make the decision themselves-- whether they choose 'right' or 'wrong'.
When it comes to decisions such as the question of Scottish independence, what is the alternative to a referendum? The Scottish parliament couldn't just declare independence-- the British government wouldn't accept it. A referendum, on the other hand, where the people speak directly, cannot be ignored. And if it is ignored, Scottish nationalists would have no choice left but to fight a guerilla war for their independence, as political means had been exhausted. Surely, a referendum is preferable to that!
26madpoet
I hear a lot of opposition to referendum and 'populism' from those on the left. But it is mostly because populism is associated with the right. It's like filibusters, the tool of the weaker party. When 'our party' is in power, filibusters are 'obstructionist' or even 'undemocratic,' but when 'our party' is in opposition, filibusters are 'heroic' and a 'David-and-Goliath' form of 'resistance to tyranny.'
But the right don't have a monopoly on populism. Look at some of Bernie Sander's ideas, for instance. Free university education? Who wouldn't vote for that? $15 minimum wage? Sounds great! Of course, these measures would have to be tied to responsible ways of funding them, so that a bill for free university education would include a small raise in income tax, for instance.
I'll admit Rob Ford and Donald Trump have made me doubt the wisdom of the masses, but let us give our friends and neighbours-- and ourselves-- some credit. The People are not ignorant and irresponsible, as the politicos would like to make them out to be. The People are not children, that they need to be protected from their own decisions, or have others make decisions for them. Let the era of true democracy begin. Let the era of government BY the People, OF the People and FOR the People begin.
But the right don't have a monopoly on populism. Look at some of Bernie Sander's ideas, for instance. Free university education? Who wouldn't vote for that? $15 minimum wage? Sounds great! Of course, these measures would have to be tied to responsible ways of funding them, so that a bill for free university education would include a small raise in income tax, for instance.
I'll admit Rob Ford and Donald Trump have made me doubt the wisdom of the masses, but let us give our friends and neighbours-- and ourselves-- some credit. The People are not ignorant and irresponsible, as the politicos would like to make them out to be. The People are not children, that they need to be protected from their own decisions, or have others make decisions for them. Let the era of true democracy begin. Let the era of government BY the People, OF the People and FOR the People begin.
27southernbooklady
>26 madpoet: The problem isn't populism so much as it is racism, xenophobia, jingoistic values that express themselves in the repression of other people.
Democracy means little if one group of people votes to disenfranchise another.
Democracy means little if one group of people votes to disenfranchise another.
29prosfilaes
>25 madpoet: And with technology, it is possible now for every citizen of a country to stay informed about proposed legislation and to vote.
I didn't vote the last local primary, because I was too busy to bother to figure out who to vote for. I did this remembering a few years ago having the choice between a corrupt Democrat and a Republican who didn't represent my interests at all, a problem that should have been solved in the primary. I'm a voracious reader with a huge vocabulary and a college education, and can't imagine trying to follow all the proposed legislation that Congress has to deal with.
I didn't vote the last local primary, because I was too busy to bother to figure out who to vote for. I did this remembering a few years ago having the choice between a corrupt Democrat and a Republican who didn't represent my interests at all, a problem that should have been solved in the primary. I'm a voracious reader with a huge vocabulary and a college education, and can't imagine trying to follow all the proposed legislation that Congress has to deal with.
30John5918
>27 southernbooklady: Democracy means little if one group of people votes to disenfranchise another.
Well said. It's precisely why democracy is rarely purely mathematical but often has constitutional safeguards built in. Thus it is never perfect (but then what is?) and simply arguing for some imagined perfect form of democracy is, er, populist. A more useful conversation should rather be about finding the balance between different forms of democracy (and there are many extant) so that the will of the majority is respected but the position of minorities is also respected. Democracy has often become a win-lose game, rather than a form of participative governance seeking a win-win situation for as many sections of society as possible.
Well said. It's precisely why democracy is rarely purely mathematical but often has constitutional safeguards built in. Thus it is never perfect (but then what is?) and simply arguing for some imagined perfect form of democracy is, er, populist. A more useful conversation should rather be about finding the balance between different forms of democracy (and there are many extant) so that the will of the majority is respected but the position of minorities is also respected. Democracy has often become a win-lose game, rather than a form of participative governance seeking a win-win situation for as many sections of society as possible.
31John5918
>25 madpoet: with technology, it is possible now for every citizen of a country to stay informed about proposed legislation
Possible, yes. But in reality? How many people really have the time and research skills to get behind the web of lies and grandstanding? See >29 prosfilaes:
Possible, yes. But in reality? How many people really have the time and research skills to get behind the web of lies and grandstanding? See >29 prosfilaes:
32madpoet
>31 John5918: And who puts out the 'web of lies and grandstanding' but the very politicians we elect to represent us?
>29 prosfilaes: "having the choice between a corrupt Democrat and a Republican who didn't represent my interests at all"
Exactly. Which is why we the people need to vote directly on the issues and not leave all the decision making in the politicians' greasy hands.
>29 prosfilaes: "having the choice between a corrupt Democrat and a Republican who didn't represent my interests at all"
Exactly. Which is why we the people need to vote directly on the issues and not leave all the decision making in the politicians' greasy hands.
33madpoet
>27 southernbooklady: Which is what a constitution and bill of rights is for. One of the basic principles of law is equality: all laws are applied equally to all citizens, regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, etc. There are still checks and balances such as the Supreme Court, but the best check on government power is the people themselves.
Look at the Irish referendum on same sex marriage that Lolawalser mentioned. The Irish people voted to legalize same sex marriage in the referendum, and because there was a referendum it gave legitimacy to the law, in the eyes of the public, that it would not have if it had been imposed on them by their government.
Look at the Irish referendum on same sex marriage that Lolawalser mentioned. The Irish people voted to legalize same sex marriage in the referendum, and because there was a referendum it gave legitimacy to the law, in the eyes of the public, that it would not have if it had been imposed on them by their government.
34proximity1
>30 John5918:
Nearly all of the "middle-way" pieties which are uttered by professional politicians are nothing but rank hypocrisy.
The Brexit vote was a casebook example of what only a fairly-won majoritarian democractic vote can do : decide issues for which no "third way" exists.
With extremely few exceptions, THE MOST CRUCIAL ISSUES concern exactly this sort of question.
Its distinguishing features are:
1) It divides opinion between the only two options available. For or against "X."
2) The passions on each side are intensely felt and ecpressed. That is, these are "fighting issues" which split families and friends.
3) The numerical margin separating the "for"-voters from the "against"-voters is so narrow that polls typically cannot even mark it clearly -- resulting in a polling statistical margin-of-error which is itself larger than the difference between the two camps.
4) The issue does _not_ admit of any clear and predictable knowledge of the real consequences, good or bad, of either camp's projections. That is, "We cannot be sure how things shall go after the decision" is the only honest to the question, "What happens if your side wins?"
5) Either way, the outcome means something believed to be of esdential importance for the whole society.
Nearly all of the "middle-way" pieties which are uttered by professional politicians are nothing but rank hypocrisy.
The Brexit vote was a casebook example of what only a fairly-won majoritarian democractic vote can do : decide issues for which no "third way" exists.
With extremely few exceptions, THE MOST CRUCIAL ISSUES concern exactly this sort of question.
Its distinguishing features are:
1) It divides opinion between the only two options available. For or against "X."
2) The passions on each side are intensely felt and ecpressed. That is, these are "fighting issues" which split families and friends.
3) The numerical margin separating the "for"-voters from the "against"-voters is so narrow that polls typically cannot even mark it clearly -- resulting in a polling statistical margin-of-error which is itself larger than the difference between the two camps.
4) The issue does _not_ admit of any clear and predictable knowledge of the real consequences, good or bad, of either camp's projections. That is, "We cannot be sure how things shall go after the decision" is the only honest to the question, "What happens if your side wins?"
5) Either way, the outcome means something believed to be of esdential importance for the whole society.
35RickHarsch
>28 proximity1: That requires a full explanation, I would say, as SBL has long been a sane and steady voice here, and if you take issue with something she has to say please bother to spell it out rather than disparage her so opaquely it's rises to the level of low snipe and say nothing to anyone. (Except me, I guess, though I am not sure what.)
36John5918
>34 proximity1: issues for which no "third way" exists
There is always a third way, often more than one. One would be to give a cooling off period where everyone can re-examine the issues in a dispassionate way, fully aware of the consequences, before committing the nation to an irreversible action. Another would be to look at what the issues actually are (as opposed to the lies, grandstanding and emotions) and whether they are, in fact, contingent on EU membership or whether they are just part of global dynamics. Yet another would be, after identifying the key issues which are related to EU membership, to embark on a long-term process to fix them (as opposed to the face-saving farce which Cameron carried out earlier this year). None of those would undermine the will of the majority as none of them remove the option of leaving the EU at a later date if all the "third ways" fail. All they undermine is instant gratification and spur of the moment decisions.
There is always a third way, often more than one. One would be to give a cooling off period where everyone can re-examine the issues in a dispassionate way, fully aware of the consequences, before committing the nation to an irreversible action. Another would be to look at what the issues actually are (as opposed to the lies, grandstanding and emotions) and whether they are, in fact, contingent on EU membership or whether they are just part of global dynamics. Yet another would be, after identifying the key issues which are related to EU membership, to embark on a long-term process to fix them (as opposed to the face-saving farce which Cameron carried out earlier this year). None of those would undermine the will of the majority as none of them remove the option of leaving the EU at a later date if all the "third ways" fail. All they undermine is instant gratification and spur of the moment decisions.
37southernbooklady
>33 madpoet: Look at the Irish referendum on same sex marriage that Lolawalser mentioned.
And conversely, look at the example of my own state of North Carolina. In 2012 it held a state-wide ballot to amend the state constitution to explicitly bar same sex couples from getting married. That ballot passed -- with a 60% of the vote, (and a 20% voter turn out). It took three years for the Amendment to be overturned and declared unconstitutional. Which suggests strongly that in matters which affect the population as a whole, the bar should be set significantly higher than a simple majority.
To amend the US constitution, for example, you need the backing of 2/3 of the House and Senate, or 2/3 of all the States to even get a proposal. Then you need 3/4 of the states to ratify the proposal
And conversely, look at the example of my own state of North Carolina. In 2012 it held a state-wide ballot to amend the state constitution to explicitly bar same sex couples from getting married. That ballot passed -- with a 60% of the vote, (and a 20% voter turn out). It took three years for the Amendment to be overturned and declared unconstitutional. Which suggests strongly that in matters which affect the population as a whole, the bar should be set significantly higher than a simple majority.
To amend the US constitution, for example, you need the backing of 2/3 of the House and Senate, or 2/3 of all the States to even get a proposal. Then you need 3/4 of the states to ratify the proposal
38John5918
>37 southernbooklady: To amend the US constitution, for example, you need the backing of 2/3 of the House and Senate, or 2/3 of all the States to even get a proposal. Then you need 3/4 of the states to ratify the proposal
Very sensible. So to transpose that to the UK, where we don't have a formal constitution but leaving the EU is effectively equivalent to a constitutional amendment, we could say that now the population has expressed it's desire in a very narrowly-won vote, we should require either 2/3 of both the Houses of Commons and Lords, or 2/3 of the member nations of the UK, to affirm that it is in the interests of "the population as a whole" rather than just of the majority.
Very sensible. So to transpose that to the UK, where we don't have a formal constitution but leaving the EU is effectively equivalent to a constitutional amendment, we could say that now the population has expressed it's desire in a very narrowly-won vote, we should require either 2/3 of both the Houses of Commons and Lords, or 2/3 of the member nations of the UK, to affirm that it is in the interests of "the population as a whole" rather than just of the majority.
39proximity1
>36 John5918:
Point -by-point :
"There is always a third way, often more than one."
Here you propose a procedural difference, not a fundamental alternative to the binary Yes/No "In/Out" referendum issue. Now, let's look in detail at your procedural suggestions:
" One would be to give a cooling off period where everyone can re-examine the issues in a dispassionate way, fully aware of the consequences, before committing the nation to an irreversible action. "
There was a nintey-day campaign--unless my memory is faulty--in which voters were supposed to have
1) examined the issues in a dispassionate way,
2) (become) fully aware of the consequences, before committing the nation to an irreversible action."
When would you place this "cooling off" period? After the conclusion of the 90-day campaign? Somewhere within it? Before it begins? How long does it last? Why, if this were even possible, didn't voters do in effect what you propose (in 1 & 2 above)?
I submit that, within the dismal possibilities which are the political scene in Britain today, that this was basically done. To have done it much better should have required a better political class and order, a better national press, better leadership, and a better electorate. Where do we find them? How long does this take?
How do you know voters didn't do this anyway?
And how do you propose to know, later, having adopted your suggestion, that voters have done this?
" Another would be to look at what the issues actually are (as opposed to the lies, grandstanding and emotions) and whether they are, in fact, contingent on EU membership or whether they are just part of global dynamics."
I submit that, within the dismal possibilities which are the political scene in Britain today, that this was basically done. To have done it much better should have required a better political class and order, a better national press, better leadership, and a better electorate. Where do we find them? How long does this take?
"Yet another would be, after identifying the key issues which are related to EU membership, to embark on a long-term process to fix them (as opposed to the face-saving farce which Cameron carried out earlier this year). None of those would undermine the will of the majority as none of them remove the option of leaving the EU at a later date if all the "third ways" fail. All they undermine is instant gratification and spur of the moment decisions."
I answer : "Chilcot enquiry"
Please cite serious and credible reasons why anyone should regard that as a realistic alternative or even a possibility. Since there's now open talk of the government simply indefinitely omitting the invocation of Article 50 as a legal way to put off indefinitely acting on the referendum result, why should I take this suggestion seriously?
Point -by-point :
"There is always a third way, often more than one."
Here you propose a procedural difference, not a fundamental alternative to the binary Yes/No "In/Out" referendum issue. Now, let's look in detail at your procedural suggestions:
" One would be to give a cooling off period where everyone can re-examine the issues in a dispassionate way, fully aware of the consequences, before committing the nation to an irreversible action. "
There was a nintey-day campaign--unless my memory is faulty--in which voters were supposed to have
1) examined the issues in a dispassionate way,
2) (become) fully aware of the consequences, before committing the nation to an irreversible action."
When would you place this "cooling off" period? After the conclusion of the 90-day campaign? Somewhere within it? Before it begins? How long does it last? Why, if this were even possible, didn't voters do in effect what you propose (in 1 & 2 above)?
I submit that, within the dismal possibilities which are the political scene in Britain today, that this was basically done. To have done it much better should have required a better political class and order, a better national press, better leadership, and a better electorate. Where do we find them? How long does this take?
How do you know voters didn't do this anyway?
And how do you propose to know, later, having adopted your suggestion, that voters have done this?
" Another would be to look at what the issues actually are (as opposed to the lies, grandstanding and emotions) and whether they are, in fact, contingent on EU membership or whether they are just part of global dynamics."
I submit that, within the dismal possibilities which are the political scene in Britain today, that this was basically done. To have done it much better should have required a better political class and order, a better national press, better leadership, and a better electorate. Where do we find them? How long does this take?
"Yet another would be, after identifying the key issues which are related to EU membership, to embark on a long-term process to fix them (as opposed to the face-saving farce which Cameron carried out earlier this year). None of those would undermine the will of the majority as none of them remove the option of leaving the EU at a later date if all the "third ways" fail. All they undermine is instant gratification and spur of the moment decisions."
I answer : "Chilcot enquiry"
Please cite serious and credible reasons why anyone should regard that as a realistic alternative or even a possibility. Since there's now open talk of the government simply indefinitely omitting the invocation of Article 50 as a legal way to put off indefinitely acting on the referendum result, why should I take this suggestion seriously?
40proximity1
>37 southernbooklady:
"To amend the US constitution, for example, you need the backing of 2/3 of the House and Senate, or 2/3 of all the States to even get a proposal. Then you need 3/4 of the states to ratify the proposal."
Good point --and thank you for making it for me.
Indeed, the U.S. Constitution is so difficult to amend that, rather than do that, the country went into its bloodiest war--to date. The last amendment adopted (the 27th) waited 202 years seven months and twelve days from first being submitted for ratification (1789) to being ratified (1992).
41southernbooklady
>40 proximity1: Indeed, the U.S. Constitution is so difficult to amend that, rather than do that, the country went into its bloodiest war--to date.
Are you talking about the Civil War? The lesson there is that a big chunk of the country decided it was no longer subject to the Constitution, and tried to establish itself as its own nation. In terms of an expression of "the popular vote" the Confederacy was actually anti-democratic.
And really, I think amending the document that is the foundation of all subsequent law should be hard to do. (Not always hard enough, though, witness the Amendment to abolish alcohol and its subsequent repeal about 26 years later). But the fact that the Constitution continues to function as a founding document over two hundred years later, and continues to be amended, is an indication of its success.
That last 27th, amendment, by the way, is a funny case because people simply forgot about it for 200 years until some law student dug it up. That suggests it wasn't a question of difficulty so much as no one gave a damn. Congressional salaries not be as high up on people's radar as whether or not you should be able to vote when you turn 18.
Are you talking about the Civil War? The lesson there is that a big chunk of the country decided it was no longer subject to the Constitution, and tried to establish itself as its own nation. In terms of an expression of "the popular vote" the Confederacy was actually anti-democratic.
And really, I think amending the document that is the foundation of all subsequent law should be hard to do. (Not always hard enough, though, witness the Amendment to abolish alcohol and its subsequent repeal about 26 years later). But the fact that the Constitution continues to function as a founding document over two hundred years later, and continues to be amended, is an indication of its success.
That last 27th, amendment, by the way, is a funny case because people simply forgot about it for 200 years until some law student dug it up. That suggests it wasn't a question of difficulty so much as no one gave a damn. Congressional salaries not be as high up on people's radar as whether or not you should be able to vote when you turn 18.
42St._Troy
Not surprising that the "we shouldn't have let the people vote on this, and now that they have we can't trust or adhere to the result of the vote because they are ill-informed etc." wing sides unanimously with "remain," as if to say, don't you understand? It is precisely because you can't possibly rule yourselves that you need the EU. This side's post-vote comments make me feel better each day about the Brexit vote.
44prosfilaes
>32 madpoet: Exactly. Which is why we the people need to vote directly on the issues and not leave all the decision making in the politicians' greasy hands.
I see you elided the part where I said I couldn't be arsed to vote in a primary that might prevent that from happening again. I can't imagine a system where I had to handle the level of legislation that Congress does, without it being a real job, and I know that I could read and comprehend these bills a lot easier than most of my fellow citizens.
I see you elided the part where I said I couldn't be arsed to vote in a primary that might prevent that from happening again. I can't imagine a system where I had to handle the level of legislation that Congress does, without it being a real job, and I know that I could read and comprehend these bills a lot easier than most of my fellow citizens.
45prosfilaes
>41 southernbooklady: And really, I think amending the document that is the foundation of all subsequent law should be hard to do. (Not always hard enough, though, witness the Amendment to abolish alcohol and its subsequent repeal about 26 years later).
It is a myth that Prohibition was passed in the US narrowly, or over the will of the people. Congress passed the Eighteenth Amendment by decent margins, and took about a year to pass 45 out of the 48 states, with New Jersey coming along a couple years later.
As a comparison, the Nineteenth Amendment, to quote Wikipedia,
"Another proposal was brought before the House on January 10, 1918. During the previous evening, President Wilson made a strong and widely published appeal to the House to pass the amendment. It was passed by the required two-thirds of the House, with only one vote to spare. The vote was then carried into the Senate. Wilson again made an appeal, but on September 30, 1918, the proposal fell two votes short of passage. On February 10, 1919, it was again voted upon and failed by only one vote. .... the President called a special session of the Congress so the proposal would be brought before the House again."
It took about a year to get 36 out of the 48 states, which was enough to ratify it, but states 45 (Georgia) and 46 (Louisiana) ratified it in ... 1970.
Any rule that stopped Prohibition would probably mean that women's suffrage still wouldn't be a thing. Right or wrong, there was support behind Prohibition.
It is a myth that Prohibition was passed in the US narrowly, or over the will of the people. Congress passed the Eighteenth Amendment by decent margins, and took about a year to pass 45 out of the 48 states, with New Jersey coming along a couple years later.
As a comparison, the Nineteenth Amendment, to quote Wikipedia,
"Another proposal was brought before the House on January 10, 1918. During the previous evening, President Wilson made a strong and widely published appeal to the House to pass the amendment. It was passed by the required two-thirds of the House, with only one vote to spare. The vote was then carried into the Senate. Wilson again made an appeal, but on September 30, 1918, the proposal fell two votes short of passage. On February 10, 1919, it was again voted upon and failed by only one vote. .... the President called a special session of the Congress so the proposal would be brought before the House again."
It took about a year to get 36 out of the 48 states, which was enough to ratify it, but states 45 (Georgia) and 46 (Louisiana) ratified it in ... 1970.
Any rule that stopped Prohibition would probably mean that women's suffrage still wouldn't be a thing. Right or wrong, there was support behind Prohibition.
46madpoet
>37 southernbooklady: Everyone had a chance to vote in the referendum, didn't they? And of those who felt strongly enough to vote, a majority were opposed to the motion. 20% participation seems too low, though, I agree. It should be at least 50% participation to be valid, I think.
I'd like to see more regular referendums, evolving into direct participatory democracy. You know: real democracy. One change that we need to make for that to happen is on-line voting. Most people now bank on-line, trusting their life savings that it is secure enough, surely it is secure enough to vote as well.
I'd like to see more regular referendums, evolving into direct participatory democracy. You know: real democracy. One change that we need to make for that to happen is on-line voting. Most people now bank on-line, trusting their life savings that it is secure enough, surely it is secure enough to vote as well.
47John5918
>46 madpoet:
As others have done, you seem to assume that democracy ("real democracy") is just mathematics. I would suggest firstly that there are many different forms of participative democracy, and secondly that "real" democracy is a whole system and process with philosophical and ethical underpinnings which is far more comprehensive than simply counting votes.
As others have done, you seem to assume that democracy ("real democracy") is just mathematics. I would suggest firstly that there are many different forms of participative democracy, and secondly that "real" democracy is a whole system and process with philosophical and ethical underpinnings which is far more comprehensive than simply counting votes.
48madpoet
>44 prosfilaes: But most government legislation is unnecessarily obtuse and 'complex'. Politicians make bills lengthy and full of legalize to obscure their intent and to cover up a multitude of shenanigans. It is hard to understand because they want to discourage understanding-- or even reading-- of the bill. The issues themselves-- not so complex. Bills in Canada and other countries tend to be much shorter than in the U.S. in fact, and (at least in Canada) contain a summary on the first page of the bill.
49madpoet
>47 John5918: And you seem to think, John, that a system where others make decisions for you-- often against your interests and contrary to your views-- could in any way be considered true democracy. Every true democracy has safeguards to protect minorities. Don't let that be an excuse to limit democracy to something that happens only on one day every 4 to 5 years.
50John5918
>49 madpoet:
Decrying parliamentary democracy as "something that happens only on one day every 4 to 5 years" misses the point that it does happen every five years, ie it can be reversed after five years when the majority changes. That's why major and irreversible constitutional amendments should be protected by safeguards.
Decrying parliamentary democracy as "something that happens only on one day every 4 to 5 years" misses the point that it does happen every five years, ie it can be reversed after five years when the majority changes. That's why major and irreversible constitutional amendments should be protected by safeguards.
51proximity1
>47 John5918:
You harp upon this as though it's true:
..."As others have done, you seem to assume that democracy ("real democracy") is just mathematics."
No one here has claimed or even argued as though he assumes that this is the case. As far as I'm aware, no one here even believes this is the case. Majority voting is, of course, a vitally necessary part of democratic practice but it is not and never has been sufficient in itself. To repeatedly claim that democratic practice is being reduced to nothing more than a majority vote is a gross insult and I personally resent your harping on it.
Shall we now, like a bunch of second-graders, recite the catechism of democracy's essentials and ritually tick each box as we do that?
There must also, of course, be the following listed things operating in any functioning democracy (AND I HAVE LONG DEPLORED THEIR WOEFUL DEFICIENCY EVERYWHERE!, GOD DAMN IT! )
1) a free, fair and courageously honest press which can and does hold those in private and public places of power to account.
2) an alert, aware and concerned reading public which follows the political affairs covered by that free press.
3) the freedom to travel, to associate, to speak and to publish--not only by professionals who are trained and authorized to do these things but by each and every interested individual.
4) the freedom to both hold and express and defend unpopular minority opinions--even widely and deeply despised minority opinions.
Some minimum of at least these four esentials is required in order that majority votes --which themselves must be freely and fairly conducted, and far too often that is not even the case-- not become empty rituals which simply present a respectable façade to rule by corrupt, illegitimate oligarchy.
If you again assert in this thread that it's being assumed that democracy is nothing more than toting up the ballots and determining which camp has the most, I'll denounce that assertion as deliberately dishonest.
52John5918
>51 proximity1:
So, based on the woeful deficiency of most of your four criteria, I assume you believe that the majority vote in the recent referendum could not be considered a credible exercise of democracy?
So, based on the woeful deficiency of most of your four criteria, I assume you believe that the majority vote in the recent referendum could not be considered a credible exercise of democracy?
53proximity1
>52 John5918:
"So, based on the woeful deficiency of most of your four criteria, I assume you believe that the majority vote in the recent referendum could not be considered a credible exercise of democracy?"
No, John, that assumption, too, would be mistaken. (But thanks for again misattributing opinions to me.) That's because it does _not_ logically follow that, merely because I regard the institutions and the practices underlying democracy to be woefully deficient practically everywhere, that this episode is a typical example of those deficiencies.
Or, as the computer programmers say, "Garbage in, Garbage out" ("GIGO").
It can quite well be the case that, despite the usual being deplorable, compared to most examples of recent democratic practices in Britain, this referendum's outcome is much closer to the gold-standard, putting the usual practices to shame.
"So, based on the woeful deficiency of most of your four criteria, I assume you believe that the majority vote in the recent referendum could not be considered a credible exercise of democracy?"
No, John, that assumption, too, would be mistaken. (But thanks for again misattributing opinions to me.) That's because it does _not_ logically follow that, merely because I regard the institutions and the practices underlying democracy to be woefully deficient practically everywhere, that this episode is a typical example of those deficiencies.
Or, as the computer programmers say, "Garbage in, Garbage out" ("GIGO").
It can quite well be the case that, despite the usual being deplorable, compared to most examples of recent democratic practices in Britain, this referendum's outcome is much closer to the gold-standard, putting the usual practices to shame.
54RickHarsch
It seems to me that this referendum does reflect the truly deficient democracies working at their best, but I have yet to fully comprehend the arguments or even the need for them in regard to this referendum.
It's ugly for it's expression of hatred.
It's pleasing for it's critique of the EU.
The ugly is more important to me, but the second is something I am living as a Slovene resident. I have experienced more harm than good from the EU, and though I have no idea what an alternative, non-EU Slovenia would have been like, the utopian in me hoped for a strong, educated, original new nation rather than one that allowed itself to be dictated to, not only by the EU but NATO as well.
It's ugly for it's expression of hatred.
It's pleasing for it's critique of the EU.
The ugly is more important to me, but the second is something I am living as a Slovene resident. I have experienced more harm than good from the EU, and though I have no idea what an alternative, non-EU Slovenia would have been like, the utopian in me hoped for a strong, educated, original new nation rather than one that allowed itself to be dictated to, not only by the EU but NATO as well.
55prosfilaes
>48 madpoet: But most government legislation is unnecessarily obtuse and 'complex'. Politicians make bills lengthy and full of legalize to obscure their intent and to cover up a multitude of shenanigans. ... The issues themselves-- not so complex.
The issues aren't so complex. Hah. 17 U.S. Code § 101 - Definitions is 3000 words, and every line would be the source of some argument in court if it weren't there. Maybe copyright law is crystal clear compared to other laws (hah!), but the reality is the law is complex because the issues are complex. There's law that is over complex, but that's hardly universally true.
The law is sometimes more special issue than it needs to be. My representative Crescent Hardy recently pushed through a bill allowing volunteer search and rescue missions to go on without large insurance bonds. I believe this was overcomplex; it was an issue at Lake Mead National Recreational Area, and could have been solved by discussion with local administrators or administrators at the federal level of the National Park Service. But if everyone can write a bill, why will they go through the process of discussion instead of adding another special clause to federal law?
contain a summary on the first page of the bill.
So what? It's trivial to produce a summary, but the summary is wrong; it misses all sorts of important points and fine details. That's why we don't throw out the bill and pass the summary.
The issues aren't so complex. Hah. 17 U.S. Code § 101 - Definitions is 3000 words, and every line would be the source of some argument in court if it weren't there. Maybe copyright law is crystal clear compared to other laws (hah!), but the reality is the law is complex because the issues are complex. There's law that is over complex, but that's hardly universally true.
The law is sometimes more special issue than it needs to be. My representative Crescent Hardy recently pushed through a bill allowing volunteer search and rescue missions to go on without large insurance bonds. I believe this was overcomplex; it was an issue at Lake Mead National Recreational Area, and could have been solved by discussion with local administrators or administrators at the federal level of the National Park Service. But if everyone can write a bill, why will they go through the process of discussion instead of adding another special clause to federal law?
contain a summary on the first page of the bill.
So what? It's trivial to produce a summary, but the summary is wrong; it misses all sorts of important points and fine details. That's why we don't throw out the bill and pass the summary.
57John5918
>56 Jesse_wiedinmyer:
Thanks, Jesse. Very enlightening. A couple of quotes jump out at me:
Western societies understand themselves to be democracies, yet we rarely discuss what this means.
Very true. Probably something the UK should have discussed before getting into the current mess.
Conflicts that appear hopelessly irreconcilable at the level of the population (the represented) are often resolvable at the level of representation (political institutions).
Since conflict transformation is at the heart of my work, this interests me.
Thanks, Jesse. Very enlightening. A couple of quotes jump out at me:
Western societies understand themselves to be democracies, yet we rarely discuss what this means.
Very true. Probably something the UK should have discussed before getting into the current mess.
Conflicts that appear hopelessly irreconcilable at the level of the population (the represented) are often resolvable at the level of representation (political institutions).
Since conflict transformation is at the heart of my work, this interests me.
58proximity1
RE : "Conflicts that appear hopelessly irreconcilable at the level of the population (the represented) are often resolvable at the level of representation (political institutions)."
Of course they are (in theory) "often resolvable"--in that precious construction--it's just that they are actually "resolved" only exceedingly rarely--so rarely that it's seldom seen more than once in a single ordinary lifetime.
Otherwise you could cite any number of the examples which could support such a ridiculous statement. But you can't and you won't.
59John5918
>58 proximity1: you could cite any number of the examples which could support such a ridiculous statement
Well, the article cited Northern Ireland. I would add South Africa. Nelson Mandela actually took what some would describe as a profoundly undemocratic step, going against the wishes of the majority of the people, but he is rightly hailed as a visionary statesman who did the right thing. Or one could argue that he actually did represent the broad wish of the people for peace and reconciliation, but he had thought it through deeper than the majority had at that point in time, and he recognised that following their immediate wishes would not bring about the result which everybody really wanted.
In conflict transformation processes, it is often the case that individuals recognised as leaders (including religious leaders, traditional chiefs, elder men and women, prominent technocrats, politicians, sometimes even military leaders and businesspeople*) have to, er, lead people beyond the immediate emotions and the natural reactions of defence and offence, towards a path of peace and reconciliation, seeking a win-win rather than a win-lose result.
______________
* businesspeople - cf South Africa
Well, the article cited Northern Ireland. I would add South Africa. Nelson Mandela actually took what some would describe as a profoundly undemocratic step, going against the wishes of the majority of the people, but he is rightly hailed as a visionary statesman who did the right thing. Or one could argue that he actually did represent the broad wish of the people for peace and reconciliation, but he had thought it through deeper than the majority had at that point in time, and he recognised that following their immediate wishes would not bring about the result which everybody really wanted.
In conflict transformation processes, it is often the case that individuals recognised as leaders (including religious leaders, traditional chiefs, elder men and women, prominent technocrats, politicians, sometimes even military leaders and businesspeople*) have to, er, lead people beyond the immediate emotions and the natural reactions of defence and offence, towards a path of peace and reconciliation, seeking a win-win rather than a win-lose result.
______________
* businesspeople - cf South Africa
60proximity1
I don't regard the long-standing sectarian conflict in Ireland as really resolved. I see it instead as being in an uneasy stalemate which could break down at any time or could go on in its fragile condition for years without changing anything or, importantly, improving anything worth writing home about.
N. & S. Korea --still divided, no resolution in sight.
And, of course, the elephant in the room, Palestine. Here, this platitude from above gets the repudiation it deserves. The real--and the only sane and responsible--resolution to the slow-motion genocide practiced by Israel on the people whose territory it has illegally occupied since 1967 and 1973 has been clear to millions of ordinary people for decades. These "political institutions" "at the level of 'representation,'" (Lol!) have been the main engine keeping the genocidal circumstances unresolved.
The following link is a study in heartbreak. " Arab-Israeli Conflict : Date : c. May 15, 1948–present
(68 years, 1 month and 2 weeks)
N. & S. Korea --still divided, no resolution in sight.
And, of course, the elephant in the room, Palestine. Here, this platitude from above gets the repudiation it deserves. The real--and the only sane and responsible--resolution to the slow-motion genocide practiced by Israel on the people whose territory it has illegally occupied since 1967 and 1973 has been clear to millions of ordinary people for decades. These "political institutions" "at the level of 'representation,'" (Lol!) have been the main engine keeping the genocidal circumstances unresolved.
The following link is a study in heartbreak. " Arab-Israeli Conflict : Date : c. May 15, 1948–present
(68 years, 1 month and 2 weeks)
61John5918
>60 proximity1:
Ironically one of the catalysts for a new breakdown in Northern Ireland might well be the majority vote to leave the EU by people who don't live in Ireland or Northern Ireland; the people who actually live in that situation have been overruled. At the very least it brings a new instability to the already fragile situation there.
Ironically one of the catalysts for a new breakdown in Northern Ireland might well be the majority vote to leave the EU by people who don't live in Ireland or Northern Ireland; the people who actually live in that situation have been overruled. At the very least it brings a new instability to the already fragile situation there.
62RickHarsch
RE: Palestine. It's also instructive to examine the British role especially between the wars.
63proximity1
There is nothing the slightest bit ironic about it. The problems and the issues dividing the people of Northern Ireland cannot exist in some specially-protected hot-house environment. This is the whole point! If a referendum vote in which British people--the English, the Welsh, the Scots and the Irish in Northern Ireland--decide by individual secret ballot at the polling places their common association with the E.U. can throw the so-called Irish peace resolution into renewed doubt, then this testifies to its rather flimsy, not to say illusory, character.
64John5918
>63 proximity1:
A referendum vote in which the people of two parts of the United Kingdom can overrule the democratically-expressed wishes of the people in the other two parts of the Union.
A referendum vote in which the people of two parts of the United Kingdom can overrule the democratically-expressed wishes of the people in the other two parts of the Union.
65madpoet
>55 prosfilaes: Many politicians have themselves admitted the problem or overly lengthy and opaque legislation.
Here are some fun quotes from U.S. Congressmen who you seem to think are reading these bills they are creating:
“600 pages, no one will read it. No wonder our approval rating is 10%, nobody knows what we’re voting on.” Senator Rand Paul, on a bill he was given in the morning, to vote on that afternoon.
"It's going to be very, very exciting. But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy." Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi
Yep. They said that. Representative democracy at its finest.
Here are some fun quotes from U.S. Congressmen who you seem to think are reading these bills they are creating:
“600 pages, no one will read it. No wonder our approval rating is 10%, nobody knows what we’re voting on.” Senator Rand Paul, on a bill he was given in the morning, to vote on that afternoon.
"It's going to be very, very exciting. But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy." Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi
Yep. They said that. Representative democracy at its finest.
66madpoet
>64 John5918: Don't be absurd, John. You can't have part of the UK in the EU and part outside. It was all or nothing. The majority of Britons overall voted in favour of leaving the EU. There were differences in different regions, of course. There always are. If a majority in Scotland and Northern Ireland vote for Labour in an election, and the Conservatives win nationally, are Scotland and Northern Ireland being treated unfairly? If 'red states' in the US vote for a Republican president, but a Democrat wins nationally, are the red states being robbed of their democratic rights? Get real.
67John5918
>67 John5918:
Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales are not just regions, they are nations, albeit not states. That's why we are called the United Kingdom. Not so sure of the technical details with NI and Wales, but there is an Act of Union with Scotland.
This is not about voting for parties, it's about voting for the status of the nation, so your comparison with general elections, whether here or in the USA, is flawed. As I have pointed out more than once, general elections can be reversed after five years when the majority changes. In this case, a majority at this moment in time is making an irreversible decision which a different majority in a couple of years time cannot reverse. In my view that demands greater safeguards than recognition of a simple and very narrow majority on a particular day in 2016 and, yes, it should include some consideration of the will of the people in each of the four nations which make up the UK.
But as a matter of interest, in some nations, including Kenya, the president has to get not only a majority of the national vote but also a certain percentage of the vote in a majority of the regions. Are people thus being robbed of their democratic rights, or is this a recognition that for certain important decisions there must be safeguards for those who disagree with the majority?
It's not "absurd" and it is "real".
Edited to add: Regarding regional representation at general elections, the whole point is for you to elect an MP to represent your constituency in parliament. So automatically every region is represented. Same with US elections, where every state is represented, and in the upper house they all have equal representation regardless of the size of the state's population.
Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales are not just regions, they are nations, albeit not states. That's why we are called the United Kingdom. Not so sure of the technical details with NI and Wales, but there is an Act of Union with Scotland.
This is not about voting for parties, it's about voting for the status of the nation, so your comparison with general elections, whether here or in the USA, is flawed. As I have pointed out more than once, general elections can be reversed after five years when the majority changes. In this case, a majority at this moment in time is making an irreversible decision which a different majority in a couple of years time cannot reverse. In my view that demands greater safeguards than recognition of a simple and very narrow majority on a particular day in 2016 and, yes, it should include some consideration of the will of the people in each of the four nations which make up the UK.
But as a matter of interest, in some nations, including Kenya, the president has to get not only a majority of the national vote but also a certain percentage of the vote in a majority of the regions. Are people thus being robbed of their democratic rights, or is this a recognition that for certain important decisions there must be safeguards for those who disagree with the majority?
It's not "absurd" and it is "real".
Edited to add: Regarding regional representation at general elections, the whole point is for you to elect an MP to represent your constituency in parliament. So automatically every region is represented. Same with US elections, where every state is represented, and in the upper house they all have equal representation regardless of the size of the state's population.
68proximity1
>67 John5918:
Re : ... " Same with US elections, where every state is represented, and in the upper house they all have equal representation regardless of the size of the state's population." (emphasis as in the original)
You might as well say that, in giving one person one hundred one-dollar bills and another person one hundred one-hundred-dollar bills, you've given each an "equal" number of bills and, thus, you've treated them "equally." For, in that upper chamber of the U.S. Congress, this supposedly "equal" representation "regardless of size" (I guess you couldn't bring yourself to actually type out the specificity "of the population" which should complete that phrase) produces this outrage to the concept of "one-person, one-vote"-- the very definition of equal representation:
"The 25 least populous states contain less than one-sixth of the total population."
"California, the most populous state, contains more people than the 21 least populous states combined."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_populatio...
"The 25 least populous states contain less than one-sixth of the total population." Their combined U.S. Senators' votes: fifty.
"California, the most populous state, contains more people than the 21 least populous states combined." Its Senators combined votes : two.
Now there are a good many words we could use to describe these circumstances but neither "democratic" nor "equal" figure among those words.
69southernbooklady
>67 John5918: and in the upper house they all have equal representation regardless of the size of the state's population
In fact, the US House and Senate were set up specifically so that the parts of the country with the greatest population could not always dictate to the more rural areas with less population. If we had a straight majority system, then rural areas would never truly be represented, and their concerns would always take a back seat to urban issues.
Democracy only works as long as everyone has a role in the process. If 51% of the population votes to make the other 49% second class citizens then it is no longer a democracy, it is a caste system.
The frustrating thing about democracies is by committing to the principle that everyone gets to participate in the process, no one will ever get everything they want. The great thing about the same is that no one will ever get nothing they want. Maddening for idealists, to be sure. It's a system built upon the virtues of mediocrity.
>46 madpoet: One change that we need to make for that to happen is on-line voting. Most people now bank on-line, trusting their life savings that it is secure enough, surely it is secure enough to vote as well.
I'm not against it in theory -- as a rule I think it should be easy to vote, not hard. One reason I'm implacably opposed to rules that stand between the person and the ballot box: literacy tests, property requirements, voter id laws, re-drawn districts that make it hard to get to your polling place, the restriction of early voting options. (This month I had to vote in a series of special elections because the regular election held back in March was challenged on the grounds that districts had been redrawn in an unfair way. They had to be redrawn again, and now the whole mess is going before the Supreme Court next year to see which districts are legal and therefore which election is valid).
That said, I don't think voting should be run by the private sector, the way banks are. So the security that banks provide for their online customers -- which is driven by customer demand -- is also paid for by the need to remain competitive in the marketplace. Government functions don't have that kind of impetus driving them. In the United States, they tend to provide the minimum, not the maximum necessary service. Imagine if healthcare.gov had been a private company when it rolled out its buggy, inadequate website that first year. I'd want to see real proof against system abuse. Voter fraud, despite constantly making the headlines, is not a real problem in the United States. But it might become one if we move to online voting without due preparation.
In fact, the US House and Senate were set up specifically so that the parts of the country with the greatest population could not always dictate to the more rural areas with less population. If we had a straight majority system, then rural areas would never truly be represented, and their concerns would always take a back seat to urban issues.
Democracy only works as long as everyone has a role in the process. If 51% of the population votes to make the other 49% second class citizens then it is no longer a democracy, it is a caste system.
The frustrating thing about democracies is by committing to the principle that everyone gets to participate in the process, no one will ever get everything they want. The great thing about the same is that no one will ever get nothing they want. Maddening for idealists, to be sure. It's a system built upon the virtues of mediocrity.
>46 madpoet: One change that we need to make for that to happen is on-line voting. Most people now bank on-line, trusting their life savings that it is secure enough, surely it is secure enough to vote as well.
I'm not against it in theory -- as a rule I think it should be easy to vote, not hard. One reason I'm implacably opposed to rules that stand between the person and the ballot box: literacy tests, property requirements, voter id laws, re-drawn districts that make it hard to get to your polling place, the restriction of early voting options. (This month I had to vote in a series of special elections because the regular election held back in March was challenged on the grounds that districts had been redrawn in an unfair way. They had to be redrawn again, and now the whole mess is going before the Supreme Court next year to see which districts are legal and therefore which election is valid).
That said, I don't think voting should be run by the private sector, the way banks are. So the security that banks provide for their online customers -- which is driven by customer demand -- is also paid for by the need to remain competitive in the marketplace. Government functions don't have that kind of impetus driving them. In the United States, they tend to provide the minimum, not the maximum necessary service. Imagine if healthcare.gov had been a private company when it rolled out its buggy, inadequate website that first year. I'd want to see real proof against system abuse. Voter fraud, despite constantly making the headlines, is not a real problem in the United States. But it might become one if we move to online voting without due preparation.
70proximity1
>69 southernbooklady:
"Democracy only works as long as everyone has a role in the process."
No U.K. citizens under the age of 18 had a vote in the referendum. Any U.K. citizen (normally eligible to vote in the U.K.) who'd been absent from U.K. residence for more than the past 15 years was ineligible to register or vote in the referendum--and, even if absent less than that period, should have had to have registered to vote either prior to leaving or
have registered from abroad before the last closing deadline for this referendum.
However, those who keep a home in the U.K. can claim they're residents--even if they only spend a few weeks a year there and live most of the time abroad. They could participate from abroad either by mail ballot or arrangement through consular offices.
And, of course, none of the U.K.'s resident-alien nationals of E.U. member-states were allowed to participate--eventhough they'd be very much concerned with the outcome and their living situations directly effected by the result--if honored by the government.
... "by committing to the principle that everyone gets to participate in the process, no one will ever (!?) get everything they want."
Voters in the U.K. who favored "Leave"--as far as this referendum's ballot result is concerned-- got virtually _everything_ they wanted--since what they wanted was a victory for their view : Britain's Exit from the E.U., again, provided that the majority's votes are honored, respected. On the other hand, if that majority's votes aren't respected, then, conversely, the "Remain" voters shall have gotten virtually _everything they_ wanted.
Or, how about this little exercise in "democracy" :
Your group, FT, held a referendum recently. Nominations were taken from members and were required to have a second member's approval. As a minority of one within the group--not to mention being the target whose removal from the group was the whole impetus for the referendum in the first place-- I had neither a friendly member to nominate nor anyone to second the nomination even if I'd had one. In effect, then, to participate meaningfully in the referendum, one needed at least one and preferably two friends with whom to field and second a candidate (for group moderator)--there being two (largely foregone) questions: 1) should the group adopt its own rules of moderation? and 2) if so, then nominate and choose a member from among yourselves to fill that post.
You were clearly already on record as favoring my swift, early and permanent departure so that none of this moderation stuff should be necessary. But, as it happened otherwise, it didn't appear to bother you in the least that you were in effect arranging for a vote where my ballot would be one of the few--if not the only one-- cast in favor of my minority view.
I believe you've described these circumstances above as tantamount to a caste-system : ... "If 51% of the population votes to make the other 49% second class citizens then it is no longer a democracy, it is a caste system."
Again, you showed not the slightest concern about setting up this caste-system by vote--all in order to promulgate rules of group behavior which were designed expressly to silence my criticisms. And yet, here and there, we're told that democratic principles mean nothing if the minority's rights are simply trampled by a majority bent upon having its own way.
There, I believe the vote itself provided you and others everything which, at that point at least, you wanted : "yes" to rules of moderation; rules per se which you found entirely suitable; a moderator which suited you and, last but not least, the effective end to my participation.
"The great thing about the same is that no one will ever get nothing they want."
On my side, again, contrary to your sanctimonious claim, I got exactly nothing at all from that exercise in democracy (or caste-system second-class status-making).
You demonstrate an amazing diversity of belief versus behavior depending on where in this site you're commenting and upon what topic.
Democracy only works as long as everyone has a role in the process. If 51% of the population votes to make the other 49% second class citizens then it is no longer a democracy, it is a caste system.
The frustrating thing about democracies is by committing to the principle that everyone gets to participate in the process, no one will ever get everything they want. The great thing about the same is that no one will ever get nothing they want. Maddening for idealists, to be sure. It's a system built upon the virtues of mediocrity.
"Democracy only works as long as everyone has a role in the process."
No U.K. citizens under the age of 18 had a vote in the referendum. Any U.K. citizen (normally eligible to vote in the U.K.) who'd been absent from U.K. residence for more than the past 15 years was ineligible to register or vote in the referendum--and, even if absent less than that period, should have had to have registered to vote either prior to leaving or
have registered from abroad before the last closing deadline for this referendum.
However, those who keep a home in the U.K. can claim they're residents--even if they only spend a few weeks a year there and live most of the time abroad. They could participate from abroad either by mail ballot or arrangement through consular offices.
And, of course, none of the U.K.'s resident-alien nationals of E.U. member-states were allowed to participate--eventhough they'd be very much concerned with the outcome and their living situations directly effected by the result--if honored by the government.
... "by committing to the principle that everyone gets to participate in the process, no one will ever (!?) get everything they want."
Voters in the U.K. who favored "Leave"--as far as this referendum's ballot result is concerned-- got virtually _everything_ they wanted--since what they wanted was a victory for their view : Britain's Exit from the E.U., again, provided that the majority's votes are honored, respected. On the other hand, if that majority's votes aren't respected, then, conversely, the "Remain" voters shall have gotten virtually _everything they_ wanted.
Or, how about this little exercise in "democracy" :
Your group, FT, held a referendum recently. Nominations were taken from members and were required to have a second member's approval. As a minority of one within the group--not to mention being the target whose removal from the group was the whole impetus for the referendum in the first place-- I had neither a friendly member to nominate nor anyone to second the nomination even if I'd had one. In effect, then, to participate meaningfully in the referendum, one needed at least one and preferably two friends with whom to field and second a candidate (for group moderator)--there being two (largely foregone) questions: 1) should the group adopt its own rules of moderation? and 2) if so, then nominate and choose a member from among yourselves to fill that post.
You were clearly already on record as favoring my swift, early and permanent departure so that none of this moderation stuff should be necessary. But, as it happened otherwise, it didn't appear to bother you in the least that you were in effect arranging for a vote where my ballot would be one of the few--if not the only one-- cast in favor of my minority view.
I believe you've described these circumstances above as tantamount to a caste-system : ... "If 51% of the population votes to make the other 49% second class citizens then it is no longer a democracy, it is a caste system."
Again, you showed not the slightest concern about setting up this caste-system by vote--all in order to promulgate rules of group behavior which were designed expressly to silence my criticisms. And yet, here and there, we're told that democratic principles mean nothing if the minority's rights are simply trampled by a majority bent upon having its own way.
There, I believe the vote itself provided you and others everything which, at that point at least, you wanted : "yes" to rules of moderation; rules per se which you found entirely suitable; a moderator which suited you and, last but not least, the effective end to my participation.
"The great thing about the same is that no one will ever get nothing they want."
On my side, again, contrary to your sanctimonious claim, I got exactly nothing at all from that exercise in democracy (or caste-system second-class status-making).
You demonstrate an amazing diversity of belief versus behavior depending on where in this site you're commenting and upon what topic.
71StormRaven
"It's going to be very, very exciting. But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy." Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi
Good job taking that quote out of context. The actual context:
Adding the "It's going to be very exciting", which was referring to a different sentence from the "But we have to pass the bill . . ." portion, is a pretty deceitful move in and of itself. Leaving aside the fact that she was talking about a bill that she clearly knew the contents of, the "so you can see what is in it" was directed at people who had been confused by the controversy surrounding the bill (much of which was the result of misinformation passed about by the opponents of the bill), and not commentary on the complexity of the bill itself.
If this is your example of "confusing legislation" produced by Congress, I'm not really impressed with your argument.
Good job taking that quote out of context. The actual context:
Nobody knows better than you the strain on hospitals that never turned a patient away, and health care providers grappling with the challenges of the uninsured and shrinking reimbursement. You know as well as anyone, that our current system is unsustainable. It’s unsustainable to individuals and their families. It’s unsustainable for small businesses. It’s unsustainable for your communities. It’s unsustainable for our state, local, and national budgets.
President Obama said, one year ago, when he called the first bipartisan, on March 5th of last year, the first bipartisan House and Senate meeting together with many outside stakeholders together at the White House, to find a way for us to come together. And at that time, he said: ‘Health care reform is entitlement reform.’ We cannot sustain the upward spiral of the increases in health care and what that means in Medicare and what it means in Medicaid. So from the standpoint of our national budget, and for your budgets, the current system, as I said, is unsustainable.
Again, it’s unaffordable for families, individuals and families, for businesses of any size, and it is a cost to our economy. Imagine an economy where people could follow their aspirations, where they could be entrepreneurial, where they could take risks professionally because personally their families health care needs are being met. Where they could be self-employed or start a business, not be job-locked in a job because they have health care there, and if they went out on their own it would be unaffordable to them, but especially true, if someone has a child with a pre-existing condition. So when we pass our bill, never again will people be denied coverage because they have a pre-existing condition.
We have to do this in partnership, and I wanted to bring up to date on where we see it from here. The final health care legislation that will soon be passed by Congress will deliver successful reform at the local level. It will offer paid for investments that will improve health care services and coverage for millions more Americans. It will make significant investments in innovation, prevention, wellness and offer robust support for public health infrastructure. It will dramatically expand investments into community health centers. That means a dramatic expansion in the number of patients community health centers can see and ultimately healthier communities. Our bill will significantly reduce uncompensated care for hospitals.
You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention — it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting.
But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy. Furthermore, we believe that health care reform, again I said at the beginning of my remarks, that we sent the three pillars that the President’s economic stabilization and job creation initiatives were education and innovation — innovation begins in the classroom — clean energy and climate, addressing the climate issues in an innovative way to keep us number one and competitive in the world with the new technology, and the third, first among equals I may say, is health care, health insurance reform. Health insurance reform is about jobs. This legislation alone will create 4 million jobs, about 400,000 jobs very soon.
Adding the "It's going to be very exciting", which was referring to a different sentence from the "But we have to pass the bill . . ." portion, is a pretty deceitful move in and of itself. Leaving aside the fact that she was talking about a bill that she clearly knew the contents of, the "so you can see what is in it" was directed at people who had been confused by the controversy surrounding the bill (much of which was the result of misinformation passed about by the opponents of the bill), and not commentary on the complexity of the bill itself.
If this is your example of "confusing legislation" produced by Congress, I'm not really impressed with your argument.
72southernbooklady
>70 proximity1: No U.K. citizens under the age of 18 had a vote in the referendum.
Indeed. In the US the 26th amendment came about because we had 18 year olds who were old enough to die in a war but had no vote -- no chance to have a say over their fate. Excellent example.
Or, how about this little exercise in "democracy" :
Your group, FT, held a referendum recently.
Of course, neither LT nor FT is a democracy in the first place (neither is the Guardian newspaper, your other bete noir). Actually, the transition of FT to a moderated group is a step what might be called "anarchy" (no rules) to a representative democracy (some rules, enforced by an elected official). Jury's still out, though. I might end up disappointing all of them and they may vote me out. (And I should point out in the interests of accuracy that I did not "arrange" for that change, merely accepted when others asked me to fill the role." )
Groups do come to agreements on how to self govern. Compromise is always a given. But there is a tangible difference between telling people "don't talk about that here" and "you don't get to talk at all." One person bucking the desires of a group on an internet forum is not really analogous to a person whose rights as a citizen of the country he lives in have just been voted away. It's easy to find a different forum to go talk in, for one thing. Not so easy to pull up your home and livelihood and move to some other country more congenial with your point of view.
Generally, the larger the group, the more wide reaching the effects of group decisions, the more permanent the course of action, the higher the bar to be set to move forward.
Indeed. In the US the 26th amendment came about because we had 18 year olds who were old enough to die in a war but had no vote -- no chance to have a say over their fate. Excellent example.
Or, how about this little exercise in "democracy" :
Your group, FT, held a referendum recently.
Of course, neither LT nor FT is a democracy in the first place (neither is the Guardian newspaper, your other bete noir). Actually, the transition of FT to a moderated group is a step what might be called "anarchy" (no rules) to a representative democracy (some rules, enforced by an elected official). Jury's still out, though. I might end up disappointing all of them and they may vote me out. (And I should point out in the interests of accuracy that I did not "arrange" for that change, merely accepted when others asked me to fill the role." )
Groups do come to agreements on how to self govern. Compromise is always a given. But there is a tangible difference between telling people "don't talk about that here" and "you don't get to talk at all." One person bucking the desires of a group on an internet forum is not really analogous to a person whose rights as a citizen of the country he lives in have just been voted away. It's easy to find a different forum to go talk in, for one thing. Not so easy to pull up your home and livelihood and move to some other country more congenial with your point of view.
Generally, the larger the group, the more wide reaching the effects of group decisions, the more permanent the course of action, the higher the bar to be set to move forward.
73reading_fox
>46 madpoet: "Most people now bank on-line, trusting their life savings that it is secure enough, surely it is secure enough to vote as well."
So because most people do it, we can just disenfranchise the rest? How big is that most? How big would it have to be before it became large enough? Who decides?
>67 John5918: Not to mention Gibraltar (97% vote to remain). However I'm not sure that just because people still remember where the magic line was, before it was erased hundreds of years ago, should we afford them any special status. Nation within the UK is no more special than county (not country) there's no talk of giving Cornwall, Yorkshire or London any greater weight*.
*yes I picked those specifically, because of course there is talk. But not seriously.
So because most people do it, we can just disenfranchise the rest? How big is that most? How big would it have to be before it became large enough? Who decides?
>67 John5918: Not to mention Gibraltar (97% vote to remain). However I'm not sure that just because people still remember where the magic line was, before it was erased hundreds of years ago, should we afford them any special status. Nation within the UK is no more special than county (not country) there's no talk of giving Cornwall, Yorkshire or London any greater weight*.
*yes I picked those specifically, because of course there is talk. But not seriously.
74proximity1
>72 southernbooklady:
Yes, of course -- it's all so neat and convenient for you. Neither FT nor LT are "democracies." That's convenient to point out in reply to one who has just set out the basic facts in an example of one of the non-democracies behaving in ways which are the very antithesis of democratic.
It's one thing to argue that this site or that group "isn't a democracy" and something else to make such pretense of respecting democratic principles pro forma -- when it's in the course of a discussion of current political affairs which are held up as "democracies"-- not that I claimed in one case or the other that they actually are. It's something else, too, to make such a pretense of these democratic forms when the objective is in fact anything but respecting their spirit and cutting as close as humanly possible to their imaginary letter.
Within FT, a great and greatly hypocritical show was made to seem to be "fair" about resolving controversy. To do that, there was a sudden resort to democratic forms because they'd offer a respectable cover to an operation that otherwise had none. Let's do the fair thing --take a vote! Shall we adopt some rules for moderating the discussion in the group? All in favor, say "Aye." Shall we appoint a moderator? Please make known your nominees--and you need a "second" to confirm the eligibility. Next, we shall resolve ourselves into a committee of the whole to consider our new rules of behavior. Next order of business, vote on the rules. Before you had to move and call the question, "All in favor of chucking this nuisance out from our group, signify by saying "Aye," I'd understood how this was going to conclude and made it known that I'd be ceasing participation. Oh, and just in case anyone asks, you're not a democracy--but you seem to like to put up a pretense of being, however painfully insincerely, "democratic."
Throughout it all, just as here, what most strikes me about your comments is the yawning gulf between sincerely-held-and-respected principle and getting to your practical objectives with, a thin façade of respectability, a conveniently posed nod to demicratic forms --without any apparent feeling for them.
That's carried over--in spades--to the affairs of the U.S. presidential race where the reigning principle is, "Let's just elect a woman (multimillionaire)."
--------------
RE:
(And I should point out in the interests of accuracy that I did not "arrange" for that change, merely accepted when others asked me to fill the role." )
In my comment there was some ambiguity :
" But, as it happened otherwise, it didn't appear to bother you in the least that you were in effect arranging for a vote where my ballot would be one of the few--if not the only one-- cast in favor of my minority view."
The "you" in bold-face above is a plural "you" by which I mean to refer to the group's regular mutually-approving members.
75southernbooklady
>74 proximity1: That's carried over--in spades--to the affairs of the U.S. presidential race where the reigning principle is, "Let's just elect a woman (multimillionaire)."
Well I can vote for Hillary Clinton in good conscience because she is in favor of some of the things that are important to me. Women's reproductive rights being the obvious one. Had Sanders become the Democratic nominee I would have been able to vote for him for the same reason. I won't vote for Trump because he stands for nothing I believe in and is actively opposed to many things that are important to me. So I guess it's "let's just elect a woman or a socialist." :)
" But, as it happened otherwise, it didn't appear to bother you in the least that you were in effect arranging for a vote where my ballot would be one of the few--if not the only one-- cast in favor of my minority view."
The "you" in bold-face above is a plural "you" by which I mean to refer to the group's regular mutually-approving members.
I can see why internet communication is a source of frustration for you.
what most strikes me about your comments is the yawning gulf between sincerely-held-and-respected principle and getting to your practical objectives with, a thin façade of respectability, a conveniently posed nod to demicratic forms --without any apparent feeling for them.
As far as concerns for the voice of the unrepresented minority in a society -- the voice most easily drowned out in a direct democracy -- I suppose I remain committed to it because I am in that minority. Competing self-interest is what drives a society forward, after all. But without those minority voices, there's no competition, no alternate views, no chance to change, and society stagnates.
Well I can vote for Hillary Clinton in good conscience because she is in favor of some of the things that are important to me. Women's reproductive rights being the obvious one. Had Sanders become the Democratic nominee I would have been able to vote for him for the same reason. I won't vote for Trump because he stands for nothing I believe in and is actively opposed to many things that are important to me. So I guess it's "let's just elect a woman or a socialist." :)
" But, as it happened otherwise, it didn't appear to bother you in the least that you were in effect arranging for a vote where my ballot would be one of the few--if not the only one-- cast in favor of my minority view."
The "you" in bold-face above is a plural "you" by which I mean to refer to the group's regular mutually-approving members.
I can see why internet communication is a source of frustration for you.
what most strikes me about your comments is the yawning gulf between sincerely-held-and-respected principle and getting to your practical objectives with, a thin façade of respectability, a conveniently posed nod to demicratic forms --without any apparent feeling for them.
As far as concerns for the voice of the unrepresented minority in a society -- the voice most easily drowned out in a direct democracy -- I suppose I remain committed to it because I am in that minority. Competing self-interest is what drives a society forward, after all. But without those minority voices, there's no competition, no alternate views, no chance to change, and society stagnates.
76Jesse_wiedinmyer
>74 proximity1: proximity1: That's carried over--in spades--to the affairs of the U.S. presidential race where the reigning principle is, "Let's just elect a woman (multimillionaire)."
No, the principle is generally that boorishly obnoxious, angry entitled old white dudes are annoying as fuck.
No, the principle is generally that boorishly obnoxious, angry entitled old white dudes are annoying as fuck.
77krolik
>74 proximity1:
It's not reducible to "convenience," which suggests opportunism on the part of the poster, a claim which ignores the context and which seems unwarranted to me.
There's disagreement, and then there's distortion.
It's not reducible to "convenience," which suggests opportunism on the part of the poster, a claim which ignores the context and which seems unwarranted to me.
There's disagreement, and then there's distortion.
78andyl
>46 madpoet: "Most people now bank on-line, trusting their life savings that it is secure enough, surely it is secure enough to vote as well."
As a computer programmer I can tell you that online voting has lots of problems. The usual aphorism is "anonymous, accessible, secure. Pick one."
Online banking isn't anonymous. Online banking fraud happens and their are procedures on reversing transactions and sorting the mess out. You don't want to be sorting out voting fraud if you can help it. Also unlike banks ‘vote statements’ can’t be provided to check your vote was correctly recorded
Finally there are the issues of verifiability and of transparency - both of these are problems for online (and electronic) voting.
As a computer programmer I can tell you that online voting has lots of problems. The usual aphorism is "anonymous, accessible, secure. Pick one."
Online banking isn't anonymous. Online banking fraud happens and their are procedures on reversing transactions and sorting the mess out. You don't want to be sorting out voting fraud if you can help it. Also unlike banks ‘vote statements’ can’t be provided to check your vote was correctly recorded
Finally there are the issues of verifiability and of transparency - both of these are problems for online (and electronic) voting.
79librorumamans
The necessary word that's missing in this wrangling about democracy is the adjective 'representative'.
Direct democracy is impractical once any polity expands beyond (approximately) village or tribal size.
(ETA: as I see now is much better explained in the excellent link provided by >56 Jesse_wiedinmyer:)
A question triggered by >37 southernbooklady:, and coming from a non-American:
What is the difference between a referendum and a ballot proposition? Are the latter always binding, while the former perhaps may not be?
Direct democracy is impractical once any polity expands beyond (approximately) village or tribal size.
(ETA: as I see now is much better explained in the excellent link provided by >56 Jesse_wiedinmyer:)
A question triggered by >37 southernbooklady:, and coming from a non-American:
What is the difference between a referendum and a ballot proposition? Are the latter always binding, while the former perhaps may not be?
80southernbooklady
>79 librorumamans: What is the difference between a referendum and a ballot proposition? Are the latter always binding, while the former perhaps may not be?
In the US, a referendum is a kind of ballot initiative (there are others). It is proposed legislation people vote on, so it is legally binding. It is basically away for ordinary citizens to create legislation that bypasses the usual legislative channels. The usual process is that you create a proposal, and then get enough signatures to warrant placing the question on the ballot.
But the process and rules vary wildly from state to state. I don't know that there is a process for holding a referendum at the national level. Even amending the US Constitution is something that is done state by state, and I believe that Congress dictates the ratification method: either sent to state legislatures, or to a state convention. But we don't hold some kind of national yes/no vote.
In my state, North Carolina, the direct referendums -- sponsored by citizens who gain enough signatures in support of it, for example -- are not allowed. The only type allow in my state are something called "legislatively-referred initiated constitutional amendments." Basically, the legislature puts the amendment up for a vote by the populace. And it is obviously not an easy or especially attractive way to engage the citizenry, given that apparently the first attempt to do so in the state was in 2012 ("Amendment One") and it was overturned at the Federal level three years later.
Other states are different. California's "Prop 8" -- ("Proposition 8") was a ballot initiative that eliminated the right of marriage for same-sex couples in the California state constitution. It needed something like 600,000 signatures to be put on the ballot -- which it obviously got. Prop 8, like Amendment One, also passed at the voting booth, but was declared unconstitutional several years later.
In the US, a referendum is a kind of ballot initiative (there are others). It is proposed legislation people vote on, so it is legally binding. It is basically away for ordinary citizens to create legislation that bypasses the usual legislative channels. The usual process is that you create a proposal, and then get enough signatures to warrant placing the question on the ballot.
But the process and rules vary wildly from state to state. I don't know that there is a process for holding a referendum at the national level. Even amending the US Constitution is something that is done state by state, and I believe that Congress dictates the ratification method: either sent to state legislatures, or to a state convention. But we don't hold some kind of national yes/no vote.
In my state, North Carolina, the direct referendums -- sponsored by citizens who gain enough signatures in support of it, for example -- are not allowed. The only type allow in my state are something called "legislatively-referred initiated constitutional amendments." Basically, the legislature puts the amendment up for a vote by the populace. And it is obviously not an easy or especially attractive way to engage the citizenry, given that apparently the first attempt to do so in the state was in 2012 ("Amendment One") and it was overturned at the Federal level three years later.
Other states are different. California's "Prop 8" -- ("Proposition 8") was a ballot initiative that eliminated the right of marriage for same-sex couples in the California state constitution. It needed something like 600,000 signatures to be put on the ballot -- which it obviously got. Prop 8, like Amendment One, also passed at the voting booth, but was declared unconstitutional several years later.
81prosfilaes
>65 madpoet: ObamaCare is a great example. How many pages do you think it should take to make a complete overhaul of the US health system? How are you going to balance the needs to be specific and keeping it simple enough?
And part of the problem with bills is that every senator with enough power will stick in pork for their own district. What is going to happen when everyone has that power? No long am I limited by my senator's judgment of what to spend political capital on; I can add a requisition for funds for the Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument Visitor Center to every bill I get a chance to.
And part of the problem with bills is that every senator with enough power will stick in pork for their own district. What is going to happen when everyone has that power? No long am I limited by my senator's judgment of what to spend political capital on; I can add a requisition for funds for the Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument Visitor Center to every bill I get a chance to.
82prosfilaes
>79 librorumamans: The necessary word that's missing in this wrangling about democracy is the adjective 'representative'.
Direct democracy is impractical once any polity expands beyond (approximately) village or tribal size.
You're starting with your conclusion. It's clear that the UK was capable of practically holding a referendum on this matter. There's a wide range of choices for how direct and how representative our democracies can be, choices that are all practical.
Direct democracy is impractical once any polity expands beyond (approximately) village or tribal size.
You're starting with your conclusion. It's clear that the UK was capable of practically holding a referendum on this matter. There's a wide range of choices for how direct and how representative our democracies can be, choices that are all practical.
83librorumamans
>82 prosfilaes: No, I'm not.
84librorumamans
>80 southernbooklady: Thanks for the explanation, Nicki. I'm not aware that hereabouts where I live there's any formal mechanism that's similar to what you lay out. Referendums can only be initiated by the government, whether federal, provincial, or municipal.
85prosfilaes
>83 librorumamans: It's clear that the UK did successfully hold a referendum on this matter. Thus direct democracy was used in this case. Inserting the word "representative" would have biased the discussion about how the system should work.
Representative democracy is impractical once any polity expands beyond city-state. At that point you're going to be dealing with large numbers of unelected bureaucrats with some degree of arbitrary decision making power. This doesn't mean we don't have representative democracy of any sort; it just means we can't elect or even have our elected appoint everyone who might have power.
Representative democracy is impractical once any polity expands beyond city-state. At that point you're going to be dealing with large numbers of unelected bureaucrats with some degree of arbitrary decision making power. This doesn't mean we don't have representative democracy of any sort; it just means we can't elect or even have our elected appoint everyone who might have power.
86proximity1
>69 southernbooklady:
RE: ..."Voter fraud, despite constantly making the headlines, is not a real problem in the United States."
"Are we witnessing a dishonest election?"
RE: ..."Voter fraud, despite constantly making the headlines, is not a real problem in the United States."
"Are we witnessing a dishonest election?"
87davidgn
>86 proximity1: Thanks. (Incidentally: they have a follow-up, as well. http://caucus99percent.com/content/election-fraud-study-authors-respond-critics )
92southernbooklady
>86 proximity1:
"Are we witnessing a dishonest election?"
If the voting machines were all hacked (I'm skeptical of conspiracy theories and unconvinced by negative evidence) then I hope there's an investigation. But the kind of voter fraud I was thinking about was the kind that seeks to stuff the ballot box - people who vote multiple times under false identities, non-existent people casting ballots, imaginary people being added to the voter rolls, a la ACORN etc, etc. Those are the impetus behind all the voter ID laws that get passed under GOP-dominated legislatures. Ironically, these laws are actually methods of voter suppression -- wherein the people in power pervert the system to keep others from gaining ground or influence. It is actually in the interests of those in power to encourage low voter turnout, and legalistic or administrative means are one popular way to achieve that. For example, last year in Alabama the state legislature closed or reduced hours of service at something like 30 state drivers license offices -- ostensibly as a budgetary measure.
But the move came after the state had passed a Voter ID law, and the closures were in predominantly African-American communities, effectively making it very difficult for the people in those communities to get the kind of ID now required to be able to vote. So the closures act as a kind of voter suppression.
"Are we witnessing a dishonest election?"
If the voting machines were all hacked (I'm skeptical of conspiracy theories and unconvinced by negative evidence) then I hope there's an investigation. But the kind of voter fraud I was thinking about was the kind that seeks to stuff the ballot box - people who vote multiple times under false identities, non-existent people casting ballots, imaginary people being added to the voter rolls, a la ACORN etc, etc. Those are the impetus behind all the voter ID laws that get passed under GOP-dominated legislatures. Ironically, these laws are actually methods of voter suppression -- wherein the people in power pervert the system to keep others from gaining ground or influence. It is actually in the interests of those in power to encourage low voter turnout, and legalistic or administrative means are one popular way to achieve that. For example, last year in Alabama the state legislature closed or reduced hours of service at something like 30 state drivers license offices -- ostensibly as a budgetary measure.
But the move came after the state had passed a Voter ID law, and the closures were in predominantly African-American communities, effectively making it very difficult for the people in those communities to get the kind of ID now required to be able to vote. So the closures act as a kind of voter suppression.
93John5918
>92 southernbooklady: Ironically, these laws are actually methods of voter suppression -- wherein the people in power pervert the system to keep others from gaining ground or influence. It is actually in the interests of those in power to encourage low voter turnout, and legalistic or administrative means are one popular way to achieve that. For example, last year in Alabama the state legislature closed or reduced hours of service at something like 30 state drivers license offices -- ostensibly as a budgetary measure.
This is a tried and tested method in a number of countries which have poor democratic records. Certain classes of people are unable to get national IDs, which means they can't register to vote. It's also often invisible to election monitors, since it usually takes place months before the elections, and most election observers only come to monitor the vote rather than the whole process. If the government is challenged, they can just attribute it to unfortunate bureaucratic delays and lack of civil service capacity which are completely unconnected to the election. Another tried and tested method is to create violence against certain classes of people in closely-contested constituencies, forcing them to flee to areas where even if they are able to register to vote, their vote will make no difference because there is already an unassailable majority one way or the other. Again, election monitors often miss this. Whether they are really so stupid that they are unaware it has happened, or whether the decision only to monitor the actual vote and not the whole process is a deliberate ploy to avoid the hassle of challenging the election, is arguable.
This is a tried and tested method in a number of countries which have poor democratic records. Certain classes of people are unable to get national IDs, which means they can't register to vote. It's also often invisible to election monitors, since it usually takes place months before the elections, and most election observers only come to monitor the vote rather than the whole process. If the government is challenged, they can just attribute it to unfortunate bureaucratic delays and lack of civil service capacity which are completely unconnected to the election. Another tried and tested method is to create violence against certain classes of people in closely-contested constituencies, forcing them to flee to areas where even if they are able to register to vote, their vote will make no difference because there is already an unassailable majority one way or the other. Again, election monitors often miss this. Whether they are really so stupid that they are unaware it has happened, or whether the decision only to monitor the actual vote and not the whole process is a deliberate ploy to avoid the hassle of challenging the election, is arguable.
94John5918
The referendum in the UK has led to a lot of reflection in other parts of the world. There's a thoughtful one in today's (Kenyan) Daily Nation, contrasting the "tyranny of numbers" with forms of democracy which try to seek more of a consensus. Reminds me a bit of conversations I had with veteran Kenyan journalist Mitch Odero nearly 20 years ago, where he made the contrast between what he called "consensual democracy" and "mathematical (or numerical) democracy".
Lessons from Brexit and the fallacy of tyranny of numbers
Lessons from Brexit and the fallacy of tyranny of numbers
95librorumamans
>94 John5918: Thanks for that! Lucid, succinct, informed — just the qualities that seem to be in short supply.
96madpoet
>71 StormRaven: Ok, the way I saw her quoted, it wasn't separated into paragraphs like that. But still, it is an incredibly stupid thing to say-- not to mention patronizing to the people who elected her-- that they will have to wait and see what the legislation is about until AFTER it passed into law (by which time it will be too late). And did she really read all 2,000+ pages of the legislation? Did anyone?
I think my reaction was like most Canadians-- who are in favour of universal health care-- when I saw Obama's proposed health care law in the U.S.: 'WTF?! Why did you go and make it the most complicated way imaginable?' In Canada it is much simpler. Everyone gets a health card. You go to the hospital, or your doctor. You show them your health card. You get treatment. That's it. And it has worked that way since at least the 1960s. It's not perfect, but it works pretty well. I'm not sure how long the bill was that made it law in Canada, but I'm sure it wasn't 2,000+ pages!
I think my reaction was like most Canadians-- who are in favour of universal health care-- when I saw Obama's proposed health care law in the U.S.: 'WTF?! Why did you go and make it the most complicated way imaginable?' In Canada it is much simpler. Everyone gets a health card. You go to the hospital, or your doctor. You show them your health card. You get treatment. That's it. And it has worked that way since at least the 1960s. It's not perfect, but it works pretty well. I'm not sure how long the bill was that made it law in Canada, but I'm sure it wasn't 2,000+ pages!
97madpoet
Wow. So many defenders of the status quo. So many excuses why change is just impossible. People patting each other on the back, congratulating each other on sharing the same opinion.
I will not argue one (or two) against 20. I believe in the people. I believe that the people can be trusted to make their own decisions. That direct democracy is the destiny of democracy. It is what those who truly believe in democracy have dreamed of from the beginning, as the franchise spread from a rich, white, male minority to the poor and middle class, male and female, multi-racial majority. As the welfare state deepened democracy to include freedom from want and despair. But the task is half-finished. The people elected leaders, yes, but do those leaders truly represent the people, as they are supposed to? Or do they represent their corporate sponsors and lobbyists? It is time the people made decisions for themselves.
Yes, I am a dreamer. But I hope I am not the only one.
I will not argue one (or two) against 20. I believe in the people. I believe that the people can be trusted to make their own decisions. That direct democracy is the destiny of democracy. It is what those who truly believe in democracy have dreamed of from the beginning, as the franchise spread from a rich, white, male minority to the poor and middle class, male and female, multi-racial majority. As the welfare state deepened democracy to include freedom from want and despair. But the task is half-finished. The people elected leaders, yes, but do those leaders truly represent the people, as they are supposed to? Or do they represent their corporate sponsors and lobbyists? It is time the people made decisions for themselves.
Yes, I am a dreamer. But I hope I am not the only one.
98StormRaven
But still, it is an incredibly stupid thing to say-- not to mention patronizing to the people who elected her-- that they will have to wait and see what the legislation is about until AFTER it passed into law (by which time it will be too late). And did she really read all 2,000+ pages of the legislation? Did anyone?
It's only "2000" pages because of the way legislation is printed - with large margins and large type. If put into the format that it would appears in codified book form, it is only about a quarter of that in terms of "pages".
And she phrased it that way for two reasons (1) because so much controversy had been stirred up about the law that no one was able to look at it with a clear eye, and (2) until legislation is passed, it is actually impossible to tell what is in it, because of the bicameral nature of the legislature.
Bills are proposed in one of the other house, and then passed by that house. The other house will then take up the bill and either modify it or replace it entirely with their own. Once both houses have passed a bill, members of both houses meet to reconcile any differences. Until a bill is passed, there isn't reconciliation, and until it is reconciled, the exact nature of a bill is impossible for anyone to tell.
She wasn't being patronizing, she was being honest.
It's only "2000" pages because of the way legislation is printed - with large margins and large type. If put into the format that it would appears in codified book form, it is only about a quarter of that in terms of "pages".
And she phrased it that way for two reasons (1) because so much controversy had been stirred up about the law that no one was able to look at it with a clear eye, and (2) until legislation is passed, it is actually impossible to tell what is in it, because of the bicameral nature of the legislature.
Bills are proposed in one of the other house, and then passed by that house. The other house will then take up the bill and either modify it or replace it entirely with their own. Once both houses have passed a bill, members of both houses meet to reconcile any differences. Until a bill is passed, there isn't reconciliation, and until it is reconciled, the exact nature of a bill is impossible for anyone to tell.
She wasn't being patronizing, she was being honest.
99John5918
>97 madpoet:
No, of course you are not the only dreamer, but my dream also includes respect for the opinions and rights of minorities, that consensus (or at least as close as one can get to consensus) is a better option than simple majority rule, and that a win-win solution is better than win-lose.
No, of course you are not the only dreamer, but my dream also includes respect for the opinions and rights of minorities, that consensus (or at least as close as one can get to consensus) is a better option than simple majority rule, and that a win-win solution is better than win-lose.
100proximity1
>99 John5918:
..."also includes respect for the opinions and rights of minorities, that consensus (or at least as close as one can get to consensus) is a better option than simple majority rule, "...
Every respected and respectable functioning democratic system also includes respect for the opinions and rights of minorities ... as a feature of majority-rule.
Every respected and respectable functioning democratic system also includes respect for the opinions and rights of minorities ... as a feature of majority-rule.
Every respected and respectable functioning democratic system also includes respect for the opinions and rights of minorities ... as a feature of majority-rule.
So, what, exactly does this mean in practice? :
"respect for the opinions and rights of minorities," ... ?
And what does this mean in practice ? :
..."that consensus (or at least as close as one can get to consensus) is a better option than simple majority rule?"
What does "as close as one can get to consensus" mean practically in a democratically based system?
What specifically are the minorities' rights which aren't being respected? Name them, please.
ETA: Your continued harping on "a better option than simple majority rule,..." suggests to me that in your opinion, a less-than-2/3rds or other majority greater than 50% + 1 vote is never sufficiently "consensual" for you, never properly "respectful" of "the rights of 'the minority.' "
So, again, what specifically is this "right"? The "right" never to have to submit to a voted decision by a majority of a "mere" 50%+ X ? ( Where X is greater than 1 but less than 12 / or, in groups of more than 100 eligible voters, X is greater than 1% but less than 12 or 13% of the votes) ?
..."also includes respect for the opinions and rights of minorities, that consensus (or at least as close as one can get to consensus) is a better option than simple majority rule, "...
Every respected and respectable functioning democratic system also includes respect for the opinions and rights of minorities ... as a feature of majority-rule.
Every respected and respectable functioning democratic system also includes respect for the opinions and rights of minorities ... as a feature of majority-rule.
Every respected and respectable functioning democratic system also includes respect for the opinions and rights of minorities ... as a feature of majority-rule.
So, what, exactly does this mean in practice? :
"respect for the opinions and rights of minorities," ... ?
And what does this mean in practice ? :
..."that consensus (or at least as close as one can get to consensus) is a better option than simple majority rule?"
What does "as close as one can get to consensus" mean practically in a democratically based system?
What specifically are the minorities' rights which aren't being respected? Name them, please.
ETA: Your continued harping on "a better option than simple majority rule,..." suggests to me that in your opinion, a less-than-2/3rds or other majority greater than 50% + 1 vote is never sufficiently "consensual" for you, never properly "respectful" of "the rights of 'the minority.' "
So, again, what specifically is this "right"? The "right" never to have to submit to a voted decision by a majority of a "mere" 50%+ X ? ( Where X is greater than 1 but less than 12 / or, in groups of more than 100 eligible voters, X is greater than 1% but less than 12 or 13% of the votes) ?
101prosfilaes
>96 madpoet: Why did you go and make it the most complicated way imaginable?
It's called democracy, that thing you keep praising. There are enough Americans not comfortable with the idea of socialized medicine that we can't have socialized medicine in the US.
I'm not sure how long the bill was that made it law in Canada, but I'm sure it wasn't 2,000+ pages!
That feels very truthy. Instead of making up some bill in your head, why don't you look it up? Why don't you see just how long the current law is, since healthcare is a bit more complex then it was a half-century ago.
The US law, in fact, is only 974 pages long: http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf
As someone knowledgeable of the fields of mathematics, computer science and games, I know just how hard it is to be clear, concise and complete. I've just this night stared at a rulebook and realized the rules as written were incoherent. As a rule in a friendly game, that's a frustration. As a law in a legal system, that's grounds for multimillion dollar lawsuits and people being held legally responsible because their lawyer's honest reading of the laws didn't match the courts. Clarity and precision are features that are hard to gain.
>97 madpoet: It is time the people made decisions for themselves.
Then demonstrate their--your--capability by finding the Canadian law. And since you want it to be on the test, read it and comprehend it.
It's called democracy, that thing you keep praising. There are enough Americans not comfortable with the idea of socialized medicine that we can't have socialized medicine in the US.
I'm not sure how long the bill was that made it law in Canada, but I'm sure it wasn't 2,000+ pages!
That feels very truthy. Instead of making up some bill in your head, why don't you look it up? Why don't you see just how long the current law is, since healthcare is a bit more complex then it was a half-century ago.
The US law, in fact, is only 974 pages long: http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf
As someone knowledgeable of the fields of mathematics, computer science and games, I know just how hard it is to be clear, concise and complete. I've just this night stared at a rulebook and realized the rules as written were incoherent. As a rule in a friendly game, that's a frustration. As a law in a legal system, that's grounds for multimillion dollar lawsuits and people being held legally responsible because their lawyer's honest reading of the laws didn't match the courts. Clarity and precision are features that are hard to gain.
>97 madpoet: It is time the people made decisions for themselves.
Then demonstrate their--your--capability by finding the Canadian law. And since you want it to be on the test, read it and comprehend it.
102proximity1
>101 prosfilaes:
The ruling national health care law in Canada is the
Canada Health Act (CHA) / ( .pdf file download )
; first enacted in 1966, it was revised in 1984 and last
amended in June of 2012.
The Act is set out (in English and French) in eighteen pages --the first four of which are the cover-page, summary contents and introductory notes.
The law is simple because it does not attempt to codify every aspect of health care. The main contents concern the basic rules of the health care system's claims and reimbursements--which are handled between the doctor (I.e. health care provider) and the state. The patient is not concerned with making a claim or filling out and submitting any forms. The act provides for general primary patient care universally. It is voluntary but, because of its payments system's terms, nearly everyone uses it and all are covered by its terms. But these do not include long-term patient-care, eye-glasses or dental care.
Wikipedia : "Health Care in Canada"
The ruling national health care law in Canada is the
Canada Health Act (CHA) / ( .pdf file download )
; first enacted in 1966, it was revised in 1984 and last
amended in June of 2012.
The Act is set out (in English and French) in eighteen pages --the first four of which are the cover-page, summary contents and introductory notes.
The law is simple because it does not attempt to codify every aspect of health care. The main contents concern the basic rules of the health care system's claims and reimbursements--which are handled between the doctor (I.e. health care provider) and the state. The patient is not concerned with making a claim or filling out and submitting any forms. The act provides for general primary patient care universally. It is voluntary but, because of its payments system's terms, nearly everyone uses it and all are covered by its terms. But these do not include long-term patient-care, eye-glasses or dental care.
Wikipedia : "Health Care in Canada"
103proximity1
Democracy means, at a minimum that a political system's authority derives from and is practically accountable to the the general public as adult eligible voters in the aggregate through a democratic electoral process --by which all the primary posts of political power are allocated at least in the first instance . Essential to this are two bed-rock principles:
1) all votes "count," "weigh, " equally. This is most commonly described as "one voter, one vote."
2) in all but exceptional cases, a vote's result is determined by a victory for the group which receives a majority (50% + 1 or more ) of the votes cast by eligible voters participating.
Anything less is de facto minority-rule. You can dress it up however you like using your favorite goddamned mealy-mouthed terms --"consensus-respecting," "minority-rights centered," etc. but the result comes down to the same: a minority's wishes trump a majority in the determination of practice and policy.
Now, if you like minority-rule, guess what!?
You're in luck; because for all honest and practical intents and purposes, you already live under one or another system of minority-rule.
In the U.S. & U.K., this is by virtue of the fact that the extremely wealthy--the wealthiest one to three percent--virtually own and operate (through fraudulent proxies) the electoral system-- preemptorily determining which candidates make it through an informal and privately controlled initial vetting system (a.k.a. "the silent primaries" operated (now practically in continuum)) by the mainstream news media.
Since, in both the U.S. & U.K., organized wealthy interests overwhelm and dominate both the legislative & executive political powers on the one hand, and the electoral processes which fill these institutions' offices on the other hand, this means what?--
Simply this: unless the wealth is held more or less equally by the general population, unless, that is, its distribution is roughly equal, then, to the extent that a minority holds most wealth, that minority dominates (and typically simply owns and operates) both the electoral and the political systems --doing with these as they please.
So, in the first instance, we need to know: what does the distribution of wealth in our contemporary society tell us about who owns and operates the political system?
Don't like to read a lot of words? No problem! For you, here's a lovely animated video which graphically presents the same basic facts and story :
Wealth Inequality in America
This is your choice: this is minority-rule on stilts. This isn't what might happen in the worst-case-scenario if majority-rule isn't effectively defended and practiced, this is a picture of government by minority-rule as it is now and as it has long been practiced.
There's no such thing as a lovely dream-fuck where the choice is between a majoritarian democratic governance or one in which peace, love and universal goodwill operate through mind-boggling patience to produce consensus and "win-win" outcomes as far as the eye can see.
There's the mean, grimey political world where people fight for and defend their system's democratic integrity or they see it snatched from them and replaced by an enchanting but fraudent sham of democratic government.
1) all votes "count," "weigh, " equally. This is most commonly described as "one voter, one vote."
2) in all but exceptional cases, a vote's result is determined by a victory for the group which receives a majority (50% + 1 or more ) of the votes cast by eligible voters participating.
Anything less is de facto minority-rule. You can dress it up however you like using your favorite goddamned mealy-mouthed terms --"consensus-respecting," "minority-rights centered," etc. but the result comes down to the same: a minority's wishes trump a majority in the determination of practice and policy.
Now, if you like minority-rule, guess what!?
You're in luck; because for all honest and practical intents and purposes, you already live under one or another system of minority-rule.
In the U.S. & U.K., this is by virtue of the fact that the extremely wealthy--the wealthiest one to three percent--virtually own and operate (through fraudulent proxies) the electoral system-- preemptorily determining which candidates make it through an informal and privately controlled initial vetting system (a.k.a. "the silent primaries" operated (now practically in continuum)) by the mainstream news media.
Since, in both the U.S. & U.K., organized wealthy interests overwhelm and dominate both the legislative & executive political powers on the one hand, and the electoral processes which fill these institutions' offices on the other hand, this means what?--
Simply this: unless the wealth is held more or less equally by the general population, unless, that is, its distribution is roughly equal, then, to the extent that a minority holds most wealth, that minority dominates (and typically simply owns and operates) both the electoral and the political systems --doing with these as they please.
So, in the first instance, we need to know: what does the distribution of wealth in our contemporary society tell us about who owns and operates the political system?
(Note: Since the table does not format properly in this text-editor presentation, I recommend you use the link below the table's footnote to view its correct presentation. )
Table 1: Income, net worth, and financial worth in the U.S. by percentile, in 2010 dollars
Wealth or income class (col.A) Mean household income (col. B ) Mean household net worth ( col. C ) Mean household financial (non-home) wealth..................
Top 1 percent....... $1,318,200 $16,439,400 $15,171,600
Top 20 percent..... $226,200 $2,061,600 $1,719,800
60th-80th percentile $72,000... $216,900 $100,700
40th-60th percentile $41,700.... $61,000... $12,200
Bottom 40 percent $17,300... -$10,600 -$14,800
(From Wolff (2012); only mean figures are available, not medians. Note that income and wealth are separate measures; so, for example, the top 1% of income-earners is not exactly the same group of people as the top 1% of wealth-holders, although there is considerable overlap.)
From : G. Wiliam Donhoff, Article : "Wealth, Income & Power" ( a part of "Who Rules America? " )
Don't like to read a lot of words? No problem! For you, here's a lovely animated video which graphically presents the same basic facts and story :
Wealth Inequality in America
This is your choice: this is minority-rule on stilts. This isn't what might happen in the worst-case-scenario if majority-rule isn't effectively defended and practiced, this is a picture of government by minority-rule as it is now and as it has long been practiced.
There's no such thing as a lovely dream-fuck where the choice is between a majoritarian democratic governance or one in which peace, love and universal goodwill operate through mind-boggling patience to produce consensus and "win-win" outcomes as far as the eye can see.
There's the mean, grimey political world where people fight for and defend their system's democratic integrity or they see it snatched from them and replaced by an enchanting but fraudent sham of democratic government.
104librorumamans
>102 proximity1:
Without getting into it extensively, a bill enacts and regulations implement. Regulations are the result of Orders in Council and are much bigger than the legislation often.
Without getting into it extensively, a bill enacts and regulations implement. Regulations are the result of Orders in Council and are much bigger than the legislation often.
105prosfilaes
>102 proximity1: The law is simple because it does not attempt to codify every aspect of health care.
The law is simple in part because it dumps everything on the province.
And I'm not convinced that it is anywhere near simple enough to be comprehensible by the average person. Take this sentence:
"(2) The criterion respecting portability is not contravened by a requirement of a provincial health care insurance plan that the prior consent of the public authority that administers and operates the plan must be obtained for elective insured health services provided to a resident of the province while temporarily absent from the province if the services in question were available on a substantially similar basis in the province."
https://readability-score.com/text/ says "A grade level (based on the USA education system) is equivalent to the number of years of education a person has had. A score of around 10-12 is roughly the reading level on completion of high school. Text to be read by the general public should aim for a grade level of around 8." This scores a 30.4 grade level, ranging from 16.1 to 38.1, depending on the individual test. I could plow through it, but I'm far from convinced I would, and most of us here are on the high end of reading ability.
The law is simple in part because it dumps everything on the province.
And I'm not convinced that it is anywhere near simple enough to be comprehensible by the average person. Take this sentence:
"(2) The criterion respecting portability is not contravened by a requirement of a provincial health care insurance plan that the prior consent of the public authority that administers and operates the plan must be obtained for elective insured health services provided to a resident of the province while temporarily absent from the province if the services in question were available on a substantially similar basis in the province."
https://readability-score.com/text/ says "A grade level (based on the USA education system) is equivalent to the number of years of education a person has had. A score of around 10-12 is roughly the reading level on completion of high school. Text to be read by the general public should aim for a grade level of around 8." This scores a 30.4 grade level, ranging from 16.1 to 38.1, depending on the individual test. I could plow through it, but I'm far from convinced I would, and most of us here are on the high end of reading ability.
106RickHarsch
>105 prosfilaes: Couldn't follow you.
107timspalding
If the side you had wanted to win had won, referendums would be wonderful!
Exactly so. Even in Britain, there have been a number of such referenda. This the second time Britain has voted on leaving the EU (or EC, then). I've never heard someone complain that the first one was unfair. Nor were there cries that the three Scottish referenda were unfair and should be decided a different way, or the various Irish ones.
This is sour grapes. I understand disappointment. I understanding wanting a different outcome. But when people embrace a principle after losing, they are engaging in hypocrisy, not principle.
The main safeguard would be that for significant constitutional amendments (which is what this particular vote effectively was) there should be more than just a simple majority. This is already the case for constitutional amendments in many countries in the world.
The other thing which is troubling about this particular referendum is that the UK is made up of four countries, but the result did not take into account the democratically-expressed views of all four.
This is Britain. There is no written Constitution above Parliament, and never has been. The Constitution can be changed at any point. This isn't new, and, again, there wasn't a wide outcry against this until someone lost.
Honestly, I agree with you on the principle. I like the US methods of a written Constitution, separation of powers and extensive federalism. But I have done so consistently, just as I consistently favor institutions I support, like the Presidency, Senate and Supreme Court, even when they go against my views. Ever four years, I'm one of the only people defending the US system of voting by state. And, while I abhor the results, I defend the ability of the Senate to withhold consent for Supreme Court justices, the Supreme Court's decision to overturn (let stand the overturning) of Obama's executive actions, etc.
Exactly so. Even in Britain, there have been a number of such referenda. This the second time Britain has voted on leaving the EU (or EC, then). I've never heard someone complain that the first one was unfair. Nor were there cries that the three Scottish referenda were unfair and should be decided a different way, or the various Irish ones.
This is sour grapes. I understand disappointment. I understanding wanting a different outcome. But when people embrace a principle after losing, they are engaging in hypocrisy, not principle.
The main safeguard would be that for significant constitutional amendments (which is what this particular vote effectively was) there should be more than just a simple majority. This is already the case for constitutional amendments in many countries in the world.
The other thing which is troubling about this particular referendum is that the UK is made up of four countries, but the result did not take into account the democratically-expressed views of all four.
This is Britain. There is no written Constitution above Parliament, and never has been. The Constitution can be changed at any point. This isn't new, and, again, there wasn't a wide outcry against this until someone lost.
Honestly, I agree with you on the principle. I like the US methods of a written Constitution, separation of powers and extensive federalism. But I have done so consistently, just as I consistently favor institutions I support, like the Presidency, Senate and Supreme Court, even when they go against my views. Ever four years, I'm one of the only people defending the US system of voting by state. And, while I abhor the results, I defend the ability of the Senate to withhold consent for Supreme Court justices, the Supreme Court's decision to overturn (let stand the overturning) of Obama's executive actions, etc.
108proximity1
>107 timspalding:
"This is sour grapes."
Actually, that fable does not apply to our situation here. In the fable, the Fox is unable to obtain the grapes which hang high and beyond his reach. As a psychological comfort, he tells himself --and others--a story he himself doesn't even believe: those grapes beyond his reach are in any case sour so there's no real loss in not obtaining them.
"This is sour grapes."
Actually, that fable does not apply to our situation here. In the fable, the Fox is unable to obtain the grapes which hang high and beyond his reach. As a psychological comfort, he tells himself --and others--a story he himself doesn't even believe: those grapes beyond his reach are in any case sour so there's no real loss in not obtaining them.
109John5918
>107 timspalding: If the side you had wanted to win had won, referendums would be wonderful!
That's unworthy of you, Tim. This is a conversation about whether referenda in general and this one in particular are a good way of doing democracy. I don't think they are, and I have never argued for the supremacy of small mathematical majorities; I have always favoured something more consensual.
Even in Britain, there have been a number of such referenda
Good old Wikipedia informs me that "only three referendums have been held which have covered the whole of the United Kingdom: the first on membership of the European Economic Community in 1975, the second on adopting the Alternative vote system in parliamentary elections in 2011, and the third on whether to remain in the European Union in 2016" (my italics). In both previous referenda a 2/3 majority was obtained, even though it was not a prerequisite. As a matter of interest I would have loved the Alternative vote system to have been passed (in other words, my side lost), but I'm not complaining because I feel it was rejected by a significant majority.
This is Britain
Actually it's not Britain. It is the United Kingdom, of which Britain is a part. Northern Ireland is part of the UK but not part of Britain. Northern Ireland (along with Scotland, which is part of Britain) voted to remain in the EU.
There is no written Constitution above Parliament, and never has been.
True.
The Constitution can be changed at any point.
I'm not 100% sure about that. Although there is no written constitution, a lot of things depend on precedent and would not be easy to change. But the fact that a referendum on such a major constitutional issue which, for example, deprives individuals of EU citizenship without their consent and without them having committed any crime, can take place on a simple majority without any safeguards demonstrates that there is a weakness here. Realistically I think we have lost this one, but rather than shrug one's shoulders and say, "This is Britain", surely it's time to examine the process and make sure that a similar travesty does not occur again on some other major issue?
This isn't new
Actually it is quite new. Referenda have only appeared in the UK in the last 40 years or so. We apparently haven't yet got it right on how to do them.
while I abhor the results, I defend the ability of the Senate to withhold consent...
Why can't you accept that many of us who are unhappy with the result of the current EU referendum would have abhorred but reluctantly accepted it if we felt it had been a credible process, including safeguards such as the ones you mention in the US system?
Edited to add:
Just seen in today's Grauniad an article by former Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, where he says, "The EU referendum has exploded constitutional, political and economic conventions. Our country is in a tailspin..." This is not just a "business as usual" referendum in "This is Britain".
That's unworthy of you, Tim. This is a conversation about whether referenda in general and this one in particular are a good way of doing democracy. I don't think they are, and I have never argued for the supremacy of small mathematical majorities; I have always favoured something more consensual.
Even in Britain, there have been a number of such referenda
Good old Wikipedia informs me that "only three referendums have been held which have covered the whole of the United Kingdom: the first on membership of the European Economic Community in 1975, the second on adopting the Alternative vote system in parliamentary elections in 2011, and the third on whether to remain in the European Union in 2016" (my italics). In both previous referenda a 2/3 majority was obtained, even though it was not a prerequisite. As a matter of interest I would have loved the Alternative vote system to have been passed (in other words, my side lost), but I'm not complaining because I feel it was rejected by a significant majority.
This is Britain
Actually it's not Britain. It is the United Kingdom, of which Britain is a part. Northern Ireland is part of the UK but not part of Britain. Northern Ireland (along with Scotland, which is part of Britain) voted to remain in the EU.
There is no written Constitution above Parliament, and never has been.
True.
The Constitution can be changed at any point.
I'm not 100% sure about that. Although there is no written constitution, a lot of things depend on precedent and would not be easy to change. But the fact that a referendum on such a major constitutional issue which, for example, deprives individuals of EU citizenship without their consent and without them having committed any crime, can take place on a simple majority without any safeguards demonstrates that there is a weakness here. Realistically I think we have lost this one, but rather than shrug one's shoulders and say, "This is Britain", surely it's time to examine the process and make sure that a similar travesty does not occur again on some other major issue?
This isn't new
Actually it is quite new. Referenda have only appeared in the UK in the last 40 years or so. We apparently haven't yet got it right on how to do them.
while I abhor the results, I defend the ability of the Senate to withhold consent...
Why can't you accept that many of us who are unhappy with the result of the current EU referendum would have abhorred but reluctantly accepted it if we felt it had been a credible process, including safeguards such as the ones you mention in the US system?
Edited to add:
Just seen in today's Grauniad an article by former Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, where he says, "The EU referendum has exploded constitutional, political and economic conventions. Our country is in a tailspin..." This is not just a "business as usual" referendum in "This is Britain".
110proximity1
In general, there are only two principles by which an otherwise sacrosanct place for majority votes in a democratic system is ceded. In both cases, there is a strong case made, again, upon principle.
In the first, the matter concerns rules of parliamentary practice--also called the rules of order. Under this principle, the closure of debate on some issue may not be imposed by a simple majority (in the Senate) when ending debate is not agreed by mutual (unamimous) consent. The principle here is that a simple majority should not be allowed to shut down debate as long as a minority consider that the issues have not been fully examined. This is an inherent part of the protection of the rights of a minority to argue its case, to fully and openly air its arguments to one end: the winning over of others' minds to the minority's argument.
In the second, the principle is that a body's or a nation's founding law or charter--its "constitution"--should not be subject to amendment by only a simple majority. If this were not the case, then any special protections granted to minorities--those most basic rights which even a majority is prohibited from denying to them could be amended or struck by a simple majority vote.
I have yet to see or hear the case made that membership in the European Union --even once it is an established fact--belongs to the most basic and fundamental rights of every citizen in the member-state.
That's the implied claim being urged here. Where's the sound argument for it? And, moreover, in British law, where's the legal requirement that this membership, established by treaty, cannot be and must not be abrogated by less than a super-majority's vote by referendum or by Parliament?
------------
The Supermajority Vote in U.S. Government
In the first, the matter concerns rules of parliamentary practice--also called the rules of order. Under this principle, the closure of debate on some issue may not be imposed by a simple majority (in the Senate) when ending debate is not agreed by mutual (unamimous) consent. The principle here is that a simple majority should not be allowed to shut down debate as long as a minority consider that the issues have not been fully examined. This is an inherent part of the protection of the rights of a minority to argue its case, to fully and openly air its arguments to one end: the winning over of others' minds to the minority's argument.
In the second, the principle is that a body's or a nation's founding law or charter--its "constitution"--should not be subject to amendment by only a simple majority. If this were not the case, then any special protections granted to minorities--those most basic rights which even a majority is prohibited from denying to them could be amended or struck by a simple majority vote.
I have yet to see or hear the case made that membership in the European Union --even once it is an established fact--belongs to the most basic and fundamental rights of every citizen in the member-state.
That's the implied claim being urged here. Where's the sound argument for it? And, moreover, in British law, where's the legal requirement that this membership, established by treaty, cannot be and must not be abrogated by less than a super-majority's vote by referendum or by Parliament?
------------
The Supermajority Vote in U.S. Government
111timspalding
That's unworthy of you, Tim.
The quote was in >1 prosfilaes:, and not about you. I can't say whether you precisely are this way, but I think it's rather interesting so many who said nothing of the evils of direct democracy are suddenly quite passionate about the topic.
Incidentally, isn't something wrong when the representatives don't represent? Isn't it a problem if most UK voters want something, but their representatives won't pass it? It seems to me referenda are the only way one might vote something that's against lawmakers' interests. In the US, for example, referenda have repeatedly passed term-limit measures, which the politicians affected by term limits would never pass. Isn't there something to that?
only three referendums have been held which have covered the whole of the United Kingdom
Many others on a regional basis, set by Parliament. In any case, as many have noted, the referendum was non-binding. Parliament has to act on it. If indeed referenda are bad, and the particular referendum is bad, they can buck the voters' desire and refuse to do anything.
The quote was in >1 prosfilaes:, and not about you. I can't say whether you precisely are this way, but I think it's rather interesting so many who said nothing of the evils of direct democracy are suddenly quite passionate about the topic.
Incidentally, isn't something wrong when the representatives don't represent? Isn't it a problem if most UK voters want something, but their representatives won't pass it? It seems to me referenda are the only way one might vote something that's against lawmakers' interests. In the US, for example, referenda have repeatedly passed term-limit measures, which the politicians affected by term limits would never pass. Isn't there something to that?
only three referendums have been held which have covered the whole of the United Kingdom
Many others on a regional basis, set by Parliament. In any case, as many have noted, the referendum was non-binding. Parliament has to act on it. If indeed referenda are bad, and the particular referendum is bad, they can buck the voters' desire and refuse to do anything.
112John5918
>111 timspalding: referenda are the only way one might vote something that's against lawmakers' interests
Well, yes and no. If it's clearly connected with lawmakers' interests, maybe so. Many Kenyans wish they could vote on MPs' salaries. But when it is on major constitutional issues, then it needs a properly thought out process with safeguards, not an ad hoc event. The easiest one, which is already in use in many instances, is to demand more than just a simple majority - 60%, 2/3, 75%, whatever.
Well, yes and no. If it's clearly connected with lawmakers' interests, maybe so. Many Kenyans wish they could vote on MPs' salaries. But when it is on major constitutional issues, then it needs a properly thought out process with safeguards, not an ad hoc event. The easiest one, which is already in use in many instances, is to demand more than just a simple majority - 60%, 2/3, 75%, whatever.
113RickHarsch
>108 proximity1: Pedantry for pedantry. The common meaning of the fable can alter over time, as this has, so that a broader use is fair. In usage, sour grapes most often means you are whining about something you actually COULD have had but did not get. This is how language works.
114madpoet
>78 andyl: But what if the information was stored on really secure servers? You know: like the kind the Secretary of State uses? ;-)
115andyl
>107 timspalding:
Sorry Tim I have to agree with johnthefireman.
I've never heard someone complain that the first one was unfair.
You mean the one which one side won with a supermajority (67.2% of votes cast) and where only two small counting-areas (out of 68) voted against? That looks a decisive result to me - yet there were still people who did not accept the result, who complained about it, who organised and eventually got their way by having another referendum.
Sorry Tim I have to agree with johnthefireman.
I've never heard someone complain that the first one was unfair.
You mean the one which one side won with a supermajority (67.2% of votes cast) and where only two small counting-areas (out of 68) voted against? That looks a decisive result to me - yet there were still people who did not accept the result, who complained about it, who organised and eventually got their way by having another referendum.
116timspalding
That looks a decisive result to me - yet there were still people who did not accept the result, who complained about it, who organised and eventually got their way by having another referendum.
Nobody is saying a future British electorate can't vote to join the EU.
Nobody is saying a future British electorate can't vote to join the EU.
117John5918
>116 timspalding: Nobody is saying a future British electorate can't vote to join the EU.
I believe many within the EU are. You can't go in and out and in again like a yoyo.
I believe many within the EU are. You can't go in and out and in again like a yoyo.
118librorumamans
>117 John5918: Kind of like monogamy, perhaps?
119southernbooklady
>117 John5918: You can't go in and out and in again like a yoyo.
People are fickle. Public opinion tends to change far more quickly than the time needed to allow legislation to actually work, which suggests that government-via-referendum ("direct democracy") would be pretty inefficient, or ineffective.
People are fickle. Public opinion tends to change far more quickly than the time needed to allow legislation to actually work, which suggests that government-via-referendum ("direct democracy") would be pretty inefficient, or ineffective.
120timspalding
People are fickle. Public opinion tends to change far more quickly than the time needed to allow legislation to actually work, which suggests that government-via-referendum ("direct democracy") would be pretty inefficient, or ineffective.
This doesn't have much to do with referenda. The UK government has had massive swings in policy before, because a majority changed a few percent in Parliament. We're talking about a country that had a top income tax of over 99% fall to 22% in a few decades, and went from centralization to a large measure of federalism by majority vote. American can be assured their vote doesn't matter that much; UK voters have never had that feeling. If you want Parliament to institute a new rule that big decisions need super-majorities, okay. But that's not how it's ever worked.
This doesn't have much to do with referenda. The UK government has had massive swings in policy before, because a majority changed a few percent in Parliament. We're talking about a country that had a top income tax of over 99% fall to 22% in a few decades, and went from centralization to a large measure of federalism by majority vote. American can be assured their vote doesn't matter that much; UK voters have never had that feeling. If you want Parliament to institute a new rule that big decisions need super-majorities, okay. But that's not how it's ever worked.
121John5918
>120 timspalding: But that's not how it's ever worked
Referenda have only been around for 40 years in the UK so I think it's a bit early to say "that's not how it's ever worked". It's barely had a chance to start working yet.
Referenda have only been around for 40 years in the UK so I think it's a bit early to say "that's not how it's ever worked". It's barely had a chance to start working yet.
122timspalding
>120 timspalding:
Right, but my point was that big changes on slim majorities have always been the norm. You guys don't have a written constitution, separation of power and so forth. Parliament is sovereign and its power is unlimited. If 51% of parliament wants to do something, they do it.
Right, but my point was that big changes on slim majorities have always been the norm. You guys don't have a written constitution, separation of power and so forth. Parliament is sovereign and its power is unlimited. If 51% of parliament wants to do something, they do it.
123John5918
>122 timspalding: Parliament is sovereign and its power is unlimited. If 51% of parliament wants to do something, they do it.
Well, the House of Lords can delay legislation for up to three years, I believe, and can usually force changes by offering a deal to allow it to pass more quickly. And that is only in the last couple of decades or so - before that they could delay it indefinitely.
Well, the House of Lords can delay legislation for up to three years, I believe, and can usually force changes by offering a deal to allow it to pass more quickly. And that is only in the last couple of decades or so - before that they could delay it indefinitely.
124timspalding
>133 proximity1:
As Wikipedia puts it:
As Wikipedia puts it:
Although the House of Commons' dominance within the Houses of Parliament is well attested, "parliamentary sovereignty" refers to their joint power. Almost all legislation is passed with the support of the House of Lords.
125LolaWalser
Tim, kindly stop beating your grandmother. What's that? You don't? But how come you never talk about the evils of beating grandmothers, EEEEEEEEEH?
126timspalding
If the topic of beating my grandmother had come up months and months ago, all leading to a giant, nationwide and much-discussed vote in which everyone decided to beat my grandmother, well, then indeed I think my silence on the evils of grandmother-beating-votes would be interesting.
127proximity1
While I can't say that anti-democratic sentiment among people who love to flatter themselves that they live in a democracy is exactly new, reading this thread has offered me a reminder of just how weak and shallow is the feeling for democracy beyond simple lip-service.
The political elite whose rule depends on such widespread indifference to or outright disdain for meaningful democratic practices--they're devoted to minority rule. Their power and their ability to easily politically fuck over a vastly superior number of people every single day depends on it.
July 5th -- the day after the national holiday of July 4th: National Barbeque Cook-out face-stuffing-and- Beer-swilling Day.
ETA : I NOTE, too, with some amusement that the author of this thread enititled it "How Should We Do Democracy" -- as though posing a question; but he forgot the question-mark at the end.
It seems the short answer to "How Should We Do Democracy?" is, "We shouldn't--not seriously."
Those islamic jihad terrorist mother-fuckers? They're serious about their faith. As for ours, our secular faith, which ought to be democracy first, last and always, we'll hand it over without even being asked. What? You want my civil liberties? Only in order to make us all safer? Sure! Take 'em! I wasn't using them anyway.
128jjwilson61
>127 proximity1: You worship democracy the way that some people worship capitalism, that is completely uncritically. I understand some African countries have been developing new systems for making political decisions that actually can make more of the populace happy than 50%+1 democracy. Think of it as democracy 2.0 if it makes you feel better.
129prosfilaes
>127 proximity1: As for ours, our secular faith, which ought to be democracy first, last and always, we'll hand it over without even being asked. What? You want my civil liberties?
You contradict yourself; if our faith is in democracy, first, last and always, then should the majority want to give up civil liberties, that's A-OK.
While I can't say that anti-democratic sentiment among people who love to flatter themselves that they live in a democracy is exactly new, reading this thread has offered me a reminder of just how weak and shallow is the feeling for democracy beyond simple lip-service.
See, my secular faith is not in democracy. I want a political system that works, and the system that has run the US and UK for the last century seems to work well enough, at least as well as its competitors. It beats the hell out of the Soviet and Maoish systems, or the various third-world dictatorships. That your sense of purity says that that system is not a "real" democracy doesn't incline me to dislike it more. There are improvements possible in these systems, there are improvements I'd push for. But this works, and many revolutions have failed, so I'd rather move slowly and discover if something is better, rather than overturn the apple cart.
You contradict yourself; if our faith is in democracy, first, last and always, then should the majority want to give up civil liberties, that's A-OK.
While I can't say that anti-democratic sentiment among people who love to flatter themselves that they live in a democracy is exactly new, reading this thread has offered me a reminder of just how weak and shallow is the feeling for democracy beyond simple lip-service.
See, my secular faith is not in democracy. I want a political system that works, and the system that has run the US and UK for the last century seems to work well enough, at least as well as its competitors. It beats the hell out of the Soviet and Maoish systems, or the various third-world dictatorships. That your sense of purity says that that system is not a "real" democracy doesn't incline me to dislike it more. There are improvements possible in these systems, there are improvements I'd push for. But this works, and many revolutions have failed, so I'd rather move slowly and discover if something is better, rather than overturn the apple cart.
130proximity1
>128 jjwilson61:
"You worship democracy the way that some people worship capitalism, that is completely uncritically."
I'm quite capable of criticizing results when I think the results are foolish. But I don't blame the theory for the fact that people are fallible and their applications of theory are always susceptible to their fallibility. Since that is a "given," applying to whatever system one adopts, it cannot be specially charged as democracy's failing.
RE : "some African countries have been developing new systems for making political decisions that actually can make more of the populace happy than 50%+1 democracy."
{ ETA : So cite those countries and those "systems." Where are they? What are they? And why aren't we hearing news reports about hundreds of thousands of desperate refugees from war-torn African and Middle-and-Near East countries flooding into these harbors of improved democracies? }
You can post in wrought-iron letters the phrase 'Arbeit macht Frei' over the gates of Hell. That doesn't make it a 'fact.'
"You worship democracy the way that some people worship capitalism, that is completely uncritically."
I'm quite capable of criticizing results when I think the results are foolish. But I don't blame the theory for the fact that people are fallible and their applications of theory are always susceptible to their fallibility. Since that is a "given," applying to whatever system one adopts, it cannot be specially charged as democracy's failing.
RE : "some African countries have been developing new systems for making political decisions that actually can make more of the populace happy than 50%+1 democracy."
{ ETA : So cite those countries and those "systems." Where are they? What are they? And why aren't we hearing news reports about hundreds of thousands of desperate refugees from war-torn African and Middle-and-Near East countries flooding into these harbors of improved democracies? }
You can post in wrought-iron letters the phrase 'Arbeit macht Frei' over the gates of Hell. That doesn't make it a 'fact.'
131prosfilaes
>130 proximity1: I'm quite capable of criticizing results when I think the results are foolish. But I don't blame the theory for the fact that people are fallible and their applications of theory are always susceptible to their fallibility. Since that is a "given," applying to whatever system one adopts, it cannot be specially charged as democracy's failing.
Which is the problem with people who have faith in a theory; if the theory doesn't work, one says "people are fallible and their applications of theory are always susceptible to their fallibility", therefore feudalism/communism/anarchy/whatever.
Which is the problem with people who have faith in a theory; if the theory doesn't work, one says "people are fallible and their applications of theory are always susceptible to their fallibility", therefore feudalism/communism/anarchy/whatever.
132andyl
>116 timspalding: Nobody is saying a future British electorate can't vote to join the EU.
Well theoretically yes.
But we will never have the kind of deal we have at present. We will lose our rebate, we will have to commit to join the Euro. Those are much harder sells for the British public.
Well theoretically yes.
But we will never have the kind of deal we have at present. We will lose our rebate, we will have to commit to join the Euro. Those are much harder sells for the British public.
133proximity1
>131 prosfilaes:
Typical load of bullshit from you. All social theories are approximations of reality's workings. No theory--including those you espouse--always works flawlessly. That's not a "problem" with people who have "faith in a theory," it's a fucking fact of life.
To suppose that democracy ( or even, rather, the sham versions we have of it) can or should be expected to always produce respectable results is as stupid as to suppose that it can or should be expected to never produce respectable results.
So the battle-lines are formed around what should constitute a respectable result or not. In Britain and the U.S., some people regard an election which offers a "choice" between Ed Miliband or David Cameron or a "choice" between Obama and Mitt Romney a "respectable result" --whichever way the vote turns out.
"Which is the problem with people who have faith in a theory; if the theory doesn't work, one says 'people are fallible and their applications of theory are always susceptible to their fallibility', therefore feudalism/communism/anarchy/whatever.
Typical load of bullshit from you. All social theories are approximations of reality's workings. No theory--including those you espouse--always works flawlessly. That's not a "problem" with people who have "faith in a theory," it's a fucking fact of life.
To suppose that democracy ( or even, rather, the sham versions we have of it) can or should be expected to always produce respectable results is as stupid as to suppose that it can or should be expected to never produce respectable results.
So the battle-lines are formed around what should constitute a respectable result or not. In Britain and the U.S., some people regard an election which offers a "choice" between Ed Miliband or David Cameron or a "choice" between Obama and Mitt Romney a "respectable result" --whichever way the vote turns out.
134proximity1
>132 andyl:
"But we will never have the kind of deal we have at present. We will lose our rebate, we will have to commit to join the Euro. Those are much harder sells for the British public."
That can certainly be your fear, your worry, but you simply cannot _know_ that forecast to be a fact. A future membership might happen on better than the current terms or the consequences of exit--supposing that an exit is even allowed--could be better than what's given under the current circumstances.
If you know the future so well, how is it you're not a mega-multi-billionaire investor?
135John5918
>132 andyl:
Yes, I think you have put your finger on it. In the future maybe the UK (or in fact England and Wales as it will probably be by then, as Scotland will already have left the UK and joined the EU in its own right, and who knows what will have happened in Northern Ireland) could vote to join the EU. But it would be to join, just like any new member seeking admittance to a club which already comprises nearly 30 established members, and we would have to jump through all the hoops of new membership, including signing up to the euro. There is currently no option of rejoining on the same terms which we enjoy now. Also, while we are still a member we have possibilities of being involved in reforming the EU and negotiating some more favourable terms, as the UK has already done in some instances. On applying to join as a new member, we will have to accept the terms on offer - take it or leave it.
Yes, I think you have put your finger on it. In the future maybe the UK (or in fact England and Wales as it will probably be by then, as Scotland will already have left the UK and joined the EU in its own right, and who knows what will have happened in Northern Ireland) could vote to join the EU. But it would be to join, just like any new member seeking admittance to a club which already comprises nearly 30 established members, and we would have to jump through all the hoops of new membership, including signing up to the euro. There is currently no option of rejoining on the same terms which we enjoy now. Also, while we are still a member we have possibilities of being involved in reforming the EU and negotiating some more favourable terms, as the UK has already done in some instances. On applying to join as a new member, we will have to accept the terms on offer - take it or leave it.
136proximity1
The elites hate Momentum and the Corbynites - and I’ll tell you why
-- by David Graeber
As the rolling catastrophe of what’s already being called the “chicken coup” against the Labour leadership winds down, pretty much all the commentary has focused on the personal qualities, real or imagined, of the principal players.
Yet such an approach misses out on almost everything that’s really at stake here. The real battle is not over the personality of one man, or even a couple of hundred politicians. If the opposition to Jeremy Corbyn for the past nine months has been so fierce, and so bitter, it is because his existence as head of a major political party is an assault on the very notion that politics should be primarily about the personal qualities of politicians. It’s an attempt to change the rules of the game, and those who object most violently to the Labour leadership are precisely those who would lose the most personal power were it to be successful: sitting politicians and political commentators.
If you talk to Corbyn’s most ardent supporters, it’s not the man himself but the project of democratising the party that really sets their eyes alight. The Labour party, they emphasise, was founded not by politicians but by a social movement. Over the past century it has gradually become like all the other political parties – personality (and of course, money) based, but the Corbyn project is first and foremost to make the party a voice for social movements once again, dedicated to popular democracy (as trades unions themselves once were). This is the immediate aim. The ultimate aim is the democratisation not just of the party but of local government, workplaces, society itself.
I should emphasise that I am myself very much an outside observer here – but one uniquely positioned, perhaps, to understand what the Corbynistas are trying to do. I’ve spent much of the past two decades working in movements aimed at creating new forms of bottom-up democracy, from the Global Justice Movement to Occupy Wall Street. It was our strong conviction that real, direct democracy, could never be created inside the structures of government. One had to open up a space outside. The Corbynistas are trying to prove us wrong. Will they be successful? I have absolutely no idea. But I cannot help find it a fascinating historical experiment. The spearhead of the democratisation movement is Momentum, which now boasts 130 chapters across the UK. In the mainstream press it usually gets attention only when some local activist is accused of “bullying” or “abuse” against their MP – or worse, suggests the possibility that an MP who systematically defies the views of membership might face deselection.
The real concern is not any justified fear among the Labour establishment of bullying and intimidation – the idea that the weak would bully the strong is absurd. It is that they fear being made truly accountable to those they represent. They also say that while so far they have been forced to concentrate on internal party politics, the object is to move from a politics of accountability to one of participation: to create forms of popular education and decision-making that allow community groups and local assemblies made up of citizens of all political stripes to make key decisions affecting their lives.
The real concern is not any justified fear among the Labour establishment of bullying and intimidation
There have already been local experiments: in Thanet, the council recently carried out an exercise in “participatory economic planning” – devolving budgetary and strategic decisions to the community at large – which shadow chancellor John McDonnell has hailed as a potential model for the nation. There is talk of giving consultative assemblies real decision-making powers, of “banks of radical ideas” to which anyone can propose policy initiatives and, especially in the wake of the coup, a major call to democratise the internal workings of the party itself. It may all seem mad. Perhaps it is. But more than 100,000 new Labour members are already, to one degree or another, committed to the project.
If nothing else, understanding this makes it much easier to understand the splits in the party after the recent rebellion within the shadow cabinet. Even the language used by each side reflects basically different conceptions of what politics is about. For Corbyn’s opponents, the key word is always “leadership” and the ability of an effective leader to “deliver” certain key constituencies. For Corbyn’s supporters “leadership” in this sense is a profoundly anti-democratic concept. It assumes that the role of a representative is not to represent, not to listen, but to tell people what to do.
For Corbynistas, in contrast, the fact that he is in no sense a rabble rouser, that he doesn’t seem to particularly want to be prime minister, but is nonetheless willing to pursue the goal for the sake of the movement, is precisely his highest qualification. While one side effectively accuses him of refusing to play the demagogue during the Brexit debate, for the other, his insistence on treating the public as responsible adults was the quintessence of the “new kind of politics” they wished to see.
What all this suggests is the possibility that the remarkable hostility to Corbyn displayed by even the left-of-centre media is not due to the fact they don’t understand what the movement that placed him in charge of the Labour party is ultimately about, but because, on some level, they actually do.
After all, insofar as politics is a game of personalities, of scandals, foibles and acts of “leadership”, political journalists are not just the referees – in a real sense they are the field on which the game is played. Democratisation would turn them into reporters once again, in much the same way as it would turn politicians into representatives. In either case, it would mark a dramatic decline in personal power and influence. It would mark an equally dramatic rise in power for unions, constituent councils, and local activists – the very people who have rallied to Corbyn’s support.
137davidgn
>136 proximity1:: Something tells me you'll like this post over in the Blair impeachment thread. ;-)
138proximity1
>128 jjwilson61:
Think of it as democracy 2.0 if it makes you feel better.
I don't look for lies just to *try them on* for the benefit of "feeling better."
139proximity1
(U.K.) Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 /Part 2 Ratification of treaties
Part 2
Ratification of treaties
20 Treaties to be laid before Parliament before ratification
(1)Subject to what follows, a treaty is not to be ratified unless—
(a)a Minister of the Crown has laid before Parliament a copy of the treaty,
(b)the treaty has been published in a way that a Minister of the Crown thinks appropriate, and
(c)period A has expired without either House having resolved, within period A, that the treaty should not be ratified.
(2)Period A is the period of 21 sitting days beginning with the first sitting day after the date on which the requirement in subsection (1)(a) is met.
(3)Subsections (4) to (6) apply if the House of Commons resolved as mentioned in subsection (1)(c) (whether or not the House of Lords also did so).
(4)The treaty may be ratified if—
(a)a Minister of the Crown has laid before Parliament a statement indicating that the Minister is of the opinion that the treaty should nevertheless be ratified and explaining why, and
(b)period B has expired without the House of Commons having resolved, within period B, that the treaty should not be ratified.
(5)Period B is the period of 21 sitting days beginning with the first sitting day after the date on which the requirement in subsection (4)(a) is met.
(6)A statement may be laid under subsection (4)(a) in relation to the treaty on more than one occasion.
(7)Subsection (8) applies if—
(a)the House of Lords resolved as mentioned in subsection (1)(c), but
(b)the House of Commons did not.
(8)The treaty may be ratified if a Minister of the Crown has laid before Parliament a statement indicating that the Minister is of the opinion that the treaty should nevertheless be ratified and explaining why.
(9)“Sitting day” means a day on which both Houses of Parliament
Prior to the "Ponsonby Rule," (1924) (Wikipedia) it appears that Parliament was not even necessarily informed of a treaty prior to its adoption (by the Crown). But, since then, treaties are "laid before Parliament" for a period of 21days (in session) during which time, In the absence of a vote "having resolved, within period A, that the treaty should not be ratified" the treaty is in effect ratified--thus, Parliament has a negative option, a "veto" power which it must exercise in order to prevent a treaty from coming into force. (There are numerous exceptions for different sorts of international agreements under U.K. law).
I can find no indication anywhere that specifies the kind of majority required for resolving in the negative but it appears that a treaty is adopted unless it's rejected by simple majority vote.
------------
Even in the U.S., there are exceptions to the Constitution's "advise and consent" on treaties (by 2/3rds vote of the Senate (only!))
See : International Agreements and U.S. Law / American Society of International Law
-------------
NOTE : It's not my point here to argue that international treaties shouldn't ever be subject to adoption by a super majority vote of the national legislative body; it's rather my point that, in Britain, they aren't and they never have been.
140proximity1
Meanwhile in France ...
"French PM bypasses parliament to force through labour laws /
Manuel Valls says he is acting in ‘general interest’ of French people, after four months of protests against the measures"
Democracy : love it (defend it) or lose (even the sham version of) it.
LE SCAN POLITIQUE - Manuel Valls a annoncé le recours au 49-3 après une ultime tentative de conciliation entre le gouvernement et les frondeurs.
On prend les mêmes et on recommence. Alors que la loi travail revient ce mardi à l'Assemblée pour un examen en seconde lecture, c'est un scénario déjà bien connu qui se confirme: celui du passage en force. À l'ouverture des débats, à 15h, Manuel Valls a annoncé aux députés son intention d'utiliser l'article 49-3 de la Constitution. «J'ai décidé d'engager la responsabilité du gouvernement sur le vote en nouvelle lecture», a-t-il assuré à la tribune, sous les huées des députés de droite, qui ont quitté l'hémicycle. «Je constate une alliance des contraires, des conservatismes et des immobilismes. Il y a ceux qui veulent la remise en cause de notre modèle sociale, c'est le projet de la droite, et ceux qui considèrent que plus de dialogue social dans l'entreprise, c'est moins de droits. Cette alliance c'est celle de ceux qui ne veulent rien changer», a dénoncé le premier ministre, reprochant aux adversaires du texte de «jouer avec les institutions à des fins politiciennes».
Un compromis avait pourtant été proposé par les députés frondeurs autour d'un amendement traitant de la majoration des heures supplémentaires. Signé par 130 députés socialistes, il tendait à modifier l'article 2 du projet de loi, objet de toutes les négociations, en limitant l'impact des accords d'entreprises sur la rémunération des heures supplémentaires. L'amendement a été débattu lors de la réunion de groupe PS, ce mardi matin, à l'Assemblée, mais l'exécutif y a opposé une fin de non recevoir, arguant que le contenu de l'amendement déposé était différent de ce qui avait été initialement promis. «Il y a un quiproquo et ces méthodes ne sont, me semble-t-il, pas tout à fait transparentes et pas tout à fait loyales entre nous», a assuré le secrétaire d'État aux Relations avec le Parlement Jean-Marie Le Guen.
story at Lefigaro.fr
141LolaWalser
>126 timspalding:
What inane bollocks. I didn't see you post about UK politics either before this mega-epic turbo-shambolic clusterfuck. Too busy beating your grandmother, no doubt.
What inane bollocks. I didn't see you post about UK politics either before this mega-epic turbo-shambolic clusterfuck. Too busy beating your grandmother, no doubt.
142jjwilson61
>133 proximity1: All social theories are approximations of reality's workings. No theory--including those you espouse--always works flawlessly. That's not a "problem" with people who have "faith in a theory," it's a fucking fact of life.
And therefore your theory can never be falsified. Can you even conceive that there might be a better system than pure democracy for making the most people happy and satisfied with their lives?
And therefore your theory can never be falsified. Can you even conceive that there might be a better system than pure democracy for making the most people happy and satisfied with their lives?
143proximity1
>142 jjwilson61:
Define "pure democracy." Then, when you've done that, show me where I've demanded that we implement it.
When you start reading attentively and stop distorting my positions, then we can discuss these things and if, at that point, your question above is relevant, I'll take it up.
Define "pure democracy." Then, when you've done that, show me where I've demanded that we implement it.
When you start reading attentively and stop distorting my positions, then we can discuss these things and if, at that point, your question above is relevant, I'll take it up.
144jjwilson61
>143 proximity1: Define "pure democracy."
Just distinguishing it from representational democracy. You're the one complaining about how everyone who thinks that referenda may not be the best thing in every circumstance is anti-democratic. Why don't you define what you mean by democracy.
Just distinguishing it from representational democracy. You're the one complaining about how everyone who thinks that referenda may not be the best thing in every circumstance is anti-democratic. Why don't you define what you mean by democracy.
145proximity1
I already have in the course of numerous comments. You're not paying attention.
e.g. >103 proximity1:
e.g. >103 proximity1:
146jjwilson61
>145 proximity1: Your right, I'm not paying really close attention since this isn't my job, it's just a pastime and your posts are not only numerous they are often full of barely intelligible ranting so I'm not inclined to read them too closely. However, the salient part of post 103 seems to be:
Democracy means, at a minimum that a political system's authority derives from and is practically accountable to the the general public as adult eligible voters in the aggregate through a democratic electoral process --by which all the primary posts of political power are allocated at least in the first instance . Essential to this are two bed-rock principles:
1) all votes "count," "weigh, " equally. This is most commonly described as "one voter, one vote."
2) in all but exceptional cases, a vote's result is determined by a victory for the group which receives a majority (50% + 1 or more ) of the votes cast by eligible voters participating.
Anything less is de facto minority-rule. You can dress it up however you like using your favorite goddamned mealy-mouthed terms --"consensus-respecting," "minority-rights centered," etc. but the result comes down to the same: a minority's wishes trump a majority in the determination of practice and policy.
I notice you don't say anything about who does the voting and what gets voted on, both very important for determining how the system works in practice. Is it still a democracy in your opinion when the people don't vote directly on legislation but they vote for a representative who does the voting? And if some elite controls the questions that are put up to a vote can that truly be democratic?
I particularly disagree with your statement that anything that isn't based on 50% + 1 voting is de facto minority rule. It can be, but if a system that is based on trying to come up with a solution that everyone can live with instead of one where one faction is very happy and another is miserable then I wouldn't call that minority rule. I believe John has mentioned systems like that before in Africa but I don't know the details. Hopefully he can step in with some more concrete examples.
I think part of the problem with Iraq is that we imposed a democratic system on them when a different system that took into account the various ethnic and religious groups to ensure that no one is left out of the political process would have led to a better outcome.
Democracy means, at a minimum that a political system's authority derives from and is practically accountable to the the general public as adult eligible voters in the aggregate through a democratic electoral process --by which all the primary posts of political power are allocated at least in the first instance . Essential to this are two bed-rock principles:
1) all votes "count," "weigh, " equally. This is most commonly described as "one voter, one vote."
2) in all but exceptional cases, a vote's result is determined by a victory for the group which receives a majority (50% + 1 or more ) of the votes cast by eligible voters participating.
Anything less is de facto minority-rule. You can dress it up however you like using your favorite goddamned mealy-mouthed terms --"consensus-respecting," "minority-rights centered," etc. but the result comes down to the same: a minority's wishes trump a majority in the determination of practice and policy.
I notice you don't say anything about who does the voting and what gets voted on, both very important for determining how the system works in practice. Is it still a democracy in your opinion when the people don't vote directly on legislation but they vote for a representative who does the voting? And if some elite controls the questions that are put up to a vote can that truly be democratic?
I particularly disagree with your statement that anything that isn't based on 50% + 1 voting is de facto minority rule. It can be, but if a system that is based on trying to come up with a solution that everyone can live with instead of one where one faction is very happy and another is miserable then I wouldn't call that minority rule. I believe John has mentioned systems like that before in Africa but I don't know the details. Hopefully he can step in with some more concrete examples.
I think part of the problem with Iraq is that we imposed a democratic system on them when a different system that took into account the various ethnic and religious groups to ensure that no one is left out of the political process would have led to a better outcome.
147prosfilaes
>103 proximity1: Anything less is de facto minority-rule. You can dress it up however you like using your favorite goddamned mealy-mouthed terms --"consensus-respecting," "minority-rights centered," etc. but the result comes down to the same: a minority's wishes trump a majority in the determination of practice and policy.
You brought up civil liberties in >127 proximity1:, but this theory is inconsistent with civil liberties. If 50% + 1 of the vote demands that Muslims leaving their houses must have an anal probe to make sure they're not carrying bombs, then anything else is "minority rule".
You seem to be running on the theory that we should all have our faith in democracy, and democracy is defined by how proximity1 defines it. You've refused to explain why we should all have our faith in democracy or moreover, democracy as you define it.
You brought up civil liberties in >127 proximity1:, but this theory is inconsistent with civil liberties. If 50% + 1 of the vote demands that Muslims leaving their houses must have an anal probe to make sure they're not carrying bombs, then anything else is "minority rule".
You seem to be running on the theory that we should all have our faith in democracy, and democracy is defined by how proximity1 defines it. You've refused to explain why we should all have our faith in democracy or moreover, democracy as you define it.
148theoria
>136 proximity1: Labour's High Sparrow and his Momentum starlings aren't sufficient to win an election.
149proximity1
>146 jjwilson61:
RE : "Your right, I'm not paying really close attention since this isn't my job, it's just a pastime and your posts are not only numerous they are often full of barely intelligible ranting so I'm not inclined to read them too closely."
you participate here by choice. As far as I'm aware, this isn't my job either; I don't get paid for this. That's not an excuse for not even reading enough to know what you're talking about.
If my posts are "barely intelligible" to you by your own admission, then you don't have the minimum reading comprehension to engage in a correspondence with me. I'll draw the obvious conclusions from that and not bother with someone who admits "Your (sic) right, I'm not paying really close attention since this isn't my job, it's just a pastime..."
Challenged to make sense, you offer that. Well, then, enough said.
RE : "Your right, I'm not paying really close attention since this isn't my job, it's just a pastime and your posts are not only numerous they are often full of barely intelligible ranting so I'm not inclined to read them too closely."
you participate here by choice. As far as I'm aware, this isn't my job either; I don't get paid for this. That's not an excuse for not even reading enough to know what you're talking about.
If my posts are "barely intelligible" to you by your own admission, then you don't have the minimum reading comprehension to engage in a correspondence with me. I'll draw the obvious conclusions from that and not bother with someone who admits "Your (sic) right, I'm not paying really close attention since this isn't my job, it's just a pastime..."
Challenged to make sense, you offer that. Well, then, enough said.
150jjwilson61
>149 proximity1: Whatever. I'd still like to hear your response to my points in >146 jjwilson61:.
151RickHarsch
>149 proximity1: Mr. Wilson did a fine job by admitting he was not steeped in the topic yet with patience detailed what he determined were faults in proximity1's arguments. I believe his post deserves an answer. I also believe that proximity1 posts a lot of perceptive and powerful stuff, but without, in most cases, the flexibility required to allow readers to see that. Arrogant posts put people off. What Mr. Wilson is not prepared to read, in any case, seems to be everything proximity writes, which is a very sane decision, lest he be drowned in minutiae of The Guardian's loon-to-loon comments pages.
152John5918
>146 jjwilson61:
I was roundly told off by proximity1 for suggesting that some people espouse "mathematical democracy". And yet that really seems to me to be what he is saying - my apologies for my inability to understand him any better. 50%+1, coupled with the belief that anything less is minority rule, is simple mathematical democracy.
I'm not sure whether the "In all but exceptional cases" are your words or proximity's (I'm afraid I must also apologise for not always being able to grasp everything that proximity writes on those long and frequent posts) but I would think constitutional amendments would qualify as exceptional cases.
I would not define democracy in terms of 50%+1, firstly because I believe democracy is a whole process and way of life, not simply an event that happens in polling booths, and secondly because other forms of democratic voting systems are well-established, including super-majorities for many types of ballots, and various forms of proportional representation.
I would also not hold up any particular form of democracy as the be-all and end-all. I believe the goal could perhaps better be described as participative governance, that is giving people a voice in how they are governed. There are a variety of ways of doing this, all of which have pros and cons, including but not limited to the form of democracy which proximity argues for.
I was roundly told off by proximity1 for suggesting that some people espouse "mathematical democracy". And yet that really seems to me to be what he is saying - my apologies for my inability to understand him any better. 50%+1, coupled with the belief that anything less is minority rule, is simple mathematical democracy.
I'm not sure whether the "In all but exceptional cases" are your words or proximity's (I'm afraid I must also apologise for not always being able to grasp everything that proximity writes on those long and frequent posts) but I would think constitutional amendments would qualify as exceptional cases.
I would not define democracy in terms of 50%+1, firstly because I believe democracy is a whole process and way of life, not simply an event that happens in polling booths, and secondly because other forms of democratic voting systems are well-established, including super-majorities for many types of ballots, and various forms of proportional representation.
I would also not hold up any particular form of democracy as the be-all and end-all. I believe the goal could perhaps better be described as participative governance, that is giving people a voice in how they are governed. There are a variety of ways of doing this, all of which have pros and cons, including but not limited to the form of democracy which proximity argues for.
153RickHarsch
>152 John5918: Something about being told you need to improve your reading comprehension skills is for some reason somehow off-putting (a threesome!). And it is worse when the one who wrote what you cannot understand or are too bored to read is the one telling you so.
154librorumamans
From today's Globe and Mail, a piece by two prominent professors at the University of Toronto: "Government by referendums is not democracy"
156proximity1
>152 John5918:
I agree that Constitutional amendments ought, on principle, be carried or lost by a super-majority votes. Exactly what percentage that should be is debatable. But I am able to explain and defend that principle by reasoned argument.
You, on the other hand, have done nothing to explain and reasonably defend your bald, unsupported assertion, ad nauseum, that E.U. membership is, apparently, according to some still-mysterious principle, on a par with a Constititional amendment. Nearly every time I challenge you to cite an example for various of your claims, you ignore it without comment.
Tell us: why is it or why should it be that E.U. membership is anything other than a policy choice subject to majority vote? Can you make that case soundly to someone who does not already agree with it? I've considered it and I don't find any compelling reason why such membership rises to that level.
Even now, having looked for it, I've found nothing at all to indicate that U.K. treaties have ever been rejected on other than a simple majority vote of Parliament.
There is even specific law relating to treaty-regulated bilateral relations between Britain and the E.U. and there, too, I found nothing to indicate a super majority vote for any purpose.
You pretend to hold such concern for minorities when, in fact, rule by majority-vote was conceived and won the day for the very morally-compelling reason that it is wrong--morally wrong-- for a minority to dictate policy to a larger majority (pluralities present special cases and have to be judged according to somewhat different considerations) and wrong to impose their will against the manifestly opposed majority's. The only exceptions concern principles which protect the minority's rights to try, through reasoned arguments, to win over a majority to their opinions--thus, the rights to assembly, speech, press, open debate and free and fair (one voter, one vote) balloting.
This is "Democratic theory 101" and you don't seem to even understand it.
There's a question and challenge here above for you to answer if you can or to ignore (again) if you can't.
I agree that Constitutional amendments ought, on principle, be carried or lost by a super-majority votes. Exactly what percentage that should be is debatable. But I am able to explain and defend that principle by reasoned argument.
You, on the other hand, have done nothing to explain and reasonably defend your bald, unsupported assertion, ad nauseum, that E.U. membership is, apparently, according to some still-mysterious principle, on a par with a Constititional amendment. Nearly every time I challenge you to cite an example for various of your claims, you ignore it without comment.
Tell us: why is it or why should it be that E.U. membership is anything other than a policy choice subject to majority vote? Can you make that case soundly to someone who does not already agree with it? I've considered it and I don't find any compelling reason why such membership rises to that level.
Even now, having looked for it, I've found nothing at all to indicate that U.K. treaties have ever been rejected on other than a simple majority vote of Parliament.
There is even specific law relating to treaty-regulated bilateral relations between Britain and the E.U. and there, too, I found nothing to indicate a super majority vote for any purpose.
You pretend to hold such concern for minorities when, in fact, rule by majority-vote was conceived and won the day for the very morally-compelling reason that it is wrong--morally wrong-- for a minority to dictate policy to a larger majority (pluralities present special cases and have to be judged according to somewhat different considerations) and wrong to impose their will against the manifestly opposed majority's. The only exceptions concern principles which protect the minority's rights to try, through reasoned arguments, to win over a majority to their opinions--thus, the rights to assembly, speech, press, open debate and free and fair (one voter, one vote) balloting.
This is "Democratic theory 101" and you don't seem to even understand it.
There's a question and challenge here above for you to answer if you can or to ignore (again) if you can't.
157prosfilaes
>156 proximity1: why is it or why should it be that E.U. membership is anything other than a policy choice subject to majority vote?
It amounts to a form of citizenship, like Scotland's membership in the UK.
The only exceptions concern principles which protect the minority's rights to try, through reasoned arguments, to win over a majority to their opinions--thus, the rights to assembly, speech, press, open debate and free and fair (one voter, one vote) balloting.
In other words, you believe that 50% + 1 of the people should be able to require that Muslims have an anal probe to search for bombs before they leave their house.
it is wrong--morally wrong-- for a minority to dictate policy to a larger majority
I don't agree. What's important is that policy is right, and some form of democracy is so far the best way of achieving that. The problem with a philosopher king is it doesn't work in practice, not that the perfect leader wouldn't have the right to shape the perfect policy.
It amounts to a form of citizenship, like Scotland's membership in the UK.
The only exceptions concern principles which protect the minority's rights to try, through reasoned arguments, to win over a majority to their opinions--thus, the rights to assembly, speech, press, open debate and free and fair (one voter, one vote) balloting.
In other words, you believe that 50% + 1 of the people should be able to require that Muslims have an anal probe to search for bombs before they leave their house.
it is wrong--morally wrong-- for a minority to dictate policy to a larger majority
I don't agree. What's important is that policy is right, and some form of democracy is so far the best way of achieving that. The problem with a philosopher king is it doesn't work in practice, not that the perfect leader wouldn't have the right to shape the perfect policy.
158RickHarsch
156 'This is "Democratic theory 101" and you don't seem to even understand it.' Poor John the fireman, who can't seem to understand...well, one person out of quite many...
159jjwilson61
>156 proximity1: You're looking at this like someone has to win and someone has to lose. Wouldn't a solution where both the 51% and the 49% are happy with the outcome better than one where one group is ecstatic and the other miserable?
160John5918
>157 prosfilaes: It amounts to a form of citizenship
Precisely. I am being deprived of EU citizenship without my consent and without having committed any crime.
>159 jjwilson61: You're looking at this like someone has to win and someone has to lose. Wouldn't a solution where both the 51% and the 49% are happy with the outcome better than one where one group is ecstatic and the other miserable?
Again, precisely. Win-win is better than win-lose. A perfect consensus of 100% is unlikely, but seeking a solution which as many people as possible can buy into is not "minority rule". Both the previous UK-wide referenda achieved a 2/3 majority.
"Minority rule" is what happened in South Africa, for example, where about 5% of the population prevented the other 95% from even voting, so it is very misleading for proximity to use the term in relation to all systems of democracy other than simple mathematical democracy.
Edited to add: Just reading today's Grauniad and I think Neil Kinnock sums up my feeling about why this particular vote is so important that it should have required more of a consensus:
Kinnock suffered two general election defeats as Labour leader, but 23 June was the worst of his lifetime. “Simply because everything else that’s ever happened that’s bad has been redeemable or reversible. This is of a different dimension.”
Precisely. I am being deprived of EU citizenship without my consent and without having committed any crime.
>159 jjwilson61: You're looking at this like someone has to win and someone has to lose. Wouldn't a solution where both the 51% and the 49% are happy with the outcome better than one where one group is ecstatic and the other miserable?
Again, precisely. Win-win is better than win-lose. A perfect consensus of 100% is unlikely, but seeking a solution which as many people as possible can buy into is not "minority rule". Both the previous UK-wide referenda achieved a 2/3 majority.
"Minority rule" is what happened in South Africa, for example, where about 5% of the population prevented the other 95% from even voting, so it is very misleading for proximity to use the term in relation to all systems of democracy other than simple mathematical democracy.
Edited to add: Just reading today's Grauniad and I think Neil Kinnock sums up my feeling about why this particular vote is so important that it should have required more of a consensus:
Kinnock suffered two general election defeats as Labour leader, but 23 June was the worst of his lifetime. “Simply because everything else that’s ever happened that’s bad has been redeemable or reversible. This is of a different dimension.”
161proximity1
>160 John5918:
( It amounts to a form of citizenship )
"I am being deprived of EU citizenship without my consent and without having committed any crime."
This is a reasoned argument?!
No, it does not "amount to" "a form of citizenship."
Your citizenship is a legal status which you hold by circumstances of your place of birth or your parentage or both of these or by the fact that you have have become a naturalized-citizen via a formal application process.
The first two of these three avenues to citizenship are granted without qualifying for or requesting their recognition on any case by case basis. You aren't "a European Union citizen". There are no such "citizens" because, neither legally nor in any other practical sense does the European Union (or any of its preceding forms) confer "citizenship" on anyone.
You may be or may not be a citizen of a nation state which is, as a nation state, a member of the European Union but that is not an extra "citizenship,"--it's a contingent condition of your citizenship in a nation which, as it may happen, belongs to the E.U. You have no more inherent right to be a citizen of an E.U. member-nation than does a Norwegian or a Swiss citizen.
"Membership" in the European Union is confered by application--for pity's fucking sake!--not by "right"! --and that membership is granted or denied to nation-state applicants, not to individuals.
If you doubt this, then go file a suit at the ECJ for wrongful revocation of your E.U. "citizenship" and let us know how that suit goes.
Do you have any valid argument?
( It amounts to a form of citizenship )
"I am being deprived of EU citizenship without my consent and without having committed any crime."
This is a reasoned argument?!
No, it does not "amount to" "a form of citizenship."
Your citizenship is a legal status which you hold by circumstances of your place of birth or your parentage or both of these or by the fact that you have have become a naturalized-citizen via a formal application process.
The first two of these three avenues to citizenship are granted without qualifying for or requesting their recognition on any case by case basis. You aren't "a European Union citizen". There are no such "citizens" because, neither legally nor in any other practical sense does the European Union (or any of its preceding forms) confer "citizenship" on anyone.
You may be or may not be a citizen of a nation state which is, as a nation state, a member of the European Union but that is not an extra "citizenship,"--it's a contingent condition of your citizenship in a nation which, as it may happen, belongs to the E.U. You have no more inherent right to be a citizen of an E.U. member-nation than does a Norwegian or a Swiss citizen.
"Membership" in the European Union is confered by application--for pity's fucking sake!--not by "right"! --and that membership is granted or denied to nation-state applicants, not to individuals.
If you doubt this, then go file a suit at the ECJ for wrongful revocation of your E.U. "citizenship" and let us know how that suit goes.
Do you have any valid argument?
162prosfilaes
>161 proximity1: neither legally nor in any other practical sense does the European Union (or any of its preceding forms) confer "citizenship on anyone.
I can travel without passport or visa within the entire United States, and have the right to take permanent residence and work anywhere within that area without question. A resident of the EU can do the same within the EU. That seems like citizenship, or a major important part thereof, in a practical sense.
This is a reasoned argument?! ... Do you any valid argument?
You offer us italics, bold, underlining, exclamation points and even question mark-exclamation points ("?!"). That doesn't impress people with how reasonable you are. No, we probably don't have any arguments that will impress you, but that doesn't mean that we don't have reason behind our argument.
I can travel without passport or visa within the entire United States, and have the right to take permanent residence and work anywhere within that area without question. A resident of the EU can do the same within the EU. That seems like citizenship, or a major important part thereof, in a practical sense.
This is a reasoned argument?! ... Do you any valid argument?
You offer us italics, bold, underlining, exclamation points and even question mark-exclamation points ("?!"). That doesn't impress people with how reasonable you are. No, we probably don't have any arguments that will impress you, but that doesn't mean that we don't have reason behind our argument.
163proximity1
>162 prosfilaes:
..."A resident of the EU can do the same within the EU."
That's factually false--concerning movement within the E.U.
It happens in certain cases that one can cross borders freely without being checked systematically for travel documents --
e.g. from Belgium to Holland, from Holland to Germany, Germany to Poland, Germany to France or Switzerland, Switzerland to France. You can even go from France to Italy without showing a travel document. But if you try going back to France from Italy, I recommend you have valid travel documents if you expect to be granted entry. That may be a violation of the formal terms of the E.U. laws of free movement, but that's a difference between what one may do in the U.S. and may not do consistently in the E.U.
..."A resident of the EU can do the same within the EU."
That's factually false--concerning movement within the E.U.
It happens in certain cases that one can cross borders freely without being checked systematically for travel documents --
e.g. from Belgium to Holland, from Holland to Germany, Germany to Poland, Germany to France or Switzerland, Switzerland to France. You can even go from France to Italy without showing a travel document. But if you try going back to France from Italy, I recommend you have valid travel documents if you expect to be granted entry. That may be a violation of the formal terms of the E.U. laws of free movement, but that's a difference between what one may do in the U.S. and may not do consistently in the E.U.
164John5918
Today's Grauniad/Observer:
Cameron did not, for example, opt for a referendum on the EU chiefly to cater to democracy. He did what he did to placate his party’s Eurosceptic wing and in an attempt to scuttle Ukip. Shouldn’t some thought be given as to how, in the future, we might better protect our politics from such partisan, cynical and lazy deployments of this device: a device that by definition reduces the most complex and technical questions to a crude “yes” or “no”?
165proximity1
>164 John5918:
That is just precious! Cameron is proposing the public vote on Britain's E.U. membership --but wait everybody! This shouldn't be regarded as due to some particular regard for democracy on Cameron's part ! No! Instead, as this stupid columnist puts it, Cameron is not "catering to democracy" * --whatever the fuck that really means; still, we're obviously supposed to view it with shock and horror--the way you view all majority-votes which aren't overwhelming in their lop-sided character.
At the polling station :
" YOUR voter registration paper, please. ( Reading the register book) Mr. Smith of 34 High Street. Are you still residing at 34 High Street? "
" I am. And for the past sixty years."
"Very well. Now, Mr. Smith, what's your purpose in voting today? "
"I'm here to vote on the referenfum question. Is there any other? "
"No, it's the only one. I mean to ask, what is your motive for coming today?"
"My motive? My motive is to vote."
" Yes, of course. But why do you want to vote?"
" Why vote? Because there's a question put before us, of course!"
"So you're here to cater to democracy, then?"
"Don't know that I'd call it 'catering'. See here young man, are you going to give me a ballot paper or not? "
" I believe I understand, Mr. Smith. Please go ahead and to the left, through the door marked "Exit."
--------------
* My original post inadvertently omitted the negative : "not catering to democracy." Correction thanks to jjwilson's observation @ his post #168 below.
That is just precious! Cameron is proposing the public vote on Britain's E.U. membership --but wait everybody! This shouldn't be regarded as due to some particular regard for democracy on Cameron's part ! No! Instead, as this stupid columnist puts it, Cameron is not "catering to democracy" * --whatever the fuck that really means; still, we're obviously supposed to view it with shock and horror--the way you view all majority-votes which aren't overwhelming in their lop-sided character.
At the polling station :
" YOUR voter registration paper, please. ( Reading the register book) Mr. Smith of 34 High Street. Are you still residing at 34 High Street? "
" I am. And for the past sixty years."
"Very well. Now, Mr. Smith, what's your purpose in voting today? "
"I'm here to vote on the referenfum question. Is there any other? "
"No, it's the only one. I mean to ask, what is your motive for coming today?"
"My motive? My motive is to vote."
" Yes, of course. But why do you want to vote?"
" Why vote? Because there's a question put before us, of course!"
"So you're here to cater to democracy, then?"
"Don't know that I'd call it 'catering'. See here young man, are you going to give me a ballot paper or not? "
" I believe I understand, Mr. Smith. Please go ahead and to the left, through the door marked "Exit."
--------------
* My original post inadvertently omitted the negative : "not catering to democracy." Correction thanks to jjwilson's observation @ his post #168 below.
166lriley
#165--It's always funny when the vote desired is not the one they get--then afterwards 'it's stupid voters--too much democracy'. The thing hardly considered or acknowledged by most politicians are the things voters actually want. The American election is a case in point--the republican establishment for instance put their best brand names (Bush, Rubio, Walker, Christie, Cruz etc. etc.) out in the public domain as potential presidential nominees and nobody wanted them. Instead republican voters chose Trump who nobody in the media or Washington thought had a snowball's chance in hell and even back in March and April when it was pretty much Trump clobbering them in primary after primary they were still flummoxed--still thinking that knucklehead Rubio or Lying Ted was going to pull a rabbit out of the hat. There's an ignorance by most all politicos in both parties of their base electorate--the media hasn't figured it out either. At this point I don't think the message is going to get through in this election cycle. Clinton is almost certainly going to win in November and she doesn't get it either----that there are loads and loads and loads of people who don't like them---don't like what they're doing---whether it's Middle Eastern wars, immigration, climate change, the economy, health care---what have you. Four years of Hillary I'm afraid is not going to erase the feelings that people have towards their elected representatives--I'm thinking four years of Hillary is going to build an even greater divide to bridge.....and the same goes for the Donald (though the bridge might need to be just a bit longer in his case).
What it comes to more than anything IMO is not stupid voters--it's ignorant and/or corrupted politicians and the crap choices they give people to choose from.
What it comes to more than anything IMO is not stupid voters--it's ignorant and/or corrupted politicians and the crap choices they give people to choose from.
167southernbooklady
>166 lriley: Instead republican voters chose Trump who nobody in the media or Washington thought had a snowball's chance in hell
Trump doesn't strike as the kind of guy people vote for as the lesser of two evils. The people who support him, like him. God knows why.
Trump doesn't strike as the kind of guy people vote for as the lesser of two evils. The people who support him, like him. God knows why.
168jjwilson61
>165 proximity1: This shouldn't be regarded as due to some particular regard for democracy on Cameron's part ! No! Instead, as this stupid columnist puts it, Cameron is "catering to democracy"--whatever the fuck that really means,
You got it precisely backwards. The columnist said that Cameron was *not* catering to democracy.
You got it precisely backwards. The columnist said that Cameron was *not* catering to democracy.
169proximity1
RE >168 jjwilson61:
My mistake : indeed, I did mean to write it that way while asking WTF is this "not to cater to democracy" supposed to mean? As I see it, "catering to democracy" is and is intended to be understood as a slur--on democracy itself, of course. But we're told Cameron wasn't even doing anything which even "rose" to that level. No, he was even worse. He was catering to his own party's supposed internal factions' relationship-mending. {I'm amending my copy above accordingly. }
My mistake : indeed, I did mean to write it that way while asking WTF is this "not to cater to democracy" supposed to mean? As I see it, "catering to democracy" is and is intended to be understood as a slur--on democracy itself, of course. But we're told Cameron wasn't even doing anything which even "rose" to that level. No, he was even worse. He was catering to his own party's supposed internal factions' relationship-mending. {I'm amending my copy above accordingly. }
170timspalding
Trump doesn't strike as the kind of guy people vote for as the lesser of two evils. The people who support him, like him. God knows why.
I think his "final bounce," that brought him well above 50% in the final primaries, involved some "rallying round the nominee." But overall, yeah.
I think his "final bounce," that brought him well above 50% in the final primaries, involved some "rallying round the nominee." But overall, yeah.
171lriley
#167--there are a lot of those for sure but there were a lot of 'I hate Bush' republicans that Rubio didn't do much for either. Of the 17 or so people who ran for the republican presidential nomination the one who got the most traction against the Donald was Ted Cruz who though an elected politician was and is despised universally by his own colleagues in both the house and the Senate and Ted never really posed a serious threat to the Donald. I think there's a lot of buyer's remorse from those who voted and landslided Trump into being their nominee--OTOH it's crystal clear to at least me that the GOP's establishment politicians who got such pathetic numbers in the primaries and caucuses are persona non grata with their own electoral base at least on the national level. I don't know for instance how Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio could justify to themselves or anybody else making another run in say 2020--not when they were bringing in 3--or 4 % this time around.
This is something that a lot of democrats don't seem to see---the damage that Trump's candidacy has done to the republican party is on a multitude of levels. All they seem to see is the boogeyman. The careful branding--all the vetting done by party leaders and big $ donors and the media building people like Jeb Bush up and it's all for nought this time around--collapsed like a house of cards. 15 months ago Jeb Bush was the 'anointed' and now he is pretty much irrecoverable as a national party leader--he's dog food. It speaks to how out of touch the republicans have become to their own voting base--and being out of touch as a politician is not a good place to be. Some of the same could be said for the democrats this year---it just didn't reach the same level--but it's getting there. They need to reconnect--not to continue down the same paths. I have little doubt that Hillary is going to win in November--that being said she is maybe the least popular politician that the democrats could have nominated. It doesn't really bode will for the Democratic party's future.
This is something that a lot of democrats don't seem to see---the damage that Trump's candidacy has done to the republican party is on a multitude of levels. All they seem to see is the boogeyman. The careful branding--all the vetting done by party leaders and big $ donors and the media building people like Jeb Bush up and it's all for nought this time around--collapsed like a house of cards. 15 months ago Jeb Bush was the 'anointed' and now he is pretty much irrecoverable as a national party leader--he's dog food. It speaks to how out of touch the republicans have become to their own voting base--and being out of touch as a politician is not a good place to be. Some of the same could be said for the democrats this year---it just didn't reach the same level--but it's getting there. They need to reconnect--not to continue down the same paths. I have little doubt that Hillary is going to win in November--that being said she is maybe the least popular politician that the democrats could have nominated. It doesn't really bode will for the Democratic party's future.
172southernbooklady
>171 lriley: I think there's a lot of buyer's remorse from those who voted and landslided Trump into being their nominee
Why do you think so? Is this not simply a case of, as you put it:
"It's always funny when the vote desired is not the one they get--then afterwards 'it's stupid voters--too much democracy'. The thing hardly considered or acknowledged by most politicians are the things voters actually want.
Presumably the Republican base voters wanted Trump. They didn't seem to me to be rejecting the other less charismatic contenders -- what was there to reject, after all? they were all pretty similar-- but embracing him. It seems like a pretty active, solid endorsement by Republican party voters to me.
Why do you think so? Is this not simply a case of, as you put it:
"It's always funny when the vote desired is not the one they get--then afterwards 'it's stupid voters--too much democracy'. The thing hardly considered or acknowledged by most politicians are the things voters actually want.
Presumably the Republican base voters wanted Trump. They didn't seem to me to be rejecting the other less charismatic contenders -- what was there to reject, after all? they were all pretty similar-- but embracing him. It seems like a pretty active, solid endorsement by Republican party voters to me.
173timspalding
I think there's a lot of buyer's remorse from those who voted and landslided Trump into being their nominee
I'm not sure that's true. But many are saying it. As Brexit has shown us, the new way of coping with psychologically discordant electoral defeat is to imagine that people regret their votes now.
I'm not sure that's true. But many are saying it. As Brexit has shown us, the new way of coping with psychologically discordant electoral defeat is to imagine that people regret their votes now.
174timspalding
Presumably the Republican base voters wanted Trump
Trump's a weird situation, though. He's hated by much of the traditional base. I'm depressed by the willingness of so many "religious" voters to embrace the man, but he did best among secular Republicans, and has significant weakness in some core Republican states, like Utah. Mormons just don't like the guy!
Sinclair Lewis once said that "When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Honestly, I would have thought so. But, actually, it's turned out to be wrapped in a flag, and largely secular. But it's boiling over with economic grievances and straight up racist bigotry.
Trump's a weird situation, though. He's hated by much of the traditional base. I'm depressed by the willingness of so many "religious" voters to embrace the man, but he did best among secular Republicans, and has significant weakness in some core Republican states, like Utah. Mormons just don't like the guy!
Sinclair Lewis once said that "When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Honestly, I would have thought so. But, actually, it's turned out to be wrapped in a flag, and largely secular. But it's boiling over with economic grievances and straight up racist bigotry.
175southernbooklady
>174 timspalding: Trump's a weird situation, though. He's hated by much of the traditional base. I'm depressed by the willingness of so many "religious" voters to embrace the man, but he did best among secular Republicans
Do you think it's evidence that the "traditional religious base" of the American voting public has been over-estimated? Or is losing influence or relevancy?
Do you think it's evidence that the "traditional religious base" of the American voting public has been over-estimated? Or is losing influence or relevancy?
176timspalding
>175 southernbooklady:
Well, I think we've seen that most of them were Republicans first, Christians second. This is not surprising; we've gotten more and more polarized culturally. There are people for whom God and neighbor truly come first, but for most, loving Jesus goes with loving country music, car racing, guns and border walls the way loving kale goes with Whole Foods, Hamilton, Stephen Colbert and Upworthy videos.
If you ask me, it's not just Republicans who are susceptible here. I can imagine a nightmare Democratic nominee, who abandoned basic liberal and American principles, but wrapped it in all the "right" group-identity symbols. Fascism wrapped in a rainbow flag and drinking a $5 latte, perhaps. So far, apart from some powerless exceptions on campus, we haven't seen much of this. So you are free to think Democrats are different and better.
I know everyone hates the religious right, but I view Trump and his secular Republican bigots as everything bad about the religious right without any of what's good. Sincere religious commitment may go wrong, but it's still an ideal of the good, with certain important goals and limits. Trump's power comes from a darker, more primal place.
Anyway, if fascism every comes, you'll see the resisters at the margins--both the passionate anarchist leftists in Vermont and the fifth-generation Mormons in Utah. Studies of the Holocaust show that the helpers came from "left" and "right," but were all people who stood apart from the culture, unshakeably committed to values that don't line up. Mere cultural allegiances and political disagreements aren't enough.
Well, I think we've seen that most of them were Republicans first, Christians second. This is not surprising; we've gotten more and more polarized culturally. There are people for whom God and neighbor truly come first, but for most, loving Jesus goes with loving country music, car racing, guns and border walls the way loving kale goes with Whole Foods, Hamilton, Stephen Colbert and Upworthy videos.
If you ask me, it's not just Republicans who are susceptible here. I can imagine a nightmare Democratic nominee, who abandoned basic liberal and American principles, but wrapped it in all the "right" group-identity symbols. Fascism wrapped in a rainbow flag and drinking a $5 latte, perhaps. So far, apart from some powerless exceptions on campus, we haven't seen much of this. So you are free to think Democrats are different and better.
I know everyone hates the religious right, but I view Trump and his secular Republican bigots as everything bad about the religious right without any of what's good. Sincere religious commitment may go wrong, but it's still an ideal of the good, with certain important goals and limits. Trump's power comes from a darker, more primal place.
Anyway, if fascism every comes, you'll see the resisters at the margins--both the passionate anarchist leftists in Vermont and the fifth-generation Mormons in Utah. Studies of the Holocaust show that the helpers came from "left" and "right," but were all people who stood apart from the culture, unshakeably committed to values that don't line up. Mere cultural allegiances and political disagreements aren't enough.
177prosfilaes
>166 lriley: there are loads and loads and loads of people who don't like them---don't like what they're doing---whether it's Middle Eastern wars, immigration, climate change, the economy, health care---what have you.
I would say the voters are going to the extremes, but the problem is I don't think it's as unified as you imply. Everyone is unhappy with what Congress is going with climate change, because some large fraction of Americans want us to put the brakes on global warming, and some large fraction of Americans believe it's a plot to stop them from driving their SUVs. The compromises Congress and the President have got through make no one happy. Likewise with immigration and health care.
The latest Iraqi war doesn't have many fans in retrospect, but ISIS, well, a recent poll on the matter was 50/50 for Americans desiring inserting ground soliders into the conflict. Support for Israel is less diverse than I thought: 62% favor the Israelis and only 15% favor the Palestinians. Which seems to largely match what we're doing in that conflict.
One of my big concerns is that a populace that tends towards moderate political opinions, with a president and Congress that come from moderate political parties with moderate political positions will have a working political system. A populace that has many people on the extremes and few in the middle with political parties that reflect that is in for big internal trouble.
I would say the voters are going to the extremes, but the problem is I don't think it's as unified as you imply. Everyone is unhappy with what Congress is going with climate change, because some large fraction of Americans want us to put the brakes on global warming, and some large fraction of Americans believe it's a plot to stop them from driving their SUVs. The compromises Congress and the President have got through make no one happy. Likewise with immigration and health care.
The latest Iraqi war doesn't have many fans in retrospect, but ISIS, well, a recent poll on the matter was 50/50 for Americans desiring inserting ground soliders into the conflict. Support for Israel is less diverse than I thought: 62% favor the Israelis and only 15% favor the Palestinians. Which seems to largely match what we're doing in that conflict.
One of my big concerns is that a populace that tends towards moderate political opinions, with a president and Congress that come from moderate political parties with moderate political positions will have a working political system. A populace that has many people on the extremes and few in the middle with political parties that reflect that is in for big internal trouble.
178southernbooklady
>176 timspalding: If you ask me, it's not just Republicans who are susceptible here. I can imagine a nightmare Democratic nominee, who abandoned basic liberal and American principles, but wrapped it in all the "right" group-identity symbols.
Oomph. You sound bitter. Your response makes me think two things -- first, that you seem to think whatever was good about the Republican "traditional" values comes from their religiousness. That in effect they should be "Christians first, Republicans second" and not the other way around.
That strikes me as untenable in a political party, especially in an increasingly diverse country. Surely, whatever was good about the Republican platform has to be founded on set of civic values, of which "Christian" would only be one descriptive. Presumably there would have to be a concept of "conservative" that would reach beyond "Christian" to resonate with secular and non-Christian conservatives.
(Don't really get the whole kale/Whole Foods thing, that seems like a pretty reductive description of liberalism)
The other thing I think is that if such a creature as you describe came to the forefront on the liberal side -- "abandoning basic liberal principles but wrapped up in the right group identity symbols" it wouldn't look like what you are describing. I suspect, instead, it would look hedonistic rather than fascist, promoting individuality but unconcerned with the consequences who might be hurt by all that self-centered preoccupation. It's the kind of thing that would manifest in, say, free contraception for everyone, but not place any emphasis on the importance of being sexually responsible.
But I honestly wasn't trying to pick on Joe GOP here. I was just wondering if the idea we have of the regular Republican voter is inaccurate. I kind of think of him (or her) as along the lines of people like my neighbors or my mechanic. Good people, who go to church but aren't evangelical, who are patriotic, tend to disapprove of Obama (my mechanic is currently blaming him for the rising price of tires), but whose priorities are more about the economy than about whether or not gay people can get married. In short, they aren't tea-partiers, and the religiousness that is a factor in their life may not be what's driving their vote on many issues. They just don't seem to line up neatly with the talking point list the media touts as the typical conservative voter. They are not, for example, blatantly racist. Not in the slightest.
Oomph. You sound bitter. Your response makes me think two things -- first, that you seem to think whatever was good about the Republican "traditional" values comes from their religiousness. That in effect they should be "Christians first, Republicans second" and not the other way around.
That strikes me as untenable in a political party, especially in an increasingly diverse country. Surely, whatever was good about the Republican platform has to be founded on set of civic values, of which "Christian" would only be one descriptive. Presumably there would have to be a concept of "conservative" that would reach beyond "Christian" to resonate with secular and non-Christian conservatives.
(Don't really get the whole kale/Whole Foods thing, that seems like a pretty reductive description of liberalism)
The other thing I think is that if such a creature as you describe came to the forefront on the liberal side -- "abandoning basic liberal principles but wrapped up in the right group identity symbols" it wouldn't look like what you are describing. I suspect, instead, it would look hedonistic rather than fascist, promoting individuality but unconcerned with the consequences who might be hurt by all that self-centered preoccupation. It's the kind of thing that would manifest in, say, free contraception for everyone, but not place any emphasis on the importance of being sexually responsible.
But I honestly wasn't trying to pick on Joe GOP here. I was just wondering if the idea we have of the regular Republican voter is inaccurate. I kind of think of him (or her) as along the lines of people like my neighbors or my mechanic. Good people, who go to church but aren't evangelical, who are patriotic, tend to disapprove of Obama (my mechanic is currently blaming him for the rising price of tires), but whose priorities are more about the economy than about whether or not gay people can get married. In short, they aren't tea-partiers, and the religiousness that is a factor in their life may not be what's driving their vote on many issues. They just don't seem to line up neatly with the talking point list the media touts as the typical conservative voter. They are not, for example, blatantly racist. Not in the slightest.
179jjwilson61
>178 southernbooklady: (Don't really get the whole kale/Whole Foods thing, that seems like a pretty reductive description of liberalism)
Yeah. And what was that bit about Hamilton? I would have thought that worship of Founding Fathers was a Republican thing. Or is it that only Democrats are cool enough for rap?
Yeah. And what was that bit about Hamilton? I would have thought that worship of Founding Fathers was a Republican thing. Or is it that only Democrats are cool enough for rap?
180prosfilaes
>178 southernbooklady: The other thing I think is that if such a creature as you describe came to the forefront on the liberal side -- "abandoning basic liberal principles but wrapped up in the right group identity symbols" it wouldn't look like what you are describing. I suspect, instead, it would look hedonistic rather than fascist, promoting individuality but unconcerned with the consequences who might be hurt by all that self-centered preoccupation. It's the kind of thing that would manifest in, say, free contraception for everyone, but not place any emphasis on the importance of being sexually responsible.
The 20th century extreme right is fascism and extreme left is communism. I can see a populist left movement being big on free college, free health care, etc. with the detailed plan of "eat the rich".
The 20th century extreme right is fascism and extreme left is communism. I can see a populist left movement being big on free college, free health care, etc. with the detailed plan of "eat the rich".
181southernbooklady
>180 prosfilaes: The 20th century extreme right is fascism and extreme left is communism. I can see a populist left movement being big on free college, free health care, etc. with the detailed plan of "eat the rich".
You'd think such a plan would run out of things to eat pretty quickly. :-)
You'd think such a plan would run out of things to eat pretty quickly. :-)
182timspalding
That in effect they should be "Christians first, Republicans second" and not the other way around.
I think Christians should always be Christians first, and everything else second. This does not mean that Christianity provides lots of political answers. But it sets up certain foundational principles.
I think a Christian can take many positions about fighting terrorism. But they can't take Donald Trump's position:
Similarly, I don't buy that Christians should only vote for other Christians, but it's disgusting how quickly some Christian leaders, who talked incessantly about the importance of electing candidates with "values"--and who would never vote for a pious and good Muslim--have embraced a man whose Christianity is entirely bogus and for show, and whose moral life has been a disreputable and unrepentant shambles.
By contrast, men like Russell More give me some hope. And Romney. The latter is a pragmetist, but however few principles he has, they are sincere and deep and they will not allow him to do other than oppose Trump to the bitter end.
That strikes me as untenable in a political party, especially in an increasingly diverse country. Surely, whatever was good about the Republican platform has to be founded on set of civic values, of which "Christian" would only be one descriptive. Presumably there would have to be a concept of "conservative" that would reach beyond "Christian" to resonate with secular and non-Christian conservatives.
I don't really disagree with you here. I am not very sympathetic to the "moral conservative" side of the Republican party. But there was something good in the early 2000s effort to expand the GOP by appealing to Latinos and Muslims, whose cultural values are indeed often in sync with "Republican" values.
There's disagreement, but most believe that Bush won the Muslim vote in 2000 by a wide margin. Trump will be lucky to get double-digit percents for Latinos, and above the decimal point for Muslims!
(Don't really get the whole kale/Whole Foods thing, that seems like a pretty reductive description of liberalism)
Yes, both were reductive, intentionally. Some liberals like country music. Some conservatives like kale. The problem is that reduction is increasingly true. More and more, find out what someone likes to eat, where they live, or where and whether they go to church on Sunday, and you can usually guess their party.
This is a big discussion, but just take location. I'm sure you've seen this chart:
As recently as 1992, only 28% of districts were "landslide" district, that went for one party or the other by more than 20%, and 23% were "swing distincts," where less than 5% separate the two parties. Today, 55% are landslide, 8% swing. Americans are sorting with a veangence, and it's happening across every aspect of the culture. From breaking down barriers, the online world is now a central reinforcer of them.
I think I notice it more, because I've been noticing the intersection of culture and politics, majority and minority views my whole life. I grew up in a moderate Republican household in hyper-educated and -privileged--which is to say liberal--Cambridge, MA. My 8th grade teacher went to the Soviet Union and brought us back Lenin pins--and it wasn't an ironic joke! Truth be told, I prefer the very hard left of my youth to the satisifed left of today.
I suspect, instead, it would look hedonistic rather than fascist
Maybe. If so, I wouldn't be against it in the same way, or perhaps not at all. But I see problems on the left, especially with regard to free speech and tolerance of dissent. Time was when the ALCU's defense of the KKK march in Skokie was a triumph of liberal values, and the cure for bad speech was more speech. Few on the campus left see things in those terms any more.
Yeah. And what was that bit about Hamilton? I would have thought that worship of Founding Fathers was a Republican thing. Or is it that only Democrats are cool enough for rap?
I am a cultural liberal--except for the kale. And I love Hamilton. It's now tied with Les Miserables as my favorite musical. But it's a strong cultural signifier, and one that makes a business of tying itself to other signifiers. When Justin Trudeau went to Hamilton, my liberal friends just about lost consciousness.
It's the kind of thing that would manifest in, say, free contraception for everyone, but not place any emphasis on the importance of being sexually responsible.
We have something close to free contraception for everyone. But instead of having the government pay for it directly, the state requires employers to pay for it directly, which many believe this puts them in a position of cooperation with evil. I don't agree with the view, but I see the problem.
The sort of dystopia I'm talking about will happen when everyone is entitled to free abortion, euthanasia, and embryo manipulation and improvement, and church-owned hospitals, care facilities and doctors that refuse to provide them will be strong-armed into compliance.
( To this end, see the Catholic old age home in Belgium, sued for not assisting in the euthanasia of a resident http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2016/01/08/catholic-care-home-sued-for-refu... )
I can see a populist left movement being big on free college, free health care, etc. with the detailed plan of "eat the rich"
I would oppose that, but it would be just a policy issue. And I see good reasons to tax the rich more--both financially and to do something about inequality.
Calls to end religious hospitals and schools, and subvert the First Amendment with European-style "hate speech" laws would be different.
I think Christians should always be Christians first, and everything else second. This does not mean that Christianity provides lots of political answers. But it sets up certain foundational principles.
I think a Christian can take many positions about fighting terrorism. But they can't take Donald Trump's position:
"And the other thing is with the terrorists, you have to take out their families. They, they care about their lives. Don’t kid yourself. But they say they don’t care about their lives. You have to take out their families."No one who values morality can support such a position. But, as a Christian, I think those who support the intentional targeting of innocents have turned their back on Christ.
Similarly, I don't buy that Christians should only vote for other Christians, but it's disgusting how quickly some Christian leaders, who talked incessantly about the importance of electing candidates with "values"--and who would never vote for a pious and good Muslim--have embraced a man whose Christianity is entirely bogus and for show, and whose moral life has been a disreputable and unrepentant shambles.
By contrast, men like Russell More give me some hope. And Romney. The latter is a pragmetist, but however few principles he has, they are sincere and deep and they will not allow him to do other than oppose Trump to the bitter end.
That strikes me as untenable in a political party, especially in an increasingly diverse country. Surely, whatever was good about the Republican platform has to be founded on set of civic values, of which "Christian" would only be one descriptive. Presumably there would have to be a concept of "conservative" that would reach beyond "Christian" to resonate with secular and non-Christian conservatives.
I don't really disagree with you here. I am not very sympathetic to the "moral conservative" side of the Republican party. But there was something good in the early 2000s effort to expand the GOP by appealing to Latinos and Muslims, whose cultural values are indeed often in sync with "Republican" values.
There's disagreement, but most believe that Bush won the Muslim vote in 2000 by a wide margin. Trump will be lucky to get double-digit percents for Latinos, and above the decimal point for Muslims!
(Don't really get the whole kale/Whole Foods thing, that seems like a pretty reductive description of liberalism)
Yes, both were reductive, intentionally. Some liberals like country music. Some conservatives like kale. The problem is that reduction is increasingly true. More and more, find out what someone likes to eat, where they live, or where and whether they go to church on Sunday, and you can usually guess their party.
This is a big discussion, but just take location. I'm sure you've seen this chart:
As recently as 1992, only 28% of districts were "landslide" district, that went for one party or the other by more than 20%, and 23% were "swing distincts," where less than 5% separate the two parties. Today, 55% are landslide, 8% swing. Americans are sorting with a veangence, and it's happening across every aspect of the culture. From breaking down barriers, the online world is now a central reinforcer of them.
I think I notice it more, because I've been noticing the intersection of culture and politics, majority and minority views my whole life. I grew up in a moderate Republican household in hyper-educated and -privileged--which is to say liberal--Cambridge, MA. My 8th grade teacher went to the Soviet Union and brought us back Lenin pins--and it wasn't an ironic joke! Truth be told, I prefer the very hard left of my youth to the satisifed left of today.
I suspect, instead, it would look hedonistic rather than fascist
Maybe. If so, I wouldn't be against it in the same way, or perhaps not at all. But I see problems on the left, especially with regard to free speech and tolerance of dissent. Time was when the ALCU's defense of the KKK march in Skokie was a triumph of liberal values, and the cure for bad speech was more speech. Few on the campus left see things in those terms any more.
Yeah. And what was that bit about Hamilton? I would have thought that worship of Founding Fathers was a Republican thing. Or is it that only Democrats are cool enough for rap?
I am a cultural liberal--except for the kale. And I love Hamilton. It's now tied with Les Miserables as my favorite musical. But it's a strong cultural signifier, and one that makes a business of tying itself to other signifiers. When Justin Trudeau went to Hamilton, my liberal friends just about lost consciousness.
It's the kind of thing that would manifest in, say, free contraception for everyone, but not place any emphasis on the importance of being sexually responsible.
We have something close to free contraception for everyone. But instead of having the government pay for it directly, the state requires employers to pay for it directly, which many believe this puts them in a position of cooperation with evil. I don't agree with the view, but I see the problem.
The sort of dystopia I'm talking about will happen when everyone is entitled to free abortion, euthanasia, and embryo manipulation and improvement, and church-owned hospitals, care facilities and doctors that refuse to provide them will be strong-armed into compliance.
( To this end, see the Catholic old age home in Belgium, sued for not assisting in the euthanasia of a resident http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2016/01/08/catholic-care-home-sued-for-refu... )
I can see a populist left movement being big on free college, free health care, etc. with the detailed plan of "eat the rich"
I would oppose that, but it would be just a policy issue. And I see good reasons to tax the rich more--both financially and to do something about inequality.
Calls to end religious hospitals and schools, and subvert the First Amendment with European-style "hate speech" laws would be different.
183lriley
#180--with over 50% of taxpayer money going into the Pentagon and the military/industrial complex--our middle eastern regime building I think you can do better than that. We get out of Iraq and Afghanistan and start shutting some of our 900+ overseas military bases and that more than pays for free health care and free college.
184librorumamans
>182 timspalding: When Justin Trudeau went to Hamilton, my liberal friends just about lost consciousness.
Huh??? There's Hamilton at the west end of Lake Ontario, and Hamilton in Bermuda I guess. I can't think why your liberal friends would care about either. Where's/What's Hamilton?
Huh??? There's Hamilton at the west end of Lake Ontario, and Hamilton in Bermuda I guess. I can't think why your liberal friends would care about either. Where's/What's Hamilton?
185StormRaven
183: It's more like 20-25%. Defense spending makes up something slightly more than half of discretionary spending, but discretionary spending only makes up about 40% of the Federal budget.
186proximity1
>182 timspalding:
"Truth be told, I prefer the very hard left of my youth to the satisifed left of today."
Can I get an "Amen!" bruthahs and sistahs?! Can I get anuthah "A-a-MeN-N-N-n-a-a-a-uh!"? Praise JE-E-E-E-Z-U-S-S-UH!
Because the satisfied Left of today are stupid, gutless fuck-tards who care mainly about how far they have to drive to get to a Starbucks and whether Hillary's running-mate should be white, black, Latina or lesbian or some combination of these in a woman.
>176 timspalding:
"I can imagine a nightmare Democratic nominee, who abandoned basic liberal and American principles, but wrapped it in all the "right" group-identity symbols."
So can I. Oh! Oh! Wait! I'm getting a pic-ture---no, it's hazy--Wait! Yes! It's shar-pen-ing. It's coming into fo-cu-- Dear God! Oh.my.God!
"Fascism wrapped in a rainbow flag and drinking a $5 latte, perhaps. So far, apart from some powerless exceptions on campus, we haven't seen much of this. So you are free to think Democrats are different and better."
Jesus wept.
------------
I don't think we ought to Eat the Rich; but, tastefully done, they could make lovely bronzed table-decorations or flower-stands for a large dining table or room.
---------------
Cave cane: Fans of "Hamilton"-- here's a little Trigger-warning for you: you may want to look away, for the folliwing contains some mild verbal criticism
I'm hard-pressed to think of a more pathetic symbol for our goofey, stupid, lazy, ignorant and self-satisfied times than this hit hip-hop-i-zed stage musical mess "Hamilton."
Of course our times would embrace Hamilton! Why not! ? We've embraced his spiritual heir, the morally-disgusting and weightless pseudo-intellctual temporizing icon of passionless technocracy--the hero of those who like their democracy very lite and their bullshit highly-refined and excruciatingly thinly-sliced.
So Hamilton, not Paine, is the hero of our times.
Hell, yes: we're going to elect The Hillary.
------
Before I forget to mention it, here's the perfect compromise for those who are always looking for the "win-win" way to keep the majority's wishes from being rather more faithfully realized:
it's pointed out, above, how Donald Trump would take the war on terrorism to the terrorists' families--eliminating them, too, for good measure. That's a shocking suggestion for many liberals but here's the perfect "third-way," "win-win," compromise solution--we needn't even vote on it; it's too good.
We don't kill the terrorists' surviving family. We evict them from their dwelling places and raze these with bulldozers. That's a tried and approved solution Americans are already underwriting.
"Truth be told, I prefer the very hard left of my youth to the satisifed left of today."
Can I get an "Amen!" bruthahs and sistahs?! Can I get anuthah "A-a-MeN-N-N-n-a-a-a-uh!"? Praise JE-E-E-E-Z-U-S-S-UH!
Because the satisfied Left of today are stupid, gutless fuck-tards who care mainly about how far they have to drive to get to a Starbucks and whether Hillary's running-mate should be white, black, Latina or lesbian or some combination of these in a woman.
>176 timspalding:
"I can imagine a nightmare Democratic nominee, who abandoned basic liberal and American principles, but wrapped it in all the "right" group-identity symbols."
So can I. Oh! Oh! Wait! I'm getting a pic-ture---no, it's hazy--Wait! Yes! It's shar-pen-ing. It's coming into fo-cu-- Dear God! Oh.my.God!
"Fascism wrapped in a rainbow flag and drinking a $5 latte, perhaps. So far, apart from some powerless exceptions on campus, we haven't seen much of this. So you are free to think Democrats are different and better."
Jesus wept.
------------
I don't think we ought to Eat the Rich; but, tastefully done, they could make lovely bronzed table-decorations or flower-stands for a large dining table or room.
---------------
Cave cane: Fans of "Hamilton"-- here's a little Trigger-warning for you: you may want to look away, for the folliwing contains some mild verbal criticism
I'm hard-pressed to think of a more pathetic symbol for our goofey, stupid, lazy, ignorant and self-satisfied times than this hit hip-hop-i-zed stage musical mess "Hamilton."
Of course our times would embrace Hamilton! Why not! ? We've embraced his spiritual heir, the morally-disgusting and weightless pseudo-intellctual temporizing icon of passionless technocracy--the hero of those who like their democracy very lite and their bullshit highly-refined and excruciatingly thinly-sliced.
So Hamilton, not Paine, is the hero of our times.
Hell, yes: we're going to elect The Hillary.
------
Before I forget to mention it, here's the perfect compromise for those who are always looking for the "win-win" way to keep the majority's wishes from being rather more faithfully realized:
it's pointed out, above, how Donald Trump would take the war on terrorism to the terrorists' families--eliminating them, too, for good measure. That's a shocking suggestion for many liberals but here's the perfect "third-way," "win-win," compromise solution--we needn't even vote on it; it's too good.
We don't kill the terrorists' surviving family. We evict them from their dwelling places and raze these with bulldozers. That's a tried and approved solution Americans are already underwriting.
188timspalding
>185 StormRaven: details, details…
In fairness, though, "taxpayer money" only makes up a portion of the federal budget too.
In fairness, though, "taxpayer money" only makes up a portion of the federal budget too.
189prosfilaes
>182 timspalding: Time was when the ACLU's defense of the KKK march in Skokie was a triumph of liberal values
It was a neo-Nazi march in Skokie, and IIRC the ACLU lost half their membership over that issue. I think you're looking at the past through rose-colored glasses.
(I'm not thrilled with the idea; I have no problem with them marching in Chicago, as was the eventual compromise, but, well, you're proposing strong-arming a Jewish community filled with Holocaust survivors into letting neo-Nazis march, when Skokie was chosen largely for harassment value.)
The sort of dystopia I'm talking about will happen when everyone is entitled to free abortion, euthanasia, and embryo manipulation and improvement, and church-owned hospitals, care facilities and doctors that refuse to provide them will be strong-armed into compliance.
The IRS was used to strong-arm religious universities like Bob Jones University into desegregating, an act that has been called the start of the religious right. Is Bob Jones University v. United States part of your dystopia?
I can see a populist left movement being big on free college, free health care, etc. with the detailed plan of "eat the rich"
I would oppose that, but it would be just a policy issue.
I think cannibalism is generally considered against Christian morals. Perhaps "eat the rich" was not meant quite literally, but I can see attacks up to the level of the Bolsheviks occurring in a populist liberal dystopia.
Calls to end religious hospitals and schools, and subvert the First Amendment with European-style "hate speech" laws would be different.
As I pointed out above, religious schools that practice segregation can no longer depend on tax exemptions that are normal for schools. Does a single-payer health system have any obligation to support the whimsy of any group that wants to run a hospital, or may the government treat all private health organizations with the same rough disdain? Is free public college (with no vouchers) an attack on religious schools? I'm sure some will take it that way.
It was a neo-Nazi march in Skokie, and IIRC the ACLU lost half their membership over that issue. I think you're looking at the past through rose-colored glasses.
(I'm not thrilled with the idea; I have no problem with them marching in Chicago, as was the eventual compromise, but, well, you're proposing strong-arming a Jewish community filled with Holocaust survivors into letting neo-Nazis march, when Skokie was chosen largely for harassment value.)
The sort of dystopia I'm talking about will happen when everyone is entitled to free abortion, euthanasia, and embryo manipulation and improvement, and church-owned hospitals, care facilities and doctors that refuse to provide them will be strong-armed into compliance.
The IRS was used to strong-arm religious universities like Bob Jones University into desegregating, an act that has been called the start of the religious right. Is Bob Jones University v. United States part of your dystopia?
I can see a populist left movement being big on free college, free health care, etc. with the detailed plan of "eat the rich"
I would oppose that, but it would be just a policy issue.
I think cannibalism is generally considered against Christian morals. Perhaps "eat the rich" was not meant quite literally, but I can see attacks up to the level of the Bolsheviks occurring in a populist liberal dystopia.
Calls to end religious hospitals and schools, and subvert the First Amendment with European-style "hate speech" laws would be different.
As I pointed out above, religious schools that practice segregation can no longer depend on tax exemptions that are normal for schools. Does a single-payer health system have any obligation to support the whimsy of any group that wants to run a hospital, or may the government treat all private health organizations with the same rough disdain? Is free public college (with no vouchers) an attack on religious schools? I'm sure some will take it that way.
190timspalding
It was a neo-Nazi march in Skokie, and IIRC the ACLU lost half their membership over that issue. I think you're looking at the past through rose-colored glasses.
Indeed. Apologies for the error. The point stands. America is based on freedom of speech and assembly. If you don't agree, well, I hope the powers that be always favor you, but I don't think they will.
The IRS was used to strong-arm religious universities like Bob Jones University into desegregating, an act that has been called the start of the religious right. Is Bob Jones University v. United States part of your dystopia?
No, but it's definitely the sort of argument that will lead to forcing universities to conform in the future. All disagreement is racism. And racism cannot stand.
Just be careful you're always on the right side of that sort of power.
Does a single-payer health system have any obligation to support the whimsy of any group that wants to run a hospital, or may the government treat all private health organizations with the same rough disdain?
Well, here we just get down to disagreement. If you think that a Catholic hospital or doctor refusing to perform abortions is like refusing black people space at a lunch counter, I have nothing polite to say to you. I hope, when your hoped-for tyranny comes, some brave people are still around to stand up to it.
Indeed. Apologies for the error. The point stands. America is based on freedom of speech and assembly. If you don't agree, well, I hope the powers that be always favor you, but I don't think they will.
The IRS was used to strong-arm religious universities like Bob Jones University into desegregating, an act that has been called the start of the religious right. Is Bob Jones University v. United States part of your dystopia?
No, but it's definitely the sort of argument that will lead to forcing universities to conform in the future. All disagreement is racism. And racism cannot stand.
Just be careful you're always on the right side of that sort of power.
Does a single-payer health system have any obligation to support the whimsy of any group that wants to run a hospital, or may the government treat all private health organizations with the same rough disdain?
Well, here we just get down to disagreement. If you think that a Catholic hospital or doctor refusing to perform abortions is like refusing black people space at a lunch counter, I have nothing polite to say to you. I hope, when your hoped-for tyranny comes, some brave people are still around to stand up to it.
191prosfilaes
>190 timspalding: The point stands.
It doesn't; it was an extreme act on the part of the ACLU then, just like it would be now.
America is based on freedom of speech and assembly.
I think that we can legitimately draw a line for assembly before it becomes harassment. There are and should be places for mass assembly, but I think that we should be able to live in our neighborhoods without outsiders coming in and stirring up trouble and making noise.
No, but it's definitely the sort of argument that will lead to forcing universities to conform in the future.
Then why no? What distinguishes this case?
Just be careful you're always on the right side of that sort of power.
Does the government not have the right to tax? The government asked no more of Bob Jones University then it did of Trump University or any other university that didn't qualify for non-profit status.
If you think that a Catholic hospital or doctor refusing to perform abortions is like refusing black people space at a lunch counter,
I think in trying to run a single-payer medical system, trying to integrate a hospital that refuses to perform any basic medical service is infeasible. Private medical services will still be legal, but I don't see any reason for us to be generous in supporting them.
It doesn't; it was an extreme act on the part of the ACLU then, just like it would be now.
America is based on freedom of speech and assembly.
I think that we can legitimately draw a line for assembly before it becomes harassment. There are and should be places for mass assembly, but I think that we should be able to live in our neighborhoods without outsiders coming in and stirring up trouble and making noise.
No, but it's definitely the sort of argument that will lead to forcing universities to conform in the future.
Then why no? What distinguishes this case?
Just be careful you're always on the right side of that sort of power.
Does the government not have the right to tax? The government asked no more of Bob Jones University then it did of Trump University or any other university that didn't qualify for non-profit status.
If you think that a Catholic hospital or doctor refusing to perform abortions is like refusing black people space at a lunch counter,
I think in trying to run a single-payer medical system, trying to integrate a hospital that refuses to perform any basic medical service is infeasible. Private medical services will still be legal, but I don't see any reason for us to be generous in supporting them.
192proximity1
>182 timspalding:
I have a working-hypothesis for why this should be the case.
As recently as 1992, only 28% of districts were "landslide" district, that went for one party or the other by more than 20%, and 23% were "swing distincts," where less than 5% separate the two parties. Today, 55% are landslide, 8% swing. Americans are sorting with a veangence, and it's happening across every aspect of the culture. From breaking down barriers, the online world is now a central reinforcer of them.
I have a working-hypothesis for why this should be the case.
193proximity1
Well. It looks like Bernie is back from his visit to the town square where, as you'll remember, he went early this morning with the milk-cow, "Bessie's Revolution."
He's returned with just the cow's halter-and-bridle and fifty-cents. Seems he met someone at the market square--some woman named Hillary. He says at first he thought for a moment that she was admiring Bessie but Hillary quickly informed him that she already had a cow and wasn't really all that interested.
When I asked him how we'd get our milk tomorrow morning without Bessie, he told me I'd have to talk to Hillary about that. Then he proudly showed me the fifty-cents.
194lriley
#193--I don't blame Bernie for what he's done---I'm just not going to follow his endorsement. To me his campaign has been a positive in so many respects. It engaged young people--was run clean and showed the cynical that it's possible to fund a real campaign without big donors or the media on your side. For whatever it's worth the Sanders campaign has pushed the democratic party platform from the center leftwards.....though it's surely not ideal. It's not a template that I expect that Hillary is going to follow if she's elected but it's there.....I'm not sure there's more Bernie could have done.......apart that is from taking Jill Stein up on her offer to be the Green Party candidate. That's what I'd have liked him to do........but that is entirely his choice. He's made a serious effort in any case. I'm more disappointed in the Senator from Massachusetts who could have helped him immensely (like Ted Kennedy helped Obama) but instead sat on the sidelines.
The thing that put the final nail in Sanders' campaign's coffin was James Comey and his FBI----that has been Sanders' only real chance to win the nomination pretty much since the New York primary. IMO there is a case that davidgn is making that a lot of primaries were fixed. I expect all that will be covered over though. That the Sanders campaign was continually undermined by the Democratic party is indisputable as far as I'm concerned. There was a concerted effort going back in time further than Sanders campaign to have Hillary as their next nominee and Sanders pretty much came out of obscurity for a whole lot of people to make it a very competitive race at least until New York.
The thing that put the final nail in Sanders' campaign's coffin was James Comey and his FBI----that has been Sanders' only real chance to win the nomination pretty much since the New York primary. IMO there is a case that davidgn is making that a lot of primaries were fixed. I expect all that will be covered over though. That the Sanders campaign was continually undermined by the Democratic party is indisputable as far as I'm concerned. There was a concerted effort going back in time further than Sanders campaign to have Hillary as their next nominee and Sanders pretty much came out of obscurity for a whole lot of people to make it a very competitive race at least until New York.
195davidgn
1. Sanders has made no endorsement yet. Whether the press turns out to be right or wrong, it's also exerting massive pressure here.
2. As I understand it, Sanders must maintain all outward appearances of a bona fide commitment to the Democratic Party and to supporting its eventual nominee in order to retain his superdelegate status at the convention.
3. Even if Sanders does endorse Clinton tomorrow, nothing is settled with finality until the convention (and its aftermath) have played out.
2. As I understand it, Sanders must maintain all outward appearances of a bona fide commitment to the Democratic Party and to supporting its eventual nominee in order to retain his superdelegate status at the convention.
3. Even if Sanders does endorse Clinton tomorrow, nothing is settled with finality until the convention (and its aftermath) have played out.
196barney67
Why should I be a cheerleader for democracy when people of substance have always been few in number?
Why should I cheer for a system that praises the mass, the mob, the C-student over people of substance?
Why should I cheer for a system that praises the mass, the mob, the C-student over people of substance?
197RickHarsch
>196 barney67: Indeed.
198lriley
#196--FFS. Didn't Jesus die for all of us? Wasn't he nailed to his cross because 'people of substance' wanted it that way?
......and I'm an atheist Barney but I don't think you are.
......and I'm an atheist Barney but I don't think you are.
200RickHarsch
>199 barney67: One is advised not to channel one's inner Mel Gibson.
202lriley
#199--I'm almost sorry I put it the way that I did. You took it in a direction I didn't foresee and that made me wince.
203librorumamans
>199 barney67: Simply baffling.
204RickHarsch
>203 librorumamans: Yet refreshing in that police firehose in the face sort of way...
205barney67
This strikes me as typical liberalism. No one has the brains to respond. So they mutter in disgust without even knowing why they are disgusted. And whether they even should be.
Nice closed circle you have here. A grunt, but never thoughtful analysis.
I'm not sure how I was out of bounds. Jesus was a Jew. Killed by Jews. Is that false? Someone suggested the people who killed Jesus were men of substance. That's stupid. How could you admire a person for that? Are you suggesting I should? Because obviously it has to be one or the other.
Nice closed circle you have here. A grunt, but never thoughtful analysis.
I'm not sure how I was out of bounds. Jesus was a Jew. Killed by Jews. Is that false? Someone suggested the people who killed Jesus were men of substance. That's stupid. How could you admire a person for that? Are you suggesting I should? Because obviously it has to be one or the other.
206proximity1
>196 barney67: : "Why should I be a cheerleader for democracy when people of substance have always been few in number?
"Why should I cheer for a system that praises the mass, the mob, the C-student over people of substance?"
>205 barney67: : "This strikes me as typical liberalism. No one has the brains to respond. So they mutter in disgust without even knowing why they are disgusted. And whether they even should be.
"Nice closed circle you have here."
There _are_ such "closed circles"at this site but this is hardly one of them. You might have noticed that I'm free to participate here.
There's another possible explanation.
You're not considered worthy of a serious reply. If you are so damned smart, you shouldn't have to pose these questions. A few moments' reflection should be sufficient to see their obvious answers.
I dismissed as a waste of time tapping out an explanation for you. Try thinking a bit and figuring it out. It's not difficult. And if you cannot, consider what that suggests about you and "having brains."
"Why should I cheer for a system that praises the mass, the mob, the C-student over people of substance?"
>205 barney67: : "This strikes me as typical liberalism. No one has the brains to respond. So they mutter in disgust without even knowing why they are disgusted. And whether they even should be.
"Nice closed circle you have here."
There _are_ such "closed circles"at this site but this is hardly one of them. You might have noticed that I'm free to participate here.
There's another possible explanation.
You're not considered worthy of a serious reply. If you are so damned smart, you shouldn't have to pose these questions. A few moments' reflection should be sufficient to see their obvious answers.
I dismissed as a waste of time tapping out an explanation for you. Try thinking a bit and figuring it out. It's not difficult. And if you cannot, consider what that suggests about you and "having brains."
207jjwilson61
>206 proximity1: I flagged your message as it was a personal attack. But you're right that most people didn't think the question was worth a serious answer. But I don't think it's fair to leave him hanging like that so, the obvious answer is that the people in power have always felt that they were the "people of substance", which inevitably led to an atmosphere where they felt they could abuse of the rest of the population, the people of no substance.
208librorumamans
>207 jjwilson61: For once I'm with proximity1. I haven't time or desire to address such ad hominem nonsense. If barney67 wonders why #199 is baffling, he could read the four Passion Stories with some attention to the individuals involved.
Fixed typos
Fixed typos
209barney67
So the problem was how to define "people of substance." OK. Some of you may have assumed I meant something that I did not. I assumed that we all knew, from having lived, who is admirable and who isn't. Interesting.
You may have assumed that you and I define substance differently, which might be the case, that you know who men of substance are and I do not, that you know who is worth admiring and I do not. All of this is apparently rooted in politics. So that you are always right on every subject and I am always wrong. That's what an ideologue is. Someone who filters everything through politics.
I have encountered "not worth a response" remarks many times here and throughout the internet and my life. So I know one when I see one. If you think my comment was one of those, you are wrong.
You may have assumed that you and I define substance differently, which might be the case, that you know who men of substance are and I do not, that you know who is worth admiring and I do not. All of this is apparently rooted in politics. So that you are always right on every subject and I am always wrong. That's what an ideologue is. Someone who filters everything through politics.
I have encountered "not worth a response" remarks many times here and throughout the internet and my life. So I know one when I see one. If you think my comment was one of those, you are wrong.
210barney67
I guess I should remind some of you that I had a minor in Christian Studies when I was in school.
211jjwilson61
>209 barney67: The fact that you use such a vague term as "people of substance" guarantees that it will mean something different to nearly anyone.
212librorumamans
Ah — Humpty Dumpty has dropped in for a visit.
213barney67
>212 librorumamans: – You're a retired teacher? What did you teach?
214John5918
Barney, could you perhaps clarify for us what you mean by "people of substance", as clearly there are different interpretations of that term? Then perhaps the conversation could proceed a little more constructively.
215lriley
Frankly I think the 'people of substance' argument is both anti-democratic and idiotic. And I wonder why Barney who offered it up is so against Mr. Trump? because it seems to me that those people who lack substance for both Barney and Trump I suspect are pretty much the same--illegal immigrants and hispanics, black lives matter activists and poor people, most all muslims etc. etc. Jews apparently are suspect as well. Who isn't? I imagine if you're a billionaire or a CEO of a multinational or a big bank you are a person of substance. If you're making millions off of your investing. If somehow you have garnered some kind of personal political power at the federal, state local level you are a person of substance. If you are an enforcing authority of rights and wrongs--sworn to protect and serve--even if it's more like keep in line--you are a person of substance. If you lead a flock of people in worship on a sunday you are a person of substance. Generally it's the kind of logic that says if the political system and economy is looking out for you it's because you're a deserving person and someone of substance. And if it's not well.......look in the mirror it's you're own fault if you can't see a worthwhile human being looking back. If you'd been paying any attention that's a Trumpian worldview in a nutshell Barney. More of the dividing of the people into the haves and have nots---the good people who reap--and all those others who are useless. I don't know what your problem with Trump is. He absolutely is a republican. He's your chance Barney to vote for someone who believes the shit that you do.
216proximity1
>207 jjwilson61:
... "so, the obvious answer is that the people in power have always felt that they were the "people of substance", which inevitably led to an atmosphere where they felt they could abuse of the rest of the population, the people of no substance."
"Jesus wept;" I "L'd oL."
... "so, the obvious answer is that the people in power have always felt that they were the "people of substance", which inevitably led to an atmosphere where they felt they could abuse of the rest of the population, the people of no substance."
"Jesus wept;" I "L'd oL."
217proximity1
RE: Q. : "How should we do democracy?"
A. : Not this way !
Other Questions:
Are you listening, Vichy-'Leftists'?
How long before this kind of PC-Think -inspired bullshit becomes desired and demanded in U.S partisan political practices?
A. : Not this way !
Other Questions:
Are you listening, Vichy-'Leftists'?
How long before this kind of PC-Think -inspired bullshit becomes desired and demanded in U.S partisan political practices?
218barney67
I admit to being occasionally antidemocratic and idiotic. I hope the former more often than the latter.
I was watching the news early this morning and having those same old thoughts about being trapped in a country run by Yahoos. I saw Jeb Bush make a disparaging remark about Trump. Again I thought of Idiocracy. I don't like having to pay for other people's behavior.
What to make of an electorate that has given us two loathsome human beings running for president?
I was watching the news early this morning and having those same old thoughts about being trapped in a country run by Yahoos. I saw Jeb Bush make a disparaging remark about Trump. Again I thought of Idiocracy. I don't like having to pay for other people's behavior.
What to make of an electorate that has given us two loathsome human beings running for president?
219barney67
Think about the people you have known, who you respect or respected the most, and ask yourself why there aren't more of them.
220prosfilaes
>217 proximity1: PC-Think -inspired bullshit
Like so often, this invocation of PC strikes me as good old 1984-style duckspeak. No need to actually examine the matter, just dub it as PC and thus dismissable. Without any idea what was posted on Twitter on 27 July, there's absolutely no evidence that this is PC by any reasonable definition.
There's many things that tweet could say:
* Let's join Labour and then go bust up their meetings.
* Let's join Labour and then elect the most effete wanker we can get.
* There's a Polish Pride Parade today; let's go smash some heads in!
* John Smith is an arsehole, and I think I'm going to get in a fight with him at the meeting.
* I really don't like gay people.
* Public Code CC215 is inconsistent with the best principles of British civil liberty and never should have been passed.
Each of those are separate issues.
Should political parties vet their members? In a Parliamentary system where there are many parties and relatively low political costs for the creation of new parties, maybe. Especially if you're trying to be a small one-issue party, it helps you control your message, and anyone rejected can just go to another party. I don't know the problems this is designed to fix or if they're real or not, but some of the problem in the US is two huge amorphous parties; many parties with more tightly controlled identities might be better.
Like so often, this invocation of PC strikes me as good old 1984-style duckspeak. No need to actually examine the matter, just dub it as PC and thus dismissable. Without any idea what was posted on Twitter on 27 July, there's absolutely no evidence that this is PC by any reasonable definition.
There's many things that tweet could say:
* Let's join Labour and then go bust up their meetings.
* Let's join Labour and then elect the most effete wanker we can get.
* There's a Polish Pride Parade today; let's go smash some heads in!
* John Smith is an arsehole, and I think I'm going to get in a fight with him at the meeting.
* I really don't like gay people.
* Public Code CC215 is inconsistent with the best principles of British civil liberty and never should have been passed.
Each of those are separate issues.
Should political parties vet their members? In a Parliamentary system where there are many parties and relatively low political costs for the creation of new parties, maybe. Especially if you're trying to be a small one-issue party, it helps you control your message, and anyone rejected can just go to another party. I don't know the problems this is designed to fix or if they're real or not, but some of the problem in the US is two huge amorphous parties; many parties with more tightly controlled identities might be better.
221krolik
>199 barney67: You think the Jews who killed Jesus were people of substance? Hardly!
Barney, you've had justifiable pushback for this outlandish assertion but nobody's really answered you specifically. Could we slow down and unpack this?
Assuming your source about this story is the New Testament (or do you rely on something else? what? please inform!), the narrative is clear: after the Sanhedrin (Jewish authorities, traditonally persons of "substance,"), Jesus was sent to Pontius Pilate, a Roman prefect. After which he was bounced to Herod (also serving Rome, appointed by Augustus), then bounced back to Pilate, who pronounced his sentence, in accordance with Roman (not Torah) law. After which, Jesus was executed by Roman soldiers.
The "Jews who killed Jesus" meme has a long and terrible history. That's no scoop. Those who push back against your statement aren't necessarily espousing liberalism, as you suggest above. (Though that's one possible sector of dissent.) Many conservatives and people of all stripes also shun your account because it's manifestly skewed and has been instrumentalized for hateful purposes.
If you have doubts, read the texts. It doesn't take long. Read them, without cherrypicking or relying on inherited hearsay. Who were these Jews who killed Jesus? And what is the pertinence of these putative killer Jews to the thread's subject of "How Should We Do Democracy?"
Barney, you've had justifiable pushback for this outlandish assertion but nobody's really answered you specifically. Could we slow down and unpack this?
Assuming your source about this story is the New Testament (or do you rely on something else? what? please inform!), the narrative is clear: after the Sanhedrin (Jewish authorities, traditonally persons of "substance,"), Jesus was sent to Pontius Pilate, a Roman prefect. After which he was bounced to Herod (also serving Rome, appointed by Augustus), then bounced back to Pilate, who pronounced his sentence, in accordance with Roman (not Torah) law. After which, Jesus was executed by Roman soldiers.
The "Jews who killed Jesus" meme has a long and terrible history. That's no scoop. Those who push back against your statement aren't necessarily espousing liberalism, as you suggest above. (Though that's one possible sector of dissent.) Many conservatives and people of all stripes also shun your account because it's manifestly skewed and has been instrumentalized for hateful purposes.
If you have doubts, read the texts. It doesn't take long. Read them, without cherrypicking or relying on inherited hearsay. Who were these Jews who killed Jesus? And what is the pertinence of these putative killer Jews to the thread's subject of "How Should We Do Democracy?"
222barney67
You're getting irate at the wrong person. The outrageous statement wasn't mine. It was this:
"Wasn't he nailed to his cross because 'people of substance' wanted it that way?"
This statement suggests that Jesus was crucified by people of substance, which is to say, admirable people, in this case, the Sanhedrin, Herod, Pilate, Roman soldiers, members of the crowd, and so on. I disagree. It's true that some of those people had wealth and power, and they did want Jesus to be crucified, and they did cause it to happen. That doesn't make them people of substance. I don't believe they are. Do you? You can side with the crucifiers if you want. That's an opinion. But don't make it mine. Don't put words in my mouth.
I never said "people who have wealth and power are necessarily people of substance". If that's what you think I believe, that's just sad. Not only have you learned nothing from what I've written, you are also looking at me and everything else through a veil of ideology. That ideology gives you ready-made answers without your having to do the hard work of thinking for yourself.
I agree this has little, but not nothing, to do with the thread. But I'm not the one who went off the deep end about a toss-away remark.
It is all so effing Pavlovian.
"Wasn't he nailed to his cross because 'people of substance' wanted it that way?"
This statement suggests that Jesus was crucified by people of substance, which is to say, admirable people, in this case, the Sanhedrin, Herod, Pilate, Roman soldiers, members of the crowd, and so on. I disagree. It's true that some of those people had wealth and power, and they did want Jesus to be crucified, and they did cause it to happen. That doesn't make them people of substance. I don't believe they are. Do you? You can side with the crucifiers if you want. That's an opinion. But don't make it mine. Don't put words in my mouth.
I never said "people who have wealth and power are necessarily people of substance". If that's what you think I believe, that's just sad. Not only have you learned nothing from what I've written, you are also looking at me and everything else through a veil of ideology. That ideology gives you ready-made answers without your having to do the hard work of thinking for yourself.
I agree this has little, but not nothing, to do with the thread. But I'm not the one who went off the deep end about a toss-away remark.
It is all so effing Pavlovian.
223John5918
>222 barney67:
Barney, in >214 John5918: I asked you what you meant by "people of substance". I think a lot of the confusion could be cleared up if you would simply clarify what you meant by the term.
You have now partially clarified it by saying that "people who have wealth and power" are not necessarily "people of substance".
So I respectfully ask again, who are "people of substance" in your view?
Barney, in >214 John5918: I asked you what you meant by "people of substance". I think a lot of the confusion could be cleared up if you would simply clarify what you meant by the term.
You have now partially clarified it by saying that "people who have wealth and power" are not necessarily "people of substance".
So I respectfully ask again, who are "people of substance" in your view?
224lriley
#222--yeah #198 seems pretty outrageous to me too. I wonder why I said that?
I guess I assume automatically that people with wealth and power within their community(ies) are generally who most people would think of as 'people of substance' or even the owner or boss at your job he/she will tend to think they're kind of special too--each and every time they tell you what to do--and do you find yourself accommodating them when they tell you to mop the floor or paint the ceiling or peel the potatoes?--I would think you probably do. Even outside the job a good 3/4's of a boss/owner's workers are going to be kissing (another way of saying admiring) his/her ass every chance they get. Your boss, your councilman, your mayor, your governor, your president will all have a greater tendency to get things their way because disabusing of them of these funny notions that they're better than others usually doesn't do the disabuser the least bit of good and might even blow back in his/her face. Anyway I find most human beings to be great believers in hierarchies which is pretty much all about the notion of who belongs on the top rungs of the societal ladder. The funny thing is the idea of someone having more 'substance' than others is kind of anti-egalitarian but this is the world it seems to me we live in.
I guess I assume automatically that people with wealth and power within their community(ies) are generally who most people would think of as 'people of substance' or even the owner or boss at your job he/she will tend to think they're kind of special too--each and every time they tell you what to do--and do you find yourself accommodating them when they tell you to mop the floor or paint the ceiling or peel the potatoes?--I would think you probably do. Even outside the job a good 3/4's of a boss/owner's workers are going to be kissing (another way of saying admiring) his/her ass every chance they get. Your boss, your councilman, your mayor, your governor, your president will all have a greater tendency to get things their way because disabusing of them of these funny notions that they're better than others usually doesn't do the disabuser the least bit of good and might even blow back in his/her face. Anyway I find most human beings to be great believers in hierarchies which is pretty much all about the notion of who belongs on the top rungs of the societal ladder. The funny thing is the idea of someone having more 'substance' than others is kind of anti-egalitarian but this is the world it seems to me we live in.
225proximity1
>218 barney67:
in you, these are mutually reinforcing. There's no clear demarcation between one and the other. Examples of this follow immediately.
Here:
Are you wealthy? No? Then, indeed, you have a point. And as the saying goes, "I feel your pain." But if you _are_ instead rather or quite wealthy then you've got it backwards: as a wealthy person--and, the wealthier, the more so-- the poor and the lower-middle classes subsidize _you_, rather than the other way around. Poor people don't write the tax code--rich people write it. Do you seriously suppose that rich people have corrupted the political order so that they can take upon themselves their fair share of the burdens of maintaining society--let alone _more_ than their fair share? Do you seriously suppose that a genuine democratic order where the majority really do rule could produce the ghastly inequalities we see all around us? A person who imagines that is a fucking idiot or a fucking liar--to himself and others--and sometimes both at once.
Really wealthy people have taken trillions of dollars out of the circulation of active economic uses and parked it in off-shore tax havens where it's sheltered from tax. From there, it's laundered through banks before going into dark-pool hedge funds, overpriced paintings and sculptures, collectors' automibiles, luxury real estate, yachts, and the stock or bond market bubbles. The balance pays for luxury lifestyles-- dining at four-star restaurants, fitting out homes with custom integrated computer-controlled systems technology, paying for private educations and the privileges and insider-connections these afford. The entire self-perpetuating cronyism which defrauds democracy is sustained by this money--itself typically the ill-gotten gain of secret, off-the-books, undeclared and un- or under-taxed deals. In other words, this is money which--according to the tax codes which are already written by and for the interests of wealthy people--was supposed to have been subject to tax--and, thus, available to use to the benefit of and the relief of the needs of the general public in a fair, democratic order but never "arrived there"-- but, instead, was diverted through artful and sometimes quite illegal means of accounting.
So, while uber wealthy fly in and out via private jet and helicopter, the public roads are left in crumbling disrepair --that's a subsidy of the wealthy's private lifestyles borne by the losses in public goods and services which otherwise could and and ought to have gone to the benefits of the rest of us.
while the uber wealthy build their private libraries, they're spared the expense of keeping up public libraries which they needn't use with the closure of more and more of these --that's a subsidy of the wealthy's private lifestyles borne by the losses in public goods and services which otherwise could and and ought to have gone to the benefits of the rest of us.
while the uber wealthy can get all the best medical care money can buy in private clinics staffed by highly-paid private staffs of doctors and nurses, with all the best and latest technology at their disposal, public hospitals are being sold off to private for-profit interests to be run for the benefit of the stock-holders' portfolios --that's a subsidy of the wealthy's private lifestyles borne by the losses in public goods and services which otherwise could and and ought to have gone to the benefits of the rest of us.
while the uber wealthy send their children--toddlers to post-grads--to the finest and most expensive and exclusive schools, the public education systems are being turned into academies of vocational training for the interests of businesses which no longer want to have to bear the costs of training the employees they hire as they long used to have to do--that's a subsidy of the wealthy's private lifestyles borne by the losses in public goods and services which otherwise could and and ought to have gone to the benefits of the rest of us.
when immigrant labor works for wages which are a tenth or a twentieth of the legal hourly minimum wage, picking fruit and vegetables, collecting the trash, sweeping streets, working on construction sites, doing laundry and home and office-building cleaning work, staffing parking lots, doing grounds-keeping and landscaping manual labor, working on road, rail or harbor repair projects, doing painting, welding, brick and wood-work, framing homes, pouring concrete, roofing, plastering, putting in windows--all at wages which are non-union scale and non-living-wage levels --that's a subsidy of the wealthy's private lifestyles borne by the losses in public goods and services which otherwise could and and ought to have gone to the benefits of the rest of us.
and here:
What to make of it? First, that it's neither democratic nor a democracy. What you're bemoaning as an idiocracy is in fact the pure and direct product of the struggle between factions within a ruling oligarchy, are some of these or none of these your "people of 'subdtance.' " ? How do you like it _now_?
>219 barney67:
Don't worry, I'll parse your phrase and put it into coherent order for you :
You actually mean, of course, why aren't they a greater proportion of the general population and not, "why aren't there more of them in absolute numbers?" --
and I'd say that a very big part of the reason they aren't a larger part of the gemeral population--when it comes to those who I respect or respected the most--is that they're ground down, worn out, eliminated by a vile and destructive system that uses them up and throws them away like disposable diapers--shits on them and, once used, tosses them out. They're the missing victims of the famous error of "survivor bias."1 This is a system you tend to defend in your comments, one you seem to find admirable compared to anything else.
(You've been repeatedly challenged to define for us your phrase "people of substance"; it's a challenge you've ignored and the reasons seem obvious to me. There's no fitting way to define this phrase so that it meaningfully describes some definable group of socially-important people-- "movers and shakers" of the world, the powerful etc.-- because any such group is too varied in its members to come under such a heading. However you defined "substance" it couldn't encompass everyone impied by the phrase. So you take cover in the vague term you refuse to specify. That's indicative of what you put on display in "integrity".)
------------
"I admit to being occasionally antidemocratic and idiotic. I hope the former more often than the latter."
in you, these are mutually reinforcing. There's no clear demarcation between one and the other. Examples of this follow immediately.
Here:
"I was watching the news early this morning and having those same old thoughts about being trapped in a country run by Yahoos. I saw Jeb Bush make a disparaging remark about Trump. Again I thought of Idiocracy. I don't like having to pay for other people's behavior.
Are you wealthy? No? Then, indeed, you have a point. And as the saying goes, "I feel your pain." But if you _are_ instead rather or quite wealthy then you've got it backwards: as a wealthy person--and, the wealthier, the more so-- the poor and the lower-middle classes subsidize _you_, rather than the other way around. Poor people don't write the tax code--rich people write it. Do you seriously suppose that rich people have corrupted the political order so that they can take upon themselves their fair share of the burdens of maintaining society--let alone _more_ than their fair share? Do you seriously suppose that a genuine democratic order where the majority really do rule could produce the ghastly inequalities we see all around us? A person who imagines that is a fucking idiot or a fucking liar--to himself and others--and sometimes both at once.
Really wealthy people have taken trillions of dollars out of the circulation of active economic uses and parked it in off-shore tax havens where it's sheltered from tax. From there, it's laundered through banks before going into dark-pool hedge funds, overpriced paintings and sculptures, collectors' automibiles, luxury real estate, yachts, and the stock or bond market bubbles. The balance pays for luxury lifestyles-- dining at four-star restaurants, fitting out homes with custom integrated computer-controlled systems technology, paying for private educations and the privileges and insider-connections these afford. The entire self-perpetuating cronyism which defrauds democracy is sustained by this money--itself typically the ill-gotten gain of secret, off-the-books, undeclared and un- or under-taxed deals. In other words, this is money which--according to the tax codes which are already written by and for the interests of wealthy people--was supposed to have been subject to tax--and, thus, available to use to the benefit of and the relief of the needs of the general public in a fair, democratic order but never "arrived there"-- but, instead, was diverted through artful and sometimes quite illegal means of accounting.
So, while uber wealthy fly in and out via private jet and helicopter, the public roads are left in crumbling disrepair --that's a subsidy of the wealthy's private lifestyles borne by the losses in public goods and services which otherwise could and and ought to have gone to the benefits of the rest of us.
while the uber wealthy build their private libraries, they're spared the expense of keeping up public libraries which they needn't use with the closure of more and more of these --that's a subsidy of the wealthy's private lifestyles borne by the losses in public goods and services which otherwise could and and ought to have gone to the benefits of the rest of us.
while the uber wealthy can get all the best medical care money can buy in private clinics staffed by highly-paid private staffs of doctors and nurses, with all the best and latest technology at their disposal, public hospitals are being sold off to private for-profit interests to be run for the benefit of the stock-holders' portfolios --that's a subsidy of the wealthy's private lifestyles borne by the losses in public goods and services which otherwise could and and ought to have gone to the benefits of the rest of us.
while the uber wealthy send their children--toddlers to post-grads--to the finest and most expensive and exclusive schools, the public education systems are being turned into academies of vocational training for the interests of businesses which no longer want to have to bear the costs of training the employees they hire as they long used to have to do--that's a subsidy of the wealthy's private lifestyles borne by the losses in public goods and services which otherwise could and and ought to have gone to the benefits of the rest of us.
when immigrant labor works for wages which are a tenth or a twentieth of the legal hourly minimum wage, picking fruit and vegetables, collecting the trash, sweeping streets, working on construction sites, doing laundry and home and office-building cleaning work, staffing parking lots, doing grounds-keeping and landscaping manual labor, working on road, rail or harbor repair projects, doing painting, welding, brick and wood-work, framing homes, pouring concrete, roofing, plastering, putting in windows--all at wages which are non-union scale and non-living-wage levels --that's a subsidy of the wealthy's private lifestyles borne by the losses in public goods and services which otherwise could and and ought to have gone to the benefits of the rest of us.
and here:
"What to make of an electorate that has given us two loathsome human beings running for president?"
What to make of it? First, that it's neither democratic nor a democracy. What you're bemoaning as an idiocracy is in fact the pure and direct product of the struggle between factions within a ruling oligarchy, are some of these or none of these your "people of 'subdtance.' " ? How do you like it _now_?
>219 barney67:
"Think about the people you have known, who you respect or respected the most, and ask yourself why there aren't more of them."
Don't worry, I'll parse your phrase and put it into coherent order for you :
You actually mean, of course, why aren't they a greater proportion of the general population and not, "why aren't there more of them in absolute numbers?" --
and I'd say that a very big part of the reason they aren't a larger part of the gemeral population--when it comes to those who I respect or respected the most--is that they're ground down, worn out, eliminated by a vile and destructive system that uses them up and throws them away like disposable diapers--shits on them and, once used, tosses them out. They're the missing victims of the famous error of "survivor bias."1 This is a system you tend to defend in your comments, one you seem to find admirable compared to anything else.
(You've been repeatedly challenged to define for us your phrase "people of substance"; it's a challenge you've ignored and the reasons seem obvious to me. There's no fitting way to define this phrase so that it meaningfully describes some definable group of socially-important people-- "movers and shakers" of the world, the powerful etc.-- because any such group is too varied in its members to come under such a heading. However you defined "substance" it couldn't encompass everyone impied by the phrase. So you take cover in the vague term you refuse to specify. That's indicative of what you put on display in "integrity".)
------------
1 : Survivorship bias, or survival bias, is the logical error of concentrating on the people or things that "survived" some process and inadvertently overlooking those that did not because of their lack of visibility. This can lead to false conclusions in several different ways. The survivors may be actual people, as in a medical study, or could be companies or research subjects or applicants for a job, or anything that must make it past some selection process to be considered further.
Survivorship bias can lead to overly optimistic beliefs because failures are ignored, such as when companies that no longer exist are excluded from analyses of financial performance. It can also lead to the false belief that the successes in a group have some special property, rather than just coincidence. For example, if three of the five students with the best college grades went to the same high school, that can lead one to believe that the high school must offer an excellent education. This could be true, but the question cannot be answered without looking at the grades of all the other students from that high school, not just the ones who "survived" the top-five selection process.
Survivorship bias is a type of selection bias.
226krolik
>222 barney67:
I'm not irate. I'm not putting words in your mouth. My post was inquiring why you singled out a particular group, given the inherited narratives.
If the focus is actually about "people of substance," that seems likely to be more fruitful.
I'm not irate. I'm not putting words in your mouth. My post was inquiring why you singled out a particular group, given the inherited narratives.
If the focus is actually about "people of substance," that seems likely to be more fruitful.
227proximity1
>220 prosfilaes:
If the Labour party's (purge-)panel had possessed enough integrity to specify it in the body of the letters sent out, we'd know precisely what the content of the Twitter post of 27 July was--and then we could do what the party's panel feared we might if they had included that information: judge the validity and the motive for the decision to reject the membership application.
As others may know, you're defending the panel because you favor Owen Smith--or, what comes to the same thing: you don't favor Corbyn and you know these letters are being sent to recent applicants whose names have been "googled" in search of evidence (in the form of the presence of suspect key-words found on-line associated with their names) which suggests they'd vote for Corbyn. No such searches are done to find and exclude potential Smith-voters. The effort is an attempt to find and purge recent applications from probable Corbyn-supporters--and you're in favor of that end.
No mystery here.
You like the thought-police when they're trying to stamp out thought of which you disapprove.
Paragraph 2 of the body of the letter constitutes, on its face, an example of PC bullshit--whatever the Twitter content of 27 July may have been.
----------
Note : the displayed letter was in reference bto an a membership application by Chris Devismes of North Wales. His Twitter ID is : " @B9igndispo "
If the Labour party's (purge-)panel had possessed enough integrity to specify it in the body of the letters sent out, we'd know precisely what the content of the Twitter post of 27 July was--and then we could do what the party's panel feared we might if they had included that information: judge the validity and the motive for the decision to reject the membership application.
As others may know, you're defending the panel because you favor Owen Smith--or, what comes to the same thing: you don't favor Corbyn and you know these letters are being sent to recent applicants whose names have been "googled" in search of evidence (in the form of the presence of suspect key-words found on-line associated with their names) which suggests they'd vote for Corbyn. No such searches are done to find and exclude potential Smith-voters. The effort is an attempt to find and purge recent applications from probable Corbyn-supporters--and you're in favor of that end.
No mystery here.
You like the thought-police when they're trying to stamp out thought of which you disapprove.
Paragraph 2 of the body of the letter constitutes, on its face, an example of PC bullshit--whatever the Twitter content of 27 July may have been.
----------
Note : the displayed letter was in reference bto an a membership application by Chris Devismes of North Wales. His Twitter ID is : " @B9igndispo "
228barney67
I'm giving up on the people of substance sub-thread. If you don't know what I'm talking about by now, there's no way I can explain it to you.
229proximity1
>228 barney67:
You first mention it in >196 barney67::
"Why should I be a cheerleader for democracy when people of substance have always been few in number?
"Why should I cheer for a system that praises the mass, the mob, the C-student over people of substance?"
after which you've ignored every request for a clear statement.
Now you're "giving up" ? Good. Quit while you're behind. Our fault we didn't understand what you repeatedly refused to explain.
Never ask why your comments aren't taken seriously.
You first mention it in >196 barney67::
"Why should I be a cheerleader for democracy when people of substance have always been few in number?
"Why should I cheer for a system that praises the mass, the mob, the C-student over people of substance?"
after which you've ignored every request for a clear statement.
Now you're "giving up" ? Good. Quit while you're behind. Our fault we didn't understand what you repeatedly refused to explain.
Never ask why your comments aren't taken seriously.
230jjwilson61
>228 barney67: It means "people like me."
231prosfilaes
>227 proximity1: As others may know, you're defending the panel because you favor Owen Smith--or, what comes to the same thing: you don't favor Corbyn
I have no clue who these people are. Beyond Mock the Week, I don't keep up with British politics.
You like the thought-police when they're trying to stamp out thought of which you disapprove.
Paragraph 2 of the body of the letter constitutes, on its face, an example of PC bullshit--whatever the Twitter content of 27 July may have been.
Quack. Quack. Quack. Duckspeak at its finest; no need to think about the matter when you have words like "thought-police" and "PC bullshit" at your command.
Let me copy that Paragraph 2:
The Labour Party should be the home of lively debate, of new ideas and campaigns to change society. However, for fair debate to take place, people must be able to air their views in an atmosphere of respect. They shouldn't be shouted down, they shouldn't be intimidated, and they shouldn't be abused, either in meetings or online.
Basically the rules of most every parliamentary or legislative body in history, they're now "PC bullshit". And don't worry, if Corbyn supporters had been shouted down and intimidated, Proximity1 would be making the exact same accusations. Quack, quack, quack.
I have no clue who these people are. Beyond Mock the Week, I don't keep up with British politics.
You like the thought-police when they're trying to stamp out thought of which you disapprove.
Paragraph 2 of the body of the letter constitutes, on its face, an example of PC bullshit--whatever the Twitter content of 27 July may have been.
Quack. Quack. Quack. Duckspeak at its finest; no need to think about the matter when you have words like "thought-police" and "PC bullshit" at your command.
Let me copy that Paragraph 2:
The Labour Party should be the home of lively debate, of new ideas and campaigns to change society. However, for fair debate to take place, people must be able to air their views in an atmosphere of respect. They shouldn't be shouted down, they shouldn't be intimidated, and they shouldn't be abused, either in meetings or online.
Basically the rules of most every parliamentary or legislative body in history, they're now "PC bullshit". And don't worry, if Corbyn supporters had been shouted down and intimidated, Proximity1 would be making the exact same accusations. Quack, quack, quack.
232lriley
I don't spend a whole lot of time on British politics either but it seems to me that the Labour Party is in a very curious position. The established and elected Labour Party politicians have made it clear that they don't think that Corbyn can win a general election to become Prime Minister and are in great majority in wanting him to step down and be replaced by someone who they say they think can--that claim to me seems to be BS. They blame Corbyn for not doing enough to stop Brexit but in the background is Corbyn's antipathy towards former Labour Prime Minister Blair and Blair's support of GW Bush in the Iraq war---and the possibility of some legal action by a Corbyn govt. against Blair and war hawks in the Labour Party. And there's the issue that Corbyn is adamantly not a neo-liberal while a great number of his fellow Labour MP's are. So Labour MP's are pretty much against Corbyn continuing on as their leader of the opposition. The problem for the Labour MP's is that Corbyn is by far more popular with the Labour rank and file electorate than anyone they can dredge up to oppose him---so it's very likely that barring some real calamity or an assassination that Jeremy Corbyn is going to continue as Labour Party leader even if 75-80% of Labour MP's are adamantly against him and while it may be true that Corbyn does not have enough voters to become Prime Minister in the future--his opposition in the Labour Party wanting another leader far less popular than Corbyn who would seem to be an even much bigger reach to become Prime Minister.
It's a great example of a party being completely out of touch with the majority of its base electorate. Anyway I'm pro Corbyn.
It's a great example of a party being completely out of touch with the majority of its base electorate. Anyway I'm pro Corbyn.
233theoria
Mr Corbyn is prone to self-defeating stunts like "traingate." He'll never last until 2020.
234lriley
#233--Maybe--but if we're looking at how much approval most of the rest of the Labour MP's are getting from their own voter base......if they do find a way to get rid of Corbyn their entire party might end up self destructing. In England Ladbrooke's and all the other betting sites are pretty much giving Corbyn 10-1 odds of returning. Those 80% or so of anti-Corbyn Labour MP's need to worry more about giving their own base a reason to vote for them and worry less about Corbyn---at least for now.
235proximity1
Some stuff to think about for a nation of people who aren't merely once again failing themselves and their democratic responsibilities, but have already dramatically and drastically failed themselves and their responsibilities over decades and decades not only because they've been content to remain ignorant and lazy and infantile about themselves but also because there are certain things which, despite their importance, they won't take seriously enough.
------------
( Don't rely on the embedded hyperlinks below: this fucked up site's software doesn't translate them properly. Use these separate links instead)
in order as below--
Charlie Rose interviews Kenneth Branagh, at the time playing the title role in Macbeth at the Avenue Armory Theatre in New York.
https://charlierose.com/collections/2/clip/15407
---------------
|Friday 12/13/2013 | Segment with Actor Mark Rylance describes the challenges of playing the title character in Shakespeare's "Richard III" and Olivia in "Twelfth Night," running concurrently at the Globe Theatre.
https://charlierose.com/collections/2/clip/17821
---------------
The Opinion Pages || Contributing Op-Ed Writer | The New York Times | The Dumbed Down Democracy By Timothy Egan | 26 August, 2016
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/26/opinion/the-dumbed-down-democracy.html
--------------------------------
ETA :
This Early Reviewers™ by @happysadnick
See, also, the other reviews of this book at the link, above, in the work's title.
------------
( Don't rely on the embedded hyperlinks below: this fucked up site's software doesn't translate them properly. Use these separate links instead)
in order as below--
Charlie Rose interviews Kenneth Branagh, at the time playing the title role in Macbeth at the Avenue Armory Theatre in New York.
https://charlierose.com/collections/2/clip/15407
---------------
|Friday 12/13/2013 | Segment with Actor Mark Rylance describes the challenges of playing the title character in Shakespeare's "Richard III" and Olivia in "Twelfth Night," running concurrently at the Globe Theatre.
https://charlierose.com/collections/2/clip/17821
---------------
The Opinion Pages || Contributing Op-Ed Writer | The New York Times | The Dumbed Down Democracy By Timothy Egan | 26 August, 2016
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/26/opinion/the-dumbed-down-democracy.html
"Are you smarter than an immigrant? Can you name, say, all three branches of government or a single Supreme Court justice? Most Americans, those born here, those about to make the most momentous decision in civic life this November, cannot. •••
••• " If more than 16 percent of Americans could locate Ukraine on a map, it would have been a Really Big Deal when Trump said that Russia was not going to invade it — two years after they had, in fact, invaded it.
"If basic civics was still taught, and required, for high school graduation, Trump could not claim that judges 'sign bills.'
"The dumbing down of this democracy has been gradual, and then — this year — all at once. The Princeton Review found that the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858 were engaged at roughly a high school senior level. A century later, the presidential debate of 1960 was a notch below, at a 10th grade level. By the year 2000, the two contenders were speaking like sixth graders. And in the upcoming debates — 'Crooked Hillary' against 'Don the Con' — we’ll be lucky to get beyond preschool potty talk.
"How did this happen, when the populace was so less educated in the days when most families didn’t even have an indoor potty to talk about? You can look at one calculated loop of misinformation over the last two weeks to find some of the answer." ••• •••
--------------------------------
ETA :
This Early Reviewers™ by @happysadnick
Weapons of Math Destruction
"What happens when we place value in statistics that aren't always accurate? What happens when a group of people blindly accept these untested and opaque models as the foundation for their society? In search for a utopian society, Big Data promises to deliver us to a dystonian society where everything is for sale and we can expect as many false positives as positives. The consequences of this data economy are huge, it is responsible for many negative factors in our society such as inequality and the loss of our civil liberties. Man is stripped of his human nature and reduced to a scientific animal with human behaviorism, he is only capable and the extent of his environment.
" 'Data over people' is the message of this book, the author puts forth many examples of how we've truly lost touch with reality. Even though these data models are known to be wrong, there is no feedback loop or agenda to fix them. We accept everything and question nothing, as a result our future looks bleak and terrible. Individuals that are out-of-touch with the world will be dictating the path the world goes.
See, also, the other reviews of this book at the link, above, in the work's title.
