General US Politics

[Moblin Major General]

Not really.

The Unitary system often associated with Parliaments clashes with both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and would re-criminalize cannabis everywhere it's been legalized, among other things. In layman's terms, it would be a total shitstorm, and would only destabilize the US in more ways than anyone could possibly fathom. Also, a big flaw of parliaments is that PMs have to toe their party line to a T, lest they be given a no confidence vote by party officials, whereas the POTUS only has to worry about not being re-elected, provided nothing illegal act has been committed by the President.

[tuvarkz]

The Unitary system often associated with Parliaments clashes with both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and would re-criminalize cannabis everywhere it's been legalized, among other things. In layman's terms, it would be a total shitstorm, and would only destabilize the US in more ways than anyone could possibly fathom. Also, a big flaw of parliaments is that PMs have to toe their party line to a T, lest they be given a no confidence vote by party officials, whereas the POTUS only has to worry about not being re-elected, provided nothing illegal act has been committed by the President.

This. It would mean a forced two-party system with 100% ensured party establishment picks as potential PMs; where a huge populist upset would be needed for another party to surge; and the US isn't ideologically cohesive enough for it to happen. There's a reason why Trump and Sanders ran in the primaries for the major primaries even when they are outsiders.

[ping]

Ehhhh... Federalism is a lot stronger in Germany (parliamental; President's little more than a representative figure) than, say, France (the President is very powerful). Also, Angela Merkel's coalition in the Bundestag has 503 out of 630 seats in parliament. Close majorities and deviators are not the big issue with that.

Also, why couldn't the parties elect their head candidates the same way they do now? The Green party in Germany does exactly that, although I'll admit that the two big parties don't. But that's not an inherent quality of parliamentarism.

In short, I don't see how your arguments apply against parliamentarism. I guess they're sound, but they're against centralism and against the party establishments choosing candidates on their own, but then you just sorta assume that both of these things are inseparably connected to a parliamentary system and I find that a rather big leap to make.

[tuvarkz]

The issue is that a 'popular' elected PM candidate could still be overturned by a no-confidence vote from the parliament; effectively voiding the popular election with the people having very little control over it.

The issue with centralism is that with a parliamentary system, due to the need to form an absolute majority for effectiveness, too many coalitions will have to be made, effectively making most candidates' ideas and propositions have to compromise with the general policy or be outright discarded.

While yes, these arguments aren't inherently against the concept of parliamentarism but rather issues that I see will likely come with it, the fact that I find them very likely to happen with parliamentarism constitute what I believe is a valid complaint against its implementation.

I'll add though that personally I prefer a system where the executive has more power and it may be biasing my opinions on this matter though.

[Irysa]

The issue is that a 'popular' elected PM candidate could still be overturned by a no-confidence vote from the parliament; effectively voiding the popular election with the people having very little control over it.

Then those representatives who no confidence'd get judged by their constituents and if it really is popular, don't get re-elected.

The issue with centralism is that with a parliamentary system, due to the need to form an absolute majority for effectiveness, too many coalitions will have to be made, effectively making most candidates' ideas and propositions have to compromise with the general policy or be outright discarded.

That's a good thing. The concerns of smaller parties have to be taken into account more. Democracy isn't meant to be tyranny of the majority.

Edited December 8, 2016 by Irysa

[Emperor Petitt]

Democracy isn't meant to be tyranny of the majority.

but that is in that is what a true democracy is, two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for dinner. Its democratic for the wolves to say eat the sheep for dinner. In terms of the wolves in the US, it is the urban population that lives in places like New York, smoggy LA, and Philadelphia as examples. Every time something needs taxes raised in order to pay for something ridiculous like the government paying for a Gender Studies Major's courses, even if you say tax the rich more who already have to pay more taxes than you, the effects of that are on the people outside the bubbles of those cities. Decreasing benefits to employees to cover costs, people getting laid off, wages being slashed. Obamacare, for example, didn't help anyone in my area unless you live off welfare with your free car, free house, and free healthcare for sitting on your arse doing cocaine. And no, it's not even blacks on welfare (before you call me a racist for not saying African American, most weren't born in Africa, so calling them that would be incorrect) its white skinned people mostly, the spongers, the people who have kids just to get more welfare, and live separately as to maximize the income. People like that is how most cash in the US is going to help, not the disabled, not the poor working class, not minorities, but these people. Hell for those with severe Autism they do get welfare, but unlike those, I'm ranting about, in my area, they also work basic jobs at assembly lines, and they get a pass on my rage towards welfare as they actually work, not for much, but at least they do something. (Technically, I could have collected Social Security but I refuse to, and instead went to work at a fast food place as collecting social security would make me a hypocrite when talking about this, and it is a dent on my pride.)

tl;dr, actual democracy is bad, and things the majority of 48% of American wanted is extremely detrimental, as what they are asking for isn't going in the way they think it is mostly. Yes I threw in my personal biases against welfare in there, I just see it as wasted potential more than something that needs to be gotten rid off, and had to get that one off my chest

Edited December 8, 2016 by Emperor Petitt

[Radiant head]

"tyranny of the majority" is inevitable in any society that tries to make decisions on a consensus. I've noticed it's usually a concern from people who advocate something that's far more dangerous and undemocratic. people aren't inherently wolves or sheep. there is conflict between people based on race, class, etc but that should be fought to overcome

also loathe the classist idea that poor people are lazy and actually refuse the opportunities to get out of poverty or welfare

[Emperor Petitt]

"tyranny of the majority" is inevitable in any society that tries to make decisions on a consensus. I've noticed it's usually a concern from people who advocate something that's far more dangerous and undemocratic. people aren't inherently wolves or sheep. there is conflict between people based on race, class, etc but that should be fought to overcome

also loathe the classist idea that poor people are lazy and actually refuse the opportunities to get out of poverty or welfare

Let me explain the electoral college to you in a different way, stop thinking the US presidential election is oneelection for one country, but instead think of it as 50 elections in 50 countries. Why shoulda vote in say Canada go to decide the leader of the UK. In short they shouldn't as the conditions that the two countries live in are vastly different, same goes for states. The Electoral college is meant to encompas the will of the majority of each state, in my state's example, we wanted Trump more than Hillary.

I just said there are some that need welfare legitimatly, but there are those that abuse the system, it happens. I would recomend stop thinking in terms of groups and more individuals and the core of problems might soon get sovled. Also I never said all the poor are lazy, I said there are those that abuse a system for personal gain, that is greed not being lazy. I don't like socialism or facism, they are both two sides of the same coin that doesn't work in the vending machine of life.

[Radiant head]

uhh I think of things in terms of structures and labour relations and will continue to do so. the fact is that welfare acts as a band-aid for the failure of the system to give people basic tools to act in the economy or make a living, and it's usually a really humiliating experience to have to be on welfare, so some anecdotal examples aren't going to change my view there

socialism has nothing to do with fascism though wil probably save that can of worms for a different thread

[Emperor Petitt]

uhh I think of things in terms of structures and labour relations and will continue to do so. the fact is that welfare acts as a band-aid for the failure of the system to give people basic tools to act in the economy or make a living, and it's usually a really humiliating experience to have to be on welfare, so some anecdotal examples aren't going to change my view there

socialism has nothing to do with fascism though wil probably save that can of worms for a different thread

How is giving an adhesive strip to someone who actually needs it, and stop giving it to those that are just trying to get more for the sake of getting more, not helping fix the core problem? It's humiliating because you have those that abuse the system in it, and because people see groups and not people, and someone who has no legs, for example, is seen as the same as someone who is just using the easiest route for income. Again those that need it, fine, those that are on it, that are able to work physically, I wouldn't say ignore them. In fact, I would just make them have to sweep the streets, and basic jobs that no one is doing, (unless of course they are already employed somewhere, which as I stated, I have no problems with those individuals).

Socialism requires a strong government, a collectivist mindset of poor vs rich, and requires taking from one group to achieve its goals. The only way Fascism varies is changing poor vs rich to race vs another race.

[Radiant head]

solving the core issue here would mean higher wages and striving for full employment, not throwing people into homelessness and starvation.

socialism = workers owning the means of production, it doesn't exist yet and has been theorized in various dissenting forms and ideas. it's almost literally the opposite of fascism which is capitalism in decay.

[Excellen Browning]

solving the core issue here would mean higher wages and striving for full employment, not throwing people into homelessness and starvation.

If you think higher wages and striving for full employment will help people who spend their lives on welfare, you're seriously wrong.

[Tryhard]

While it is not contentious to say benefit scroungers exist, how many do you think there are compared to how many benefit heavily? You're going to have a hard time convincing me it's even close to the majority.

Also, while your anecdote about Obamacare is pretty sweet, the statistics are not in your favour. Sixteen million people have been insured that previously haven't been before in around three years, which is quite a substantial difference from people who simply wouldn't have anything. If you want to believe they all abuse it and/or are "spongers" then go right ahead.

And I don't really want to be defending Obamacare, considering it's a mandate-to-buy-private-insurance watered down system (partly because of Republicans) that isn't socialist in the slightest. America is the only western modern nation (even being beaten by some less developed countries...) that does not have universal/single-payer healthcare, and that is a black spot on it. Or it would be, if Americans didn't hate the idea of such a healthcare system for some reason.

Edited December 8, 2016 by Tryhard

[ping]

I'll add though that personally I prefer a system where the executive has more power and it may be biasing my opinions on this matter though.

Fair enough ;) I prefer a system that prevents single persons from accumulating too much power, so I'll always favour a system with too many checks and balances than too few.

That said, I pretty much agree with Irysa's post and heavily disagree with Emperor Petitt's stance. To me, his parable of the sheep and the wolves is just an explanation why decision-making purely based on majority is not a functional form of democracy and why democracies tend to have a constitution that is very difficult to change (and often even invariable in its core).

Let me explain the electoral college to you in a different way, stop thinking the US presidential election is oneelection for one country, but instead think of it as 50 elections in 50 countries. Why shoulda vote in say Canada go to decide the leader of the UK. In short they shouldn't as the conditions that the two countries live in are vastly different, same goes for states. The Electoral college is meant to encompas the will of the majority of each state, in my state's example, we wanted Trump more than Hillary.

What does that part about Canada and the UK even mean? If that comparision is supposed to make any sense, we would need a single elected ruler or representative of both Canada and the UK, in which case it's not even remotely as obvious how that election should be handled. The way I see it, the POTUS is the representive of every single US citizen, so I would (if I was involved ;) ) prefer if I could vote for him individually, not through any kind of middleman. Although I do like a parliamentary system in which I vote for the parliament and the parliament elects the ruler.

I believe I do understand the point of the electoral college, but I still don't agree that it's the best available way to determine the president.

[Radiant head]

electoral college was designed to protect slavery

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/time/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/%3Fsource%3Ddam

If you think higher wages and striving for full employment will help people who spend their lives on welfare, you're seriously wrong.

personally I think giving welfare recipients jobs and higher wages would help them but ok ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Edited December 8, 2016 by Radiant head

[Res]

Let me explain the electoral college to you in a different way, stop thinking the US presidential election is oneelection for one country, but instead think of it as 50 elections in 50 countries. Why shoulda vote in say Canada go to decide the leader of the UK. In short they shouldn't as the conditions that the two countries live in are vastly different, same goes for states. The Electoral college is meant to encompas the will of the majority of each state, in my state's example, we wanted Trump more than Hillary.

I just said there are some that need welfare legitimatly, but there are those that abuse the system, it happens. I would recomend stop thinking in terms of groups and more individuals and the core of problems might soon get sovled. Also I never said all the poor are lazy, I said there are those that abuse a system for personal gain, that is greed not being lazy. I don't like socialism or facism, they are both two sides of the same coin that doesn't work in the vending machine of life.

Incidentally, what do you think of U.S. citizens living abroad getting to vote? 2.6 million were eligible to vote this year. I could vote for the UK despite not having lived there and not having any plans to return.

Welfare abusers are in the extreme minority. Additionally, nearly 50% of welfare recipients work. Qualifying for assistance is hard, and you don't necessarily get much. I do actually know someone who could've been said to be abusing the system - he received $800/mo, which barely covered a room's rent here. He typically had about $50/mo for food, so he was hardly living it up.

uhh I think of things in terms of structures and labour relations and will continue to do so. the fact is that welfare acts as a band-aid for the failure of the system to give people basic tools to act in the economy or make a living, and it's usually a really humiliating experience to have to be on welfare, so some anecdotal examples aren't going to change my view there

socialism has nothing to do with fascism though wil probably save that can of worms for a different thread

Yes; this is what I've witnessed.

While it is not contentious to say benefit scroungers exist, how many do you think there are compared to how many benefit heavily? You're going to have a hard time convincing me it's even close to the majority.

Also, while your anecdote about Obamacare is pretty sweet, the statistics are not in your favour. Sixteen million people have been insured that previously haven't been before in around three years, which is quite a substantial difference from people who simply wouldn't have anything. If you want to believe they all abuse it and/or are "spongers" then go right ahead.

And I don't really want to be defending Obamacare, considering it's a mandate-to-buy-private-insurance watered down system (partly because of Republicans) that isn't socialist in the slightest. America is the only western modern nation (even being beaten by some less developed countries...) that does not have universal healthcare, and that is a black spot on it. Or it would be, if Americans didn't hate the idea of such a healthcare system for some reason.

Yes to all of this; and it's quite amazing how effective the anti-universal healthcare propaganda has been. People seriously don't believe that I didn't always wait months for appointments, and that yes, I really did not pay a single penny for any of my care back in the UK.

personally I think giving welfare recipients jobs and higher wages would help them but ok ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Indeed.

[Excellen Browning]

electoral college was designed to protect slavery https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/time/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/%3Fsource%3Ddam

personally I think giving welfare recipients jobs and higher wages would help them but ok ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Most of the people who are on welfare for a long time are there for a reason. This is virtually always a variation on a theme of pervasive and severe problems that make life and enjoying it very challenging, if not impossible. These are people who are not helped by well paid work, because work in itself is not possible (or at least not in anything close to fulltime employment)

[Radiant head]

I think that's overgeneralizing, but fair, there are people for which you have to look beyond wage labour for solutions

[Excellen Browning]

I think that's overgeneralizing, but fair, there are people for which you have to look beyond wage labour for solutions

No this is not overgeneralizing. In the Netherlands, where I live, the bulk of the people on welfare are people who will either spend years or their entire life there. And this is in a social system that extensively goes out of its way to as many people as possible working, if at least part time.

[Radiant head]

how is that not overgeneralizing, people are on welfare can come from completely different circumstances. one poster here is claiming they are using welfare opportunistically and need a band-aid removed while you're saying they're incapable of working. i don't see how they fall exclusively into either of those categories

for example, here in america, retail walmart employees need food stamps because walmart doesn't pay a living wage. you can't tell me they wouldn't benefit from higher wages

Edited December 8, 2016 by Radiant head

[Moblin Major General]

No this is not overgeneralizing. In the Netherlands, where I live, the bulk of the people on welfare are people who will either spend years or their entire life there. And this is in a social system that extensively goes out of its way to as many people as possible working, if at least part time.

Your full employment is also double that of my country (8-10%) because unemployment benefits are indefinite in Western Europe, thereby removing the statistic of those too lazy to work as part of your welfare/disability system and putting it (rightfully so) into your employment statistics. It's not a bad thing that Holland does this, and I certainly wish America did this so that Appalachia can be used as a nature preserve... and tourism destination.

[Emperor Petitt]

What does that part about Canada and the UK even mean? If that comparision is supposed to make any sense, we would need a single elected ruler or representative of both Canada and the UK, in which case it's not even remotely as obvious how that election should be handled. The way I see it, the POTUS is the representive of every single US citizen, so I would (if I was involved ;) ) prefer if I could vote for him individually, not through any kind of middleman. Although I do like a parliamentary system in which I vote for the parliament and the parliament elects the ruler.

I believe I do understand the point of the electoral college, but I still don't agree that it's the best available way to determine the president.

Personally I used the Canada and UK example only to try to put things in comparison to comparing Pennsylvania to California, trying to show with an honestly poor example, but I said it to give an idea to look at the states like different countries rather than say Canadian provinces, I am not a New Yorker, and a New Yorker should be able to put in someone in charge over me. If you asked me the ideal voting system today would be county by county, with while popular vote in reality, means everyone living in the county votes go to the candidate that wins the presidency. That way appealing to big cities is less favorable, swing states are not a thing, and you try and match the different ideals of each area for a candidate better. Much better than having LA pick a leader who would raise the tax burden on those that live in rural areas for example.

[Moblin Major General]

If you asked me the ideal voting system today would be county by county, with while popular vote in reality, means everyone living in the county votes go to the candidate that wins the presidency. That way appealing to big cities is less favorable, swing states are not a thing, and you try and match the different ideals of each area for a candidate better. Much better than having LA pick a leader who would raise the tax burden on those that live in rural areas for example.

That would basically require campaigning right from the inauguration of a new President, and for an incumbent recently inaugurated, that would mean they would be unable to fulfill the role they were just elected for. There are 95 counties in my state alone, that's 3 months of campaigning for one state out of 50. It would be impossible for a candidate to manage their time between campaigning, their other job, and their personal life if that happened. It's not ideal, it's disastrous given the time constraints.

[Excellen Browning]

Your full employment is also double that of my country (8-10%) because unemployment benefits are indefinite in Western Europe, thereby removing the statistic of those too lazy to work as part of your welfare/disability system and putting it (rightfully so) into your employment statistics. It's not a bad thing that Holland does this, and I certainly wish America did this so that Appalachia can be used as a nature preserve... and tourism destination.

This is blatantly ignorant. First, the western European countries have strong variations in their welfare system. Second, there are no hand outs. I'm only well informed on the Dutch and Belgian systems, but if you're someone who doesn't want to work, you're in for a tough ride. You're obligated to take all work that pays the bills at a certain point. Unemployment benefits are to help you get by until you get work, and for people who come in not having worked a day in their life, is low. The same applies to the Belgian system.

[Rezzy]

And I don't really want to be defending Obamacare, considering it's a mandate-to-buy-private-insurance watered down system (partly because of Republicans) that isn't socialist in the slightest. America is the only western modern nation (even being beaten by some less developed countries...) that does not have universal/single-payer healthcare, and that is a black spot on it. Or it would be, if Americans didn't hate the idea of such a healthcare system for some reason.

I've been a pretty big critic of both parties, but just so we assign blame to the correct parties for the proper mistakes, Obamacare passed without a single Republican vote, so there were no concessions to win over Republican votes, because the Democrats did not need them. The Democrats controlled the presidency and both houses of Congress in 2010.