Dr. Shades wrote:Ceeboo wrote:Given where things are at this point, what can be done?
Ban all corporate lobbyists.
But allow the mom-n-pop lobbyists?
Dr. Shades wrote:Ceeboo wrote:Given where things are at this point, what can be done?
Ban all corporate lobbyists.
honorentheos wrote:It would be interesting to see if bias and party affiliation could be eliminated in favor of distilling candidates down to key job-oriented criteria. I know, it's crazy. But I suspect if we couldn't be assigned to a high school to cheer for and yell, "we're number 1!" but instead could only pick based on real criteria we'd find people knew more about Trump's opponent's positions and could look themselves in the mirror knowing they had actually chose against voting for a person rather than not voting for a caricature of a person...
EAllusion wrote:2 party systems are supposed to be stabilizing and a moderating force compared to multi-party systems.
Many allegations of corruption have surfaced regarding the stadium, as Hungary's current prime minister, Viktor Orbán (known for his passion for football) spent much of his childhood in the village, and Pancho Arena was built just meters away from his Felcsút estate. Although the stadium was not built directly from government funds, companies that provided the lion's share of the funding won several high-value public procurement procedures during Orbán's prime ministership. In addition, Orbán's government passed laws granting benefits to companies supporting sport investments. Allegations were fuelled by the fact that the stadium seats 3,500 people, while the total population of the village is under 1,700.
EAllusion wrote:It's looking like the Wisconsin gerrymandering case is going to be reversed 5-4. That's what blocking Obama's the Supreme Court nominee and Trump's narrow win will give the country.
Gerrymandering has been around since forever, but the advent of modern computers and ever more sophisticated data-mining and algorithms has made it ever more efficient. Ending it isn't a pancea, but it is a major drag on how our democracy operates. It does encourage partisanship and radicalization of the parties, but probably more importantly it distorts the representative nature of democracy. It's easy to say "that's the system!" but the system is screwed up and we can do better.
I think the single biggest problem in our country is propagandistic right-wing media. I don't know what the solution is. If the center-left portion of the country ever goes down the same path, and I don't think they're inherently immune to it, we are screwed beyond belief.
Ceeboo wrote:So, I wanted to know what y'all think can be done at this point?
..
How can a civil debate of ideas return?
....
Given where things are at this point, what can be done?
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Well. I think you have to look at politics as an exercise in pragmatism rather than idealism. There never was and there will never be an era where idealism is the reality other than being a maarketing tool.
American voting behavior isn't driven by idealism, but rather fixed characteristics which are more or less age, race, income, religious affiliation, and geographic location. Swing voters kind of exist, but “Moderate” voters, I would argue, don't exist. "Independents" vote just as reliably for one party or another as those who are party members in most cases based on those fixed characteristics.
So. What's our ground truth regarding politics and what you brought up in your OP?
Elections are not about persuasion, they’re about mobilizing your people to vote.
As evidenced on this forum and others people’s views are extremely entrenched, as is their allegiance to one party or another. This means that politicians are not trying to get you over to their side; they’re trying to rile up people who are already likely to be on their side to get them to go out and vote.
This is why we see less and less substantive policy arguments *cough* Trump *cough* —because you’re only talking to those predisposed to support you in the first place. What you are trying to do is get those people angry or enthusiastic enough to go to the polls for you. So, how do you induce those emotional responses in people?
Advertising. Marketing. Theater.
The vast majority of advertisements are going to be paid for by the campaign, the Party, or various interest groups. All of these groups of people want the broadest, least specific message possible dog whistling their base.
I would absolutely assert that no variance in a final vote choice between candidates is attributable to policy issues, which are several orders of magnitude less important than partisanship, age, geography, etc to the voter. They don't give a ____ about policy which is for the most part starting to get into the nuts and bolts of governing.
The American voter wants his team to win because he or she already knows what the team stands for. The ownership, ie the Party, is resposible for creating a product that'll induce fan interest. The more over the top ownership is the more interest, money, and support it'll get. So that's the reality of our political discourse. You have rabid fans and mascots and thumping music and t-shirt cannons. It is what it is.
- Doc