Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 183 (8025 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-23-2014 8:49 PM
191 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: tellmeverbatim
Happy Birthday: AndrewPD
Post Volume:
Total: 724,105 Year: 9,946/28,606 Month: 1,636/2,455 Week: 354/592 Day: 126/59 Hour: 2/9


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House Occupy Wall Street Summations Only
Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
3031
32
3334
...
41Next
Author Topic:   Occupy Wall Street
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 466 of 602 (639552)
11-01-2011 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 462 by Rahvin
11-01-2011 5:41 PM


Re: Parlimentary system
"Tyranny of the majority" refers to the very real political problem whereby unpopular minorities will be persecuted purely for being unpopular, not because of any compelling state interest, such as the banning of gay marriage purely based on "tradition."

I know what it refers to, but thank you for stating it so clearly.

Regardless I still don't see how the Senate is somehow a bulwark against this kind of tyranny. For one thing, Congress has never found it particularly difficult to discriminate against minorities; DOMA passed both the House and the Senate. The Senate filibustered the Civil Rights Act. Rather than serving as a protection against the "tyranny of the majority", hasn't the Senate been an instrument of it?

It was intended to prevent higher-population states from interfering with the internal processes and laws of smaller states

Well, ok, so it seems like that's a different kind of tyranny than what I'm thinking of. But did the Senate really ever accomplish that? I can't imagine either of us want to troll 220 years of Senate history (booooring) but I wonder if there's some obvious example I'm just not thinking of. Frankly I'm just not sold on this notion that the "large" states have some kind of natural interest against the "small" ones, even in 1790.

Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 462 by Rahvin, posted 11-01-2011 5:41 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 468 by Rahvin, posted 11-01-2011 6:03 PM crashfrog has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 24504
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 467 of 602 (639553)
11-01-2011 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 465 by Rahvin
11-01-2011 5:52 PM


voting systems
There are several other ways that voting itself could be managed, for example by allowing weighted voting, where each voter is given a set number of votes that could be spread over one or multiple candidates; or where the voter selects a first, second and third choice for an office which is then totaled.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 465 by Rahvin, posted 11-01-2011 5:52 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 470 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-01-2011 9:27 PM jar has responded

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3943
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 468 of 602 (639554)
11-01-2011 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 466 by crashfrog
11-01-2011 5:54 PM


Re: Parlimentary system
Well, ok, so it seems like that's a different kind of tyranny than what I'm thinking of. But did the Senate really ever accomplish that? I can't imagine either of us want to troll 220 years of Senate history (booooring) but I wonder if there's some obvious example I'm just not thinking of. Frankly I'm just not sold on this notion that the "large" states have some kind of natural interest against the "small" ones, even in 1790.

Look at any example where a law that was passed in the House failed in the Senate, where the Senate representatives in the "majority" represented a power percentage of the population. I'm sure we could find many instances.

In each of those cases, we're looking at an instance where the interests of a minority as defined according to state lines were defended against the interests of the majority of US citizens as a whole.

Whether that protection was a good thing or morally right or even Constitutional in the end is irrelevant. The mechanism is such that a few states, independent of the number of citizens they represent, can block laws passed by the populist House.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 466 by crashfrog, posted 11-01-2011 5:54 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 472 by crashfrog, posted 11-01-2011 10:46 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Member (Idle past 215 days)
Posts: 9158
From: new york usa
Joined: 03-14-2003


(1)
Message 469 of 602 (639560)
11-01-2011 9:14 PM


Peter Schiff Speaks For 1% Occupy Wall Street
Peter Schiff, is a businessman and financial commentator. He's the CEO of Euro Pacific Capital Inc CEO of Euro Pacific Precious Metals, LLC, a gold and silver dealer based in New York City.[13]
Schiff went down to interview the Occupy Wall Streeters to represent the 1% pro-capitalist constituency.

He did a good job of articulating much of what a few of us of the minority PoV have been saying in this thread.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

Replies to this message:
 Message 476 by Minnemooseus, posted 11-02-2011 12:49 AM Buzsaw has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12067
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 470 of 602 (639561)
11-01-2011 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 467 by jar
11-01-2011 5:59 PM


Re: voting systems
There are several other ways that voting itself could be managed, for example by allowing weighted voting, where each voter is given a set number of votes that could be spread over one or multiple candidates; or where the voter selects a first, second and third choice for an office which is then totaled.

Totaled how?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 467 by jar, posted 11-01-2011 5:59 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 471 by jar, posted 11-01-2011 9:40 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 24504
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 471 of 602 (639562)
11-01-2011 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 470 by Dr Adequate
11-01-2011 9:27 PM


Re: voting systems
In the first example, the voter could spread his votes over one or more candidates, for example if the voter felt really strongly about one candidate he could give all 5 (or what ever number) for one person or one each for five people or two for one person and three for a second.

Votes for a candidate would get totaled individually.

In the later system, totally is done on a weighted scale, a candidate would get 3 points for a first choice vote, 2 points for each second choice vote and 1 point for each third choice vote.

When there are two (or more) very strong candidates they would tend to cancel each other out but a candidate who ranks high as a second or third choice across the board would score well.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 470 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-01-2011 9:27 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 473 by crashfrog, posted 11-01-2011 10:47 PM jar has responded
 Message 475 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-02-2011 12:03 AM jar has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 472 of 602 (639563)
11-01-2011 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 468 by Rahvin
11-01-2011 6:03 PM


Re: Parlimentary system
In each of those cases, we're looking at an instance where the interests of a minority as defined according to state lines were defended against the interests of the majority of US citizens as a whole.

Are we? For instance, what "small state interest" was preserved by the Senate killing Obama's jobs bill two weeks ago?

When Mitch McConnell takes steps to block legislation to avoid giving the president a legislative victory that could help him in the next election, how does that preserve or advance the interests of Kentucky? I'm not seeing it. Obviously the enormous disproportions of the Senate allow for a large number of situations where a very small percentage of Americans effectively exercise veto power over a very large number of other Americans. I just don't see that as a de facto instance of the Senate protecting the unique interests of small states.

Let's say you're small state, in fact. Let's call you "Massachusetts." Can you explain how your interests are fundamentally different than New York's? Not just different, but actually in opposition?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 468 by Rahvin, posted 11-01-2011 6:03 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 473 of 602 (639564)
11-01-2011 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 471 by jar
11-01-2011 9:40 PM


Re: voting systems
Really quickly, Jar - could you explain what problem you feel this voting system solves?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 471 by jar, posted 11-01-2011 9:40 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 474 by jar, posted 11-01-2011 10:55 PM crashfrog has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 24504
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 474 of 602 (639565)
11-01-2011 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 473 by crashfrog
11-01-2011 10:47 PM


Re: voting systems
To you, probably not.

But it would open the way for multiple parties and increase the chance of changing representation.

But the basic problem is still an uneducated electorate and as I have said, that cannot be solved quickly.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 473 by crashfrog, posted 11-01-2011 10:47 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 484 by crashfrog, posted 11-02-2011 10:29 AM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 12067
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 475 of 602 (639566)
11-02-2011 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 471 by jar
11-01-2011 9:40 PM


Re: voting systems
In the first example, the voter could spread his votes over one or more candidates, for example if the voter felt really strongly about one candidate he could give all 5 (or what ever number) for one person or one each for five people or two for one person and three for a second.

Votes for a candidate would get totaled individually.

Under this system, I can't think of any circumstances under which it would not be rational to give all five points to some particular candidate.

In the later system, totally is done on a weighted scale, a candidate would get 3 points for a first choice vote, 2 points for each second choice vote and 1 point for each third choice vote.

Under which system it's better to be everybody's second choice than to be the first choice of 65%. A middle-of the road candidate who no-one really wants could therefore beat out someone more radical, one way or the other, who under FPTP would be acclaimed as winning a landslide victory. Is that what you intend?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 471 by jar, posted 11-01-2011 9:40 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 480 by jar, posted 11-02-2011 9:27 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3159
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 476 of 602 (639568)
11-02-2011 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 469 by Buzsaw
11-01-2011 9:14 PM


Re: Peter Schiff Speaks For 1% Occupy Wall Street
To get some of the text content into this topic, I quote from Buz's source:

quote:
The message that Schiff wants to extend is that what the protesters are complaining about isnít capitalism, rather corporatism; big government and big business colluding together to distort the market and rob taxpayers. Some of the conversation is interesting, much of it is one-sided with OWS protesters railing against capitalism and for bigger government. The ignorance of economics youíll hear from the protesters is astounding.

I (more or less) agree with the Schiff position - I don't know what portion of the OWS protesters also do.

Corporatism = bad capitalism? The conservative push seems to favor big business and small government. Not so much collusion as a capture of government by big business.

By the way, Buz - Do you consider it moral or immoral for an individual to be paid far more than he/she has earned?

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 469 by Buzsaw, posted 11-01-2011 9:14 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 479 by Buzsaw, posted 11-02-2011 9:21 AM Minnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 4415
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 477 of 602 (639569)
11-02-2011 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 462 by Rahvin
11-01-2011 5:41 PM


Re: Parlimentary system
Rahvin writes:

Certainly not, and that's not what I advocate. "Tyranny of the majority" refers to the very real political problem whereby unpopular minorities will be persecuted purely for being unpopular, not because of any compelling state interest, such as the banning of gay marriage purely based on "tradition."

Surely there is a more compelling example than this. Or did I miss some sarcasm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 462 by Rahvin, posted 11-01-2011 5:41 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

    
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1247
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 478 of 602 (639586)
11-02-2011 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 444 by jar
11-01-2011 9:41 AM


Re: Democracy
So, your opposition to direct democracy is that a) we tried it and it didnít work and b) it can not work because people are self serving, ignorant, short-sighted and cruel. Is this accurate?

It seems to be the consensus that direct democracy will always lead to some repression of minorities. Why does that have to be? We have laws that protect the rights of minorities. Why would we throw them out? If our representational democracies are even remotely representational then all of the good laws that we have now are a result of the will of the people. Why should that change with direct democracy? Do you honestly believe that our politicians are saving us from ourselves? How is a tyranny of the majority worse than a tyranny of the minority?

Our govíts have been forced to evolve to more accurately reflect the will of the people. Pushing back against this evolutionary drive is the will of the minority of us who wish to maintain the power structure.

It seems odd to me that so many participants here are so quick to dismiss the idea that people should actually have a say in the decisions of their govíts. Not a watered down and filtered opinion but an actual counted vote on any particular issue.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 444 by jar, posted 11-01-2011 9:41 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 481 by jar, posted 11-02-2011 9:37 AM ProtoTypical has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Member (Idle past 215 days)
Posts: 9158
From: new york usa
Joined: 03-14-2003


Message 479 of 602 (639587)
11-02-2011 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 476 by Minnemooseus
11-02-2011 12:49 AM


Re: Peter Schiff Speaks For 1% Occupy Wall Street
Moose writes:

I (more or less) agree with the Schiff position - I don't know what portion of the OWS protesters also do.

Corporatism = bad capitalism? The conservative push seems to favor big business and small government. Not so much collusion as a capture of government by big business.

By the way, Buz - Do you consider it moral or immoral for an individual to be paid far more than he/she has earned?

Schiff's position is not that corporatism = bad capitalism. Corporatism is an integral aspect of capitalism. Schiff repeatedly made the point that bad capitalism was government inter-meddling with corporate affairs, i.e. that big banks and any corporate entities should be allowed to stand or fail on their own merit, etc. Government subsidies/bailouts, just makes for more failure, having not fixed the reason for failure.

One significant example of government inter-meddling with corporate affairs is the Community Investment Act.

quote:
The pressure to make more loans to minorities (read: to borrowers with weak credit histories) became relentless. Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act, empowering regulators to punish banks that failed to "meet the credit needs" of "low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods." Lenders responded by loosening their underwriting standards and making increasingly shoddy loans. The two government-chartered mortgage finance firms, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, encouraged this "sub-prime" lending by authorizing ever more "flexible" criteria by which high-risk borrowers could be qualified for home loans, and then buying up the questionable mortgages that ensued.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 476 by Minnemooseus, posted 11-02-2011 12:49 AM Minnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

  
jar
Member
Posts: 24504
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 480 of 602 (639588)
11-02-2011 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 475 by Dr Adequate
11-02-2011 12:03 AM


Re: voting systems
Dr Adequate writes:

Under this system, I can't think of any circumstances under which it would not be rational to give all five points to some particular candidate.

Yes, and I imagine that with the uneducated electorate in the US that many would think just like you.

Dr Adequate writes:

Under which system it's better to be everybody's second choice than to be the first choice of 65%. A middle-of the road candidate who no-one really wants could therefore beat out someone more radical, one way or the other, who under FPTP would be acclaimed as winning a landslide victory. Is that what you intend?

Except the more radical candidate is far more likely to be a second or third choice than the middle of the road candidate.

The issue as I have mentioned before is the electorate.

We have voters in the US today that vote as though they were under a Parliamentary system, they just pull the vote red or vote blue lever. We have voters that vote based on campaign ads. Mostly though, we have citizens that do not vote.

My hope is that changing things which can be done without modification of the Constitution might, and I stress might, lead to a multi party state.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 475 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-02-2011 12:03 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 482 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-02-2011 10:01 AM jar has responded
 Message 485 by crashfrog, posted 11-02-2011 10:43 AM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
RewPrev1
...
3031
32
3334
...
41Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014