How to stop the downward spiral of US politics

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

You can't. At least, not in the way that people here want to happen. People have long ignored the little factoid that Hobbes is surprisingly accurate on the human condition, that papers like the 1996 MIT paper 'Electronic Communities: World Village or Cyber Balkans' either had their negative portions ignored if they're not outright ignored altogether, that things like DeepFakes and memetic weapons are now viable and you've got people willing to use them (it'll only be a matter of time before someone starts using DeepFakes on their political opponents and Russia let the memetic weapon genie out of the bottle)...

... the only way for things to stop is totalitarian in essence...

[K. A. Pital]

„Deepfakes“ are just hoaxes; and they’re more elaborate, true, but their nature didn’t change. „Memetic weapons“ is a dumb term: memes are just more or less concentrated statements of ideas, so the flow of memes corresponds to the flow of ideas.

None of the above seems to be critically important for society, or a serious threat to it.

A far greater threat is the dismantling of society on base levels (individualization and commodification of all activities), but that’s an underlying economic change and so far nobody is 100% sure on how to counter it.

[Zaune]

I always understood "memetic weapons" to be more along the lines of a JPEG that causes anyone who sees it to fall into a coma, or lose the ability to speak any language but Ancient Sumerian or something.

[Ralin]

You can't. At least, not in the way that people here want to happen. People have long ignored the little factoid that Hobbes is surprisingly accurate on the human condition, that papers like the 1996 MIT paper 'Electronic Communities: World Village or Cyber Balkans' either had their negative portions ignored if they're not outright ignored altogether, that things like DeepFakes and memetic weapons are now viable and you've got people willing to use them (it'll only be a matter of time before someone starts using DeepFakes on their political opponents and Russia let the memetic weapon genie out of the bottle)...

... the only way for things to stop is totalitarian in essence...

Is there a memetic weapon we can use to get you personally to shut up and stop spouting this stupid crap?

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

You can't. At least, not in the way that people here want to happen. People have long ignored the little factoid that Hobbes is surprisingly accurate on the human condition, that papers like the 1996 MIT paper 'Electronic Communities: World Village or Cyber Balkans' either had their negative portions ignored if they're not outright ignored altogether, that things like DeepFakes and memetic weapons are now viable and you've got people willing to use them (it'll only be a matter of time before someone starts using DeepFakes on their political opponents and Russia let the memetic weapon genie out of the bottle)...

... the only way for things to stop is totalitarian in essence...

Is there a memetic weapon we can use to get you personally to shut up and stop spouting this stupid crap?

It isn't crap I'm afraid. What Transhuman Space has written about memetic weapons has come true 84 years early.

... and given fiction's thoughts on the matter? Well, I wouldn't be surprised it would only get worse from there.

[MKSheppard]

Mind elaborating on your drive-by post about how abolishing federal income tax

The Federal Income tax was enacted via the progressives arguing that tariffs and sales taxes were disproportionately regressive; industrial fat cats could afford a 6% tax on their steam yacht, while a poor factory worker would be harmed more by a 6% tax on his food.

What they didn't (or chose to ignore) was that the industrial fat cat can carefully structure his income and properties to evade income taxes rather trivially -- instead of owning that mansion directly, the industrialist has a shell corporation own it, etc. Yes; it requires a competent legal attorney to keep everything all in line, but once you get past a certain level of income, you need to have a legal attorney anyway, so why not have him save you a load on your taxes as well?

It's all become a silly battle -- Republicans say they'll lower income tax rates to like 30%; while Democrats say they'll raise it to 47 or 60%; but the one thing everyone leaves out is that when income tax rates were high in the 1950s and 1960s, did that stop rich people from being rich?

No, they just found ways around it -- the practice of company cars (a new vehicle every year or so) began as a direct response to high income tax rates -- because if your income went up, you'd be in a higher tax bracket and would effectively only make a 4% net income increase off a 20% gross increase (numbers are pulled out of my ass).

So the company bought you a new vehicle each year, in lieu of paying you more -- and you didn't have to worry about car payments or maintenance, the company took care of all that.

Another way around was extremely expensive trips/lunches/dinners paid for by the company as compensation. There's a reason Don Draper was always at parties and stuff.

Hell, our current health insurance system began as a direct response to extremely high confiscatory tax rates during World War II -- companies began to pay for employee's health benefits since as I mentioned before, a pay raise in WWII would see virtually all of it go to the IRS. And that somehow became the normal state of things.

Eliminating income taxes would go a decent way towards fixing the dislocation in the market from all this.

the direct election of senators

Direct Election of Senators by simple popular vote means that they will always be elected by the most populous areas of that state. Basically, you're electing the Senator(s) from New York City, and upstate NY doesn't get a serious choice in Federal Senatorial representation.

When they were nominated by governors and approved by state legislatures, the differing interests of the regions of each state got balanced by the Governor when they made their decisions. Basically, the Governor was forced to pay attention when he nominated someone; because if he pissed off the wrong political circle(s) in the state, they could make life a problem for him.

and requiring voting districts to be approportionated based on population

Reynold V Sims basically said the constitution itself was unconstitutional.

The Maryland State Senate prior to Reynold V Sims was based off geography rather than population.

1838-1863: Twenty-one senators were elected; one from each county and one from Baltimore City.
1864-1964: Twenty-three senators were elected; one from each county and three from Baltimore City.

Reynold V Sims changed all that -- we now have 47 state senators; and their districts encompass parts of a county, multiple counties, or parts of adjoining counties in a crazy patchwork that works to turn the Maryland State Senate into a rubber-stamp contest for whatever crazy ideas the Baltimore-Annapolis-Montgomery trifecta of politicans want.

[LadyTevar]

The Federal Income tax was enacted via the progressives arguing that tariffs and sales taxes were disproportionately regressive; industrial fat cats could afford a 6% tax on their steam yacht, while a poor factory worker would be harmed more by a 6% tax on his food.

What they didn't (or chose to ignore) was that the industrial fat cat can carefully structure his income and properties to evade income taxes rather trivially -- instead of owning that mansion directly, the industrialist has a shell corporation own it, etc. Yes; it requires a competent legal attorney to keep everything all in line, but once you get past a certain level of income, you need to have a legal attorney anyway, so why not have him save you a load on your taxes as well?

What you're not mentioning is that while yes, they were buying things to get rid of the extra money, they were ALSO pouring more money into the infrastructure of the company, building the market, building more manufacturing sites, and not paying the CEO 300% of what the average worker was making.

the direct election of senators

Direct Election of Senators by simple popular vote means that they will always be elected by the most populous areas of that state. Basically, you're electing the Senator(s) from New York City, and upstate NY doesn't get a serious choice in Federal Senatorial representation.

When they were nominated by governors and approved by state legislatures, the differing interests of the regions of each state got balanced by the Governor when they made their decisions. Basically, the Governor was forced to pay attention when he nominated someone; because if he pissed off the wrong political circle(s) in the state, they could make life a problem for him.

Sure.. they could "make life a problem". But also the Senators were usually the Governor's friends, relatives, or otherwise connected to "The Old Boy Network"
Now, yes, there's still an "Old Boy Network", but now a POC waitress from Queens can get the votes to be Senator. That would NEVER have hppened without the Direct Election. Fuck, you'd never have had a WHITE woman in office under the old rules. So, Shep, this one you're just wrong on.

and requiring voting districts to be approportionated based on population

Reynold V Sims basically said the constitution itself was unconstitutional.

The Maryland State Senate prior to Reynold V Sims was based off geography rather than population.

1838-1863: Twenty-one senators were elected; one from each county and one from Baltimore City.
1864-1964: Twenty-three senators were elected; one from each county and three from Baltimore City.

Reynold V Sims changed all that -- we now have 47 state senators; and their districts encompass parts of a county, multiple counties, or parts of adjoining counties in a crazy patchwork that works to turn the Maryland State Senate into a rubber-stamp contest for whatever crazy ideas the Baltimore-Annapolis-Montgomery trifecta of politicians want.

The best way to solve this? GET RID OF GERRYMANDERING. That's the main bitch you have here, Shep, not with how the population is allocated, but how it's cut UP to give one side (the GOP right now) a better chance of winning elections. This is a NATIONAL problem, not just Maryland, not just WV.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Ok, this is me idly speculating at gone midnight my time, but I'm wondering if just getting rid of the Senate as a whole would be of any use. As best I can tell (and again, outsider here) it mainly serves as a way for a party with a minority of overall votes (in the House and/or Presidency) to override things from the Senate given how it's two per State without regard to population.

Again IIRC, it was intended as a rough analog to the House of Lords, except back then the Lords actually had powers, and they haven't since 1906 or so.

[Solauren]

Removing the senate would be a good idea. However, getting that implemented would be quite the challenge. (Mostly because the Senate would block any such bill).

[Rogue 9]

Removing the senate would be a good idea. However, getting that implemented would be quite the challenge. (Mostly because the Senate would block any such bill).

The Article V amendment process bars any amendment from depriving states from their equal suffrage in the Senate without their consent.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

Ok, this is me idly speculating at gone midnight my time, but I'm wondering if just getting rid of the Senate as a whole would be of any use. As best I can tell (and again, outsider here) it mainly serves as a way for a party with a minority of overall votes (in the House and/or Presidency) to override things from the Senate given how it's two per State without regard to population.

Again IIRC, it was intended as a rough analog to the House of Lords, except back then the Lords actually had powers, and they haven't since 1906 or so.

It wouldn't because that would cause problems. States are still semi-sovereign entities. That and the constitution...

Removing the senate would be a good idea. However, getting that implemented would be quite the challenge. (Mostly because the Senate would block any such bill).

The Article V amendment process bars any amendment from depriving states from their equal suffrage in the Senate without their consent.

... ninja'd. It should also be noted that Hobbes is surprisingly on the money when it comes to the human condition anyway, and everyone here keeps forgetting that.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Removing the senate would be a good idea. However, getting that implemented would be quite the challenge. (Mostly because the Senate would block any such bill).

The Article V amendment process bars any amendment from depriving states from their equal suffrage in the Senate without their consent.

Well given people were spitballing about amending things anyway, why not go the whole hog.

Though if you really want to go all-in, have a new Constitutional Convention and write a new one.

[Rogue 9]

Removing the senate would be a good idea. However, getting that implemented would be quite the challenge. (Mostly because the Senate would block any such bill).

The Article V amendment process bars any amendment from depriving states from their equal suffrage in the Senate without their consent.

Well given people were spitballing about amending things anyway, why not go the whole hog.

Though if you really want to go all-in, have a new Constitutional Convention and write a new one.

As the state governments are currently composed, a Constitutional Convention would be a disaster. The policy priorities of most of the delegates would be to enshrine modern far right principles in the replacement document. They don't quite have the number of statehouse majorities (3/4 of all state legislatures) to ramrod whatever they want, but they're only one or two away. If the Republican Party ever manages to flip another couple of legislatures, I expect we WILL see a Convention, and we will not like what results.

[LadyTevar]

The Article V amendment process bars any amendment from depriving states from their equal suffrage in the Senate without their consent.

... ninja'd. It should also be noted that Hobbes is surprisingly on the money when it comes to the human condition anyway, and everyone here keeps forgetting that.

This is the SECOND time you've brought up Hobbes and the Human Condition.
However, THIS TIME I'd like you to explain WTF it had to do with depriving States from equality in the Senate. Otherwise, this is shit-posting.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

The Article V amendment process bars any amendment from depriving states from their equal suffrage in the Senate without their consent.

... ninja'd. It should also be noted that Hobbes is surprisingly on the money when it comes to the human condition anyway, and everyone here keeps forgetting that.

This is the SECOND time you've brought up Hobbes and the Human Condition.
However, THIS TIME I'd like you to explain WTF it had to do with depriving States from equality in the Senate. Otherwise, this is shit-posting.

Thomas Hobbes postulated that humans, in general, are what people consider evil and that only a strong state can keep them from causing problems for everyone. The more say that people in general have in the operations of a state, the more the state will suffer because of the fact that people are, effectively, evil. Usually the utterly and completely selfish kind of evil than anything else.

The more you have the general populous determinating policy, the worse off the state (and thus people) are. We're seeing a situation where Hobbes is blatantly ignored, especially in the GOP.

Hobbes didn't care if the state is a monarchy or an elected council, he cared if it is willing to strap on the jackboots (so to speak) and crush anything that would cause problems for everyone.

The Senate is simply a mechanism to keep the voice of the general populous at a minimum while continuing the thought that all politics are Machiavellian in nature (which is the reality). Without that? Oh boy, we'll be having 'fun' faster than you can say 'oh nuts'.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

The Article V amendment process bars any amendment from depriving states from their equal suffrage in the Senate without their consent.

Well given people were spitballing about amending things anyway, why not go the whole hog.

Though if you really want to go all-in, have a new Constitutional Convention and write a new one.

As the state governments are currently composed, a Constitutional Convention would be a disaster. The policy priorities of most of the delegates would be to enshrine modern far right principles in the replacement document. They don't quite have the number of statehouse majorities (3/4 of all state legislatures) to ramrod whatever they want, but they're only one or two away. If the Republican Party ever manages to flip another couple of legislatures, I expect we WILL see a Convention, and we will not like what results.

Yeah, that's the biggest problem we're facing, although if the Dems start understanding that 1) Hobbes is right, 2) the GOP has completely gone off the deep end, 3) allow the FBI to go back to the days of Director "I have dirt on everyone vaguely important" Hoover, and 4) Russia is willing to set the world metaphorically on fire to go back to the 'glory days'... things will probably start improving.

[Gandalf]

Hobbes didn't care if the state is a monarchy or an elected council, he cared if it is willing to strap on the jackboots (so to speak) and crush anything that would cause problems for everyone.

So, like the Nazis? Because you can do a lot with a varying definition of "everyone."

[Solauren]

Also, causing problems for everyone, as a definition, means it can ignore problems for 'just some'.

Right now, half of America is happy with the downward spiral, therefore the problem is not one for 'everyone'.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

Hobbes didn't care if the state is a monarchy or an elected council, he cared if it is willing to strap on the jackboots (so to speak) and crush anything that would cause problems for everyone.

So, like the Nazis? Because you can do a lot with a varying definition of "everyone."

That is misunderstanding what Hobbes postulated, for the Nazis are the sort that has to be crushed for the better of all.

Also, causing problems for everyone, as a definition, means it can ignore problems for 'just some'.

Right now, half of America is happy with the downward spiral, therefore the problem is not one for 'everyone'.

Not really, this sort of downward spiral hurts everyone and thus must be crushed under Hobbes.

[bilateralrope]

Not really, this sort of downward spiral hurts everyone and thus must be crushed under Hobbes.

So what exactly would you do to crush them ?

[Solauren]

Not really, this sort of downward spiral hurts everyone and thus must be crushed under Hobbes.

So what exactly would you do to crush them ?

And without violating US law.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

Not really, this sort of downward spiral hurts everyone and thus must be crushed under Hobbes.

So what exactly would you do to crush them ?

And without violating US law.

You could, at least, start with levying insurrection for a start, further than that is well out of my abilities to work with, however.

[loomer]

the adoption of preferential voting with as much direct consultation as possible,

I'm not sure that would help much. The big problem with the US election system is that voters, at best, only get two viable options. The candidates in first and second place in the pre-election polling. Anyone else on the ballot doesn't have a chance. All I can see ranked voting doing is reduce the risk of one of those other candidates splitting the vote.

Could you explain how ranked choice voting means there are at least 3 viable candidates in a district ?
Not examples where one of the two viable candidates isn't from one of the two major parties of their country.

Oh and those voters who get to choose between two viable candidates are the lucky ones. People in heavily gerrymandered districts, districts with popular candidates or those who aren't allowed to vote because they live in the wrong place.


What I'd do is make Congress proportional representation*, open to anyone living in the US. That should make third parties viable, hopefully viable enough to cause the Republican and Democrat parties to split. Plus going with MMP in New Zealand has done more for getting Maori MPs than the Maori electorates did, so it should have a similar effect in the US.

*I'm not sure if I'd go with pure proportional representation or MMP.

Honestly, a proportional system would probably work fine too - I'm just more used to preferential. The central goal is to move away from a system where a vote can be 'wasted', which not only reinforces but effectively mandates a two-party system.

[Solauren]

So what exactly would you do to crush them ?

And without violating US law.

You could, at least, start with levying insurrection for a start, further than that is well out of my abilities to work with, however.

You mean like what was tried with Trump (and failed), and all the people they've arrested and continue to arrest in connection to the Capital Hill 'Riot' are facing?

[loomer]

Hobbes didn't care if the state is a monarchy or an elected council, he cared if it is willing to strap on the jackboots (so to speak) and crush anything that would cause problems for everyone.

So, like the Nazis? Because you can do a lot with a varying definition of "everyone."

That is misunderstanding what Hobbes postulated, for the Nazis are the sort that has to be crushed for the better of all.

Also, causing problems for everyone, as a definition, means it can ignore problems for 'just some'.

Right now, half of America is happy with the downward spiral, therefore the problem is not one for 'everyone'.

Not really, this sort of downward spiral hurts everyone and thus must be crushed under Hobbes.

You do not understand Hobbes anywhere near well enough to be having this conversation.