Is America, Really as bad as people say? Options

[ComradeRed]

Exactly, because the majority of the country thought that it needed to be done, and they were satisfied of what Bush was doing.

Or, because they liked his tax cut.

Or, because they liked No Child Left Behind.

Or, because they hoped Bush would privatize social security in the next term.

Or, they thought John Kerry was a snooty imbecile.

People vote for a package when they elect a candidate, not a single issue.

It is impossible for a candidate to represent even a majority of Americans, because not everyone falls neatly into one of two camps. As to SA's comment about presidents of the past, almost every President defends his own voting base first--because those are the people he was aligned with. To take some famous Presidents,

FDR once said that he knew a lot of people hated him, and that he "welcomed their hatred". Sounds like a man representing just his political base, eh?

Lincoln was known to arrest state politicians who disagreed with him during the Civil War. Once again, hardly representing the entire country.

And these were two presidents that won electoral landslides. Imagine candidates that just barely eked through. No President since James Monroe has been able to "represent the entire country"--i.e. rule without a credible opposition.

Finally, the system of election--while better than a dictatorship--is still flawed because it is inherently a win-loss situation (the majority gain, while the minority lose). The most just system of choosing leaders or policies is the system of indifference voting (where, instead of a vote, you cast a bid, the candidate with the highest total bid wins, and the winners pay their bids into a pot, which is then used to compensate the losers's bids), which guarantees that everyone is just as happy as they were before the election--no winners, and no losers.

[ComradeRed]

[quote=napoleon034,Aug 3 2005, 8:30 PM]That's why we have a house and a senate.  The president has no control of what does and doesn't get put into law unless it lands on his desk first.  Sure, the house and senate are both controlled by republicans, but that is why we have elections. [/quote]

You're missing the point. When you vote for a candidate, you vote for a package. You don't agree with a candidate on every issue. You might elect a congressman because you like his policy on education, even though you don't like his medicare policy. Just because you voted for him doesn't mean you support his medicare policy. And you might not support either of his policies. You might just vote for him because you like his personality.

In fact, exit polls ( http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/res...0/epolls.0.html ) show that, in the 2004 Election, 73% of the people who said Iraq was the most important issue voted for Kerry. Clearly, of the people who cared about Iraq the most, only about one-quarter supported Bush. Far from representing the majority, wouldn't you say?

[quote=napoleon034,Aug 3 2005, 8:30 PM]If we would have done nothing in WWI or WWII then Japan would have bombed us more,[/quote]

1) Japan was on our side in World War I. And we didn't enter World War I until after it had been going on for over four years. Not a single American was killed by a foreign power on US soil during those four years.
2) When Japan bombed us, that was a good time to interfere. My point was if Japan hadn't, it would have made no sense to attack Germany.

[quote=napoleon034,Aug 3 2005, 8:30 PM]Russia would have been mad at us, and yes, they had nukes also...[/quote]

Russia tested their first nuke in 1953, eight years after the end of World War II.

If Russia had nukes in the 1940s, they would have attacked Germany with them and the war would have been over very fast.

And think about it this way: a bully is beating you up every day and taking your lunch money. Do you use what skills you have to defend yourself against the bully, or do you take it out on some completely random kid who wasn't involved? Especially a completely random very strong kid who wasn't involved?

People will defend themselves against stronger people (using unconventional means, sometimes); they will not go out of their way to pick on them. Thus, as long as the United States remained geographically defensible and militarily strong, non-interventionism was, and is, a perfectly viable and risk-free foreign policy strategy. A much more risk-free one than interventionism, certainly.

[quote=napoleon034,Aug 3 2005, 8:30 PM]We'd have way more enemies than we do today,[/quote]

Exactly, because nations in World War II that we helped save, like Russia and China, have just been such good friends to us over the last fifty years.

And don't forget, before World War II, we were actually popular in the Middle East. Arabs actually liked Europeans, like Lawrence of Arabia, who led Arab armies against the Ottoman Turks. And then, after World War II, Britain and the United States began supporting the creation of Israel, which caused the Arabs to side with the USSR in the Cold War. The rest is history.

I just have to laugh when I hear someone say that Israel is our only friend in the Middle East. Before Israel, we didn't have any enemies there either.

[quote=napoleon034,Aug 3 2005, 8:30 PM]and therefore more terrorist and other types of attacks on our country. People hate us BECAUSE we help people, not because we kill people. [/quote]

You're contradicting yourself. You say:

- If we don't help, people will hate us, and attack us. (If we didn't interfere in WWII, Russia would be mad at us and they had nukes)
- People hate us because we help.

Which is it? Do people hate us because we help or because we don't?

[quote=napoleon034,Aug 3 2005, 8:30 PM]Oh yes. tell me one type of government that is BETTER and more organized and more fair to the general public more than democracy.[/quote]

That depends on how strictly you define democracy. If democracy means pure democracy, one man, one vote, on every single issue, I can tell you quite a few types of government that are better: A Constitutional Republic, for example.

If you define a democracy as any government in which the people have the ultimate say (i.e. a republic), it's like saying "tell me one type of writing utensil that is better than a pen"--it's way too broad. A democracy that uses a straight one man, one vote system is very different from a democracy that is based on the rule of law (like ours) which in turn is very different from a democracy that is based on instant runoff or indifference voting.

So yes, while democracy is in general better than the alternative, the fact remains that democracy is far too broad to say, "democracy, good; not democracy, bad". A country ruled by a benevolent dictator who keeps all the power to himself but doesn't use it, and lets people do whatever they want in their private lives, may be better off than a democracy like Ancient Rome or Athens that votes to kill people who disagree with it.

----

Zepfel:

[quote=zepfel,Aug 3 2005, 8:30 PM]right. you helped in the world wars because you had to. otherwise your trade would have been crippled,[/quote]

Considering that our biggest trading partner is Canada, that's a no.

If we stayed neutral during the war, it would have boosted our trade, since we could have made money selling supplies to both sides.

[quote=zepfel,Aug 3 2005, 8:30 PM]and germany would have eventually posed a major threat to you. there is no question of either of those things happening.[/quote]

I just raised a very good question about that. A cross-Atlantic invasion would have been impractical. Germany had no springboards in the Americas to launch an attack from. Even the Luftwaffe's best planes could not fly halfway across the Atlantic without refueling. And Germany had no way of challenging Britain's (or our) naval supremacy in order to deploy carriers in the Atlantic. The fact that most American civilians could fire guns competently in the 1940s meant that it would require millions of men to subjugate America, and transporting all those troops and supplies would have been impossible for any power.

Before World War I, the last cross-Atlantic invasion of a significant country was when France and Britain invaded Mexico in 1863.

The Mexicans won.

[quote=zepfel,Aug 3 2005, 8:30 PM]in world war II, you not only supplied the germans at one point (i believe), but let thousands upon thousands of french, english and russian soldiers be slaughtered before you intervened. if you had done so at the beginning of the war, it would likely have ended within a year.[/quote]

America barely had an offensive military in 1939, and we certainly didn't have the logistics to conduct an invasion of Europe. The American foreign policy from the end of World War I was mostly isolationist, so we built a good defensive army. But, for the same reason that Germany was in no shape to invade us, we were in no shape to invade Germany.

[quote=zepfel,Aug 3 2005, 8:30 PM]you do not always help people. look at iraq. you may have removed a ruthless tyrant, but you caused the death of far more civiians than he likely killed in a decade. at least saddam could maintain order.[/quote]

That's not true. In crushing the Shi'ite Rebellion after the first Gulf War, Saddam killed about 100,000 civilians; he has us beat in that instance alone.

Our intervention was wrong for other reasons; an excess of civilian casualties was not it.

[quote=zepfel,Aug 3 2005, 8:30 PM]with regards to your final point, you cannot say that any particular system is "BETTER."
democracy is very good and fair, but america does not have pure democracy, the capitalist system in place allows millions to live in squalid conditions while thousands live in luxury.[/quote]

Welfare pays at least $11,500 worth of benefits a year (and that's in Mississippi!). Some states like Hawaii pay as high as $36,400 a year (that's $17.50 an hour). Source: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-240.html

Granted, $11,500 isn't a whole lot of money, but it's certainly enough not to live in "squalid conditions".

Most poverty in America is poverty by choice--most poor people value present consumption over future consumption. That makes them look impoverished to middle-class people, who tend to like to keep more away, but that's a matter of their choice. We don't force them to.

And what about luxury? I think an income of $100,000 a year is enough to live a luxuorious lifestyle. Certainly, not a penthouse in Manhattan, but enough to afford whatever a middle-class person could desire. Over 17% of Americans live in households with annual income of $100,000 or higher. That comes out to about 50 million, not "thousands".

[quote=zepfel,Aug 3 2005, 8:30 PM]communism would allow all citizens to live in peace, and it would enable the losers of the present society to become prosperous in the new one. it has proved difficult in the past, however, to find an uncorrupted leader.[/quote]

Name a communist system that has made people prosperous. Lenin was a pretty uncorrupt guy. Yet even he realized after two years and ten million deaths that communism, at least in its pure form, was a disaster--which is why he started the New Economic Policy (democratic socialism), eventually overturned by Stalin, who proceeded to kill another forty million people.

You don't understand where money comes from. Money comes from people valuing future consumption over present consumption (i.e. I can either buy something I want now, or I can put it away in investments, or in a bank to let other people invest, so that I can buy something I want later). The only way for an economy to get richer is to increase its share of capital stock.

But in order to increase its share of capital stock, some people have to invest in the capital stock. Those that do get rich. Those that don't; don't get rich.

Income inequality is inherent to economic growth. Unless ALL people prioritize future and present consumption at the SAME RATE, there will be income inequality.

It's not unjust to have income inequality; any more than it is unjust for me to have a Honda instead of a Subaru. It's all a question of personal choice.

[quote=zepfel,Aug 3 2005, 8:30 PM]castro is in fact, the least corrupted i can think of.[/quote]

Gee, the best leader you can think of is one that is rated by Human Rights Watch as the worst human rights abuser in the world today, who has the third highest per capita imprisonment rate in the world, and has the highest per capita execution rate in the world. Good job.

[quote=zepfel,Aug 3 2005, 8:30 PM]anarchy would remove crime, and encourage communities to prosper.[/quote]

Like in Somalia?

I agree that anarchy could, in theory, work, but that would require the people of the country to have at least a certain base level of morality.

[quote=zepfel,Aug 3 2005, 8:30 PM]the ancient greek system of democracy was extremely fair, but proved impractical, all citizens voted on everything (with the thousands of citizens you can imagine the problems), and citizens were randomly picked to be leader for however many weeks (think of the untrained idiots that could become leader). [/quote]

And the fact that there were no Constitutional checks on the democracy, so it could do whatever it wanted. After all, we're talking about a system that sentenced to death nine generals after they won a battle, because they didn't rescue enough drowning sailors, and, of course, Socrates.

[quote=zepfel,Aug 3 2005, 8:30 PM]personally, i like the addtional member system, as well as the single transferrable vote.

[/quote]

I'm fascinated by voting systems. I've heard of Single Transferrable vote, but what's the additional member system?

I like indifference voting myself, at least in theory... it has some problems in practice. Basically, you cast a bid instead of a vote. Like if I would pay $5,000 to have Bush instead of Kerry, I would bid $5,000. And if you would pay $3,000 to have Kerry instead of Bush, you would bid $3,000. And if your friend would pay $1,500 to have Kerry instead of Bush, he would bid $1,500. The bids are added up. Bush wins, with $5,000 of bids while Kerry has $4,500. But the catch is, then I pay $5,000 to the government, which then pays $3,000 to you, and $1,500 to your friend. This way, everyone is just as happy as they were before and there aren't any "losers".

Of course, this wouldn't favor the rich, because if a rich person bids $2,000,000 for Bush, and Bush wins, that $2,000,000 is going to all the poor people, and making them richer. No one is any worse off than before.

Indifference voting is the only voting system I've come across that doesn't run into the problem of 'tactical' voting, as well.

[zepfel]

Actually, I made an analogy that represented his original point. He said we're the ones making it worse. It's safe to assume he's referring to terrorism. He's saying we're responsible for the acts of terrorism against us. I used an analogy to explain why his logic is flawed. I don't see how I changed the point of his arguement.

As for your second point, I also disagree. If that was true, then how come Al-Qaeda attacked Indonesia? The Philippines? And when was our so called "meddling" unjustified (other than current iraq war, but that's a different debate)?

fact is, you used a straw man. the analogy you made was easier to attack than the original point. end of.

the second argument, i don't pretend to know everything about the psychology of al-quaeda. however, i do know that it hasnt been proved that the bali attack is the work of alqaeda, in fact the prime suspects are members of another group.

also, one of al qaeda's primary aims is to remove americans and american influence from muslim culture.

[ComradeRed]

And when was our so called "meddling" unjustified (other than current iraq war, but that's a different debate)?

Meddling is unjustified when it isn't any of your business.

You would be unjustified in coming into my house and telling me how to arrange my bookshelf, for example.

As for your second point, I also disagree. If that was true, then how come Al-Qaeda attacked Indonesia? The Philippines?

Indonesia and the Phillipines both had troops in Iraq. Notice that there weren't attacks after they withdrew.

Furthermore, Al-Qaeda may see those states as battlegrounds, where they are trying to secure Muslim influence. Those countries already have large Muslim populations, and large amounts of people loyal to Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda's goal there was conceptually to change the government.

On the other hand, they see America as the center of enemy power because of our support for anti-Muslim groups. They're objective in America is to weaken the influence it exerts on battlegrounds, like Indonesia and the Phillipines. Their goal on 9-11 was to cause fear, not to overthrow Governor Pataki and install an Islamic client state in New York.

[zepfel]

comrade red, you may have a different name for it.

AMS

also, i refuse to accept that communism would never work. it is simply a system easily abused.

[ComradeRed]

It won't work because people have different preferences that aren't always expressed in public. Even if it had perfectly incorruptible leaders, the leaders would never have the wisdom to know everybody's prefences in an economy. I perfer Hondas, you perfer Subarus. What is a government planning board going to do?

In a market economy, the more people like Hondas, the price of Hondas goes up, and thus more resources go to producing Hondas.

In a command economy, the more people like Hondas, the government can't detect it, doesn't do anything, and a lot of people walk away upset, and too many Subarus are produced, wasting the economy's precious resources.

Or look at labor--some people would perfer to work a relaxed schedule and make less money, while some people are just workaholics. How would a central planning board get around that? It would force the relaxed people to work more than they want, and force the workaholic people to work less than they want and make less money than they'd like. In the end, both walk away unhappy--even if the planning board was made up of the nicest, wisest, most honest people in the world, it wouldn't make a shred of difference.

Without a system of prices, there is no way for a government to allocate resources efficiently. And yet a system of prices inherently causes income inequality, because some people perfer to save money, and some perfer to consume it, and because some people will be able to sense where demand will increase next, and will thus make smart investments (buying up a few Hondas if they think the price of Hondas will go up). Those who make good investments, and those who save money will get richer in the long run, passing it on to their kids, etc. Yet that's how economic growth happens. That's the only way people can prosper.

Thus, you cannot have economic growth or efficiency without some degree of income inequality. There are things a government can do to make the market run more smoothly, but they aren't intended to replace the rationing powers of the market in total.

Oh yeah, I see what the AMS system is. They have that in Germany, don't they? The problem with that though is that there can be internal fights in a party, especially in America. Like I can support the Republican Liberty Caucus but be against the Religious Right. So I'd support an RLC member over a Democrat, but a Democrat over a Religious Right member. Now, if I don't know who the Republicans will choose, I'm in a dilemma as to who to vote for. (The Democrats and Republicans aren't parties in the parliamentarian sense, they're more so prebuilt coalitions).

So that system I would only support in a country with like 40 different parties, each representing a small constituency.

[zepfel]

If we stayed neutral during the war, it would have boosted our trade, since we could have made money selling supplies to both sides.
I just raised a very good question about that. A cross-Atlantic invasion would have been impractical. Germany had no springboards in the Americas to launch an attack from. Even the Luftwaffe's best planes could not fly halfway across the Atlantic without refueling. And Germany had no way of challenging Britain's (or our) naval supremacy in order to deploy carriers in the Atlantic. The fact that most American civilians could fire guns competently in the 1940s meant that it would require millions of men to subjugate America, and transporting all those troops and supplies would have been impossible for any power.

Before World War I, the last cross-Atlantic invasion of a significant country was when France and Britain invaded Mexico in 1863.

The Mexicans won.
America barely had an offensive military in 1939, and we certainly didn't have the logistics to conduct an invasion of Europe. The American foreign policy from the end of World War I was mostly isolationist, so we built a good defensive army. But, for the same reason that Germany was in no shape to invade us, we were in no shape to invade Germany.

i find this interesting. my thinking is that if hitler was to take over the ussr, britain, france and the useful parts of africa and asia, he could then recouperate for a decade or so, and then i think that he would easily be able to invade america. hitler would have had the use of the best and most strategic points of launch for ships and aeroplanes on both side of america. he would have had the world's resources.

i don't think it is far fetched to assume that faced against the rest of the world, the americas would fall.

[ComradeRed]

i find this interesting. my thinking is that if hitler was to take over the ussr, britain, france and the useful parts of africa and asia,

The problem was he couldn't take over the USSR or even Britain for that matter. During the Battle of Britain in 1940, he was losing two planes for every RAF plane. The British naval superiority was unchallenged and meant that, if the Nazis tried to cross to Britain, most of their landing ships would be sunk before they even got to England. And even during the height of his invasion of the USSR, the Soviets had a 4-1 advantage in the production of tanks and a 15-1 advantage in numbers. Hitler only sent winter clothes for 60 divisions in his army--the Soviet Army was bred for longevity and resilience. A Nazi conquest of the USSR would be difficult, if not impossible.

he could then recouperate for a decade or so, and then i think that he would easily be able to invade america. hitler would have had the use of the best and most strategic points of launch for ships and aeroplanes on both side of america. he would have had the world's resources.

The problem is that, even if Britain surrendered, their navy would have come over to our side (after France surrendered, the French navy simply sailed into Britain and fought against the Germans from there). A combined American-British navy would be invincible by any standard.

Furthermore, why would he want to attack America? He had a strong respect for Anglo-Americans. He only attacked Britain because they declared war first. Even when Nazi soldiers were fighting the British, their goal was to make the British surrender with minimal losses, unlike the war of extermination in Russia.

Hitler wanted to conquer Eastern Europe as lebensraum for his people, not take over the entire world. Spain had a virtually undefended border, and Hitler didn't invade.

i don't think it is far fetched to assume that faced against the rest of the world, the americas would fall.

We had nuclear weapons by 1945. Wars don't occur between nuclear powers because the amount of loss far outweighs any gains that might be made.

If Britain was able to face the rest of the world and survive in the late 19th century, America--with better natural defenses and a nuclear arsenal--surely would have in 1945.

We also wouldn't have been facing off against the rest of the world. Real combat isn't a video game where you conquer an enemy city and it starts producing for you. The Nazis would have needed to keep troops and use resources to pacify all of their occupied lands. The natural resources in other countries would have been the only things usable by the Nazis; French factories rarely rolled out German tanks, for example, because the threat of the Resistance in France made it easier for the Germans to take French resources to Germany to build tanks. But even that was self-limiting, which is why, despite having more natural resources, Germany never managed to produce as much as the USSR.

[*mipadi*]

I like indifference voting myself, at least in theory... it has some problems in practice. Basically, you cast a bid instead of a vote. Like if I would pay $5,000 to have Bush instead of Kerry, I would bid $5,000. And if you would pay $3,000 to have Kerry instead of Bush, you would bid $3,000. And if your friend would pay $1,500 to have Kerry instead of Bush, he would bid $1,500. The bids are added up. Bush wins, with $5,000 of bids while Kerry has $4,500. But the catch is, then I pay $5,000 to the government, which then pays $3,000 to you, and $1,500 to your friend. This way, everyone is just as happy as they were before and there aren't any "losers".

Of course, this wouldn't favor the rich, because if a rich person bids $2,000,000 for Bush, and Bush wins, that $2,000,000 is going to all the poor people, and making them richer. No one is any worse off than before.

Indifference voting is the only voting system I've come across that doesn't run into the problem of 'tactical' voting, as well.

That's a horrible system.

Let me give an example. I'll start off by saying that I don't support the war in Iraq. I never have, but I especially don't because I have a brother that serves in Iraq.

So under this system, it seems to work like this: I think, I like Kerry. I like his plan. Most importantly, I don't support the war, so I want Bush out and Kerry in. I don't have much money, but I muster everything I have and "pay" $2000 to support Kerry.

A rich businessman likes Bush. He supports Bush's policies. He pays $2,000,000 to support Bush. When all is said and done, a number of other rich businessmen support Bush, too, and "outbid" poorer guys like me.

So Bush is "elected"--and I should be happy because the government hands me a fat check for, say, $250,000. Yet, people like my brother are still in Iraq, possibly dying for what I and many of them see as a worthless cause, a futile exercise in interventionist policy and the nation-building the Republicans claimed to despise during Clinton's terms. Basically, I should be okay with that sort of thing, because hey, even though people are dying needlessly, I still have a fat check.

No.

There's a point where things can't be summed up in dollar amounts and numerical figures. There's a point where morals have to take over. The problem with such a voting system is that it inherently helps those who have more money, because they immediately have more say. Maybe there's a benefit to those who don't have much money, but in the end, the power resides with the money, and even compensating the "losers" doesn't help to even out the imbalance in the policies instituted by those with the money.

One good thing about democracy is that each voter is equal, regardless of wealth or status. Each person has an equal voice. Now, of course, that doesn't completely happen in our "democracy" or any other, because they're not perfect, but they're still better than giving power to those who can afford to "buy" a bigger chunk of the vote.

There's a point where a person's financial status cannot be blamed on their lack of initiative in investment, or focusing on "present consumption" instead of "future consumption". Many people are born into their financial condition. They never had a chance to make money, their parents never had a chance, and so forth, back for generations. They might want to focus on future consumption, but they can't, because they don't have the capital to do so; they have more pressing needs, like food, shelter, and clothing, which they have to focus on now, not down the line. And unfortunately, it's a downward spiral that is hard to rise up out of.

It's a sad fact of life that some people simply aren't given the opportunity to increase their capital or wealth.

However, I don't think that's to say that they should not have a say in government, or as much of a say as a rich person.

[ComradeRed]

So under this system, it seems to work like this: I think, I like Kerry. I like his plan. Most importantly, I don't support the war, so I want Bush out and Kerry in. I don't have much money, but I muster everything I have and "pay" $2000 to support Kerry.

A rich businessman likes Bush. He supports Bush's policies. He pays $2,000,000 to support Bush. When all is said and done, a number of other rich businessmen support Bush, too, and "outbid" poorer guys like me.

So Bush is "elected"--and I should be happy because the government hands me a fat check for, say, $250,000. Yet, people like my brother are still in Iraq, possibly dying for what I and many of them see as a worthless cause, a futile exercise in interventionist policy and the nation-building the Republicans claimed to despise during Clinton's terms. Basically, I should be okay with that sort of thing, because hey, even though people are dying needlessly, I still have a fat check.

No.

Well, in the current system, your brother would stay in Iraq, and you would get nothing--the businessmen would gain, and you would lose.

The point is, you bid as much as you'd like to keep your brother out of Iraq. So, in theory, you should be just as happy if Kerry or Bush win the election--and the same for the businessmen.

The system does not benefit the rich because the rich are inherently indifferent--they bid just as much as it's worth to win.

Like it or not, every political ideology has a price. If you could get your brother back from Iraq, but it would cost you $1 billion, what would you do? Getting what you want in politics is just like getting a new car, or a new house. You put a certain value on it--only the difference is, when you buy a new car or a new house, you have to give the person that made that car or house for you the value that you put on the car or the house. You don't do that in politics, which is what makes politics such a nasty battleground. (You don't see car dealerships running smear campaigns or having behind-the-scenes assassinations, do you?)

Money serves three functions; one of them is a store of value. All physical things can be expressed in terms of money as each person's preferences. It's the only way to tell how much of a value a person really places on something.

There's a point where things can't be summed up in dollar amounts and numerical figures. There's a point where morals have to take over. The problem with such a voting system is that it inherently helps those who have more money, because they immediately have more say.
Maybe there's a benefit to those who don't have much money, but in the end, the power resides with the money, and even compensating the "losers" doesn't help to even out the imbalance in the policies instituted by those with the money.

Whose morals? Everyone has a different conception of morals--only a dictator tries to say that his are better than everyone else's.

Naturally, an indifference vote system would have to be checked by a Constitution (so you can't vote to kill people or take away their property or anything), but the general structure of it is much more fair than it is now.

When you compensate the losers, they aren't losers any more. If you lose a $1,000,000 lottery, but then the person that wins the lottery gives you $1,000,000, then you aren't a loser, are you?

And the rich would not overbid, because those with money overbid for policies, then they would become poor, and the poor would become rich, correct?

Let's be realistic, here, politics is a commodity just like anything else; even the most fanatical supporter of Bush isn't going to give his entire life's wealth just to have Bush in office for another four years. We can see that money already has a lot of control over politics in things like campaign finance spending. But the way the system works now, the rich beat the poor.

In a system of indifference voting, no one would beat anyone else.

One good thing about democracy is that each voter is equal, regardless of wealth or status.

That's not necessarily a good thing. Take Missouri. In the 1820s, the people in Missouri (which was fronteir land at the time, so everyone was about equal) voted to have slavery--there's an example of an unchecked democracy for you.

Or in Athens, where they voted to poison Socrates. If those people would have to pay money to poison Socrates, then they probably would not have done it.

Each person has an equal voice.

Do you and Bush have an equal voice?

Now, of course, that doesn't completely happen in our "democracy" or any other, because they're not perfect, but they're still better than giving power to those who can afford to "buy" a bigger chunk of the vote.

One man's expense is another man's income. The rich people aren't gaining undue power, because for each dollar they gain in political power, they lose a dollar in economic power. It evens out.

Besides, let's say 51% of the people don't really care about politics either way, but would support Bush because he's the incumbent. And then let's say 49% are all gung-ho Kerry. In that case, democracy is best served with Kerry as President--because the greatest amount of total happiness is achieved. Yet that can only happen in a system of indifference voting, where you say not only WHO you support, but HOW MUCH you really support them.

There's a point where a person's financial status cannot be blamed on their lack of initiative in investment, or focusing on "present consumption" instead of "future consumption". Many people are born into their financial condition. They never had a chance to make money, their parents never had a chance, and so forth, back for generations.

Because their parents choose to focus on present consumption, or their grandparents, correct? The blame lies with their family, not the rest of society.

They might want to focus on future consumption, but they can't, because they don't have the capital to do so; they have more pressing needs, like food, shelter, and clothing, which they have to focus on now, not down the line.

State welfare programs are more than adequate to deal with that. As I brought up with teh Cato Institute study, welfare programs give between $11,500 (in Mississippi) and $36,400 (in Hawaii) of benefits. That is more than enough to afford the basic necessities of life. If you throw in a minimum wage job, that is certainly enough to put a little in the bank.

Yes, putting money in the bank is an investment, because other people are using your money to invest--it's just a very low-risk one.

And unfortunately, it's a downward spiral that is hard to rise up out of.

It's only a downward spiral if the government decides to adopt a loose money policy and lower interest rates.

It's a sad fact of life that some people simply aren't given the opportunity to increase their capital or wealth.

However, I don't think that's to say that they should not have a say in government, or as much of a say as a rich person.

If the rich people overbid, the poor people take the bids, and they become richer the next election, thus they have the werewithal to enrich themselves.

If, as you say, the poor need to focus on immediate needs and can't invest, what makes you think they can somehow think long-term when it comes to politics? They are going to want their immediate needs taken care of, and an indifference vote system would do that.

Although many rich liberals are already buying the votes of the poor through welfare programs. Why don't we just be a little more open about it?

In the current system, politics amounts to theft--the majority steals from the minority, and oppresses the minority. If two of my people vote that they want my car, and I vote that I want to keep it, the two other people would then steal my car. In a system of indifference voting, politics would be completely fair--no candidate would try to gain an unfair advantage, since then he would have to pay for it (literally) later. If those two people vote to take my car, I tell them how much money I want for it--and if they decide they still want it, they pay me, they take my car, they're happy, I'm happy. And if they decide my car isn't worth that much money, they leave me alone, and we're still all happy.

The only other way we can ensure the minority is protected is through a benevolent dictatorship, which is even less likely than indifference voting to work.

[zepfel]

it's wrong. people's worth should NEVER be judged on their cash flow.

people would deliberately vote on the side they thought would lose to try and gain money.

money affects people, and the election would become less about the result, and more about the financial gain. (if i stood to make 200k by wasting my vote, i would do it.)


say bill gates, rupert murdoch and.. oo say mr. coca-cola decided to get involved on the same side (just an example, i've no idea who gates or mr CC support). no matter who they support, theyre likely to win. and they share more than enough money to win the election after that, and probably the one after that.

no candidate would be outvoted by so much that the other side of the population got 200k each. much more likely 100 bucks.

when they say "every vote makes a difference" nowadays, we know one vote won't tip it. however, with this system, it would be worth even less (my $10 vote against tiger woods' $1,000,000)

[ComradeRed]

it's wrong. people's worth should NEVER be judged on their cash flow.

We aren't judging people. We aren't saying that people who bid high are better than people who bid low--we're saying that they care more about politics.

It makes sense, doesn't it? Someone's who's willing to donate a million dollars to his favored candidate is going to be more pissed off than someone who made up his mind on election day. We need to take that into account. And under IDV, we are being much more open about it. Instead of millions going to advertisers like we have now, those same millions will be going to the election "losers", rendering them not losers any more, but rather, equal to the election winners. IDV is all about judging people equally--not saying that one should be treated better just because he is in the majority.

IDV does not judge people on their cash flow, it judges people on their interest, hence the term indifference. If someone makes 10 million a year but he doesn't give a shit about either candidate, he's not going to bid a lot of money.

people would deliberately vote on the side they thought would lose to try and gain money.

And if enough people do that, they'd all pay up, and it wouldn't be worth it. It's simple game theory: tactical voting disappears once money is at stake.

money affects people, and the election would become less about the result, and more about the financial gain. (if i stood to make 200k by wasting my vote, i would do it.)

But if you ended up having to pay 200k?

People waste their vote now because our current "first past the post" election system forces people to vote for one of two coalitions--the republicans and the democrats. Neither one can truly express people's opinions, simply because they represent such a "big tent". None of these harms are unique.

Under an IDV system, the election would accurately reflect the nuances of people's perceptions--instead of making a black-and-white decision, Bush or Kerry.

say bill gates, rupert murdoch and.. oo say mr. coca-cola  decided to get involved on the same side (just an example, i've no idea who gates or mr CC support). no matter who they support, theyre likely to win. and they share more than enough money to win the election after that, and probably the one after that.

But each time, they'd be losing billions of dollars.

Let's say 100 million votes were cast in the 2004 election. Now, let's say each of these people bids $1,000. That's $100 billion. Which is way more than a small clique of rich people could afford even once.

Besides, rich people aren't affected that much by politics, so they aren't likely to care enough to put so many of their hard-earned stock options at risk.

Most people who care deeply about politics are middle-class people who are affected most by politics. So the fact that most billionaires are probably indifferent to who wins (do we even know if Bill Gates is a Republican?? But certainly, we usually know if our middle-class friends are) means that they aren't going to put a lot of money at risk.

If you don't care about Poker, you're not going to enter the Vegas Tournament.

no candidate would be outvoted by so much that the other side of the population got 200k each. much more likely 100 bucks.

If they all bidded $100, that's what they would get. If some of them bidded $200k and lost, they'd get $200k.

The point is to be indifferent. If you would only pay $100 to see Kerry win, you should only get $100 if he loses.

Either ways is better than the system we have now, where you get $0.

when they say "every vote makes a difference" nowadays, we know one vote won't tip it. however, with this system, it would be worth even less (my $10 vote against tiger woods' $1,000,000)

You could form blocs. Right now, the only way for an individual to seriously change politics is to be really rich himself. Even if what you say about IDV is true, then you only have to be friends with a rich person, not be rich yourself. It's a lot easier to be friends with a rich person than be rich yourself.

Just look at the Third Parties. In the last four elections, the four major third party candidates were Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, Harry Browne, and Michael Badnarik.

Ross Perot was a billionaire and got 19% of the vote.
Ralph Nader was a millionaire and got 3% of the vote.
Browne was a middle class person and got 1% of the vote.
Badnarik was almost broke and only got 0.4% of the vote.

Right now, the elections are controlled by political machines, so that realilistically, people have to vote for a coalition, even when there's a smaller one that they are closer to. For a third party candidate to make a difference, he had to be independently a billionaire, because otherwise he couldn't afford the media to contact mostly apathetic voters who largely hadn't even heard of him.

Whereas under IDV, those apathetic voters would only be making very small bids, which would allow a third party candidate with a dedicated base to make a big enough impression to cause change in our government. Our current system is rigged more for the rich and well-connected than IDV would ever be.

====

The bottom line is this: If you think of politics as a good, just like any other, our current system is no more than highway robbery: The political powerful exact concessions from the politically weak. But under IDV, every concession extracted has to be paid for--in full. Under that system, the distinction between the strong and the weak disappear, and everyone enjoys the democratic dream of equality and liberty and justice for all. There are no winners, and no losers.

If you want my car to melt it down to scrap to build things you want, be it hospitals for the poor or depleted uranium shells for tanks, you should raise the money to buy it, NOT get a posse of your friends together and "outvote" me and steal it. If you want to send my tax dollars and army friends over to Iraq, you should have to pay me compensation--not get a gang together and "outvote" me. The central principle of justice is you pay for what you get, and you get what you pay for, and no one is left to lose. That's what IDV accomplishes.

[zepfel]

you keep saying that if you really care, you will pay more.

you can't really think that everybody in the country has $1000 to spend on the election? you seem to be living in some perfect society where everybody has ridiculously large amounts of disposable income. the truth is, that most people are lucky to break even.

it is fundamentally wrong to make people pay for people to represent them, on top of all the taxes charged by the government.


here's a hypothetical situation. joe oozes natural charm, and uses this to his advantage, whilst harry, ugly as a bum, slaves away day in day out trying to get himself noticed. joe just got promoted. he is now earning 10% more than harry, and therefore spends 10% more on his vote. THIS IS NOT FAIR! just because joe gets a promotion doesn't make him a more valuable citizen that harry.

We aren't judging people. We aren't saying that people who bid high are better than people who bid low--we're saying that they care more about politics.

so you're judging them to care more about politics because they're richer?

IDV does not judge people on their cash flow, it judges people on their interest, hence the term indifference. If someone makes 10 million a year but he doesn't give a shit about either candidate, he's not going to bid a lot of money.

but you can't reverse this. if someone doesn't make a lot of money but makes politics their life, they can't give millions of dollars.

Let's say 100 million votes were cast in the 2004 election. Now, let's say each of these people bids $1,000. That's $100 billion. Which is way more than a small clique of rich people could afford even once.

but say 75% of the population voted for A, 25% voted for B. (slightly more realistic) This is only $50 billion up for A over B. Now imagine that 10 corporations get together and support B. This is only $5 billion per corporation, a sum they could easily afford time after time.

Either ways is better than the system we have now, where you get $0.

people shouldnt vote because they might get money back. they should vote because they believe one candidate is better than the others.



this system values money far too highly. money should not directly determine who leads the country.

[ComradeRed]

you keep saying that if you really care, you will pay more.

you can't really think that everybody in the country has $1000 to spend on the election? you seem to be living in some perfect society where everybody has ridiculously large amounts of disposable income. the truth is, that most people are lucky to break even.

Then obviously, they care about other things ('breaking even') more than politics.

Someone who is only making $20,000 a year might not buy a Lexus. That doesn't mean he doesn't like the Lexus, but that means he values other things above it. It's the same deal with politics.

Moreover, the absolute amount of money doesn't really matter, since we're talking about total happiness. I explain this later.

it is fundamentally wrong to make people pay for people to represent them, on top of all the taxes charged by the government.

Taxes would go down in IDV, because there would be a surplus (if Bush wins a landslide, for example, the difference in the bids between Bush and Kerry would allow the government to cut taxes).

People have to pay for people to represent them now--that's what taxes are. The only difference is that, everyone pays taxes, but IDV would only require those who are getting their policies passed to pay.

It is fundamentally wrong for some people to use the power of the government to oppress other people, but that's exactly what happens in the current system. You have winners, and you have losers.

here's a hypothetical situation. joe oozes natural charm, and uses this to his advantage, whilst harry, ugly as a bum, slaves away day in day out trying to get himself noticed. joe just got promoted. he is now earning 10% more than harry, and therefore spends 10% more on his vote. THIS IS NOT FAIR! just because joe gets a promotion doesn't make him a more valuable citizen that harry.

Okay: the same amount of money is worth more to a poorer person, I'll grant you that. But that also means that a poorer person cares more about his payoff.

If Harry believes that having Bush in office instead of Kerry is worth $1,000, but Kerry wins, then Harry is paid the $1,000. He is no better off or worse off than he was before the election.

Joe, who makes more money, might not care about $1,000, and might want $1,500 instead. So $1,000 doesn't make Joe as happy as $1,000 would make Harry, correct?

A poor person values $1,000 more than a rich person does, so giving him $1,000 might make him just as happy as giving a rich person $100,000. We're talking about increasing total happiness, not about absolute numbers of dollars. Under IDV, everyone is just as happy in the end as they were in the beginning, whereas right now, some people are happier, and some people are less happy than they were. The reason it's called indifference voting is because you are indifferent to whether your candidate wins or the other one wins.

so you're judging them to care more about politics because they're richer?
but you can't reverse this. if someone doesn't make a lot of money but makes politics their life, they can't give millions of dollars.

They can give a higher proportion of their income, though. As I said before, when we're talking about aggregate happiness, absolute numbers of dollars doesn't matter. The purpose of IDV is to create a situation in which all people are indifferent as to who wins.

If a rich person bids $1,000,000 for Bush, he doesn't care if Bush or Kerry wins, because he is just as happy having Bush in office, and paying $1 million, as he would be if Kerry was in office, and he were paid $1 million.

Similarly, a poor but very dedicated person might only bid $50,000, even though that's more money. Because he would be just as happy if Kerry were in office, and he paid $50k, as he would be if Bush were in office, and he were to pay $50k.

So Bush would win, but the poor person values the $50k just as much as he would value a Kerry victory.

QED he is just as happy as before, and thus the system is just.

but say 75% of the population voted for A, 25% voted for B. (slightly more realistic) This is only $50 billion up for A over B. Now imagine that 10 corporations get together and support B. This is only $5 billion per corporation, a sum they could easily afford time after time.

But whould they want to is the question. The rich aren't as affected by politics. A corporation would be happier giving the $5 billion off in dividends to attract more shareholders.

You're giving the image of corporations as evil institutions that seek to destroy other people--in reality, they are neither good or evil. They are motivated by self-interest, and it would not be in their self-interest to spend such large amounts on politics, which could be better spent in economic investments.

people shouldnt vote because they might get money back. they should vote because they believe one candidate is better than the others.
this system values money far too highly. money should not directly determine who leads the country.

Under the current system, one set of beliefs always triumphs over the other. It's win-loss. If Bush gets elected, all the Kerry people are upset. If Kerry gets elected, all the Bush people are upset. In IDV, no one is any less happy than they were before the election--it's the only way to achieve a just society for everyone.

As I said before, if you want a car (having your way in politics is a good, just like having a car would be), you should have to pay the person that you got the car from (keep in mind that politics is mostly zero-sum). That is the just way of handling a situation. You should not just get a bigger gang than the other person and steal his car.

IDV would be just as good if the people who won pledged to do service to the people who lost (like I would bid 30 minutes for Bush, and you would bid 20 minutes for Kerry, so if Bush won, I would clean your dishes for 10 minutes).

It's just a hell of a lot easier to do it with money.

[sadolakced acid]

Whose morals? Everyone has a different conception of morals--only a dictator tries to say that his are better than everyone else's.

that, and a christian conservative.

(sorry, couldn't resist)

[ComradeRed]

Haha: good point, good point.

Ideally, everyone would just leave each other alone and live-and-let-live by their own morals (anarcho-capitalism), but that would never happen, which is why we have government. Unfortunately, government tends to go further than it should a lot of the time.

[*CrackedRearView*]

that, and a christian conservative. 

(sorry, couldn't resist)

And you hate stigmas and stereotypes?

[ComradeRed]

And you hate stigmas and stereotypes?

Funny story: we were in Utah for Speech and Debate Nationals last year, and there was a gay parade there, so me and two of my friends found a mormon in a dress shirt and asked him, "Don't you guys burn gay people around here? We're from back East." He looked at us weird and said, "we're not all as intolerant as you Eastern liberals."

[sadolakced acid]

And you hate stigmas and stereotypes?

not really. i've come to accept and embrace that in my lifetime, stereotypes will never be gone. not as long as my driver's licenses says A and i have to bubble asian and pacific islander on my standardized tests.

and when i say christian conservative, i'm meaning those who's religion is thier political platform.

as in, the people who say that if only we'd decare the US a christian countryand the war in iraq a war for jesus, then american soldiers would stop getting killed, and that the ones that do get blown up deserve it.