[Zelandakh]

 barmar, on 2013-June-16, 21:38, said:

Are those the countries where we frequently hear that they have trouble forming a coalition government after electing a new parliament?

Germany is usually held up as an ideal model for those who believe in more proportionality in a voting system. America apparently did not think it was such a bad system back in 1949 either. Those who oppose such a system point to Italy, a spurious argument to say the least since there is no reason why a country implementing a new system should take the worst example rather than the best!

[helene_t]

I think the German system works because of the discipline of German MPs, and because of the high threshold (5%) for representation in the Bundestag. The latter is something other countries can chose to copy, but they cannot just decide that from now on their politicians are going to behave like German politicians.

Maybe Italy would be better off with a less pluralistic system, be it the US/British two-party-system or be it the German or Turkish few-party system. I can certainly see the disadvantage of the long coalition formation negotiations in Netherlands, Israel and Scandinavia. But those countries have the big advantage of long-term stability: Even if popular vote changes from 48/52 to 52/48 between left and right, whichever government is in charge will govern based on a compromise between left and right. IMO when the popular opinion on major policies is split roughly 50/50, a compromise is a better reflection of popular opinion, and it is also better for business that you know basically what politics will be like in the future even if you don't know which block will be larger after the next election.

Governments of countries with pluralistic systems can be difficult to negotiate with. It is frustrating for politicians from other EU countries that the Danish minister of foreign affairs cannot promise anything on behalf of her country - even if she knows her government will support her, there is always the risk that parliament will reject whichever agreement she signed in Brussels. Since the coalition parties usually don't have a majority in parliament.

[barmar]

 kenberg, on 2013-June-17, 06:17, said:

A more interesting point from Mr. Yew would be what he suggests should be done about this. Is he recommending that we should dis-enfranchise some people? We already do, somewhat. In many states felons cannot vote. There is some sense to this. If a person is too dumb to stay out of prison, probably we should not be all that interested in his views on foreign policy. Still...

That hardly seems to be the justification for felony disenfranchisement. Most states restore the right to vote once the person completes their sentence -- does anyone think they actually get smarter after being released? Disenfranchisement is clearly intended as part of the punishment, not an attempt to improve the decisions of the voters (more worrisome than their views on foreign policy would be their views on the 3-strikes rule).

[blackshoe]

 kenberg, on 2013-June-17, 06:17, said:

Anyway, yes it's a difficult form of government. Churchill had his well-known observation about this. Probably not original with him either.

Churchill isn't the only one.

The Notebooks of Lazarus Long said:

Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man. How's that again? I missed something.

Autocracy is based on the assumption that one man is wiser than a million men. Let's play that over again, too. Who decides?

As for felons, as a very good friend of mine, who was a police dispatcher, used to say, "Criminals are stupid".

[akwoo]

 mike777, on 2013-June-16, 22:21, said:

Lee Kuan Yew presents a critique of USA style government.

At the very least it shows a different point of view of the role and purpose of government from what we grow up with.

What is the role of government?
What is the role of a leader?
What are the risks of democracy?
And for this forum what is the proper balance between competiveness and equality or between law and order?

He states that one person, one vote is a most difficult form of government. A radical point.

Even in the Western tradition, Mr. Lee's observations go back to Plato and Thucyclides.

"How do we avoid killing off Socrates / prolonging the Peloponessian War?" was on the mind of practically every early modern political theorist, particularly those who were in favor of some form of democracy. It's a pity we have almost completely forgotten about those concerns today.

[FM75]

 barmar, on 2013-June-15, 11:41, said:

I don't remember where it was, but years ago I read that two parties fits our psychology. People often think about things in terms of dichotomies, and the two-party system accomodates that.The problem you may run into is that you agree with some planks in the R platform, and other planks in the D platform. But that doesn't happen too much, because there's often quite a bit of correlation.

With more parties, they tend to become more specialized, and it becomes hard for any one of them to get majority support. And it's just harder for voters to keep track of where they all fit into their personal preferences.

http://www.bloomberg...e-on-facts.html

The views (when yacking and blogging) may be different, but when it comes to agreeing on FACTS the two are quite close together if there is money on the line for them personally. Now if one were to couple the one person - one vote, with a system in which each individual was taxed at the same amount, then not only would voter participation increase, but voters would expect to hear pro-rata costs of programs espoused by the candidates - which would certainly slam the brakes on government spending.

[mycroft]

 awm, on 2013-June-15, 23:26, said:

The problem is that the US system doesn't support more than two parties. Races for particular seats are winner-takes-all. This means if three or more viable candidates run, then the winner may have much less than majority support; it could be that a candidate that the vast majority of the electorate finds awful wins because the other candidates split the vote. In fact there have been some recent cases where (for example) a popular left-of-center independent ran and the net result was that the Republican candidate won with slightly more than a third of the overall vote (the Democrat and Independent splitting the liberal vote down the middle). Similar things have happened on the other side.

It also creates a situation where voting for a third party is effectively "throwing your vote away" -- you improve the chances that the major party you dislike more will actually win the election!

Countries with more-than-two-party systems normally have some form of proportionate representation, where a party that receives 20% of the vote gets (approximately) 20% of the representatives (rather than quite possibly zero, as in the US system).

Of course, the country closest to the U.S. with more-than-two-party system, and the country whose policies caused the U.S. to want to govern itself ... don't.

And yeah, all the problems you're referring to apply (especially the "majority in the House of Parliament with a plurality of the votes, and with a majority of MPs (of all parties) not winning a majority in their riding" bit). Having said that, voting R in California, or D across much of Rural America, is as much "throwing your vote away" as voting for a third party.

[mike777]

Yew argues that perhaps adults with families age 40-60 should have two votes.

If you start with the political philosophy that all people are created equal that leads one to many other conclusions of how a govt should look.

OTOH if you believe that humans are inherently vicious and have to be restrained from their viciousness or that to insist that all men and women are equal or should be equal must lead to regression leads Yew and others to a different viewpoint.

HIs fundamental viewpoint is we want an equal society and we want to give everyone equal opportunities. But we should never deceive ourselves that two human beings are equal in stamina, in their drive, in their dedication in their innate ability.

[onoway]

Judge Robert Bork, quotes:
As government regulations grow slowly, we become used to the harness. Habit is a powerful force, and we no longer feel as intensely as we once would have [the] constriction of our liberties that would have been utterly intolerable a mere half century ago.

[dwar0123]

 onoway, on 2013-June-18, 18:30, said:

Judge Robert Bork, quotes:
As government regulations grow slowly, we become used to the harness. Habit is a powerful force, and we no longer feel as intensely as we once would have [the] constriction of our liberties that would have been utterly intolerable a mere half century ago.

What are the things you can't do now that you could in 1963?

Among those things, what are the things you believe you should still be able to do?

Fill this out for me.

First list:
Smoke in restaurants
States outlawing interracial marriage
Discriminate based on sexual orientation
(add more examples)

Second list:
(add more examples)

[mike777]

 dwar0123, on 2013-June-18, 18:33, said:

What are the things you can't do now that you could in 1963?

Among those things, what are the things you believe you should still be able to do?

Fill this out for me.

First list:
Smoke in restaurants
States outlawing interracial marriage
Discriminate based on sexual orientation
(add more examples)

Second list:
(add more examples)

Clearly there was much more privacy, privacy in the old traditional sense of the word(non abortion) from big government and big business.

Also off the top I would add air travel.

With all of that said, yes in general we are far far better off in 2013 in general compared to 1963 in many important ways. I give credit for this to increased productivity but I do hate the lack of privacy.

[Zelandakh]

 FM75, on 2013-June-18, 15:29, said:

The views (when yacking and blogging) may be different, but when it comes to agreeing on FACTS the two are quite close together if there is money on the line for them personally. Now if one were to couple the one person - one vote, with a system in which each individual was taxed at the same amount, then not only would voter participation increase, but voters would expect to hear pro-rata costs of programs espoused by the candidates - which would certainly slam the brakes on government spending.

Oh a Poll Tax? What a good idea. But Britain got there first - it was one of the leading factors in the fall of Mrs Thatcher and that scheme was considerably less radical than what you want to see. It does not work - give it up. All you are doing is giving millions of Americans an incentive not to go to work or to leave the country or to riot.

[mike777]

 Zelandakh, on 2013-June-19, 00:54, said:

Oh a Poll Tax? What a good idea. But Britain got there first - it was one of the leading factors in the fall of Mrs Thatcher and that scheme was considerably less radical than what you want to see. It does not work - give it up. All you are doing is giving millions of Americans an incentive not to go to work or to leave the country or to riot.

One of the huge really huge issues regarding the UK was:
1) brilliant science
2) culture that denied commercial of science
3) a hubris of class

---------------


I would compare that to 4 salient features of usa but that is the problem with usa.....these four points are coming up lacking lately....

[hrothgar]

 dwar0123, on 2013-June-18, 18:33, said:

What are the things you can't do now that you could in 1963?

Among those things, what are the things you believe you should still be able to do?

Fill this out for me.

First list:
Smoke in restaurants
States outlawing interracial marriage
Discriminate based on sexual orientation
(add more examples)

Second list:
(add more examples)

From what I can tell, the most significant issue seems to be integrated classrooms.

Integrated classrooms was the defining issue that lead to political "Great Awakening" when Southern Evangelicals became politically active (Evangelicals claim that this was driven by abortion, but most studies show that school integration was much more important). To this day, vouchers and school choice issues largely boil down to the right to segregate children by race.

Te battles around "busing" weren't any more pretty up North. I wasn't living in Boston at the time, but you still hear stories about the chaos and violence involved with the "Racial Imbalance Act"...

Please note: I am not claiming that going back to racially segregated classrooms is a good idea. Rather, I am stating that this seems to be the defining characteristic of "the good old days".

[mike777]

I have to be honest in 1963 that was not an issue we discussed in class


my bet is in 1963 this was just not an issue in Chicago that we kids knew of...perhaps the parents did not discuss.
------------



looking back at....this was an issue but one the kids in my school had no idea.

it may seem weird to many but in 1963 or for that matter later we had no idea of race

[mike777]

in boston bussing was a huge issue that continues today....read..white flight.


charlotte was the firstcity of busing.......the result was:

charlotte became a minority city of students in the majority.
vast numbers of private schools.

vast number of law suits over 40 years.
-------


in my home town of Chicago you can see the results of nuts....crazy


I have told you guys of my home....roseland/Pullman Chicago this is where I grew up.

I went back and wow...no churches...no dept stores...no candy stores...no banks..no nothing....

[hrothgar]

 mike777, on 2013-June-19, 03:41, said:

I have told you guys of my home....roseland/Pullman Chicago this is where I grew up.

I went back and wow...no churches...no dept stores...no candy stores...no banks..no nothing....

The steel mills and Sherwin Williams both closed. Nasty one-two punch for those poor individuals who prefer stability to the opportunity for risk taking.

On the other hand, there is a thriving market for both cocaine and crank and the entrepreneurial risk takers are capitalizing on this...

I'd expect you to be proud about the whole state of affairs

[billw55]

 hrothgar, on 2013-June-19, 03:13, said:

From what I can tell, the most significant issue seems to be integrated classrooms.

Integrated classrooms was the defining issue that lead to political "Great Awakening" when Southern Evangelicals became politically active (Evangelicals claim that this was driven by abortion, but most studies show that school integration was much more important). To this day, vouchers and school choice issues largely boil down to the right to segregate children by race.

Te battles around "busing" weren't any more pretty up North. I wasn't living in Boston at the time, but you still hear stories about the chaos and violence involved with the "Racial Imbalance Act"...

Please note: I am not claiming that going back to racially segregated classrooms is a good idea. Rather, I am stating that this seems to be the defining characteristic of "the good old days".

I get most of what you are saying, but not sure I understand the bit about vouchers. What voucher programs are restricted by race? Can't black kids get a voucher just as easily as white kids?

[Zelandakh]

 billw55, on 2013-June-19, 06:11, said:

I get most of what you are saying, but not sure I understand the bit about vouchers. What voucher programs are restricted by race? Can't black kids get a voucher just as easily as white kids?

They can if they own a gun, or a knife... (sorry, bad taste humour)

[hrothgar]

 billw55, on 2013-June-19, 06:11, said:

I get most of what you are saying, but not sure I understand the bit about vouchers. What voucher programs are restricted by race? Can't black kids get a voucher just as easily as white kids?

Yes.
However, this is very different than being able to use said voucher

One of the big issues that I have with voucher programs is the presumption that the parent's will direct their spending in such a way as to improve junior's education. In practice, I think that many parents are attempting to achieve social, political, or religious goals.