Idiot Dems Are At It Again!

Post Reply New Topic

Here we go again, folks. Another attempt by Hillbots to blame everyone but their own candidate, and the DNC, for making it possible for Trump to win the presidency. Yes, they're blaming Jill Stein voters, and Susan Sarandon -- again!

Aarron Mate did the best job of smacking down these morons on Twitter.

I know! The "if you voted for anyone other than Hillary, you voted for Trump" thing all over again.

It's obviously flawed logic. The exact same argument would say "if you voted for anyone other than Trump, you voted for Hillary".

Having said that, I would question the reasoning of anyone in a swing state who voted for anyone other than the big two. With America's crappy system, if you live in a swing state then you should concentrate on those two. I would hazard a guess that 99% of Green voters would strongly prefer Hillary to Trump. If they'd all voted that way then she'd be in the White House right now.

If you live in California or Montana then go ahead and vote for whoever you want. If you live in Florida or Wisconsin then make your vote count.

Ultimately, the issue can be solved by abolishing the presidency, a fundamentally undemocratic institution which has a huge amount of power and has no accountability to most Americans who are excluded from appointing it. Beef up the power of Congress, which should be elected based on proportional representation. This would increase democratic accountability, empower Americans, and break the two-party system. Make the Majority Leader of whichever chamber is more representative into a Prime Minister, who would lead the executive as well as the legislative branches. It might also be worth considering shrinking the size of the federal government and devolving more power to state and local governments.

“States’ Rights,” historically, has been the basis for the perpetuation of Jim Crow abuses in the South.

Within the Articles of Confederation, states had considerable power. This led to “gridlock,” which was the inspiration for the Constitutional Convention, which lead, of course, to the promulgation of the Constitution.

I don’t believe delegating more power to the states would be a good thing.

This wouldn't be a bad idea.

I understand your concerns. Completely agree that there are some issues that need to be dealt with at the federal level, and civil rights is one of them.

On issues such as the drinking age, drug policy, and No Child Left Behind, I think the federal government exercises overreach. That could potentially also become the case with assisted suicide and abortion if federal restrictions were put in place.

Half of the US didn't even vote for either person running for president. That is what people are forgetting.

There are also Trump voters and Trump supporters, both totally different. People might have voted for Trump to keep Hilary out while not liking him. I voted for her to keep Trump out and I didn't like her. Some people might have felt Clinton is worse while I felt that way about Trump.

They never learn and they are screwing Tulsi over. I'm so glad Clinton lost and thank God Green voters had principles.

I sort of like that idea, although I haven't thought it through. This is just what I grew up with.

On the other hand, looking at what Britain is going through now, maybe not. That said, I know almost nothing about this GB politics.

There are a few issues with the British system, both in general and ones that have been highlighted by the ongoing constitutional crisis.

First, while it has a Prime Minister, it is not remotely proportional. I'm unsure but I think it might be even worse than the US Congress in this regard. While I don't think there's been a Prime Minister who didn't come from the largest party since Ramsay MacDonald about 100 years ago, there have been Prime Ministers who were dependent on the support of MPs from outside their party - Johnson is one of them.

Secondly, there is no formal constitution. Over the past ten years or so, informal constitutional norms have been challenged. Firstly this was due to scandals like the expenses scandal which increased a desire for political reform. The 2010-15 coalition government was between the Liberal Democrats, who had radical ideas for changing the way politics works, and the Conservatives, who opposed nearly all of them. There were two referendums in this period, which helped to normalise them somewhat. In both cases, the Conservatives won, so the Prime Minister could happily "implement the result", as the result was his policy.

The 2016 European referendum was a continuation of this assault on constitutional norms. Some might say a well-needed assault. But the issue with this referendum was it produced a result which is widely considered by the intelligentsia, and most of the political class, to be a bad idea. It also went in stark contrast to government policy. So the referendum result has really annoyed most politicians. In seeking to hold the government to account, particularly on the more damaging proposals, MPs have further flouted constitutional norms. In seeking to "implement the result" (a rather loaded term as interpretations of what "the result" is vary wildly), the government has also flouted constitutional norms. And all of this has really annoyed ordinary people, who see the government as grabbing power, or Parliament as ignoring the people.

A third issue is that Parliament represents the people. But there's a problem - the people are extremely divided and there is no way a majority of people could agree on any one course of action. Brexiteers who once claimed to desire a close, Norway-style relationship with the EU (remaining in the single market and probably the customs union) now want to cut off relations with the EU almost entirely. Remainers who would once have supported a Norway-style relationship with the EU as a fair reflection of the referendum now tend to prefer just not leaving at all. Polling suggests that in a new referendum, Remain would win about 55-45, but I'm unsure that hypothetical would survive contact with reality. Parliament is divided because the country is divided - a feature, not a bug.

Some reforms I'd like to see in the UK government:

- Abolition of the House of Lords
- MPs elected proportionally using the German system. Some sort of representation for our mess of overseas territories and crown dependencies.
- Independence for Diego Garcia, with a package of measures to support and compensate the displaced indigenous people.
- Scotland-style devolution for the regions of England, plus Wales and Cornwall. Northern Ireland has a unique arrangement.
- Parental leave for MPs.
- A formal constitution that requires a super-majority to amend. This should, amongst other things, set out a detailed method by which territories can leave the union. Again, this should make appropriate exceptions for Northern Ireland to remain compliant with the Good Friday Agreement.
- Full citizenship for all people born in the British Empire or equivalent territories. So if you were born in India before independence, you have a right to claim the same citizenship as any other British citizen.
- Strengthening the right of recall.
- Abolition of any role, even symbolic, for the monarchy. The death of a monarch should trigger a referendum on whether to retain the monarchy.
- Disestablishment of the Church of England.
- Maintain the present role of the speaker, but make them the MP for the Palace of Westminster so that no constituents are disadvantaged.
- Unless a role is explicitly a political one (such as Special Advisers), transfer appointment powers away Ministers and towards Permanent Secretaries or the Cabinet Secretary.
- Votes for all citizens, except those not due to be released from prison for more than five years.
- Bursaries for individuals looking to run for Parliament who come from disadvantaged backgrounds or have other characteristics that make the process more difficult. My initial thoughts are that these should be "does not possess a university degree", "has a disability", "was in care at some point before their 18th birthday", and "is presently claiming a low-income benefit" at the very least. I'm also tempted to throw in a qualification for young age (<30) and of course there are arguments for race, gender, immigrant status, and being trans, but this is mostly about overcoming class-related barriers and I don't want to support millionaires who just happen to be BAME or women or young. There should be some way you have shown yourself to be a serious candidate, such as receiving a nomination from a party that polled at least x% in the constituency last time.

^^^^ this is very interesting and thank you for taking the time to write it all down. I still don't know enough to take it all in, but will give a bit of feedback.

I see your House of Lords as something analogous to our senate. It is ridiculous for states with very little population to have the same level of representation as much more populous states. My understanding of the House of Lords is that they can only come from the aristocracy.

Being old enough to have followed "the troubles" I would not want to see anything disrupt that agreement. I see this as the most dangerous risk of a no deal Brexit.

Following the lead of Douglas Adams, I rather like the idea of a monarch who can represent the nation. In this manner you avoid being accused of being unpatriotic anytime one even questions of what our government is up to.

I don't know who Diego Garcia is, but I will look it up. When you mention indigenous people, forgive my ignorance, are they in England and if so, who are they. Or are you referring to the Maori of New Zealand and the Aborigines of Australia?

In terms of a head of state, what about putting a civil servant as a "chair" who simply ensures procedural rules are followed when the people's representatives, whoever they may be, are engaged in governing?

By "proportional representation", do you mean areas of high population make the rules for the rest of the country in perpetuity?

Sorry, duplicate post.

Last edited by blazingstar on 01 Sep 2019, 8:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

@Walrus, My apologies. Diego Garcia is an island with a storied history of exploitation by Europeans and Americans. There seems to be nothing there now, people-wise, except US military. What would freedom do for this island?

Magna, you have just identified the reason the US needs the senate. Thank you.

No need for drivel. Parliament voted to trigger Article 50 which meant after two years we would leave the EU with or without a deal. This was in British law that we would leave on the 29th of March. Because the establishment doesn't accept the result and are slaves of the EU they gave the EU what they wanted by asking for an extension to try and get the slave deal through again.

I would just like to point out that this is a reversal of 200 year trend of american politics. Federal power has increases, executive power has increased, State and local government has decreased, and congressional power has decreased. Government size and power has expanded continuously.

By constitutional authority, congress powers are essentially limitless, but because of divisiveness the president has taken a much more central role despite constitutionally having much less power.

I'm hilariously going to cite a star wars prequel quote, but I think it's actually one of the best descriptions I've seen of this phenomenon: