Looney Tunes On The Potomic - Page 10 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15149225
Image

Biden should concede. I want his concession on my desk tomorrow morning. Don’t make me come over there.
Rep Paul Gosar, Ariz.

This is a tweet from a Republican congressman from Arizona.... I ask you now …… have you ever seen a better example of assholeism?

That guy Gosar is one scary dude ……. :lol:
#15149357
wat0n wrote:I thought you meant the existence of a lot of supermajorities in a two-party system. Yes, I think this excessive Presidentialism is not ideal, although interestingly it didn't, by itself, represent that much of a problem in practice. But yes, things could have turned differently.

For instance, under the current Chilean Constitution, the President must provide the government income estimates - Congress has no business in providing any input or criticizing it. It works well when Presidents care about government finances, yes, but what if the President is an orange-headed arch-populist? You get huge deficits even if the economy is growing just fine, ironically.


How are lots of supermajorities "fine" for a two-party system?

In any case, theoretically it seems obvious to me that the two-party system in combination with checks and balances leads to deadlock IF the two parties are not moderate (i.e. are appealing to their base instead of the median voter). In a multi-party system you always have moderate parties, even if they are smaller than the parties on the fringes. Hence compromise between for example a center-left majority in the lower house and a center-right majority in the upper house seems possible, presuming there are no strict coalitions (and no supermajorities).

If the president is not moderate, that still poses a problem of course, at least if he has veto power. Also if the election of the president requires strict coalitions that could spill over to the legislative.
#15149373
Rugoz wrote:How are lots of supermajorities "fine" for a two-party system?

In any case, theoretically it seems obvious to me that the two-party system in combination with checks and balances leads to deadlock IF the two parties are not moderate (i.e. are appealing to their base instead of the median voter). In a multi-party system you always have moderate parties, even if they are smaller than the parties on the fringes. Hence compromise between for example a center-left majority in the lower house and a center-right majority in the upper house seems possible, presuming there are no strict coalitions (and no supermajorities).

If the president is not moderate, that still poses a problem of course, at least if he has veto power. Also if the election of the president requires strict coalitions that could spill over to the legislative.


The supermajorities provide rather strong incentives for both coalitions to aim for the median voter, instead of exclusively pandering to their electoral bases.

Of course, if one of the coalitions actually prefers a deadlock then it may be another matter. But then again, if that happened then the median voter may spoil that - which is one reason why Trump lost.

Furthermore, another radically different matter is if one or both coalitions prefers to attempt to change things by pursuing politics through other means. If that happens, if things are such that they think it may be a good idea to try to do so, then trouble begins... But that applies to any political system, including non-democratic ones. And that's also why I have been so worried about deterrence - because if agents try to impose themselves by force, and succeed at setting precedents on the matter (for instance, that doing so may not lead to a virtually unanimous condemnation of such means), then all the stuff about "electoral systems", "supermajorities" and the like are rendered moot sooner or later.
#15149419
Melania Trump was fiddling with furniture when the Capitol was stormed. While pro-Trump rioters were bludgeoning a police officer to death, she was reportedly overseeing a photoshoot of her rugs. As the mayhem escalated, aides asked her if she would release a statement urging calm. But, no, White House sources told CNN, the first lady was firmly focused on her photo project; it seems she hopes to release a coffee table book about all the lovely decorative objects she has collected.

Truly a mental cypher :|
#15149422
jimjam wrote:Melania Trump was fiddling with furniture when the Capitol was stormed. While pro-Trump rioters were bludgeoning a police officer to death, she was reportedly overseeing a photoshoot of her rugs. As the mayhem escalated, aides asked her if she would release a statement urging calm. But, no, White House sources told CNN, the first lady was firmly focused on her photo project; it seems she hopes to release a coffee table book about all the lovely decorative objects she has collected.

Truly a mental cypher :|


I think she's just hoping that if she ignores everything, it will all go away.
#15149554
wat0n wrote:The supermajorities provide rather strong incentives for both coalitions to aim for the median voter, instead of exclusively pandering to their electoral bases.

Of course, if one of the coalitions actually prefers a deadlock then it may be another matter. But then again, if that happened then the median voter may spoil that - which is one reason why Trump lost.


Both parties aim to maximize their number of seats. If both parties do their job well, both will win approximately the same number of seats. Who wins the (slim) majority is basically random. If the parties don't target the median voter you randomly get one or the other extreme policy, and not randomly the same policy (namely the policy of the median voter). Hence if the two-party system works as intended, you have two virtually indistinguishable parties that seem to offer no real choice to voters.

If extreme policy positions help the two parties win more seats, they will do so. No party will say: Oh maybe I should be more moderate such that compromise get easier further down the road. Because if the other side wins being moderate or not is irrelevant.

Supermajorities in such a scenario might help because they make elections less high stakes. Even if a party loses, it can still block the winning side. However, I really don't see how supermajorities would lead to less deadlock, even if both parties end up somewhat more moderate as a result. Besides, if the two-party system actually works, supermajorities are something you want to avoid, because then a minority party with extreme positions can block the median voter position.
#15149555
Rugoz wrote:Both parties aim to maximize their number of seats. If both parties do their job well, both will win approximately the same number of seats. Who wins the (slim) majority is basically random. If the parties don't target the median voter you randomly get one or the other extreme policy, and not randomly the same policy (namely the policy of the median voter). Hence if the two-party system works as intended, you have two virtually indistinguishable parties that seem to offer no real choice to voters.

If extreme policy positions help the two parties win more seats, they will do so. No party will say: Oh maybe I should be more moderate such that compromise get easier further down the road. Because if the other side wins being moderate or not is irrelevant.

Supermajorities in such a scenario might help because they make elections less high stakes. Even if a party loses, it can still block the winning side. However, I really don't see how supermajorities would lead to less deadlock, even if both parties end up somewhat more moderate as a result. Besides, if the two-party system actually works, supermajorities are something you want to avoid, because then a minority party with extreme positions can block the median voter position.


Just to be sure, are you making this analysis under a parliamentary or a presidential system? I'm asking because there is a winner take all situation in the Presidential elections that most definitely provides incentives for the coalitions to target the median voter.

The thing is, the type of party system is just part of a package that includes pretty much all the important things together - the number of parties, the type of government, the electoral system, supermajorities and also the degree of decentralization. I don't think it makes sense to look only at one of these - it probably makes more sense to analyze the package as a whole to judge if the system is well designed.
#15149595
jimjam wrote:One of the attackers, a man wearing a white and blue hat and a green jacket, reached into the doorway, grabbed an officer and dragged him out, aided by a man in a gray hooded sweatshirt.

As they pulled the officer down the stairs, face down, another rioter beat him with an American flag as the mob chanted “USA! USA! USA!”

jimjam sez: "Hey, let's turn the country over to the trumptards." The poor guy was beat with an American flag so, it was cool.



Someone here said they didn't have any weapons... (providing reason why it not being a coup)
#15149621
Groom wrote:Someone here said they didn't have any weapons... (providing reason why it not being a coup)

Court papers filed on Wednesday in the case of Cleveland G. Meredith Jr., who wrote in a text message that he wanted to put a bullet in the “noggin” of Speaker Nancy Pelosi on “live TV,” prosecutors said. Mr. Meredith drove across the country with a Tavor X95 assault rifle, a 9 mm pistol painted to resemble an American flag and about 2,500 rounds of ammunition, including at least 320 armor-piercing 5.56 caliber rounds. Prosecutors say Mr. Meredith, who has a history of drug abuse and mental illness, also threatened to kill Mayor Muriel E. Bowser of Washington.

“I may wander over to the Mayor’s office and put a 5.56 in her skull,” he wrote in a text message.

Thank You Fat Donald for unleashing your psychopaths on us. "Mr." Meredith is just the kind of sweetheart I want living next to me.
#15149623
jimjam wrote: Court papers filed on Wednesday in the case of Cleveland G. Meredith Jr., who wrote in a text message that he wanted to put a bullet in the “noggin” of Speaker Nancy Pelosi on “live TV,” prosecutors said. Mr. Meredith drove across the country with a Tavor X95 assault rifle, a 9 mm pistol painted to resemble an American flag and about 2,500 rounds of ammunition, including at least 320 armor-piercing 5.56 caliber rounds. Prosecutors say Mr. Meredith, who has a history of drug abuse and mental illness, also threatened to kill Mayor Muriel E. Bowser of Washington.

“I may wander over to the Mayor’s office and put a 5.56 in her skull,” he wrote in a text message.

Thank You Fat Donald for unleashing your psychopaths on us. "Mr." Meredith is just the kind of sweetheart I want living next to me.


I'd imagine there is a high incidence of different mental illnesses among Trump supporters.
#15149712
Agreed. But I also wonder about the Trumpsters who won't wear masks when they are in the presences of others. Is this an indicator of how they raise their children?
#15149715
Stormsmith wrote: Is this an indicator of how they raise their children?



Yes, very likely raising their kids to be entitled brats.
#15149782
The Secret Service detail assigned to Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump have had extreme difficulty in finding a place to go to the bathroom. The president’s daughter and her top White House adviser spouse have apparently exiled the squad of men and women assigned to keep them from harm’s way from using the six toilets in their sprawling Washington DC mansion. Secret Service members in the couple’s detail who were desperate to relieve themselves had resorted to a porta-potty, as well as bathrooms at the homes of Barack Obama and Vice-President Mike Pence.

The solution to the problem was not a cheap one. Since September 2017 the federal government rented the stricken Secret Service members a basement studio with a bathroom for the purposes of them going to the loo. The cost to taxpayers? Some $3,000 a month.

Lessee now :hmm: ……… $36,000 @year of your tax dollars so that Princess Ivanka could be assured that there would NEVER be little yellow drops on her toilet seat or, worse yet, an unflushed turd violating her royal presence :eek: .
#15149788
wat0n wrote:Just to be sure, are you making this analysis under a parliamentary or a presidential system? I'm asking because there is a winner take all situation in the Presidential elections that most definitely provides incentives for the coalitions to target the median voter.


For both. Obviously there are incentives to target the median voter, but there are also incentives to increase voter engagement and turnout. That's the trade-off you have in a two-party system. What wins out in the end is an empirical question.

wat0n wrote:The thing is, the type of party system is just part of a package that includes pretty much all the important things together - the number of parties, the type of government, the electoral system, supermajorities and also the degree of decentralization. I don't think it makes sense to look only at one of these - it probably makes more sense to analyze the package as a whole to judge if the system is well designed.


The two party system if a consequence of single-member district FPTP voting. You can change that without changing the rest (although it would probably be best to scrap the entire thing and come up with something modern).
#15149791
Rugoz wrote:For both. Obviously there are incentives to target the median voter, but there are also incentives to increase voter engagement and turnout. That's the trade-off you have in a two-party system. What wins out in the end is an empirical question.


Right, although turnout can only go so far. I can imagine an uncompromising strategy can only work for so long, and possibly at a future cost depending on the future median voter (maybe that's what will happen to the GOP?)

Rugoz wrote:The two party system if a consequence of single-member district FPTP voting. You can change that without changing the rest (although it would probably be best to scrap the entire thing and come up with something modern).


I wouldn't be so sure about it, FPTP definitely provides some incentives but that need not be the case (e.g. if regionalism is strong). That's why I think the rest matters too. I'm also not entirely sure it needs to be fixed, the alternatives can also be problematic. In Chile's case, it doesn't use a FPTP system. It uses a D'Hondt system, and before the change used a special case of the D'Hondt system that makes it very hard for more than two coalitions to emerge (a binominal system). If Chile wants to keep its electoral system, it would arguably need to change some of the rest of that stuff, e.g. to reduce its Presidentialism or even drop it altogether and switch to a Parliamentary form of government.

That's why I see it as a bit of an indeterminate choice if you only focus on one thing at a time.
#15149840
Image
Jacob Chansley, wearing horns, at the Capitol on 6 January.

Chansley has spoken openly about his belief that he is an alien, a higher being, and he is here on Earth to ascend to another reality.

Federal prosecutors have offered an ominous new assessment of last week’s siege of the US Capitol by Donald Trump’s supporters, saying in a court filing that rioters intended “to capture and assassinate elected officials”.

No doubt @blackjack21 is just fine with this because it makes deep staters (and the everyone else who does not belong to Fat Donald's cult of morons) a bit nervous.

The Fat Man claims to be a law and order guy. Hey Donald how about shoving some law and order up Psychos For trump's asses. Come on now fattie …………… we're waiting.
#15149873
jimjam wrote:No doubt @blackjack21 is just fine with this because it makes deep staters (and the everyone else who does not belong to Fat Donald's cult of morons) a bit nervous.

As I've said before, be careful what you ask for. Steve Scalise was shot and nearly killed. Thanks anti-Trumpers, Maxine Waters, et. al. for calling for violence, protests, and soft peddling rioters throughout 2020. :roll:
#15149874
jimjam wrote:Image
Jacob Chansley, wearing horns, at the Capitol on 6 January.

Chansley has spoken openly about his belief that he is an alien, a higher being, and he is here on Earth to ascend to another reality.

Federal prosecutors have offered an ominous new assessment of last week’s siege of the US Capitol by Donald Trump’s supporters, saying in a court filing that rioters intended “to capture and assassinate elected officials”.

No doubt @blackjack21 is just fine with this because it makes deep staters (and the everyone else who does not belong to Fat Donald's cult of morons) a bit nervous.

The Fat Man claims to be a law and order guy. Hey Donald how about shoving some law and order up Psychos For trump's asses. Come on now fattie …………… we're waiting.


I don't know if they really would have tried to kill the VP. They seem like talk and no bite. Then again, when mob mentality takes over, people's personal sense of right/wrong gets overridden. Then again, there were pipebombs and other weapons around. In either case, they should be treated as though they really did have the intent to kill Pence. This isn't a funny haha session of larping afterall.
#15149909
...and he is here on Earth to ascend to another reality.


He seems close to accomplishing this by the look of things.
  • 1
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11

Hmmm, it the Ukraine aid package is all over mains[…]

So the evidence shows that it was almost certainl[…]

Yes, and that conditional statement is not necessa[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0pAf3aBt18 How […]