# Why is the American voting system so flawed?



## Taleweaver (Jul 6, 2018)

Okay...this'll be one of THOSE threads/rants again. Sorry, but it's a necessary one. You can always choose to not continue reading. 

Okay...You've all heard of the accusations of Russians messing with the last presidential election. Whether that's true or not has been discussed to death (contributions gladly taken in this thread). But I'm currently reading through Bernie Sander's last book, and the more I read, the more I see this Russian influence incident as something minor (even assuming that it's true to begin with). The real danger comes from a totally different corner. A democracy explicitly means "a society ruled by the people". And the more I read, the more I agree with Sanders that at this point, the USA resembles an oligarchy (meaning: it's ruled by corporations) more than a democracy.

*Only two candidates*

Let's start with the elephant in the room: the people can only vote for one of two candidates. Thus far, I sort of assumed that this was only an implicit end result. With a country the size of the USA, there is no escaping the fact if you want to be elected president, you have to get a team and a campaign together and travel the country to convince people. This costs a lot of money and requires political backing, which I assumed was the reason that candidates first get their CV in either political party before actually running for president.

However...Sanders was an independent (in fact, he has the record of longest sitting independent in the government). The reason he ran for the democrats wasn't because he wasn't a fan of the party - in fact, he had some harsh criticism on 'em - but because traditional media apparently treat independent presidential candidates as though they don't exist(1). End result: for as long as traditional media remain the dominant news source, they decide which party they'll report as having presidential candidates.

The consequence of this already has some implications. Trump immediately knew that television stations and media love a good story. As such, speaking in sound bites and twittering headlines got him on a proverbial pedestal. On the other side, Sanders's political stance is widely popular among millenials, but pretty unknown among older generations (guess who relies most on traditional media?  ).

*Winner takes all*

I'm not sure how many of you remember the 2000 elections, but there was this heated argument over who won in Florida (W.Bush or Al Gore). Before that, I simply assumed Americans voted for their president. They don't...they vote for a certain Electoral College who do the ACTUAL voting for the president. The amount of votes each state has is sort of representing the amount of citizens they contain, but most States use a 'winner-takes-all' mentality. California has 55 votes, but last elections, it meant jack shit whether 1% or 49% of their voters wanted a Republican president: Clinton got all 55. that's why the 2000 elections were pretty absurd as a foreigner: Al Gore flat out had the most votes, but (in the end) didn't became the president. The same thing happened in 2016: Hillary had the most votes, but instead of saying she won the elections Americans say she had "the popular vote".

Then there's the thing about republics. These also operate on the "winner takes all" mentality. I'm not going in depth on Belgian politics, but when we vote for our parties (we've got a bunch of them), the election decides their power in regards to each other. Then they'll have to form a coalition of parties that'll make up a government that represents at least the majority of citizens. I won't deny that there are serious disadvantages to it when it comes to getting shit done(6), but isn't the USA pretty absurd in being the exact opposite? I mean...shouldn't it make at least a difference whether a political party wins with a minority vote versus winning with a landslide?

Okay...think of this as this way: you and your colleague do the same job. Only one of you can get a raise, but in the end you'll still do the same job. Would you go as far as to publicly shaming your colleague to get that raise? Not very likely, as in the end, you'll still have to work together. As such, that whole "lock her up!!!"-tantrum that Trump used on his adversary is unheard of in pretty much the rest of the political world (okay, agreed: most likely within the US government as well). Getting chosen is one thing, but for the task at hand, knowing how to co-operate with others (especially the opposition) is what matters in the long run. Or even the medium run.

*Influence and how to use it*

One of the things I find strange in the investigations is that it's hardly explained what Russia is actually accused for. If it were hacking computers to change enough X to Y (more specifically: swap 'Hillary' with 'Donald'), then that would at least be a clearly defined crime against US democracy. But it's not that simple. I mean...I'm a foreigner, my real name isn't "Taleweaver" and I've made a bunch of posts dissing Donald Trump for being insane(7). Am I guilty of the same conspiracy, according to Mueller?

*sigh*

Don't get me wrong: dressing someone up as Hillary Clinton in a fake prison cell and attempting to pass it as genuine is below the belt, no matter what. But you can't have a nation of free speech unless you allow people to exercise that right. It has always been the implicit assumption that the audience is smart enough to separate fact from fiction. And as much as I would hope otherwise, that often isn't true. Technological advancement hasn't lead to an upheaval of intelligence, but more in a platform that confirms your political stance, no matter what that stance is (8). I've seen the fake reports that the pope would endorse Trump, that picture where the devil tauts to Jesus that he would gain influence when Clinton would win or that Donald Trump hired strippers to pee on the bed that Obama once slept in. So what? They're clickbait articles, meant to draw in readers who want entertainment.

The bad thing is: the internet isn't the only manipulated source of information. Television and papers often like to refer to them as objective (erm...does Fox still do that, btw?  ), but they rarely _don't_ have their own agenda. And as a foreigner, that can get pretty frustrating when talking politics with Americans. I don't pretend that my local newspaper is unbiassed, but since it's on the other end of the ocean, I can be pretty darn sure that it doesn't get paid by any political party to influence their analytics in any way. Nonetheless, I've had the "you should try other sources than liberal media" punchline being used against me. I usually don't bother that I do that sort of research before forming (and posting about) an opinion.

But I digress. The thing is: all these stories seem to incite fear against new media. Who do you trust on the internet?(2) Why do you believe THAT person??? But as already stated: the majority of influence is still in the hands of the media. Which sometimes tends to be so absurdly biased that I honestly wonder whether people believe anything that somehow ties in with that they already believe.


*Lobbying*


So running for president takes a lot of money to get enough popularity to honestly stand a chance against the competition (Sanders estimated a decent campaign at around one billion dollars(3) ). Where does it come from? And more importantly: what does the spender want in return?
In theory, a candidate always has the right to use donations as he/she sees fit. In practice, things don't work that way. Large corporations like pfizer or Walmart rather spend their money on making sure that products remain legal or that the minimum wage is kept low than paying for alternatives or paying their employees a decent wage.

All of this and more shouldn't really strike Americans as a surprise anymore. It all contributes to that proverbial swamp Trump promised to drain(4). Unless I'm mistaken, wall street is seen more and more as a place of corruption and less as a place of innovation(5). The inequality probably plays into that as well (the whole "the poor get poor, the rich get rich" has been going on so long that we might as well live on different planets). But regardless: the rich elite and large companies are pretty busy influencing the government. In fact, they outrank congress 2 - 1 as far as lobbyists go. And that starts right at the gate with the candidates. Why would a potential president pass laws that benefit the environment when the Koch brothers (a.k.a.: oil companies) are more inclined to fund a candidate who does NOT pass this law? Economists and philanthropists agree that an increase of minimum wage is more efficient for the economy than tax breaks for the rich (which is also common sense: give thousand dollars to thousand poor people, and they'll spend it. Give a million to a millionaire and his spending pattern won't suddenly grow thousand-fold), but why have a country that benefits the most people when a small percentace has influence where it matters?

In that light, I wasn't TOO surprised when reading about this thing called "citizens united act". As thin as the line between sponsoring and bribing might have been, at least there was a maximum to it. And I'm speaking in past tense, because that's no longer the case. Result: the Koch brothers spent more money on the presidency than either the democrats or republicans. But that's hardly in the news. Perhaps things would've been different if they were Russians? 


*Conclusion*

Okay...I admit I'm rambling a bit. It's also a shame: at the end of 2016, it was as if there were actually three candidates left. Even though Sanders was 'eliminated' by Clinton, he left quite an impression over here (not sure if it's over there as well). His book describes most of the above, but not in a regretful or envious fashion. It acknowledges that the system needs to be fixed, but accepted that the system was what it was.


But I wonder...how do Americans themselves feel about this. Do you feel the voting system as fair and balanced? Is it a system that should work but is hindered by external factors? Or should it just be all together changed for another system?




(1): from what I understand, Bernie Sanders was already more popular with the people than most other democratic candidates in the preselections. But because television networks and newspapers can do whatever the fuck they want, they can pretty much ignore independents and focus on their political sponsors.
(2): for the record: I'm politically left-oriented (@Americans: that's 'extreme left' as far as you are concerned). I voted for our local socialist party quite a few times, and the way it currently looks, I'll vote for a smaller party with an emphasis on the climate/environment. But I'll put my personal political views in a blog post in case anyone cares about Belgian politics
(3): at first I thought this was an insane amount, but it's about three dollar per citizen. With our upcoming elections, I read that our political parties spend on average just below one euro per citizen. And "three times less!" doesn't say much, because our country is hardly the size of a US state, so travelling is a lot cheaper
(4): kind of ironic that his staff contains more millionaires than any previous president.
(5): Sanders makes claims like that 52% of the money in jobs generated in this century directly benefit the top 0.1%, and that they're only American when it comes to reaping benefits...as far as taxes go, they're as foreign as they can legally have it allowed.
(6): Belgium holds the world record of "longest time to form a government"
(7): I still stand by that opinion, btw. Upon request, I'll dig up the threat discussing his mental health
(8): If I start talking on facebook on the fact that the world is flat, I bet it wouldn't take long before google throws me advertisements of cruises to the edge of the earth.


----------



## CoinKillerL (Jul 6, 2018)

let's not talk about the italian one...


----------



## ferret7463 (Jul 6, 2018)

We have "electorial votes" that determine the final outcome for a president,you would not be questioning this is if the left would have won.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jul 6, 2018)

From what I can see while the US is not old it is still old enough to have some legacy hangups. Several of those compound issues, and are in turn compounded by a strange sense of traditionalism. The electoral college would seem to be one of those -- some sense was made if you live in a time before telegraphs, today when speed of light means milliseconds is your conversation lag time... 

Two parties is almost an inevitable result of various voting systems wherein you have just one vote.


Money wise I do find the US system of basically unlimited money to be odd, even more so that super pac nonsense.



ferret7463 said:


> We have "electorial votes" that determine the final outcome for a president,you would not be questioning this is if the left would have won.


While that can be true for some people then some people, especially outsiders with no great stake in the game, do like to ponder the maths of situations.


----------



## Taleweaver (Jul 6, 2018)

ferret7463 said:


> We have "electorial votes" that determine the final outcome for a president,you would not be questioning this is if the left would have won.


I know what you have. In fact, I wrote about it in the opening post. The problem (sorry: _one_ of the problems) with your current system is that it might lead to a government that doesn't have a majority of people wanting it in the first place. That is a concern irregardless of the outcome.


Let's take the following analogy that might illustrate things: imagine a class with 9 boys and 12 girls. Each desk has room for 3 kids. Nine girls group together and occupy 3 desks. The remaining three girls each share a desk with 2 boys*. The last of the desks is occupied by 3 boys. In other words: 7 desks: 3 all-girl desks, 3 mixed, 1 all-boys.
Then the teacher puts 21 pieces of candy on the table and tasks the class to divide it between the 21 children.

If this was a normal democracy, every child would get a piece of candy. Every child will be happy.

The American model starts by deciding that the most popular 2 kids gets to decide on how to distribute it, and that every desk has a vote in whom to vote for. Then one candidate proposes that the boys get 3 pieces of candy each and the girls get nothing. The boys will win with 4-3. Not because they "represent the majority" (they don't), but because this way of looking at it effectively renders a part of the participants (the girls on the tables with a majority of boys) as useless.
End result: girls complaining that it's unfair, and boys using arguments like "you wouldn't complain if it were reversed" to attempt to validate their abuse of the system.


*the swing states, if you want to call it that


----------



## Xzi (Jul 6, 2018)

Taleweaver said:


> I know what you have. In fact, I wrote about it in the opening post. The problem (sorry: _one_ of the problems) with your current system is that it might lead to a government that doesn't have a majority of people wanting it in the first place. That is a concern irregardless of the outcome.


Indeed.  Reagan was the last Republican president to actually win the popular vote.  With gerrymandering, Democrats have to receive 58% or more of the popular vote to guarantee a win.  With only two political parties and one of them willing to cheat to stay in power, Democracy truly is broken in the US.  We've essentially been a Banana Republic since the Citizens United SCOTUS decision.


----------



## Joe88 (Jul 6, 2018)

The problem is you are looking at the US as a democracy, when in reality it is a republic.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 6, 2018)

Joe88 said:


> The problem is you are looking at the US as a democracy, when in reality it is a republic.


It's supposed to be both, a Democratic Republic.  Just like "by the people and for the people," though, that part is being slowly scrubbed away because it's inconvenient to certain elitists who want to consolidate power.


----------



## linuxares (Jul 6, 2018)

Oh, it's flawed because you guys let them have it flawed. Just sayin'


----------



## tbb043 (Jul 6, 2018)

It's not messed up, go back to worshipping your king/queen/whatever


----------



## Xzi (Jul 6, 2018)

linuxares said:


> Oh, it's flawed because you guys let them have it flawed. Just sayin'


Wat.  I don't know about the rest of you, but I was born in the late eighties.  My generation hasn't had the chance to govern at all yet, it's still tech-illiterate egotistical baby boomers occupying all three branches of government.  That's an easy way to tell that Democracy is no longer functioning properly in this country, voter representation is nowhere near equal.


----------



## SG854 (Jul 6, 2018)

Taleweaver said:


> Okay...this'll be one of THOSE threads/rants again. Sorry, but it's a necessary one. You can always choose to not continue reading.
> 
> Okay...You've all heard of the accusations of Russians messing with the last presidential election. Whether that's true or not has been discussed to death (contributions gladly taken in this thread). But I'm currently reading through Bernie Sander's last book, and the more I read, the more I see this Russian influence incident as something minor (even assuming that it's true to begin with). The real danger comes from a totally different corner. A democracy explicitly means "a society ruled by the people". And the more I read, the more I agree with Sanders that at this point, the USA resembles an oligarchy (meaning: it's ruled by corporations) more than a democracy.
> 
> ...



Be careful blaming the top 0.1% that control a lot of wealth, government and media. A good chunk of them are Jewish and people will call you an Anti-Semite.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jul 7, 2018)

SG854 said:


> Be careful blaming the top 0.1% that control a lot of wealth, government and media. A good chunk of them are Jewish and people will call you an Anti-Semite.


Why fear what isn't true?


----------



## Taleweaver (Jul 7, 2018)

ferret7463 said:


> We have "electorial votes" that determine the final outcome for a president,you would not be questioning this is if the left would have won.


Okay, a second time I quote it, but to be clear: you're absolutely right. Though i think not in the way you think you mean it. When you say"the left" you mean Clinton, right? Because to Europeans, the stance of the average Democrat on political topics would be called'right' (with Republicans somewhere in the extreme right). For me, however, 'the left' would be Bernie Sanders. And indeed: i wouldn't have complained much if he won, because he's against at least half the things i mentioned.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



tbb043 said:


> It's not messed up, go back to worshipping your king/queen/whatever





Who? Oh...our king? You mean that family who has a purely ceremonial function and no political power whatsoever? You mean that guy who plays the referee when forming a government but it's strictly forbidden to let his personal views come into anything*? You mean those guys that got more or less tolerated because of protocol roughly since the forming of Belgium?

In case: i far you to grind the first Belgian who genuinely 'worships' our Royal family more than any given celebrity (if it wasn't soccer season, i'd dare you to find someone calling himself Belgian, but that currently lasts until our team loses the match).

*About 20 years ago, he didn't agree on signing the abortion law because of personal beliefs. Result: he lost his kingship for a day so the government could just pass it without interference


----------



## Darth Meteos (Jul 7, 2018)

ferret7463 said:


> We have "electorial votes" that determine the final outcome for a president,you would not be questioning this is if the left would have won.


more troubling is that your only response to a system that curbs free democracy is "i can accept it if my side wins"
if clinton won through electoral college, i'd be complaining alright, after all the "not my president" shit that happened after al gore lost
clinton backed herself into a corner by grandstanding about people not accepting the results of elections, then it backfired
i admit, it was fun to watch

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



linuxares said:


> Oh, it's flawed because you guys let them have it flawed. Just sayin'


you're right
let's all march up to the capitol building
"hey guys stop the sham democracy"
and it'll work
we won't be shot by the secret service or nothin'
or lambasted in the media for being extremists
you've solved corruption in america
five stars, all gold


----------



## SuzieJoeBob (Jul 7, 2018)

Xzi said:


> It's supposed to be both, a Democratic Republic.  Just like "by the people and for the people," though, that part is being slowly scrubbed away because it's inconvenient to certain elitists who want to consolidate power.


'Democracy' and derivatives of the word do not appear in either Declaration of Independence or the US Constitution, but the word '''republic' does. There are concepts and phrases that are reminiscent of a democratic society, but are only brief mentions and not outright proclamations.


----------



## ut2k4master (Jul 7, 2018)

because in a lot of ways the us is stuck in the past


----------



## dpad_5678 (Jul 7, 2018)

"How dare you imply that God's greatest nation isn't perfect? We'll nuke your ass! <Insert more rightist bible-lover snowflake ranting>"



tbb043 said:


> It's not messed up, go back to worshipping your king/queen/whatever


How can one person be SUCH an idiot in such a small statement?


----------



## Fugelmir (Jul 7, 2018)

United States: Greatest Country in the world.

I'd look to other more problematic areas to complain


----------



## dpad_5678 (Jul 7, 2018)

SG854 said:


> Be careful blaming the top 0.1% that control a lot of wealth, government and media. A good chunk of them are Jewish and people will call you an Anti-Semite.


It's like arguing with one of those "pro Israel for life" morons:

"What I don't like about Israel is-"
"ANTI SEMITIC NAZI!! STOP OPPRESSING JEWS!"


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 7, 2018)

From how I see it, anyway, most of the problems stem from the fact that, other than semi-digitizing, nothing about our voting system has changed since quite literally the founding of our nation, and due to how our constitution is set up at this point I doubt it ever will


----------



## SG854 (Jul 7, 2018)

dpad_5678 said:


> It's like arguing with one of those "pro Israel for life" morons:
> 
> "What I don't like about Israel is-"
> "ANTI SEMITIC NAZI!! STOP OPPRESSING JEWS!"


It's a contradiction I found when talking about the top 1%. A decent portion of them are Ashkenazi Jews, 11% of worlds billionaires, really impressive considering they are only 0.2% of the worlds population. 25% of 50 richest billionaires are Jews, and most of the Richest Jews are in the United States, the top 0.1%.

Whenever someone criticizes a Jew for having lots of money and owns media outlets and has suspision that they are up to no good in our government they are called Anti-Semetic. But these same people find it okay to criticize the top 1%, which makes up a decent amount of Jews. So when criticizing the top 0.1% you are also criticizing a lot of Jews for being up to no good, and therefore being Anti-Semetic using their own logic.

So when criticizing the Billionaires that has influence on our voting system should it be then off limits of criticism so that you won't be called an Anti-Semtite? Or are Whites the only evil billionaires and Jews are more moral, and criticisms only applies to White Billionaires? Even though the Jewish billionaires having lots of money and are constantly blamed for not distributing their wealth equally, whether people know it or not that they are also criticizing Jews when attacking the top 1%. 

This is all under the assumption that there is systemic oppression going on and some of the billionaires are evil, and that they got their fortune from greed and not through other less greedy means, and using that money to influence the government, and not distributing the wealth to the lower class because they are greedy and corrupt, which are many Jews along with Whites. Which means according to them Jews are teaming up with Whites to conspire against us.


----------



## Psionic Roshambo (Jul 7, 2018)

I for one am praying for an AI to just take over... lol

See the companies squirm trying to figure out how to bribe a machine.


----------



## alexg1989 (Jul 7, 2018)

lobbyists, liberals and traitorous right wingers who flood our country with illegals intentionally, and a left-wing media that doesn't report the truth to the American people, leaving a good majority of us stupid and willing to vote for someone as obviously evil as Hillary Clinton.

This country is without doubt the best in the world right now, but that also means we have a ton of rats trying to subvert us and turn us into Weimar republic and subsequently, into the soviet union.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 7, 2018)

alexg1989 said:


> lobbyists, liberals and traitorous right wingers who flood our country with illegals intentionally, and a left-wing media that doesn't report the truth to the American people, leaving a good majority of us stupid and willing to vote for someone as obviously evil as Hillary Clinton.
> 
> This country is without doubt the best in the world right now, but that also means we have a ton of rats trying to subvert us and turn us into Weimar republic and subsequently, into the soviet union.


Good God man

Tell us how you really feel, how about? /s


----------



## Quantumcat (Jul 17, 2018)

Instead of writing a treatise on why you don't like the American electoral system, you should instead research how other countries do it and suggest ways the American system could change to be fairer, drawing inspiration from other countries.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 17, 2018)

Quantumcat said:


> Instead of writing a treatise on why you don't like the American electoral system, you should instead research how other countries do it and suggest ways the American system could change to be fairer, drawing inspiration from other countries.


What I've been saying all along

Don't you guys have a ranked/"preferential" voting system down in Australia, rather than one where you only get to vote for one candidate?


----------



## Xzi (Jul 17, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> What I've been saying all along
> 
> Don't you guys have a ranked/"preferential" voting system down in Australia, rather than one where you only get to vote for one candidate?


Maine is using ranked choice voting for state races this year as well.  Utah and Oregon both passed ranked choice voting as well, but I believe only for local races.

https://www.pressherald.com/2018/06...-test-ranked-choice-voting-in-june-primaries/


----------



## Quantumcat (Jul 17, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> What I've been saying all along
> 
> Don't you guys have a ranked/"preferential" voting system down in Australia, rather than one where you only get to vote for one candidate?


The country is broken into electorates, the size of which could be several small country towns or a suburb of a city (done by population). You vote for who you want to represent your electorate, not for the prime minister you want. You can either number all the candidates in order, so if your number 1 candidate has the smallest number of votes your vote changes to your second preference and then everything is recounted etc. If you choose to not number all the boxes, each candidate makes a series of preference deals so that if they don't make it, the vote passes to someone they agree with. There can be a dozen or more parties. At the end, the party with the majority of the seats becomes the majority, and their leader is the prime minister. The leader can change any time so someone none of the public voted for can become prime minister - I learned recently that only 5 of the last 13 prime ministers initially came into power through an election.

How can this help the American system? They should have preferences, so you can vote for the person you really want without worrying about wasting your vote. Bernie might have become president if this was done. Half the people who voted Trump probably only did so because they hated Clinton so much. They could have, instead, voted for Bernie and then put Trump as second preference. Or put Bernie, then someone else, then Trump. Etc.


----------



## Xzi (Jul 17, 2018)

Quantumcat said:


> *Half* the people who voted Trump probably only did so because they hated Clinton so much.


That's a vast overestimate, but yeah there were a portion who did feel screwed over by Bernie's loss in the primary and followed the trolls over to the Trump side.  It only took ~80,000 votes in 2 states to win the electoral college, so that's potentially enough Bernie bros to swing it.  In that regard you're correct.



Quantumcat said:


> There can be a dozen or more parties.


----------



## Quantumcat (Jul 17, 2018)

Xzi said:


>


I count 41 in my state last election! http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2016/guide/snsw/


----------



## x65943 (Jul 17, 2018)

alexg1989 said:


> lobbyists, liberals and traitorous right wingers who flood our country with illegals intentionally, and a left-wing media that doesn't report the truth to the American people, leaving a good majority of us stupid and willing to vote for someone as obviously evil as Hillary Clinton.
> 
> This country is without doubt the best in the world right now, but that also means we have a ton of rats trying to subvert us and turn us into Weimar republic and subsequently, into the soviet union.


Wow, this reads like straight out of mein kampf.

Why is the US the best in the world? We have rampant social inequality. Sure it's great for the top 20% or so, but beneath that is middle America - which is not doing so well.

Just go see how many people are in line at food banks in a poor neighborhood. In some of these places a whole block won't even have one kid who graduates high school.


----------



## alexg1989 (Jul 17, 2018)

I've never read Mein Kampf, but if that sounds like Mein Kampf, then maybe Mein Kampf wasn't so bad?

Whether you want to admit it or not, that post was entirely true. It makes no sense for a country to want it's borders entirely open, which is something liberals are fighting for. A country without borders is no country at all, and any country that let's just anyone in cannot last because those who come in, inevitably will bring their cultures with them, will not acclimate to their new host country's ways, and because of that, if the time ever comes, will not have the honor and courage to fight and die for this country. Just look at the sort of people who are coming here illegally, and even as "refugees" from other places besides Mexico. These are people who are leaving their own countries to rot at the hands of drug cartels, terrorists. They can't even muster the courage to fight for their own lands. Why would they defend ours? Instead they come here, wave they their former country's flags, and call us racist if we say they don't belong here. They tell us our ways are wrong, when they fled HERE for safety and to take advantage of our stupid welfare policies.

You think we have rampant social inequality? Yeah, let's compare that to any 3rd world country. You think they're "equal" in mexico? You think they're "equal" in the middle east? "Rampant social inequality" is a joke. Equality in success can never happen because not everyone is as smart, as productive as the best people. You think the dude who never pushed himself as hard as a Bill Gates should have the sort of success Gates has had? I don't know if you realize the sort of enormous amount of effort that goes into making one's self a billionaire, a millionaire, or even a hundred thousandaire. The American way is simply the natural way. If you don't go out and hunt for your food, you ain't gonna fucking eat and you and your pride will starve. If you don't defend your pride from threats, your your children will be killed, your women taken and raped, and your entire way of life will no longer exist.

As for your last paragraph. You want to talk about people in line for food? Why don't you go to fucking Venezuela and see the liberal utopia in action? A whole country in line for food because of a successfully executed liberal policy meant to drain a country of resources. Next to that, the food banks you mentioned in poor neighborhoods are nothing. The people who go there literally get food for free at least. In venezuela, they cant even afford to give away free food because they hardly have any.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jul 18, 2018)

A token search might have saved you some embarrassment right there.

A liberals fighting for entirely open borders? The few I have seen espouse such ideals would not typically fall under the definition of liberal (liberalism at its heart being rather concerned with the welfare of the individual rather than a collective, which is where I typically find the open borders set). Or is it just that you are using liberal as a slur without an understanding of the concepts underpinning it*? Certainly I doubt they would differ much on your assessment of unfettered immigration, though I would say fighting and dying for ideals rather a country is a better plan. Similarly what threats do you imagine there to be in the US? There is a lot of ocean either side and amazing natural defences top and bottom.

The brain/skills drain of places is a rather interesting concept, amusingly the internal US South's brain drain providing a considerable amount of data. 

*more amusingly I imagine you would describe yourself as right wing after a fashion, your talking points certainly reflecting many I find there. If you are going to go with the two party thing then arguably you would want to be attracting the people that would fall under liberalism as many of said same seem to be rather unimpressed with a lot of the present "left" politics. If we must do hashtag politics then #walkaway I believe to be the umbrella term for it.

What about Venezuela? It is without question a sad tragedy, however I am not sure what real relevance that has to the point being made. If you are not careful you will dip into a debate tactic sometimes "whataboutism" wherein one attempts to deflect from an issue by presenting another unpleasant event. Typically considered a rather disingenuous tactic. Or if you prefer just because somewhere else is comparatively a shithole does not mean you take your eyes off the prize, or maybe lead by example rather than resting on your laurels.



> If you don't go out and hunt for your food, you ain't gonna fucking eat and you and your pride will starve. If you don't defend your pride from threats, your your children will be killed, your women taken and raped, and your entire way of life will no longer exist.


We can surely aspire to better than that, and indeed biology itself would say we do. Also the entire point of socialisation, later farming and such, was to produce excess to allow specialisation and such, might something there play into this?

Going further there social inequality has nothing to do with results, some confuse the concept and I too find it intensely aggravating. A phrasing that might be worth contemplating is equality of opportunity rather than equality of outcome.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 18, 2018)

x65943 said:


> Wow, this reads like straight out of mein kampf.


He's a self-proclaimed nationalist, so you may not be that far off


----------



## alexg1989 (Jul 18, 2018)

Why delete anything? I'd like to see what he said about me.



FAST6191 said:


> A token search might have saved you some embarrassment right there.
> 
> A liberals fighting for entirely open borders? The few I have seen espouse such ideals would not typically fall under the definition of liberal (liberalism at its heart being rather concerned with the welfare of the individual rather than a collective, which is where I typically find the open borders set). Or is it just that you are using liberal as a slur without an understanding of the concepts underpinning it*? Certainly I doubt they would differ much on your assessment of unfettered immigration, though I would say fighting and dying for ideals rather a country is a better plan. Similarly what threats do you imagine there to be in the US? There is a lot of ocean either side and amazing natural defences top and bottom.
> 
> ...


What embarrassment? I'm not embarrassed at all. It doesn't matter what your definition of liberal is, or what the classic definition of liberal is. These people call themselves liberal, so I will address them as such. 

What threats are these in the US? Liberals, for one, who are allowing the other major threat in. They want to overrun us with people who do not hold our values. That alone is an existential threat.

What about whataboutism? It isn't a disingenuous tactic. It's a tactic that shows yet another example of failed socialism. Socialism is what? Socialism is something liberals have been trying to push on America for far too long. It fails everywhere. Actually, let me rephrase that. Socialism has actually never failed. It has actually been an incredible success everywhere it has been implemented, because it is never meant to benefit the masses. A great way to know what liberals have in store for us here in America is to see what they're doing in other countries where they don't have the sort of laws that we do here preventing them from implementing their demonic bullshit.

Producing excess does not mean we have infinite resources. 

Equality of opportunity. It's the same fucking thing. You can't have equality of opportunity in the sense that folks like you like to think of it. Opportunities in the job field are based, a lot of the time, on who you know. If you know the right people, you have more of an opportunity than a person who doesn't know the right folks.

If you were raised by parents with their heads screwed on properly, then you have a better chance of being intelligent enough to know that if you go to college, you should probably do so for a field that will actually net you results instead of some gender studies bullshit. You'd be smart enough, also, to think properly and logically. That alone would give you more opportunities than someone who was raised by parents who didn't give a flying fuck.

However, when thought of logically, "equality of opportunity" is something we all already fucking have. We ALL have the opportunity to make something better of oyrselves, to improve ourselves in our own unique ways. The problem is whether people take advantage of that opportunity. Some may have to overcome hurdles that other don't, but that's just natural beause not everyone is the same. Not everyone grows up in the same fucking situation. Some people might have parents who were smart, and saved up money so their kids don't have to struggle. That isn't a sign of being spoiled, it's a sign that the system fucking worked and that this kid's parents did the right thing. There ain't nothign stopping a woman from going into a stem field. Most women are just not interested in that, hence why it's male dominated. It isn't a lack of opportunity. There's nothing wrong with that either. Romance novels are female dominated. Do we see men going on about not having opportunities in the romance novel genre? No, men just don't really like that shit so we generally don't read the genre.


----------



## Quantumcat (Jul 18, 2018)

alexg1989 said:


> Some people might have parents who were smart, and saved up money so their kids don't have to struggle. That isn't a sign of being spoiled, it's a sign that the system fucking worked and that this kid's parents did the right thing.


Are you saying it's ok for someone else's choices to affect what you're able to do? What happened to land of the free home of the brave? This would be the opposite of freedom.
If your parents aren't rich, you're cut off from ever accessing many things in life (e.g. going to university or having quality healthcare) and restricted from having choices available that could help your kids. Of course you think this is OK as long as you're on the "haves" side of the haves/have nots divide.


----------



## alexg1989 (Jul 18, 2018)

Quantumcat said:


> Are you saying it's ok for someone else's choices to affect what you're able to do? What happened to land of the free home of the brave? This would be the opposite of freedom.
> If your parents aren't rich, you're cut off from ever accessing many things in life (e.g. going to university or having quality healthcare) and restricted from having choices available that could help your kids. Of course you think this is OK as long as you're on the "haves" side of the haves/have nots side of the divide.


If your parents had made beytter choices, they might have been better prepared and able to give their kids more opportunities. Sure.

You think I'm on the haves? id on't even fucking have health care right now despite the fact that I currently work a very physical job overnights. I'm not rich by any stretch of the imagination.

if you can'tgo to university, then find somehting fucking else to do. You don't need to go to univesity to be successful.  Go to a fucking trade school. Go to a library and use their computers to browse Youtube and learn a skill. Do fucking somehting.


----------



## Quantumcat (Jul 18, 2018)

alexg1989 said:


> If your parents had made beytter choices, they might have been better prepared and able to give their kids more opportunities. Sure.
> 
> You think I'm on the haves? id on't even fucking have health care right now despite the fact that I currently work a very physical job overnights. I'm not rich by any stretch of the imagination.
> 
> if you can'tgo to university, then find somehting fucking else to do. You don't need to go to univesity to be successful.  Go to a fucking trade school. Go to a library and use their computers to browse Youtube and learn a skill. Do fucking somehting.





alexg1989 said:


> However, when thought of logically, "equality of opportunity" is something we all already fucking have.


So ... we all have 'opportunities' ... and they're all 'equal' ... yet some people get opportunities others don't. This is not a contradiction, how? If I can afford to go to an elite private school, then go to Harvard and get my tuition fees paid, and become a lawyer and make a six figure income by the time I'm 25, but you, who are smarter, could only go to the local public school, didn't get into Harvard, can't afford to even go to a community college, and are forced to take up unpaid internships and live hand to mouth for 10 years before you even crack a living wage, and then you die of tuberculosis because you couldn't afford healthcare - this is equality of opportunity, in your eyes?

Do you not think it is more equal to have university fees limited by government regulation, fees subsidised by the government, and a no-interest loan given to anybody who can get into university based on their school marks, which they don't have to begin to pay back until they are earning a decent wage (if they never earn a decent wage they never need pay it back, since university obviously didn't help them much) - which allows anybody to go to university, rich or not, who is smart and capable? Then your own fate really is in your hands. Do you think it is fairer that those with poor parents never get to have an education and be the best they can be? They had no part in their parents' choices, but they have to suffer by them?
Do you not think it is more equal to have medicine prices capped, and subsidise doctor visits and medical procedures in hospital, so that if anyone is sick they can be treated, and don't need to die of a disease that's easy to treat? Isn't that giving everyone opportunity to enjoy the fruits of a civilised society (i.e. advances in medicine)? Do you really think it is more equal that people with no money, because their parents had no money, have to die of treatable illnesses, while those with more money get to be treated?


----------



## Taleweaver (Jul 18, 2018)

Quantumcat said:


> Instead of writing a treatise on why you don't like the American electoral system, you should instead research how other countries do it and suggest ways the American system could change to be fairer, drawing inspiration from other countries.


Sorry, but I thought that this would speak for itself. I'm from Belgium, I really don't think our system is perfect by any means. However, I dare say that when compared to the USA, we have a de facto better system when it comes to democracy in terms of "ruling by the people". Let's see...

1) we have a good handfull of competing parties. And too many posts, but I'll spare you a boring difference between regional and federal government AND between Flanders and Wallonie. But each election, we get to vote for the following parties:
-PVDA: this party is what passes for extreme left, and most likely described as "communist scum" in the USA. To be honest...they're not that far off.
-Groen: a mainly left-side party with strong emphasis on the environment
-SP-A: classic left. mainly concerned with affordable jobs. Basically the union's choice. Bernie Sanders would probably fit either in here best.
-CD&V: the most centered party. Concerned with whatever is politically hot (and therefore not really standing for anything in particular).
-VLD: the classic employer's party. Loves the free market, but is about center-right
-NV-A: initially elected because they want to split up Flanders, but since they're in government they just have some right-ish agenda.
-Vlaams Blok: basically the party for racists. Ironically enough: even though often seen as 'extreme right' on the streets (which is also why other parties downright refuse to form a government with them), even they don't dream about following Trump's stances.
-a few blanks. Each election, you've got a few jokers. Small parties that are either throwaway votes (I'll get to that) or just focus on one particular issue
...and that's just on Flanders's side. Wallon has differently named and lead parties, but who are sort of similar.

Result: none of that "I have to vote for the least evil" bullshit. If you don't like a party's stance, you just pick another one. Not many people go the whole spectrum, but depending how they fare they might rise or lower in the polls.

Note: we only get to vote for one party, and from one person within that party (no, this shouldn't be the party leader...you can vote for anyone within). I'd much prefer it if we could rank these parties in terms of importance rather than just voting for one, but alas. Oh, and even better: I want to be able to fucking vote for Wallon parties, damnit!

2) once the votes are counted, the percentage of votes each party had determines the amount of governmental power might have. At this point, the parties start talking to each other, because a representing government needs to consist of the majority of what the people voted for. This can be a problem if all the parties have roughly the same amount of votes (and different ideologies), but that's where compromising comes in.

Result: none of that "I represent 51% of the voters, so screw the rest of the population" bullshit. Let alone that "I have less votes but in better positions, so I call ALL the shots".

3) influence is a tricky one, but here too, the different parties, alliances and opposition help smooth things out. In both our countries, it's almost unheard that someone within the party critiques someone from their own party. But there can be plenty of critique from the opposition, or - much harder to deal with - another party in the government. As it stands, NV-A and CD&V are on some sort of cold war against each other. But because they're both in the government and they both can make the government fall if they leave, they are forced to settle their differences and come to agreements.

The influence of lobbying groups...I've got to admit I don't know much about that. I'm inclined to believe that they have a harder time because groups need to bribe multiple parties AND keep it secret for others, but again: I'm not too familiar with that on our end. One study revealing that the Belgian government is among the least corrupt in the world is obviously nice, but hardly overwhelming evidence.

On media, we're different in that we still do have state television. These are more or less obligated to give each party airtime depending on their popularity and (within reasons) to report rather unbiassed. When there's upcoming elections (like what'll happen in about three months from now), there is a "no commercial period" forced on the parties. While that's obviously hard to truly maintain (a couple weeks ago, I've heard of a mini-scandal: two NV-A politicians walked around in campaign T-shirts), it's nowhere NEAR the circus that it is in America.

Result: a more civil climate among politicians. It's still nowhere near as it should be (politicians still sort-of try to shift credit to them and blame to others), but it's easy to see which ones we prefer.


...and one I want to bring up while it's not mentioned in my opening post:

4) make voting obligated. This is rather controversial, and even in our country not many think our obligation to vote is a good thing. To those, I'd like to point out American situations that reflect the other side of a _right_ to vote as opposed to a _duty_.
-since we have to vote, we might as well take interest in politics. Or at least enough to know what each party stands for.
-every Belgian has a passport (unless I'm mistaken, the best ID you have is a driver's license), and that's really all you need to vote.
-during election days, children see their parents vote and get taught into the why.
-since everyone needs to vote, election boots are put up in every area

Result: none of that bullshit like people having to spend hours to vote (Christ...the most time I ever spent voting is 30 minutes, and that was because I went during rush hour. It's also including door-to-door travel time), having trouble getting registered or votes being ignored for other reasons.



@alexg1989 : okay...I read your posts, and as you can imagine, I disagree with most. However, I would suggest that you make your own thread if you want to discuss things, as you left talking about elections more than a few posts ago. Go on...try it. It's free.


----------



## Quantumcat (Jul 18, 2018)

Taleweaver said:


> Sorry, but I thought that this would speak for itself. I'm from Belgium, I really don't think our system is perfect by any means. However, I dare say that when compared to the USA, we have a de facto better system when it comes to democracy in terms of "ruling by the people". Let's see...
> 
> 1) we have a good handfull of competing parties. And too many posts, but I'll spare you a boring difference between regional and federal government AND between Flanders and Wallonie. But each election, we get to vote for the following parties:
> -PVDA: this party is what passes for extreme left, and most likely described as "communist scum" in the USA. To be honest...they're not that far off.
> ...


That's quite interesting! Thanks for writing that up. Voting is obligatory here too, and I'm not sure if it is best - should someone who comes in and votes the way the campaigners outside tell them to, or the TV ads tell them to, get as much of a vote as those who do loads of research to make an informed decision about what is best? There's probably a good argument to make it obligatory but I don't know what it is - maybe that the election should count the voices of every citizen, instead of skipping people that can't get time off work etc.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Jul 18, 2018)

To be honest, from what I'm seeing, the real problem seems to be with the voter *hint hint*



alexg1989 said:


> lobbyists, liberals and traitorous right wingers who flood our country with illegals intentionally, and a left-wing media that doesn't report the truth to the American people, leaving a good majority of us stupid and willing to vote for someone as obviously evil as Hillary Clinton.
> 
> This country is without doubt the best in the world right now, but that also means we have a ton of rats trying to subvert us and turn us into Weimar republic and subsequently, into the soviet union.


----------



## Song of storms (Jul 18, 2018)

Let's assume that the USA has 8 parties to run for presidency instead of two. The vote divides as it follows:

- 25%
- 24%
- 16%
- 10%
- 8%
- 7%
- 7%
- 3%


The most voted party was voted by one person out of 4. And this is only the most likely outcome. Worst case scenario, a new President could be elected with 13% of the vote. Imagine the shitstorm if Trump was voted with 13% of the votes.


----------



## Quantumcat (Jul 18, 2018)

DFdDFdefefecAADDFAADFGE said:


> Let's assume that the USA has 8 parties to run for presidency instead of two. The vote divides as it follows:
> 
> - 25%
> - 24%
> ...


But if you had more parties, you would have preferences, so people would get their 1st, 2nd or 3rd preference most likely.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Jul 18, 2018)

DFdDFdefefecAADDFAADFGE said:


> Let's assume that the USA has 8 parties to run for presidency instead of two. The vote divides as it follows:
> 
> - 25%
> - 24%
> ...



not sure how you come to 13%. you mean if every party is voted equally? thats literally impossible.

and you'd usually have a clear favorite or two with a bunch of jill steins lagging behind.
if it was as close as 25 vs 24%, there should potentially be an additional vote, maybe.

but really, in these multiparty systems, you as the voter usually vote party anyways, while the party elects a president from their midst. sometimes, from the coalition, sometimes from the majority party but requiring support from partners etc etc.

you'd definitely never end up with a freak like trump


----------



## Song of storms (Jul 18, 2018)

Quantumcat said:


> But if you had more parties, you would have preferences, so people would get their 1st, 2nd or 3rd preference most likely.


What if the three most voted parties come from different factions? Either they're willing to come to terms or they will fight for it while the country remains without a president.
The first comment of the post mentioned the Italian parliament. Funny, because that's what happened there. Ultimately, the two parties made a coalition after a lot of backpedaling from promises of both parties. So, while both received a vote of ~70% combined, they really received a lot less because of the agreements. A lot of people who voted for the 5 Stars party are upset about the leader of Lega's decisions and vice versa.


----------



## Quantumcat (Jul 18, 2018)

DFdDFdefefecAADDFAADFGE said:


> What if the three most voted parties come from different factions? Either they're willing to come to terms or they will fight for it while the country remains without a president.


No, that won't happen. The preference system works so that there is eventually a majority for someone.

It works like this: everyone's first preferences are counted. Assuming there is no majority already (more than 50%), the votes where the first preference is the least popular, are scrapped and their second preference are counted instead. All the votes are counted again. If there's no majority it happens again - the votes with the least numbers are scrapped and their next preference is applied. This continues until someone has a majority.

Edit: what you said could happen I guess in countries that don't use a preference system but who do have more than two parties, but I'm sure they have other ways to work out the problem.


----------



## FAST6191 (Jul 18, 2018)

alexg1989 said:


> It doesn't matter what your definition of liberal is, or what the classic definition of liberal is. These people call themselves liberal, so I will address them as such.
> 
> What threats are these in the US? Liberals, for one, who are allowing the other major threat in. They want to overrun us with people who do not hold our values. That alone is an existential threat.
> 
> ...



I do like when words mean things. Self identification may be a thing but I have not seen it here -- the no borders people I find tend to self identify as and push concepts more commonly seen in anarchist, socialist and very occasionally social democrat mindsets.

I would ponder what the shared values might be here but that might be a bit more nuance than is merited. I can't say I am worried about such things in the US -- the very thing you are decrying as having failed will see that those experiments fail and then things can carry on.

It very much is a disingenuous tactic. If you do not address the core issue brought up and instead deflect then you have not answered the issue. It may be that the thing mentioned is a non issue, and in that case demonstrate as such. An example from elsewhere may have provide something salient to compare with but again eye on the prize -- if you are not there then consider that.

I agree excess does not mean infinite, the question surely though is what can be done with it? A favourite example is when travelling around the US I found so many people that wanted to start businesses but had health insurance as a major concern and thus did not. When running around in Europe and places where it is. More small businesses is good from where I sit. The things some places had allowing people to stay on parental insurance until 25 helped a bit but that is only some -- many others get to about 40 or so and have some decent skills before wanting to branch out. That would be an example of excess being used to benefit society at large.

It is not the same thing, not at all. Maybe we need some worked examples. Classic talking points would be representation in a field/workplace/whatever and pay in said same between ethnicities/genders/whatever. I have long maintained that if you choose or choose not based upon such things you are a dick and maybe want a slap, by not doing that you provide equality of opportunity, by trying to match societal groupings (or indeed over correct for some imagined historical sleight) and attempting to ignore experience, hours worked and more I can't see it as a good thing and this would be equality of outcome. However reading the last paragraph it seems you have some understanding of the concept, just not the phrasing typically used for it (which is fine as it is something of an academic pursuit anyway and concepts is better than words), else you tried to construct a strawman for someone that agreed with you on a concept. Similarly "folks like you"... you assume much of me, a dubious thing to do.

Good parenting makes for good outcomes. It is a well observed concept and while it is far from the lifestyle for me I would happily encourage it when compared to a lot of others commonly seen. I would also agree most gender studies courses I have read have been woefully inadequate for preparing you for... anything really actually (the schools of philosophy a lot of them seem to have sprang from might not have given their students as great a knowledge of a science but damned if they could they debate properly) but that is somewhat besides the point or at least a very small part of it.
What I want is everybody that can do to get a chance to do and suffering the sins of our fathers (absent or not) is something most try to move away from, outside the US a lot of places have already managed it and are doing pretty well*. It is purely self interest on my part as well -- good people are hard to find and I have had some great ones out of some dysfunctional environments, and indeed actively search in said same (the mechanical nous of a kid who has had to fix his bike, and possibly most other things, since he was 7 else he would not have a bike tends to far exceed the one who watched fast and furious at 16 and thought it was cool). Get someone to provide the toys and breadth of opportunities for a few years and I will finish the rest.

*between this and the healthcare thing then while I know it not to be the case the US system at large feels incredibly callous.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jul 18, 2018)

Quantumcat said:


> Edit: what you said could happen I guess in countries that don't use a preference system but who do have more than two parties, but I'm sure they have other ways to work out the problem.


Indeed they do. Germany works by voting for the party, rather than an individual, and after the election then install a recognizable and well-liked politician that they think best represents party values. However, a party absolutely HAS to get a majority vote for them to win the election. Since literally no single party has any statistical chance of that happening, what they'll instead do is form a coalition with one or two other parties with similar, but not quite identical politics, and then choose a candidate fitting the combined ideals of the coalition should they win


----------



## Taleweaver (Jul 18, 2018)

DFdDFdefefecAADDFAADFGE said:


> Let's assume that the USA has 8 parties to run for presidency instead of two. The vote divides as it follows:
> 
> - 25%
> - 24%
> ...


Erm...not to sound like the Devil's advocate, but as it stands only about 25% of US citizens voted for Trump. The fact that only half the people who could've voted actually showed up says something about the process.

Granted, you're not much of a republic anymore if you start dividing up the presidency, but would it be so bad to have a vice president of another party (not in this political climate, obviously...but maybe Trump would've had used more diplomacy if he knew he was going to be forced to work with everyone he competed with)? I mean...in your example, surely the presidential candidate who got 24% of the votes (on 8 parties total) certainly did SOMETHING right...right?


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 26, 2018)

The reason we have this system is because people are idiots.

30% of Americans can't even name the three branches of the government. This system essentially parodys the governments own set of checks and balances.

Instead of congress, president, and Supreme Court. You have people, private interests, and government/bureaucrats.

Is it a bit immoral? Yes. But at the same time, it essentially halts the cycle of anacyclosis. Thus preserving a country of free speech and opportunity for as long as possible.

EDIT: oh crap I just necroed this didn't I.


----------

