America - The Official Thread

[Liquid]

I don't think anyone thinks that two-party dominance is a new thing suddenly destroying US politics. It's always been something that has held US politics back, irrespective of whatever the most influential parties are at that time; Federalists and Democratic-Republicans; Whigs and Democrats; or Democrats and Republicans.

 

[PocketZeven]

I don't think anyone thinks that two-party dominance is a new thing suddenly destroying US politics. It's always been something that has held US politics back, irrespective of whatever the most influential parties are at that time; Federalists and Democratic-Republicans; Whigs and Democrats; or Democrats and Republicans.

Why has it always been 2? It is impossible to represent millions of people in a 2 party system.

 

[Liquid]

Why has it always been 2? It is impossible to represent millions of people in a 2 party system.

I don't think I'm qualified to answer exactly why that is. But birds of a feather flock together - until the cat comes.

 

[DK]

Why has it always been 2? It is impossible to represent millions of people in a 2 party system.

It's the nature of the First Past The Post beast. How many people vote Republican to stop the Dems creating a hippie hellhole, and how many people vote Democrat to stop the GOP creating Gilead's Gulch?

 

[TexRex]

Gilead's Gulch

 

[Dotini]

It's always been something that has held US politics back, irrespective of whatever the most influential parties are at that time...

Perhaps parties have held the US back. But from what is it exactly that parties have held us back? Tyranny, as Madison had feared?

 

[TenEightyOne]

But from what is it exactly that parties have held us back? Tyranny, as Madison had feared?

Madison's definition of tyranny was "the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed or elective". So any kind of legislation, really. I guess you have to colour that against the burgeoning Constitution and the politics of its birth - Madison is arguing for separation of executive and legislative (and therewithin judicial) power. He's particularly taking aim at what he sees (possibly quite rightly at the time) a lack of separation of such powers in the British system of parlezament.

 

[Dotini]

"I believe that virtual dictatorship must be exercised by our president." - Dwight D. Eisenhower

Fortunately(?), he was thwarted by the military-industrial complex against whom he so famously inveighed in his farewell speech from the White House.

 

[PocketZeven]

My country has 16 million people and we are represented by 13 different parties in our government. The whole political spectrum are represented and we have parties for the 50+, animals, socialists and even rightwing. The majority are moderate, but that doesnt mean the voice of the smaller parties are never heard. Not elected in government are parties like the anti-piracy party, Jezus party, libertarian, communism party etc.

As you can see very well represented.

 

[mustafur]

What happens now is because there is only 2 Parties, the radicals on both sides just join one of the Two rather then make their own invisible party.

Granted it does make the party Nomination process more interesting then any other election in the world, and it's even better if it goes all the way to the convention, after that it's pretty boring, unless one side votes in a a radical(like Trump).

Politics being entertainment, not sure how I feel about it though.

 

[Imari]

Why has it always been 2? It is impossible to represent millions of people in a 2 party system.

Because game theory. In a winner takes all system, it basically always devolves to two parties because that's the stable equilibrium.

Say we have the Winner Party, the Wannabe Party, and the Slug Party. The Winner Party has support from 45% of the populace, the Wannabe Party has support from 40% of the populace, and the Slug Party has support from 15% of the populace. In an election where everyone votes for who they want most, the Winner Party wins.

But maybe the people supporting the Slug Party realise that the Slug Party has no chance of winning. They decide that actually, while it's not their first choice, they'd rather see the Wannabe Party in power rather than the Winner Party. So they all vote Wannabe instead, and now the Wannabe Party has 55%.

Strictly, it's that any party outside the top two is completely dominated. Your vote for a third party is likely to be completely wasted in that there's no realistic outcome in which it would have had an influence. However, you can use your vote to influence which of the lesser of two evils you get by voting one of the two big parties instead, and your vote is likely to be at least relevant.

See the last US election, where a lot of people didn't particularly like either candidate but voting the lesser of the two evils was the most influential thing that they could do with their vote.

It's why a lot of modern democracies, including the Netherlands I believe, have moved away from First Past the Post systems to proportional representation. That's why you have more than two political parties. When everyone gets a slice of the power proportional to the votes they received, it becomes sensible to vote for your true preference.

 

[Groundfish]

America right now is in very bad shape compared to previous times. It’s embarassing.

 

[Danoff]

Your vote for a third party is likely to be completely wasted in that there's no realistic outcome in which it would have had an influence.

The only worse way to spend your vote than voting for someone who doesn't win (whether it be Hillary or anyone else), is to vote for someone that doesn't actually represent you.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Because game theory. In a winner takes all system, it basically always devolves to two parties because that's the stable equilibrium.

Say we have the Winner Party, the Wannabe Party, and the Slug Party. The Winner Party has support from 45% of the populace, the Wannabe Party has support from 40% of the populace, and the Slug Party has support from 15% of the populace. In an election where everyone votes for who they want most, the Winner Party wins.

But maybe the people supporting the Slug Party realise that the Slug Party has no chance of winning. They decide that actually, while it's not their first choice, they'd rather see the Wannabe Party in power rather than the Winner Party. So they all vote Wannabe instead, and now the Wannabe Party has 55%.

Strictly, it's that any party outside the top two is completely dominated. Your vote for a third party is likely to be completely wasted in that there's no realistic outcome in which it would have had an influence. However, you can use your vote to influence which of the lesser of two evils you get by voting one of the two big parties instead, and your vote is likely to be at least relevant.

See the last US election, where a lot of people didn't particularly like either candidate but voting the lesser of the two evils was the most influential thing that they could do with their vote.

It's why a lot of modern democracies, including the Netherlands I believe, have moved away from First Past the Post systems to proportional representation. That's why you have more than two political parties. When everyone gets a slice of the power proportional to the votes they received, it becomes sensible to vote for your true preference.

We need ranked choice voting for the President.

 

[TexRex]

We need ranked choice voting for the President.

I mean...sure, but the Electoral College probably ought to be abandoned before that happens.

 

[McLaren]

Heard an interesting talking point today from a co-worker.

While the Repubs seem to be mum on 2020 Candidates, the Dems already have Warren, Harris, & Gabbard, with Schultz (claiming he'll save the Dems from a Far-Left nominee), Clinton (leaving the door open), and Bernie rumored a couple days ago. With 3 of these 6 being well-known names in the political world (Bernie, Clinton, Warren), my co-worker was questioning that if the Dems don't play nice with each other, could they end up throwing away 2020 to the Republicans? She theorized that with Trump continuing to act his usual self in addition to the shutdown, Wall, and Muller, that the Democrats should be in a solid position to sway the public back to them, but only if the candidates don't resort to bad-mouthing each other; she thinks Trump will do that for them.

I think Schultz and Warren may have run-ins, specifically with Schultz's words of the "Far-Left". Gabbard was a Bernie supporter, so they'll likely fight for some similar voters if it comes down to it without actually attacking each other. Clinton's a non-factor and the DNC nominee may not want her campaigning for them in the likelihood Clinton is passed on.

 

[ryzno]

Starbucks CEO plans on running as an independent.
Says Trump isn't qualified for the seat.
Besides being another Billionaire like Trump, he doesn't seem to have any previous political experience either.
This is going to be a fun two years.

 

[McLaren]

Starbucks CEO plans on running as an independent.
Says Trump isn't qualified for the seat.
Besides being another Billionaire like Trump, he doesn't seem to have any previous political experience either.
This is going to be a fun two years.

Not sure how he intends for that to work out. Trump already hates him, and the other Dem candidates are more than likely to attack him just to get his Dem supporters behind the actual party's nominee.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Heard an interesting talking point today from a co-worker.

While the Repubs seem to be mum on 2020 Candidates, the Dems already have Warren, Harris, & Gabbard, with Schultz (claiming he'll save the Dems from a Far-Left nominee), Clinton (leaving the door open), and Bernie rumored a couple days ago. With 3 of these 6 being well-known names in the political world (Bernie, Clinton, Warren), my co-worker was questioning that if the Dems don't play nice with each other, could they end up throwing away 2020 to the Republicans? She theorized that with Trump continuing to act his usual self in addition to the shutdown, Wall, and Muller, that the Democrats should be in a solid position to sway the public back to them, but only if the candidates don't resort to bad-mouthing each other; she thinks Trump will do that for them.

I think Schultz and Warren may have run-ins, specifically with Schultz's words of the "Far-Left". Gabbard was a Bernie supporter, so they'll likely fight for some similar voters if it comes down to it without actually attacking each other. Clinton's a non-factor and the DNC nominee may not want her campaigning for them in the likelihood Clinton is passed on.

Well, the Dems never turn down an opportunity to grasp defeat from the jaws of victory.

 

[G.T.Ace]

 

[Biggles]

It's why a lot of modern democracies, including the Netherlands I believe, have moved away from First Past the Post systems to proportional representation. That's why you have more than two political parties. When everyone gets a slice of the power proportional to the votes they received, it becomes sensible to vote for your true preference.

Not only that, but being able to vote "your true preference" makes everyone an active participant in the process - it gives everyone some kind of a voice.

 

[Liquid]

According to Bloomberg, the US Treasury is set to "borrow" $1 trillion for the second consecutive year to cover the defecit.

Are they allowed to do this during a government shutdown?

 

[Dotini]

Not only that, but being able to vote "your true preference" makes everyone an active participant in the process - it gives everyone some kind of a voice.

More parties = more democracy, agreed. Perot, Libertarians, Greens and others before them including Bull Moose Teddy Roosevelt and Populist William Jennings Bryan have brought issues of great public concern to the table that forced the two main parties to adapt and change with the times. But 3rd parties have been like bees - they sting and then die. Now we have a new would-be centrist Independent, Schultz, to possibly set the stage for Trump's reelection, should he survive impeachment.

Note: It would seem that Independents now outnumber Democrats as well as Republicans in 3rd.

 

[Sanji Himura]

This is just plain stupid, as a aside from Politics for a moment: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/‘...n-lawsuit-claims/ar-BBST5pQ?OCID=ansmsnnews11

 

[TenEightyOne]

This is just plain stupid,

On whose part?

 

[mustafur]

I really don't get the lawsuit, wouldn't the family of the person who actually died be the one to sue?

 

[Imari]

But 3rd parties have been like bees - they sting and then die.

Because the US doesn't have proportional representation.

This is just plain stupid, as a aside from Politics for a moment: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/‘i-killed-somebody-that-i-didn’t-even-know’-hospital-let-woman-pull-the-plug-on-wrong-man-lawsuit-claims/ar-BBST5pQ?OCID=ansmsnnews11

I dunno, if I'd been duped into pulling the plug on some stranger I'd be pretty furious. It's one thing to do that for someone who you know and whose wishes you might think that you'd understand. To be responsible for saying "yeah, kill him" to some random stranger is the stuff of nightmares.

It's like when you have that nightmare where the firing squad asks for permission to kill Hitler, and you're all "totally dudes, knock yourself out", and you hear the gunfire and while you've just killed a man you've also just killed Hitler so yay, then they come back in and say "hey, we know you said kill Hitler but we just shot some random instead, you want anything from the cafeteria?"

Am I the only one that has that?

 

[mustafur]

Because the US doesn't have proportional representation.



I dunno, if I'd been duped into pulling the plug on some stranger I'd be pretty furious. It's one thing to do that for someone who you know and whose wishes you might think that you'd understand. To be responsible for saying "yeah, kill him" to some random stranger is the stuff of nightmares.

It's like when you have that nightmare where the firing squad asks for permission to kill Hitler, and you're all "totally dudes, knock yourself out", and you hear the gunfire and while you've just killed a man you've also just killed Hitler so yay, then they come back in and say "hey, we know you said kill Hitler but we just shot some random instead, you want anything from the cafeteria?"

Am I the only one that has that?

I get it, but it is different, the victim was basically only being kept alive by a machine.

It would still be horrifying to know you did it though.

 

[TexRex]

It's like when you have that nightmare where the firing squad asks for permission to kill Hitler, and you're all "totally dudes, knock yourself out", and you hear the gunfire and while you've just killed a man you've also just killed Hitler so yay, then they come back in and say "hey, we know you said kill Hitler but we just shot some random instead, you want anything from the cafeteria?"

Am I the only one that has that?

I, uh...I think you just might be.

Edit: I just noticed the page count. Spooky.

 

[Joey D]

The gross negligence of that hospital is astounding. I checked its website and it has a patient portal meaning the hospital also uses an electronic medical record. Given that everything is tracked in the record countless times over the course of a patient's stay there had to be at least 100 clinical people who ignored policy and procedure to ensure it's the correct patient. Before "pulling the plug" there's also a ton of other procedural stuff that needs to be followed too, which means even more people missed it was the wrong patient.

I will say patient identities do get mixed up, it's not uncommon by any means. However, it's typically caught really quick and pretty much 99% of the time nothing bad happens. And while it's definitely a patient safety concern, it's also a major billing one too. If you render services and charge a patient's insurance or Medicare/Medicaid, but it's not actually that patient, it's fraud whether it's intentional or not. This has serious consequences for a health system and typically include massive fines. Even worse, with Medicare/Medicaid the health system can quit getting reimbursed altogether due to fraudulent activities. If this happens, it pretty much means that the health system is going under.