Rage Rules American Politics

by Maddog Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:41 pm

By fall of 2018, an Axios poll found that roughly half of the surveyed Democrats and Republicans alike considered each other "ignorant" and "spiteful." More strongly, 21 percent of Democrats said Republicans were "evil," and 23 percent of Republicans said the same about Democrats.

"Violence would be justified" if the opposing party wins the 2020 presidential election say 18 percent of Democrats and 13 percent of Republicans, according to the report by Nathan P. Kalmoe and Lilliana Mason, political scientists at Louisiana State University and the University of Maryland.

Dialing down the power of the state is always a good idea, and doing so long ago might have avoided the current situation by reducing the stakes of our political contests. But we're stuck with the government we have and it's being fought over by squabbling bands of lunatics who hate each other.

https://reason.com/2019/08/07/rage-rules-american-politics/?fbclid=IwAR1DdAVAiVCUPLWJVVM8KsIKTKTCY8UD3z052yESVNHdwiBbtD_9C_9exqE

Much more cheerful news at the link. alien

by eddie Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:47 pm

The thread title seems to sum up what I’m seeing all time on social media.

by Ben Reilly Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:55 pm

Dialing down the power of the state is a naturally right-wing move that would be unfair in a democracy that's supposed to empower everyone, regardless of ideology.

Every time big-money interests have fucked regular people over, the power of the state has been the only solution, with the exception of labor unions. And even unions have made many of their gains using the power of the state.

by Maddog Wed Aug 07, 2019 10:00 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:Dialing down the power of the state is a naturally right-wing move that would be unfair in a democracy that's supposed to empower everyone, regardless of ideology.

Every time big-money interests have fucked regular people over, the power of the state has been the only solution, with the exception of labor unions. And even unions have made many of their gains using the power of the state.

Democracy by it's very nature disenfranchises minority opinion.

by Maddog Wed Aug 07, 2019 10:01 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:Dialing down the power of the state is a naturally right-wing move that would be unfair in a democracy that's supposed to empower everyone, regardless of ideology.

Every time big-money interests have fucked regular people over, the power of the state has been the only solution, with the exception of labor unions. And even unions have made many of their gains using the power of the state.

You should read the article Ben.

At the prospect of being at the mercy of a temporary majority of their political enemies, Americans clearly are brought to despair. Anarchy sounds like a fair alternative to being governed by either Republicans or Democrats empowered to turn their mutual loathing into official policy.

Those of us who reject both hateful factions are likely in for as rough a ride as the supporters of whichever legacy party gets the short end of the stick. We're not with the in-group, so we're bound to be regarded as enemies by whoever wins.

by Original Quill Thu Aug 08, 2019 12:13 am

The answer is quite simple: make America into smaller nations. Then each nation can adopt from many of the diverse ideologies.

by Cass Thu Aug 08, 2019 1:50 am

Well when the current rage starts at the top it eventually trickles down.

by 'Wolfie Thu Aug 08, 2019 2:13 am

Maddog wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:Dialing down the power of the state is a naturally right-wing move that would be unfair in a democracy that's supposed to empower everyone, regardless of ideology.

Every time big-money interests have fucked regular people over, the power of the state has been the only solution, with the exception of labor unions. And even unions have made many of their gains using the power of the state.

Democracy by it's very nature disenfranchises minority opinion.

60%+ of the population is a pretty damn big "minority"...

USA, Britain, Russia, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, France, Taiwan, India, Japan, Germany, et al -- in none of these countries do we see "majority rule" -- but whichever minority(s) happen to hold 'the balance of power' at the moment, and whatever financial interests are backing them.

by Cass Thu Aug 08, 2019 4:03 am

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Democracy by it's very nature disenfranchises minority opinion.

60%+ of the population is a pretty damn big "minority"...

USA, Britain, Russia, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, France, Taiwan, India, Japan, Germany, et al -- in none of these countries do we see "majority rule" -- but whichever minority(s) happen to hold 'the balance of power' at the moment, and whatever financial interests are backing them.

Very true as to your last paragraph. The US will certainly never be a true democratic republic until the lobbyists are kicked out. That goes for any lobbying no matter how good the cause.

by Maddog Thu Aug 08, 2019 5:07 pm

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Democracy by it's very nature disenfranchises minority opinion.

60%+ of the population is a pretty damn big "minority"...

USA, Britain, Russia, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, France, Taiwan, India, Japan, Germany, et al -- in none of these countries do we see "majority rule" -- but whichever minority(s) happen to hold 'the balance of power' at the moment, and whatever financial interests are backing them.

60% would be a majority. Rolling Eyes

by Maddog Thu Aug 08, 2019 5:07 pm

Cass wrote:Well when the current rage starts at the top it eventually trickles down.

So you are raging?

by Maddog Thu Aug 08, 2019 5:10 pm

"I told you so," the ghost of Alexis de Tocqueville gets to say, if he's the gloating sort.

"Several particular circumstances in America also tend to make the power of the majority not only predominant, but irresistible," de Tocqueville wrote in his often prescient 19th-century study of the United States. He warned that majoritarian dominance would breed conflict.

"If liberty is ever lost in America, it will be necessary to lay the blame on the omnipotence of the majority that will have brought minorities to despair and will have forced them to appeal to physical force. Then you will see anarchy, but it will arrive as a consequence of despotism."

by Original Quill Thu Aug 08, 2019 6:36 pm

Maddog wrote: "I told you so," the ghost of Alexis de Tocqueville gets to say, if he's the gloating sort.

"Several particular circumstances in America also tend to make the power of the majority not only predominant, but irresistible," de Tocqueville wrote in his often prescient 19th-century study of the United States. He warned that majoritarian dominance would breed conflict.

"If liberty is ever lost in America, it will be necessary to lay the blame on the omnipotence of the majority that will have brought minorities to despair and will have forced them to appeal to physical force. Then you will see anarchy, but it will arrive as a consequence of despotism."

I might remind you that Alexis de Tocqueville was a French aristocratic conservative. He researched and wrote Democracy in America in 1831, with a mind toward questioning democracy, in an age of revolution in his own country (France). Aristocracy and liberal democracy were seen as competing ideologies in his day. Indeed, the title of his other book makes his focus crystal clear: The Old Regime and the Revolution (1856).

What is curious is that Toqueville's chapter on Tyranny of the Majority, which you quote, has been picked up by radical leftists like Herbert Marcuse and his followers. See, "Repressive Tolerance", in Herbert Marcuse, et al, A Critique of Pure Tolerance, Beacon Press (1965); see also, Herbert Marcuse, One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society (1964). They claim it is freedom, as in Libertarianism, that harbors a tendency toward conservatism of ideas (as distinct from elusive ‘conservative ideas’). People are creatures of habit, and don't want to change. So they gravitate toward the old and established.

Just as the United States found, in the late 19th-century, that unfettered freedom of markets inevitably deteriorated into economic monopoly—necessitating the antitrust legislation of the early 1900's—so unfettered speech/voting favors the 'entrenched' political opinions and prevents new ideas from emerging. Now that anarchists and libertarians are trying out their own new ideas, they are amazed to find the same resistance of the majority.

Suffice it to say that it is neither a left or right issue. It is a tendency of human nature, which democracy, as a singular political theory, has tapped into. Alexis de Toqueville tried to draw that out as harming the fruits of aristocracy, and Marcuse tried to draw that out as harming the fruits of new left thought. Both left and right decry the tyranny of the majority, as it works against minority ideas and views.

by 'Wolfie Fri Aug 09, 2019 7:34 am

Maddog wrote:
WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

60%+ of the population is a pretty damn big "minority"...

USA, Britain, Russia, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, France, Taiwan, India, Japan, Germany, et al -- in none of these countries do we see "majority rule" -- but whichever minority(s) happen to hold 'the balance of power' at the moment, and whatever financial interests are backing them.

60% would be a majority.

I suggest that you go and check the election results, where each of these "democratically elected" governments effectively got into power with less than 40% of the total votes...

When you get various combinations of "the 'majority' of votes in the 'majority' of seats", gerrymandering, "donkey votes", 'disqualified voters and/or candidates, "first past the post" races, etc., then you can easily end up with unrepresentative governance..

As one example, if one party ends up with 60% of the votes in 60% of the seats, then they could effectively take control of the gov't on only 36% of the total vote..

Look at Trump -- 3 million less votes than Hillary, but with your "Electoral College" system, and non-compulsory voting, you still end up with a minority POTUS from a minority party.

by Maddog Fri Aug 09, 2019 4:40 pm

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
Maddog wrote:

60% would be a majority.

I suggest that you go and check the election results, where each of these "democratically elected" governments effectively got into power with less than 40% of the total votes...

When you get various combinations of "the 'majority' of votes in the 'majority' of seats", gerrymandering, "donkey votes", 'disqualified voters and/or candidates, "first past the post" races, etc., then you can easily end up with unrepresentative governance..

As one example, if one party ends up with 60% of the votes in 60% of the seats, then they could effectively take control of the gov't on only 36% of the total vote..

Look at Trump -- 3 million less votes than Hillary, but with your "Electoral College" system, and non-compulsory voting, you still end up with a minority POTUS from a minority party.

Cool story.

40% can be a plurality.

60% is a majority.

by Original Quill Fri Aug 09, 2019 6:12 pm

Maddog wrote:
WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

I suggest that you go and check the election results, where each of these "democratically elected" governments effectively got into power with less than 40% of the total votes...

When you get various combinations of "the 'majority' of votes in the 'majority' of seats", gerrymandering, "donkey votes", 'disqualified voters and/or candidates, "first past the post" races, etc., then you can easily end up with unrepresentative governance..

As one example, if one party ends up with 60% of the votes in 60% of the seats, then they could effectively take control of the gov't on only 36% of the total vote..

Look at Trump -- 3 million less votes than Hillary, but with your "Electoral College" system, and non-compulsory voting, you still end up with a minority POTUS from a minority party.

Cool story.

40% can be a plurality.

60% is a majority.

Of what? Remember, with any summary statistic like percentage, it requires two base numbers: not just a numerator, but also a denominator. If you narrow or enlarge the boundaries of the population, as in gerrymandering, you change the denominator, and can turn 40% into 60%, or 60% into 40%, rather quickly.

The same kind of game is played with the electoral college. Winnow the whole of the national vote down to a few select electors, and jiggle a few districts in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, and voilà, you've turned a 3-million vote deficit into a narrow majority for your selected candidate.

The Russians figured this out in 2016. Is it too difficult for you, Redneck?

by Maddog Fri Aug 09, 2019 8:56 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Cool story.

40% can be a plurality.

60% is a majority.

Of what? Remember, with any summary statistic like percentage, it requires two base numbers: not just a numerator, but also a denominator. If you narrow or enlarge the boundaries of the population, as in gerrymandering, you change the denominator, and can turn 40% into 60%, or 60% into 40%, rather quickly.

The same kind of game is played with the electoral college. Winnow the whole of the national vote down to a few select electors, and jiggle a few districts in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, and voilà, you've turned a 3-million vote deficit into a narrow majority for your selected candidate.

The Russians figured this out in 2016. Is it too difficult for you, Redneck?

In percentages, the denominator is always 100.

Per cent means "out of 100" Doctor Mitty.

by Original Quill Sat Aug 10, 2019 2:22 am

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Of what? Remember, with any summary statistic like percentage, it requires two base numbers: not just a numerator, but also a denominator. If you narrow or enlarge the boundaries of the population, as in gerrymandering, you change the denominator, and can turn 40% into 60%, or 60% into 40%, rather quickly.

The same kind of game is played with the electoral college. Winnow the whole of the national vote down to a few select electors, and jiggle a few districts in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, and voilà, you've turned a 3-million vote deficit into a narrow majority for your selected candidate.

The Russians figured this out in 2016. Is it too difficult for you, Redneck?

In percentages, the denominator is always 100.

Per cent means "out of 100" Doctor Mitty.

Xactly...but 100 of what, fool? When you increase/decrease the base, the numerator represents a much greater, or much smaller portion of something. When you gerrymander districts, you get more of your congressmen, and minimize the other party's. Jesus Christ, what did they teach you in that junior college you went to?

Is that why you troll? To avoid having to think things thru?

by 'Wolfie Sat Aug 10, 2019 2:57 am

Maddog wrote:
WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

I suggest that you go and check the election results, where each of these "democratically elected" governments effectively got into power with less than 40% of the total votes...

When you get various combinations of "the 'majority' of votes in the 'majority' of seats", gerrymandering, "donkey votes", 'disqualified voters and/or candidates, "first past the post" races, etc., then you can easily end up with unrepresentative governance..

As one example, if one party ends up with 60% of the votes in 60% of the seats, then they could effectively take control of the gov't on only 36% of the total vote..

Look at Trump -- 3 million less votes than Hillary, but with your "Electoral College" system, and non-compulsory voting, you still end up with a minority POTUS from a minority party.

Cool story.

40% can be a plurality.

60% is a majority.

If a political party takes control of government with less than 40% of the votes, you cannot claim that they have the support of the "majority" of the electorate -- even if they do end up with the balance of power in the house of representatives/congress..

36, 38 or 39% of the votes doesn't equate to any kind of "majority" -- it simply means that entity came first in "first past the post" race..

Then again, Dopey Dawg, you have proven time and time again that your understanding of statistics is less-than-zero.

by Maddog Sat Aug 10, 2019 9:59 pm

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Cool story.

40% can be a plurality.

60% is a majority.

If a political party takes control of government with less than 40% of the votes, you cannot claim that they have the support of the "majority" of the electorate -- even if they do end up with the balance of power in the house of representatives/congress..

36, 38 or 39% of the votes doesn't equate to any kind of "majority" -- it simply means that entity came first in "first past the post" race..

Then again, Dopey Dawg, you have proven time and time again that your understanding of statistics is less-than-zero.

No, but 60% is a majority. tongue

by Original Quill Sun Aug 11, 2019 6:49 pm

Maddog wrote:
WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

If a political party takes control of government with less than 40% of the votes, you cannot claim that they have the support of the "majority" of the electorate -- even if they do end up with the balance of power in the house of representatives/congress..

36, 38 or 39% of the votes doesn't equate to any kind of "majority" -- it simply means that entity came first in "first past the post" race..

Then again, Dopey Dawg, you have proven time and time again that your understanding of statistics is less-than-zero.

No, but 60% is a majority.

60% of nothing is 60% of a vacuum. Until you have a denominator to tell us what the 'whole' is, you cannot begin to talk about parts of the whole.

Did you ever take any class in statistics? In algebra? In arithmetic? WTF do they teach in Texas...ceramics?

by Sponsored content

Rage Rules American Politics

Rage Rules American Politics

Re: Rage Rules American Politics

Re: Rage Rules American Politics

Re: Rage Rules American Politics

Re: Rage Rules American Politics

Re: Rage Rules American Politics

Re: Rage Rules American Politics

Re: Rage Rules American Politics

Re: Rage Rules American Politics

Re: Rage Rules American Politics

Re: Rage Rules American Politics

Re: Rage Rules American Politics

Re: Rage Rules American Politics

Re: Rage Rules American Politics

Re: Rage Rules American Politics

Re: Rage Rules American Politics

Re: Rage Rules American Politics

Re: Rage Rules American Politics

Re: Rage Rules American Politics

Re: Rage Rules American Politics

Re: Rage Rules American Politics

Re: Rage Rules American Politics