The Tide May Be Turning

[FM75]

I don't remember where it was, but years ago I read that two parties fits our psychology. People often think about things in terms of dichotomies, and the two-party system accomodates that.The problem you may run into is that you agree with some planks in the R platform, and other planks in the D platform. But that doesn't happen too much, because there's often quite a bit of correlation.

 

With more parties, they tend to become more specialized, and it becomes hard for any one of them to get majority support. And it's just harder for voters to keep track of where they all fit into their personal preferences.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-17/republicans-and-democrats-actually-agree-on-facts.html

 

The views (when yacking and blogging) may be different, but when it comes to agreeing on FACTS the two are quite close together if there is money on the line for them personally. Now if one were to couple the one person - one vote, with a system in which each individual was taxed at the same amount, then not only would voter participation increase, but voters would expect to hear pro-rata costs of programs espoused by the candidates - which would certainly slam the brakes on government spending.

[mycroft]

The problem is that the US system doesn't support more than two parties. Races for particular seats are winner-takes-all. This means if three or more viable candidates run, then the winner may have much less than majority support; it could be that a candidate that the vast majority of the electorate finds awful wins because the other candidates split the vote. In fact there have been some recent cases where (for example) a popular left-of-center independent ran and the net result was that the Republican candidate won with slightly more than a third of the overall vote (the Democrat and Independent splitting the liberal vote down the middle). Similar things have happened on the other side.

 

It also creates a situation where voting for a third party is effectively "throwing your vote away" -- you improve the chances that the major party you dislike more will actually win the election!

 

Countries with more-than-two-party systems normally have some form of proportionate representation, where a party that receives 20% of the vote gets (approximately) 20% of the representatives (rather than quite possibly zero, as in the US system).

Of course, the country closest to the U.S. with more-than-two-party system, and the country whose policies caused the U.S. to want to govern itself ... don't.

 

And yeah, all the problems you're referring to apply (especially the "majority in the House of Parliament with a plurality of the votes, and with a majority of MPs (of all parties) not winning a majority in their riding" bit). Having said that, voting R in California, or D across much of Rural America, is as much "throwing your vote away" as voting for a third party.

[mike777]

Yew argues that perhaps adults with families age 40-60 should have two votes.

 

If you start with the political philosophy that all people are created equal that leads one to many other conclusions of how a govt should look.

 

OTOH if you believe that humans are inherently vicious and have to be restrained from their viciousness or that to insist that all men and women are equal or should be equal must lead to regression leads Yew and others to a different viewpoint.

 

HIs fundamental viewpoint is we want an equal society and we want to give everyone equal opportunities. But we should never deceive ourselves that two human beings are equal in stamina, in their drive, in their dedication in their innate ability.

[onoway]

Judge Robert Bork, quotes:

As government regulations grow slowly, we become used to the harness. Habit is a powerful force, and we no longer feel as intensely as we once would have [the] constriction of our liberties that would have been utterly intolerable a mere half century ago.

[dwar0123]

Judge Robert Bork, quotes:

As government regulations grow slowly, we become used to the harness. Habit is a powerful force, and we no longer feel as intensely as we once would have [the] constriction of our liberties that would have been utterly intolerable a mere half century ago.

What are the things you can't do now that you could in 1963?

 

Among those things, what are the things you believe you should still be able to do?

 

Fill this out for me.

 

First list:

Smoke in restaurants

States outlawing interracial marriage

Discriminate based on sexual orientation

(add more examples)

 

Second list:

(add more examples)

[mike777]

What are the things you can't do now that you could in 1963?

 

Among those things, what are the things you believe you should still be able to do?

 

Fill this out for me.

 

First list:

Smoke in restaurants

States outlawing interracial marriage

Discriminate based on sexual orientation

(add more examples)

 

Second list:

(add more examples)

 

Clearly there was much more privacy, privacy in the old traditional sense of the word(non abortion) from big government and big business.

 

Also off the top I would add air travel.

 

With all of that said, yes in general we are far far better off in 2013 in general compared to 1963 in many important ways. I give credit for this to increased productivity but I do hate the lack of privacy.

[Zelandakh]

The views (when yacking and blogging) may be different, but when it comes to agreeing on FACTS the two are quite close together if there is money on the line for them personally. Now if one were to couple the one person - one vote, with a system in which each individual was taxed at the same amount, then not only would voter participation increase, but voters would expect to hear pro-rata costs of programs espoused by the candidates - which would certainly slam the brakes on government spending.

Oh a Poll Tax? What a good idea. But Britain got there first - it was one of the leading factors in the fall of Mrs Thatcher and that scheme was considerably less radical than what you want to see. It does not work - give it up. All you are doing is giving millions of Americans an incentive not to go to work or to leave the country or to riot.

[mike777]

Oh a Poll Tax? What a good idea. But Britain got there first - it was one of the leading factors in the fall of Mrs Thatcher and that scheme was considerably less radical than what you want to see. It does not work - give it up. All you are doing is giving millions of Americans an incentive not to go to work or to leave the country or to riot.

 

One of the huge really huge issues regarding the UK was:

1) brilliant science

2) culture that denied commercial of science

3) a hubris of class

 

---------------

 

 

I would compare that to 4 salient features of usa but that is the problem with usa.....these four points are coming up lacking lately....

[hrothgar]

What are the things you can't do now that you could in 1963?

 

Among those things, what are the things you believe you should still be able to do?

 

Fill this out for me.

 

First list:

Smoke in restaurants

States outlawing interracial marriage

Discriminate based on sexual orientation

(add more examples)

 

Second list:

(add more examples)

 

From what I can tell, the most significant issue seems to be integrated classrooms.

 

Integrated classrooms was the defining issue that lead to political "Great Awakening" when Southern Evangelicals became politically active (Evangelicals claim that this was driven by abortion, but most studies show that school integration was much more important). To this day, vouchers and school choice issues largely boil down to the right to segregate children by race.

 

Te battles around "busing" weren't any more pretty up North. I wasn't living in Boston at the time, but you still hear stories about the chaos and violence involved with the "Racial Imbalance Act"...

 

Please note: I am not claiming that going back to racially segregated classrooms is a good idea. Rather, I am stating that this seems to be the defining characteristic of "the good old days".

[mike777]

I have to be honest in 1963 that was not an issue we discussed in class

 

 

my bet is in 1963 this was just not an issue in Chicago that we kids knew of...perhaps the parents did not discuss.

------------

 

 

 

looking back at....this was an issue but one the kids in my school had no idea.

 

it may seem weird to many but in 1963 or for that matter later we had no idea of race

[mike777]

in boston bussing was a huge issue that continues today....read..white flight.

 

 

charlotte was the firstcity of busing.......the result was:

 

charlotte became a minority city of students in the majority.

vast numbers of private schools.

 

vast number of law suits over 40 years.

-------

 

 

in my home town of Chicago you can see the results of nuts....crazy

 

 

I have told you guys of my home....roseland/Pullman Chicago this is where I grew up.

 

I went back and wow...no churches...no dept stores...no candy stores...no banks..no nothing....

[hrothgar]

I have told you guys of my home....roseland/Pullman Chicago this is where I grew up.

 

I went back and wow...no churches...no dept stores...no candy stores...no banks..no nothing....

 

The steel mills and Sherwin Williams both closed. Nasty one-two punch for those poor individuals who prefer stability to the opportunity for risk taking.

 

On the other hand, there is a thriving market for both cocaine and crank and the entrepreneurial risk takers are capitalizing on this...

 

I'd expect you to be proud about the whole state of affairs

[billw55]

From what I can tell, the most significant issue seems to be integrated classrooms.

 

Integrated classrooms was the defining issue that lead to political "Great Awakening" when Southern Evangelicals became politically active (Evangelicals claim that this was driven by abortion, but most studies show that school integration was much more important). To this day, vouchers and school choice issues largely boil down to the right to segregate children by race.

 

Te battles around "busing" weren't any more pretty up North. I wasn't living in Boston at the time, but you still hear stories about the chaos and violence involved with the "Racial Imbalance Act"...

 

Please note: I am not claiming that going back to racially segregated classrooms is a good idea. Rather, I am stating that this seems to be the defining characteristic of "the good old days".

I get most of what you are saying, but not sure I understand the bit about vouchers. What voucher programs are restricted by race? Can't black kids get a voucher just as easily as white kids?

[Zelandakh]

I get most of what you are saying, but not sure I understand the bit about vouchers. What voucher programs are restricted by race? Can't black kids get a voucher just as easily as white kids?

They can if they own a gun, or a knife... (sorry, bad taste humour)

[hrothgar]

I get most of what you are saying, but not sure I understand the bit about vouchers. What voucher programs are restricted by race? Can't black kids get a voucher just as easily as white kids?

 

Yes.

However, this is very different than being able to use said voucher

 

One of the big issues that I have with voucher programs is the presumption that the parent's will direct their spending in such a way as to improve junior's education. In practice, I think that many parents are attempting to achieve social, political, or religious goals.

[barmar]

I get most of what you are saying, but not sure I understand the bit about vouchers. What voucher programs are restricted by race? Can't black kids get a voucher just as easily as white kids?

Maybe they can, but they don't. White parents are probably more motivated to seek out the vouchers, because they fear integration. For black parents, a school with lots of black kids matches the community they likely live in, so they don't feel as much need to get their kids out of there.

[onoway]

What are the things you can't do now that you could in 1963?

 

Among those things, what are the things you believe you should still be able to do?

 

Fill this out for me.

 

First list:

Smoke in restaurants

States outlawing interracial marriage

Discriminate based on sexual orientation

(add more examples)

 

Second list:

(add more examples)

 

http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/2013-voting-law-changes-legislation-making-it-harder-vote

 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/canada-s-c-51-law-to-outlaw-60-of-natural-health-products/8850 The bill did not pass but Health Canada has simply silently banned literally thousands of products anyway, forcing people to choose between big pharma or nothing

 

http://www.voanews.com/content/hungarian-president-signs-controversial-media-law-112693124/170413.html

That may be Hungary but shades of the same thing is now seen with Harper in Canada restricting access to information, even in the face of Freedom of Information Act which is (at least sometimes) simply ignored. We have also recently had amendments to bills passed which makes the parameters of the information legally available so extreme that it's virtually the same as denying access.

 

Again in Canada, throwing everything but the kitchen sink into huge omnibus bills which are then pushed through without time for much debate or discussion so the opposition is made incapable of doing its job and the public is left largely in the dark exactly what just got passed into law.

 

ww.seed-sovereignty.org/EN/

 

I would have thought the spying and collecting of information by governments on private citizens without any sort of reason or warrant being needed or even considered need not be pointed out, although that's perhaps the biggest one.

 

I can't prove it, but I tend to think that 40 years ago (your time frame) there would have been outrage and utter disbelief that the US was not only condoning but using torture as a means to gather information and were keeping people in jails indefinitely without charges or an opportunity to defend themselves meaningfully.

 

Will those do for a start or do you need more?

[ArtK78]

I know the main thing that has happened since 1963 is that I am 50 years older. :) I was in second grade on November 22, 1963, the day that JFK was shot.

 

1963 was the cold war, the assassination of JFK and the end of Camelot, the beginning of the height of the civil rights movement, the war in Vietnam, and many other issues that have shaped where we are today. What was not known by the populace was the extent to which the FBI was already snooping on our day-to-day lives, under the leadership of J. Edgar Hoover. Can you imagine what J. Edgar would be up to if he had access to today's technology?

[dwar0123]

ww.brennancenter.org/analysis/2013-voting-law-changes-legislation-making-it-harder-vote

 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/canada-s-c-51-law-to-outlaw-60-of-natural-health-products/8850 The bill did not pass but Health Canada has simply silently banned literally thousands of products anyway, forcing people to choose between big pharma or nothing

 

http://www.voanews.com/content/hungarian-president-signs-controversial-media-law-112693124/170413.html

That may be Hungary but shades of the same thing is now seen with Harper in Canada restricting access to information, even in the face of Freedom of Information Act which is (at least sometimes) simply ignored. We have also recently had amendments to bills passed which makes the parameters of the information legally available so extreme that it's virtually the same as denying access.

 

Again in Canada, throwing everything but the kitchen sink into huge omnibus bills which are then pushed through without time for much debate or discussion so the opposition is made incapable of doing its job and the public is left largely in the dark exactly what just got passed into law.

 

ww.seed-sovereignty.org/EN/

 

I would have thought the spying and collecting of information by governments on private citizens without any sort of reason or warrant being needed or even considered need not be pointed out, although that's perhaps the biggest one.

 

I can't prove it, but I tend to think that 40 years ago (your time frame) there would have been outrage and utter disbelief that the US was not only condoning but using torture as a means to gather information and were keeping people in jails indefinitely without charges or an opportunity to defend themselves meaningfully.

 

Will those do for a start or do you need more?

2013-1963=50

 

Who ever you presume is speaking for the US in condoning the use of torture does not actually speak for the US and sadly the use of torture isn't new.

 

As to Gitmo, a very disturbing issue to which I strongly oppose, it however doesn't restrict any liberties of any citizens of this country.

 

I am not entirely sure what the NSA is collecting, the most believable reports suggest it is limited to meta-data, but I am pretty sure they would have collected it, and far more, 50 years ago under J. Edgar Hoover. What changed here is not so much about what the government is collecting but what technology is allowing it to collect.

 

Canada is not the USA.

 

Considering the state of voting rights in the 1960's, I wouldn't really advance the notion that the suggested voting right changes are really an infringement on civil liberties that tarnish the glorious 1960's.

[mycroft]

Of course, in the best schools, the voucher pays for all of the education, right?

 

So the schools you can get in with money and a voucher vs the schools you can get in with just the voucher...probably look a lot like the schools you used to be able to get in in a well-off neighbourhood vs the ones you could get in in a poorer neighbourhood.

 

Now, I realize that well-off/poor and white/black don't match exactly, but (especially with redlining and "oh, we don't really want you here") it *was* a good match, and the correlation (at least for those who don't feel their children should be associating with "those types" and those who are "I Got Mine, Jack" and don't care what happens to anyone else as long as their children get an acceptable level of education) is still better than zero (and "those types" who have enough money to join them aren't really "those types", right?)

 

Having said that, I think that between Terry Stops, Hiibel identity requirements, the TSA, the Customs "we can search anyone for any reason at or near a border" (100 miles from any possible entry point, including all the seacoast and international airports), and the various wiretapping schemes and other end-runs around the fourth amendment, if you described modern U.S. life (especially modern U.S. life for an urban non-white) to someone from 1963 (albeit, someone white, I guess), you'd get "yep, those G-D Commies. Aren't you glad you live in a Free Country?"

[ArtK78]

Unless I am mistaken (and that happens occasionally), the US Supreme Court has sanctioned searches of anyone at or near a border crossing on the grounds of national security. Essentially, by crossing a national border, one consents to such searches.

 

As for "near a border," that is a much grayer area. It might still fall within the scope of national security, but the argument that one consents to such searches by being near a national border is not as good as the argument for consent by crossing the border.

 

I don't have a citation to this statement - it is something that I recall from law school. Then again, it has been a long time since law school. As a tax lawyer, I don't run into these issues very often.

[FM75]

Oh a Poll Tax? What a good idea. But Britain got there first - it was one of the leading factors in the fall of Mrs Thatcher and that scheme was considerably less radical than what you want to see. It does not work - give it up. All you are doing is giving millions of Americans an incentive not to go to work or to leave the country or to riot.

 

Poll tax?!

 

Absolutely not. You did not read carefully. Voting would be free. Living in the US would not be (for anybody except minors). Voting by the poor would logically be expected to rise to keep their taxes affordable. And as a result, since they are a majority (more are below median income than above), government spending would be forced down to affordable levels - just like before 1913.

[blackshoe]

Unless I am mistaken (and that happens occasionally), the US Supreme Court has sanctioned searches of anyone at or near a border crossing on the grounds of national security. Essentially, by crossing a national border, one consents to such searches.

 

As for "near a border," that is a much grayer area. It might still fall within the scope of national security, but the argument that one consents to such searches by being near a national border is not as good as the argument for consent by crossing the border.

 

I don't have a citation to this statement - it is something that I recall from law school. Then again, it has been a long time since law school. As a tax lawyer, I don't run into these issues very often.

I wonder. I live near Rochester, NY. I'm south of Lake Ontario. The border is in the middle of the lake (I don't know how far it is from here). I'm also about 60 or 70 miles east of Niagara Falls. Am I subject to these searches? In my house? In my car? If so, I think the "national security" argument is a bunch of crap. What about the folks who live or work "right up the street" from a border crossing?

 

As for invoking "national security" as justification for doing whatever, I remember a Navy LT who, while he was working for the NSA, I met at a computer conference about 30 years ago. On the subject of computer security he said "if we had our way, there wouldn't be any users!" :P

 

Where in the Constitution does it say that "national security" trumps the Bill of Rights?

[ArtK78]

I wonder. I live near Rochester, NY. I'm south of Lake Ontario. The border is in the middle of the lake (I don't know how far it is from here). I'm also about 60 or 70 miles east of Niagara Falls. Am I subject to these searches? In my house? In my car? If so, I think the "national security" argument is a bunch of crap. What about the folks who live or work "right up the street" from a border crossing?

 

As for invoking "national security" as justification for doing whatever, I remember a Navy LT who, while he was working for the NSA, I met at a computer conference about 30 years ago. On the subject of computer security he said "if we had our way, there wouldn't be any users!" :P

 

Where in the Constitution does it say that "national security" trumps the Bill of Rights?

The 4th Amendment to the US Constitution provides that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,..." I don't see anything about protecting the right of the people against reasonable searches at or near a border crossing.

 

Really, that is the crux of the matter. Searches at border crossings are per se reasonable. Of course, the further away from a border crossing one is, the weaker that argument becomes.

 

As I said in my prior post, a condition to be permitted to enter the country (or, for that matter, to leave the country) is to consent to such searches as are deemed reasonable by the government in the interests of national security. Now, I admit that I just made up that language, but I am sure there is precedent for that conclusion.

[kenberg]

What are the things you can't do now that you could in 1963?

 

I will ask my wife if she has any thoughts on this.