|
Corona Virus Fears in your area (pg. 52)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Paradox Lost |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
arbiter!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes:
|
My memories of Arbiter are evenly divided into two categories: nothing specific, and how the only proper way to receive a blowjob is in a rocking chair, cackling with a cigar in your mouth. |
|
|
| 72hrpartyanimal |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
Unfortunately the most predictive factor in U.S. presidential elections is which candidate is less boring. Trump was less boring than Hillary. Obama was less boring than either Romney or McCain. Dubya was less boring than Kerry or Gore. Bill Clinton was less boring than Dole or Bush I. Bush I, while quite boring, was still a bit less boring than Dukakis. And Reagan was less boring than Mondale or Carter.
Yes, Ford may have been slightly less boring than Carter as well, but if you need to go back nearly a half century to find a counterexample, then you're in trouble. In sum, if the Democrats wanted to win, they needed to nominate Dwayne Johnson or some such nonsense. Well, assuming we even have an election, that is. |
Well said. Each party nominee has always been the person who could win as opposed to who could lead. I'd love to see other parties represented but we're stuck in this (broken imo) 2 party system. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Paradox Lost
My memories of Arbiter are evenly divided into two categories: nothing specific, and how the only proper way to receive a blowjob is in a rocking chair, cackling with a cigar in your mouth. |
i have a man crush on a few peeps from back in the day in the PDD subforum. renegade, arbiter, moral hazard and occrider. they taught me im definitely not one of the smartest cunts going around :stongue: |
|
|
| Zoso |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
i have a man crush on a few peeps from back in the day in the PDD subforum. renegade, arbiter, moral hazard and occrider. they taught me im definitely not one of the smartest cunts going around :stongue: |
Holy , I had forgotten all about Moral Hazard! Indeed...a "master debater" if there ever was one.
I also miss the hell out of Orbax and ye olde Energy Hax (Ygrene). |
|
|
| Vector A |
| quote: | Originally posted by 72hrpartyanimal
Well said. Each party nominee has always been the person who could win as opposed to who could lead. I'd love to see other parties represented but we're stuck in this (broken imo) 2 party system. |
As long as we stick with plurality voting (first past the post in our case), we will probably be stuck with a two party system:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law
We could probably lessen this tendency somewhat with stricter campaign finance laws (or even public financing of elections, good luck getting that one passed, ever) to limit the influence of the overwhelming financial clout of the existing parties, but evolving into a two party system seems to be the natural tendency, especially in a presidential rather than parliamentary system. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Vector A
We could probably lessen this tendency somewhat with stricter campaign finance laws (or even public financing of elections, good luck getting that one passed, ever) to limit the influence of the overwhelming financial clout of the existing parties, but evolving into a two party system seems to be the natural tendency, especially in a presidential rather than parliamentary system. |
Welcome to Brazil! :gsmile:
Here, due to strict campaign finance laws, all parties are publicly funded, and that includes campaign expenses. We have 25 different parties in the Chamber of Deputies (average of 20 deputies and a midget per party) and 16 different parties in the Senate (average of 5 senators and two kids in a trenchcoat per party).
As a result, we have a president as head of state and government in a system that wants to be parliamentary, but isn't. Presidents usually head coalitions, which are unstable because they're not obliged to remain the same way until the following election, and bigger parties may jump ship at any moment. This is probably why Bolsonaro has a much higher chance of being impeached and kicked out than Trump had, and that will be the third impeachment I see in my life time. Essentially, we tend to treat impeachment proceedings here like no-confidence votes (which is why Dilma fell).
As you might imagine, our system is not exactly ideal, as it leads to a lot of horse trading and political pork barrel. Sometimes I think we'd be better off with a semi-presidential system, like France or Portugal. We'd have the worst of both worlds and it would probably work here :p |
|
|
| Vector A |
| Interesting. I don't see the current US system going away in my lifetime. Even if someone like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren got elected, there's no way that they could ever get financial reform with any real teeth passed because neither party (taken as a whole) wants to face what that would mean for them. |
|
|
| Lews |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
As you might imagine, our system is not exactly ideal, as it leads to a lot of horse trading and political pork barrel. |
Well, according to Condorcet and Arrow, there is no way to have a perfect democratic voting system.
Probably best to scrap the whole thing :o |
|
|
| Dykes_on_Jay |
| Authoritarianism numba wan! |
|
|
| Trance-M |
New research just on tv here. Peter van der Voort, head of intensive care at the UMC Groningen, has been researching the relationship between overweight and Corona.
They found that all overweight patients have a very high Leptin level. There is an existing medicine for this called Resveratrol. It's hopefully again a way to prevent some or a large number of people from getting very ill after being infected.
More research is needed in order to see if it's something that really helps, but at least it's something that can be measured. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
Well, according to Condorcet and Arrow, there is no way to have a perfect democratic voting system.
Probably best to scrap the whole thing :o |
No, I'm still quite attached to this messy arrangement we have!
I said that because people often think that's one of the reasons why we rank so poorly in corruption indices, and Bolsonaro actually got elected saying parties and coalitions were to blame - and he seems to actually believe this nonsense, as he's now an independent.
Of course, this also means he's about to have the shortest term in office out of all elected presidents in my lifetime... Which I hope will show the system works and does what it was supposed to do. No wonder they designed it right after a military dictatorship :p
| quote: | Originally posted by Vector A
Interesting. I don't see the current US system going away in my lifetime. Even if someone like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren got elected, there's no way that they could ever get financial reform with any real teeth passed because neither party (taken as a whole) wants to face what that would mean for them. |
Even if I wax lyrical about our political system, do yours really need to change?
When we had our first president, you guys had already been on it for more than a century (we used to have an emperor, which was pretty cool, but I digress). Sure, there's been a civil war, and presidents got shot, but there hasn't been a major break like a proper coup d'etat, so the American democracy is pretty resilient. Not sure I'd want to tinker with the system and risk losing it - maybe that's a feature, not a bug! |
|
|
| Trance-M |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Welcome to Brazil! :gsmile:
Here, due to strict campaign finance laws, all parties are publicly funded, and that includes campaign expenses. We have 25 different parties in the Chamber of Deputies (average of 20 deputies and a midget per party) and 16 different parties in the Senate (average of 5 senators and two kids in a trenchcoat per party).
As a result, we have a president as head of state and government in a system that wants to be parliamentary, but isn't. Presidents usually head coalitions, which are unstable because they're not obliged to remain the same way until the following election, and bigger parties may jump ship at any moment. This is probably why Bolsonaro has a much higher chance of being impeached and kicked out than Trump had, and that will be the third impeachment I see in my life time. Essentially, we tend to treat impeachment proceedings here like no-confidence votes (which is why Dilma fell).
As you might imagine, our system is not exactly ideal, as it leads to a lot of horse trading and political pork barrel. Sometimes I think we'd be better off with a semi-presidential system, like France or Portugal. We'd have the worst of both worlds and it would probably work here :p |
That many parties imo also doesn't work. Over here we have 14 parties with enough votes to get a seat and the same problem. A coalition needs 76 seats of 150. The more parties needed the more trade to form a coalition, which in the end can mean voters don't see the results or program as promised as it's too much of a compromise.
Personally I believe 6-10 parties would work best. Enough choice for voters but still the obligation to listen to other parties in a coalition. That's imo the biggest problem with a two party system. They don't really need to listen to eachother and spend more time fighting eachother.
Althought our system looks like the UK's in reality it is very different. Over here we have coalitions for many years while the UK mostly there's only one party in charge.
Looking at the US it's strange to see that a president has so much power compared to other countries. If there would have been a coalition in the US I'm convinced there would have been re-elections or this disaster never would have happened.
The ideal system doesn't exist for sure. |
|
|
|
|
