But is a problem of democracy. Every democracy can elect a dumb person has president. Dictatorships have other set of problems. Is not a new thing.
Also, is basically what happened with the Brexit, they accidentally did a bad thing and democracy allowed it.
The real problem that should matter is, I think, that people is not happy with the governments that are given to choose. They don’t represent the interest of the voters, theres really nothing in the menu with the appeal for voters. Thats the problem, the political elites don’t message correctly, or serve the wrong interest,or I don’t know, but theres this connexion broken.
There are multiples forms of democracy, and the US one has proven specially subject to manipulation while others (France, Germany…) seem much more resilient against the current tensions. It’s much harder for a proportional system to be kidnapped by a extreme minority.
I’m not sure democracy is the problem. Seems to me the problem is a two-party system in which one party cravenly sells out its own country because it’s incapable of anything other than blind opposition.
[quote=“MikeJ, post:3702, topic:126885, full:true”]Wasn’t the Weimar Republic a proportional system?
[/quote]
Yeah, and that’s why they had to imprison members of the chamber to be able to pass the enabling laws.
Had it been a first pass the post system, the Nazis would have gotten hold of a majority a year earlier and without resorting to breaking the rules to pass the enabling laws.
[quote=“tomchick, post:3703, topic:126885, full:true”]
I’m not sure democracy is the problem. Seems to me the problem is a two-party system in which one party cravenly sells out its own country because it’s incapable of anything other than blind opposition.[/quote]
The two party thing is key, which is a feature of no-proportionality, or at least a common outcome of such systems.
Yes, it’s a major failure on his part. However, I feel like I need to point out that this failure was directly enabled by virtually every Nato nation, including yours, failing to commit the required funds to their own military development.
This has created the impression, which is largely correct, that NATO states are shifting military expenditure onto the US. While Trump’s views on this are nonsensical, and demonstrate that he doesn’t really understand how NATO works (i.e. Member states don’t PAY money to NATO, or to the US), the fact is that the treaty has certain requirements to be a member, and most member states are failing to meet those requirements.
One of my favorite whipping posts, how our FPTP system is garbage that encourages this type of behavior, increases polarization, pushes towards extremes, and allows manipulation of allocations on specious grounds to disenfranchise large portions of the public.
It needs to be torn down, root and branch, and remodeled on any one of several superior systems of democratic representation. Keep the general outline, but change how members are assigned. Something like mixed member representation, or proportional systems would not be silver bullets, but would be huge improvements on the current status quo.
Oh, I agree, there needs to be commitment from everybody.
That said, the over-commitment for NATO was one of the reasons the US was such an influence on the West (it was holding a leadership role by assuming expenses). Questioning NATO damages this ability to push others around. NATO was allowed to be an American military influence in exchange for the funding and protection the Article 5 provided. By taking this approach other countries might contribute more to their military spending, sure, but also the US will lose influence over NATO decisions. I’m not sure that’s good for you.
What’s probably going to happen, though, is further European military integration, something the US has been opposed to for a long time (because it would make NATO obsoletish).
I don’t think it’s going to take place soon, but it’s certainly within the realm of possibility now.
Much less radical measures would work. A key difference between our system and other advanced democracies is that our turnout is much lower, in large part because of voting rules that discourage voting by working people, and partisan manipulation of those rules.
In terms of actual treaty commitments, they are not. The 2% figure is not part of the treaty, it’s a long-term commitment under the Riga summit declaration of 2006, reinforced with a 10 year target in 2014. The only current commitments arefor those with spending over 2% now to not let it fall below 2%, and for those below 2% with declining spending to halt the decline. And even those are not technically treaty obligations, but political guidelines.
I wonder if this perception (not implying it’s any different than reality, just that the impression is what “counts” in this specific case) is really the crucial aspect of it; that many believe their vote doesn’t matter and that the act of registering let alone voting has become too cumbersome to manage for what they may feel is only a token gesture.
Many of us have railed against the Electoral College and gerrymandering so I won’t retread well-worn ground. I just wonder what system we could realistically aspire to that might minimize these concerns. Automatic voter registration seems a good first step, and Illinois is doing that this year. Some basic level of ID seems to then make sense, but the focus on a photo ID seems like it places the onus on the voter instead of those implementing the system. Maybe a combination of SSN, DOB, and a PIN?
Computerizing districts based solely on population is too logical and clean to work, but that’s what I’d dream of. These would update with each census, providing at least 10 years of stability for any incumbent Representative to focus their concerns. Of course, good luck on getting Republicans to go along with that, as they’d lose a bunch of seats. What realistic option exists out there is the true question. What changes could actually get passed in this.2018’s, or 2020’s Congress?
But I’d argue, for a host of reasons, those would work better. MMR has the advantage of more closely aligning representation with regional interests, preventing gerrymandering, and enabling and empowering third parties. A 3 representative district could allow, for example, true third party representation. Since you no longer have winner take all, no longer are you ‘wasting’ a vote by choosing someone from not the top two. This could mean we see members of Greens, Libertarians, or even the advent of whole new parties that more accurately represent the views of their constituents, gain seats in congress.
This would also, in theory, reduce extremism as it would force more than simple majorities controlling everything and force more coalition building for legislative advances. Similarly proportional could do the same. Basically reduce the influence of extreme elements from a party hijacking things, make gerrymandering and electorate shenanigans no longer viable or as effective, and encourage a broader diversity of political party representation. Things alternative systems can do that FPTP will never do.
I’m open to any changes that achieve those ends, but I find MMR to be, IMO, the superior choice. But, hey, pragmatism. I’ll settle for killing the tricks that you see with congress in states like Pennsylvania and North Carolina, neutering the influence of the Tea Party and Trumpists on one of only two viable national parties, and making it so people can vote for what matches their actual interests rather than some nebulous ‘lesser of two evils’ that many people seem to feel the need to vote for.
I have a feeling the 2% goal that the US are proposing is so that countries should be 'encourage’d to buy a lot more US produced hardware. I wonder; if all the NATO members purchased Chinese made (shit) hardware, the US wouldn’t be as insistent on this goal. We’re already spending a shitload of money on the flying failure F-35.
Another feature: NATO members have spent a lot of money on armed forces/security services and expeditions thanks to the US/British crusades into Iraq; which then destabilized the entire region; Maybe the US should pay back some money for that first, then we’ll see about the remaining % left on the NATO bill.
I don’t think voter ID is necessary in this system. The UK (along with many other countries) has had automatic registration for ages, and until very recently it was just a self-certification (not even that, really, one certification per household). There have been some changes since in the wake of postal fraud, but even so, in most cases it’s self-certified, while some people have to give an NI number (basically SSN).
No, it’s because if you have a treaty where you’re all supposed to be able to lend military assistance to each other, then you need to actually have a functional military to do so.
I mean, you can say that you don’t believe in such things, and that’s fine… but then NATO’s dead, and it ain’t Trump’s fault.
Military Spending for Germany is quite an interesting topic.
Based on Wikipedia Germany is currently spending 41.1 Bn $ or 1.2 % of GDP.
With the proposed 2% of GDP we would spend 68.5 Bn $… that´s the same amount as Russia spends (69.2 Bn $ or 5.3% (!) GDP) and much more than France (55.7 Bn $ = 2.3 GDP %) or Great Britain (48.3 Bn $ = 1.9 % GDP)!
And you have to consider that we don´t have nuclear weapons or a big blue-water navy.
So the question is: what should we buy with that money? Aircraft carriers? Nuclear submarines?
So in the end Germany starts to beef up the Air Force and increases the army, big style…
I guess such an increase in spending would only be possible in conjunction with our allies in europe, otherwise the topic Aufrüstung will become trendy again…
I’m not saying it’s the right thing to do, but you could also go heavy on counter-terrorism efforts, which means things like new special forces units, smaller vehicles, upgraded communications, modernized small weapons and tactical gear, and lots and lots of training.
