What would happen if...

[Revoltingest]

And there's a damn good reason the Founders didn't try Democracy. What they did do was pretty lame, and the improvements we've made would've had very limited success if everyone got to vote on the issue. Realistically, people are stupid, the state attracts the absolute worst our species has to offer, neither should have total control.
And with Hillary's win, it may show the Founder's plan working out because it will spell the end of the Conservative Reign over the Supreme Court, reflecting several generations of social change. The inferno of the Tea Party failed to take over because it died out quickly, and their brief moment and decline and dwindling influence is something designed into the stagnated nature of the US government. If Hillary gets to appoint a second Justice to replace another Conservative, it's essentially "game over" for Social Conservatives who are going to end up loosing a ton of fights over wanting the Bible to dictate state law.

Oh, boy....a conservative reign replaced by a liberal one.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yes... legislation being up to the whims of the majority, as opposed to the whims of a small entrenched political elite?

The difference is the Supreme Court slapped Pence upside the head for trying to carry out the whims of the local majority, whims that would have denied basic rights and protections to a sizeable chunk of the population.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Oh, boy....a conservative reign replaced by a liberal one.

Yup. And depending on how this election goes, just in time because I don't foresee it being too long before the Supreme Court addresses North Carolina's anti-trans law, and similar laws in other states and municipalities. Hopefully someone will make a fuss over Creationism in public schools once the shift has happened. We may even see a tax code that doesn't shift the tax burden of the ultra-wealthy onto the upper-middle/lower-upper class if anyone really wants to push the fact it's been a very long time since I our tax code has been updated. Really, I was born the same year our tax code was updated, and Congress is scared to vote on it because it will offend those who would loose the most, who already have the most.
No, it won't be perfect, and it will still be far from ideal, but I'd gladly volunteer to nail the coffin of Social Conservativism shut, dig the grave, hand mix the cement, and bury it alive. All while doing the celebratory "booty dance."

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Wouldn't that make people vote for a party they don't want just to don't waste their second vote ? Couldn't that lead to the odd situation where you end up electing someone that no one really wanted to be elected ?

Due to the nature of our preference system, we (Australia) can easily end up with Senators no-one voted for.

Not that they hold much power, but if you end up with a very tight election, those unsupported and independent Senators can end up controlling the balance of power.

 

[Laika]

Yes... legislation being up to the whims of the majority, as opposed to the whims of a small entrenched political elite? It's the lesser of two evils perhaps, but I think the vast majority of ordinary people are actually perfectly intelligent, honest, well meaning. I can't confidently say the same for politicians/ lawyers I've known personally.

And between Tom, Jane, Dick and Sally, you have a far better chance of someone who can actually run a lemonade stand profitably, is not beholden to their party voting record, constituents, past deals, and can freely vote their conscience. I don't use face book at all, how about Hillary?

Shadow Wolf, polls show that Tom, Jane, Dick and Sally generally support more gun control by the millions, which is blocked politically. - Given a referendum, you wouldn't want 'mob rule' to have their say? You'd rather the handful of more 'educated sensible' politicians deny them their naive whims, because they know best?

I sympathise with the sentiment but that is a surprising generosity to believe in the good will of complete strangers as a basis for not only exercising their rights, but entrusting a system of government and essentially your future to them. Perhaps I'm more cynical than I realise but people are typically afriad to exercise their freedom and prefer to conform, defer to or command authority. This appears true irrespective of levels of education as part of our social nature. The better educated have the advantage of being more informed but are also better liars at rationalising their behaviour as moral.

Worse, our "morality" compells most people to behave as frauds and liars engaged in elaborate self-deciption to appease others. Life becomes a tragic comedy of frustrated ambitions and social fears. so when the mask slips and the people gain power they reveal the tortured, vunerable but sadistic soul within through their egotism, pettiness and spite. I'm not of the opinion that "power corrupts", rather that it reveals character once we are no longer constrained by social protocol, custom or the law. Having a sense of your own Power feels good but that is not the same as doing good.

Its not that I could sincerely oppose a true democracy, but that it is extremely rare to meet someone who truly lives up to their ideals rather than using them as a crutch for their imperfections. I find the majority are not worthy of the power democracy gives them- yet thats all an elaborate hypocrisy given I could not cliam to be so pure that I could be the judge of whether they should be entitled to such rights. So I'm sceptical of a true democracy.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yup. And depending on how this election goes, just in time because I don't foresee it being too long before the Supreme Court addresses North Carolina's anti-trans law, and similar laws in other states and municipalities. Hopefully someone will make a fuss over Creationism in public schools once the shift has happened. We may even see a tax code that doesn't shift the tax burden of the ultra-wealthy onto the upper-middle/lower-upper class if anyone really wants to push the fact it's been a very long time since I our tax code has been updated. Really, I was born the same year our tax code was updated, and Congress is scared to vote on it because it will offend those who would loose the most, who already have the most.
No, it won't be perfect, and it will still be far from ideal, but I'd gladly volunteer to nail the coffin of Social Conservativism shut, dig the grave, hand mix the cement, and bury it alive. All while doing the celebratory "booty dance."

And don't forget the other upgrades liberals have to offer....
- Micromanagement of our affairs by clueless aparatchiks
- Speech regulation
- Higher taxes
- More wars to fix those ignant ferrin countries (nation building)
I can't wait!

 

[Quintessence]

I say take it to the logical conclusion to solve this problem, a true democracy. With technology today, any bill, law, policy can be put to public referendum and voted on quickly, securely, for a fraction of the time/cost it takes politicians sitting in a replica of the Vatican.

While an interesting idea, this would disenfranchise certain blocks of people. Most notably the elderly and the poor. I also think it is a terrible idea to have all policies of a nation dictated by popular vote. While the system we have now isn't working at the moment, it has done quite well in the past and can do so in the future... particularly if the two-party monopoly and stagnation is gotten rid of.

 

[Underhill]

I say take it to the logical conclusion to solve this problem, a true democracy. With technology today, any bill, law, policy can be put to public referendum and voted on quickly, securely, for a fraction of the time/cost it takes politicians sitting in a replica of the Vatican. No party loyalty/ political career choices to skew our consciences , no bills stuffed at the last minute with unrelated pork, no deals/ vote buying, filibustering, sit ins, walk outs, or $20 danish pastries thrown in the trash!

Unless anyone really still thinks that politicians are more intelligent, honest, trustworthy, have more real world experience, or are in any way more qualified than American citizens to give advice on anything? other than how to be a successful politician?!

The problem with that is we would end up with free health care, 20$ an hour minimum wage and no taxes.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

- Micromanagement of our affairs by clueless aparatchiks

If it's anything like "Obamacare" putting the government between a doctor and patient is any indication, it's just not happening.

- Speech regulation

By default, there does need to be some. However, some of the more truly frightening stories and not just lib/con media hype are going to keep on happening despite lib/con control because their just isn't enough social pressure to really do anything about it.

- Higher taxes

For some. And if I ever make it to that bracket I'll still be happy.

- More wars to fix those ignant ferrin countries (nation building)

Again, this is a problem that is larger than lib/con bias, and really was going on even before the modern Conservatives/Republicans and Liberals/Democrats existed. And, really, it's a long tradition we apparently inherited from England.

 

[Revoltingest]

If it's anything like "Obamacare" putting the government between a doctor and patient is any indication, it's just not happening.

By default, there does need to be some. However, some of the more truly frightening stories and not just lib/con media hype are going to keep on happening despite lib/con control because their just isn't enough social pressure to really do anything about it.

For some. And if I ever make it to that bracket I'll still be happy.

Again, this is a problem that is larger than lib/con bias, and really was going on even before the modern Conservatives/Republicans and Liberals/Democrats existed. And, really, it's a long tradition we apparently inherited from England.

The common (majority) acceptance of government evolving in this direction is
the reason I'm a Libertarian. I find most far to ovine in their desire to submit.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The common (majority) acceptance of government evolving in this direction is
the reason I'm a Libertarian. I find most far to ovine in their desire to submit.

That's (partly) why I'm a Communist. Except I'll boot out the money, bourgeoisie, and most of the state. But, by it's nature, politics is a game of give-and-take, with the goal of taking more in the end than you gave. Ultimately, with this election, the only thing that can change is the Supreme Court swaying to the Left, and potentially a full swing to the Left. There's just no sense in pretending that failure to achieve certain goals is reason to sacrifice achievements in other goals. A Hillary win and a second Conservative Justice dying is a death knell for the Religious Right. America has centuries of of imperialist policy, military domination, wrongful imprisonments and nightmarish "experiments" that would likely be "reality shattering" for many to learn about and accept that their "land of the free" government has actually done, and "rights of convenience" that are taken here-and-there. But a problem that grew from the mid-1800s and grew stronger and stronger yet, there is a chance to democratically slice its artery.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's (partly) why I'm a Communist.

Now there is submission on an even grander scale.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Now there is submission on an even grander scale.

To me, accepting wage-labor, making someone else rich, and having to afford needs are the "grander scale" of submission.

 

[Lighthouse]

... each American was allowed to vote for two individuals for major national offices?

I'm listening to a talk by one of the third-party candidates running for the senate seat in my state. One of the issues they bring up are the challenges associated with breaking apart the two-party system in the United States. People are afraid of "wasting" their vote on third-party candidates. What if we let people vote for more than one? Would this fix this feeling we have of wasting a vote on a given election cycle because we can't risk that darned Democrat or that darned Republican getting the bid?

Yes, I realize this isn't going to happen... this is more of a thought experiment. Let's have a discussion about how to get a true multi-party system in this country. What will it take?

I would be very open to there being no president, 4 different parties all with 25% representation. 1 House and 1 Senate for each party for each state. 1 elected overseer for each of the 4 parties. (I guess this may mean 4 presidents.)
2 big power players or shift of power to one side with one president being on one side obviously isn't working too well.
There is already too much power in place, it would take a revolution from the people in order to potentially achieve this or it would take the nature of humans to change in which they are all willing to set their differences aside and compromise.