As I said, you consider the US Constitution to be "outdated" (which you said, yourself); just like a "1930s Chevy." Never mind that it can be amended (as it has been very often). Social democracy (a.k.a. democratic socialism) is entirely anathema to me. Not just partially. But entirely. America is based upon the belief (which I share) that "the accumulation of [w]ealth" is a very good thing. I would certainly not wish to undo that belief. Yes, election through a majority vote (or, at least, a plurality vote) would certainly be more democratic than our current system. But that is not what I want. And it is not what the Founders wanted, either. They intentionally set up a system that vitiates the possibility of mob rule: States are allocated electoral votes according to the number of senators plus the number of representatives (a.k.a. congresspeople) that they have. And, since each state has precisely two senators, but representatives are allocated according to the size of the state in question, that leaves a slightly greater clout, per resident, to states that have a smaller population. (For instance, suppose that a state has 20 congressional districts; whereas another state has only 10. Since congressional districts are all about the same size, this means that the larger state has about twice the population of the smaller state--20:10--but it has a little less than twice the electoral votes--22:12.) And that is just the way I would prefer it. After all, why should California--which is easily the largest state in the union--effectively decide the winner of the presidential race?
Well, you did quote me. And when a person quotes me, and then responds to that quote, then yes, I am under the impression that he is, indeed, responding to me...
That's because, like many Americans, you trip over the word "socialism", which is anathema in most of the US - only the good Lord knows why. Probably ignorance the difference between Social Democracy and Ordinary Democracy. After all, in this last election nobody was talking about Social Democracy except Bernie. Which is why, in fact, it is called a Social Democracy and an amalgam of 28 member states as well as 510 million people. It is larger than the US by just less than 200 million individuals. Thus, it is NOT an insignificant union of member states. And, when the discussion turns to Income Disparity of Inequality, then economists employ the metric called the "Gini Index": View attachment 46815 You will note in the above graphic that the US Gini Index at above 40 is that of China's, both with high income disparity. Far more so, in fact, than the European Union. Of course, if you like living in a country with high Income Disparity, that is your choice. Enjoy ... !
Who told you that? Your mother? Nowhere is that notion anchored in belief. It is just a notion of those selfish enough to think that Wealth is be be-all and end-all of life - its "A to Z". These are myopic people who have no real instruction as regards optional democracies, such as a Social Democracy, and why Bernie had such a following amongst the young and the poor. But, I doubt you would understand ...
What next? Ya gonna wrap yourself in "Ole Betsy" and sing the National Anthem? What our founders wanted is written in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution - this latter remaining "work in progress" ...
This is prevalent in a capitalized system which is somehow favors the one who made the investments, in the process the workers became dependent of the establishments they are working with and the government to ease unemployment must support the capitalist, it's a symbiotic relation but somehow any person is still entitled to buy stocks.
That's easy to solve. The states can reapportion electoral votes how they want. Maine splits theirs by Congressional district, and other states could do that as well. That would make the election more closely resemble the popular vote, all without any changes to the constitution. You have to wonder why the blue states, if they feel so strongly about this, have not done it already.
The sharing of the fruits of an investment is most certainly acceptable - as just another means of generating "savings" or building Income and thus Wealth. But not hypnotically as occurs in present stock-markets. It is just an economic "phenomenon" seen in countries that develop/evolve; and where companies seek expansion capital by means of a stock-market that is a mechanism for supplying it as is commercial debt. That it has become a sort of societal aberrancy is due to individuals who either seek "a quick killing" or are "offered by the company "a quick killing" by means of incentive stock-options. The fact that such is reserved to a select group, who thus end up by means of exceptionally low taxation to uniquely enrich themselves is unfair deviance. A company's success is never due only to one person or even a select group of individuals. And, its "rewards" should be prevented by very high progressive taxation for revenues occurring thereto. The rewards a company in a capitalist economy offers for its success should be allowed/offered to "all" who perform towards achieving them. Again, as a rule, not equally but equitably. And only bona-fide taxation laws - that are also highly progressive and devoid of the manipulation by "special consideration under special circumstances" - should be disfavored by the existing Tax Code. Business/commerce/industry are not a "lottery" (with a few winners and many losers), unless a nation makes them one. It's just business - ie., the commercial or economic activity of a nation ...
That's a damn fine idea and should become law. The present system (of an Electoral College) is both unnecessary and deeply unfair (as this last election demonstrates clearly). Why should one state - according to voting population* - have disproportionately more than another? And why is the final vote not based purely upon the simple plurality of all voting ... ? *What is the voting population if not those registered to vote by means of proven residency. And how do you prove residency? By a national system of personal identification based upon birth-certificate or naturalization papers. I have a personal identity card as all residents do in all EU countries - and nobody fears it being employed by the state to oppress the population.
The blue states are outnumbered. This election proved some are really purple while the red states-if they'll vote for Trump, will vote for yellow dogs. If California was divided by popular vote Republicans would take at least 20 in their worst year. If New York were divided the GOP would take about 10. Even Minnesota would have split 5-5 in most elections. It's the GOP that gains in any such adjustment nationwide. Small states like Rhode Island and Delaware should be the leaders in this, so someone might visit.
Actually, it is because I thoroughly despise the concept of egalitarianism. Equality of (legal) opportunity? Yes, certainly. Equality of outcome? No way. Oh, by the way: One's simply attaching the modifier, "democratic," to the noun, "socialism," does not make the noun any less true. And a further addendum: Venezuela chose democratic socialism under (the late) Hugo Chavez. How do you suppose that worked out for them? I do not live in an ivory tower, driven by mere theory. I prefer to choose what actually works. And that would be capitalism--not socialism (either with or without the modifier, "democratic").
So are you saying that our current electoral system is more representative to the popular vote than if electoral votes were apportioned by Congressional district? That seems counter intuitive. Anyway I thought the goal was to better represent the popular vote, not put the thumb on the scales for one party or another. If California's 55 electoral votes are split up so that that 18 of them would have gone to Trump, instead of all 55 going to Hillary, isn't that more representative of the popular vote? Trump won 33% if the popular vote in California, so if he got 33% of the electoral votes, isn't that more fair than the current system?
As I said, you "tripped" over the word socialism. Socialism means equality of outcomes. But not social-democracy, which accepts that in market-economies different income-levels must exist. Labor is also a market, with incomes determined by market needs (Supply & Demand). Progressive democracy assures that whilst income differentials must exist in a market-economy, the differences must remain within reason. Which is achieved by means of progressive taxation, particularly in the upper-income levels. (At present, incomes in the US above $100K yearly are taxed at a flat-rate of less than 30%, and after tax-deduction refunds the result is even less of a percentage.) Is this graphic of income-sharing reasonable? I, for one, do not think so - but perhaps you do ... ?
There is always liberty involved and of course in business risks are always present and an individual do have the advantage in selecting which is more profitable and less risky when buying stocks. It calls for being wiser in spending and saving some more and of course business acumen if investment is considered. Taxes would be converted into infrastructure that supports the business ideally and that should not be impeded for sustenance and expansion. There is still freedom but only thing that should be practiced is being prudent and should not be deluded with flowery advertisements.
Yes, well the Tax Code needs major surgery and it is not on the Dork's watch that it is going to get it ...
It is, some people just don't know how to count. And don't forget gerrymandering that also warps the vote to favor either party. That too has to go. (It's only been around since first employed in 1812 ...) But let's expect no-change-whatsoever in voting practices in the US. The Replicants have sewed up Uncle Sam for the next 8-years. (Provided the Dork gets beyond 4-years.) And, we, the sheeple, who stayed away from the polls, have allowed him to do so ...
As you indicated, you believe in "[p]rogressiv[ism]" (as typified, in the US, by the Bernie Sanders campaign of this past spring). I emphatically do not. Rather, I believe in conservatism (as defined by typical American standards--not by European standards.) Progressivism believes that the government is supreme; and that it will inevitably do what is best for individual citizens. Conservatism believes that the individual is supreme. Moreover, progressivism believes that government, at its best, is very good; it will surely do what is best for the individual. Conservatism believes that government--in its very finest hour--is nothing more than a necessary evil: It staves off anarchy (and the chaos that would surely result therefrom). I think Thomas Jefferson said it best: "The least government is the best government." It still applies today--and forever shall...
NO MAN IS AN ISLAND Yeah, typical conservative misconception - that the earth revolves around you, you, you. How many millionaires do you know made their fortune on a deserted island? Zip, nada, niente, rien, nixt, tipota. Humans have banded together in communities* ever since we walked out of the savannas of Africa into Europe, and from Europe to the rest of the world. It is in and from those communities we created around the globe that nearly all evolution and development of learning has evolved. Maybe on your planet life evolved differently. But, on this one, the individual is dependent upon the whole for his/her entire existence. No man or woman is an island ... *As human knowledge evolved, we learned to specialize our capabilities; then we learned to exchange our produce, at first by barter and them monetarily. The market-economy in which we subsist today is a direct copy, more evolved, of that original ability to specialize. But, we cannot do it alone.
We, the sheeple, did indeed stay away from the polls. Voter turnout dropped to 58% from 62.3 in 2012. Word has it that many traditional Dem-voters switched parties this time ...
It would probably be better, if we are to have a reasoned discussion, if you did not caricature (wrongly) my beliefs. Contrary to your assertion, I certainly do not believe that it is all about me. Rather, I believe that each of us--myself, my neighbors, the people across town, or even across the country--is superior to the government. I believe that the government is inherently a bad thing--even in its very finest hour--but that it is a necessary evil. Anarchy leads only to chaos. So I much prefer small government, in all of its manifestations. (Big Government is something that I totally loathe and despise.) Now, do we understand each other correctly?
