
A Threat to U.S. Democracy: Political Dysfunction - JumpCrisscross
http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/03/business/economy/trump-election-democracy.html
======
eli_gottlieb
_Now_ they notice? Voter efficiency (the number of voters needed to get a
legislative seat) has an all-time high partisan divide, especially thanks to
gerrymandering designed to ensure the party in power in 2010 can just _win
everything this whole decade_. The two "political parties" have effectively
become regional groupings that set rural against urban.

The term "working class" has been racialized and regionalized to somehow refer
exclusively to white people in rural states, even while non-white and/or non-
rural people work _most_ of the low-wage jobs in the country. Meanwhile,
actual class politics is regularly preempted from above, preventing localities
and states from improving their labor laws, health-care programs, or the like.

Norms around the Senate filibuster broke down _years_ ago when it was changed
into a mere procedural maneuver that allows for blocking literally anything
without a supermajority. The bargaining process of nominating Supreme Court
(and federal court) justices has turned into a stonewall.

Oh, and most so-called ballots in the United States don't actually have more
than one candidate for each office, which contributes heavily to the >90% re-
election rates for incumbents.

In short: we live in a _de facto_ one-party state, with the only real
variation being whether the Blue neoliberal capitalist party or the Red
authoritarian nationalist/identitarian capitalist party has one-party control
_where you live_.

And _now_ the New York Times call it a threat to democracy?

~~~
jsmith0295
Calling out Republicans specifically over identity politics seems kind of
silly, given how much of the Democratic Party's politics is based on race and
gender.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
There's a difference between saying "Group X is pretty neat" and "Group Y are
the only real Americans and should have an exclusive grip on political power."

So for instance, the Democrats run on, "We need equal pay for women." The
actual size of the wage gap can be debated as a factual matter (once you
factor out different professions and hours-worked, it's usually about 5-10%).
Then the Republicans run on, "Real Americans need to take our country back!",
despite their "real Americans" (as a conjunction of features) composing a
_minority group_ that's only 20% of the country[1].

One of them plays the identity politics of inclusion, often duplicitously. The
other plays the identity politics of exclusion and minority rule, often
honestly.

There's a vast difference between obnoxious campaign rhetoric along the lines
of Clinton and an organized decades-long campaign to disenfranchise people who
don't vote the way you want or don't share your conjunction of identity
features.

[1] -- [http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/only-20-percent-of-
voter...](http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/only-20-percent-of-voters-are-
real-americans/)

~~~
phd514
Stubbornly insisting that your party of choice holds the moral high ground and
the other side is morally reprehensible is only going to get you President
Trump. You'd do much better to assume that your political opponents voted the
way they did in spite of those issues you consider immoral rather than because
of them and then see where you can find common ground to work with them.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
You should notice how I didn't refer to _either_ party as _mine_ , and
specifically called them both "capitalist parties", which for me is a term of
insult.

My objection is that if I work outside the two-party electoral system I am
labelled a lunatic and potentially even criminal, while if I work inside it,
my voice is diluted for partisan advantage.

------
specialist
The sum are greater than the parts.

Problems with US elections, in rank order:

* Gerrymandering (unfair redistricting) * First Past the Post * Restrictive voting rules * Expensive campaigns

Very briefly...

REDMAP worked too well, gave us the Tea Party, enabled unprecedented
obstructionism. Both the GOP and the Dems have an interest in undoing REDMAP.
Maybe with Iowa style redistricting.

Problems with FPTP are widely documented. Fix is Approval Voting for executive
races and senators, Proportional Voting for assemblies. One side effect will
be reduced campaign expenses and mudslinging, because Approval Voting makes
the candidates play nice (mostly).

Adopt universal voting, re-enfranchise felons. This will prevent caging,
purging. Sadly, it does not increase voter turnout.

Campaigns costs are currently being driven by ballot chasing (enabled by
switch to postal ballots) and advertising. Everyone knows its past the point
of diminishing returns, but no one can "disarm" unilaterally. So the madness
continues. Switching back to (mostly) poll site based voting and restoring the
Fairness Doctrine would mostly fix this problem. Another solution is publicly
financed campaigns, which would be more palatable once costs come back down.

I could go on and on. But that's the thumbnail of the most important.

Source: Election integrity activist (voting machines, HAVA) for years, ran for
office.

PS- While popular vote for US President is inevitable, absolutely support it,
it's not my personal highest priority.

~~~
rhino369
How many seats are actually gerrymandered? From the sources I can find, it's
around a net 5 seat advantage for the republicans (out of 435). If that is the
biggest issue in American politics, then the rest can't be that bad.

~~~
specialist
_" If [gerrymandering] is the biggest issue... then the rest can't be that
bad."_

Gerrymandering segregates like with like, increasing partisanship. Favoring
the most extreme candidate. Meaning seats are won during low turnout primaries
vs general elections. Meaning voters have no meaningful choice.

Gerrymandering is incumbency protection. If you support term limits, you'd
logically also support more competitive redistricting.

 _" From the sources I can find, it's around a net 5..."_

Look harder.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
>Meaning seats are won during low turnout primaries vs general elections.
Meaning voters have no meaningful choice.

And at that point, we might as well institute California-style jungle
primaries everywhere, which at least ensures that a real "general election"
takes place (albeit at an awkward time) followed by a runoff for the "lesser
evils".

~~~
specialist
Ya. My fantasy notion is that Approval Voting would moot the primaries.

This would save (the tax payers) money.

Having fewer elections would help reduce voter fatigue.

It'd also moot the spoiler effect, so third parties can be granted access to
the ballot, with little downside, leading to more voter choice.

My only (hypothetical) concern with Approval Voting is having too many choices
(per race), the paradox of choice leading to indecision. But that's just an
intuition; I have no data.

------
coldcode
Soon it will all be clear. Many of these new folks have zero idea how to
manage the world's largest economy from the inside, and I fear that trying to
change too many things all at once will whack the whole economy in ways we
have never seen before. Like writing software, you can't change everything all
at once and hope to wind up with something that works.

~~~
LyndsySimon
The idea is that a large part of the electorate in the US doesn't want the
economy managed _at all_. Trump certainly isn't advocating for free markets,
but he does offer a viable alternative to increasing state control over our
economy.

~~~
rm_-rf_slash
What is increasing state control of the economy?

If offering tax breaks to a company to get it to offshore _fewer_ jobs (but
not all) is not state control of the economy, then what is it?

~~~
mi100hael
It's buying corporate assets and shares in order to keep failing companies
afloat and forcing out CEOs whom they view as under-performing. It's passing a
law forcing every single individual in the country to spend their own money
purchasing a particular, expensive service from a corporate provider.

Tariffs were the first major thing the first US congress implemented to ensure
domestic manufacturing could be established and compete with what were up
until then cheap imports.

------
mi100hael
They keep calling Trump a populist like it's some kind of insult. As though
_real_ politicians should be globalist, selfish opportunists who don't give a
shit about the people or something. It's one thing to report on factual
evidence that contradicts policy or positions, but the "news" outlets need to
stop trying to blame/shame the American voter for the horrible performance of
their anointed shit-tier candidate.

~~~
0xfeba
> They keep calling Trump a populist like it's some kind of insult. As though
> real politicians should be globalist, selfish opportunists who don't give a
> shit about the people or something.

It's not just that he's a populist, although that's part of it (just saying
extraordinary things to get people riled up--and then literally dismissing
those things later saying "it worked great before the election but there's no
interest now"). It that and that he _is_ a globalist, selfish, opportunist
that does not give a shit about the people.

He's a billionaire elitist who's claiming to drain the swamp of elites. And
then appoints more elites to cabinet positions. That is, he has all these
populist claims but he's so clearly part of the problem, so why are voters
buying it "hook, line, and sinker" so to speak?

~~~
ryanx435
Ha ha ha he's not though. You dont know what a globalist is.

Just being a billionaire doesn't mean he is a globalist. Running a
multinational corporation doesn't mean he us a globalist. A globalist is
someone who wants to subjugate the sovereignity of individual nation states
under the power of a global government, whether overtly (the un) or covertly
(bilderbergs/free masons/other conspiracy groups). His whole campaign was
about increasing American sovereignity. Perhaps you've heard of his catch
phrase, make America great again?

~~~
eli_gottlieb
>A globalist is someone who wants to subjugate the sovereignity of individual
nation states under the power of a global government, whether overtly (the un)
or covertly (bilderbergs/free masons/other conspiracy groups).

In that case, outside crazy conspiracy websites, there are basically no actual
globalists on the planet. Literally zero office-holding politicians have
proposed a world government.

~~~
ryanx435
Ha ha I actually agree with you, but it's funny how you immediately dismiss
any possibilities for potential condraticting evidence.

> outside crazy conspiracy websites

You could potentially dismiss any Web source with this standard. What makes a
website a crazy conspiracy web site?

> basically no actual globalist on the planet

The un is literally a globalist organization that nation states voluntarily
subjugate their natonal sovereignity to.

> literally zero.

There is never literally zero of people holding various political beliefs.

Anyways, I agree with you, but maybe you should reevaluate your critical
thinking skills and base political assumptions.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
>The un is literally a globalist organization that nation states voluntarily
subjugate their natonal sovereignity to.

No, it isn't. Every country belonging to the UN is sovereign. The UN has zero
legislative power, no enforcement arm, no army or police force. International
law is still based on _treaties_ between sovereign countries, not on a global
legislature.

>There is never literally zero of people holding various political beliefs.

I did not say literally zero _people_. I said literally zero _elected
officials_ , which is a much smaller set of people with much more constrained
political opinions. At worst, you could find a Green Party city official
somewhere who _might_ talk about world government if you get them thoroughly
drunk.

------
fedups
Many seem to hold as an axiom that action of any sort is the primary measure
for success, and the greatest condemnation should be held for those who wish
to prevent it. I've wondered how much of this is genuine and how much is a way
of championing their party's political goals when in power, while attempting
to sound neutral and devoted only to Democracy.

I'm eager to see how well this holds up when the other team holds power.

~~~
mikeash
I don't think people believe that _any_ action is important. The type of
action matters.

But when you try to do things that the other side ought to like, and then they
block it out of spite, that seems like a good sort of action, and preventing
it is worthy of condemnation. For two recent examples, Obamacare is basically
a copy/paste of a Republican health care reform proposal, but had heroic
efforts to block it by Republicans, and Merrick Garland was presented as the
sort of moderate justice that Republicans wanted but Obama would never in a
million years nominate, then when he nominated Garland they immediately turned
around and refused to even discuss him.

As far as false equivalence between the two major parties goes, Democrats are
_already_ talking about trying to work with the new Republican administration
and it hasn't even been sworn in yet.

------
jsmith0295
There's more than one way to rig the system. A substantial increase in
immigration and an amnesty program would have provided an even bigger
opportunity for Democrats than gerrymandering has for the Republicans.

------
creaghpatr
>>Still, the embrace by millions of American voters of a billionaire
authoritarian who argues that the “system” has been rigged to serve a
cosmopolitan ruling class against the interests of ordinary people does
suggest that American democracy has a unique credibility problem.

Just goes to show people are willing to appeal all the way past the
legal/political system to the foundations of our country due to losing a vote.

If his words had any practical influence or any accountability for the
implications of such a statement I'd be more likely to take him seriously.

~~~
HillaryBriss
I'm not a Trump supporter by any means, but it's interesting to look back and
notice that the top layer of the billionaire class -- the richest of the rich
-- were either backing Clinton or taking great pains to distance themselves
from and criticize Trump during the campaign.

It might be viewed as a battle of the major billionaires against the minor
billionaires -- and the major billionaires lost. In any event, the vast
majority of the wealth was on Clinton's side or at least critical of Trump.

Billionaires who directly supported and/or endorsed Hillary Clinton:

* Warren Buffett: $73 billion

* Bill Gates: $84 billion

* Carlos Slim: $50 billion

* Michael Bloomberg: $40 billion

* George Soros: $25 billion

* Laurene Powell Jobs: $19 billion

* Elon Musk: $12 billion

* Eric Schmidt: $11 billion

Billionaires who (at least) were critical of Trump, and refused to endorse or
support him:

* Jeff Bezos: $65 billion

* Mark Zuckerberg: $53 billion

* Charles Koch: $43 billion

* Mark Cuban: $3 billion

Billionaires who supported Trump:

* Sheldon Adelson: $32 billion

* Carl Icahn: $18 billion

* John Paulson: $8.6 billion

* Woody Johnson: $3.5 billion

* Peter Thiel: $2.7 billion

* Wilbur Ross: $2.5 billion

* Tom Barrack: $1 billion

* Stephen Feinberg: $1.25 billion

* T Boone Pickens: $0.5 billion

* Steven Mnuchin: < $1 billion

~~~
grzm
Is there a canonical list of US billionaires, or say, top 100 wealthiest US
citizens? I suspect that not all provide their endorsement. I'd be interested
in seeing a more complete breakdown (assuming this isn't).

~~~
HillaryBriss
yeah, good point. my list is not exhaustive. it's hard to find an exhaustive
list of the billionaires and whom they supported. if you search for
"billionaires for trump" and "bilionaires for clinton" and such things, it
sure _looks_ like nearly all of the wealthiest billionaires supported Clinton.

if we just add up the Buffett, Gates, Bloomberg and Soros fortunes, the number
is awfully large though. it's about $225 billion. and you end up thinking "if
Trump had equal support from the wealthiest billionaires, who are they? i
can't seem to find them."

~~~
grzm
I understand what motivated your question; it's not that interesting to me.
I'm more interested to see what percentage of the wealthiest are publicly
politically active.

------
known
Filter your politicians with fMRI before voting for them;

~~~
misnome
But you'll still end up with a dead Salmon.

