Muller, Flynn, et al.

[Matthew J]

While I see the D party as a little more progressive (in spite of way to many ill considered positions), both are enormously corrupted by their ties to big money and powerful, entrenched interests that don't give a tinker's damn about the health or well being of the larger population. We need a progressive party (and ranked voting). Social change isn't comfortable but without progressive thought we'd be living in 5hit. Really, think about it, all the way back to the RADICAL, LIBERAL (in my best Rush Limbaugh voice) concepts of democracy.

Disagree with the notion the two main parties are fundamentally the same.

Among the most important issues facing the nation, and the world for that matter - Education, the environment, equal opportunity, energy, health care, infrastructure, housing, population control - there are fundamental differences between the increasingly pro urban and coastal Democratic platform and the pro rural interior Republican party.

Nor do I think a new more progressive party would make much a difference on the disaster that is US governance.

The US Constitution drafted when the population and economy was largely focused on agriculture and real property ownership. The current system was not a good fit when the country transitioned from agriculture to industrial. It is even less a good fit with the modern post industrial US economy.

As long as the 20% or so people living in states such as Wyoming and the Dakotas have up to five times the voting clout of people living in the populous primarily coastal states - parts of the Great Lakes states still somewhat an exception - a government focused on the challenges presented by modern society and economy will not happen.

Frankly, if the US does not adapt a parliamentary system I don't see anyway the United States as currently formulated survives through the end this century.

[Matthew J]

I get on w/ everything you said BUT.. imo progressive politics are dealing w/ issues like racism and gender w/ the wrong perspective; on an ethical and strategical sense, mostly when it comes to education and media. The progressive media, NYT and New Yorker for example, are wrong. Academia is wrong. Some of the reasons, not all, behind Trump´s victory are the strategies played by progressives. There is a lot moralism pretending to be science and history. Moralism does not equal morality. People don´t buy it. It´s much easer to blame big money than be self critical on how progressive thinking has played those issues w/ a guilty sense that is sometimes a fantasy.
A lot of Trump´s tactics is about those issues. In the end it´s about power and ripping off the poor but the game he is playing loudly is on those issues. He knows how to press buttons. That´s all he knows.

As I say in my previous post, I believe you are completely wrong.

The approach to social issues as reported by the New York Times or the Washington Post (New Yorker is not nearly so widely read or influential) is in tune with the majority of the United States. The challenge is that the US is governed by a system that intentionally favors a minority. Trump and the Republican party took advantage of the system, not the majority's understanding of moral issues.

Fixing some of the incremental problems with our system - gerrymandering, voter suppression, arcane House and Senate rules - might help a little. In the long run too many people in the US have a too weak a say in their government owing to inherent design of the system. It is not sustainable.

[bigbill]

As I say in my previous post, I believe you are completely wrong.

The approach to social issues as reported by the New York Times or the Washington Post (New Yorker is not nearly so widely read or influential) is in tune with the majority of the United States. The challenge is that the US is governed by a system that intentionally favors a minority. Trump and the Republican party took advantage of the system, not the majority's understanding of moral issues.

Fixing some of the incremental problems with our system - gerrymandering, voter suppression, arcane House and Senate rules - might help a little. In the long run too many people in the US have a too weak a say in their government owing to inherent design of the system. It is not sustainable.

If the Electoral College was eliminated, then the strategery of national elections will change with the focus in California and New York and the middle of the country (food and energy production heavy) will be disenfranchised. I know you didn't specifically mention the EC, but that's the inherent design. Candidates will basically ignore the middle and tailor their campaigns and policies to the population dense portions of the country. We're a democratic republic with representatives, we'd be saying the low population areas don't matter. I live in one of those areas, a large county with 30K people that produce beef and cotton and care about the issues affecting their livelihood. The concerns of the people living on the coasts might be different. Whose concerns are more important or are they equally important?

[David Tollefson]

Eliminate the electoral college = welcome to The Hunger Games.

[mjbabcock]

I’m not well versed in morals/moralism, but I think it’s easy to conflate moralism with justice. The racial/ethnic/gender “identity” conversation taking place is a larger justice conversation. I think Sandel’s book & Harvard lecture series online, are more in line with what the left is pursuing than some fight about morals.

Granted, the two are intertwined.

[colker]

As I say in my previous post, I believe you are completely wrong.

The approach to social issues as reported by the New York Times or the Washington Post (New Yorker is not nearly so widely read or influential) is in tune with the majority of the United States. The challenge is that the US is governed by a system that intentionally favors a minority. Trump and the Republican party took advantage of the system, not the majority's understanding of moral issues.

Fixing some of the incremental problems with our system - gerrymandering, voter suppression, arcane House and Senate rules - might help a little. In the long run too many people in the US have a too weak a say in their government owing to inherent design of the system. It is not sustainable.

I may be wrong. Since i don´t live in the US so i will ask: do you believe sexism in Hollywood is a fundamental issue on the minds of the majority of the US population?

[Matthew Strongin]

I may be wrong. Since i don´t live in the US so i will ask: do you believe sexism in Hollywood is a fundamental issue on the minds of the majority of the US population?

Sexism isn't a Hollywood problem. Hollywood (as is Congress) is in the spotlight because the perpetrators are famous and that gives accusers/victims a larger megaphone and platform. But it's an issue everywhere and it's definitely on the minds of many of the people I interact with.

[murphy]

Sexism isn't a Hollywood problem. Hollywood (as is Congress) is in the spotlight because the perpetrators are famous and that gives accusers/victims a larger megaphone and platform. But it's an issue everywhere and it's definitely on the minds of many of the people I interact with.

To further this thought (even though we are slipping away from the topic), I believe it is a systemic problem exacerbated by power. It is no stretch to say that in most positions of power (whether those be in Hollywood, Congress or corporations), men hold more positions of power; since they are in positions of power, they are able to abuse said power. It is also why, historically, people are reticent to come out about the abuses since they feel that they are not in a powerful position and so feel like nothing will happen.

Note that this also applies to sexual harassment and abuse of men as well in cases like that of Terry Crews. Overwhelmingly though the abuse and harassment is at the hands of men. Also, it is definitely an issue everywhere and is on the minds of many people I know.

[murphy]

If the Electoral College was eliminated, then the strategery of national elections will change with the focus in California and New York and the middle of the country (food and energy production heavy) will be disenfranchised. I know you didn't specifically mention the EC, but that's the inherent design. Candidates will basically ignore the middle and tailor their campaigns and policies to the population dense portions of the country. We're a democratic republic with representatives, we'd be saying the low population areas don't matter. I live in one of those areas, a large county with 30K people that produce beef and cotton and care about the issues affecting their livelihood. The concerns of the people living on the coasts might be different. Whose concerns are more important or are they equally important?

To put this on a micro level though, in my state around 66% of the population of the state lives in two cities, yet the two cities are unable to pass common sense gun control legislation to combat urban violence due to rural politicians; we are essentially held hostage by these politicians. Is it right that two cities that vote predominantly democrat and have a majority of the population of the state should not be able to meaningfully impact the lives of its citizens?

[Matthew J]

If the Electoral College was eliminated, then the strategery of national elections will change with the focus in California and New York and the middle of the country (food and energy production heavy) will be disenfranchised. I know you didn't specifically mention the EC, but that's the inherent design. Candidates will basically ignore the middle and tailor their campaigns and policies to the population dense portions of the country. We're a democratic republic with representatives, we'd be saying the low population areas don't matter. I live in one of those areas, a large county with 30K people that produce beef and cotton and care about the issues affecting their livelihood. The concerns of the people living on the coasts might be different. Whose concerns are more important or are they equally important?

First, it is not true that a Parliamentary system in general, or the EC disenfranchises low population or smaller interest groups. In fact the need for majority in order to form a government afford small, special interest parties power well above their numbers. What a Parliamentary system does weaken greatly is the influence of big dollar lobbyists.

As for your specific example, the current system allows beef and cotton producers to, among other things, dictate water availability at the expense of densely populated areas, use fertilizer and process animal waste in manners that has recently left a great lake that provides water to millions of people undrinkable, diverts tax money from urban needs to agricultural subsidies, and infrastructure investment from necessary public transit to rural highways.

The system as it is now is designed to and definitely has decided the beef and cotton producers (and the other 20%) you live among are significantly more important than the 80% and growing) majority who live and work in urban areas. And there is nothing in our current system that will change this.

[Matthew J]

I may be wrong. Since i don´t live in the US so i will ask: do you believe sexism in Hollywood is a fundamental issue on the minds of the majority of the US population?

As others say, current focus on sexism in the entertainment industry is simply a matter of the right people (among them Rose McGowan) being in the right place at the right time. Sexism is a national problem. Indeed sexism is a global problem much worse in fact in South America, Africa, Middle East and parts of Asia.

[colker]

First, it is not true that a Parliamentary system in general, or the EC disenfranchises low population or smaller interest groups. In fact the need for majority in order to form a government afford small, special interest parties power well above their numbers. What a Parliamentary system does weaken greatly is the influence of big dollar lobbyists.

As for your specific example, the current system allows beef and cotton producers to, among other things, dictate water availability at the expense of densely populated areas, use fertilizer and process animal waste in manners that has recently left a great lake that provides water to millions of people undrinkable, diverts tax money from urban needs to agricultural subsidies, and infrastructure investment from necessary public transit to rural highways.

The system as it is now is designed to and definitely has decided the beef and cotton producers (and the other 20%) you live among are significantly more important than the 80% and growing) majority who live and work in urban areas. And there is nothing in our current system that will change this.

I am with you: the presidentialist system has to go.

[Corso]

I recall a quote that was something like “Politics is Hollywood for unattractive people”.
Looking at the faces of adoration in the crowd at the big conventions, sometimes it like the Beatles arriving at JFK.

Overall I believe career politicians are the problem. Once in, they stay in, only care about the “people” when the re-election cycle occurs. All the lobbying, back room deals, voting only with their party…the swamp if you may, is due to the multiple favors and deals set up over decades. I’ve always felt this way.

I also think when new politicians are elected, most have “us” in mind, and are optimistic that they can make a difference. Then they find out by the Seniors, that if they want to get along, they must play along. So after a few terms, they become the cogs in the crooked machine.

Lets get the best out of them before they “turn”.

Term limits are needed. The President has one. The senate and congress should too. Problem is, they make the laws...

[colker]

As others say, current focus on sexism in the entertainment industry is simply a matter of the right people (among them Rose McGowan) being in the right place at the right time. Sexism is a national problem. Indeed sexism is a global problem much worse in fact in South America, Africa, Middle East and parts of Asia.

Sexism does exist and it is an abuse of power. Job inequality based on gender is wrong. My point is the way it´s being dealt with by progressive thinking is wrong. It became a witch hunt in entertainment, for example. A 70plus year old maestro was fired from an orchestra because he hit on 17yr old boys 30yrs ago. He did not rape or had forced sex w/ anyone. Kevin Spacey hit on a kid during a party decades ago. Those 2 examples are far away from sexual harassment in a working environment, something nasty that should not happen. We are not having a sexual revolution. It´s the opposite. Progressive thinking used to be about liberation from taboo. Now it´s about firing people who comitted sins in the past.
Gender psychology is a subtle, complex issue that´s being treated in a simplistic manner.
One of the troubles surrounding Trump is his wording on gender conflict.

EDIT: In Latin America, the extreme right wing is persecuting liberal artists using the same sexual behaviour morality issues.

[colker]

I recall a quote that was something like “Politics is Hollywood for unattractive people”.
Looking at the faces of adoration in the crowd at the big conventions, sometimes it like the Beatles arriving at JFK.

Overall I believe career politicians are the problem. Once in, they stay in, only care about the “people” when the re-election cycle occurs. All the lobbying, back room deals, voting only with their party…the swamp if you may, is due to the multiple favors and deals set up over decades. I’ve always felt this way.

I also think when new politicians are elected, most have “us” in mind, and are optimistic that they can make a difference. Then they find out by the Seniors, that if they want to get along, they must play along. So after a few terms, they become the cogs in the crooked machine.

Lets get the best out of them before they “turn”.

Term limits are needed. The President has one. The senate and congress should too. Problem is, they make the laws...

It´s the presidential system and the election system. If you have more power to district votes, politics will be directly involved w/ the interests of the citizens.
Placing a limit on term but keeping the political machines will get you nowhere but sizing up the shadows on where the deals are made: the operators will stay out of the limelight but keeping their strings to "new" politicians intact.

[j44ke]

I think if the Electoral College was eliminated more people might vote. The central feature of most voter apathy is that their vote doesn't matter. While there is a lot of evidence recently that every vote matters (see: 2017 Virginia state elections,) the Electoral College is a contributing factor to the perception on the Federal level. Low voter turnout creates less representative government and makes it easier for politicians who are merely ambitious to prosper.

Also institute a national holiday for Presidential elections. Once every four years - we can afford that.

And everyone gets a pony.

[Matthew Strongin]

Also institute a national holiday for Presidential elections. Once every four years - we can afford that.

This seems like a no brainer to me. I'm fortunate to have always worked at the sort of companies that allow great flexibility so I've never had a barrier to voting, but many, many people can't say the same thing. We have national holidays for things far less important than exercising our civic right and responsibility to vote.

[becomingblue]

To put this on a micro level though, in my state around 66% of the population of the state lives in two cities, yet the two cities are unable to pass common sense gun control legislation to combat urban violence due to rural politicians; we are essentially held hostage by these politicians. Is it right that two cities that vote predominantly democrat and have a majority of the population of the state should not be able to meaningfully impact the lives of its citizens?

Common sense gun control legislation? I will bet all the money I have that you will never get anywhere positioning your argument with that type of language/attitude. You have just put on notice anyone that disagrees with you that they do not have common sense. It's not a great way to begin a debate on that topic.

In my state, 5% of the counties vote democrat for everything. Those 4 counties are big cities. The other 95% of the counties, rural areas, vote republican. Should those 4 counties control the state and as bigbill notes, the rest of the people in the state get no voice.

As it is now, those cities can vote in who they want and the rest of the state can vote in who they want at the local level. At the state level, it usually flips between democrat and republican every couple terms so it seems to balance out.

It seems to balance out on the presidential level as well. It's not like either party has controlled the presidency for generations, it bounces back a forth. Why is it the current system should be scrapped?

[colker]

I think if the Electoral College was eliminated more people might vote. The central feature of most voter apathy is that their vote doesn't matter. While there is a lot of evidence recently that every vote matters (see: 2017 Virginia state elections,) the Electoral College is a contributing factor to the perception on the Federal level. Low voter turnout creates less representative government and makes it easier for politicians who are merely ambitious to prosper.

Also institute a national holiday for Presidential elections. Once every four years - we can afford that.

And everyone gets a pony.

You don´t have a holliday for elections??? How do you expect people to care if even the nation does not care enough??

[murphy]

Common sense gun control legislation? I will bet all the money I have that you will never get anywhere positioning your argument with that type of language/attitude. You have just put on notice anyone that disagrees with you that they do not have common sense. It's not a great way to begin a debate on that topic.

In my state, 5% of the counties vote democrat for everything. Those 4 counties are big cities. The other 95% of the counties, rural areas, vote republican. Should those 4 counties control the state and as bigbill notes, the rest of the people in the state get no voice.

As it is now, those cities can vote in who they want and the rest of the state can vote in who they want at the local level. At the state level, it usually flips between democrat and republican every couple terms so it seems to balance out.

It seems to balance out on the presidential level as well. It's not like either party has controlled the presidency for generations, it bounces back a forth. Why is it the current system should be scrapped?

You just flipped my argument based instead on geographical area. Why do you get more say because you live farther from another human being? And yeah common sense gun laws like mandatory background checks are common sense and supported by the majority of the population.

To flip it right back to you, why should a minority of the population who own a majority of the guns, get to dictate to the other people that a concealed carry permit doesn't require a class, test, or background check.

If your state flips back and forth good for you; that isn't the case here nor in the neighboring state. Thus we have rural politicians who block our local leaders from enacting gun laws at the local level; how is that for government overreach?