• Activity
  • Votes
  • Comments
  • New
  • All activity
    • Showing only topics in ~society with the tag "science.political". Back to normal view / Search all groups

    6. Is there a way for Donald Trump to run for US presidency for a third time?

      Ask
      for me, the only good part of Trump winning the latest election is just that this is his final term. if America/the world can just white-knuckle it through 4 more years of trump then I feel like...

      for me, the only good part of Trump winning the latest election is just that this is his final term. if America/the world can just white-knuckle it through 4 more years of trump then I feel like Trumpism/MAGA movement will die cause (call me crazy) but I don't see his base having that much enthusiasm or gusto for any other candidate. Trump seems unique in this unwavering supporting and loyalty-till-the-end regime he has created within the GOP with the help of Faux News.

      I figure 4 more years of insanity, then America's boogeyman will recede into the limelight and maybe it'll force the Democrat Party to campaign on policies that will actually help the American people rather than "we are not a fascist like trump".

      but I saw some headlines where Steve Bannon was talking about how to allow Trump to run again and I am not sure if that's just bluster from the MAGA movement as usual or there is a legit chance they'd find a way to strike down the 2 term limit for presidents?

      14 votes

    10. The destruction of the soft power of the United States

      Text 584 words
      I haven't seen anything about this topic online yet, but to be fair I have been avoiding the news a bit for my own sanity. One of the disasters of the recent presidential election is the damage to...

      I haven't seen anything about this topic online yet, but to be fair I have been avoiding the news a bit for my own sanity.

      One of the disasters of the recent presidential election is the damage to the "soft power" of the United States. By this I mean, the ability of the country to affect the behavior of other countries through cooperation and attraction. You can't have soft power if you don't have reliability, trustworthiness, and honor. Soft power takes years and decades to build. During the first Trump presidency, he did tremendous damage by siding with dictators, criticizing his own advisors, complaining about NATO countries not paying their share.. Like all of his ideas, it is based on the claim that he understands everything, I'll just do this simple thing and it fixes everything. So let's cut the deficit by cutting spending everywhere. When Biden was elected, some of this damage was undone, but the trust needs more than four years to recover. Well, now Trump is back before the trust was really regained. There is no ally in the world that can fully trust the United States. If we all survive the next four years, and there is a fair election, and then the best president of all time is elected, it will hardly help. The whole world knows that we are a country that is stupid and selfish enough to elect another trump in the near future. There is no way to unring this horrible bell.

      Yes, I know that the US has done terrible things with it's power in the past, including invasions of other countries. But there has never been a leader in charge that openly antagonizes allies and embraces adversaries, and is so obviously corrupt and easily manipulated through bribery and favors. That so clearly works to weaken the United States in every possible way, including sowing division internally, flaunting ethics, and all the other "unamerican" things we have seen him do.

      About Trump's complaints in his first term that we have bases all over the world and we are paying for it: Yes, we are. And it pays back in dividends. Besides the projection of power that serves our interests, it also gives us a reason to build equipment (in the US) using labor in the US and technology studied and implemented in the US. Complaining to NATO that they aren't paying their fair share makes them think "oh shit, the US won't protect us anymore. We better make more nukes". Now we are drastically increasing nuclear and military proliferation problems that are way more likely to have conflicts.

      About Trump simplistic solutions such as cutting spending on programs: Remember how trump cut the staff by two-thirds of a key US health agency operating in China? Right before the coronavirus outbreak. For all we know, the global pandemic could have been almost averted.

      Most voters apparently don't understand this type of thing of course. This is a problem of education, especially in civic responsibility. But I am sure that there are people in the Republican party, and working for Fox News, and on talk radio, that understand the things I said, and to a much better extent than some random guy on the internet. But for some reason they don't seem to give a shit. Something is more important to them so they allowed Trump to continue and they constantly help spread lies to give him more power. I find this very curious and suspicious.

      27 votes

    48. Could "fuzzing" voting, election, and judicial process improve decisionmaking and democratic outcomes?

      Ask
      Voting is determinative, especially where the constituency is precisely known, as with a legislature, executive council, panel of judges, gerrymandered electoral district, defined organisational...

      Voting is determinative, especially where the constituency is precisely known, as with a legislature, executive council, panel of judges, gerrymandered electoral district, defined organisational membership. If you know, with high precision, who is voting, then you can determine or influence how they vote, or what the outcome will be. Which lends a certain amount of predictability (often considered as good), but also of a tyranny of the majority. This is especially true where long-standing majorities can be assured: legislatures, boards of directors, courts, ethnic or cultural majorities.

      The result is a very high-stakes game in establishing majorities, influencing critical constituencies, packing courts, and gaming parliamentary and organisational procedures. But is this the best method --- both in terms of representational eqquity and of decision and goverrnance quality?

      Hands down the most fascinating article I've read over the past decade is Michael Schulson's "How to choose? When your reasons are worse than useless, sometimes the most rational choice is a random stab in the dark", in Aeon. The essay, drawing heavily on Peter Stone, The Luck of the Draw: The Role of Lotteries in Decision Making (2011), which I've not read, mostly concerns decisions under uncertainty and of the risk of bad decisions. It seems to me that it also applies to periods of extreme political partisanship and division. An unlikely but possible circumstance, I'm sure....

      Under many political systems, control is binary and discrete. A party with a majority in a legislature or judiciary, or control of the executive, has absolute control, barring procedural exceptions. Moreover, what results is a politics of veto power, where the bloc defining a controlling share of votes effectively controls the entire organisation. It may not be able to get its way, but it can determine which of two pluralities can reach a majority. Often in favour of its own considerations, overtly or covertly --- this is an obvious engine of corruption.

      (This is why "political flexibility" often translates to more effective power than a hardline orthodoxy.)

      One inspiration is a suggestion for US Supreme Court reform: greatly expand the court, hear more cases, but randomly assign a subset of judges to each case.[1] A litigant cannot know what specific magistrates will hear a case, and even a highly-packed court could produce minority-majority panels.

      Where voting can be fuzzed, the majority's power is made less absolute, more uncertain, and considerations which presume that such a majority cannot be assured, one hopes, would lead to a more inclusive decisionmaking process. Some specific mechanisms;

      • All members vote, but a subset of votes are considered at random. The larger the subset, the more reliably the true majority wins.
      • A subset of members votes. As in the court example above.
      • An executive role (presidency, leader, chairmanship) is rotated over time.
      • For ranged decisions (quantitative, rather than yes/no), a value is selected randomly based on weighted support.

      Concensus/majority decisionmaking tends to locked and unrepresentitive states. Fuzzing might better unlock these and increase representation.

      Notes

      1. A selection of articles on Supreme Court reforms and expansion, from an earlier G+ post: https://web.archive.org/web/20190117114110/https://plus.google.com/104092656004159577193/posts/9btDjFcNhg1 Also, notably, court restructuring or resizing has been practiced: "Republicans Oppose Court Packing (Except When They Support It)".
      14 votes