Political imbalance

[Revoltingest]

How?

I think we Libertarians frighten people with less government control.
So we must work to become less scary, & more practical, while
still differentiating ourselves from the Big Two.

 

[Nous]

1) Is the a political imbalance in the united states?
2) Between which groups does that political imbalance exist?
3) What if anything can be done about it?

4) Should anything be done about it?

Maybe it is asking too much, but I would like to hear your opinions.

Good question. I shall venture out on a limb and argue that there is a degree of political imbalance for this reason: Democrats or liberals are currently under represented in legislatures in those chambers where members are elected by districts because (if for no other reason) Democrats tend to inefficiently pack themselves in urban centers where lots of votes are wasted.

 

[Father Heathen]

I think we Libertarians frighten people with less government control.
So we must work to become less scary, & more practical, while
still differentiating ourselves from the Big Two.

The fact that many have allied themselves with evangelicals (not known for their love of liberty) certainly hasn't done their image or reputation any favors.

 

[Nakosis]

Am I to assume that you believe a political imbalance exists based on wealth?

In that view, I suppose so. An imbalance between folks who have money and those who don't. I'd imagine education would fix this but they've made education out of reach for most.

Public education doesn't seem to want us to succeed independently. They want us to be contributors to the overall economic health of the nation.

 

[Curious George]

In that view,

I hoped to hear opinions from all views. If you have others, i would be interested in those as well.

I suppose so. An imbalance between folks who have money and those who don't. I'd imagine education would fix this but they've made education out of reach for most.

Public education doesn't seem to want us to succeed independently. They want us to be contributors to the overall economic health of the nation.

I am not sure if that intends to answer what, if anything, can be done to change this, or should anything be done to change this. Do you have a take on those particulars?

 

[Nakosis]

I hoped to hear opinions from all views. If you have others, i would be interested in those as well.

You haven't yet responded to my earlier post.

I am not sure if that intends to answer what, if anything, can be done to change this, or should anything be done to change this. Do you have a take on those particulars?

Well I was going to say education but I don't know if that is a viable solution. Basically we have a lot of low information voters. I don't mean that as derogatory simply most get their views from political ads. They don't have the time or the will to look deeper. Politics for most people IMO is only important in how it affects them personally. So they vote for whomever seems to offer them the most benefit.

Right now the battle is between jobs and health care. If you have a job you want affordable health care. If you don't have a job well you need a job.

Trump promised jobs and seems to have delivered for the most part. So now they are looking for health care.

The point being that this is the talking points focused on by the two parties. The ads for the low information voter focuses on this. Larger issues are not the focus.

Maybe a better political education would change this.

 

[Sunstone]

From what I have seen from polling on the issues the majority of Americans seem to be fairly liberal, and becoming more liberal all the time. And the current government structure is extremely conservative.

This is an unstable situation,

As for what can be done about it - VOTE!

Should something be be done about it, yes - VOTE!

I believe the fact the majority of Americans are moving to the left these days, while the politicians seem to be moving to the right, is largely due to big money becoming overly involved in politics due to the Citizens United decision. We've got to get big money out of politics so the will of the people has a better chance of being reflected in the vote.

 

[Sunstone]

1) Is the a political imbalance in the united states?

There's a huge imbalance of power between the upper 1% of the population and the rest of us. The 1% are pretty clearly running the show.

Should anything be done about it?

Either we do something about it by limiting campaign contributions or we lose the country to the oligarchs.

 

[Curious George]

You haven't yet responded to my earlier post.

Your earlier post noted that there is regional imbalances of power between the two major political parties.


You said that balance and imbalance can be good and bad, but did not elaborate much more than the general sentiment.

Then you suggested that the onus on amelioration fell to political leaders. I read the post and do not have too much to say about it.

Well I was going to say education but I don't know if that is a viable solution. Basically we have a lot of low information voters. I don't mean that as derogatory simply most get their views from political ads. They don't have the time or the will to look deeper. Politics for most people IMO is only important in how it affects them personally. So they vote for whomever seems to offer them the most benefit.

what could remedy the lack of time issue? What could remedy the lack of will issue? What ought to be important to them?

Right now the battle is between jobs and health care. If you have a job you want affordable health care. If you don't have a job well you need a job.

Trump promised jobs and seems to have delivered for the most part. So now they are looking for health care.

The point being that this is the talking points focused on by the two parties. The ads for the low information voter focuses on this. Larger issues are not the focus.

What should be the focus

Maybe a better political education would change this.

How can we effect better political education?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

The good guys (Libertarians, of course) should work for a greater share of power.

The libertarians are by in large responsible for gentrification and a budding new housing crisis. The Silicon Valley libertarian (of the Ayn Rand objectivist variety) have some of the most toxic environments out there. Just saying.
There's plenty of criticism to go to all parties including those outside the partisan lines.

 

[Curious George]

There's a huge imbalance of power between the upper 1% of the population and the rest of us. The 1% are pretty clearly running the show.



Either we do something about it by limiting campaign contributions or we lose the country to the oligarchs.

Well that is pretty cut and dry.

Are you certain that campaign reform will address this disparity. You will still have vast amounts of political influence that are money based. Media giants, PACs, corporate lobbyists, Think tanks and universities all have great influence that is money based. Still more there will continue to be obstacles and impediments to every form of political power from organizational involvement to actually getting to the polls to vote. I am not saying that it is not a step in the right direction to alleviate the disparity that you have noted, (nor am i trying to imply that you were suggesting campaign finance reform as a panacea), but given our current system I am wondering how much of an impact limiting contributions will actually have.

 

[Sunstone]

Well that is pretty cut and dry.

Are you certain that campaign reform will address this disparity. You will still have vast amounts of political influence that are money based. Media giants, PACs, corporate lobbyists, Think tanks and universities all have great influence that is money based. Still more there will continue to be obstacles and impediments to every form of political power from organizational involvement to actually getting to the polls to vote. I am not saying that it is not a step in the right direction to alleviate the disparity that you have noted, (nor am i trying to imply that you were suggesting campaign finance reform as a panacea), but given our current system I am wondering how much of an impact limiting contributions will actually have.

I think campaign finance reform is a necessary start, not a cure all.

 

[Nakosis]

Your earlier post noted that there is regional imbalances of power between the two major political parties.


You said that balance and imbalance can be good and bad, but did not elaborate much more than the general sentiment.

Then you suggested that the onus on amelioration fell to political leaders. I read the post and do not have too much to say about it.

what could remedy the lack of time issue? What could remedy the lack of will issue? What ought to be important to them?

What should be the focus

How can we effect better political education?

At a bare minimum we should campuses allow every political view equal access to express their views. Even extreme views. Then folks can evaluate these views for themselves instead of relying on opinions from the opposition. We need to talk and communicate and criticize in a civil fashion. Not alienate the opposition but seek common ground.

 

[Curious George]

I think campaign finance reform is a necessary start, not a cure all.

I understood that (and tried to convey my understanding of that). I was simply interested in why you think this would be effective given our current world.

 

[Curious George]

At a bare minimum we should campuses allow every political view equal access to express their views. Even extreme views. Then folks can evaluate these views for themselves instead of relying on opinions from the opposition. We need to talk and communicate and criticize in a civil fashion. Not alienate the opposition but seek common ground.

Are you advocating for the removal of time place and manner restrictions on free speech? Are you suggesting that speech takes priority over safety and health concerns?

When you say campuses, does that include all schools?

 

[Nakosis]

Are you advocating for the removal of time place and manner restrictions on free speech? Are you suggesting that speech takes priority over safety and health concerns?

When you say campuses, does that include all schools?

Why would free speech jeopardize safety and health?

 

[Curious George]

Why would free speech jeopardize safety and health?

I would be happy to walk you through some hypotheticals if you care to answer the question.

 

[Nakosis]

I would be happy to walk you through some hypotheticals if you care to answer the question.

I'm always happy to answer questions and hopefully learn. May not be able to get to them right away but will do my best.

 

[Curious George]

I'm always happy to answer questions and hopefully learn. May not be able to get to them right away but will do my best.

I meant the questions already asked. But health and safety concerns often arise in free speech discussions. With large groups you can have plenty of health and safety concerns. Consider Floatopia for an example. Other concerns can present themselves as well. For instance, certain types of signs along the freeway, false or misleading statements, and of course the notorious fire in a crowded theatre. But we can do better, what about blocking the path to abortion clinics, doxing individuals, or spamming necessary services like police or fire departments.

 

[Nakosis]

I meant the questions already asked. But health and safety concerns often arise in free speech discussions. With large groups you can have plenty of health and safety concerns. Consider Floatopia for an example. Other concerns can present themselves as well. For instance, certain types of signs along the freeway, false or misleading statements, and of course the notorious fire in a crowded theatre. But we can do better, what about blocking the path to abortion clinics, doxing individuals, or spamming necessary services like police or fire departments.

I'm referring to civil free speech not incivil free speech. Free speech to have any value requires from all involved a modicum of civility.

Not sure atm that the fire example is legitimate. Someone yelling fire is not going to cause me to run over or climb over other individuals or do anything extraordinary to put someone else's life at risk. I guess the assumption is that everyone panics and no longer has any control over their actions.

If I trample someone to death because of what someone else yells does it me I bear no responsibility for killing someone? I would hope not. Otherwise I'm free to blame anyone else's speech for my actions. Someone claims Obama allowed thousands to die in Chicago. Ok, so I go shoot Obama out of a sense of justice. Not my fault?