You must log in or # to comment.
Tax All religions, it’s a business. Make everyone pay into Social Security, no income caps. Move retirement age back to 65 for everyone, and early (reduced benefits) to 62.
Oh man. My husband is a journeyman electrician (IBEW). He is 57. Has had a hip replacement. He is hyper-focused on his diet and tracks all calories, hits the gym 5 days a week. Yet he has bone on bone arthritis in his shoulders, his left knee has no meniscus and he has popped his IT band 3 times in the last 4 months. He is on a job that has gone OT, tons of ladder climbing and stairs. Meanwhile the shoppie employees huddle with their phones while he is responsible for the switch gear. He really wants to retire. He has his full pension credits.
I am a nurse (60) with 27 years experience. I just spent a weekend on service and there was very little transport staffing. I ended up having to transport the patients to the nuclear medical dept and then wait. One had to travel on the tele so I told his nurse to bring him down and leave the equipment. After his testing was done… I hooked him back up and brought him to his floor and of course, the bed was out of battery charge WAFB, I was worn out.
We are both retirement curious. I was thinking… maybe get all our expenses on a spreadsheet, star the ones that can be reduced or eliminated, get all our most recent sheets together and see a financial advisor. We are kind of tired of carrying the 30 somethings honestly… We are Gen X and actually didn’t expect we would live this long. Honestly… we have kept our communities running for a long time and are ready for others to take over.
Personally, I 'd love to go somewhere like Portugal or Italy for a few years and wait out this MAGA mess. Our kid lives less than 3 blocks away though and we do want to be involved grandparents. It is a difficult choice in these times. I hope we can convince them to come with us. The fact is… this nation under Trump will become a prison if you wait long enough.
Hold up. You’re 60 and on Lemmy? That is super cool. I hope I’m that cool when I get there.
As for moving away, I noped out to Korea just before Trump. Just coincidence of timing. Expat life is great, but be ready for a hefty dose of loneliness unless you can get in on the language. You can find other expat communities, but you end up needing to be less picky about your friends, which isn’t necessarily bad.
In any case, I hope your husband catches a break and lasts too retirement. Good luck with everything
I’m leary about taxing religion, only because they would try to leverage that for more government influence than they already have.
We literally have a christian nationalist government right now and the churches are not being taxed fairly. Your taxes pay for things they want and use. And they abuse those tax free donations & income they get because there is no reporting to the IRS. Religions are a business. You take in money for a service, it’s a business. Most religions are not actually helping people, like the homeless, food kitchens, or fundraising for those in need. If you had the ability to see where all the finances go from a ‘church’, you would never give money, or defend them again. Even non-religious charities don’t give back as much as they claim, Goodwill is a great example.
Tax all religions fairly.
With how broken our justice dept is, I don’t trust that they would twist regulation is ways to legally ban other religions, potentially in the near future using “historical precident”. I’m not against properly classifying large donors as PAC’s and needing super churches to get rid of their tax status. I think we can workshop something really targeted to not be used against the spirit of the law.
I agree, we don’t tax a variety of non-profits. Including simple social clubs all the way to universities. I don’t like the idea of taxing all of those either.
Religion seems to get a lot of benefits other non-profits don’t though. So I’m down to level the playing field, and maybe there is some way to alter tax law to punish the mega-churches specifically
I like the idea of targeting mega-churches. Maybe do it based on outreach. If the people attend in person, they can donate cash in hand with no taxes or anything, but if it is televised and donations come in from online or the phone, those get taxed.
Like I get the whole moralistic bent about not wanting to pay representatives big incomes relative to their constituents because politician bad and “they should be doing it for the pride of serving”, or like term limits because “I don’t like these politicians and they keep getting reelected/ serve life terms.”
But realistically, if you want skilled professionals in a field, you need to pay them competitively and offer long term career prospects. Otherwise you’re going to only get people who take the job as a stepping stone to another position, like a high paying job at a big company they passed a bunch of laws to help, or who can make money in other ways.
As it stands right now, the whole stock trading thing is largely a result of how little congress people are payed relative to the importance of the position. Like, sure, it’s a six figure salary with a great benefits package, but, that’s peanuts compared to what a modern private sector executive make, even a mediocre one.
If anything, congress people should probably have their wages increased significantly.
They can have that when they start serving the got damn people like they’re supposed to
In every possible way, I don’t want skilled professionals as representatives. Even if you get one they are only a skilled professional in ONE, maybe TWO areas - COMPLETELY inadequate for the vast number of areas the government is tasked with managing. That specialized knowledge is what the career bureaucrats the administration is gleefully firing are for.
I want someone who can ASK and LISTEN to skilled professionals, detect and reject bullshit from scam artists, and feels a responsibility to make decisions that benefit their constituents. There are 10 year olds that fit that description.
I want someone who can ASK and LISTEN to skilled professionals, detect and reject bullshit from scam artists, and feels a responsibility to make decisions that benefit their constituents.
It is a skill. You need professionals in that skill
If you truly believe the ability to listen to professionals, ask questions, and make decisions based on direct information is only something highly paid professionals can do, I don’t know how to begin to address the massive gap in our premises. I assume you’re not a doctor, but when the doctor gives you health information and options, you don’t fumble around helplessly. If you hire someone to build you a house and they present you with multiple options, I assume you’re not an architect either, but you don’t panic and decide to live in a tent instead.
There is a huge difference between deciding for yourself and deciding for a big group of people you don’t really know.
The first can be solved by intuition and emotional thinking (I don’t want to have surgery because I’m more worried about it more than about taking medicines for a much longer time, I want a two story house because it looks good…). While taking care of a nation is wildly different. You are confronted with massive, intertwined systems, in which many people that live life completely different than yours are affected. You have to constantly challenge your assumptions and compare them to a mountain of data. Yes, you have advice, but each advice always relates to a small section of the whole problem.
While such critical thinking skills can be learned in many ways (and they often elude our politicians) it usually require a higher education degree and quite some experience after that to develop. People that have honed this skill are valuable in the job market, and therefore should receive appropriate compensation.
I was right there with you until you started talking about appropriate compensation.
Politics is a service, like military service. The military is compensated well, but you certainly can’t argue they’re doing better than a professional would with the same skills. The same applies to political office. It is an act of self-sacrifice for the betterment of your constituency. If the fact of serving your constituents is not enough, I don’t care about your skillset - I don’t want you in the office. This should be a calling - not a career.
As someone that followed that mindset, and got stuck in positions that are much lower payed than the private sector, that refined my skills to an absurd level just to get payed around median level… that’s why I’m looking for jobs outside the public sector, that’s why basically all my colleagues feel burned out and unappreciated. A good read in this aspect: https://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2018/vocational-awe/
A bit of sacrificing is okay, but as a politician you are already sacrificing a lot of your personal life (long, constant trips that make difficult to maintain contracts outside of work, lots of after hours events that affect your social life, often having to full on move for your job…) How far does self sacrifice need to go?
As a side: I also would like all other public sector jobs to be much better payed.
I absolutely won’t disagree with you that public sector pay should be higher, particularly for publicly important positions, but let’s also be clear that politicians and public employees aren’t actually the same thing. A public employee is committing long-term to doing a full-time job in a particular domain as a lifetime career.
Political offices are largely intended to be temporary caretaker positions to be done as a self-sacrifice. Career politicians have become the rule recently, but it is by no means by intent of design.
There is a huge difference between these two roles.
Congressional representatives have a service of 2 years. This is not onerous. They can come from all walks of life but should probably go back to private life after their term unless they have provided such exemplary service they deserve a second term. However, I feel they should be term limited. If they wish to continue to serve the public, they can run for the Senate or run for office in their state/locality.
Senators have a service of 6 years which is a bit longer but then, their function is more professional… like they have to hold hearings, investigations and approve for executive level agency leadership and judges. They do need more seasoning, education and a higher public service commitment. They should have a clear understanding of the Constitution and high ethical standard for themselves and others. I don’t think they should serve for more than one term, 2 terms tops.
That folksy wisdom of applying common sence and do what’s right doesn’t work when it’s about faith of a millions. If I hire shitty builder because he was too convincing, and then chose wrong option because I am indeed not an architect, worst case scenario my house will be a bit fucked. If a politician makes the same mistakes, millions of people will die. So for a regular shmo this skill has small consequences and doesn’t have to be this strong.
You’re saying “listen to professionals” as if there is always one professional with one opinion and your options is to listen to him or not, but it’s almost never the case in complex questions.I’ll say it again…
An expert/professional in one field does not have special knowledge that makes them better at making decisions in another. It just doesn’t. And finding the wrong experts is a miss that a professional could JUST as easily make.
And I’m sorry, for the VAST majority of elected offices, the stakes just are not that high. No city council member in a city of a few hundred thousand is making decisions that affect the fate of millions. But it’s EXTREMELY easy for someone with greater ambition than that city council to sell out the constituents of that city in exchange for aid to get to a higher office, and it happens ALL THE TIME.
I’ll say it again… a reasonable, competent individual with low ambition and good decision making is, all else being equal, a better choice.
See that’s where limiting CEO pay comes in.
the whole stock trading thing is largely a result of how little congress people are payed relative to the importance of the position.
Completely unreal. Given an opportunity to legally trade on the information available to them people with 6 and 7 figure salaries will act identically to maximize their benefit. At present in many difficult and valuable professions you can obtain the best of the best for less than what congress is paid. There is no reason to believe that lifetime benefits, 174k and the prestige of leading the nation is insufficient to attract excellent candidates.
If the candidates presently in play are often trash it is because other factors select for same not because of insufficient compensation.
Wow the capitalism is strong in this one.
They can tie it to the minimum wage. Want a pay boost? Raise the minimum wage.
When we pay more, we attract vermin. I’d happily serve for a pittance because I want to make the world better, and so would many others. If you want to get rich, don’t serve in Congress!
Ok, but, like, no offense, are you skilled enough to properly analyze and dig through large complicated bills? Are you a skilled enough administrator to manage an office of staffers? Are you a good enough public speaker to campaign?
I’m not saying people should want to serve in congress because it pays well, but, if the same set of skills that make a good representative could earn you 4 million a year in the private sector, then it’s going to be really hard to get qualified professionals. Instead you’ll get incompetent ideologues, independently wealthy aristocrats, or corrupt individuals intending to abuse the position.
It needs to pay competitively or else you create a bunch of perverse incentives.
Ok, but, like, no offense, are you skilled enough to properly analyze and dig through large complicated bills? Are you a skilled enough administrator to manage an office of staffers?
Are most politicians? They generally use their staff and their chief of staff for those things. The only thing that I’d grant them across the board, generally, is they are decent at public speaking.
There are many people that have specialized training that do their work to serve, not for the money (e.g. teachers, public defenders, MSF, etc…)
deleted by creator
Damn bro I need to know what school you got a math degree from if your logical reasoning is that faulty!
I’m fairly sure my “logical reasoning” is spot-on, but feel free to correct me.
A law, philosophy, or poli sci degree from a no name college holds a hell of a lot more weight for politics than a mathematics degree from Harvard. Know your limits.
Online rankings seem to put Harvard pretty high for mathematics! So I wouldn’t disregard their opinion just because their degree is from Harvard. I would disregard their opinion because of how faulty the logic is though.
I appreciate that you like philosophy. If we are interested in intelligence, though, a degree is less important than, say, how well you can do on a test like the LSAT. If we are interested in specialized skills, then a degree and the institution matter an awful lot. Keep in mind, however, that most people with any credentials from any institution are incomprehensibly stupid.
I’m not sure how we would determine whether someone is a good person. That’s significantly more difficult. But certainly nobody motivated by money is a good person.
But realistically, if you want skilled professionals in a field, you need to pay them competitively and offer long term career prospects. Otherwise you’re going to only get people who take the job as a stepping stone to another position, like a high paying job at a big company they passed a bunch of laws to help, or who can make money in other ways.
But this is already what we get anyway. Like 90% of our “representatives” behave this way.
I do agree though that maybe 1.5x is a little low especially since they’re supposedly “required” to maintain a residence closer to d.c as well and that’s super expensive. I’d say the public pay for their housing near d.c and then we can consider lower salaries for them, or at least having them be closer to what their constituents make so they understand what people actually have to go through to get by.
The problem with low salaries is that it makes the job less appealing, so it attracts more corruption. (In theory) if you are payed a lot, you don’t care when someone offers you a little more, while when you are payed little, a little money can make a big difference. Then again, this theory clearly failed, so… who knows
That’s a good thing. Private sector executives are wildly more sociopathic than the general public, and literally the enforcers of poverty on most americans. We should be incentivizing that type of person to stay as far the fuck away from politics as possible.
I like what Singapore does, which is to pay public servants very well, and then heavily punish corruption
Keeping congressional salaries that low would encourage corruption and possibly discourage non-corrupt candidates with valuable experience, but I otherwise agree.
yeah, grand scheme of things a few hundred people getting a salary that’s comparable to what they’d get in industry, makes zero difference to total government revenue.
The only reason to make it lower is either out of some weird sanctimonious need to put them in their place, or some idealistic notion that lowering salaries would result in a congress full of serene monk-like sages who exist only to serve their people, when the reality is that it would heavily incentivize even more corruption than we see now.
Give them a million dollars each, and tax them 100% on every penny they make from any other source.
I wouldn’t give them that much, but I wouldn’t cap it as low as OP suggested.
I know it seems like a lot, especially to someone making a regular salary, but I figure it breaks down as $500k for what they would have got working in a similar level position in industry, and $500k to remove any right to complain about not being allowed to keep any of the money from their investments, house sales, book sales, media residuals etc. It’s a number that pretty much everyone can be equally unhappy with.
I’m not simping for millionaires here, just trying to navigate a realistic solution to the underlying problems of corruption and billionaire-level wealth inequality.
If what keeps you from serving is money (in excess of a modest living wage), I don’t want you to serve. I want you to fuck off.
I would agree, but 1.5 times medium income is on the low end.
I’d do it for minimum wage, and I’m not sure I’d trust anyone who wouldn’t.
You are currently working as a politiian or running for office then, I presume?
My understanding was that being a member of Congress is extremely lucrative. I’m saying I would serve if it weren’t. I find its current state repugnant and overrun with parasites.
Lol okay, so you expect others to do work for minimum wage which you would totally in theory do as well just not in reality. Gotcha.
No. I expect people who want to get rich to get the fuck out of Congress.
I would say that capping the CEO pay would also lead to unintended outcomes. CEOs aren’t going to just shrug and say “ok, I’ll take a pay cut”, and they certainly aren’t going to give everyone a raise… instead they will just convert everyone making less than $500k and offer to bring them back on as a contractor. Or they will ‘outsource’ all of their departments to staffing agencies and the “CEO” of the staffing agency will only be making $150k.
It turns out that you can fix that quite easily, have a read of the IR35 laws in the UK.
Pasting from wikipedia:
The legislation introduced in July 2000 is designed to target disguised employment. It uses tests to find out if someone is genuinely in business on their own account or a disguised employee of the client. In this context, “disguised employees” means workers who receive payments from a client via an intermediary, i.e. their own limited company, and whose relationship with their client is such that had they been paid directly they would be employees of the client.
And from that very same article:
It is hard to judge the effectiveness of the legislation since as of 2010 HMRC has not published any figures. On 6 January 2004 Dawn Primarolo was asked in Parliament how many investigations under the IR35 regulation have (a) been initiated, (b) resulted in additional revenue, and © been concluded without securing additional revenue. In a written answer she replied that it was not possible with any accuracy to isolate data relating solely to this legislation.[23]
…
The July 2009 issue of IT Now, the British Computer Society magazine, reported that between April 2002 and March 2008 the Government had raised £9.2 million under IR35 legislation compared to the £220 million that was initially expected.[25]
This amongst many other criticisms!
Those numbers from the mid-2000s are sort of irrelevant because the rules got tightened up a LOT more since then, which leaves you only with that first bit in which you’re trying to claim that lack of data is support for your case.
The reason there’s no 2020s statistics on “how much money did IR35 bring in” is because such a statistic would rely on the calculation of a counterfactual based on how the world worked in the 20th century, making it effectively meaningless as a statistic.
I can however tell you firsthand that I know several people personally whose clients have been forced to take them on as regular staff within the last five years due to recent crackdowns.
Also, one interesting thing I noticed searching just now, is that almost every single piece about IR35 is written by organisations and groups who very much enjoyed not paying tax, so it’s almost entirely hit pieces…
To be honest I don’t have a case to make, I just found it a bit glaring that you mentioned it was “easy to fix” but then referenced an article which didn’t really provide any clear evidence for that. I’m entirely open to the idea of IR35 (though to be honest I haven’t considered it closely), and I can easily believe there are lots of hit pieces, but if it is as easily effective as you claim then there should be academic articles providing evidence even despite the confounding factors.
You realize that’s the argument they made about Trump, right? “Having no money encourages corruption.” But Trump has money, so he’s less likely to be corrupt.
That is not directly related to what I was saying, no. I did not imply that people with money won’t be corrupt.
Keeping congressional salaries that low would encourage corruption
All available evidence indicates that corruption is independent of salary (or wealth) and needs to be addressed separately.
The stock-trading ban and the low salary address the different issue of venal candidates. We need to do everything possible to keep money-grubbers out of the halls of Congress and in the private sector where the damage these creatures do can be contained.
I refuse to believe any of this is actually endorsed or supported by the Democratic Party of The United States.
It’s all great. And I’d love to be wrong. But there’s no way.
I refuse to believe any of this is actually endorsed or supported by the Democratic Party
I don’t see it claiming to be.
It’s also things dems refuse to acknowledge are needed when in power
$20 minimum wage is still too low, but better than nothing. Decent outline. Just have to get someone that gives a shit about people into office.
can we fix it with a bread basket index please?
Most countries have this (minimum wage regulated by a regulator). The fact you need an act passed by the legislature every time you want to raise it is ridiculous.
Minimum wage shouldn’t have to exist
If everyone had a universal basic income then people wouldn’t be forced to take a job that doesn’t pay them what they feel like they deserve.
Let the market set the price
If I am willing to do a job for $10 dollars to make extra cash, I should be able to.
If no one is willing to do the job for $10, the company will have to offer more.
Minimum wage is a bandage to a problem of capitalism. Wound being poor people suffering without “minimum”. If you make sure everyone has the “minimum” you fix the problem and don’t need the bandage.
Capitalism doesn’t take into account people have basic needs. It assumes everyone is like a robot waiting for the perfect job to pop up.
The problem is people who are desperate enough will still do it for under market wage.
Plus markets are shit at labor/wages.
Capitalism doesn’t take into account people have basic needs. It assumes everyone is like a robot waiting for the perfect job to pop up.
But your idea is to do exactly that with capitalism
Sounds great.
Hope you’ve got your guns, because you’ll need them for any of that.
Voting is just for deciding what colour tie your right-wing authoritarianism wears.
Caping their pay like that would assure only rich people could become politicians in poor districts.
Well even more than usual. Fucking Elise Stefanik, she is originally from Albany
Make sure all politicians like in public DC housing that cannot cost any more than what their own district spends on public housing.
deleted by creator
I feel like you’d end up with a lot of people making $99M. Though I can see that being a good thing with prices for whatever the person made money from falling or driving investment instead of hording so it might actually work out
Nah. If it’s a graduated system like our taxes are now, there’s no advantage to staying under the next bracket. Good trying to think of edge cases though
Wealth, not income.
In that case the 100 millionaire becomes homeless?
deleted by creator
Lmao. Unless step number one includes some guillotines, you might as well be asking people if they’d like to go to paradise.
Pure fantasy.
Fuck off.
No.
Dream big. Get balls.
Yes.
A Reality TV star who diddled kids, hid top secret documents in his bathroom, and openly agrees with all of the USA’s enemies is now President, jail free, and has ham fisted the stupidest people alive into a laughablely unreal kakistocracy that nothing else in human history compares to.
This is the fantasy of the biggest idiots alive and it has very much become real. And now that CEO murders are up significantly more than usual, you wanna believe paradise can’t be achieved because the idiots did it first?
Please. It’s a numbers game. And there are far fewer idiots than those who are now suffering from them.
Look man, what do you want? We can do this, or we can go to war. I want to see a fash nailed to every tree, but thats still a big ask.
All of this should be simple for any sane politician to get on board with, and yet it’s somehow revolutionary.
Ranked Choice is a bad system to use for elections.
And that’s per its inventor, the Marchese de Condorcet back in the 1790s.
He came up with the instant runoff idea, and then tore it to pieces because of how poorly it performed. i.e. Instant Runoff almost never gives you the Pairwise winner, the person who would win in a direct one-to-one matchup against every other candidate.
In the 200 years since then, we’ve found other, more serious problems. Like the fact that the system is somehow not monotonic. Meaning that increasing the support to a candidate can actually cause them to lose the election.
There’s more, but the main point stands. RCV is broken beyond repair.
A system that is not broken is STAR. Designed from the ground up to be a modern voting system.
Fun fact, while strategic voting is possible under STAR, it actually gives worse results for the strategic voter just being honest in your preference. Which is opposite of how pretty much every other voting system works.
What’s STAR?
Found it: https://www.starvoting.org/
Was blocked for me for vpn reasons So here’s a wiki link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/STAR_voting
Thanks
STAR is complicated to explain to people whose eyes glaze over when you start talking math and also has the problem that you can’t tell someone how their vote will be counted until every other vote is counted first.
People who like STAR tend to overestimate how much those things matter when it comes to getting public buy in.
That’s among the upsides of approval voting - it’s dead easy to explain and already works with existing machines meaning it’s cheaper to implement. It’s biggest downside is arguably that it tends to trend towards moderate candidates with broad appeal, ones that are “good enough” for a wide assortment of people rather than necessarily being anyone’s favorite.
STAR, rate these candidates on a scale of 0-5 multiple candidates can have the same rating. Done. How it’s counted? Easy, the top two rated candidates go into an automatic run-off, if you rated A higher than B, your vote goes to A. if you rated them the same, your vote is counted as “no preference”. Done.
That second step is mostly to get around some of the anti-democracy laws on the books in various states, but it also has the benefit of winnowing out clone candidates.
There’s one weird voting system that’s pretty good: ranked voting with fractional vote counting.
Your top candidate only gets the fraction of each vote they need to be guaranteed to stay in to the next round, the rest of your vote is available to the next candidate on your preference list.
In each round, one candidate will be eliminated. If there are 11 candidates now, there will be 10 next, so each candidate needs 1/10 of the votes to stay in.
Let’s say there are 20000 voters so candidates need 2000 votes to guarantee being in the top ten. Your top candidate got 4000 votes, but they only need 2000 to guarantee going through. A half of your vote went to your top candidate.
Your second favourite candidate was more popular and got 8000 votes, so the people who voted for them used a quarter of their vote, by they have enough now anyway and don’t need your vote at all to stay in. None of your vote is used on them.
Your third favourite got 1500 first place votes, which wasn’t enough on its own. The people who voted them top used 100% of their vote to keep them in. But plenty of people voted for them lower down and they used up another quarter of your vote and stayed in.
And so on until one of the candidates can’t get up to 2000 votes after higher preference candidates got kept in.
It’s a great system that makes your best strategy to vote in preference order to let your preferences count in each round and across multiple rounds, but it has the disadvantage that people believe factions are hard and that somehow someone’s tricking them if they’re using hard math.
Why do multiple rounds and complex counting at all?
Just use STAR. It’s easy, it’s fast. And you can tell the world how much you actually like or hate every candidate rather than an arbitrary ranking where the options could be God, Ghandi, and then Hitler, and then somehow two more people worse than Hitler.
See? Just a simple ranking gives extremely limited information about your preference. Just that A is ranked above B.
Like A and B the same? You cannot communicate that via a ranking.
Absolutely hate B? Again you cannot communicate that via a ranking.
You need a rating system with a set good and bad.
STAR does that. And in a single round of counting.
If you want to include information about disliking candidates, you can include a “none of the above” option, which allows voters to star or rank candidates below “none of the above”, effectively making those negative votes, because if “none of the above” wins, you re-run the election and none of the candidates who were on the ballot are allowed to stand again.
For example, with star voting + “none of the above”, you could have voted 5 stars for your favourite candidate for president, 4 stars for “none of the above”, one star for anyone else who isn’t Donald J Trump and no stars for Trump, meaning that you supply very little support for the other not-DJT candidates to make it into the second round, but if it’s Trump vs anyone, you still get to vote against Trump being president. By voting 4 stars for “none of the above”, you get to raise the likelihood that the election is re-run if your favourite is eliminated, and hopefully your party stands a more popular candidate next time.
You have a slight misunderstanding here, which is my fault for not explaining the system.
STAR can handle any number of candidates because it’s a Cardinal system. Meaning that you count the ratings independently. You can rate as many candidates as you want at 5 stars. Or Zero stars, or anything in-between.
That right there is the reason it’s immune to the spoiler effect.
It also makes it, not immune to tactical voting, but resistant? Tactical voting exists, but using it actually gives you worse results. Your best results come from just being honest with your preferences.
Which is almost unheard of in voting systems.
Every other major voting system penalizes you for being honest.
It’s unclear to me what you think I have misunderstood.
(The fractional voting system penalizes you for being dishonest, but it’s not a major voting system and doesn’t pass the person-in-the-street trusts it test.)
(I only mentioned the fractional voting one because you didn’t explain star voting at all so I had nothing to compare it with. I like star voting now that I know more about it having looked it up. If you want to convince people your favourite voting system is good, briefly explain it whenever you introduce it to a discussion, or link to an explanation!)
Star is pretty good, and its main advantage over fractional votes is simplicity.
But it’s two rounds, not one. You can argue that you only enter the data into the computer system once, but that’s true of fractional voting too - the computer system does the calculations, and it’s not sensible to do fractional voting by moving pieces of paper around at all. If you want to have a paper-based system of counting, you need two rounds of counting anyway with star.
Star’s disadvantage is that you can only express preference for the final round between 6 distinct candidates, and if there are enough candidates on the ballot, you start to lose information.
But these aren’t important distinctions, neither are your points about ranking. The important points are:
- Does it make a fair decision that represents the views of the electorate as they’re expressed on the ballot?
- Does it discourage forms of tactical voting so that the electorate are more likely to put their true views on the ballot?
- Can it win and maintain popular support?
Fractional voting is slightly better at the first two, but star is far, far better at winning and maintaining popular support because you can’t truthfully paint it as hard to understand like you can fractional voting and other forms of ranked voting, and you can report how people won in a clear and understandable way. Star is definitely better for public votes in hotly contested elections with low trust levels.
STAR already has a zero rating. And because it a Cardinal system rather than an Ordinal. It’s immune to most of the blatant flaws of Ranked Choice.
Really, Ranked Choice is just bad. It’s a 200 some year old system that was first designed as a way to highlight the mathematical flaws of certain types of voting systems.
Some dumbasses found it again in the 1800s and thought, eh at least it’s better than First Past the Post… Without ever actually testing that claim.
We should not be trying to “save” RCV, we should just abandon it for something that actually works as designed.
STAR already has a zero rating.
What? I didn’t say it didn’t. I used zero in my example. But even FPTP has zero.
Unless you mean negative voting/voting against, which you only get by introducing a “none of the above” option so that the electorate can vote in such a way that even the most “popular” voted candidate can still lose because of the negative below-“none-of-the-above” votes outnumbering the positive votes - putting someone below “none of the above” in either stars or ranking makes it a vote against them whilst still enabling you to distinguish preferences between candidates who you would prefer were outright rejected even if your candidate can’t win.
We should not be trying to “save” RCV
I’m not trying to save RCV. I’m saying star is better for public elections. Twice. At least.
Came in late but I’ll bandwagon that the minimum wage needs to be bumped up.
It’s the last point, but yes it needs to be linked to inflation.
That minimum wage pretty slim for a wish list…
Tie minimum wage to inflation. Tie rent to it, too. Im suck of having this discussion. They stonewall on purpose.
Yeah, the minimum wage isn’t so much the problem anymore (maybe in some areas, but definitely not all), it’s the cost of living. If we raise minimum wage, the cost of everything else just gets raised to offset it, particularly the cost of rent/property. At this point, we need to enforce rent caps before raising the wage anymore.
I’m impressed with this, someone has clearly given it more than 30s of thought
treating unrealized gains used for collateral as income avoids most of the complicated issues around wealth taxes while still enforcing that you have to pay your fair share if you want to live a life of luxury.
Congressional pay caps seem like a good way to align their incentives with helping all their constituents rather than just the donors and median mean that passing a real minimum wage law is to their direct benefit. No idea how you would get around the increased risk of bribery though.
Fixing gerrymandering, replacing fptp and scrapping the electoral college evens out the voting power so an election is less likely to be swung imby a handful of close districts in swing states.
Striking down Citizens united would (could?) clean up campaign finance making it harder for fossil fuel lobbies (for example) to purchase power.
I don’t know how feasible it is given some of it is federal, some of it is state level and I imagine some of it requires ammending the constitution, but I would consider any candidate who ran on some/all of these to be a good choice focused on fixing the root causes of a lot of the problems the US is facing.
Non-American here: is it possible to objectively outlaw gerrymandering while still having the ability to redraw/create/merge districts?
I thought you do need that mechanism as populations shift from rural to urban (or reverse) so that it’s always the same number of people per congressperson or however it works.
Also non-american but subject to a bunch of us-centricn news anyway 😅
Good question you need to be able to re-draw boundaries, but re-drawing boundaries shouldn’t have a material effect on election results (assuming the same people vote the same way.
I have heard a few proposals like “districts must be regular polygons” or avoiding moving people from contested seats into safe seats.
Neither of them are perfect for a number of reasons (reliance on perdictive models, ways to work around etc.) so the common approach is to appoint an independent redistricting commission to handle it and have them look at a bunch of metrics to figure out if it’s fair.
The nice thing is a perfect solution isn’t even necassary for improvement, just preventing horrorshows like Texas’s 33rd (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas’s_33rd_congressional_district) would help.
The main problem is that a few states passed ballot initiatives to combat gerrymandering, the politicians then undermined or straight up ignored them and then in 2019 the supreme court decided that it wasn’t within the jurisdiction of the federal courts to hear cases around gerrymandering. Funnily enough every single one of the justices who decided they were fine with republicans germandering efforts were appointed by republican presidents who could have guessed?
So now it’s de-facto legal; states run by the democrats are doing similar things and the clearly-acting-in-good-faith pundits on the right are screaming “look both parties are the same see! See!”
Err… I may have strayed from my point a little, but yes IRCs are the way to do this provided they have sufficient legal backing to see that their decisions are enforced.
Thanks for your reply! The 33rd is a great example of how perfect is the enemy of good. So yeah I still think you can’t fix this objectively, but you (politicians) can try a lot harder not to be a corrupt asshole about it.
UBI would be nice too, especially as the reliance on AI/automation becomes more prevalent
