Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:Since neither is getting elected (Score 1) 247

How well does playing outside the rules work?

It can work well, it can work poorly. It all depends on the costs and benefits of the appropriate strategies. Here, there's a minor benefit to me (since I slightly prefer Trump to Clinton). But the cost is that I waste my vote on one of these clowns. One's going to get elected anyway (unless we have some massive turnover in the next few months). I'd rather vote for someone who far better presents my interests even if their chances, this election cycle are rather slim.

Comment Re:electoral voting system change: no to FPTP (Score 1) 247

Dynamics are very different for city level elections. Among other things, there's little barrier to entry for independents and such. You don't have to assemble an extensive political machine just to get your name on the ballot in most of the fifty states.

Further, the stakes are far smaller. The Minneapolis city budget is several orders of magnitude smaller.

As a result, there's far less incentive for established powers to obstruct ranked choice voting at the level of Minneapolis. I can see the US political establishment successfully obstructing ranked choice for many generations. Thus, my emphasis on supporting third parties. The overthrow of an established party is when we'll have the opportunity to change the voting system to something better.

Comment Re:Since neither is getting elected (Score 1) 247

There have been disruptions to the two-party system. Once, it even changed what one of the parties was. Every time, we've settled back down in a two-party system because that's the optimum for the election and governance systems we have.

During the disruption to the two party system, slavery ended and we implemented major constitutional reform.

Comment Re:Since neither is getting elected (Score 1) 247

And what was your plan, exactly? Are you calling for an end to the First Amendment? People shouldn't be allowed to assemble and express political preferences unless it's done the way you prefer? How would you enforce that, exactly?

Vote for those "unlikable" third parties, of course.

"That they won't win" is certainly one issue, as people don't like to throw their votes away. But "these people are generally loons" is the more typical rationale. Parties that are absolutely obsessed about weed, or communism, or destroying intellectual property, or disarming the military, etc., don't fail because we have a "two party system," they fail because very few rational people would ever want to give such parties control of the government.

You just described the Democrat and Republican parties. The difference between them and the typical third party, is that they have much better propaganda and much more money to throw around to spread that propaganda, hence the common but wholly delusional concern about "loons". That concern didn't stop party voters from nominating Obama or Trump, did it?

You don't need to destroy something, you need to actually create something. How is that not obvious to you?

Because it's not true. Your proposal is so highly leveraged against you that it would take immense time, political capital, and of course, huge, enduring support from the public probably over the span of decades. It's not going to happen in the face of the current powerful two party system just as it hasn't happened since the formation of the US more than two centuries ago.

Comment Re:Since neither is getting elected (Score 1) 247

That's like saying "I think it's unsportsmanlike to hold a football. I think American Football should only be played with one's feet!" You'll just lose. Over and over again when your opponents use their hands. Handicapping yourself does nothing but work against your interests. It doesn't change the game. It doesn't change the rules... it just makes a fool out of you.

My view is that you have had a couple of centuries to demonstrate this works. And that there's a good chance that some clueless version of you will be saying similar things in another two centuries. There's no future in playing a rigged game.

It amazes me how people (including three posters in this thread so far) keep trying to claim that playing within the rules works, when it's gotten us to this point. Sorry, your argument came broken.

Comment Re: Sounds Familiar. (Score 3, Interesting) 155

This was known and discussed. But they found microgravity to be a compounding effect of radiation exposure

This just drives home how much of a risk interplanetary flight is right now. And we really don't have great solutions that don't involve great masses of shielding. Artificial magnetosopheres for example are insufficient to deal with GCR.

Comment Re:That's Right (Score 1) 74

The key phrases:

and concede them the right of self-determination


Keep order and harmony

What is the only way to have both the "right of self-determination" and keep order and harmony? Why it's a democracy. First, there's no formal way to register approval of a government except via a fair election or something equivalent to that. China never has had that. "Right of self-determination" then is just a story governments like to tell to placate some portion of the oppressed population.

And if your informal register of approval is "we haven't had a civil war yet" or even "disagreement with your leaders is treason", then you aren't really supporting order and harmony since there is no peaceful outlet for grievances or disagreement.

The two concepts you mentioned here only have meaning together when the citizenry of a region have a say in the government and politics of the region.

Slashdot Top Deals

The road to hell is paved with NAND gates. -- J. Gooding