• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2015 |OT2| Pls print

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Hopfrog

Member
CZf19jL.png
Makai said:
What would an unbiased political test even looks like? It can't exist.
Click to expand...
 
B

Brawndo Addict

Banned
To be fair, Brainchild said he would drop the test and stick with just the informative class but the same problem applies. Eer wait, I guess in the post I quoted he said test, but I think he's conditionally talking about it. I'll just change test to test/class.

That said, the fact that the test was being argued for originally and is being dropped as a concession is not a good look.
 
K

Konka

Banned
brainchild said:
Not the same thing at all. Most of them merely cover US/American history and politics, not an in-depth view on current issues and the stances of the current candidates.

I wouldn't be opposed to a revision of civics courses that would cover these issues prominently and aim to encourage political awareness.
Click to expand...

Who are these perfectly non-bias individuals you are going to find to teach the classes that are then influencing the voting preferences of people?
 
B

brainchild

Banned
Brawndo Addict said:
Sorry for circling back to this, but I could not help it.



I'm not sure why I was surprised that when I raised a definitional dispute about democracy and its purpose, you chose to appeal to an obscure legal dictionary written before the Civil War (although I am amused at the implicit historical context when it references a "body of men"). Modern society doesn't traditionally distinguish between democracy and representative democracy since the latter is the obvious norm as true democracy would be logistically impossible.

Miriam Webster: A government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.

Oxford: A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives // Of a legislative or deliberative assembly consisting of people chosen to act and speak on behalf of a wider group.

Democracy does not have a overarching purpose outside of the principles that its mechanisms represent, and it certainly isn't goal orientated towards electing specific representatives who will best serve or benefit the country; it's just about electing representatives who act on behalf of their voters. If the ultimate purpose is about getting the most qualified or effective people, then we wouldn't want democracy in the first place.



You have it completely backwards. Their vote is not a means to an end it is the end in of itself, the vote itself is democracy. Otherwise we could obtain the end by better means. The goal of representative democracy is simply to have a system by which people freely vote for their preferred representative, regardless of motive or intent, regardless of who that representative is or what they stand for. They can vote for an anarchist who doesn't believe in democracy or a nihilist who believes the human race should commit species suicide. Democracy is not about *what* we do, it's about *how* we do it.
Click to expand...

Nevertheless, we operate under a representative democracy and there is a reason that we do other than merely being able to do so; it would be logistically impossible to have a direct democracy otherwise. I think it's an important distinction to make, since it's not the same as a direct democracy (which would be preferred if it were possible)

A democracy that relies on 'representation' and 'serving on the behalf of its citizens' obviously cannot do so if the elected officials do not actually represent or serve on the behalf of the citizens.

So what this boils down to is a disagreement on the idea of representation. If the interests of the people have nothing to do with representation, then representation is pointless and the having the right to vote would be utterly meaningless and immaterial.

However, if we look at representation as a system by which the citizens can indirectly decide on policy by choosing people who would do what they would do, then their votes have material impact.

Now I understand that if people would simply inform themselves, they would get proper representation for their vote (as much as possible), but I would also argue that many disadvantaged citizens are not cognizant of how informing themselves would help them in the long run, or maybe they're unable to inform themselves for some reason. In these instances, it is possible that these particular voters are unintentionally voting against their interests and if they realized that, it's possible that they would change their vote. So if we had significant votes that ended up not actually representing some voters due to unintentional ignorance, I believe it gets further away from the idea of a representative democracy.

I would advocate for ensuring that every voter understood their representation in fairness, and I think that mandatory classes would help with that.


Plumbob said:
What constitutes proof that a test is unbiased? We should probably elect a commission to decide what the criteria is for proving a test is unbiased.
Click to expand...

Citations of facts and evidence asserting what issues are being talking about, arguments made for and against the issues, and what each candidate has publicly stated or voted for or against.

If the citations are backed with evidence that's empirical and publicly accessible, I don't see how they wouldn't be unbiased.

Brawndo Addict said:
Woah now hold on here, this does not follow whatsoever. The democratic freedom to decide/vote on policy, legislation, representatives, etc, is completely separated from value statements about what voters *should* do. I mean, just look at your bolded, that fundamental principle is utterly divorced from considerations of personal knowledge or maximal benefit. That the people decide is what's important, now whether they're making a good decision.



You're completely missing the obvious foundational issue: teaching people about civics/politics is itself inherently political. There is no neutral ground that we all universally agree is unbiased. So who gets to decide what constitutes 'unbiased' and what constitutes sufficient 'proof' of it (let alone the problem of deciding what information is necessary to present)?

Should this test/class educate people about what the second amendment means for example? How should it do it? Do we really think there's any way to do it that political groups wouldn't argue is biased against their stated positions?

Why is the creation and implementation of the test/class immune from the principle that, in your own words, "the people decide on policy and legislation". Would it not be more democratic to allow the people to decide whether this test/class should exist? If they don't want the test/class isn't that decision preferable to elites deciding what's best for the masses?
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm making a value judgment on something that I believe to be obvious about democracy. The people don't just vote just because they want to vote. There's a reason. I'm arguing that the reason for operating under a representative democracy should be preserved.

Also, I suppose I'd could settle for putting mandatory classes up to a vote. I would prefer not to, but I'd settle for that. Yes, it would be undemocratic to put such a system in place without allowing the people to vote on it, but so is deciding that you have to be 18 years old to vote without 'unqualified' teenagers having a say.

Konka said:
Who are these perfectly non-bias individuals you are going to find to teach the classes that are then influencing the voting preferences of people?
Click to expand...

The teachers wouldn't be unbiased, no one is. Similarly, scientists can conduct unbiased tests under the scientific method, despite being biased themselves.
 
J

jtb

Banned
I like the idea of having to pass a citizenship test in order to graduate from high school. Is this a bad idea that will end up disproportionately hurting the poor?
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Has Jeb! dropped out yet

It's amazing, even six months ago if you asked I would have told you either Bush or Walker would be the GOP nominee (while only dreaming for someone like Trump). And whether you believe Trump has a chance at the nomination against the establishment you have to admit he's got a better shot than those two seeing as how one dropped and the other is about to.
 
B

Bowdz

Member
Y2Kev said:
I read an article in the NYT about george bush sr being all "EXCITED" for this election and it reminded me of this clip with his "oh god i just got owned" face

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ta_SFvgbrlY
Click to expand...

Jesus, Bill is so goddamn good. I've seen that clip at least 10 times, but it never gets old. There is no one in the country better at simplifying complex topics and delivering them with the empathy of a close friend without sounding like he is talking down to you. Obama 08 was my first election and I love him as a president, but even his insane charisma has nothing on Slick Willy. I cannot wait to see the full DNC machine (Obama, Biden, Bill, Michelle) kick into action for Hilldawg next year. It will be crazy.
 
P

Plumbob

Member
brainchild said:
Citations of facts and evidence asserting what issues are being talking about, arguments made for and against the issues, and what each candidate has publicly stated or voted for or against.

If the citations are backed with evidence that's empirical and publicly accessible, I don't see how they wouldn't be unbiased.
Click to expand...

How does the government decide which "empirical" facts are valid and which facts are faulty?

e.g. does this article count as empirical and publicly accessible? http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf

If we elect or appoint a committee to decide, how do we ensure that the members of the committee are unbiased

If we don't elect or appoint the committee, how is it democratic?
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
Bowdz said:
Jesus, Bill is so goddamn good. I've seen that clip at least 10 times, but it never gets old. There is no one in the country better at simplifying complex topics and delivering them with the empathy of a close friend without sounding like he is talking down to you. Obama 08 was my first election and I love him as a president, but even his insane charisma has nothing on Slick Willy. I cannot wait to see the full DNC machine (Obama, Biden, Bill, Michelle) kick into action for Hilldawg next year. It will be crazy.
Click to expand...

Yeah. It will be awesome.
 
D

dabig2

Member
Hopfrog said:
That is different from what was posted though. And it still seems an odd label to use, accurate though it may be to a degree, for a guy regularly placing third or fourth in polls.
Click to expand...

The republican party is so fractured that they're kinda changing the game here. Establishment vs non-establishment has always been a thing because of the belief that the establishment will eventually win because...they just have to. Everyone thought Jeb! would be the Romney of this cycle, and now it seems to be Rubio.

But I do agree that it's strange because what if the establishment pick actually doesn't end up winning? What if it's not inevitability?
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Man, Bill is the man.

Love that clip with him and Bush. Republicans have spent so much time up their own asses they don't have anyone with that personality or charm. Or as much as Obama who can sometimes come off a tad stiff or professorial (which imo just makes his personal moments more powerful). It's like they spend so much time talking to their rich buddies and dumbass partisans they don't know how to talk to an ordinary person and explain how cutting a rich oil tycoon's taxes is totally gonna work out for them.
 
H

Hopfrog

Member
dabig2 said:
The republican party is so fractured that they're kinda changing the game here. Establishment vs non-establishment has always been a thing because of the belief that the establishment will eventually win because...they just have to. Everyone thought Jeb! would be the Romney of this cycle, and now it seems to be Rubio.

But I do agree that it's strange because what if the establishment pick actually doesn't end up winning? What if it's not inevitability?
Click to expand...


I actually agree with you on that notion. Rubio is my pick in the PoliGAF pool based mainly on the notion that parties flirt with non-establishment types during the primaries but pretty much always end up going with establishment picks in the end. So I am basing it largely on historical precedent - but there is always the possibility of precedent being thrown out the window.

So even though I still lean towards Rubio based on this, you simply cannot deny the polling right now that shows that he is nowhere near being the front-runner at the moment.
 
H

Hopfrog

Member
Teggy said:
I can't deal with this, someone talk me down.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep.../general_election_carson_vs_clinton-5119.html
Click to expand...


I can understand the appeal of Trump to a degree, and I can rationalize it. Carson, on the other hand, is befuddling to me. I get that he comes off as a "nice guy," and I get the evangelical thing too, but almost everything that comes out of his mouth on almost every issue is ridiculous. Some of his stances make no political sense at all - attacking Medicare? What are you doing?

But he is succeeding regardless.
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
ivysaur12 said:
I think we'll eventually get real left-leaning people elected in Georgia, Texas, and North Carolina. And Florida, obviously. I'll take whatever we can get in LA, AR, MS, AL, MS, KY, WV, etc.
Click to expand...

Well you have no choice as of now. Not much of an Obama Coalition in those states. MS is extremely polarizing. Whites vote over 80%+ R in that state.
 
Y

Yellowtail

Member
Bill Clinton at his first joint Hillary campaign rally in Iowa just now: "I want to break a ceiling too. I am tired of the stranglehold women have had on the position of presidential spouse."
 
T

Teggy

Member
Aaron Strife said:
Carson hasn't been seriously attacked yet. Much of his craziness is actually a good thing in the GOP primary so his coverage for that is positive. His numbers will come down.
Click to expand...

Konka said:
It's October 2015 and Carson is the flavor of the month.
Click to expand...

Hopfrog said:
I can understand the appeal of Trump to a degree, and I can rationalize it. Carson, on the other hand, is befuddling to me. I get that he comes off as a "nice guy," and I get the evangelical thing too, but almost everything that comes out of his mouth on almost every issue is ridiculous. Some of his stances make no political sense at all - attacking Medicare? What are you doing?

But he is succeeding regardless.
Click to expand...

icarus-daedelus said:
Prediction markets still have him at #1 out of the Republican field, I think. Whatever that counts for.

I mean, it makes sense. He's handsome and presentable, probably the least insane of the bunch they've got to pick from that have any presence at all in the polls, and after losing the Hispanic vote by even more pathetic margins in 2012 than in 2008, they'd be crazy not to.

Still doesn't mean he has any ground game or popular support whatsoever, though.



Easy. Remember Herman Cain?
Click to expand...

I get the primary polls, but this is a general election poll. Why are Democrats or independents picking Carson over Hillary, and by a large margin? She's beating Trump at least.
 
B

Brawndo Addict

Banned
brainchild said:
Nevertheless, we operate under a representative democracy and there is a reason that we do other than merely being able to do so; it would be logistically impossible to have a direct democracy otherwise. I think it's an important distinction to make, since it's not the same as a direct democracy (which would be preferred if it were possible)
Click to expand...

I know that's why I literally said that already in the post you quoted:

Brawndo said:
Modern society doesn't traditionally distinguish between democracy and representative democracy since the latter is the obvious norm as true democracy would be logistically impossible.
Click to expand...

Brainchild said:
A democracy that relies on 'representation' and 'serving on the behalf of its citizens' obviously cannot do so if the elected officials do not actually represent or serve on the behalf of the citizens.

So what this boils down to is a disagreement on the idea of representation. If the interests of the people have nothing to do with representation, then representation is pointless and the having the right to vote would be utterly meaningless and immaterial.

However, if we look at representation as a system by which the citizens can indirectly decide on policy by choosing people who would do what they would do, then their votes have material impact.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? Representatives serve on behalf of citizens by virtue of being elected by them. If voters don't like their representatives they can vote them out at the next election. We don't kick out congressmen preemptively or say their election is invalid because they changed their mind about an issue, decision, vote, etc after being elected, nor do we say that such actions are undemocratic and should be made illegal.

If our democratic system involved voters choosing between different issue statements or policy guidelines and then a representative was chosen by lottery to act on behalf of that list then maybe you would have a point. But that's now how any of this works. I don't choose a representative who must do what I want, I choose a representative who best reflects what I want. The only representative who can perfectly represent my individual interests is myself and since I'm not running I have to choose someone else who will be an imperfect representative of my desires.

A variety of individuals voluntarily offer themselves up to represent a larger group of citizens. Citizens then vote for the representative they prefer. Their vote is not accompanied by an extensive list of terms and conditions detailing all the positions of the representative that they agree or disagree with, or what their value system is. All the representative knows is how many votes they got and what they told voters about themselves. They don't get a line-by-line breakdown of how many people support each individual policy position they hold.

Even if I conceded that representatives should be strictly regulated in such a way as to always follow the "will of the people", there's no way to understand or know what that actually means because it's just an abstract phrase. What does will of the people mean when all elections tell us is who got the most votes? What is the will of the people when a candidate only wins by one vote, i.e., 51 to 49? What about pluralities where votes are evenly spread among representatives of differing political philosophies? Are they supposed to represent the unstated interests of everyone or just the people who voted for them? What if the people who voted for them still disagree with their policy positions and just voted for them because they disagreed with the other candidates even more? Is it not simpler and truer that the will of the people as it relates to their vote is merely an expression of their willingness to be represented by the candidate they voted for?

Brainchild said:
So what this boils down to is a disagreement on the idea of representation. If the interests of the people have nothing to do with representation, then representation is pointless and the having the right to vote would be utterly meaningless and immaterial.

However, if we look at representation as a system by which the citizens can indirectly decide on policy by choosing people who would do what they would do, then their votes have material impact.
Click to expand...

Representatives are a proxy for voter's personal interests, they are not equivalent with it. They do not determine their policy positions or political beliefs based on a survey of their district nor are they legally bound to follow such polling. They put forward a platform and voters pick and choose among them to find the one they like best, not because it represents their interests perfectly, but because they prefer it to the alternatives.

A candidate may support marijuana legalization even though polling shows a majority of his district opposes it. He may win the election (for unrelated reasons) by a wide margin against an opponent who was against legalization. What is the will of the people in this situation and how should it impact/determine what choices the representative can make on marijuana legalization? If the polling is all that matters then it is not voting that is irrelevant it is representation. Why bother having a human in office if we're going to say they have to mechanically follow whatever receives a majority of support in the polls?

Now I understand that if people would simply inform themselves, they would get proper representation for their vote (as much as possible), but I would also argue that many disadvantaged citizens are not cognizant of how informing themselves would help them in the long run, or maybe they're unable to inform themselves for some reason. In these instances, it is possible that these particular voters are unintentionally voting against their interests and if they realized that, it's possible that they would change their vote. So if we had significant votes that ended up not actually representing some voters due to unintentional ignorance, I believe it gets further away from the idea of a representative democracy.
Click to expand...

The idea that we should get to tell certain people that their vote isn't proper or informed enough is elitist and undemocratic, especially when we're just talking about hypotheticals and not any actual information or evidence. What constitutes a significant portion of 'improper or uninformed' votes anyway? One percent, three percent, five percent? How do we determine the difference between informed votes and uninformed votes? What about people who freely choose not to go out of their way to get more information or knowledge? Do we get to bar their vote because they don't know what's good for them?

This is the logical chain that leads to democracy being irrelevant because the priority isn't about self-determination it's about elites telling people what they would want if only they knew better. Why even bother trying to inform them at that point if we're arguing the elite already know what the will of the people is in the first place? Just let the elites benevolently make the decisions for us since it's more efficient and accurate. And if they don't know then why are we presuming that too many people are voting 'wrong' in the first place?

Yes, I'm making a value judgment on something that I believe to be obvious about democracy. The people don't just vote just because they want to vote. There's a reason. I'm arguing that the reason for operating under a representative democracy should be preserved.

Also, I suppose I'd could settle for putting mandatory classes up to a vote. I would prefer not to, but I'd settle for that. Yes, it would be undemocratic to put such a system in place without allowing the people to vote on it, but so is deciding that you have to be 18 years old to vote without 'unqualified' teenagers having a say.
Click to expand...

Yeah, so stop acting like you know what that reason is or that it's even a problem. Lots of people don't vote and lots of people vote. What gives you the right to speak for the millions of voters as to what their intentions and motivations are and whether they have sufficient knowledge and objectivity to be trusted to make informed decisions? Maybe they're as informed as they need to be and it just so happens they still disagree with you about whether they're intelligent enough to know what's good for them. You don't improve democracy top down through voting restrictions. You improve it bottom up by making society better.

Brainchild said:
Citations of facts and evidence asserting what issues are being talking about, arguments made for and against the issues, and what each candidate has publicly stated or voted for or against.

If the citations are backed with evidence that's empirical and publicly accessible, I don't see how they wouldn't be unbiased.

The teachers wouldn't be unbiased, no one is. Similarly, scientists can conduct unbiased tests under the scientific method, despite being biased themselves.
Click to expand...

Are you sure you don't want to be arguing for a technocracy? Cause it seems like that would be a better fit given what you're talking about. Why not cut out the middle man of voters and let scientific experts run the show since they're apparently the only ones capable of being able to determine who should be able to vote in the first place.
 
B

brainchild

Banned
Plumbob said:
How does the government decide which "empirical" facts are valid and which facts are faulty?

e.g. does this article count as empirical and publicly accessible? http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf

If we elect or appoint a committee to decide, how do we ensure that the members of the committee are unbiased

If we don't elect or appoint the committee, how is it democratic?
Click to expand...

This will be my last response to this because I've made it clear that the testing is not as important as the classes. I'm fine with not having the tests.

If your question is about how to prevent misinformation, I would say that while it's certainly possible for misinformation to occur, the claims would be so easy to invalidate that opening the tests/classes up to public scrutiny and validation would completely mitigate this issue. A fact-checking committee could be elected by the people and keep the claims in check. Sure the committee could be bias, but they'd be held accountable by their sources, and if the general populace disagrees with the committee's practices, they could always elect a new committee.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
GAF Museum - The Greatest OTs of All Time (or at least, some of the great ones)
|OT|
4
2K
Komatsu replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
Top Bottom