And this is why you don't govern by insta-poll

[Soheran]

One telling thing about this, which Nate Silver just reminded me of, is that the notably undemocratic features of the US political system--the insanity of the Senate being the big one--almost certainly made the final bill less liberal and far harder to pass than otherwise, not the other way around.

[Natapoc]

One telling thing about this, which Nate Silver just reminded me of, is that the notably undemocratic features of the US political system--the insanity of the Senate being the big one--almost certainly made the final bill less liberal and far harder to pass than otherwise, not the other way around.

He makes very good points. I especially like that he made this point:

7. That a tangible percentage of those who register as opposed to the bill oppose it from the left -- probably enough to form a majority with those who support it -- and may nevertheless prefer it to the status quo (the more explicitly a poll compares the current proposals with the status quo the more favorable the results tend to be).

Also I do want to say that insta poll would be a bad way to govern. But I don't think anyone suggests that this is anywhere near what a real democracy would look like.

[Refused-Party-Program]

lolamericans. you're so stupid and fat.

Don't do that.

Fucking cunting fuck, the Goofball joined the pigs ( ). Never thought I'd see the day.

[Free Soviets]

so, about the role of experts and legal specialists in democracy...

[Natapoc]

so, about the role of experts and legal specialists in democracy...

What do you mean by their role? I don't believe they (or anyone else) should have any coercive power if that is what you are implying.

[Waterlow]

Clearly Biden's choice words have swung the independents.

[Ermarian]

Better to be glad in hindsight than the reverse.

(Though it is indeed worrying that a good number of people do nothing except transmit verbatim information from a television screen to a survey or ballot form.)

[Free Soviets]

so, about the role of experts and legal specialists in democracy...

What do you mean by their role? I don't believe they (or anyone else) should have any coercive power if that is what you are implying.

i mean, how do we integrate expertise into the democratic process? what are we to do with the situation that governance is necessarily complex and outside of both the expertise and interest of most everybody? do we need to make everyone an expert in everything? do we leave the running of society to some chosen set of experts? how do we choose?

[Natapoc]

so, about the role of experts and legal specialists in democracy...

What do you mean by their role? I don't believe they (or anyone else) should have any coercive power if that is what you are implying.

i mean, how do we integrate expertise into the democratic process? what are we to do with the situation that governance is necessarily complex and outside of both the expertise and interest of most everybody? do we need to make everyone an expert in everything? do we leave the running of society to some chosen set of experts? how do we choose?

It is difficult to answer a question like this because I'm not 100% sure what you mean. Perhaps If I had an example?

Could you also give an example about how "governance" needs to be necessarily complex?

I'm not sure if this is what you are looking for but... quick answer: However the people want. Long answer:

i mean, how do we integrate expertise into the democratic process?

People are experts by means of having special knowledge. Of course this must be encouraged but I fail to see how a democracy would discourage this. Professional organizations can form and operate according to democratic principles themselves (indeed some already do to a small degree and it would be easy to modify existing organizations (such as licensing agencies for doctors to be more democratic) Expertise does not in any way conflict with democracy. The organizations of individuals belonging to a group of specialists should encourage individuals who can demonstrate proficiency in the subject to join but there should be no obligation to do so

what are we to do with the situation that governance is necessarily complex and outside of both the expertise and interest of most everybody?

The organizations of professionals and individuals within such organizations would be highly valued facilitators and expert commentators. For example when constructing bridges certain standards for safety should be met. When a community wants to build a bridge individuals with the needed expertise should be sought out to help comment on feasibility and ensuring the bridge complies with the organizations standards for safety.

As honest experts their critique is invaluable and tends to be listened to.

do we need to make everyone an expert in everything?

No. Why would we need to do that? But we should be knowledgeable about things that directly concern us.

do we leave the running of society to some chosen set of experts?

Depends on what you mean by this. An expert organization of doctors for example would not be able to say: Free soviets, I'm going to lock you up in jail if you take that LSD!

They can say: We advice you do not take LSD because of these risks: a,b,c,d. But if you decide to do so anyway please make sure you: e,f, and z. But of course we won't force you do do any of this.

how do we choose? Ask again if the above did not clarify my position.

edit: That said, this is just how I think things would work. I don't insist anyone else does so.

edit2: How would you answer these questions?

[Urgolon]

People like joining winning teams.

Sadly, I doubt that in a year the Democrats will have as strong a team.

[Jello Biafra]

so, about the role of experts and legal specialists in democracy...

What do you mean by their role? I don't believe they (or anyone else) should have any coercive power if that is what you are implying.

i mean, how do we integrate expertise into the democratic process? what are we to do with the situation that governance is necessarily complex and outside of both the expertise and interest of most everybody? do we need to make everyone an expert in everything? do we leave the running of society to some chosen set of experts? how do we choose?

We can have experts to give us advice but make sure they don't benefit from merely being in a position to give us advice.

[KenKenpachi]

From what I've seen actully so far over the past couple of days most people are up in arms over this. And the Bill does have a few nasties in it most of us will be sorry for in the coming years. At which point unless I am shooting at someone or such I'll come on here to rub it in your faces lulz.

But in serriousness I have a feeling this summer shall be very neat, or come this november. Should the expected Republican sweep happen in the coming ellections, it still won't be enough to overturn the healthcare "reform". As the president can just Veto such attempts. However at the same time, the number of Assassination threats, cancelling of "Town Hall" events or at least those not in clearly blue land with "tickets" to the event are. Coupled with dramatic rise in calls of revolt, and various State Reps proping up anti Federal legistlation if not outright rebelion, I think the coming months will be pretty neat to see. I mean sure you can arrest some of the more vocal ones, but no one seen the Bullet for JFK coming, till it passed through the brain pan.

[Whole Conviction]

I prefer the anarcho-communist concept of a federation of communities organized according to egalitarian principle with each community using formal consensus to decide on the best choice of action for themselves at a local level. Most laws would be local.

There should be few laws. The fewer the laws the more free the people. Laws that apply "federation wide" would look more like treaties between the various communities and such treaties would be voted on the same way as local laws are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making

Communities could belong to more then one federation and leave that federation at any time should they feel they are being taken advantage of unfairly.

This process should be used in conjunction with a fundamental declaration of basic rights agreed to by each community.

Now there are some cases where it may not be possible to arrive at consensus. In such cases it is possible that majority or super majority vote may be needed . These cases would be decided by the communities themselves.

A nice thought. But such communes can work well on a small scale, but don't scale up very well. Representative democracy is just about the only system that DOES scale up very well. So you start well, by separating people out into small communities. But big communities are very good at getting certain things done. And you can't stop these communes from joining into big communities, when the communal model doesn't work well any more. Or, well, over time, population growth takes care of that too.

Any awesome, self-supporting, perfect system.... probably isn't. They work great until you add people. Representative democracy, putting a layer between kneejerk mob reactions and actual decision-making, is just about the only system that actually works long-term, because it slows down the pendulum swing. It's flawed, but unique in that its flaws counter each other.

[Bottle]

I wouldn't see any conflict between supporting both those poll options.

I wish a different bill had been passed. In a sane world, I'd have wished this bill would fail because it's so much crappier than we deserve. But I also am glad it passed because the real alternative was to get NOTHING. And what we got is much, much better than the nothing we had before.

[Whole Conviction]

Polls give you a window into what people are thinking... but it's a small window. It's the blind men and the elephant -- everyone sees something different.

Leadership is not about following polls. A West Wing quote I like:
'This reminds me of the French intellectual who saw a crowd running down a street and said: "There go my people. I must find out where they are going, so I may lead them."'

[Ifreann]

Apparently there's a correlation in Ireland between the weather on election day and how people vote. Good weather and they keep the current government in, bad weather and they vote for the opposition. My point is, running a country by public opinion will lead to regime changes every time it rains.

[Risottia]

lolamericans. you're so stupid and fat.

if it was good enough for the founding fathers, being stupid and fat is good enough for me. USA! USA!

Absolutely. Can you imagine how powerful we'd be if the Founders had been smart and fit?

You'd be all males?

[Ifreann]

lolamericans. you're so stupid and fat.

if it was good enough for the founding fathers, being stupid and fat is good enough for me. USA! USA!

Absolutely. Can you imagine how powerful we'd be if the Founders had been smart and fit?

You'd be all males?

With HUGE dicks.

[Andaluciae]

Continuing glorious evidence that people are stupid, and that their "opinions" are based off of what they heard most recently.

[Andaluciae]

Apparently there's a correlation in Ireland between the weather on election day and how people vote. Good weather and they keep the current government in, bad weather and they vote for the opposition. My point is, running a country by public opinion will lead to regime changes every time it rains.

I remember reading about that. It's actually one of the strongest correlations in electoral politics--stronger than wars, stronger than economics.

Rain.

As a corollary, maybe people are liking healthcare right now because the awfulness of winter just broke in much of the Eastern US.

[Ifreann]

Apparently there's a correlation in Ireland between the weather on election day and how people vote. Good weather and they keep the current government in, bad weather and they vote for the opposition. My point is, running a country by public opinion will lead to regime changes every time it rains.

I remember reading about that. It's actually one of the strongest correlations in electoral politics--stronger than wars, stronger than economics.

Rain.

As a corollary, maybe people are liking healthcare right now because the awfulness of winter just broke in much of the Eastern US.

"In a unexpected move, President Obama intends to move the presidential elections to mid-June. Republicans are reported to be confused and outraged"

[Free Soviets]

We can have experts to give us advice but make sure they don't benefit from merely being in a position to give us advice.

how do you decide which experts to trust? how do you decide what actually constitutes a problem? and how do you convince everybody else to go along with it.

think global warming - almost all of the experts are terrified while a huge chunk of the public thinks science is one big hoax and has chosen their own set of experts to reassure themselves of that.

[Blitzkrenia]

I demand a poll for this topic.

[The Class A Cows]

I wouldn't see any conflict between supporting both those poll options.

I wish a different bill had been passed. In a sane world, I'd have wished this bill would fail because it's so much crappier than we deserve. But I also am glad it passed because the real alternative was to get NOTHING. And what we got is much, much better than the nothing we had before.

I was about to post this. I'm glad I'm not the only one who spotted it. For example, I absolutely believe that we need a public option (I don't really see why I should be barred from having nonprofit healthcare from the government if I can afford it and want it) because I felt that was necessary to give private insurers the competition they needed. Bill expands medicare but does not really provide for that.

I was against the bill because it was far too timid, but I did not want it to fail, either, because letting it fail is even more timid.

Such pragmatic dissonances abound in other places too, IE the fact that I support Israel in practice when I also take offense to their flagrant nationalism and violation of promises. I don't think these polls are a big surprise or an example of people's mood simply changing. You can interpret it this way:

"Most people wanted a bill, but most people wanted a better one".

[Thethunderdome]

So are yall excited for November then? Since everyone loves this bill it's gonna cement the dem's majority, right?