politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
You are one of the people dangblingus was mentioning about the erosion of the Education System. Here, let me help out.
Suppose you're voting in an election for who is going to be responsible for the Christmas Decorations this year. The rule is the person with the most votes wins. There are three candidates. One person thinks that Christmas is a commercialised holiday that sucks money out of you. He's saying that the community should NOT put Christmas decorations up, and instead, put that money into the pockets of the homeowners. Let's call him Mr. Bah Humbug. The other person LOVES Christmas, and wants to put up decorations. We'll call him Jolly Saint Nick, but your big problem with him is that he isn't that inclusive. You love Christmas decorations, but you think that he should put up decorations for other Winter holidays as well. And thus, you don't want to vote for him. So you put yourself up as the alternative to Jolly Saint Nick. Let's call you Progressive Jim. And you're going to cause the entire community to get NOTHING. How? I'm getting to that.
The community is narrowly divided on the question of decorations. There are 200 people on your block. 99 of them want to keep the money in their pocket, while 101 want decorations in the community. The 99 are all unified. There's not much room to debate specifics in that position. All 99 want to keep their $$$ in their pocket. So there's no vote splitting there. But you have ALREADY split the vote in the 101 side. What happens if you and two other people vote for you? Well, 99 people are voting for keeping money in their pockets. 101 people wanting SOME sort of decoration, minus your three votes, equals 98. The final breakdown is 99 Bah Humbug, 98 Jolly Saint Nick, 3 Progressive Jim. Congrats! You just ensured that NONE of the 101 people who wanted Christmas Decorations get what they want. You let the Perfect (having inclusive holiday decorations) be the enemy of the Good (having any sort of holiday decorations), and now you get the worst outcome of all, nothing at all.
In this system, you have to come to a consensus you can deal with. All the people who want decorations are just going to have to come together and negotiate on the type of decorations, and the thing is that in a democracy, you don't always get what you want. You have to settle with 'good enough' if you want to get anything done. Another analogy used here is voting is like taking the bus, not falling in love. If you insist that you must get EVERYTHING you want, in First Past the Post, you regularly get NONE of what you want, especially if you're the 'fall in love' party like Progressives are, and you're up against a "Fall in Line" party like the Republicans/Conservatives.
There are fixes. Maybe you make your voting a Ranked Choice system, so people can specify "my vote for a progressive holiday season not tied to Christmas is not a vote for no decorations at all. If I don't get what I want, I'll settle for uninclusive decorations, grudgingly." But that's not the system we have. And until we do, Nic Cage is right. All you're doing here is ensuring we get the worst outcome.