- cross-posted to:
- nyt_gift_articles@sopuli.xyz
- cross-posted to:
- nyt_gift_articles@sopuli.xyz
it is Mr. Biden’s reinvigoration of the government’s role as the nation’s most important investor that may endure as a turning point in the nation’s political and economic history.
Investments, like saplings, do not yield immediate fruit, and Mr. Biden has struggled to generate public enthusiasm for these long-term strategies.
That’s a function both of poverty and the lack of quality public education. Most don’t understand how elections are run, and most don’t understand that in order to change our two party paradigm, they need to change the local election process. FPTP needs to be flushed down the unclean toilet of history and we need to implement RCV or STAR. Both will be complicated and either choice will require thorough education of the public, but it’s the first step towards breaking the deadlock of the Democratic or Republican parties.
It’s because the American economy is fueled by short term gains for the sake of politics. What’s actually good in the longterm is bad for the small groups that stand to lose the most.
The US is a corporate oligarchy propped up by a priesthood of politicians, lawyers, and economists.
Why do you think important government buildings look like temples? Why do they all wear priestly vestments and adornments? Why do you think the House has a magic stick?
This is “gold fringe on the American flag” level of nonsense
From the wikipedia article it says it was used by the sergeant-at-arms to retain order, and that those who ignored it would be arrested. Ceremonial in the fact that it was once used as a weapon long before as a way to whow authority.
But yea it’s always been for the rich.
I am highly unconvinced by STAR. The problem with STAR, as I see it, is that there is no cost to giving a candidate a higher or lower ranking, except that they may beat a more preferred candidate. It’s like Amazon ratings, the most simplistic, extreme voters win. The voters who carefully decide whether a candidate should get two or three stars have a subtle influence, while voters who go “yeah that guy’s great, five stars!” and “no not her, terrible, zero stars!” clearly have an outsized impact, determining the finalists.
With a fully ranked ballot, to vote one candidate higher, you have to vote another lower. I have not seen any convincing argument that any system is better than STV/IRV ranked choice.