The Inmendham Archive

VloggerDome #05 Democracy

Dublin Core

Title

VloggerDome #05 Democracy

Subject

The subject is Democracy. IRV.

Creator

Inmendham: www.youtube.com/user/inmendham
ForeverWolfFilms: www.youtube.com/user/ForeverWolfFilms

Source

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z73vw7-JNU8

Date

Published on Dec 11, 2014
This episode played in Chicago, on CANtv's channel 19 on:
Sun, Jan 11, 2015 9PM
Mon, Jan 12, 2015 4PM
Tue, Jan 27, 2015 5PM
Wed, Jan 28, 2015 12PM
Sat, May 23, 2015 2PM
Wed, May 27, 2015 12:30am

Contributor

glynos: www.youtube.com/user/glynos

Scripto

Transcription

This episode of VloggerDome will be about civilization, really. Democracy is what you come down to as a reasonable, it's better than all the other options, kind of thing, but the idea is what controls the soul, so to speak, of our culture, our civilization. Civilization. It's a really good word. People don't really appreciate it, but that's what you're really talking about. You're trying to do more than just manage the day to day conflicts that come up because people, you know, your neighbor makes too much noise and you have to have some sort of law to prevent your neighbor from trespassing on your peace. So yeah, that's a big part of politics and democracy and law and policy, but another bigger part, I think, another big part, would be whether you're going to do anything ambitious, whether you're going to accomplish anything in terms of science and progress and those investments. You know, some people would say, well if you want to land on the moon, just let the people who want to land on the moon, or want us to, to pay for it. But the problem with that kind of philosophy is that there's many benefits from science and taking chances like that, that the people who didn't pay for it will benefit from. And it's way too complicated to try to excise them from the profits of science, the profits of a cure for a disease for example. You know, because they didn't finance it, should they not be able to use it? You know, it would be way too complicated. So yeah, you kind of have to do these - as just a rational principle, there's a certain straight line kind of efficiency in finding a method that's better than all the other methods, to do this thing about what kind of policy is the best policy. What's the right balance of investment in the future versus the short term gratification. You know, this generation versus, you know, paving the roads for the next generation. And obviously we have a social contract. We've chosen a politics that's exactly kind of the opposite. It's mortgaged the future. It's sold them into a kind of slavery, into debt that somebody's going to have to pay. It's not an un-payable - it's not something that doesn't have to be payed. The interest on it has to be payed. The price has to be payed for that borrowed money. And so the ideology that has ruled the day has been one that has sold out the future, and perhaps if there was a more honest debate in our politics, people would have that in their face, and they would say, yes, if I have a choice to sell the future into slavery, or not, then they would choose more wisely, and not do something so overtly destructive to the future's opportunities. But anyway, that's a more refined argument. The extremes are this kind of anarchy thing, which just isn't possible, so we know we can't really leave it up to individuals to resolve their own conflicts, that you do have to have some sort of governance. And the idea is whether we - the other extreme would be this, a kind of democracy where everybody has a vote, and that you have some kind of direct democracy. The flaw in that is that most people aren't going to be smart enough policy-wise. They're not going to know enough about nuclear power or they're not going to know enough about genetic research or some other subject to be able to rationally vote on policy, law. And you certainly can't negotiate between nations in a public manner, probably. That probably would get quite ugly and messy. And so you have to have some sort of covert deal-making in some circumstances, where every detail can't be made public. But, you know, overall I guess I would argue from a personal level that, yeah, I'm more comfortable with the idea of a direct democracy than I have been in the past, just because our politics has gotten so corrupt. Every politician is just a - I mean they walk in liers. They walk in without any credibility or integrity, and they certainly leave the job with less than what they started with, which makes them pretty much profound criminals. So yeah, versus that, I would accept the, you know, the people voting for lower taxes and higher spending, which would likely be the result of public referendums on policy, is that the public would likely vote for things that were impossible to get, or to have, or to implement. And so there would be sloppiness in that kind of a relationship. I think the rational alternative is just to have some kind of representative democracy, but have one that's actually representative. The current democracy we have just represents two groups of special interest. The democrats and the republicans. Two parties made up of special interest, minority interest, who collectively extort, essentially, policy, to suit them. And for the republicans it's the rich and the religious. And for the democrats it's the lazy, the idealistic, and the silly. But yeah, it's just groups of minorities who cheat their way into power by making it impossible for any party to vote against them. It's like the teacher's union carries enough influence where neither party can afford to offend. So they won’t offend because they can't afford to loose the two or three million votes that could decide a presidential election. Even though presidents don't really have the power. The real power is in the congress and the senate. It's in the legislative bodies, and those are the bodies that can be representative, where we can all be represented rather than have our representation defined by some sort of regional identity. I'm not an ideological individual, I'm apparently the property of a town, a county, and a state, and they'll tell me who I am based on where I live. And, you know, I'm laughing at it because this is a silly way to represent people's ideology, is based on their geography. There should be ideological districts, not geographic districts. The map of the moral territory, so to speak, or the rational territory, or the political territory, has to be mapped based on what we believe, not based on where we live. And they've used these - this archaic system developed in a time when it took half a day to travel twenty miles, and they're using this archaic geographic system that, you know, 250 years ago we did live geographically. We lived in ideological regions. Whole towns, whole states even, were dominated by a particular religion or point of view. Well we're not geographically ideological anymore, for most humans. Maybe the Mormons is an exception, and a few other exceptions, but very few. Yeah, most of us are spread out all over the place ideologically, and those numbers are not represented in the current system we have to represent people. There's minorities numbering in the tens of millions, in terms of points of view, who will never have a voice in congress or the senate because they're a minority in every state they exist in. And so they will remain powerless and voiceless, because we have a democracy that seems oriented only to represent geographic interest. Pork barrel. Some sort of game we play where each state figures out a way to steal more money out of the other states, and get more welfare for their state. Just silly games we play, like we win by stealing Connecticut's money. What logic is it, stealing from other states in our own union. There's no logic in it at all. And that's the system we've been stuck with because of a tradition, because people are afraid to boldly go into the future and create a system that is more representative, that's better. It's an old outhouse of a democracy and it needs to be moderned up. We need to put running water in it, and clean fixtures, and make it sanitary, clean it of all the rubbish and the pork and the cheating and the thieving and the lying and the deception. And we can do that, really simple, with a little bit of application of computer technology, the application of instant runoff voting, which gets rid of the spoiler effect in the necessarily all or nothing races for executive, for president or governor. You know, only one person can be the winner. And in those kinds of elections, sometimes what destroys the election is the running of a third or fourth candidate who steals votes from one side more than the other, and creates what's called a spoiler effect, or an unevenness in the distribution of the opinion that's being taken between the two viable candidates. And so they just end up getting somebody who didn't get the votes, giving them the job, which is overtly wrong. And so by applying instant runoff voting, which is basically an idea where you would have a first and a second or third choice, and that if your first choice candidate is not viable, can't win, then your vote would go to your second choice, and that would eliminate the spoiler effect. And if you take that and combine it with opening up legislative elections to non-geographic districts, and basically, just say there's a hundred seats, and those hundred seats will be held by people who get a sufficient number of votes to hold the seat, and use the same kind of system of instant runoff voting, so you could vote for ten candidates, have them ranked, and your vote will go to the candidate, the highest one on your list. And you have a system for taking care of the fact that some candidates will get more votes than they need, and those will go to the second choice. And the end result is, you can do this all with a computer program to resolve it, but in the end everybody gets a representative. Nobody loses a congressional election. And that's a more honest democracy. It would be a democracy that's certainly going to put some outlandishly, let's say excessive, candidates into the congress, but the excesses - those excesses will be representing real people. You'll have truthers, and racists, and tree-huggers of all kind in the congress. But there's a truth. That's who we are. And those people deserve their voice, they deserve a seat at the table, and a chance to argue and articulate their point of view, and only a cheater would think it should be any other way. Only somebody afraid of a fair fight would be afraid of a racist or a tree-hugger or any other extremist point of view. They should be able to win the argument. They should be able to keep the majority of people from buying into that nonsense, their nonsense, so what are they afraid of? Well they are afraid of the fair fight. They're afraid that their special interest won't survive a fair fight, and that's all it's about. They have a vested interest in keeping a system that protects them, their special interest, their minority interest, from majority correction. And they want to stay special, they want to stay protected, they want to stay cheaters. But that's all it is. I think it can be proven to be that, in every respect, that it's just fear that keeps people from having an honest democracy, for voting for it, understanding the need for it, is that people do see their advantage, they see that they're taking advantage of the system the way it is, and that's why they want to keep it the way it is. You know, people really shouldn't be afraid of a fair fight. You know, I'm just saying, if you have some integrity, you shouldn't be. So anyway, the point is, you implement a simple, a little bit of computer technology, and you can create a system where nobody loses a congressional election, where everybody has somebody in the congress talking their talk, defending their ideals, arguing their argument, and you have a game where people want to participate again. You'll have more people involved in politics, and you'll have a more real conversation taking place in the congress and the senate, instead of this fake political, you know, my good friend from Nevada kind of nonsense, where, no, maybe we should be calling each other a little bit of an asshole now and then, and certainly be arguing with a little more honesty and passion for what we think - why we think the human race should do this or the human race should do that. Why our culture should move in a direction. And yeah, so, I mean if you have spent any time in your life existing in what's called a democracy, and realizing that you don't have, never have had a representative - I've never had a candidate I voted for represent me in congress, and so from my perspective, why would I think this system - I was always told as a youth how bad the Russian system was because they could vote yes or no. Well, what good is any vote at all, if I'm never going to have a representative, what's the point of democracy? It doesn't represent me. These guys are - every guy who's represented me, who's called me his property, his constituent, has been the antithesis of what I believe in, has been saying exactly the opposite of what I advocate, and yet he's doing it with the authority of my vote, even though I voted against him. How is that a democracy, how is that representation? It's not. And we can have it the other way around, where we are represented, where our politics is about what we believe in, not what grass we walk on. And such. So enough of an intro. So I'll mess with some of these words, like fairness, and representation, and see where it goes. Till next time.

#

Alright, today we're discussing democracy, or government, or civilization, and the how to, how do you do it. And my special guest is generic naysayer nitpicker. So hello.

Hi.

So anyway, you, you're against it, right, because you're against everything, because it's all - everybody's corrupt, and we can never fix anything, and you can never do anything, right?

Yeah, that's right, change is stupid, like why would you fix anything, because it's like, it's going to break again anyway, because that's like the rules, you know. It's like that Hitler thing, or something, it's like always - yeah, or you know, whatever - the government did it.

Oh, you mean like that truther stuff, like inside job, it was an inside job, and it was like somebody behind the bushes. And there's always something, right, so you just don't bother thinking about something, and coming up with a plan, and then trying to implement it, right, because that would be like just a waste of time, right?

Yeah, basically. You know, and I'm too lazy, and that takes like thinking and it's just easier for me just to say, it won't work, and, yeah, it's just really easy to do that, right, it's like really easy to tear stuff down, really hard to build things, and so ha ha, you lose.

Yeah, you're right, I probably will lose, that's right, I've been spending a lot of time talking about this. But, so you don't think it would be a good idea to have a change in our democracy. It was invented over 250 years ago, it's basically an outhouse, and we could have like a modern bathroom. You know, we could have running water, and warm air to dry our hands, and all kinds of stuff like that instead of a crude, smelly, dirty, worm-eaten democracy, a literal stage-coach democracy, I mean they were actually driving around in stage-coaches. You know, I mean it's that old. You don't think we could do - just work on it a little bit?

Yeah OK OK OK OK, you can, but you know that sort of sounds like it makes sense, like OK things should be modern, but it's one of those things, like you know, who cares, because you know, it's not personal enough for people, and so unless you make it personal, they don't care.

Yeah, well I get that part, you know, I mean I - it's just that everybody sort of should be vested interest in civilization, you know, their society, especially people who have kids and all this stuff, and profess to care about them. You know, we have government that has, you know, borrowed their livelihood, their work. They've borrowed on the future's work. Essentially enslaved the future. Lots of things like that, you'd think they'd care about these policies that are going to affect their kids, and, you know, how the future is going to function. And it seems that's a personal interest.

Yeah, but I mean personal like cupcakes, and, you know, Kool-aid and stuff, and you know - I don't know, gestures and things. You know, democracy's just not a fun subject, it just doesn't have any - you know, it's not a good movie.

Yeah, well many documentaries are, you know, or serious subjects, might not be a good movie, but it doesn't mean that, you know, it isn't worth doing something about it, and saying something about it, and defending it, and saying, look, we can fix this. You know, we got a couple of simple problems - two party system, special interest. You know, it really has to annoy you that a bunch of liars and hypocrites and duplicitous crooks are running our government, and that we all, like everybody would want to vote for somebody who at least didn't lie to them. I mean, we don't mind if they lie to those people, or lie to them, or lie to them, but we don't want them lying to us. And we basically are electing people who lie to the people who are voting for them. I mean it's really really really bad.

Yeah, but, you know, what are you going to do about it. What's your big plan?

Well the big plan is that you implement instant runoff voting, which gives people pretty much, you know, the power to break the two party system ultimately, and to have a bunch of third party candidates who will be more honest, and will do what they say they're going to do, and all that kind of stuff. It just makes those candidates viable, where now they have a huge disadvantage. Even if you're a great third party candidate, a lot of people won't vote for you, because they know voting for you means they just voted for the other guy. You know, because if you can't win, and they vote for you, then they threw their vote away, and that means people like George W. Bush get elected - or whatever, the young Bush.

Well he isn't that young - anyway - he's just younger than that really old one. But anyway, yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah, it all sounds fine and good, but it's too complicated and too dangerous, and change is dangerous.

Yeah, right, like I haven't heard that before. Yeah, there's some risk that you have to give up some of your special interest perks, and that - your cheats, you won't be able to cheat anymore. You might have a fair democracy, and you know, that's sort of what everybody should, again - everybody should be able to put up their hand and say, I want a fair civilization, I don't want a cheat, I want to earn it.

Yeah, well, people don't like earning. Earning things is - you know, usually that means you have to go to work, and do stuff, and you have to be honest, and that's - you know, it's much easier just to cheat your way through, because everybody's, you know, kind of selfish, and that's sort of the way it works.

Yeah, well, I'm not going to say that's the way it should work, so yeah, no, we can do better than that. I think if everybody looks inside themselves, they're going to say they want better than that. They want to earn it. You know, they want a fair fight. They want to win a fair fight. Yeah, you know, that's not asking too much. And instant runoff voting is a way of making the fight fair.

Yeah, all right, whatever, so what else, what else you got - you must have something more than that.

Yeah, the other problem with a democracy besides the two party control that the, you know, instant runoff voting helps break, is this geographic thing. We vote geographically, because in the old days, you didn't have a choice. Didn't have computers, didn't have telephones, didn't have any kind of electronics whatsoever, so you really couldn't do anything sophisticated. You just had people put their X on a piece of paper, and put it in a box, and it was a lousy system, and we pretty much have the same lousy system. We have people poke holes in little pieces of paper, and vote, and it's really just, just nonsense, and there's all kinds of room for cheating, because nothing's really - you really don't get a receipt that means anything. You don't even have proof they counted your vote. So, but we can do better than that. We can have a system where you're really registered, and your vote, you can see exactly where it goes, and it's all in a big computer data-base somewhere, and, but the more important part is that we don't have to do it this old way anymore, we can do it a more modern way where we're not tied to just our geography. I mean, right now we vote in geographic districts, and that's really all that's getting represented. You're having, you know, fifty state elections, and then you have all the counties in all those states, and basically you're just polling the same majority. You're basically just saying, who's the majority in the district, geographically. And you're saying, let's give them all the votes, let's give them all the power, so whoever the majority is in a district is the winner. And we know that there's this basic liberal/conservative divide that might exist on certain social issues, and so you can basically have some sense of diversity produced out of that system, but it's all basically the same majority, and all minority issues will get no representation whatsoever. There won't be any cigarette smokers and advocates of cigarette smoking in the congress because cigarette smokers aren't geographically segregated, so they're not going to have representation. Black people in this country wouldn't have any representation if it wasn't for the fact that they are geographically segregated, that they have dense populations in geographic areas, and that's where they gain their representation, for the most part - 98% of their representation.

#

Alright, so it's me again. Yeah, surprise. Anyway, OK so, democracy. Another way of saying it, another way to put it. That we don't have a representative democracy, in the sense that we're only representing people's geography essentially. The same majority, as I said, gets to always win. You know, they always get to - there's certain things, there's sacred cows that can't be touched because neither party can afford to offend the majority of people. And so many minority opinions will never gain any respect in the legislative bodies. So, essentially, many special interests, minority interests, can hide behind that shield, like the teacher's union, or government employees, or the military, or cops, or a lot of things where there wouldn't be as broad a support as there is, in the sense there wouldn't be as decisive, like 90% of the congress will reflect a certain opinion that only 60% of the people in the whole country actually respect. So things that only have a 60% majority end up having a super majority in congress, because of this idea of asking the same majority in every district what their opinion is, and giving them essentially a Veto of anybody who says anything out of line. Democrats have to tow a certain line, republicans have to tow a certain line, and both of them can't afford to offend certain special interests and expect to get elected. It's just that - they have to be baby kissers essentially. There might be one third of the population might hate baby kissing, but they're not going to gain any traction as their opinion will never be heard, or never mentioned, or never seen, because in every political district the majority of people are going to be baby kissing likers, and they're going to say, you can't get elected unless you're, you know, unless you're nice to the babies, kind of a thing. I'm not suggesting that babies deserve any bad treatment, I'm just suggesting that there's a certain simplicity, a certain kind of Idiocracy of the common people that keeps basically saying, keep your intellectual ideas out of the congress, keep your skepticism out of the congress, keep your criticism out of the congress, keep any of your, you know, not pop culture ideas out of this melting-pot, politically. And that's basically the insidious and destructive, corrosive effect of having democracy by geographic district. So, if you think about it for a while you can kind of understand that representation isn't going to be about where you live, it's going to be about what you think, and congress has got to reflect ideological districts, not geographic districts if it's going to have any hope of representing people, because people aren't where they live, they're what they believe and what they think. And that's what our democracy should strive to do, is represent people's beliefs, not basically close out anyone who has a minority opinion, even though that minority opinion might number in tens of millions of people. Ten or twenty percent of the population. Thirty percent. Very large minorities' populations are excluded from the political system, because of the way we're doing it - geographically. And people, fair-minded people, people who kind of understand that's probably why so many people don't vote, is because they don't see what they believe in on the ballot, and they don't see somebody talking the kind of talk they want to hear, from either party, and so they have no reason to vote, because they don't see a dime's worth of difference, they just hear a bunch of lying, baby kissing mumbo jumbo, and they don't hear anything about changing anything, or really fixing anything. Doing anything. Or at least arguing in defense of something. I guess that's part of this, is that it's more about where the compromise happens. Under the current system, the compromise happens before you have an argument. Essentially, you're compromised by given two lousy choices, you know, rotten and stinking rotten, and, you know, democrat and republican, and that's it. You're compromised. You have to, you know, break - you have to decide, well do I compromise 80% of what I believe in, or do I compromise 99% of what I believe in. You know, because there's only going to be one or two percent of the things these people will say, two percent of their sentences, that you might be able to support. And instead we should just have this, you know, a system that's - basically just there's a hundred people in the congress, let's say. It can be any number, 200? It doesn't matter. And those two hundred people essentially become composites of the entire population of the country. And so each one represents their share of the population, the 500,000 people, let's say, and they have to get 500,000 votes. So I could use an example, like Jack Kevorkian, kind of a bold character in Michigan. He ran for congress and failed to get elected. But because he was a nationally known character, figure, and had a very strong political cause, if he ran in a national election, where people from any state could vote for him, he would have got elected to congress. There certainly would have been 500,000 people in the country who would have thought highly enough of Jack Kevorkian to think he deserved a seat in the congress. And so those 500 people would be represented, those 500,000 people. Where he might only have 50,000 in the state of Michigan that would support him, across the entire nation he would have many more. And so that's an example of an individual of good character and passionate philosophy who would have, who could be in congress - people like that, of that character, could be in congress, people who aren't democrats or republicans, people who are just smart, and can, you know, make an argument. And that's really what you want. You want to have an argument. Compromise might be inevitable in many cases, you might have to have an up or down vote on war, or some other issue in the congress, and somebody's going to have to take a stand one way or the other, so there will be a compromise, you won't be able to just sit on the fence. But the compromise should happen after you've had the argument. And the arguments that take place in congress are not ideologically fair. They're always slanted toward this common denominator majority interest and have no - there's nobody passionately arguing in defense of these minority interests, because these minority interests aren't what gets people elected. And that's the unfortunate fact. Both parties don't represent cigarette smokers. Both parties don't represent the environment in many ways. Both parties are hostile about doing something realistic about immigration. Both of them have a vested interest. The republicans have a vested interest in destroying the wage base, and the democrats have some sort of liberal tree-huggy interest in some kind of notions of, you know, multiculturalism and the rights of the oppressed, the rights of them to bring their oppression with them, their baggage. But anyway, so both parties are of no value to somebody who thinks we've imported enough imports, and that we don't need any more imports. Neither party's going to do you any good if you really believe that, because both of them have basically sold out to a vested interest in destroying wages, and, you know, creating some sort of preposterously huge welfare state. So anyway, that's a side subject, obviously. So, yeah, the idea is that, again, the focus should just be, to understand, is that the democracy was created hundreds of years ago, actually hundreds of years ago. Alright, Thomas Jefferson was a very smart man, but he didn't have much to work with, OK, he had a crude system where, you know, all you could do was vote geographically. There was no - there was no telephone, no telegraph, no instant messaging. None of that happened. So there was no way to have elections any other way than locally, and to have local people govern those elections. And, but we don't have to have that system anymore to elect state legislatures, or to elect congressional and senatorial bodies. Those - it doesn't have to be a winner take all district vote anymore. It can be a, only people who get a positive vote go in. It can be an everybody wins election. Everybody, you can't - you can't all win the presidential election, it's a yes or no thing, it's got to be one guy, blah blah blah. But we can all win congressional elections, we can all have a guy who represents us. Somebody we voted for, not somebody we voted against. And it's a key improvement. If you want to have a civilization, if you want people to be - if you want to have people to have an incentive to vote, to care about politics again, to care about their country and their culture, if you want people to be accountable, and to feel the pressure of putting people in congress that they’re going to be responsible for, they're not going to have the out of saying, I didn't have a choice, anymore. So if they elect a jerk, they're going to be responsible for what damage that jerk does. That's the world we can have. We can have a world where we are honest, and have a real debate about real subjects that people really care about, instead of having this compromised, you know, just vacuous, silly, redundant, ineffectual both argument and policy that currently comes out of the congress and the senate. They constantly backslide, their hypocrisy is grotesque, you know, they reform and fix nothing, and if they ever do accidentally fix something, they break it again, you know, as soon as the special interest yells loud enough in their ear. So yeah, we can have a much better democracy, and it just takes really simple fix, and it's a fix that will make you feel much more connected to your country and its governance. And again, just the idea of somebody actually making an argument you understand, and you can respect, in the congress, I think will make you feel better about your country, about your - about being part of the system. Even if you lose in terms of the ultimate policy, and you get outvoted, you'll at least feel like you had that fair argument, a fair chance to persuade. And we can't ask for much more than that, and it should be the minimum we demand is at least the opportunity to make the argument, the opportunity to have our fair seat at the table of, you know, power, and to have our guy make our argument sincerely and competently, instead of having some lying fraud, political hack lie. Yeah, because that's all they do. You know, I think we would already have a congress that was obligated to take polygraph tests and do all kinds of things to demonstrate their integrity, if we had such a system, because, yeah, I would certainly vote for a guy who said, yeah, I'll take a polygraph every six months, and I'll pass it, and what I'll say is that I didn't violate anyone's constitutional rights, I didn't molest anybody, I didn't steal from anybody, and I didn't lie to the people who voted for me. And we can have candidates that have at least enough balls to put it on the line, to take - to take the minimum stand of an imperfect test to demonstrate that they're not afraid to be tested on the veracity, and their honesty. And I think you'd find that all the politicians that exist now are horribly dishonest, they see the corruption, they know, they see the thievery, they see it every day, they know about it and they don't do anything to fix it, because they're all in on it. They're all taking a cut. And we can have honest men in congress. I'm certainly going to vote for an honest man. Are you? If I had the chance. I can certainly tell the honest from the dishonest. I can certainly tell that every democrat is a dishonest weasel, and I can certainly tell that every republican is a greedy selfish bastard. I can see that with my eyes. And so I know not to vote for either one of those cruddy sacks of crap. So anyway, that's probably enough. So this wasn't exactly the VloggerDome we intended, so I'll throw that in. But, better - we'll do better next time, or the time after that. But anyway, eventually we'll get there. So yeah, I could do details, I could show you how the computer would work, I could show you the algorithms, I could show you all that stuff, but really is there any point? I mean you either understand that it's an archaic democracy that needs improvement, or you don't. I mean, you either - you either want to go to the moon, or you don't. There's no point in me explaining to you how, you know, you can save fuel by orbiting the moon, and then you - there's no point in me explaining the details of it, right? The only thing I'm saying to you is that it's easily done, and we'll have a better democracy, we'll have an honest democracy, and you either want that or you don't. You're either a cheater, OK, or you're a fair guy who wants a fair fight. Yeah. Those are your two options. Good guy, bad guy. Which one are you? Anyway, or a girl. Yeah, we gave women the vote, right? Yeah, we did. So at least we got that done. But yeah, small progress, really, if you think about the 200 years, such small progress, and that's because the same ignorant masses have been driving the bus of our civilization for way too long, and it's time to let the smaller minority have a louder voice. Yeah, let's have Einstein in congress. Yeah. Good idea. Even a dead Einstein is better than the crap now, right? If we dug up Einstein, that would make a better politician than the crap that's in there now. Yeah. Till next time.

#

Yeah, yeah, this all, see, that just sounds so complainy. You know, and all this, it's all this, you know, whatever, liberal kind of thing, like oh yeah, we need to give people, you know, rights and stuff, and eh.

Yeah, well that wasn't much of an argument. You can't do better than that? Yeah, you need to give people rights, that's right, people - people's beliefs and their ideology is what should be represented by our government. And there is the alternative of just having a direct democracy, where you just allow people to vote online. You could have bills presented, referendums presented, you could have a system that allows that to happen. I personally don't think it's the best choice, I think representatives mean that there's going to be more attention to detail, and representatives are going to be more knowledgeable about the bills they're voting on, but versus the corruption we have now, I would vote for a representative democracy before the terrible corruption and lying and cheating we have now.

Yeah, but, it's just easy just to say, eh forget it, I don't want to change anything. It's just really easy to do that.

Yeah, well I'm not arguing it's not easy to say, let's not change anything. But I'm saying that shouldn't - can't you see, can't you, you know, get it, that it's an old archaic system, and that we could empower people, and that people would be motivated to be part of the democracy, and to vote, and to pay attention to bills, and all this stuff, because you would have a real representative, and your name would be on it. Your reputation would be part of the deal, because when you elected a representative to a legislative body, whether it be for a state legislature, or the congress, it would be all positive votes, and they would be real constituents, with actual names, and addresses, and identities. And those candidates would have to be accountable to those voters, and they would need those voters to come back the next time to re-elect them.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, you know, that sounds like, you know, we should care, and it sounds like, you know, I can sort of sense that there's probably some kind of obligation to give a shit, but I just can't.

Yeah, well I can't do anything - I can't do anything about that. I can't make you care about, you know, having a democracy where issues are really argued, and they're argued publicly, and they're argued fairly. I mean, a fair battlefield of ideas is really what we should be after. All Americans, all people who think they believe in this idea of freedom, and democracy, and rights, and all that kind of stuff should want a fair fight, which means you get a fair argument before you have a fair vote, and we don't have that now, because we compromise people right out of the argument with a two party system that disenfranchises half the population in every election. Half the people are forced to have a representative that is the antithesis of their beliefs. I mean, why should somebody be able to call themselves my representative when I hate their guts?

Well if you're going to ask me why questions, you know this is really going to - not going to go too far, because I don't really feel like answering a why question. Why, because - because that's the way it is.

Yeah, well, the whole argument is that it shouldn't be that way.

Yeah, I know, but, you know, there's other benefits to just leaving things alone. It's, you know - it's safe. You can't get in any more trouble - any more trouble than we're already in.

Yeah, and you also can't fix anything, and you just leave everything broken, so then you can just endlessly complain about the same crap over and over and over and over, for ever and ever and ever. I've heard people complaining about things for 40-50 years, and the complaints are the same complaints, and they - but they don't do anything to fix anything, so yeah, they just keep complaining.

Yeah, well that's, that's - people like to, people like to be able to do that. You know, so they like to just blame everything on corruption or something, and then they don't have to take any responsibility, and they can just say, I didn't do it, that guy did it. So maybe they want it that way.

Yeah, well that's sort of the argument I'm making, is that's what it appears, is that people want a broken, corrupt system, so they can just say they didn't have anything to do with it, even though they're voting for it, they're maintaining it, because they don't do anything to support initiatives to fix it. Yeah.

Yeah, well, you know, exactly. But, you know, it's what people, people, like I said, they just don't want to be bothered. It's not fun enough. This isn't entertaining enough. This whole thing, this whole subject thing, this whole arguing thing, this whole - this isn't fun.

Yeah, I realize that. But again, it's not supposed to be. And it's only - if it is, it only is because you force it to be. This is the compromise that you - you know, we're allowing certain special interests, certain lowest common denominator types to define agendas, and we're letting them do that without even calling them jerks, without even having an opportunity to call them a jerk before they ruin the game with their laziness, and their sloppiness, and their lack of ambition, and their lack of will to be better or to do better.

Yeah, well, so you're saying that if you had the opportunity to humiliate me publicly for being a lazy jerk, that maybe I wouldn't be a lazy jerk?

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. That's right. That's right, and that's the same thing with policy. Really dumb policy, and stupid ideas, and bigotry, and racism, and all kinds of negative things that exist out there, in all kinds of subtle and not so subtle ways, should be argued in public, and they should be argued aggressively and passionately by people who actually care, not a bunch of hypocrites.

Yeah, well, that might be, that might be entertaining. You know, if people in congress actually really, sincerely hated each other, because they sincerely cared about something, that might be interesting.

Yeah, I think you would like it, so as much as you're a naysayer, and a nitpicker, and a useless jerk, I think you would find it a much more engaging system if you opened it up, and allow there to be, you know, an ideological representation in our democracy. You know, represent us for who we are, not where we live, and allow us the liberty to have our actual votes counted, in the sense of allow us to vote for candidates based on their merit, not on their viability.

Yeah, perceived viability too, right, that's even the funny thing about a spoiler, right, is that it's just a perception, right, if people could actually believe they could win, then they could win, but they can't win because people can't believe they can win. So, you know, we really do ruin it for you, don't we?

Yeah, you do. So anyway, we can do better than that. That's the point. And so we should fix the system with two easy policies that basically allow you to have a ranked voting system and to vote for candidates outside of districts to be your representative, to have winner not - to get rid of the winner take all elections for legislative bodies, and just represent people based on their ideology, and it would be all affirmative votes that get them in, so they can't steal somebody else's votes. They can't steal the votes of a district. They have to actually earn the votes of people. And instant runoff voting, and we can get rid of the - this two party hold on power, and have a better civilization. Yeah. That's probably enough. You don't have anything else to say, right?

Yeah, no, just, you know, vote for nothing. Do nothing. Be nothing. Think nothing. Yeah, I'm for that.

Yeah, I know, you're a jerk, and an idiot, and a moron, and a menace. And that's the real thing, right, you're just a menace. All these people who just keep saying things like, power corrupts absolutely, or there's no honest men, or there's no - you know, all these clichés just get in our way. It can be better, we can make it better, and all you have to do is say, yeah, I'm for that, instead of saying - instead of nitpicking, and naysaying. So anyway, that should do it. Till next time, and such.

Items in the VloggerDome #05 Democracy Collection

There are currently no items within this collection.

Social Bookmarking

Comments

Allowed tags: <p>, <a>, <em>, <strong>, <ul>, <ol>, <li>

Collection Tree