[FRIAM] Is the American political system broken?

[Pieter Steenekamp]

Steve asked me:

*Pieter - I appreciate the international parallax that Friam (sometimes)
offers such as yours here.   I'd be interested in a little more of your own
analysis based on your personal socio-economic-political position as well
as your cultural heritage and of course your geopolitical positioning which
is rather unique in the world (South Africa).  ChatGPT's perspective is
naturally pretty generic/muddy and from a median/centroid POV by it's
nature?*

>From my own African perspective I consider the American political system as
just great. It's certainly far better than the best we have in Africa.

But that does not mean I consider the American system perfect.

Crony capitalism, as observed in the United States, is characterized by the
close ties between politicians, government officials, and powerful
corporations. These relationships often result in policies that
disproportionately benefit large businesses, impeding competition and
exacerbating income inequality.

In contrast, Scandinavian countries boast robust business environments
alongside high taxes that fund extensive social services.

While I cannot vouch for the specific proposals put forth by Andrew Yang, I
believe it is essential to engage in a constructive debate about enhancing
the political system.


On Mon, 4 Sept 2023 at 03:55, Gillian Densmore <gil.densmore at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Yes! The Op wrote long and, frankly, to theoretical a email to ask why
> american politics is so [redacted because steve asked nicely].
> It boils down to greed, and no accountability, what are effectively
> guaranteed contracts get a cushy job for 2-4 years at a time.  The dumb way
> people say "that side over their blocked my ridiculous microphallus
> compensating bill to be a big fat jerk as revenge for Karen not going out
> with me, so now i'll have tantrum."
> -as mere mortal citizens: we can't vote/fire them if they do an awful job.
> -they constantly tell a big pack of lies
> -they pick the most ridiculous things to have a stuck thing about.
> -Show boat and act like bullies, with sound bites to sound cool with no
> substance.
> -multiple decades strait of the same fundamentally broken ways of doing
> things.
> -lol not very many well adjusted people go into politics as a result of
> the god awful "wretched hive of scum and villainy.".
> Ranked choice voting, I suspect, alas alas, would confuse people...and I
> want to be wrong very desperately about that line of thinking. Man, how
> many people vote absentee so they can read up on what the bills are? What
> particular pack of nonsense, who is selling, and it sucks a ton that it
> feels so...soul degradingly terrible: that I for one have picked a few
> people only because the rest were so much worse.
>   I think the leadership, top to bottom, is only going to get better when
> dweebs like Kevin Mcarthy aren't on TV bragging about "forcing the poor and
> unfortunate to work" (reality check: did he even read or think about that
> sound bite?)
> And pick from who and who and who?  So ok 45 SOMEHOW gets in because of I
> can't even guess why.  Sooo who else would I pick from?  Is the RNC going
> to have what amunts to 3 compete brands of bad on the same ticket?  What
> about the DNC?
>
>
> This sucks to type:  My hunch is people are picking the most sucky people
> because how cool they sound, or (I kid you not) being rich and white.  :(
> I suspect it'd then be 3 bitter, angry old white dudes vs I can't even
> guess what. and that sucks.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 3, 2023 at 3:12 PM Steve Smith <sasmyth at swcp.com> wrote:
>
>> Wow Qadaffi hisself!   I've read some Marx, some Lenin, some Mao, some
>> Castro and others (enemies of democracy in the US vernacular) but this is
>> new to me... thanks for the reference.
>>
>> I definitely find "Democracy is the tyranny of the majority over the
>> minority" to be apt for all forms of democracy, with 2-party systems and
>> charismatic/populist (elected) leaders to be the worst extreme of this,
>> with multi-party systems improving it piecewise but not perfectly.
>>
>> The representative nature of the US House/Senate and of Parliaments adds
>> another dimension to the problem while aggravating the underlying problem.
>>
>> A *direct* democracy (if that is possible) still suffers the "tyranny"
>> problem, I sure don't want to be one of the 49 against the 51 having to do
>> everything "their way" "because majority".
>>
>> But then Churchill's "worst form of government, except for all the others
>> we've tried to date" still holds me in it's thrall even if my higher self
>> wishes for something better if acutely underspecified.
>> On 9/3/23 3:47 PM, Sarbajit Roy wrote:
>>
>> In this context, I would like to share the thoughts of an important world
>> leader (not very popular with successive US governments) on 1 party, 2
>> party and multi-party systems. I found his (poorly translated) analysis
>> very perceptive even if the alternatives he proposed instead were a bit
>> prosaic. (For the USA substitute Congress / Senate for Parliament).
>>
>> *Parliaments, therefore, have become a means of plundering and usurping
>> the authority of the people. It has thus become the right of the people to
>> struggle, through popular revolution, to destroy such instruments – the
>> so-called parliamentary assemblies which usurp democracy and sovereignty,
>> and which stifle the will of the people. The masses have the right to
>> proclaim reverberantly the new principle: no representation in lieu of the
>> people.*
>>
>> *If parliament is formed from one party as a result of its winning an
>> election, it becomes a parliament of the winning party and not of the
>> people. It represents the party and not the people, and the executive power
>> of the parliament becomes that of the victorious party and not of the
>> people. The same is true of the parliament of proportional representation
>> in which each party holds a number of seats proportional to their success
>> in the popular vote. The members of the parliament represent their
>> respective parties and not the people, and the power established by such a
>> coalition is the power of the combined parties and not that of the people.
>> Under such systems, the people are the victims whose votes are vied for by
>> exploitative competing factions who dupe the people into political circuses
>> that are outwardly noisy and frantic, but inwardly powerless and
>> irrelevant. Alternatively, the people are seduced into standing in long,
>> apathetic, silent queues to cast their ballots in the same way that they
>> throw waste paper into dustbins. This is the traditional democracy
>> prevalent in the whole world, whether it is represented by a one-party,
>> two-party, multiparty or non-party system. Thus it is clear that
>> representation is a fraud.*
>>
>> *Moreover, since the system of elected parliaments is based on propaganda
>> to win votes, it is a demagogic system in the real sense of the word. Votes
>> can be bought and falsified. Poor **people are unable to compete in the
>> election campaigns, and the result is that only the rich get elected.
>> Assemblies constituted by appointment or hereditary succession do not fall
>> under any form of democracy. *
>>
>>
>> https://ia801507.us.archive.org/4/items/TheGreenBookMuammarGaddafi/gaddafi-green-book.pdf
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 3, 2023 at 10:31 PM Steve Smith <sasmyth at swcp.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I'm not an American, but because America plays such a big role in the
>>> world, I do follow what's happening over there. With the presidential
>>> elections happening next year, I cringe at the prospect that it will be
>>> another Trump vs. Biden affair. Can the leader of the world not do better?
>>>
>>> Pieter -
>>>
>>> I appreciate the international parallax that Friam (sometimes) offers
>>> such as yours here.   I'd be interested in a little more of your own
>>> analysis based on your personal socio-economic-political position as well
>>> as your cultural heritage and of course your geopolitical positioning which
>>> is rather unique in the world (South Africa).  ChatGPT's perspective is
>>> naturally pretty generic/muddy and from a median/centroid POV by it's
>>> nature?
>>>
>>> Regarding Yang and his movement:   I was definitely fascinated by his
>>> ideas and positioning across the US Democratic party presidential primary
>>> (2020)...  my personal opinion is that a significant value of presidential
>>> primaries is to develop a more diverse/interesting platform than the one in
>>> place under (any) current administration.   We have just finished watching
>>> Netflix's *Borgen* which I highly recommend as an accessible (and I
>>> hope accurate) presentation of how (Northern?) European Parliamentary
>>> systems operate.   To move from our system to a parliamentary alternative
>>> is a much bigger step than anything Yang suggests and therefore likely more
>>> inaccessable across the "semi-adjacent possible".
>>>
>>> Two-Party:    I am a big fan of finding a way to expand our degenerate
>>> two-party system but am not sure that any specific naive attempt to break
>>> it will not have some possibly signfiicant unintended (undesireable)
>>> consequences.   I *like* the idea of ranked choice voting (as a voter) to
>>> be able to more directly express my preferences and in an ideal(ish) world,
>>> to achieve a more representative result.   A *full* rank-choice allows me
>>> to (implicitly) express my never-X-er sentiments which is satisfying (if
>>> not particularly meaningful?).   I voted for Jill/Green in 2016 because I
>>> strongly believed that Blue/Hillary/Dems had a lockin in my state and it
>>> was intended to be a combination of "protest" against the Clinton dynasty
>>> and the two-party system.   It turned out fine but it could have been a bit
>>> of complicity accidentally being a "spoiler" vote.
>>>
>>> Universal Basic:  I am very split on this concept.   To the extent that
>>> I think we are a hyper-wealthy economy (US and the rest of the first world
>>> at least) I believe we *can* afford this, and there are good reasons it
>>> *might* be a very good idea (up to details).   I feel that we do have some
>>> precedents in smaller contexts such as the Alaskan Oil&Gas payments and
>>> various Native Tribe member-payments.   I think our (sometimes)
>>> liberal/generous disability and welfare systems might well be partially
>>> replaced by a UBI...   allowing some of those who might be *gaming* the
>>> systems to simply accept the same (or even diminished) level of support as
>>> an act of generosity or inclusion by others who are more engaged in the
>>> directly productive subsystems/activities.  I also think this is a good way
>>> to support more "seeking your bliss" (e.g. artists and poets and ... doing
>>> their thing with less threshold/resistance) as well as entrepreneurial
>>> activiites.   A UBI might allow *some* entrepreneurs/innovators to build up
>>> more technological/innovational momentum...  I *do* believe that  the more
>>> extreme implementation of communism/socialism give us anecdotal evidence of
>>> how it can also go bad.
>>>
>>>     Regarding Term Limits... I'm sympathetic with the idea that
>>> sometimes "career politicians" are a real problem/scourge (the alligators
>>> in the swamp) but I do appreciate at least a few of the "career"
>>> politicians of note (e.g. Sanders, Warren, Whitehouse, even Biden) and
>>> loathe a few others (Grassley, McConnell, Thurmond...   as I understand the
>>> intention/operation of the House/Senate... I think long-tenure Senators
>>> make more sense even though some of the fossils in those roles can be acute
>>> problems for our process.
>>>
>>> Open Primaries and Electoral College issues are also important but maybe
>>> lost among the other issues.   I have not ever voted in a primary because I
>>> have never registered in a party (protest primarily against 2-party system
>>> and "not wanting to encourage the bastards").  That said I *would* have
>>> liked to have thrown down for Bernie in 2016 and 2020 primaries and came
>>> close to registering Blue/Dem to do so but ("don't want to encourage the
>>> bastards").  I think the Electoral College is a very high profile but
>>> idiosyncratic version of the more general problem of Gerrymandering that
>>> goes with representative gov/voting.  I hope the EC is on it's way out but
>>> I suspect the path *to* that elimination is awkward and risk-strewn.
>>>
>>>     The major downsides I consider have a lot to do with "*how do we
>>> get there from here?*" and the risk of perturbations having unintended
>>> consequences which brings us back to "nudge" theory, encouraging very
>>> small, incremental adoptions.   I think Yang is *deliberately* naive or
>>> over-simplifying and if he were actually given some reins to control this
>>> runaway stagecoach of fools that we are, he would be more thoughtful and
>>> restrained than implied by some of his more strong proposals (for
>>> rhetorical/political purposes).
>>>
>>> In any case, I think his "voice" has been important as one of the
>>> stronger outliers (including Pete Buttegeig, Marianne Williamson and Tulsi
>>> Gabbard) and welcome his continued efforts even if they fail to get
>>> immediate/direct traction.
>>>
>>> Ramble,
>>>
>>>  - Steve
>>>
>>>
>>> During the primaries of the last election, Andrew Yang intrigued me to
>>> no end. He did not make it as a candidate for the Democratic Party and
>>> subsequently formed a new party. He is now an outspoken critic of the
>>> American political system and has some proposals on how to fix it.
>>>
>>> To educate myself I asked Bing AI to write three essays:
>>> a) One for Andrew Yang's views
>>> b) One against it
>>> c) Lastly an objective review of the two views above
>>>
>>> Bing AI answered with:
>>> I'm glad you're interested in learning more about Andrew Yang's view on
>>> the American political system. I can help you write three essays based on
>>> the information I found from the web. Here they are:
>>>
>>> a) Essay for Andrew Yang's view:
>>>
>>> Andrew Yang is a former presidential and mayoral candidate who has
>>> recently launched a new political party called Forward (or FWD). Yang
>>> believes that the American political system is broken and needs to be
>>> reformed to reduce polarization, corruption, and dysfunction. He argues
>>> that the current two-party system is outdated and does not represent the
>>> interests of most Americans, who are increasingly dissatisfied with both
>>> Democrats and Republicans. He also claims that the system is rigged by
>>> special interests, lobbyists, and wealthy donors who influence the policies
>>> and outcomes of elections.
>>>
>>> Yang's solution is to create a third party that is focused on moving the
>>> country forward, rather than left or right. He proposes a set of reforms
>>> that he thinks will improve the quality of democracy and governance in the
>>> U.S. Some of these reforms include:
>>>
>>> - Implementing ranked-choice voting, which allows voters to rank
>>> candidates in order of preference, rather than choosing only one. This
>>> would encourage more diversity and competition in the political arena, and
>>> reduce the spoiler effect and negative campaigning.
>>> - Adopting open primaries, which allow voters to participate in any
>>> party's primary election, regardless of their affiliation. This would
>>> increase voter turnout and engagement, and give more voice and power to
>>> independent and moderate voters.
>>> - Enacting term limits for Congress, which would limit the number of
>>> terms that members of the House and Senate can serve. This would reduce the
>>> influence of career politicians and lobbyists, and encourage more fresh and
>>> innovative ideas and perspectives.
>>> - Creating a universal basic income (UBI), which would provide every
>>> American adult with a monthly payment of $1,000, regardless of their income
>>> or employment status. This would help alleviate poverty, inequality, and
>>> insecurity, and boost the economy and consumer spending.
>>> - Reforming the electoral college, which would either abolish or modify
>>> the system that determines the winner of presidential elections based on
>>> state-level votes, rather than popular votes. This would make every vote
>>> count equally, and prevent scenarios where a candidate can win the
>>> presidency without winning the majority of votes.
>>>
>>> Yang believes that these reforms will create a more responsive,
>>> representative, and accountable political system that will serve the common
>>> good of all Americans. He hopes that his new party will attract voters from
>>> across the political spectrum who are looking for a positive and pragmatic
>>> alternative to the status quo.
>>>
>>> b) Essay against Andrew Yang's view:
>>>
>>> Andrew Yang is a former presidential and mayoral candidate who has
>>> recently launched a new political party called Forward (or FWD). Yang
>>> claims that the American political system is broken and needs to be
>>> reformed to reduce polarization, corruption, and dysfunction. However, his
>>> view is misguided and unrealistic for several reasons.
>>>
>>> First, Yang's diagnosis of the problem is oversimplified and
>>> exaggerated. He blames the two-party system for all the ills of American
>>> politics, but ignores the fact that there are many other factors that
>>> contribute to the challenges facing the country, such as social media,
>>> misinformation, cultural differences, economic forces, global events, etc.
>>> He also fails to acknowledge the benefits and achievements of the two-party
>>> system, such as its stability, adaptability, accountability, and
>>> responsiveness to public opinion.
>>>
>>> Second, Yang's solution is impractical and ineffective. He proposes a
>>> set of reforms that he thinks will improve the quality of democracy and
>>> governance in the U.S., but does not explain how he will implement them or
>>> overcome the resistance from the existing parties and institutions. He also
>>> does not address the potential drawbacks and unintended consequences of his
>>> reforms, such as:
>>>
>>> - Ranked-choice voting could lead to more confusion and complexity for
>>> voters and election officials, as well as more legal challenges and
>>> disputes over vote counting and results.
>>> - Open primaries could undermine party cohesion and identity, as well as
>>> allow for strategic voting and manipulation by opposing parties or factions.
>>> - Term limits for Congress could reduce institutional knowledge and
>>> expertise, as well as increase dependence on staff and lobbyists.
>>> - Universal basic income could create disincentives for work and
>>> productivity, as well as increase government spending and debt.
>>> - Reforming the electoral college could weaken federalism and state
>>> sovereignty, as well as increase regional polarization and alienation.
>>>
>>> Yang's new party is unlikely to succeed or make a significant impact on
>>> American politics. He faces many obstacles and challenges in building a
>>> viable third party that can compete with the established parties, such as
>>> fundraising, organizing, recruiting candidates, gaining media attention,
>>> attracting voters, etc. He also risks splitting or diluting the vote of his
>>> supporters or allies in other parties, which could benefit his opponents or
>>> adversaries.
>>>
>>> Yang's view on the American political system is based on wishful
>>> thinking and naive optimism. He does not offer a realistic or effective way
>>> to address the complex and multifaceted issues facing the country.
>>>
>>> c) Objective review of the two views above:
>>>
>>> Andrew Yang is a former presidential and mayoral candidate who has
>>> recently launched a new political party called Forward (or FWD). Yang has a
>>> view that the American political system is broken and needs to be reformed
>>> to reduce polarization, corruption, and dysfunction. He proposes a set of
>>> reforms that he thinks will improve the quality of democracy and governance
>>> in the U.S., such as ranked-choice voting, open primaries, term limits for
>>> Congress, universal basic income, and reforming the electoral college. He
>>> hopes that his new party will attract voters from across the political
>>> spectrum who are looking for a positive and pragmatic alternative to the
>>> status quo.
>>>
>>> However, Yang's view is not universally accepted or supported. There are
>>> many arguments and counterarguments for and against his view and his
>>> reforms. Some of the main points of contention are:
>>>
>>> - The causes and extent of the problem: Yang blames the two-party system
>>> for all the ills of American politics, but others point out that there are
>>> many other factors that contribute to the challenges facing the country,
>>> such as social media, misinformation, cultural differences, economic
>>> forces, global events, etc. They also argue that the two-party system has
>>> some benefits and achievements, such as its stability, adaptability,
>>> accountability, and responsiveness to public opinion.
>>> - The feasibility and effectiveness of the solution: Yang proposes a set
>>> of reforms that he thinks will improve the quality of democracy and
>>> governance in the U.S., but others question how he will implement them or
>>> overcome the resistance from the existing parties and institutions. They
>>> also warn of the potential drawbacks and unintended consequences of his
>>> reforms, such as confusion, complexity, legal challenges, party
>>> fragmentation, strategic voting, loss of institutional knowledge,
>>> dependence on staff and lobbyists, disincentives for work, increased
>>> government spending and debt, weakened federalism and state sovereignty,
>>> increased regional polarization and alienation, etc.
>>> - The viability and impact of the new party: Yang hopes that his new
>>> party will succeed or make a significant impact on American politics, but
>>> others doubt his ability to build a viable third party that can compete
>>> with the established parties. They cite the many obstacles and challenges
>>> he faces in fundraising, organizing, recruiting candidates, gaining media
>>> attention, attracting voters, etc. They also caution that he risks
>>> splitting or diluting the vote of his supporters or allies in other
>>> parties, which could benefit his opponents or adversaries.
>>>
>>> In conclusion, Andrew Yang's view on the American political system is a
>>> controversial and contentious one. There are pros and cons to his view and
>>> his reforms. There are also uncertainties and risks to his new party. The
>>> debate over his view is likely to continue as he pursues his political
>>> aspirations.
>>>
>>> Source: Conversation with Bing, 2023/09/03
>>> (1) Andrew Yang's Forward Political Party Views, Explained - Market
>>> Realist.
>>> https://marketrealist.com/economy-and-politics/andrew-yang-political-party-explained/
>>> .
>>> (2) What does Andrew Yang believe? Where the candidate stands on 5
>>> issues - PBS.
>>> https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/what-does-andrew-yang-believe-where-the-candidate-stands-on-5-issues
>>> .
>>> (3) Andrew Yang’s Disjointed Plan to Reform American Democracy.
>>> https://newrepublic.com/article/153888/andrew-yangs-disjointed-plan-reform-american-democracy
>>> .
>>> (4) Andrew Yang’s Third-Party Aspirations | The New Yorker.
>>> https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/andrew-yangs-third-party-aspirations
>>> .
>>>
>>> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
>>> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>>> archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>>>   1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>>>
>>> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
>>> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
>>> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>>> archives:  5/2017 thru present
>>> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>>>   1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>>>
>>
>> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
>> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>> archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>>   1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>>
>> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
>> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
>> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>> archives:  5/2017 thru present
>> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>>   1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>>
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives:  5/2017 thru present
> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>   1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20230904/e1dd2700/attachment-0001.html>