Wisconsin Legislator: Being a single mother constitutes child abuse

[navkat]

I think Republicans are trying to garner favor with their prison-contractor cronies by retaining more un-aborted babies and orphans but that shit's gonna backfire on them one day when they all vote for a Muslim president...O WAI...


_{I wonder how many people I was able to offend THAT time.}

[Doktor Howl]

Sorry to state the bleeding obvious, but there's too many politicians in your country!

No, there aren't enough.  At least not for me.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

More politicians= more people to lobby. We need like, 10 senators to a state and 5 representatives to a congressional district to make a nice little throbbing headache for everyone involved.

[Doktor Howl]

More politicians= more people to lobby. We need like, 10 senators to a state and 5 representatives to a congressional district to make a nice little throbbing headache for everyone involved.

More politicians = more chaos & weirdness.

And I'm still not satisfied.  My need is MOAR.

[Cain]

More politicians = less consensus.

I leave that up to you whether that is a good or bad thing.

[Doktor Howl]

More politicians = less consensus.

I leave that up to you whether that is a good or bad thing.

In my personal book, it's a good thing, no matter how I look at it.  In the 21st century, inefficiency is your only defense against tyranny.

[navkat]

Dual-class system: Politicians and Inmates.

BUT...









THERE ARE NO CATS IN AMERICA AND THE STREETS ARE PAVED WITH CHEEEEESE!

[Roly Poly Oly-Garch]

More politicians = less consensus.

I leave that up to you whether that is a good or bad thing.

In my personal book, it's a good thing, no matter how I look at it.  In the 21st century, inefficiency is your only defense against tyranny.

Only problem there is that the executive is efficient to the point of making "efficiency" a sinister sounding word. If you wanted truly tyranny thwarting inefficiency the 535 gridlocked imbeciles would have to be the co-commanders in chief's. Hell, even if we went ahead and completed the swap and had one single legislator writing all the laws for the entire country, even the most heinous crap that person could come up with wouldn't likely make it out of committee when it came time to actually *do* the thing.

[AFK]

At a certain level I'm not sure it really matters.  The People put them there.  If enough of The People truly gave a shit about fixing anything, I mean anything that is really broken (not made up bullshit), they'd accept, raise up, and put into place a different style of person to serve. 

Instead, The People keep installing self-centered, resume-padding, ego-centrics who talk a game just good enough to convince people that they aren't going to make things worse. 

[Cain]

Actually, having been catching up on my political scienc reading, I'm coming around more to the idea that more politicians are better.

Why?

Because it means more people to pay off, and the larger the number of politicians, the harder it is to pay them all off.

Dictatorships are characterized by very few power brokers, which is why they are a) stable and b) durable.  Knowing who the power brokers are, and that there are only a few of them, allows for a stable, continuous government stretching over decades.

This rarely happens in democracy (stable, continuous interests, maybe, which can be in part attributed to class interests, institutions, etc), because power resides with the population at large, and paying them all off is impossible, because there are so many of them, and because of competing interests.

[Doktor Howl]

More politicians = less consensus.

I leave that up to you whether that is a good or bad thing.

In my personal book, it's a good thing, no matter how I look at it.  In the 21st century, inefficiency is your only defense against tyranny.

Only problem there is that the executive is efficient to the point of making "efficiency" a sinister sounding word.

What the hell does that have to do with what I said?  The president isn't the system. 

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

There are lots of bureaucrats and politicians in Turkey. They have democratic elections... interestingly though they vote for a party, rather than an individual. The party that wins the region, sets policy for the region. The party that wins the most region gets to be in charge of the national level stuff.

The biggest advantage I've seen, is that it allows the party to select the best individuals for the jobs, rather than relying on a popularity contest between individuals for every position.

It was pretty weird to wrap my head around... and it really expanded my idea of how democracies can be implemented.

[Doktor Howl]

There are lots of bureaucrats and politicians in Turkey. They have democratic elections... interestingly though they vote for a party, rather than an individual. The party that wins the region, sets policy for the region. The party that wins the most region gets to be in charge of the national level stuff.

The biggest advantage I've seen, is that it allows the party to select the best individuals for the jobs, rather than relying on a popularity contest between individuals for every position.

It was pretty weird to wrap my head around... and it really expanded my idea of how democracies can be implemented.

England and Canada have the same system, or one very close to it.  It has problems of its own, but I prefer it to the train wreck we have here.

[Cain]

The downside to that is that if the party selection procedure is corrupt as hell, then there are going to be significant political problems down the road.  Once a certain party gets entrenched in a region, someone with sufficient influence over the selection process can then make sure their political buddies get safe seats.

Not that there aren't problems with other selection systems, of course, but that is a notable downside to our current system.  It ensures a core group of "professional politicians", usually with a similar ideological outlook, can have an outsized impact on the political system.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Actually, having been catching up on my political scienc reading, I'm coming around more to the idea that more politicians are better.

Why?

Because it means more people to pay off, and the larger the number of politicians, the harder it is to pay them all off.

Dictatorships are characterized by very few power brokers, which is why they are a) stable and b) durable.  Knowing who the power brokers are, and that there are only a few of them, allows for a stable, continuous government stretching over decades.

This rarely happens in democracy (stable, continuous interests, maybe, which can be in part attributed to class interests, institutions, etc), because power resides with the population at large, and paying them all off is impossible, because there are so many of them, and because of competing interests.

Yep. More representatives usually means a greater probability of some of them actually representing the people.