Some unconventional surprise,... Mohnish Pabrai likes Pres. elect Trump

[Jurgis]

Do you have any proposed solutions?  Or is the system fine in your eyes?

 

The system is not "fine" if by "fine" you mean "ideal", but there are no simple solutions that Internetz forum chat will magically deliver.

 

Restricting votes to X will never pass since it's not what democracy is. And if it passes, it's very likely to be for the worst not for the best - i.e. back to some form of fascism rather than to enlightened "rule by smart dedicated altruistic etc. superhumans" utopia.

 

Things may change when humans get the Musk/Kurzweil brain implants that allow them instant access to cloud intelligence and thinking/education becomes less of a chore. Maybe. I'm not superconfident.

 

Things will also likely change a lot when we get non-human superhuman intelligence.

[rkbabang]

Trigger Warning: This isn't going to be politically correct.  How about requiring skin in the game to vote?  You must pay net taxes above $0 AND own either property or a business in order to vote.  It used to be that only white male property owners could vote.  I'm fine with getting rid of the white-male requirement, but a property ownership requirement could only be a good thing.

 

 

Also localization is important.  Important decisions should be made at the level of government closest to the voter as possible.  The federal government should take care of foreign policy and not much else.  This way you have people deciding locally on how they want to live, how they want their children educated, and what they want their government to do/not do.  There should need to be a damn good reason to take power away from the town/city and give it to the state, and an extraordinary reason to take it from the state and give it to the feds.  The problem is that the federal government has been growing and taking on more and more and with a population of well over 300M it is too far removed to be responsive.

 

 

To expand on this.  I forgot the first step is that you should need a good reason to take power away from property owners and give it to the town/city.

 

The vast majority of decisions in any society should be made by the individual property owners on their own property, followed by the city, then the state, and finally almost nothing should be ever done at the country/federal level.  Things should be constantly being pushed downward as culture/technology allows from centralized decision making to localized distributed decision making.  From Federal to state, from state to local, and from local to individual property owners.  In the perfect utopian world all decisions would reside at the individual level.  This is a goal which may never be achieved, but should be strived for, the direction we should always try to travel in.  The problem with our democracy (and all democracies as far as I can tell) is that over time they move in the wrong direction toward centralization and concentration of power.  Then they become corrupt and collapse.

 

[SnarkyPuppy]

Do you have any proposed solutions?  Or is the system fine in your eyes?

 

The system is not "fine" if by "fine" you mean "ideal", but there are no simple solutions that Internetz forum chat will magically deliver.

 

Restricting votes to X will never pass since it's not what democracy is. And if it passes, it's very likely to be for the worst not for the best - i.e. back to some form of fascism rather than to enlightened "rule by smart dedicated altruistic etc. superhumans" utopia.

 

Things may change when humans get the Musk/Kurzweil brain implants that allow them instant access to cloud intelligence and thinking/education becomes less of a chore. Maybe. I'm not superconfident.

 

Things will also likely change a lot when we get non-human superhuman intelligence.

 

I would argue my proposal isn't antithetical of a democracy though.  Everyone has an equal opportunity to vote - you just need to demonstrate effort and reading comprehension.  Put systems in place for those who cannot read (live quizzes) / modified quizzes for elderly / tutoring on the exam.  It's not a perfect system (no such thing exists) but I think marginally better than our current "democracy"

[Jurgis]

I would argue my proposal isn't antithetical of a democracy though.  Everyone has an equal opportunity to vote - you just need to demonstrate effort and reading comprehension.  Put systems in place for those who cannot read (live quizzes) / modified quizzes for elderly / tutoring on the exam.  It's not a perfect system (no such thing exists) but I think marginally better than our current "democracy"

 

I am sure you have great intentions. I am also pretty sure that your proposal if-adopted would be used to suppress votes from marginalized groups including based on race.

 

But since this has pretty much no chance of being adopted, we won't know whether your positive expectations or my negative ones are closer to reality.

 

BTW, I think that demonstrating basic proficiency won't change the results of elections much if at all. I base this on smaller countries that have close to 100% literacy and where most people know the people standing for election. But again - we won't know what this would do in US.

 

Take care.

 

Edit: I think I skipped over the part of your proposal where you suggest voting for candidates without knowing their names just the positions. This is somewhat interesting, but it is somewhat like voting for parties (in various countries). And it's very unlikely to be adopted in US. I don't know if it would be positive or negative.

[SnarkyPuppy]

I would argue my proposal isn't antithetical of a democracy though.  Everyone has an equal opportunity to vote - you just need to demonstrate effort and reading comprehension.  Put systems in place for those who cannot read (live quizzes) / modified quizzes for elderly / tutoring on the exam.  It's not a perfect system (no such thing exists) but I think marginally better than our current "democracy"

 

I am sure you have great intentions. I am also pretty sure that your proposal if-adopted would be used to suppress votes from marginalized groups including based on race.

 

But since this has pretty much no chance of being adopted, we won't know whether your positive expectations or my negative ones are closer to reality.

 

BTW, I think that demonstrating basic proficiency won't change the results of elections much if at all. I base this on smaller countries that have close to 100% literacy and where most people know the people standing for election. But again - we won't know what this would do in US.

 

Take care.

 

Edit: I think I skipped over the part of your proposal where you suggest voting for candidates without knowing their names just the positions. This is somewhat interesting, but it is somewhat like voting for parties (in various countries). And it's very unlikely to be adopted in US. I don't know if it would be positive or negative.

 

My belief (anecdotally from talking to people) is that the majority of otherwise well intentioned and seemingly intelligent individuals vote for senators and reps simply based on democrat/republican designation.  It was mentioned that it is a rational individual choice to not spend excessive time researching - I don't dismiss that and this system would seek to facilitate that research process by providing voters with key information + making the day a mandatory holiday/day off.  The anonymity of candidates within the voting booths (candidate x, candidate y, candidate z) seeks to remove that element of voting simply based on D/R designation.  The quiz element seeks to a) ensure voters have a basic sense of what they are voting for and b) informs voters of what the candidates policies are.

 

You could also remove the "quiz/test" aspect, but utilize the reading prompt + anonymous candidate designations.  You'd have to read (or have someone recite to you) the stances of candidate x, y, z and then you can vote.  This truly would not be suppressing votes- rather any individual must either read/listen to candidates prior to voting under the current system (the difference being the last information you'd be receiving would be from an unbiased writing prompt, rather than CNN/Fox News). 

 

You're right that this likely won't play out (I have no actual say) but I think it's relatively important for these discussions to be had within our culture, regardless of immateriality. 

[Jurgis]

@SnarkyPuppy: OK. :)

[SnarkyPuppy]

Definitely take your point on smaller countries / no changes though - interesting point to follow up on. 

[TwoCitiesCapital]

 

Trigger Warning: This isn't going to be politically correct.  How about requiring skin in the game to vote?  You must pay net taxes above $0 AND own either property or a business in order to vote.  It used to be that only white male property owners could vote.  I'm fine with getting rid of the white-male requirement, but a property ownership requirement could only be a good thing.

 

 

I'd be ok with that as long as there was legislation cutting a lot of the tax rebates allowed to lower/middle class individuals so that this doesn't discriminate against the 40% of the population that pays next to nothing in federal income tax. (Yes, I know - that's only Federal income tax, but I don't really count payroll taxes as those are "fees" for services that will be used by most within that populace).

 

It's a radical idea, but I think having a population of the willfully uninformed, lazy, and ignorant is also quite radical and is unsustainable.

 

 

Yes. It is. But that is what we have, that is what a democracy inevitably ends up as, and it will end when it can go on no longer.

 

Realistically, the president SHOULDN'T be all that influential - the gov't operates in three branches and the executive branch was intended to be just the branch that enforces the laws and control the military. It was never intended to be a position where you can use your pen and phone to backdoor legislate when Congress doesn't do what you want, or for you to have the ability to involve yourself in international trade deals impacting private companies, or for you to bomb/invade countries Congress hasn't declared war on.

 

The first step to limiting the damage of an ignorant populace voting for presidency would be to go back to limiting the presidency and allowing the checks and balances to prevent most of the damage of trigger happy presidents and the ignorant populace who puts them there.

 

Make the day a national holiday. 

 

 

Yes. But the only thing this really accomplishes is increasing voter turnout for those that are even lazier than most now, right?

 

Don't want to spend two hours to take the test?  You probably fall under the bucket of the lazy citizen who doesn't want to spend time critically thinking or independently arriving at conclusions rather than having CNN/Fox fill in the blanks for you.  Don't vote. 

 

You'll never get this passed. Voter disenfranchisement by laziness, intelligence, or by demographic (since poor people are less likely to have the flexibility to take off work to go vote, let alone take a 2 hour test), is not a way to really makes you appealing to said voters.

 

Do you have any proposed solutions?  Or is the system fine in your eyes?  You make valid points and I'm not negating them - I'm curious to see if you have any alternative views other than limiting the power of the executive branch.  Surely senators and house reps being voted simply due to D/R, male/female, black/white designation is a problem which warrants consideration?

 

I sort of proposed one already. Delegate more to states and Congress and less to president so if an idiot gets elected, it's not the end of the free world. Let the checks and balances actually check and balance?

 

I haven't come up with a perfect solution for presidential voting yet - I don't like the idea of a popular (mob rule) vote OR the electoral college.

 

I've thought about letting the Senate pick the president since we pick the Senate. The Senate would have a maximum of 2 terms. I imagine there are also downfalls with that system as well.

[rb]

Interesting how quickly this went the way of disenfranchising voters.

[RichardGibbons]

I've thought about letting the Senate pick the president since we pick the Senate.

 

FWIW, Canada already has this system, essentially.  The obvious downside for the USA is it removes one degree of checks and balances.

 

RE: "vote based on the leader's stated positions".  It would be interesting seeing how this would work in practice, certainly better than disenfranchising all the poor people.  (Why the heck don't the rich understand that if you constantly and persistently abuse all the poor people, they will shoot you.  Like, dead.  Is it really that hard a concept to understand?  Do they really have this intense desire to replicate the French and English Revolutions? Those things don't end up well for anyone.)

 

It would be very nice if there were some way to this sort of "stated position" vote as an adaptive test, so each question refine which candidate best represented people's positions.  I think both Republicans and Democrats would be horrified by the outcome (because their stated positions probably wouldn't actually be popular enough to win elections), but it would certainly be an interesting experiment to try.  One interesting result might be that you could get, for instance, an anti-spending party aligned with progressive social values.

 

Of course, the biggest challenge here, like any polling, would be figuring out the questions. It's clear from numerous referendums that, when it comes to politics, politicians will deliberately chose confusing questions in cases where, with a clear question, the electorate would be likely to vote against the politicians' desires.  So, there would have to be a good way to ensure that the questions actually made sense to a normal person.

[Jurgis]

RE: "vote based on the leader's stated positions".  It would be interesting seeing how this would work in practice,

 

Well, I just had that kind of election in a country that now will remain nameless, since I really don't want to go into dirty linen with specifics.

 

~8 parties in total, ~5 major parties. All major parties have exactly the same platform. Yeah, they all gonna fight against corruption, bring back expats, lower taxes, support small businesses, support tech startups, support agriculture, support families, support education, and so on and so forth. If you would believe their platforms, they all are the same and they all will do great job. In reality... oh well.

 

And after 4 years of corruption and scandals of party A, people elect party B as an "agent of change" forgetting all the corruption and scandals of party B did 8 or 12 years ago... And so we rotate A, B, C, then maybe A again, then maybe D created by people from A and B and renamed for fun...

 

So... same crap. Might work differently in US maybe...

[rb]

I've thought about letting the Senate pick the president since we pick the Senate.

 

FWIW, Canada already has this system, essentially.  The obvious downside for the USA is it removes one degree of checks and balances.

 

RE: "vote based on the leader's stated positions".  It would be interesting seeing how this would work in practice, certainly better than disenfranchising all the poor people.  (Why the heck don't the rich understand that if you constantly and persistently abuse all the poor people, they will shoot you.  Like, dead.  Is it really that hard a concept to understand?  Do they really have this intense desire to replicate the French and English Revolutions? Those things don't end up well for anyone.)

 

It would be very nice if there were some way to this sort of "stated position" vote as an adaptive test, so each question refine which candidate best represented people's positions.  I think both Republicans and Democrats would be horrified by the outcome (because their stated positions probably wouldn't actually be popular enough to win elections), but it would certainly be an interesting experiment to try.  One interesting result might be that you could get, for instance, an anti-spending party aligned with progressive social values.

 

Of course, the biggest challenge here, like any polling, would be figuring out the questions. It's clear from numerous referendums that, when it comes to politics, politicians will deliberately chose confusing questions in cases where, with a clear question, the electorate would be likely to vote against the politicians' desires.  So, there would have to be a good way to ensure that the questions actually made sense to a normal person.

Well not exactly correct. In Canada (and the UK - same system) the PM would be elected by the House, no senate. It's also a first past the post election but more correlated with the popular vote because the districts are based heavily on population numbers. There are also no-confidence votes that would trigger elections. So for example if you cannot pass a budget in Canada unlike in the US that would trigger an election. Give it to the voters to sort it out. There are other features but that's the short version.

 

As for checks and balances in the US. Oh Please! Darrell Issa and Jason Chaffetz are more intimate with Obama's colon than his proctologist. When it looked like Hillary was going to be elected they were preparing years of investigations. Now that Trump (a president with maybe the most conflicts of interest in history) gets elected and they're good. No need to oversee anything.

 

On the rich abusing the poor I think it's this way because they just can't help themselves. But I don't know, the US may just be different. If people were acting in their interest places like California, Massachusetts, New York and New Jersey would be Republican strongholds and places like Arkansas, Kansas, Kentucky, and South Carolina would be heavily Democrat.  But obviously that's not how it shakes out.

 

 

[RichardGibbons]

Correct, but for a couple minor changes, in bold:

 

Well not exactly correct. In Canada (and the UK - same system) the PM would be elected by the House, no senate. It's also a first past the post election but more correlated with the popular vote because the districts are based heavily on population numbers. There are also no-confidence votes that would trigger elections that--if the Prime Minister is about to lose--cause him to prorogue (shut down) Parliament before the vote simply to maintain power. So for example if you cannot pass a budget in Canada unlike in the US that would trigger an election a proroguing of Parliament. Give it to the voters to sort it out . Voters are denied their democratic rights, but the Prime Minister stays in control. There are other features but that's the short version.

[rb]

Correct sir. As I've said there are other features. It always bores people when I delve into the technical details :(.

[wachtwoord]

Trigger Warning: This isn't going to be politically correct.  How about requiring skin in the game to vote?  You must pay net taxes above $0 AND own either property or a business in order to vote.  It used to be that only white male property owners could vote.  I'm fine with getting rid of the white-male requirement, but a property ownership requirement could only be a good thing.

 

I love the saying: who pays decides ("wie betaald, bepaald" in Dutch).

 

Everyone can vote but you're vote is weighted based on your tax-payment. I'd even make it possible to voluntarily increase your tax if you so wish (maybe we can even make taxes optional like this as there is finally an incentive (other than fear of prosecution) to pay taxes?)

[rkbabang]

Trigger Warning: This isn't going to be politically correct.  How about requiring skin in the game to vote?  You must pay net taxes above $0 AND own either property or a business in order to vote.  It used to be that only white male property owners could vote.  I'm fine with getting rid of the white-male requirement, but a property ownership requirement could only be a good thing.

 

I love the saying: who pays decides ("wie betaald, bepaald" in Dutch).

 

Everyone can vote but you're vote is weighted based on your tax-payment. I'd even make it possible to voluntarily increase your tax if you so wish (maybe we can even make taxes optional like this as there is finally an incentive (other than fear of prosecution) to pay taxes?)

 

That's even better.  Make it a nice round number: you get 1 vote for every $1000 you pay in taxes.

 

[RichardGibbons]

Everyone can vote but you're vote is weighted based on your tax-payment. I'd even make it possible to voluntarily increase your tax if you so wish (maybe we can even make taxes optional like this as there is finally an incentive (other than fear of prosecution) to pay taxes?)

 

Just out of curiosity, why do you think this will save the wealthy from the poor people with guns?  Or is it  kind of like, those who pay taxes can choose for those taxes to go toward locking up or digging graves for any poor people who are upset that a tiny fraction of the population controls everything?

[wachtwoord]

Everyone can vote but you're vote is weighted based on your tax-payment. I'd even make it possible to voluntarily increase your tax if you so wish (maybe we can even make taxes optional like this as there is finally an incentive (other than fear of prosecution) to pay taxes?)

 

Just out of curiosity, why do you think this will save the wealthy from the poor people with guns?  Or is it  kind of like, those who pay taxes can choose for those taxes to go toward locking up or digging graves for any poor people who are upset that a tiny fraction of the population controls everything?

 

Pick up a history book. There have been extremely unequal states, countries, kingdoms etc in history that were surprisingly stable ;)

[rb]

Not so many after the French showed them how it's done.

[RichardGibbons]

Pick up a history book. There have been extremely unequal states, countries, kingdoms etc in history that were surprisingly stable ;)

 

You mean like North Korea, Iraq under Hussein, Saudi Arabia?

 

I've read some history. From what I recall, there were quite a few states over quite a big time period.  Maybe even more than I can count on fingers and toes.

 

So can you help me out a bit, since it's so obvious to you, and you're clearly so well read? Which state do you consider stable, with big inequality, that you consider the best role model to compare your nirvana to?

 

 

 

[wachtwoord]

Pick up a history book. There have been extremely unequal states, countries, kingdoms etc in history that were surprisingly stable ;)

 

You mean like North Korea, Iraq under Hussein, Saudi Arabia?

 

I've read some history. From what I recall, there were quite a few states over quite a big time period.  Maybe even more than I can count on fingers and toes.

 

So can you help me out a bit, since it's so obvious to you, and you're clearly so well read? Which state do you consider stable, with big inequality, that you consider the best role model to compare your nirvana to?

 

We were only discussing stability here as that was the counterargument. Want some examples? Sure: Roman empire, Hittite Empire, Assyrian Empire, Mesopotamia, Mitanni Empire, Minoan civilization, Mycenaean civilization, Mongol Empire, Persia etc.

 

All very unequal yet 'surprisingly' stable.

[rkbabang]

Not so many after the French showed them how it's done.

 

That is what happens when there is no hope of improvement. In a capitalistic society even the poor get better and better off.  The only reason there is a wealth disparity is that the pie is growing exponentially.  When your piece is growing every year and life keeps getting better, you might bitch about others getting more and vote for handouts if possible, but you don't start lopping off heads.

 

[onyx1]

Not so many after the French showed them how it's done.

 

That is what happens when there is no hope of improvement. In a capitalistic society even the poor get better and better off.  The only reason there is a wealth disparity is that the pie is growing exponentially.  When your piece is growing every year and life keeps getting better, you might bitch about others getting more and vote for handouts if possible, but you don't start lopping off heads.

 

Yes.  Uprisings will happen, justifiably, when basic needs like food are not available.  They won't occur over someone else having a better TV.

[RichardGibbons]

We were only discussing stability here as that was the counterargument. Want some examples? Sure: Roman empire, Hittite Empire, Assyrian Empire, Mesopotamia, Mitanni Empire, Minoan civilization, Mycenaean civilization, Mongol Empire, Persia etc.

 

All very unequal yet 'surprisingly' stable.

 

Ah, I see. So nothing in the 21st century.  Or 20th. Or 19th. Or 18th. Or 17th. Or 16th. Or 15th.

 

You do have one from the 14th, though that one that was plagued by successive massive civil wars.  Hmm....

 

I see where you're coming from.

[RichardGibbons]

Yes.  Uprisings will happen, justifiably, when basic needs like food are not available.  They won't occur over someone else having a better TV.

 

Umm, Syria?  Lebanon?  Iran?