There is no middle ground when it comes to Russia's continuing atrocities against Ukraine. By cutting off a Starlink capability that Ukraine was already depending upon, Musk is acting against the interests of the United States which is actively supporting Ukraine financially and militarily. This has the effect of directly supporting our adversary Russia and Putin. The United States should move with all possible speed to legally end, suspend, and/or not renew any and all business relationships with Musk and any of his companies, as quickly as practicable.
@lauren
Starlink could not exist without the US government. The US funded most of the research upon which Starlink's depends, it is a primary customer, it sponsors Starlink's use of space in international regulatory forums, etc. While Starlink is technically a private company, it is very much a product of our government.
From those to whom much is given, much is expected.
It is reasonable to demand that Starlink not oppose US government goals and policies.
@TCatInReality @bobwyman @lauren
Because we keep electing and reelecting people who are so proud of spending money regardless of where it goes and what it actually gets us.
If they had to actually hammer out such agreements, lots of companies wouldn't take them, and the politicians wouldn't be able to use the spending as bragging rights.
In the end, though, we reelect those people, so *shrug*
I want to emphasize part of my point though: it's not voter INaction, but voter ACTION where we voters go to the polls and actively reelect representatives with their track records.
We don't just sit back and let it happen. We participate in the process of putting these individuals back in power even after they demonstrated how they would vote.
I don't know how many issues I see where friends will be excited to vote for some candidate even though I know that candidate contributed to some serious problem that the friend personally cares about.
We eagerly reelect the people who cause so many problems. Voter education is seriously lacking, but in the end, we get the government we vote for.
@TCatInReality @bobwyman @lauren But let me build on that just a little bit.
The big problem with first past the post is that when I cast my vote I have to worry a whole lot about how my neighbor is casting his vote, I have to game things because I don't want my vote wasted on somebody that doesn't actually stand a chance of winning... maybe because other people aren't voting for that candidate because they don't want to waste their vote on someone who doesn't have a chance of winning... which obviously becomes circular and stupid pretty quickly 🙂
SO how do we mitigate this problem? By only having two candidates to vote for. By organizing ourselves behind two candidates supposedly diametrically opposed, and so we evolved a primary system with two major political parties.
Which is all to say that as much as people complain about the two-party system in the US, two few people realize that the two party system is merely the natural attempt to mitigate issues with our voting system.
The two party system is harsh medicine for a deeper problem. We should cure the deeper problem instead of spending so much time worrying about the mitigating mechanism.
@TCatInReality @bobwyman @lauren
The deep problem is the first past the post #voting system. Almost any voting system would be better.
The cure is to change to a different voting system, probably one of the many ranked choice systems.
We can argue about which one would be the best of imperfect options, but at the end of the day, they would all be better than what we have now.
(This is even more or less mathematically provable, but that's tricky because it's calculating subjective priorities)
@volkris @TCatInReality @bobwyman I don't like ranked choice. It confuses too many people, and tends to entrench parties already in power. I say this even though I'm fine with Democrats keeping power here in California forever.
@TCatInReality @volkris @bobwyman Reality is that it confuses a lot of people. And they're the ones to be concerned with.
@TCatInReality @volkris @bobwyman And personally, I don't like it. It can create one-party ballots, and those stink -- even when it's your party.
@lauren @TCatInReality @bobwyman
Who is on the ballot is a separate issue from how we count the votes on the ballot.
You can have ranked choice voting on a ballot that's all one party, or on a ballot that has candidates from five different parties. It's a separate matter.
But, ranked choice voting does make it easier for people to vote for minor parties since they can also vote for major parties as a backup.
So RCV helps empower third parties, helps avoid one-party control of ballots.
@volkris @TCatInReality @bobwyman I am, frankly, uninterested in helping minor parties. By and large, they're nutcases.
Alright, fine, then even focusing on the major parties, RCV makes it easier to avoid one-party ballots by allowing more competition between major parties.
@volkris @TCatInReality @bobwyman When I've seen these, they seem to migrate to essentially one-party ballots, with the non-dominant party so far down the list they don't have a chance. Example, the last mayoral race here in L.A. was between two Democrats (one of them actually used to be a Republican, but he signed up this time as Democrat). I would never vote for a Republican, but is this a *fair* situation?
@lauren @TCatInReality @bobwyman
Well what is unfair about it?
The candidate is on the ballot just like the others, right?
@volkris @TCatInReality @bobwyman My feeling is that the major parties should get a thumbs up/down on each vote. If the ballot is overloaded at the top with one party (even my party!) that can't happen.
@lauren @TCatInReality @bobwyman
Well maybe I misunderstand your position, but my immediate reaction is that in the US we don't vote for parties but for individuals, even if the individuals are aligned with parties.
For example, I vote for a particular individual to be my representative in Congress. I vote for a particular individual to be my mayor. And I judge and hold that individual accountable for their performance.
This is different from other countries, especially with parliamentary systems, where you really do vote for the party and not for individuals.
I think this is a fundamental aspect of the US system.
And feel free to correct me and tell me that in your area they do have elections for parties. I'm just not familiar with that!
@volkris @TCatInReality @bobwyman Party affiliation is the single best signal for voting for most people.
@volkris @lauren @TCatInReality
Once the parties became polarized, and the overlap between them was eliminated, voting became effectively a vote for the party, not for the individual representative. Also, polarization has dramatically reduced the influence of representatives while increasing the power and dominance of party leaders.
The USA, which may have once had a tradition of voting for individuals, has essentially become a parliamentary state led by an non-member executive.
@bobwyman @lauren @TCatInReality
I understand the theory that you're laying out, but I think the best counter argument to it is looking at the number of people who don't bother voting at all.
When the candidate for a party is just not compelling people don't show up to vote, which shows that people really are voting for the candidate and not for the party.
Alternatively we could look at people splitting ballots. Even in the recent election we had parties winning state office but losing federal office, showing that people were voting based on candidate and not party.
Heck, I think people's opinions toward Trump might be another really great example, all of the people who focus on him as a individual candidate, either positive or negative, regardless of party is meaningful.
@volkris @lauren @TCatInReality
Vote/Ballot splitting declined dramatically as the parties became polarized. It is now much less common than it once was.
@lauren @TCatInReality @bobwyman
Firstly, yes, I absolutely agree that it confuses people and that is a major problem. Some of the technically better ranked choice methods are very mathematical, and confusing to anybody who doesn't study them, so personally I would write them off right away.
That is a very primary consideration. 100% agree.
But on the other hand, I disagree about ranked choice keeping entrenched parties in power. Ranked choice means that people can risk voting for somebody new with the old standby as a backup. It threatens the entrenched powers.
@volkris @lauren @bobwyman
I'm a big fan of democratic elections, but let's also consider that we ask elections to do too much.
I think part of the answer is to dillute power and decision-making much more broadly.
Thinking the right election model will allow us to vest any one person/group with all the power to decide what's needed/draft the laws/control the money is inevitably going to sub-optimise and lead to corruption.
Very interesting: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Against-Elections-David-Van-Reybrouck/dp/1847924220
@TCatInReality @lauren @bobwyman
At that point the issue isn't the elections but rather what government is doing.
@TCatInReality @lauren @bobwyman
*shrug* we get the government we vote for.
@volkris @TCatInReality @lauren
I believe that it is somewhat challenging to define a broadly accepted metric for the "goodness" of a voting system.
There is no universal agreement on what it means for a voting system to be "better."
@bobwyman @TCatInReality @lauren
Yep, it is a challenge, but there are some metrics that are more or less objective, that people should probably be able to agree on.
For example, the idea that my vote should count regardless of how my neighbor votes comes up pretty starkly, and I think we can generally agree that it's a good idea.
Different voting systems support this to different degrees.
@volkris @bobwyman @lauren
I don't agree completely.
I think corporate socialism is so normalized, it seems radical to demand ownership. Of course, delighted donor make sure they show their appreciation to helpful lawmakers.
But completely agreed about voter inaction on incumbents.