Me or Luigi? I guess it doesn’t matter because technically both have issues.
Me or Luigi? I guess it doesn’t matter because technically both have issues.
Removed by mod
I’m not going to prison for life, for starters.
Removed by mod
Luigi was not justified in the murder. If someone with a loved one endangered by UHCs policies enacted by Brian Thompson had killed him, I’d be much more conflicted. But as it stands, Luigi is just some spoiled poser who decided to try and disguise his mental illness and violent urges as internet radicalization. He’s a poser, using the proletariat’s suffering as a cloak behind which he can hide his own twisted fantasies.
It’s certainly an intriguing idea, but its not as good as the current system. It’s a hyperreality of voting that would simply exaggerate flaws of the current system.
First off, good luck keeping anything anonymous. And, even if you could, candidate anonymity is a horrible idea, because you’d have even less accountability and more campaign dishonesty than you have now. Without anonymity, politicians have to at least try to fulfill campaign promises if they want to get reelected. But with anonymity, I can get elected and not follow through on campaign promises because when I run for reelection nobody knows which candidate is me and I can just lie again.
You’d probably also seriously exacerbate political capture. In the interest of putting forth the best policy proposals, people like presidential candidates would certainly outsource writing to powerful lobbies that have the top policy analysists and writers. And these lobbies or other groups would almost certainly only offer services in exchange for certain favors once the candidate is in office. It would lead to massive corruption, more than we’re already seeing, because at least without anonymity we can put names to faces and prompt some honesty.
Plus, you’d cut out so many candidates. Not everyone excels at writing. Some candidates might articulate their plans best in real time and on a stage (like JFK, or Reagan, etc.). Demanding that everyone only write and publish policy proposals removes the ability to gauge how good they’d be in office, interacting with staff and other world leaders.
Combining anonymity with a bracketed system would also create an echo chamber, where candidates learn each other’s messages every round and the survivors shift to mimic the most popular message to bolster their odds of making it into office. In the end, all 3 people will sound the same in a desperate bid to copycat the clear winner and steal votes. Which obviously creates issues for voting again, like the aforementioned Condorcet’s paradox.
Also, voter engagement. We can barely get people to turnout when they are emotionally won-over by a given personality candidate, it would probably crater if voting were a purely rational process as @lifeinmultiplechoice suggests. If you take after John Adams or Rousseau, this isn’t entirely problematic because you don’t believe in carrying out the principle of “the will of the people” in a literal sense (not to say J.A. was Rousseauian, he obviously was not, but they overlap in this area of restricted voting). But if you are interested in accurately representing “the will of the people” in a non-gnostic sense, this is obviously an unsatisfactory system.
This isn’t meant to dismiss @lifeinmultiplechoice out of hand, I admire the imagination. I think they’re onto something when they point out that technology has sort of… swapped lenses on the camera of Democracy. We can seriously reinvent Democracy in ways that overcome previous hurdles due to all our technology now… we just don’t know how exactly yet.
the link you shared is paywalled, curious about it but can’t find it anywhere else. Could you link as pdf?
this is stupid too. Democracy is mathematically impossible. Condorcet’s paradox and all that.
I live to please.
this is stupid.
no he hasn’t, this will do nothing. literally, nothing. his action was fruitless. it wasted his potential to acutally help the lower classes. it was a mentally ill bid for attention and you all know it.
I guess I can see your perspective. There are just so many posers and rich-kid revolutionary wannabes, and they all trickle down into the masses pretending to be class traitors when in reality they’re just wearing us like a letterman jacket. its all unserious to them. They get arrested at just stop oil protests, they go out and riot or join ANTIFA or shoot some CEO… but they’re just spoiled rich kids who don’t understand us.
he’s a poser, not a class traitor. if he had been a true class traitor, he would have played things smart. he would have united himself in living with the lower classes without forgoing his significant resources, and he would have dedicated his family inheritance and privilege to righting wrongs.
He comes from a rich family. And even if they refuse to pay for his defense, let the privileged brat experience a public defender for once. Jeez.
that’s the thing that pisses me off: the tax often increases the perception of how much people are willing to spend. even if you remove or decrease the tax, the companies just inflate the price to fatten their margins. Rule #1 of capitalism: the consumer always loses.
Ha! as if that’ll ever happen.
Removed by mod