Ask Slashdot: What Planks Would You Want In a Platform of a Political Party? 694
An anonymous reader writes "I am the Technology Manager of the Justice Party (sorry, no relationship to the Avengers). We are currently working on our Platform (version 2.0) and I would be interested to know what people in the science and technology field would like to see in a platform of a political party. For example, we are considering planks that relate to Open Government (data) access, science and maths promotion, space industries, promotion of open source, dealing with SOPA/ CISPA laws, improvement in user privacy and much more. Give us your comments so we can help build a more tech-savvy America."
Planks? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Planks? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Politics is, unfortunately, at least in a democracy, a game of majorities. Now take the average idiot. And now realize that 50% of the people (plus that idiot, that's already the majority) is even dumber than him.
And these people decide who gets to rule.
Re: (Score:3)
Rule is very accurate. We may get to decide who rules, but when they rule, they can enact laws which if you don't feel like following will put you up against law enforcement and then the military if that doesn't work out. Yes, they rule. Which is all the more reason to be very careful when choosing those rulers.
I find it interesting how my common sense and perfectly logical gp post was modded into oblivion incidentally, who would have thought that the idea of getting involved in politics would be such a tou
Re: (Score:3)
I was joking. Half-joking, actually.
Politics is a game of winning the fools over. Because only a fool would believe you if you tell something after you have done a completely different thing. That's basically what politics is about, though. It's not uncommon to hear someone promise something when a while ago he did the exact opposite. I cannot help but assume that a bright, intelligent person would simply refuse to believe it.
So the intelligent portion of a population will support or oppose a politician by
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't that just precious. Someone who still buys the line of bullshit from eighth grade civics. How cute.
Re: (Score:3)
Drinking, bitterness, and jaded nihilism.
It is best for man to be middle-wise,
Not over cunning and clever:
The learned man whose lore is deep
Is seldom happy at heart
--HÃvamÃl (Snorra Edda)
WTF? Is this your party or not? (Score:2, Insightful)
Take what you believe and make that your party planks.
Re: (Score:3)
Take what you believe and make that your party planks.
Also -- I would prefer a follow through for the given promises (instead of any position that will be discarded as soon as you come to power)
Political candidates should sign a contract, where violating more than X% (30%?) of your promises results in an automatic and immediate eviction.
Re: (Score:3)
They have no beliefs, no consistency (Score:3, Interesting)
According to their web site, their "Vision" is more or less American communism, the left-wing "we're all in it together, so yours is mine" theme:
Social Justice: Every person's civil and human rights are protected; everyone has the opportunity to obtain an excellent education from early childhood through college or trade school; affordable and high-quality healthcare is available for everyone; government is not controlled by wealthy corporations and individuals, but is truly of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Economic Justice: All people are provided with opportunities for prosperity; poverty is eliminated; the “middle class” is thriving; and our economy is appropriately regulated so that all members of society are treated fairly.
Environmental Justice: The earth's inhabitants are safe from catastrophic, human-caused climate disruption; nature is protected and preserved through sustainable practices; and our air, water, and food supplies are clean and healthy.
But
Proportional representation. (Score:5, Insightful)
Proportional representation. Small factions will get represented too.
YES! (Score:3)
I live in Canada, and with first-past-the-post my vote essentially means nothing at all due to where I live.
Our national government has a "majority" with less than 40% of the popular vote.
Re: (Score:3)
So even if you'll never get your vote counted for your local 'locked in' Rep, your 'party' vote could still get smaller parties elected into the government and have at least some sway.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Proportional representation. Small factions will get represented too.
Many countries have proportional representation. There is little reason to believe that these countries are better governed, and plenty of evidence that they are not. The biggest problem with proportional representation is often small kooky factions hold the balance of power, are are able to wield disproportionate influence. Look at Israel for a good example of this.
Re:Proportional representation. (Score:4, Informative)
Look at Israel for a good example of this.
Look at all the countries that don't have that problem. It seems like Israel is a bit of a special case. Also, a parliamentary system could easily have more trouble than a non-parliamentary system like ours, because in a parliamentary system you need to form a (often coalition) majority to form a government. In the US system minor parties could only swing things on a vote-by-vote basis.
Anybody who knows Israeli politics better than me please feel free to correct, but AFAIK the reason Israel has such a big problem is that their two big parties, Labor and Likud, both have a large but not quite majority vote. Hence they have to scramble to get small parties to join a coalition so they can get a majority and form a government. This gives the small parties power out of all proportion to their representation, as they hold a trump card.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
GOP and dem are what other countries would consider coalitions. There's major factions within each and internal power struggles. The Tea Party is the far right faction of the GOP, and is roughly equivalent to a minority party in other countries. And they hold up quite a bit of legislation.
Re:Proportional representation. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed, and the weighting of the coalition is mostly based on the relative number of votes. For example here in Norway there's currently a coalition of 35,4% + 6,2% + 6,2% (in representatives actually a small majority due to a 4% cutoff for proportional representation), and undoubtedly the big party sets most of the policy while the smaller get a few core issues and some compromises where they're directly opposite. That balance may change though as people change their vote within the coalition, how can you
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
What we really need is some kind of system that prevents jerry-mandering when redistricting. Perhaps a limit of one district crossing each political border? (city, county, etc.) Perhaps require that crossing to be contiguous along the border? Of course then you can jerry-mander the city and county borders, but that should be harder.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You'll be called racist because that would eliminate the gerrymandering done according to the law in order to ensure minority-majority districts.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
No political contributions allowed from corporations.
If you want to go down that path and be fair, make it so no contributions can come from any legal entity, Corps, Unions, Associations, etc. Only individuals who pay taxes (local or national) AND all contributions are subject to audits...no collecting money from others and submitted by a single person. Only this will prevent coercion on an individual by a group. Oh...and Full Disclosure no matter how small the contribution.
Secularism (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Serious question: For many persons, our sense of morality and ethics is derived from religious beliefs. And our ethical/moral beliefs then inform our ideals about civic issues such as the proper scope/role of government, and which laws should exist.
That is, it's not obvious to me that there's a common "core" set of beliefs that we can all agree upon, independently of our religious world views.
If that's correct, then how could such a separation truly exist? Even the very structure of government, by logical
Re: (Score:3)
Many of our morals and ethics are now in direct conflict with the vast majority ro religions. Where the morals or ethics came from is irrelevent. Many religions have some good ideas at their core, it's just that they eventually tend to be used by people to wield power over others.
Re: (Score:3)
Eh? I don't think most of the "religious" are so concerned about you using the words "morals" and "ethics" and saying they are "in direct conflict", but rather than you have no rationale for yours at all. Thus, it's probably a case of subjective nonsense being misrepresented as even being in the same philosophical class as a systematic ethical structure. It just muddies the waters to include it in the discussion when, for any given ethical question, yours and -the exact opposite- have equal subjective va
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you really study the Bible, sin is pretty much defined as "stuff that hurts yourself or others". The contrary is the Golden Rule, which is, in essence, "Love others". That seems like a pretty good moral basis.
The problem is that people love doing things that ultimately hurt themselves or others. And they don't want to be told otherwise...
Re: (Score:3)
Where the morals or ethics came from is irrelevent.
It's only irrelevant if they don't come from anywhere. If there is a source of objective morality, it is of the utmost relevance.
Many religions have some good ideas at their core, it's just that they eventually tend to be used by people to wield power over others.
Just like everything else. No matter what system you have in place, somebody is going to feel oppressed. Political correctness, affirmative action, wealth redistribution all help some people while harming others. I've seen atheists recommend taking children away from Christians who bring their children to church because it is child abuse. A completely secular society would not be
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It can with a simple rule: a law is, prima facie, a violation of the separation of church and state when the only articulable purpose of the law is religious in nature. For a law to not run afoul of this, it has to have some purpose to society that isn't derived from religious principles. That doesn't mean that it can't have a purpose derived from such principles, only that that can't be the only purpose. For instance, most religions prohibit the killing of other people, but preventing murder has non-religi
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with this is that they can just make up a purpose, or have no purpose at all. There are lots and lots of laws with no articulable purpose, secular or religious.
Re:Secularism (Score:5, Interesting)
Serious answer: you have it backwards. ... So God created man in his own image, ... ... So Man create God in his own image...
Our religious beliefs are derived from our intrinsic sense of morality and ethics.
That and a healthy side dish of hatred, prejudice and self aggrandizement.
Although Genesis proclaims
I rather prefer:
Re:Secularism (Score:5, Informative)
Your sense of morality may have come from your religion, but your religion got it from a human, probably the parents of whoever made it up who got it from their parents and so on as humans developed it over time. I disagree with you and I think you will find that the vast majority of values you hold are shared with families and people of all faiths or the lack thereof, and that there is plenty we can agree upon to base a legal system without involving a deity.
If you're waiting for 100% agreement on anything you'll be waiting a long time, but I think you underestimate the proportion of people worldwide that would agree on whether murder, stealing, fraud, deception etc. should be subject to legal penalty, the broad circumstances under which the penalties should apply and the relative seriousness of crimes.
I just don't see how you can go through life with so little faith in the humanity of your fellow man.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I find it terrifying that you think people don't have an obvious set of core beliefs they can all agree upon and that their ethics and morals come from religion.
If people can't share the common ideals of murder, rape, theft, genocide all being bad and self-determination, autonomy, freedom (of thought, speech, any other pursuits that don't directly harm other non-consenting adults), and helping our fellow man pursue those things on their own accord, then we should just drop some nukes on ourselves and hit th
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
THIS. Make sure people are free to worship as they please, but keep the religion in homes and churches and out of government and public schools .
Re: (Score:3)
Mandatory gun ownership (Score:2, Insightful)
If you're going to require me to pay for my neighbor's health insurance despite them smoking a pack a week, then require that every person own a gun to protect their neighbor as well.
Re:Mandatory gun ownership (Score:4, Informative)
Your high premiums have more to do with soaring costs on the care delivery end, which have more to do with ever more expensive techniques being invented and used with no cost-benefit analysis. Hell, they don't even do benefit-benefit analysis (drugs are not compared to eachother to determine if the new one is even worth prescribing).
Re: (Score:3)
Hmm, seems to me that Obamacare is going to change that. Alas, can't remember where I read that recently....
Re:Mandatory gun ownership (Score:4, Informative)
Most of the supposed increase in premiums from Obamacare are from disallowing declining to insure those with preexisting conditions or writing those conditions out a plan. But many of the people who cannot afford care and are uninsured are just showing up at hospitals once the illness gets bad enough, so you are already paying for them, and the law would actually attempt to stop them from freeloading.
The way the law is supposed to prevent this from causing premium increases is by forcing people to buy insurance preemptively rather than waiting until they are already sick. The preexisting condition part of the bill turns into a total disaster if the mandate goes away. (There are some alternatives, but TBH they don't solve the problem of people walking into hospitals uninsured. You either have to decide to let people die, or find some way to force people to pay for the services they are recieving.)
Re:Mandatory gun ownership (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems to me that popular votes are inconsistent and disruptive to the proper functioning of government. Just look at state ballot initiatives. Florida's state constitution, for instance, was recently modified to cover treatment of farm animals and slot machines. Imagine a US Amendment declaring killing kittens illegal. Such votes threaten to remove the tiered system of laws which is so useful for determining which laws are invalid.
Of course, representational democracy depends upon people electing reasonable people. Perhaps much larger houses are needed to push elections to a more local level. Part of the problem is that people don't know how much of an ass their representatives are.
Re:Mandatory gun ownership (Score:5, Insightful)
On one side, you have single payer.
On the other side, you have health insurance.
A public health care system operates on the incentive that they will try and do the most good for their budget. This means that they will attempt to pay for as much health care as possible, within their fixed budget.
The insurance system operates on the incentive that they want to make a profit. Therefore they will try and avoid paying for as much healthcare as possible. In addition, the vast bureaucracy they create to prop up their efforts to avoid payment has a vast cost.
Why the FUCK would you want to enter into a system that by design, will try it's level best to leave you sick, maimed or dead?
Re: (Score:3)
then require that every person own a gun to protect their neighbor as well.
Add in mandatory semi-yearly safety and marksmanship training.
Re: (Score:3)
then require that every person own a gun to protect their neighbor as well.
Add in mandatory semi-yearly safety and marksmanship training.
Also, make it part of the mandatory school curriculum. I think a major reason we have so many kids these days accidentally shooting each other is a result of the fact that the only exposure many children get to firearms is playing/watching their parents play FPS games.
Re:Mandatory gun ownership (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, theoretically if you start teaching it in the schools at an early age, within a generation the majority of the populace will have went through the course, so you should have a lot fewer incidents like those you mention.
Another potential upside would be that, if the training were mandatory, perhaps future police officers would develop a higher accuracy rate than bad guys in action films. [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Key word, requirement. I am required to do so whether I want to or not. I don't need medical insurance. I can pay for my once-a-decade visit out of my own pocket without having to shell out the thousands of dollars in the interim.
Thus, if I am required to pay for something which I don't use, I am paying for my neighbor who has chosen to do something which is a known health threat.
Re: (Score:3)
You don't have health insurance, eh? Do you also have legal documents signed that the system does not need to help you and pay for the care you'll need if an unexpected condition or accident arises? Or are you assuming that if something like that happens that no non-ultra-rich person could handle, the system will back you up?
If you don' t have all the "let me suffer" documents signed, by not having health insurance you're a worse freeloader than any smoker.
Re:Mandatory gun ownership (Score:5, Insightful)
you're a worse freeloader than any smoker.
Smokers pay a higher premium, so calling us 'freeloaders' is complete bullshit.
On the contrary, fat motherfuckers are the largest (no pun intended, but noted and appreciated) burden on the healthcare system, and they are not required to pay a higher premium because they made the decision to be grotesquely obese slobs. You wanna talk freeloaders? Start with the worst offenders.
Re:Mandatory gun ownership (Score:5, Insightful)
P.S. If you are a smoker, try vaping instead. Get yourself a good ego-c, not the crap they sell at walmart, some high strength liquid and be sure to exhale through your nose (you don't absorb it as much in your lungs.) If you still have cravings consider adding an antidepressant, since one of the reasons why tobacco is so addictive (whereas straight nicotine is only mildly addictive) are the MAOIs and other neurotrasmitter-affecting chemicals present.
Re: (Score:3)
it's true. Lamentable and certainly not a cost-saving measure I'm happy with, but it's true. Being lamentable doesn't alter the truth. Living to an old age is damn expensive these days.
So, foreverdisillusioned, which tobacco lobbyist group do you work for anyway? I advised the poster to get an ego-c, which (sinc
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As to the smokers, that may be true but the point is I still have to pay for their medical costs...
NO
YOU
DON'T
I smoke, and because I do, I pay a higher health insurance premium than a non-smoker with similar health stats. Stop spreading that damnable myth.
Conversely, fat people really do burden the healthcare system unnecessarily, and they are not required to pay an increased premium. You want to bitch, bitch about that.
Vi yay, Emacs nay. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Vi yay, Emacs nay. (Score:5, Funny)
I totally disagree. If we ban Emacs, it will just go underground, making the problem even worse than it is now. We need Emacs users to stay out in the open, where we can monitor them. Emacs should be legalized and taxed so the government can actually control it. And before you libertarian nutjobs go off about big government, the whole reason that government exists is to control things like Emacs, which the free market has obviously failed to do. I'd rather have people getting their Emacs at Wal-Mart after a background check than on Silk Road with Bitcoins. Sadly, our politicians are too stupid to know the difference between Emacs and Bitcoin, so we'll be stuck with our broken system for the foreseeable future, and this discussion is irrelevant.
Re:Vi yay, Emacs nay. (Score:5, Informative)
^ Post of the Day
+10 Internets to you, sir or madam. Just don't edit them with Emacs.
Mandatory cosmetic surgery (Score:2)
I'm tired of looking at ugly people (yes that includes me)
Constancy (Score:5, Funny)
I want your policies to be constant. Plank Constants.
Re: (Score:3)
Off the top of my head (Score:5, Insightful)
1) strict term limits for congress
2) corporate money is not free speech...no place for it in politics
3) Single payer health care
4) increased minimum wage that is subsequently tied to inflation
5) Large scale infrastructure projects...LARGE. High speed trains, universal fiber broadband
6) a commitment to overhaul the national power grid or begin the the process of implementing a decentralized solution to replacing the grid
7) outlaw lobbyists
Re:Off the top of my head (Score:5, Insightful)
It's easy, and I've been saying it for almost a decade now: Outlaw Congress, or at least the physical manifestation of it. If you send all of the politicians home to their districts, the cost for a corporation to lobby goes up by at least a factor of hundreds because they have to send lobbyists all around the country, and the cost for an average citizen to lobby goes down by a factor of hundreds because they need only drive a few miles to talk to their elected representatives. The corporations cease to have an advantage over ordinary citizens at that point, and the question of making the act of lobbying itself illegal becomes moot.
Something universally... (Score:3, Funny)
Hold tech companies' feet to fire about H1-Bs (Score:5, Interesting)
Years ago, local industry where I lived had a problem getting qualified workers with the right skills. Folks said, "Like what skills?"
Industry said, "CNC Machinists."
So, the local tech schools, colleges, industry and governments got together and created CNC programs and solved the problem. Now industry has has a steady flow of qualified workers, people who may not have the talents or inclination to be a white collar cube worker have a career path to a middle class life, government has an ever increasing tax base and the local community is thriving. (CT, Pratt & Whitney, Sikorsky Aircraft, etc... to name some names.)
Contrast with the tech industry:
"Waaa! We can't get qualified workers with the right skills!! Waaaaaaa"
The rest of us, "Like what?"
Tech industry,"Waaaaa! We can't get qualified workers we need more H1-Bs! Waaaaaaaaaa!"
I think they won't mention the skills or qualifications they need because we will all see that the Emperor Has No Clothes. We would see that in fact, every college and university in the US is producing folks with the right qualifications and that the tech industry is full of shit and made up the "lack of skills and qualifications" as an excuse for H1-Bs - to state the obvious.
Third parties, generally, are not good (Score:5, Funny)
The election system, as it currently exists, squeeze out third parties. Worse, however, is that if a third party does get a toehold, the main result is has on an election is to takes vote away from the major party that it's most similar to-- the "spoiler" effect. This is why in many cases third-party challengers are secretly funded by entities that oppose the platforms that the third party supports: the "divide and conquer" strategy.
So, overall, my desire for your party is that your platform should adopt all the planks that I hate. Probably your party will be irrelevant, in which case it doesn't matter what your platform is. If your party does get large enough to make a difference, that difference will manifest by your taking votes away from your politically closest competitors, so I want you to be as evil as possible.
Thus: I suggest you adopt a platform of explicit fascism.
Re:Third parties, generally, are not good (Score:5, Interesting)
There are better systems [Re:Third parties...] (Score:3)
Note that multi-party systems can work fine elsewhere.
Yes, in elsewheres that have different balloting techniques.
I'm a great fan of Approval voting [electology.org], myself [mit.edu]. But there are numerous better methods than simple plurality.
So even though this'll get plenty of knee-jerk reactions for reasons that are inscrutable to me, I'd suggest direct representational voting, or some other way to stop gerrymandering being possible, or useful.
Gerrymandering is worse than merely an accidentally bad system-- it represents deliberate attempts to subvert democracy
The system was indubitably pretty neat back when
Or at least, was pretty good for a first try.
, but hasn't scaled well. Take the ingredient principles and build something that fits the current (and future, for say 50..100 years--investigating your voting system every century for effectiveness and possible revision isn't bad) situation better. In general, some system that doesn't happen to have a two-party-only implicit system property...
Re: (Score:3)
Worse, however, is that if a third party does get a toehold, the main result is has on an election is to takes vote away from the major party that it's most similar to-- the "spoiler" effect.
The effect of third parties, typically, is that the threat of the third party candidate forces the major party candidate they're most resembling to adopt policies of the third party. For instance, the Democrats started acting rather socialist in the 1930's and 1940's because the Socialist Party candidacies were pulling enough votes that the Democrats had to be worrying about losing to the Republicans even if they were closer to the majority opinion.
Only one plank at the Federal level: Sortocracy (Score:2)
Everything else is in the noise.
polical convictions (Score:2)
Who are you? (Score:5, Insightful)
I know I am a little too far down, but here goes.
1. Identity Fail.
"An anonymous reader writes "I am the Technology Manager of the Justice Party..."
Really?! For me you sunk your chances right there. Politics is about promoting yourself and hoping no bad $hit from your past sticks too badly. (Because there IS some, it's only a question of relativity!)
So "Anonymous Reader", for a party I've never heard of? Nope. Go away. I won't even begin to (oh wait, I am) open the can of worms on authenticity security for ... wait for it ... the *Technology Manager*... of a party?! Sales guys, I get. Tech Manager? Oh dear gawd.
2. Too F#$%$% Sick of "Hidden One Way Flow" data-slurps in politics. You want all our notes, but you won't stand to even log a Slashdot Username to respond to replies? And this for a *political party*? Screw that. I'll dignify you by saying you're not a complete fabrication by site Mgt. Let's assume you are real. Why So Sneaky?
Bye Bye.
Judicial System Oversight (Score:3)
If enough people come forward and sign a petition claiming abuse of authority, this should force a officer of greater rank from an unrelated jurisdiction to come in and investigate. If a judge holds people in contempt for half their lives, there must be repercussions. If a DA withholds exculpatory evidence, there must be repercussions. If a police officer abuses his power, then the people he works with every day should not be the ones who give him a pass.
Let alternate jurisdictions oversee each other. That way they can leave without fear of reprisals. Otherwise the truth is being stolen from the people.
And at some point there must be criminal liability for abuse of power.
thinking longer term... (Score:4, Interesting)
health (self care, health care, genetics, stem cells...)
energy (simply burning fossil fuels is stupid)
space (for starters, industry & mining would be better done off planet)
values: throw in a large dose of personal responsibility.
These are the things that matter, policy that improves them is a win.
Everything else is noise.
My Little Politicians. (Score:5, Funny)
Note to moderators: If you feel the urge to moderate this, please do not hit the 'Funny' button. As ridiculous as it sounds, I am being completely serious:
I would like to see a Brony political party.
The planks of such a party would be the same as those that keep Equestria running well: The Elements of Harmony. Each of the elements are concepts that we need very badly in American politics right now:
Honesty -- Transparency and accountability should be a cornerstone of any government.
Kindness -- The purpose of government should be to help the poor and disadvantaged. The rich do not need help.
Loyalty -- Politicians should be loyal to their constituents and to America, not to corporate lobbies or foreign investors.
Generosity -- Liberal use of government power is good when such intervention is requested. Be generous and quick to help those who ask for it, but do not interfere with industries or states unless absolutely necessary.
Laughter -- A political candidate and party should be able to laugh at themselves. Not a consideration for governing, but it would help immensely with the dreadful campaign season.
I would *love* to see the Elements of Harmony adopted by a political party. I feel they are well thought-out principles for a just and harmonious society, and out current political system has gotten very far from any harmonious ideal.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The key problem with the Equestria model: the leadership required to "enforce Harmony" is a racial elite (winged unicorns, with a tall white leader) who swoop in with superior power (magical artifacts that defeat dark-colored scary evil with blasts of rainbow energy). Basically, the "Equestria model" is what we already have, at least in the minds of the power elite "defenders of liberty" who employ powers of superior force to structure the world according to their high-minded ideals. You think you can find
Mixed Message: (Score:4, Interesting)
The article is submitted by "anonymous reader" claiming to be the technology manager for the Justice Party, yet links to a web site that identifies the National Technology Manager by name.
Just one of those little daily oddities I notice.
Chuck the post: No minority rule by major parties (Score:4, Interesting)
Number One Priority (and of most benefit to small parties like yours): Replace first past the post voting for selecting our representatives (because we are a representative republic) with something more effective in terms of game theory. I think instant run-off would work best for the American people given our history and what we are most likely to understand and adopt readily.
What's the impact on tech policy?
At the most fundamental level, tech policy should be data driven, and there is no more fundamental data than that provided by the voters. If we implement a voting system which will optimize the decisions made by members of the republic - instead of discounting a majority of the input - we have the framework to begin implementing data-driven policy in every other aspect. Otherwise - first past the post mathematically favors two opposing policies neither of which the majority of voters truly approve (rather we pick the lesser-of-evils). With a superior voting system, the constituents can indirectly favor their own tech policy (and you might get a good statistician to do some nice post-hock voting analysis to separate out the variables and tell you exactly what the people want for tech).
If you're asking for some direct policy advice - I'll post that elsewhere
anti big brother (Score:3)
Use LOGIC (Score:4, Insightful)
All laws must consist of the following:
1) A clear purpose
2) What means are to be employed to achieve that purpose
3) A list of criteria can be independently evaluated to see if it was a success
4) A timeline for evaluating those criteria and repealing the law if it was not successful
I realize this won't work in all cases, but it should help in most.
Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
How to any of your planks sit in terms of statism? (Score:4, Interesting)
It's all well and good to say you are for science and education.
But what does support for any of those things mean in terms of how you plan to help them?
Are you going to use government to prop up science through specific winner companies, or to promote private research with X-Prize like rewards that spur private research?
Are you going to support space by building government controlled space vehicles or attempt to reduce regulation around private space exploration to allow more risk for a greater range of discovery?
Basically, you as a party have to decide before anything else what role government has in our lives, as overseer or gardener.
Fix it. (Score:5, Interesting)
Restore the vote by eliminating gerrymandering.
Restore the courts by eliminating plea bargains by prosecutors. (Defendants can still plead guilty and ask for mercy from the court, not from the prosecutors.)
Restore accountability in government by reducing government immunity from lawsuits. Those who enforce the law should not be immune from it. Police officers who lie under oath [nytimes.com] should be jailed. Destruction of evidence, including failure to collect exculpatory evidence, and the failure of prosecutors to reveal potentially exculpatory evidence as required by the Constitution [secondclassjustice.com], should also not be prevented by governmental immunity and should result in prison time for any detectives and prosecutors involved.
Lots. (Score:3)
Basic income guarantee [wikipedia.org].
Electoral reform (preference voting)
Abolition of copyright.
Abolition of all victimless crimes (drug use, prostitution, all sumptuary laws)
Abolition of all national security exceptions to the Constitution (exceptions to the Constitution themselves endanger national scecurity)
Abolition of immunities. (prosecutorial, judicial, qualified)
Creation of a special prosecutor to prosecute abuses of power.
And lastly pass a law that explicitly states that every citizen has a right to a government that obeys the law. Every citizen should have standing to sue the government if it breaks any laws. Far too many egregious violations of the constitution are unstoppable because no one can prove they have standing.
your party platform (Score:3)
Your party platform contains scary restrictions on freedom of speech, freedom of association, and freedom of commerce. Your platform is full of hidden subsidies to banks, "homeowners", medical insurance, and other powerful political interest groups. Before you add more nonsense to your platform, why don't you fix that first?
Not asking other people to decide your policies (Score:5, Insightful)
I would like you to base your policies around some coherent principles so that I can know if you are worth investigating further. When you make a post like you have just made, it sounds like you are just trying to taylor your policies to getting votes from a particular constituency. Your post does not deserve to be on Slashdot. If you had stated some core principals and how they apply to the use of technology in society, that would have been something worth reading, although it would still not be your place to advertise it here.
If you are serious about politics I would suggest you act with more decency, and stop polluting news sites with articles that are not news, but rather promoting your own agenda.
Financial, science, immigration, military (Score:5, Insightful)
Financial reform. If what the banks did in 2008 wasn't illegal, it should have been. Glass-Steagal needs to come back. The tax burden on corporations (and people) needs to increase the larger they become. Money is unelected political power. It subverts democracy and encourages oligarchy. Offshore money parking needs to be illegal as well. If you want your money in the Isle of Mann, feel free to move there.
The USA's military is 7 times larger than the next largest military. We spend 18 percent of the budget on military expenditures. I'm all for reducing "entitlements" starting with the Army, Navy and Marines.
More money should go to research in AI and energy generation. The first problem is unrecognized by the mainstream press (What a shock), but the first country that develops useful, scalable, human-like AI rules the world. Seriously. The next big problem is energy. Like it or not, significant postive net energy from oil is going away. We need a replacement.
Controversial as this is, I'd give anyone with a medical, engineering or other technical degree earned in the USA a green card and two tax free years. We need the world's smart people here, not in India.
End rant.
Justice Party, ha? Then take this list (Score:3)
If you are a Justice Party then you should be about true justice.
So let's do this:
1. Strict government adherence to the set Law, the Constitution.
2. No deviation from the Law for the government, for the politicians.
3. All laws must apply in exactly the same manner to all individuals.
4. No discrimination against individuals based on any personal circumstances, you can't have justice if you don't apply the law in exactly the same way to all people.
5. No retroactive laws under any circumstances.
6. In order to pass any legislation, it must FIRST pass against ALL the tests of the existing Law, unit test your legislation against all Laws so to speak.
7. Never allow your sentiments to override your Laws.
8. Have a Law based party, anybody that violates the Law must be immediately removed from his or her position of power.
9. Strict separation of power between branches, so do not allow the Executive branch actually come up with the Law as it happens right now on daily basis, where some bureaucrat that is given authority to run something also decides on the details of the actual Law that is supposed to govern his actions.
10. All your actions must pass the muster of all the Laws right in front of the eyes of the public, I am talking about complete transparency on every decision.
So those are your commandments if you are talking about real justice.
But let me take a wild guess, you are not talking about real justice, you are talking about discrimination and outcomes that you want to base on your preferences. When you say "Justice" what you really mean is discrimination against individuals based on their personal circumstances for the purpose of achieving your goals, whatever they are (so called 'just society', which is simply another socialist party).
I don't believe my list of 10 suggestions will make it into your platform.
My favorite planks... (Score:3)
FTFY: (Score:2)
"You and yours must go away. Me and mine can stay."
Fixed that for you so it reflects what many feel emotionally.
Fiscal Policy (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, no political party position is complete without addressing money. You need to decide whether to tax your way out of this hole, or cut your way out. (or both, but aggressively, not half heartedly)
First plank? Cut the deficit all the way to negative. ASAP. That means now, not planning on it several decades out. Real reform hurts, but it will hurt more if we don't address the problem. Can you imagine the US declaring bankruptcy? That's where we're headed. (or the equvalent, anyway) And that's not just the federal government. Many of the states are insolvent right now too. Even some of the big ones (California).
Real deficit cuts are not decreasing the planned growth of deficits! Grab both the Rs and Ds and slap them with this during campaigning.
Second, start spending the money we've got wisely. We're like a leaky sieve. For instance, there's a constant drumbeat of "we've got to support the schools and teachers!" In reality? Almost all the money get's lost between tax payers and the classrooms. Setting more money aside for schools almost never results in increased learning. But cuts? Those go straight to the gullet.
Third, stop the hidden tax. Inflation. The FED and other financial entities have been focused on a constant, steady inflation to "protect" the economy from the boogeyman of deflationary-spirals. The reality is: deflation is a symptom of the spirals, but isn't the primary cause. Healthy economies absorb deflation nicely. The real reason for constant inflation is to cause the stock market to be the safest place for people to store their cash. It's a money grab for the rich, and a way for the Federal government to shrink the value of the national debt.
Re:FTFY: (Score:4, Insightful)
This is basically a slashvertisement for their political party, and they want to get more people involved, and "rally for the cause".
We're deeply entrenched into the two party system, and you're only kidding yourself if you think it will change any time soon. I think AC is simply pointing that out.
Thinking exactly that as I curiously clicked to go to their site, I noticed a sentence in there that is pushing for a direction I already don't care for, and what AC said came to mind. Without reading more into it, I am fairly certain at this point that this "party" they are forming is all about social justice. Social justice is based upon the idea that any time you succeed in favor of somebody else, that is a wrong that must be righted. What follows is a rant on social justice, and you might like my anecdote which favors the little guy:
Succeeding in favor of somebody else can range from being hired for a high paying job so the other guy needs to find somewhere else to work, or winning a race where you got the cash prize and the second place guy got nothing.
I like the idea that we are all equal by default and we should all have a fair chance, but the reality is that we aren't all equal. Last week I was on a team in a competition where we had to wire colored cables to a patch panel and some switches in a short amount of time, and the team that came in first won $1,000, whereas the other teams came out with nothing. I have keratoconus so it takes me a second to properly identify small numbers (though I can do it, eventually) and one of my other teammates is colorblind. All three of us wear glasses. These problems set us back, but we were offered no handicap favors.
We won, making us one out of 15 or so teams who competed. Statistically, we were probably the only team with debilitating eyesight issues, but we probably won because we did something smarter (I don't really know as I never met any of the competition.) Social justice says that what we did was inherently unfair because we became rich(er) at the expense of somebody else. Because we did something better, we have committed an injustice.
Social justice is bullshit. There, I said it. Like AC said, I'll go my way on this one. Though like you said, I also hope they go away. To me a society where everybody is exactly the same would be a dystopia. Maybe I'm biased because I have talents that people are willing to pay for (outside of that contest, too) but I still don't like the idea of it.
Re: (Score:3)
"Max Planck. Get him for your party. That would be one hell of a party."
Party Motto: Be discrete, not continuous!
Re:reduce nonsense (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly. Take your platform, and burn it to the ground.
I want politicians who, when faced with legislation they support or not, will release a statement saying why it's a good or bad idea. Not a buzzword-filled piece about patriotism and inherent rights, but how the particular legislation helps or hinders your particular goals.
I want politicians who will vote however they feel is right, rather than how their party tells them to.
I want politicians who will act in support of not just their own constituents, but for all the neighboring regions as well, especially in regard to business incentives.
I want politicians who honestly care more about making the world better than about the day-to-day drama of American politics.
I also want a pony.
Re: (Score:3)
Alternatively, force prosecutors to be sworn in at trial, and hold them and their star witnesses to the same perjury standards they hold the defense. Also, if it turns out they withheld exculpatory evidence and get an innocent person convicted, they should be charged with obstruction of justice and have jail time equal to the time the innocent pers
Re: (Score:3)
This is the government we're talking about.....there are all sorts of compliance laws. It needs to wide enough for a wheelchair, have hand railings, be at a shallow enough slope, be made to withstand at last 1000lbs, be sourced from an approved lumber mill, be transported by union workers, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
It is important to have a functional agricultural sector, I agree. But the system in this country essentially causes certain crops to sell at artificial prices by way of your tax dollars. If corn subsidies did not exist, farmers could not sell their corn at a loss, and corn prices would increase to corn's true cost. This disrupts the perverse calories/dollar for meat and co
Re: (Score:3)