[ExI] Even India and Haiti do it better

spike at rainier66.com spike at rainier66.com
Tue May 12 16:29:58 UTC 2020



From: extropy-chat <extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org> On Behalf Of John Clark via extropy-chat


>…You're so confident that little piece of paper can protect you from anything…


It uses a similar line of reasoning to the notion that the US can continue to run enormous deficits forever: we have been doing it since 1835 and it hasn’t caused any collapse.  The Constitution has been protecting Americans since 1789 and hasn’t caused any collapse.  I am betting on the constitution surviving the coming financial catastrophe.


>…that you won't even lift a finger to prevent the bad actor from gaining power in the first place…


I lifted a finger: I voted libertarian.  But I live in a free state: party doesn’t matter here.  We already know which party will win by a landslide.  If it is close enough for a Californian’s vote to matter, the election is not close enough for a Californian’s vote to matter.


All those who live in free states should vote for their ideological favorites.  This strengthens those parties and sends a message to the mainstreamers: we matter.


John you like to go on about how unfair it is that a person from Wyoming’s vote is worth 53 times as much, but Wyoming is also a free state: their votes don’t matter either.  If it is close in Wyoming, it isn’t close.


The votes that really matter are those from Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, the big swingers.  Those big swing states really decide.  Is it fair that their votes count when the others really don’t?  Well, that’s what the constitution demands, and the constitution is good, so it must be good.


Of course you could argue that the fault is in states for making their states winner-take-all to the Electoral College.  If they split their delegates, Florida wouldn’t be such a huge prize.  The 2000 election would have gone the other way.  However… the winner-take-all policy is not in the constitution and is not controlled at a federal level.  That is a state level decision.  So… move to Florida and convince them to split their EC delegates, as Maine and Nebraska already do, making both those states nearly irrelevant.


>… such as by putting a checkmark on your ballot next to a presidential candidate that actually has a fighting chance of beating the bad actor…


OK, so imagine this: the current front runner of the mainstream opposition party (can’t recall the name of it (or his name)) gets nominated, his condition gets worse, debate, he is asked what he will do about the budget deficit, he starts going on about how he will do this or that if elected to represent Delaware in the senate, then on to a rambling commentary about Corn Pop and children rubbing his leg hairs and so on, then suddenly the screen goes dark and there are some technical difficulties.  His staff cancels all remaining speaking appointments, but it is clear enough what is going on.  Now his chances of being elected are worse than the third party candidates.  He will get trounced; by your reasoning it is not justifiable to vote for him.  I do not buy this line of reasoning.


OK in that scenario, now we have this bad actor and whoever the Libertarians nominate next month, and whoever the Greens nominate in two months, plus a handful of lesser-known party’s candidates.


>… instead you go for Mr. Nobody from the Very Silly Party that will be completely forgotten by history 10 minutes after the polls close…


Libertarians spanned the gap in enough states that they could have swung the election.  Neither of the mainstream candidates so much as tossed us a bone.  The fiscal conservatives alone could have swung that election, yet neither mainstream candidate even talked about the deficit.  Too bad for the mainstream candidates.


> Aren’t you glad we have a constitution?  


>…I'd have no worries whatsoever if it was as difficult to violate the constitution as it is to violate the Second Law Of Thermodynamics, but that is not the case… John K Clark


OK so have no worries whatsoever.  When it comes to seizing power, the constitution is harder to violate than the second law, which is why it has never been done, even though nearly everyone at that level of power would have cheerfully done so.


I am betting on the constitution.  The anvil wears out the hammers.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20200512/f7f72d6c/attachment.htm>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list