Quotes and the 2020 election.

There is a quote, which I don't quite remember the exact details or who first said it (Hard to be sure of any quote's authors in the age of the lying internet).  I will attempt to paraphrase it:

• Under normal circumstances, conservatives should outnumber liberals.

This is based on the real definition of political conservatism: "The inclination, especially in politics, to maintain the existing or traditional order."    If the government is not totally screwing up, then most people are complacent and will be more afraid of losing what they have than of gaining benefits.

(The rest of these bullet points are my statements, not paraphrased quotes.)

•   Liberal political parties will correctly identify a problem that needs fixing, that Conservative party is ignoring.  Their solution might not work, but they will identify the problem.

This is part of the definition of a liberal party - they are trying to fix things that a conservative party is willing to ignore because they are afraid a solution will mess up things that are working well.

• Conservative ideals of today are identical to liberal ideals 50 years ago.

This again is the result of the definitions.  Liberals try to solve problems, conservatives stick to tradition.  Once a liberal solves a problem, 50 years later their solution becomes a tradition.  The liberals may try to improve upon it, but the conservatives like their parent's solution.  Hence conservatives went from being for slavery to against it but in favor of separate but equal, etc. etc. etc.

Some people mistakenly think the first quote (conservatives outnumber liberals) means most Americans are Republicans. Not true.   

•  Under normal circumstances, a moderate political party will outnumber any extremist party.

That includes conservatives, liberals, greens, hawks, doves, libertarians, monarchists, communists, or authoritarian.   This is true because a moderate party has a greater pool of voters.  It can draw from all sides, and the independents in particular. Extremist party, can only draw from their own extreme and some of the independents.  How do the Extremists win?   enthusiasm.

Moderates tend toward apathy, extremists have enthusiasm.  The DNC has tried to be a moderate party since Bill Clinton, explaining why they lose the midterms (voter apathy) but do better in the presidential elections (Since 1992 there were seven  elections, and the Republicans won the popular vote only once - George Bush's 2004 re-election.   Democrats won the popular vote all six other times, despite losing the electoral college twice)

• The Republican party, while it was a conservative party with libertarian tendencies for most of the past 70 years , has moved to a rural party due to successful  gerrymandering policy pushed by Karl Rove.

They knew they could not win the popular vote against a moderate party, so they ignored it and concentrated on other methods - gerrymandering the vote to gain rural seats.

• The Democratic party, while it started as a liberal party, is being pushed into an urban party by gerrymandering.  

If you can't win the rural areas due to gerrymandering, the party leaders become all urban, pushing the party that direction.


Now back to the 2020 election.  Remember the Karl Rove Gerrymandering plan?

• Trump undermined the gerrymandering movement, first managing to steal a whole bunch of suburban voters via a social media plan, but new trends show him losing them.  (https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump/)

What is going to happen next?  Will the GOP return to it's rural based gerrymandering policy?  The Supreme Court could end that - they may be conservative but they are mostly honest and see the real undemocratic effects of gerrymandering. 

Will Trump leave a lasting mark on the GOP, turning it into a Social Media Party?  I don't think that will last.  It might work for him, but no one else seems to be able to duplicate his style of ignoring facts. 
 
I see the DNC regaining most of the electoral votes in the Great Lake States  (Iowa, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan).  When you lie (show his taxes, Mexico will pay for the wall, save the dreamers, etc.) you make short term gains but suffer in the long term.  That will give the Presidency to the DNC candidate.

The GOP may keep the Senate - though it is not certain.  They have enough seats up for re-election in states that are leaning against Trump.  They will almost certainly lose Arizona and Colorado.  The Democrats need to pick off at least one of Maine, Iowa, or North Carolina - all of whom dislike Trump. If the right presidential candidate brings out the voters and the Democrats pick good Senate Candidates for those three states, the GOP loses it's majority.


If the DNC gains three total, it's a tie.  Four and the DNC controls both the Presidency and Congress.  Ginsburg and Breyer will almost certainly be replaced by the next president.   If the Democrat does not screw up and get's re-elected, that means Alito and/or Thomas are likely to be replaced as well, giving the liberals a majority unless the GOP pulls some evil maneuver like they did to get Gorsuch into office.   (Obama should have had the choice, and the GOP got lucky Hillary - who won the popular vote - did not win the electoral vote)

Why Government SHOULD get bigger every year.

In America, the conservative movement has an accepted axiom that "Big government is bad government".

While there is a germ of an idea here (there are a lot of  government rules and regulations that are either a) regulating things that don't need to be regulated or, worse, b) stopping good things and/or allowing bad things), the essential idea that more government = worse government is false.

Once upon a time, we were ignorant.  We did not know the dangers of radiation, mercury, foreign money on our politics, dioxins, asbestos, tobacco, Facebook political ads, cocaine, Oxycontin, pay day loans, global warming, thalidomide, AIDS, etc. etc. etc.

Back then, it would be foolish to regulate them.  We could have outlawed bananas for their radioactivity while encouraging the use of x-ray machines to measure your foot size.    But over time we learned enough about radioactivity to make good regulations about them.  Once we knew enough about radioactivity, it would have been reckless to NOT regulate them.

The thing is, our current society is VERY good at learning things.  Every year we learn why certain things kill you, and how to avoid them.

As such, every single year we need NEW regulations.    When we prove that CBD oil helps certain epileptic seizures, we need new laws allowing the cannabis derived drug to be included in medications for epileptics.   We don't want to to simply advertise that, because it will not become an effective treatment without the regulations.

That does not mean we should not eliminate the bad regulations.  But no matter what, every year:

1. Government will grow larger
2. This is a GOOD thing
3. Some jackass will complain about how government is getting too big.

 

 Are there bad government regulations and laws?  Yes.   Many.  I can even give you a list to help identify them.

1. Made by the top officials, rather than the mid to low government officials.  Congressmen, Presidents, Agency heads.   They have less expertise in the data, more expertise in how to appease others. 
2. Based on politically ideas rather than verified new discoveries
3. They have not solved or even reduced the problem.  If the problem still exists and is not shrinking,that is a bad government.
4.  

Torture, the Weak Willed and Confusion.

First note, that I labelled this Crime, as in it is a crime to torture people.   Too often we forget that, and let the torturers off scott free.

One of the flaws in the US Legal system is that it has done a poor job preventing torture.  Basically we have two amendments, the 8th to stop the cruel and unusual punishments of convicted criminals, and the 5th allows us to refuse to answer questions.

These left a lot of leeway and the Courts had to make some tough decisions, both of which made the situation worse.

First, the Eighth Amendment.  The problem with this was the wording ''and unusual".   Which means things that were usual punishments, even if we later discovered they were particularly cruel, get grandfathered in.

Oh, "Solitary Confinement" drives people mad?  Too bad, it's been going on for so long, it is now considered usual, and not unconstitutional.  Oh, poisoning you with multiple poisons, one to stop the pain and another to kill may result in a painful death, where just filling you with heroin will kill you painlessly?  Too bad, it's been going on for so long, it's usual.  

It took a long time to get the right to be fed according to your beliefs/religions, because of this.  This was a bad wording mistake by either James Madison who wrote the actual amendment, or more accurately, the English Bill of Rights (1689), where Madison took the  words "cruel and unusual punishment" from. 

The Fifth amendment is more problematic.  The problem is that it doesn't outright outlaw behavior, but instead prevents the cops from compelling  you to speak.   The idea was that compelling you to speak implies torture, but the courts had to work with the language, so they set up complex rules defining what was compelling, rather than the behavior that was torture.  So the cops found ways to do things that was not 'them compelling you to speak', that reasonable people would call torture, but that they would not get arrested for. 


It wasn't until 1963 that they established the Miranda Ruling, and over the past 55+ years, the cops have found ways to abide by these rules about 'compelling' speech, but most would consider to be loopholes.  That is, they clearly compelled the speech, but can pretend they did not.


So let's talk about the the things cops do that should be illegal, but are generally still accepted in a court of law as acceptable.


1) Questioning before someone receives medical treatment - often with the implication or outright threat that the treatment depends on answers.  This may be the suspect or someone they care about.

2) Questioning after someone has threatened in a believable manner.  This includes the drawing of a firearm, actual physical assault, etc.  None of this needs to be done by the police, it could also be done by someone associated with them or under their control - including other criminals.

3) Keep questioning for more than 8 hours - upto 16 hours - a day, usually switching off cops (because forcing a single cop to question you for 16 hours a day would be torture to the cop, and they don't want the cop to break.)


4) Delaying, or limiting the quantity or quality of food or water. 

5) Questioning while you are under the influence of drugs, such as alcohol (some states regulate this, but not the federal government).

6) Questioning Children or those with similar mental capabilities.

7) Confessions obtained using a translator - particularly for sign language.  The person interrogating should speak the same language.  

8) Confessions where the police fed the informant ANY accurate details of the crime.  The details exist for one purpose only, to verify if the confession is true or false.  Feeding them the details only makes sense if you are looking to disguise a false confession as true.

These are common issues in many cases that were overturned.  They fall into three categories:

A)  Torture.  First few are examples of actual torture, even if no actual harm is done.   Here, the cops are using sufficient fear and stress that that even normal people become willing to lie to get out of the situation.    Different people have different levels of will power, and a cop that goes anywhere near his own will power will end up sending someone an innocent man with just slightly weaker will power to jail.
 B) Stress on a weak mind   A little less severe than torture, but peoples who minds are not working right - whether they be children the disabled, or the drugged, routinely make false statements that implicate themselves.  Throw in stress and you can get them to do it on command.

C) Confusion about what was actually confessed to.   Here, improper care, whether intentional or accidental is made over what was actually confessed to, and the court is presented false information as if it were true.


None of these should be allowed.  If for some reason they need to be questioned when the prerequisites are there by accident, the cops should get a defense attorney or call it inadmissiable.

Our legal system is one of the best in the world.  It jails a higher percent of our population that most other countries.  It is designed to work on tough, smart criminals.  The weak willed need more protection, and I assure you the legal system is more than tough enough to  convict a criminal kid, even if he has an attorney when questioned.

Anti-Male sexism exists.

I met this guy the other day.   He claimed he wasn't a racist because he liked black folk just fine, it was just n-word he hated.   I was shocked of course. 

This man is a racist.  The n-word is just code for black people he dislikes.   Just because you recognize that not all of a group conforms to your racist beliefs does not mean you are not a racist.

A transvestite is a man that refuse to conform to our sexist stereotypes.  They dress and act like women.  That's all.  Nothing necessary sexual about it.  Nothing perverted or otherwise evil.  Just refusing to abide by the sexist stereotype.  

Please note the t word is used almost exclusively to talk about men dressing as women.  No one calls a women that dresses in slacks a transvestite.

To the extent that our society is prejudiced against transvestites, it is prejudiced against ALL men.  You can't say "I only dislike men that dress and act like women", that  is just as bigoted as saying you like black people fine, just not n-word. 

The real issue here is that the our society evolved out of a heavily sexist culture that considered women second class citizens.  Which means that men that trying to act like women get treated as if they are trying to be weak.

As we evolved, we have begun to overcome these issues, but obviously we still have a long way to go.  Women have earned the right to vote, the right to work, and the right to choose if they will  have a child or not.  Men have not been given similar rights.   But if I were to name those rights, you would claim I was defending weaklings.   The men that want those rights are called unworthy of being called men.

Our society has reluctantly come to accept the women that break these stereotypes.  Powerful women (even while we pay them less than men, and generally mistreats them) are still admired.  Now a days, a woman that becomes a doctor, lawyer, etc. is considered a 'catch' as a wife.  But a man that becomes a nurse, para-legal, etc. is not.

Men are considered weak if we break these stereotypes.  Which is why the men's rights groups are full of horrible, weak people.  Most of us are still taught to hide our weakness, and the men's rights groups tend to attract only those that embrace those weaknesses.

But that does not change the fact that we are still massively prejudiced against these men - even if they complain about it in a manner that reflects poorly on them.

The self same behavior that we dislike about them would be much more accepted as normal if done by women.   Women complaining about men all the time.  Most men don't dare complain about women, on pain of, well, being treated like those poor men in Men's Rights Groups.

Transvestites are men that dress and act as women. If our society is prejudiced against transvestites, then we are prejudiced against ALL men.

Moral Atheism vs Religion, and the Prisoner's Dilemma

The Prisoner's Dilemma is a ethical quandary.  In short, two prisoners are arrested with a minor amount of evidence against them.  If neither squeal, they get a light sentence (1 year for example).  If both squeals, they both get medium sentences (2 years) , if only one squeals, the squealer goes free while the upstanding criminal gets a heavy sentence (3 years).

Each individual prisoner is better off if they squeal: if you don't squeal you will either get 1 year or 3 years, if you do squeal you will either get 0 years or 2 years. Yet, people do not squeal.  In real life, many, many criminals are offered something very close to this, yet they do not rat. Most humans understand why this happens, it's a recognition of an unspoken contract and sticking to it because you realize the group as a whole is better off.  (Note, religion has nothing to do with it - these prisoners are not afraid God will punish them for squealing. )

But not everyone does keep silent.  Some people do squeal.   They do so because they think it is better to take advantage of the unspoken social contract, rather than to obey it.

There is a psychological word for these people:  "sociopath".  Sociopaths recognize what they are doing and feel guilt about it, but they do it anyway.  They are not pyschopaths - who feel no guilt and may not even understand why it is wrong.  Sociopath simply thinks that while society benefits from the unspoken social contracts, they personally are better off if they break it - just like the Prisoner's Dilemma.

A friend recently sent me a video from a man named Jordan Preston, claiming that religion was the only reason not to commit a crime (squeal).  Jordan is wrong, and is in fact a sociopath.   He knows about the unspoken social contract, but thinks there is no reason for anyone to follow it.

The reason most people do not commit crimes is not, as Preston thinks, only God.  Instead it is four fold.

First, the unspoken contract - I agree not to murder, steal, cheat, etc. because I want other people not to murder, steal, cheat against me.

Second, even if I am a sociopath, I also understand that the government has created a legal system, complete with cops, judges, lawyers, etc. to enforce the social contract, at least the parts they wrote down.  As such, I must take into account the chance of being caught and punished for my crimes.

Third is the social disproval, should I be found out.   This applies to all of the unspoken contract, even the stuff not written down as law.  I.E.  Should you skip the line, people will get upset and you know it.  If people get too upset, they can even riot and/or lynch you.   See the poor black men that were lynched  for decades (even centuries) after the American civil war - they broke the vile rules white men enforced even if they were not written down as laws.  Or see the parts of Mexico where vigilante citizen groups are in a war against the cartels.

Fourth, one of the advantages of religion is (as Mr. Preston pointed out), to convince people that even if our faulty legal system doesn't catch you and punish you, God will.

For someone to commit a crime, the following has to happen:

1)  They must either be a sociopath, or be pushed out of the social contact by others (i.e.  if no one is willing to sell you food, you will steal it rather than starve).
2)  They must also be willing to risk the legal system - they must believe the  potential gain outweighs the risk of legal punishment.
3)  They must also be willing to risk illegal revenge by a lynch mob.  Generally this risk is relatively small if the legal system is strong, but where the legal system is weak, this risk increases.
4) Finally, they also must believe God will not punish them (or much rarely, that the punishment would be worth it.)

These situations are rare. Less than 1 in 20 people decide to commit a crime, at least in America.  But Religion is the last and weakest of the stopgaps.

Usually if you are capable of believing in God, you are also capable of believe in the social contract.  It takes a lot of education to convince a sociopath that God is real and that they will punish you for evil you do. It's not impossible, but it does happen.  Many sociopaths become atheists, but that does NOT mean that many atheists are sociopaths.  All lions are cats does not mean all cats are lions - most cats are house pets.

When you fail to understand that atheists have lots of very good reasons not to commit crimes, you are not being 'rational', as Mr. Preston claims, instead you are being sociopathic.  Failing to understand the basic unspoken social contract.

This is all made worse by one simple factor: Religion does control people's behavior, but there is nothing stopping Religion from being used to make people do evil rather than good.  And throughout history, every single major religion has been used to do evil. Every religion has a Spanish Inquisition, jihadists, or similar fanatical extremists that break the law in the name of God.  Mormons - some of the least criminal people in the world - have a history of murdering people and blaming Indians.  Even Buddhists attack Muslims in Myanmar.  Religion's ability to control people is not always good.

Many atheists believe that the good religion has done is outweighed by the bad.  There is no way to actually tell if this is true, but crime statistics in atheist countries support this belief.  (https://www.quora.com/Are-atheists-more-or-less-likely-to-be-criminals-than-theists)

Quadrant Voting Vs Gerrymandering

Gerrymandering is a complex issue.   We want to let communities vote without outside interference, allowing, for example, a hispanic community to elect a hispanic representative, despite being surrounded by non-hispanic people.  But we don't want one political party to use it to prevent subsections of people from having a voice in politics.


So here is a radical, new version of democracy to consider.  I call it Quadrant voting.

Basically, we group districts into sets of three to five contiguous quadrants, with a requirement of each state having no more than 3 quadrants having less than or more than 4 districts.  All votes are done over an entire quadrant, for the party, not the candidates.  

In the primary elections, the parties members select the four (or 5 if the quadrant has 5 congressmen), best vote getters, and they rank them from least to most popular.

Say your quadrant (like most) was entitled to 4 congressmen and the GOP had six nominees in the primary.  They would end up with the 4 highest vote getters being listed in the general, for example: #1 Smith (most votes), #2 Johnson,  #3 Rodriguez and 4 Peterson.

When the General election is held, you vote for the party, not the man, and you get just a single vote for the entire quadrant.   In a 4 district quadrant, if your party wins 21% of the vote, you get one congressmen, 42% you get two, 63% you get 3, 84% you get four congressmen.  (Three District, the numbers are 26%, 52% and 78%. Five District quadrant use 17%, 34%, 51%, 68%, and 85%).  So Peterson only gets elected if the GOP gets 84% of the quadrant's vote. 

Given our current system, most of the time the quadrants would be fighting to get to 63% for the third vote.

Note that this makes the primary more important.  The quadrant system basically ensures that the congressional make up will match the state's make up, and that party's best vote getter will always stay in power - it's only their secondary people that get kicked out.   It's really hard kick someone out of power if their own party likes them.

Moreover, it ensures that communities can elect someone that represents them.  Have a city that's 30% black, 30% Hispanic, and 40% white?   You are going to get one at least one black, one Hispanic and one white congressmen.  Only the last one is up for debate.

More importantly, gerrymandering is now meaningless.  Make one quadrant 90% black, you just gave them four congressmen and less than 6% wasted votes.  Make your own quadrant 63% Republican, your opponent still gets one out of 4 congressmen - two if your party does something stupid and loses some of the expected vote.

Basically, much fewer votes get wasted.

It would make minor changes more important for the general vote count.

The downside is you are voting for the party, not the man.  People at the center of big scandals would still get elected if they were more popular inside their own party - it would be their less popular associates that pay the price, rather than them.

Effectively, this Roy Moore would win, but it would also mean that they would have a lot less power. And his own party would be very very upset with him for losing them votes.

It would also mean that a lot more states would be much closer to 50-50. 

The governing party is always conservative.

There is a common refrain among conservatives that states:

In any stable country, the most common political belief is conservatism.

This statement, without any proof is usually taken at face value.

While I suspect it is true, they are ignoring several important factors.

First, it using the definition of conservative as "conserving the past and reluctant to change" and nothing else.   It is not the more commonly promoted anti-tax, anti-regulation, pro-religious politics used as propaganda by the current Republican Party.  The actual core philosophies of the Republican Party are different than either of these.  In the 2000's it was a rural party, and Donald Trump is remaking it into a fascist party.

Second, people and political parties are not one thing, they are often several things.   Life is complicated.   Every political party has some conservatism and some liberalism, they also have some aspects of authoritarianism, freedom, etc.  When I say a party is conservative, it generally means they are more conservative than most other parties they compete with.

Thirdly, there is the difference between the beliefs and philosophy claimed and the beliefs they use to decide how to actually govern.


Which leads me to my main point. 

Assuming the aphorism is true, not only are the majority of the population always conservative, but by definition so must the party in power be.  Regardless of what they say they are.   At least for their real beliefs, if not their claimed beliefs.  If they've been in power for more than two years, they become conservative because they cease trying to pass new kinds of laws and instead merely try to maintain the changes they already passed.
So at the height of Obama's power - just after he passed Obamacare - the DEMOCRATS were the conservative party.  Yes, they had hints of urbanism and progressiveness, but conservative became their major trait.   The democrats may have claimed to be liberals, but they were conservatives.

At that time, the Republican party, despite claiming to be a conservative party, was actually a "Radical Right" party - a political party intent on overturning the current improvements and returning to older methods.

When the Republicans get into power, after they pass their laws, they become a conservative party and the Democrats stop being conservatives and become progressive party.  They retained hints of urbanism as well as a few other flavors (pro-environment, anti-discrimination, etc.)

If you are wondering where the liberals are, they go by the name "libertarian".  The word liberal refers to someone that cares more about freedom and liberty than anything else.   But they can never truly gain power because their political belief is at heart against government power.  It's like a pacifist army - a silly idea that won't work.

P.S.  Just as the Democrats and Republicans aren't really liberals or conservatives, most of the time the people claiming to be libertarians aren't really libertarians.  Sometimes they are Radicals that like freedom, sometimes they are Conservatives that like freedom, and s