How to Get Better Leadership in the Two Party System
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-10-2016, 12:43 AM
RE: How to Get Better Leadership in the Two Party System
- The Alternative Vote is vital to a functioning democracy. Campaign for it at every opportunity.
- Seriously consider making voting mandatory. Force candidates to address the political centre rather than spending their time trying to energise their base to get out and vote.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hafnof's post
15-10-2016, 01:08 AM
RE: How to Get Better Leadership in the Two Party System
(14-10-2016 07:27 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  I've written about this before -- I believe that we're getting the worst possible leadership now -- because each side withholds information about the opposition until after the primaries. This ensures they're not running against the best the other side has to offer - but more frequently the worst.

This must change.

.....

We should require each presidential candidate to publish IN WRITING -- an essay of who they think is the BEST that the other side should run for the office.

.....

Of course - you're going to say "They won't do that!!"....

Who said we should make it optional?????


If it was REQUIRED of the candidates to say who they think is the best the other side has to offer --- it would make the smear campaigns of today - a thing of the past.

Or -- it would be very easy to go back to the essay - and see that the writer is a liar.......

We'd be the winner.

We'd be far more likely to get good leadership from honest people, who are willing to put the countries interest ahead of their own personal ambitions......................

It sounds good in theory. The snag is that the law requiring these essays would have to be wrtten and passed by the two parties subject to it. That'll be some tough sledding, there.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-10-2016, 04:50 AM
RE: How to Get Better Leadership in the Two Party System
Perhaps if the American people educated themselves and demanded more of the political process then the candidates would be forced to up their game. As it stands today the lowest common denominator is really low.

Front row seats for the Lancelot Link and the Evolution Revolution Reunion Tour!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes chimp3's post
15-10-2016, 11:53 AM
RE: How to Get Better Leadership in the Two Party System
.....let him produce the tape and we'll vet it.

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-10-2016, 12:03 PM
RE: How to Get Better Leadership in the Two Party System
BTW in what little research I've done on this subject, it seems that this island which is referenced by anon has been frequented by all manner of wealthy playboys including UK's Prince Andrew and - wait for it - Donald Trump.

Yes The Donald also frequented the island, where, supposedly, he raped and threatened a 13 year old girl as well.

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-10-2016, 01:03 AM
RE: How to Get Better Leadership in the Two Party System
Set the bar to win at 2/3rds of the popular vote. A leader that is despised by nearly half the voters probably shouldn't be in power.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-10-2016, 01:31 AM
RE: How to Get Better Leadership in the Two Party System
(16-10-2016 01:03 AM)Paleophyte Wrote:  Set the bar to win at 2/3rds of the popular vote. A leader that is despised by nearly half the voters probably shouldn't be in power.

Better Idea: Preferential (Instant Run-Off) Voting

[Image: 220px-Preferential_ballot.svg.png]

If there are five candidates, you vote for them in order of preference. All of the votes are tallied up, and if no single candidate hits the threshold to win the election, then the candidate with the least amount of votes has their ballots recounted with the voter's next preferred candidate. Recount all of the votes. If no candidate has enough to win, again eliminate the lowest poling candidate and redistribute their ballots among the highest preference choice listed that's still in the race. Rinse and repeat until one candidate garners enough votes to cross the finish line.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
16-10-2016, 07:29 AM
RE: How to Get Better Leadership in the Two Party System
(14-10-2016 07:27 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  I've written about this before -- I believe that we're getting the worst possible leadership now
...

I think the problem arises in the conflict inherent in the word "leader". And with that, the difference between "principles" and "policies".

An organisation (in this case a culturally mixed society i.e. The USofA) requires a framework of principles and policies (underpinned by processes, practices, org structures, etc.) that enable it to achieve goals and objectives.

These principles reflect the values of the organisation (the nation) i.e. what America stands for.

One kind of leader will be an embodiment or personification of these values, examples being Lizzie II and da Pope.

This kind of leader would be a representation of the current zeitgeist (or at least, a shared perception of it i.e. strength, integrity, etc.) and if this is what Murika wants they should have gone for Obama ...

... Michelle! Yes

I think that Trump supporters believe he is this kind of leader ... which he is if Murikan values include: Racism, Intolerance, Misogyny and Narcissism. Unsure

Clinton is not this kind of leader as evident by her voting record ... the ability to be persuaded by reasoned argument is a positive trait for a good manager, not a "figure-head" leader.

Another kind of leader will be the nation-builder that can lead people to an aspirational vision (or set of values), examples being Nelson Mandela and Lee Kuan Yew and Steve Jobs (actually Frankie-Pope might be in this category too; time will tell).

The problem that arises here is that the current system may be antithetical to the future vision so a lot of kicking and screaming ensues.

The typical example of this is the UK parliament's repeated refusal to bring back the death penalty in the face of demands from the mob people.

Trump wins here because he can (in)articulate a fluffy enough vision that is sufficiently nebulous for his supporters to envision their own versions of it (a bit like the christian heaven).

Hilary hasn't been successful here. She needs more Bern.

So all the above relates to "principles" and both candidates fail because of their perceived lack of them ... but what about "policy"?

Policies will change as the environment (global and domestic risks, challenges, resource shortages, etc.) changes. They should support the principles but need to be pragmatic, non-intrusive, effective etc.

Other than the symbolism of being the first female president, Hilary's abilities appear to more towards the Administrator / Manager aspect of leadership... the non-inspirational but undeniably necessary aspect.

Trump completely fails here with regard to both track record in business and also procedural acumen.

But this is Hilary's win. The Admin/Manager type needs to excel at Getting Shit Done!
A couple of times, I've seen TTAers post Hilary's CV (a long list of achievements)... unless my memory fails me, I don't recall seeing one of her most pertinent past roles ... exec of Walmart. If anyone here has more than superficial knowledge of what shit she got done at Walmart, I'd love to know.

The appeal of Bernie was that his policies support an attractive set of principles.
With Hilary, people are concerned that her (unspoken) policies support the principles of the Kleptocrats.
And Trump has no principles or even any ethics as far as I can tell.

(14-10-2016 07:57 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  Or maybe if each party exercised some control by vetting who will represent them instead of letting every Jane, Dick and Harry simply throw their name into the hat.
...

Which is what the DNC has been criticised for doing i.e. ending up with a manager and not a leader.

(14-10-2016 01:39 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  ...
Of course, it's pretty easy now to see that they're liars, and that doesn't seem to bother most people.
...

And indeed, that should not bother anyone who thinks that a good administrator should be in control. A good e.g. negotiator needs to be an accomplished and convincing bullshitter.
And it might explain why both party machines are either surprised that the masses seem to care about a principal like integrity or are desperate to maintain the pretense of it.

(15-10-2016 04:50 AM)chimp3 Wrote:  Perhaps if the American people educated themselves and demanded more of the political process then the candidates would be forced to up their game. As it stands today the lowest common denominator is really low.

My instinct is to agree with this but I've got to ask ... educate themselves in what ... the policies?

When we go on holiday to e.g. Thailand, we don't need a law degree first to make sure we don't break the rules... we just need a rough idea of the principles that are embedded in the culture of the place.

Similarly, when we take a new job, we might think twice about joining an organisation that holds values we do not share but we don't read all their internal policies first.

So a typical voter will make a decision based on how well the candidates' principles (rather than policies) match their own. And I'm inclined to believe that this in an emotional decision more than a rational one.

This post is already too long so I'll avoid the temptation to go into what I think (speculate) the future method of representation will be in a border-less, globalised and highly automated (Industrie 4.0) world of the near future and just hint that might be something to do with "consumer-power".

(16-10-2016 01:03 AM)Paleophyte Wrote:  Set the bar to win at 2/3rds of the popular vote. A leader that is despised by nearly half the voters probably shouldn't be in power.

Unless it's the visionary (tough choices / cruel to be kind) leader. Using the popular vote as the metric will get you a "current zeitgeist" leader.

"I'm Michelle Obama and I approve this message".

Big Grin

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like DLJ's post
16-10-2016, 08:03 AM
RE: How to Get Better Leadership in the Two Party System
(16-10-2016 07:29 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(14-10-2016 07:27 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  I've written about this before -- I believe that we're getting the worst possible leadership now
...

I think the problem arises in the conflict inherent in the word "leader". And with that, the difference between "principles" and "policies".

An organisation (in this case a culturally mixed society i.e. The USofA) requires a framework of principles and policies (underpinned by processes, practices, org structures, etc.) that enable it to achieve goals and objectives.

These principles reflect the values of the organisation (the nation) i.e. what America stands for.

One kind of leader will be an embodiment or personification of these values, examples being Lizzie II and da Pope.

This kind of leader would be a representation of the current zeitgeist (or at least, a shared perception of it i.e. strength, integrity, etc.) and if this is what Murika wants they should have gone for Obama ...

... Michelle! Yes

I think that Trump supporters believe he is this kind of leader ... which he is if Murikan values include: Racism, Intolerance, Misogyny and Narcissism. Unsure

Clinton is not this kind of leader as evident by her voting record ... the ability to be persuaded by reasoned argument is a positive trait for a good manager, not a "figure-head" leader.

Another kind of leader will be the nation-builder that can lead people to an aspirational vision (or set of values), examples being Nelson Mandela and Lee Kuan Yew and Steve Jobs (actually Frankie-Pope might be in this category too; time will tell).

The problem that arises here is that the current system may be antithetical to the future vision so a lot of kicking and screaming ensues.

The typical example of this is the UK parliament's repeated refusal to bring back the death penalty in the face of demands from the mob people.

Trump wins here because he can (in)articulate a fluffy enough vision that is sufficiently nebulous for his supporters to envision their own versions of it (a bit like the christian heaven).

Hilary hasn't been successful here. She needs more Bern.

So all the above relates to "principles" and both candidates fail because of their perceived lack of them ... but what about "policy"?

Policies will change as the environment (global and domestic risks, challenges, resource shortages, etc.) changes. They should support the principles but need to be pragmatic, non-intrusive, effective etc.

Other than the symbolism of being the first female president, Hilary's abilities appear to more towards the Administrator / Manager aspect of leadership... the non-inspirational but undeniably necessary aspect.

Trump completely fails here with regard to both track record in business and also procedural acumen.

But this is Hilary's win. The Admin/Manager type needs to excel at Getting Shit Done!
A couple of times, I've seen TTAers post Hilary's CV (a long list of achievements)... unless my memory fails me, I don't recall seeing one of her most pertinent past roles ... exec of Walmart. If anyone here has more than superficial knowledge of what shit she got done at Walmart, I'd love to know.

The appeal of Bernie was that his policies support an attractive set of principles.
With Hilary, people are concerned that her (unspoken) policies support the principles of the Kleptocrats.
And Trump has no principles or even any ethics as far as I can tell.

(14-10-2016 07:57 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  Or maybe if each party exercised some control by vetting who will represent them instead of letting every Jane, Dick and Harry simply throw their name into the hat.
...

Which is what the DNC has been criticised for doing i.e. ending up with a manager and not a leader.

(14-10-2016 01:39 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  ...
Of course, it's pretty easy now to see that they're liars, and that doesn't seem to bother most people.
...

And indeed, that should not bother anyone who thinks that a good administrator should be in control. A good negotiator needs to be an accomplished and convincing bullshitter.
And it might explain why both party machines are either surprised that the masses seem to care about a principal like integrity or are desperate to maintain the pretense of it.

(15-10-2016 04:50 AM)chimp3 Wrote:  Perhaps if the American people educated themselves and demanded more of the political process then the candidates would be forced to up their game. As it stands today the lowest common denominator is really low.

My instinct is to agree with this but I've got ask ... educate themselves in what ... the policies?

When we go on holiday to e.g. Thailand, we don't need a law degree first to make sure we don't break the rules... we just need a rough idea of the principles that are embedded in the culture of the place.

Similarly, when we take a new job, we might think twice about joining an organisation that holds values we do not share but we don't read all their internal policies first.

So a typical voter will make a decision based on how well the candidates principles (rather than policies) match their own. And I'm inclined to believe that this in an emotional decision more than a rational one.

This post is already too long so I'll avoid the temptation to go into what I think (speculate) the future method of representation will be in a border-less, globalised and highly automated (Industrie 4.0) world of the near future and just hint that might be something to do with "consumer-power".

(16-10-2016 01:03 AM)Paleophyte Wrote:  Set the bar to win at 2/3rds of the popular vote. A leader that is despised by nearly half the voters probably shouldn't be in power.

Unless it's the visionary (tough choices / cruel to be kind) leader. Using the popular vote as the metric will get you a "current zeitgeist" leader.

"I'm Michelle Obama and I approve this message".

Big Grin

Fantastic post DLJ! This is why you are our leader. Big Grin

(16-10-2016 07:29 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Clinton is not this kind of leader as evident by her voting record ... the ability to be persuaded by reasoned argument is a positive trait for a good manager, not a "figure-head" leader.

Another kind of leader will be the nation-builder that can lead people to an aspirational vision (or set of values), examples being Nelson Mandela and Lee Kuan Yew and Steve Jobs (actually Frankie-Pope might be in this category too; time will tell).

This is very telling. It seems you need the charisma of a Bernie Sanders and the pragmatism of HRC to first be elected and then do the work that needs to be done. One paints a pretty picture but as we know the Devil is in the details and it is the ability to form a concensus (I don't want to know how you made the sausage) that allows for real and measurable progress.

HRC has many positive qualities, being inspirational is not one of them, being a "politician" is (in other words has the political chops to get two recalcitrant sides to reach compromise). IMO she will be elected because of two reasons, her opponent is DJT, and there are enough pragmatists to realize that she'll probably do the dirty work needed but without the party favors and balloon drop. (Everyone likes party favors and balloon drops).

(16-10-2016 07:29 AM)DLJ Wrote:  So a typical voter will make a decision based on how well the candidates principles (rather than policies) match their own. And I'm inclined to believe that this in an emotional decision more than a rational one.

Another excellent observation. Thumbsup I am in total agreement with you on this point. "Feels" Trump rationality nearly every time.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Full Circle's post
16-10-2016, 09:20 AM
RE: How to Get Better Leadership in the Two Party System
(16-10-2016 01:31 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Better Idea: Preferential (Instant Run-Off) Voting

Np, no, no... we use a modified version of Preferential Voting in Australia and it's a disaster. Put simply, in a two-candidate contest, the second-rated candidate can win with far less primary votes than the first-rated candidate.

Hypothetically, under this system Clinton could get (say) 55% of the primary vote, and Drumpf, with only (say) 40% of the primary vote could win—despite Clinton being the peoples' favoured candidate by 15%.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: