This administration wants lower rates. Also this administration does everything it can to increase inflation such as tariffs and starting another endless war in the middle east.
The goal is to win the next election but I think the populace is to blame for this more than anything.
The populace is who is too interested in winning politics as a sport that the politicians have really no choice other than to focus entirely on winning the next election.
If the voters treat politics as a constant form of sports entertainment, constantly checking the latest news and events, then voters are actually the fundamental problem as to why the politicians can not do anything in terms of long term planning.
I always hear this accusation of people treating politics like sports, but what do you want? It's a FPTP system, which favors entrenching two parties. In order to maintain the backing (funding, importantly) of one of those two parties, candidates can't fall too far out of line. If you can't get your outsider preferred candidate above 50%, considering there is also likely another main-party candidate with significant policy overlap, you get nothing.
If you want to reduce the spectacle, replace FPTP with a better system that eliminates the need for primaries, and get rid of Citizens United. Good luck.
The one that seems to be working is to treat the system as two-round like the French presidential elections and do the work in the primaries. Worked for Mamdani.
IMO, a runoff or single round instant-runoff wouldn't solve much. Like the sibling says, it's already sort of like that. The way they eliminate candidates still forces/incentivizes people to make choices against their actual preferences. Ideally, you could vote exactly in line with your preferences regardless of who you think has the best chance of winning and not risk making things being worse than they would have been if you "lied." I've heard many times during primaries things like "I like candidate A a lot more, but I don't think they can win the general, so I voted for candidate B". This is also an issue with approval voting, which many people seem to have a very favorable opinion of. If there is an election between <good candidate>, <bad candidate> and <total disaster shitshow candidate>, and you think there's a chance the top two might be Bad and Disaster, do you approve of bad? There's no way for you to indicate that you actually don't like Bad, but are just hoping to prevent the worst.
I think there's risk in not doing it right the first time, if you were ever to get a chance to change it.
Yeah, preference-based voting is better, but you have to play the hand you're dealt in the meantime. Even dealing with gerrymandering seems to be beyond feasible politics.
3. transparent: each result is a simple scalar sum of support, so third party and independent candidates don't have their support hidden from view.
approval voting has worked great in fargo and st louis.
<a href="https://approval.vote/" rel="nofollow">https://approval.vote/
aurareturn · · focus · HN ↗
DarkmSparks · · focus · HN ↗
Inflate away the $40Trillion+ debt they can never pay back
Or
Hard default on the debt, and be the one holding the hot potato as the union breaks up.
Fed is trying to thread the needle between the two and keep the music playing as long as possible.
grim_io · · focus · HN ↗
webern777 · · focus · HN ↗
The populace is who is too interested in winning politics as a sport that the politicians have really no choice other than to focus entirely on winning the next election.
If the voters treat politics as a constant form of sports entertainment, constantly checking the latest news and events, then voters are actually the fundamental problem as to why the politicians can not do anything in terms of long term planning.
duskdozer · · focus · HN ↗
If you want to reduce the spectacle, replace FPTP with a better system that eliminates the need for primaries, and get rid of Citizens United. Good luck.
pjc50 · · focus · HN ↗
duskdozer · · focus · HN ↗
I think there's risk in not doing it right the first time, if you were ever to get a chance to change it.
pjc50 · · focus · HN ↗
ClayShentrup · · focus · HN ↗
1. greater voter satisfaction, with virtually any ratio of strategic to honest voting. (i.e. "more resistant to strategy")
2. drastically simpler. (same ballot, precinct summable, lower kolmogorov complexity)
3. transparent: each result is a simple scalar sum of support, so third party and independent candidates don't have their support hidden from view.
<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20190219005733/https://sites.google.com/a/electology.org/www/approval-voting-vs-irv" rel="nofollow">https://web.archive.org/web/20190219005733/https://sites.goo...
<a href="https://clayshentrup.medium.com/the-only-voting-reform-worth-funding-5776beefdd2b" rel="nofollow">https://clayshentrup.medium.com/the-only-voting-reform-worth...
approval voting has worked great in fargo and st louis. <a href="https://approval.vote/" rel="nofollow">https://approval.vote/