I agree, workers should get an equal say. I think a company’s finances should be more open by that same token so workers have more perspective on come money is coming in and how it’s being split. Maybe it’s something that will have to change a state at a time, but I’m optimistic that it could be implemented.

(Lol I think it’s a clever rhyme as well.)

I mean that pretty much is what happened in the US at least. The corporate tax rate was substantially higher and so individual take rate on the richest Americans post-WW2 and pre-Regan. Public works were well funded and having a government job meant you had a stable and well paying salary. Private business owners pushed congress to ease up on the tax rate ‘to spur private business growth and create jobs’, especially since original justification of funding the war effort disappeared.

While private business did grow more from the eased up taxes, what happened more was that the owners of these companies started raking in more and more in net profits. Suddenly the pay differential between the workers and the factory owners started to balloon to a much greater level.

By the time Regan came in, this process then started to snowball even more to what we see today since Regan cut corporate tax rate even more than Republicans did previously post-WW2.

To think, we could have had well funded public programs for decades. Standard jobs could have been paying a living wage still, like it was expected for them to do back then.

Tbh, I think you need protections that are hard to remove by greedy individuals and politicians. If regulations required a 2/3 majority of the votes in both chambers to lower that could prevent a lot of shenanigans. I don’t think everything necessarily should have that high of a barrier, but regulations and protections are usually prime targets for those seeking to make a quick buck.

I personally think workers could have proportional share of ownership in a company. At least then they directly benefit when the company benefits, much like the owners currently do. Maybe something like the 30% ownership by the CEO, 50% ownership by the employees, and 20% ownership split between the local community/county/state/federal government. If the public has partial ownership their needs become more of the forefront, and it can help bring resources back into the local communities. If not public ownership, then steeper corporate tax rates of larger corporations, potentially even having corporate tax brackets like exist for private citizens.

It shouldn’t be legal for the interest of shareholders to outweigh the interest of stakeholders. Companies need to be beholden to stakeholders only; while shareholders are a part of the stakeholders in a company, their interests should be equal to each of the other stakeholders.

I agree, stocks don’t need to be short term investments that people can day trade to game.

Also, the millionaires and billionaires that own stock should be forced to sell their shares instead of being allowed to use their stock as collateral. These people can evade paying taxes on their money for their whole lives while still gaining the effects of actually using that money since the stock doesn’t need to be sold to be useable.

I feel this image is more “how it starts and how it becomes, when left unregulated”. Many people that brought products to the market did so with good intentions and sought to be competitive. When companies start getting bigger and are then allowed to buy up their direct competitors, that is when the model falls apart. As the focus shifts from what’s best for the customer into what will help the company maintain its spot on top. In many cases by making it near impossible for newer companies to enter the market. From raising the legal barriers of entry in their industry to dropping the products prices to unprofitable levels until any new competition can’t afford to stay open to compete. Monopolies should be broken up.

Modified and regulated capitalism is the only ethical capitalism imo. By that I mean there needs to be room for fair competition and there needs be something like a Universal Basic Income in place. As capitalism itself doesn’t help people get their basic needs met. People need to be able to afford things within the system to keep it going. Small businesses would benefit a lot from their customers and employees both benefiting from a basic income, as customers would have money disposable income and employees would not have to rely so much on their employers pay to meet their basic needs.

They can’t have it both ways imo. If they’re reaping the benefits of it, then they should acknowledge it’s good and should be in place. That’s blatantly not the case though.

I personally would prefer if we continue to support these people since plenty of the people living in those states are not voting against their own self-interest. Imo, caring people living in the deep red or deep blue states should move to more purple districts in purple states to help move the country as a whole to be more caring politically.

I think blue states should also move to implement more safety nets on their own instead of waiting for a blue supermajority federally. If people see how their state and local government can work for them, they’d be more likely to want those policies in their own states. States by that same token should be willing to go into debt to fund long running infrastructure and policies that will be value adds to the state and residents living there.

How is it redundant?

Great, the government is committed to funding the bill, then they should increase taxes to fund the bill.

We should only be incurring debt in specific situations where there is a long run value add. I’m not saying we should be cutting spending at all, but we should be funding our spending by increasing taxes on corporations.

I don’t see the issue with having a separate vote in these situations which should be uncommon, where you are not able to fund the spending because it’s for one of the specific costs that add values to our society.

I agree that private sector budgeting doesn’t operate in the same way as public budgeting, but at a certain point in future it will start chipping at the value of the dollar if our nation is not able to pay off its interest on the debt. My point is that we should be taxing corporations more to fund the spending.

Edit: I don’t see what’s controversial about this take, what’s wrong with just funding the bill?

I would say it would only be irrational in the long run if we are not making a plan to increase taxes to go along with the increased costs, at least for costs which don’t have a value add later down the line. If X amount is what it will cost to pay everything then we should increase taxes on corporations to be able to collect at minimum X amount, if not more.

I still don’t think increasing the country’s debt should be the first choice, increasing taxes should be the first choice when the spending bill shows we would be spending more than we would be taking in. I’m not sure if they can show they want to increase taxes at the same time on that bill in not, but increasing taxes to cover the additional spending is important.

I do agree that the country even being able to be shut down is a major problem. I would say a shut down does hurt Republican voters more, but Democrat politicians care about their constituents.

It really doesn’t make a ton of sense for either party to get rid of the filibuster at this current point in time. If Democrats won big in 2024 then I believe they should have gotten rid of the filibuster, but they didn’t win big. They needed to win the swing states and at least gain an extra seat or two in the Senate but that didn’t happen. They could have expanded the House under such a situation so it is really unfortunate that did not occur. The main hope now is for Democrats to pick up seats in the midterms and in 2028 to try to make up some of the losses.

Really, anyone that wants to see positive change stick should consider moving to purple states and purple districts from their deep red state/deep blue states. If the swing states became solid blue states then we would have a much easier time passing legislation that is beneficial.

The debt ceiling is used that way by Republicans for the most part. They don’t want to increase taxes even for corporations, but they try to force a budget resolution by cutting spending when there really is only so much you can cut without hurting people.

The debt ceiling is a reminder that there is a cost to the money we spend, I personally believe we are still far from it being an issue but we should be increasing taxes to properly allocate money for spending. Ideally you want to collect more than you spend, but some instances it makes sense to go into a steeper debt to get those tangible benefits I mentioned.

Really a shutdown should trigger elections because it just shows that the governing body can’t do their jobs.

Having a debt ceiling isn’t really the worst idea to an extent. You can reach a hypothetical point where you’re not able to realistically pay off your debt to other nations for instance. That’s why instead of raising the debt limit and weakening the dollar in the process, it makes more sense to tax corporations more to cover your country’s added expenses. There are specific things it makes sense to increase the debt limit to do though such as funding education, science and research, renewable and nuclear energy, and public transit systems as these are all value adds for a society in the long run.

The smaller caucus in their party is more closer aligned to the presidency though. A populist president would have a better chance to making progress for a smaller caucus. A small caucus in the Senate is what prevented most helpful or progressive legislation from passing as well, as seen in Manchin and Senima who are both Independents.

I would say it’s a post-jaded reformation era.

Where you’re trying to will positive change for the sake of it. Potential fruitlessness of the effort be damned, I am willing my hope into this world

Then go for the option where all the voting happens at one step based on preference. If you still want a best of two you can have the primary election earlier in the year with a score vote tally, and the two candidates that have the highest scores votes from that process then go into a head to head FPTP style for the general election.

For the record both Alaska and Maine are currently using an Alternative Voting system as well as many countries in Europe. Australia also uses an Alternative Voting system. So it can be done successfully in many countries without issue.

How is it crap and over does this overcomplicate any of it?

The person with the most votes does win under other voting systems I have brought up. What I want is exactly that. I my second example for instance person C has 29 votes compared to person A’s 24 votes, how is that not person C having the most votes and winning?

That’s a great argument in favor of an alternative voting system. Because we both agree that the most votes should win for each representative. Hence the added benefit of having the two rounds of voting since those additional vote preferences are taken into consideration. Through of one these alternative voting systems, we can truly say that the majority of people wanted that person for the job rather.

It’s also a great argument for score voting as well since that is only one round of voting, but you can give a score for each candidate and the candidate with the highest total score wins.

“Just because a person’s favorite choice isn’t the most popular, doesn’t mean the winning candidate is preferred by the majority of voters.”

If we’re being specific, I am acknowledging the why from the very first sentence of my original comment. I needed the details to help elaborate my point though.

To clarify though, I am not trying to cater to everyone, I’m trying to have a dialogue. People that are interested will likely want to read more, those that don’t will skim.

If I was marketing or just cared about short points I wouldn’t be so detailed, but I believe in what I am saying matters beyond just a surface level glance. Sometimes the answers are not short and sweet, sometimes to make change we have to dig in and put in some more effort.

The why is answered in the explanation, how many professors give you the answer upfront before you solve a problem? Usually they want you to be presented with the whole problem and have you work your way to finding the answer. I could spoonfeed the answer, but that lacks nuance. I’m personally tired of things being designed just for short attention spans to give a dopamine hit and then they jump to the next source of dopamine. I feel this view has degraded my own mental facilities after looking for ‘efficiency’ in language for several years now.

If my comment was a post on its own I would have included a hook for why it matters at the start, but if someone is specifically asking me to explain it I’m going to frame it differently.

First Past the Post in this case, which is the predominant voting method in 48 of the 50 US states; I’m not the OP for this specific post though lol. I was going for short and sweet for the original title. I was mostly hoping that the Winner Takes All part would clarify what FPTP is referring to, in the links I shared it talked more about what FPTP is.

I was shocked as well, I think part of it was the misinformation before the election. Another part was a lot of people just hearing about other voting systems for the first time. The common response by most people is to just vote to maintain the status quo unless they hear about something and think it can be a good thing.

Personally, I think with Ranked Robin, STAR, or Score voting on the ballot people may be more receptive to one of these alternatives. There is much less likelihood of anyone invalidating their ballots under one of these other systems.

It was also during a big election year that these votes happened on, if it was on a midterm I am curious if Alternative Voting would have struggled so much.

Why? We’re talking about electing representatives to govern our country, not picking what movie a few people want to go watch. What do you want from a representative? You want them to reflect the consensus of the wider electorate that voted them in rather than just their smaller base. If 66.6% of the voting electorate didn’t vote for someone of a certain political spectrum in a election where that person won by getting 33.4% of the vote, then how are they the most representative option or how do they reflect the views of the majority? My example is a bit extreme, that’s what winner takes all is. The great thing about other systems is, if you personally only want to vote for one candidate, you still can. However, if you wanted to have a backup option in case your favorite lost the first round, then that’s okay too under other systems.

Even something as simple as ordering food with friends makes sense to use an alternative voting system such as approval voting. You and your friends pick all your favorite options, and you’re less likely to be upset at the results since you can show preference. Some options you might hate, some options others may hate, and other options you might all be okay with having.

Yes! Thank you for sharing this, the NPVIC is so huge and we are so close to it actually being possible.

I feel we can make it happen, especially if we continue to get the word out and reach out to our senators and representatives, then we can have momentum for it actually happen as well.