Werthless wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:But when your citizens are educated on the issues and are willing to look to the greater good rather than always voting their own interests, it's actually pretty nice.

El Oh El

Monkeyboy wrote:Also, I'm not quite sure what was so funny about an educated electorate leading to better democracy. It seems like common sense.

Werthless wrote:

Werthless wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:But when your citizens are educated on the issues and are willing to look to the greater good rather than always voting their own interests, it's actually pretty nice.

El Oh El

Monkeyboy wrote:Also, I'm not quite sure what was so funny about an educated electorate leading to better democracy. It seems like common sense.

When are citizens educated on the issues and willing to look to the greater good rather than vote their own interests? It's laughable that you think this might exist, which by your wording "it's actually pretty nice," you think so.

Werthless wrote:

Werthless wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:But when your citizens are educated on the issues and are willing to look to the greater good rather than always voting their own interests, it's actually pretty nice.

El Oh El

Monkeyboy wrote:Also, I'm not quite sure what was so funny about an educated electorate leading to better democracy. It seems like common sense.

When are citizens educated on the issues and willing to look to the greater good rather than vote their own interests? It's laughable that you think this might exist, which by your wording "it's actually pretty nice," you think so.

During the campaign, Adelson reportedly alleged that he was making such large donations in part because he had been unfairly targeted by the Justice Department, which was investigating whether Sands operations in China had violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), an anti-bribery statute. But in its most recent annual report to the Securities and Exchange Commission, Las Vegas Sands Corporation admitted that the company's own audit committee believes there were "likely violations" of that law:

As part of the annual audit of the Company's financial statements, the Audit Committee advised the Company and its independent accountants that it had reached certain preliminary findings, including that there were likely violations of the books and records and internal controls provisions of the FCPA and that in recent years, the Company has improved its practices with respect to books and records and internal controls.

Bloomberg reports: "The findings signal repercussions for Sands from U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and Department of Justice investigations of possible violations of the act, which prohibits improper business payments outside the U.S."

When the first stories of a Justice Department investigation into Las Vegas Sands were revealed in August 2012, conservative media outlets echoed Adelson's claim that the investigation was politically motivated.

Those claims reached Fox Business, where host Lou Dobbs claimed that "you have the Justice Department going after Sheldon Adelson" in a manner that "looks like politics." Dobbs also claimed that the "Obama Justice Department" was "choosing this time to go after one of the major contributors to the Republican Party" and questioned why the DOJ wasn't investigative George Soros. GOP political analyst Ron Christie told Dobbs, "For the government to start singling out individuals based on their political beliefs and their political affiliation for investigation is tyranny."

td11 wrote:

Werthless wrote:

Werthless wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:But when your citizens are educated on the issues and are willing to look to the greater good rather than always voting their own interests, it's actually pretty nice.

El Oh El

Monkeyboy wrote:Also, I'm not quite sure what was so funny about an educated electorate leading to better democracy. It seems like common sense.

When are citizens educated on the issues and willing to look to the greater good rather than vote their own interests? It's laughable that you think this might exist, which by your wording "it's actually pretty nice," you think so.

smugness aside, this is a pretty telling post. i'd say the scandinavian countries are pretty emblematic of voting for the greater good and i think many democrats hold this world-view. i guess you think it's "laughable" because it's naive/idealistic?

TenuredVulture wrote:One reason this works in Scandinavia (and remember Sweden especially has scaled back much of its socialism) is that those countries are far more homogenous than the US. Switzerland isn't just a direct democracy, it also provides Cantons a great deal of independence, thus it also takes advantage of its homogeneity. It's useful to note that Switzerland was one of the last Western Democracies to grant women the vote. They got the right to vote in federal elections in 1971. Most cantons quickly followed suit, but one held out until 1990.

For one thing, McArdle alludes to Sweden's "homogeneous population." Actually, Sweden's population is far more diverse than popular myth would have it. I'll quote a recent post by blogger and political science professor Lane Kenworthy to back me up on this point:

Those skeptical about the applicability of Swedish policies and institutions often argue that to the extent Sweden “works,” it’s
because it has an extremely homogeneous population. That was likely true half a century ago, but these days Sweden’s immigrant (foreign-born) share is virtually identical to America’s, at about 13% of the population.

Obviously, Sweden does not have the same degree of racial diversity as the U.S. does, but its population is far from "homogeneous."

pacino wrote: plus, one of the parties has had a grand ol history of using a southern-type strategy.

td11 wrote:

Werthless wrote:

Werthless wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:But when your citizens are educated on the issues and are willing to look to the greater good rather than always voting their own interests, it's actually pretty nice.

El Oh El

Monkeyboy wrote:Also, I'm not quite sure what was so funny about an educated electorate leading to better democracy. It seems like common sense.

When are citizens educated on the issues and willing to look to the greater good rather than vote their own interests? It's laughable that you think this might exist, which by your wording "it's actually pretty nice," you think so.

smugness aside, this is a pretty telling post. i'd say the scandinavian countries are pretty emblematic of voting for the greater good and i think many democrats hold this world-view. i guess you think it's "laughable" because it's naive/idealistic?

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

pacino wrote: plus, one of the parties has had a grand ol history of using a southern-type strategy.

Um... which one?

Werthless wrote:

td11 wrote:

Werthless wrote:

Werthless wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:But when your citizens are educated on the issues and are willing to look to the greater good rather than always voting their own interests, it's actually pretty nice.

El Oh El

Monkeyboy wrote:Also, I'm not quite sure what was so funny about an educated electorate leading to better democracy. It seems like common sense.

When are citizens educated on the issues and willing to look to the greater good rather than vote their own interests? It's laughable that you think this might exist, which by your wording "it's actually pretty nice," you think so.

smugness aside, this is a pretty telling post. i'd say the scandinavian countries are pretty emblematic of voting for the greater good and i think many democrats hold this world-view. i guess you think it's "laughable" because it's naive/idealistic?

It's naive to think that America would have a better government if only the American citizens knew more about the issues, and they decided not to vote in their own self interest.

Correct me if I'm misremembering, but haven't numerous books been written by progressives lamenting that low-income whites continually vote against their own economic interests?

Is it only a positive thing to do if by "greater good" we mean a larger role for government in our day to day lives, larger investment in alternative energy technology, and support for pseudo-environmental causes like zoning restrictions in CA that drive up property taxes for those fortunate enough to have owned before the restrictions were put in place?

bleh wrote:The best government would be Obama as benevolent dictator.

td11 wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:One reason this works in Scandinavia (and remember Sweden especially has scaled back much of its socialism) is that those countries are far more homogenous than the US. Switzerland isn't just a direct democracy, it also provides Cantons a great deal of independence, thus it also takes advantage of its homogeneity. It's useful to note that Switzerland was one of the last Western Democracies to grant women the vote. They got the right to vote in federal elections in 1971. Most cantons quickly followed suit, but one held out until 1990.

http://prospect.org/article/everything- ... eden-wrong

For one thing, McArdle alludes to Sweden's "homogeneous population." Actually, Sweden's population is far more diverse than popular myth would have it. I'll quote a recent post by blogger and political science professor Lane Kenworthy to back me up on this point:

Those skeptical about the applicability of Swedish policies and institutions often argue that to the extent Sweden “works,” it’s
because it has an extremely homogeneous population. That was likely true half a century ago, but these days Sweden’s immigrant (foreign-born) share is virtually identical to America’s, at about 13% of the population.

Obviously, Sweden does not have the same degree of racial diversity as the U.S. does, but its population is far from "homogeneous."

td11 wrote:

Correct me if I'm misremembering, but haven't numerous books been written by progressives lamenting that low-income whites continually vote against their own economic interests?

idk man, i don't read books. let's assume it's true. what point are you trying to make? help me out i'm not doc

Is it only a positive thing to do if by "greater good" we mean a larger role for government in our day to day lives, larger investment in alternative energy technology, and support for pseudo-environmental causes like zoning restrictions in CA that drive up property taxes for those fortunate enough to have owned before the restrictions were put in place?

i don't think "greater good" is what you're saying it is here.

Werthless wrote:

td11 wrote:

Werthless wrote:

Werthless wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:But when your citizens are educated on the issues and are willing to look to the greater good rather than always voting their own interests, it's actually pretty nice.

El Oh El

Monkeyboy wrote:Also, I'm not quite sure what was so funny about an educated electorate leading to better democracy. It seems like common sense.

When are citizens educated on the issues and willing to look to the greater good rather than vote their own interests? It's laughable that you think this might exist, which by your wording "it's actually pretty nice," you think so.

smugness aside, this is a pretty telling post. i'd say the scandinavian countries are pretty emblematic of voting for the greater good and i think many democrats hold this world-view. i guess you think it's "laughable" because it's naive/idealistic?

It's naive to think that America would have a better government if only the American citizens knew more about the issues, and they decided not to vote in their own self interest. Correct me if I'm misremembering, but haven't numerous books been written by progressives lamenting that low-income whites continually vote against their own economic interests? Is it only a positive thing to do if by "greater good" we mean a larger role for government in our day to day lives, larger investment in alternative energy technology, and support for pseudo-environmental causes like zoning restrictions in CA that drive up property taxes for those fortunate enough to have owned before the restrictions were put in place?