Thank you, Astoria Bob. Always a pleasure that you comment on my articles and I like that we have a good conversation going on over time.
Do you mind letting me know where you live? If you don't want to mention your city or locality, will you then mention the county, and if not then the State you live in? I want to zoom to the local political level in your place and the neighboring areas.
When I look at the United States, I see real blue and real red areas. But there are of course large swats of battle grounds, where the Republican-Democratic tug-of-war is being raged in the present time, including some at the local level. I would like to discover if you live in 'the happy place' where the balance of power of the two parties is also happening right where you are at the local level.
I am also curious in how far I am unable to see what political party a representative belongs to, because the two parties made that officially invisible, made it illegal for candidates to run on party lines. But that is my problem if I claim that most places in the US are either red or blue and not both. I do know it is not 100% the case and there are happy places where both battle it out. Perhaps exactly where you have always lived?
Right now I depend on local newspapers spilling the beans or making nice graphs, such as San Diego that was solidly red once and where the balance is shifting favoring blue.
---
Indeed, the actual political fight occurs fully in the legislative chamber in countries with proportional voting.
Naturally, the majority gets to proclaim the outcome because that is what makes it a democracy. Note, however, that this is a majority-of-all. Voting minorities are all represented in their natural numbers and they get their say but may not always be part of that political majority.
In our system we have a majority to win the seats first and — second — we also have a majority of the winners in the seats to proclaim the outcome.
We therefore have majority-of-majority rule. The others have majority-of-all rule. I hope you agree that we are a much weaker democracy because the (large) minority cannot get a seat. And if they can get a seat, then the (large) minority-within-the-minority can still not speak up. There is no free speech except howling at the moon for that large minority-within-the-minority. This section truly never gets a seat.
I cannot come to another conclusion that our democracy is weaker because in the other system the minority-within-the-minority is sitting in their own seats at the table where the decisions are made. But... I will listen to any arguments you bring forward.
---
I am challenged by your words, Astoria Bob, of what you say next. If I am correct in my article, than I see you embrace winner-take-all even if this means that minorities are underrepresented. You seem to defend what is going on. Am I correct?
You point at one of the weaknesses (low voter turnout) and put the blame with the people that should just come out and vote more often. That is a logical construction, but it is upside down. The system should be so good that voters come out to vote. Our system isn't that good. It is not good the way it is set up. To use your words, it contains domination indeed, but then part of it is for the sake of domination. That is a doubling of domination in the process, and is therefore unnatural. It says that voters should come out to vote, and does not consider the weakness of the elections.
I do like your willingness to show me a bit more of your inner thinking, and I hope you will not view my words as too defensive. I am really curious how you can support a system that does not deliver (well) for minorities?
---
I truly believe I brought in the big guns with showing that the poor in the United States get half of what they would have gotten if this were a nation with proportional voting.
Let's therefore quickly discuss the poverty rate in the US because this highlights the dominating aspect real well.
The US poverty rate is calculated differently from the international standard for poverty. The income level here is set at $25,750. I have this straight from the Federal Poverty Guidelines. The median income in the US is $68,400. Source: https://dqydj.com/average-median-top-household-income-percentiles/
That means that the US poverty rate is currently situated at 37.65% of the median income. I did this research in 2006, too, and it sat at 39% back then. Meaning: that percentage shifts over time, the used standard we have is not linked to the median income (what the person in the middle of society makes), but rather is made up of components people must be able to buy to survive.
The international standard to calculate the poverty rate in a nation is 50% of the median income.
In the EU, this would not capture enough folks and the poverty rate is set at 60% of the median income.
https://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=ilc_li02&lang=en In this table you can see: "at risk of poverty rate (cut-off point: 60% of median equivalised income after social transfers)".
I hope you do not have to recover from the fact that we use a low poverty threshold for ourselves, capturing fewer people. It points to the dominant force declaring what the poverty line is, based on self-established reasons and make ourselves look better than we are.
I’d like to do the math next how much folks would be getting based on that median income according to the other definitions.
The income level for the poverty rate in the US would be $34,200 if we were to follow the international definition. [50% of our $68,400.] This would capture more people as living in poverty in the US.
The income level for the poverty rate in the US would be $41,040 if we matched the EU definition. [60% of our $68,400.] This would capture even more people as living in poverty in the US.
Our poverty rate of $25,750 captures 18% of the US population and defines them as living under the poverty level. See list I am using below for that percentage.
That is what is likely reported in our newspapers, on our TV channels.
If we use the international definition then 25% of the US would be living in poverty.
That is what is not being reported in our newspapers or TV channels.
https://dqydj.com/average-median-top-household-income-percentiles/
If we use the EU definition then 31% of the United States' population lives in poverty.
That is what is not being reported in our newspapers or TV channels.
— -
There is a good reason ‘they’ want you to think that in the US just 18% of people live in poverty because it would upset you and many others that many more live in poverty if we used a different definition. We probably have a good idea by now who ‘they’ are.
With European eyes, the poverty level in the US = 31%. I have no problem seeing it. If you have international eyes, the poverty level in the US = 25%. These are the facts. But they are facts based on other people’s definitions. We tell ourselves a different story. We, that is ‘they’ again, tell us a different story.
I am curious if you understand me better now that I am training your eyes toward poverty and the poor and the larger lies and truths in our two-party system of double domination. I do not mind domination. But domination that warps the truth because it is more convenient is not admirable. I understand it; the two-party battle promotes spin. But emancipation, the process of making society a good place for everyone, cannot be done with just two parties.
Perhaps you can still defend the current system with good reasoning (and perhaps you have data to share). Know that I am all ears.
