Incentive Systems and Politics II - Limiting Corporate Influence on Policy - Extra Credits
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 18 ก.ย. 2024
- How can we minimize the negative influence of lobbyists in government and reward politicians for sticking by their stances and ethics?
Subscribe for new episodes every Wednesday! bit.ly/SubToEC (---More below)
(Original air date: December 18, 2013)
_______
Get your Extra Credits gear at the store! bit.ly/ExtraStore
Play games with us on Extra Play! bit.ly/WatchEXP
Watch more episodes from this season of Extra Credits! bit.ly/2qMiJ6G
Contribute community subtitles to Extra Credits: www.youtube.com...
Talk to us on Twitter (@ExtraCreditz): bit.ly/ECTweet
Follow us on Facebook: bit.ly/ECFBPage
Get our list of recommended games on Steam: bit.ly/ECCurator
_________
Would you like James to speak at your school or organization? For info, contact us at: contact@extra-credits.net
_________
♪ Intro Music: "Penguin Cap" by CarboHydroM
bit.ly/1eIHTDS
♪ Outro Music: "Camrade" by Diggi Dis
ocremix.org/rem...
"Mankind has never created a system that we couldn't also find a way to break"
Wisdom from the games industry and Extra Credits.
First they gave us an entertaining series of videos based on an obscure historical event, and now they're portraying a complext political system in a way that not only makes sense to me, but is also engaging to listen to.
These guys are miracle workers.
You should see the quantum computing series
"Congress is like training for a Pokémon competition."
That has got to be the strangest analogies I've ever heard.
"And that would be kind of cool." IKR?
personally I train all my competitive teams from the start so I could feel like they are special to me, in stead of being fainting machines.
Andrew Zhao Same here. This could just be me being silly but the more you battle with a team, the more they feel like they're actually alive in front of you instead of just standing on your game screen.
DragoniteSpam exactly why it's such a great franchise.
some make a game based on that
"The currency in politics should be the votes of the people." - one of the best summaries I've heard for this idea.
I for one like the idea of giving each candidate in an election equal, state-funded airtime on TV and radio, and billboard and other ad space purchased in that candidate's district. Then severely curtail the amount of advertising money allowed to be spent in that candidate's name above and beyond the state funding already allocated. That way incumbents lose their "wider audience" advantage over challengers, and the pressure isn't on to raise as much money for the disgustingly expensive ad campaigns that get worse and worse each cycle.
It'd be extremely difficult to translate this kind limitation to the internet, and Candidates could still get more exposure with viral campaigns, videos, and articles. But getting exposure by discussing ideas and agendas on your blog or youtube channel is, in my opinion, infinitely better than the soundbite campaigns and signs we're running on now.
The problem, as in game design, is that when you make a rule, you have to enforce it. The design issue here, and a dangerous corollary to the rule of enforcing the limits on third-party ads, is that we'd have to create some kind of judicial censorship body to determine what IS and ISN'T an ad for a specific candidate (eg. the Church of Mormon's "I'm a Mormon" campaign which coincided conveniently with the 2012 elections in which the Republican candidate was a Mormon). That's a pretty big boot on the throat of free speech, and I'm not sure that's a can of worms this country should open right now. If ever.
Both candidates get one half of each state funded billboard so their campaign is visible at the same places with the same amount!
This would lock in the two party system and eliminate third-party or independent candidates.
State funded airtime doesn't work. Caps on funding does. State funded airtime means third party candidates don't get a chance as the state can't afford to pay for airtime for 10,000 candidates and must fund only those with a chance of winning. This also doesn't deal with the issues of how Americans vote. Americans vote on three things primarily: party, name recognition and incumbency.
After JFK, appearance became more important than competency. We didn't have national news asking as though it was a serious question is Chris Christie is "too fat" to run for office. Not to mention incumbents still retain an unfair advantage from franking privilege. We can have all these pie in the sky ideas about what would "fix" our broken system, but the fact is that the voting blocs don't vote on substance... ever. Even resolving this system the forces behind our current broken system will simply adapt and double down on their propaganda machines to ensure Americans vote for even more superficial reasons than they already do.
I loved the way you guys pointed out why we need to update our government's rules.
Far too many people seem to think the initial way our laws were made is somehow perfect and could predict the future, but nothing is perfect on the first try.
Hell, even Deus Ex had to get a few bug fixes.
This hit the nail on the head. I've always felt that money had too much power in government and that it was just too big a factor to be able to do a political job right/well. A limit to campaign budgets and allowing them to focus more on politics rather than money should really help alleviate things.
The USA sounds pretty undemocratic
Yes that is because the United States is not a democratic nation but rather a republic where the people vote for individuals to make decisions for them.
That's still a democracy, just a representative one as opposed to a direct one - the same as every other democratic nation. This idea that Republic =/= Democracy so therefore USA =/= Democracy is silly, it's like saying that the UK is a Monarchy, even though it certainly functions as a Democracy, as much as we love the Queen.
I see it differently. Example, I've seen a lot of polls that state that the majority of the American people want pot to be legalized but when you live in a republic, the representatives that are voted in by the people don't usually favor what the people want. Same for delegates and super delegates. ArcticTemper
LeBeautiful Fair point, it might not be a good democracy in practice, but on paper it is.
Amurica, F*ck yeah
We're screwed...
A small problem with your analogy: If your patch causes uncontrollable crashing there's no "just patch it again" in real life.
But yeah, your government is a plutocracy right now, you need to take money out of it.
yeah but how is the problem?
Then how would political campaigns work? Volunteering only? Because if you allow people to be paid to put up signs, bam, campaign contribution.
The more I watch these videos, the more I realize that it's going to take more than a few laws to fix this. It's going to take, like, several Constitutional Amendments.
GOVERNMON!
newt gengrich used confusion
its not very effective...
Donald Trump used Uproar!
It's super effective!
Anthony Wiener used Nasty Plot!
A senator or representative who understood game design...
guys come on now you know we'd vote for you! :)
James as a senator would be really rad.
Zylar
James Portnow 2016
Zylar
I could really get behind that... Even though I'm Australian!
I'm Irish for crying out loud! :D
Search "the alternative vote explained" by CGP grey, it is another problem with our system (voting specifically), 4 minute video, very well done and clear.
ExcellenceUSAF
was? nah, *is*. It won't change everything, but right now the ethos (therefore medias and anything 'loud') have un-due control over the elections.
I don't have a clue how Extra Credits turned to what the hell it currently is but I don't give a damn. I like it.
Kinda reminds me of 'Laws and the multiverse' but with a gaming bend instead of a comic one.
Politicsémon: Gotta Vote Em' All!
I choose you-- Barrack Obama!
i12o
Barrack Obama used Change!
Barrack Obama is loafing around!
Lyelo Fallcrest Obama used class warfare!
Obama succeeds in creating a bigger debt.
Jas Plouffe
I choose you, clinton!
Clinton used Attract!
Foe some-foreign-woman is attracted to Clinton!
Foe American People used Impeach!
,,, Clinton fainted!
I choose you, Bush!
Bush used self destruct!
... Bush Fainted!
I choose you, Obama!
Obama used Obamacare!
Obamacare failed!
...Obama Fainted!
...America is out of usable politicemon.
... ... America whited out!!
Tristan Begin Damn it i knew we should have stocked up on some conservative potions
I've been saying this for years. Campaign finance reform is one of the most important issues facing us no matter what politics you have. It's connected to so many other issues. Pollution, medicine, the economy, corporate restrictions, etc. Everything really if money is involved which it usually is.
I think making it illegal to lobby after office would be politically impossible. So here's something that I think might work: set up a super cushy benefit package for leaving senators that they can receive only if they do not work as a lobbyist in the next 5-10 years.
Naw if they aren't working then they don't need a cushy job. They just need to be hauled off for lobbying.
...
This video makes a hell of a lot more sense seeing what's happening with the current mid terms.
So, congress, about that Isis threat.
congress: VOTE CONSERVATIVE
But... I don't think...
congress: NONO, LIBERAL, VOTE FOR THEM
I think we should worry more abou...
congress: DAMMIT OBAMA YOU CAN'T DO STUFF WITHOUT US
Well, you should go ba...
congress: WE'LL GO BACK AFTER MID TERMS
Guys, Isis is a hop, skip, and explosion away from Turkey's border
congress: HAVE OBAMA HANDLE IT
but you ju...
congress: NONONO OBAMA DOESN'T HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT
are you guys at a political deadlock again...
congress: YES
*please note that this comment was written by an alien from several dimensions to the current left of you, he has tried his best to remain both politically informed and un-biased in your earthly ways. He also has a ray gun, just so you know, pew pew.*
Freakin' interdimensional aliens, always stealin' our jobs! And then they think they can criticize our country!
This is beautiful.
"Congress is like training for a Pokemon competition... And that would be kind of cool" 😂😂😂
To loosely quote a German satirist: "For years I was angry about the fact, that my country is ruled by a bunch of idiots and criminals who make one wrong decision after another. But you have to look closely at things! What we might take for wrong decisions are actually right decisions for some small groups in this country, only we are not part of those groups! Since I have understood that, I see politics completely different."
I would love to see the Congressional Pokemon Tournament.
Republicans would use all legendaries/OU
Democrats would use troll teams with funbro, moody Octillery, etc.
J Mann JOHN MCCAIN OP PLEASE NERF
J Mann
And both would complain that the other one was cheating.
you win. that's more accurate than my comment
Pokemon? I felt it's like Yu-Gi-Oh.
"Screw the rules, I have money!"
I like how when he says function is shows 3 gears together. When you put 3 gears together, they do not turn!
I agree with this, elections should be decided by Pokemon battles. Wait, that was the point, right?
It wouldn't be a good idea anyway.
Imagine a nation-wide debate about banning Mega Kangaskhan or Mega Gengar.
And I'm not even talking about evasion or Stealth Rocks. Those things would cause a civil war.
Love that you all at Extra Credits are looking at real world issues and using games to help explain it. I think the more familiar people become with these issues the better the chances for reform.
Thanks Extra Credits, I can't wait for part 3.
No more Rare Candies in the Senate!
One issue regarding the "can't work for anyone after leaving government" is it doesn't account for people who are impeached/sacked. You can't give them their pension (no consequence) or release them from the limitation of not being able to work for a private company (thereto incentivizes getting sacked).
it would just be an inventive to not do anything illegal while in congress. Like they are so pose to. if they had such a harsh and very real punishment for thier actions they would be less likely to cheat or be corrupt.
jprior1427 Sadly, no. Negative incentives don't really work to reduce undesirable behavior, they simply make the person more willing to do anything to hide it. This would cause the corrupt politicians to be even more terrible when they inevitably try to cover up their crimes.
the consequence should be proportional to the crime. What greater crime is there then back stapping your country, abusing the trust given to you by thousands of people for your own gain.(I said greater not more evil rape and murder is clearly more evil)
Also how bad is it really for somone to only be able to work normal jobs? It's not like your kneecapping them or chucking them in prision.
jprior1427 I don't know... Taken literally, a ban on working for ANYONE that might've gained from the policies you helped to influence would be pretty serious. I mean, if you take it at face value it would potentially ban them from doing something as trivial as working at McDonald's flipping burgers...
Now, admittedly that's perhaps taking things a bit far, but it IS a potential interpretation of a rule like that...
I like your presentation, you keep from mentioning either party, thus putting the argument in a form that both parties can agree on. good job.
It does say something that you can summarize what the issues and possible solutions are, and yet the sad thing is that to effect any real change requires the agreement of many abusing and controlling the system.
I like the UK model - Ban political advertising all together, and then just have a healthy news media that isn't corporate led.
It's a simple and elegant mechanic.
*****
As a UK citizen, I can't help feeling that you're massively overstating the problem. You'd be hard pressed to find people (certainly from my experience) who feel like their free speech is suppressed. 99% of causes wouldn't have the slightest problem trying to promote themselves, its only the fringe and extreme groups that run into trouble. Heck even then, they often won't be outright punished and suppressed. Look at Anjem Choudary. He's been preaching radical Islam in the media for years and despite widespread condemnation, is still allowed to do so. Even when he burned poppies during a remembrance service, he was only given a small fine if I remember rightly.
As for using euphemisms.... so what? We all know exactly whats being said. If everyone knows the meaning, what's the difference between saying "Tired and Emotional" and "Drunk"? It doesn't impact anyone what so ever but by having laws like this, we have some protection against the worst elements of society. Personally I'd much rather have that than an American system where anyone is free to spout whatever they want. The consequences seem unpleasant to say the least.
that would fix a lot of problem.
***** Meh. Seriously, that's all I have to say to everything you just typed.
***** I find being passionate is often very persuasive, but it probably shouldn't be. Logic, reason, and actual evidence should be persuasive no matter how it's delivered.
Sadly, humans often find the emotional content more compelling than the logical content.
@@benp1550 so let me get this straight... your ok with speech punishments... as-long as your speech isnt being restricted..... how long until your opinion is fringe.... how long until your thrown in jail for a tweet... remember context matters.... count dankula got a 800 dollar fine for a joke
3:20 MY PAIN AS A LEGIT COMPETITIVE POKEMON PLAYER HAS BEEN FELT!!!!
* ahem * sorry
Go magikarp!
Don't take this personally but…
Screw You!
I hope you're going to address the two-party system next week, too. I mean that's the single most obviously broken aspect of American politics I can think of.
***** And that in turn is largely a function of each state being able to legislate their own way of choosing electors. If you are a state dominated by party X (or Y ... sorry, bad pun), you will make sure that the maximum amount of electors from your state will vote for your candidate.
Interestingly, a plurality voting system didn't lead to a two-party system in all countries even though on paper it should. It's still broken though.
You can have one vote and multiple parties in a proportional system. But any discussion about gerrymandering should really mention that single-member plurality districts reinforce a two party system.
Penny Lane I think the reason it doesn't lead itself that way for other countries is because they have more seats and equally divided districts.
Fizzypopization Actually there are probably several reasons why a two-party system fails to form. In India for example, it's likely to be the plurality of the society itself. There just isn't that one dividing line between conservative and liberal but rather many, many such lines. In any case, it's interesting to look at this list:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law#Counterexamples
Penny Lane Ah thanks for the link, interesting. Most of my examples are drawn from Europe so I claim no absolute. I too would think that there would be more dividing lines leading to more parties, but that sure hasn't happened in the US.
One thing about the incentive systems you mentioned reminded me of Dark Souls. How you can spend hours chipping away at a giant boss 50 levels above you just to get a really good weapon. Sure, you don't have to shoot that dragon's tail, but the castle isn't going anywhere and you really want that Drakesword.
A possibly simpler system of getting congressmen to focus on governing rather than win elections all the time: a term that's longer than 2 years?
just have the election money come out of taxes while limited all the money so everyone has the same amount add on banning corporate donations and corporate ran campaigns.
The_Desert_Tiger Yes, you have the right idea. The problem with BillyTWildi's idea is that you don't get good congressmen after only two years in office. It's a complex job and many congresspeople don't the hang of it until their second or third term. There is a difficulty ramp that often takes four to six years to obtain a base level of competence and another four or more years to get really good at. Many of the best members of Congress are the ones who have been there right around a decade.
I'm not entirely against term-limits but it's not an actual solution (Though a lot of people suggest it as if it is) because limiting the number of terms does nothing to change the way politicians raise money in the first place (Which campaign finance reform--I.e. taxing voters to equally fund each candidate--WOULD actually fix) And term limits don't address congress members voting on bills that will help their careers once they have left congress.
Campaign finance reform also allows third party candidates a chance. Instead of a race being just between the top two fund-raisers, every candidate is allotted the same amount of resources. There all have the same starting amount and are forced to race on issues and message instead of blanketing a district with glossy ads.
It wouldn't even cost that much. $2 per person, per election cycle would go a REALLY long way to fixing our political system and then politicians aren't beholden to special interests, corporations, institutions or unions. They have only the voter to thank for them getting elected.
Geahk Burchill Well here is Aus we have no limit and its on a 3 year cycle for every office.
Geahk Burchill You know you completely misread the statement right? he said "A term longer than 2 years". That's a rather flippant way of implying the current length of political terms are far too short, which you have somehow interpreted as being a suggestion to LIMIT terms to just 2 years. - I'm sure the rest of your remarks would have some merit, but if you basically reverse what you're commenting on, your own comments will end up looking wildly out of place...
Rats, you're right. I did misread it.
Our congressman generously voted to pay themselves 100% of their income as pension when they leave. Forever. Until they die.
whos watching this in 2016
+Carter Colenutt oh please I'll watch it again in 2017 too
+Carter Colenutt fuck off
I'm watching it in 2015.
I gotta give this tiny comment -- it's perfectly fitting how they're using three meshed gears for the mechanics of our government. Try putting three gears together and getting them to turn.
would you guys do a game episode on resource management in games? Like, how you can manipulate health, ammo, stamina, weapon condition, X resource availability in higher difficulties to make the game more difficult, without just creating artificial difficulty? E.G., how resource management can make the hardest difficulties on Far Cry or Batman a fun challenge, while bad resource management can make hardmode on games like Bioshock or Call of Duty a frustrating mess?
Sorry to distract from the topic at hand, but I'd like to see something on this.
3:13 Dat bird. "+1 xp" I laughed my socks off. :D
Fantastic as usual
This political series is absolutely amazing. You're great at expressing ideas quickly and compelling, and here it's just invaluable.
For anyone who want to lern more about this should look up the theory of Rational Choice by Anthony Downs. His assertion is that politicians are primarily directed by one motive: the desire for re-election. Which in the theoretical sense is a concreteization of the rational theory's assumption that most people are egoists to some extent. It is truly facinating and i would recommend it to people interested in this kind of stuff. :)
I love your channel guys. Thus topic has been amazing good work
if healthcare and pensions were universal people could focus on their political career for as long as possible as opposed to using their power to mine for gold when they get old
Wait a minute. Are you saying you DON'T limit how much politicians can spend on campaigns? Because that's what we've always done in Canada, and I'd just assumed that it was the standard everywhere, because doing otherwise would be COMPLETELY INSANE.
We do have a limit. But people can spend as much money as they want outside of a campaign to promote a politician. These are called Super PACs (1:40), and the spending there is unlimited as long as the candidate him/herself is not affiliated with the organization.
"Even though I'm a fan of the free market, the currency of politics has to be the votes of the people."
This is what the U.S. Supreme Court dropped the ball on when they declared campaign contributions an expression of "free speech". Spending money to elect lawmakers is not comparable to free speech because lawmakers aren't bound by the law. When I take from you to spend money on what I want to, that's called theft. But when the government garnishes my paycheck, that's just apparently taxation.
The difference between spending money to raise awareness or encourage action, like a charity drive, and spending money to elect officials, is that the former is voluntary and the latter is compulsory and backed by the threat of fines, jail-time, and the might of the police force.
No matter what your political views, once you recognize that government forces people to do things and that the rest of society gets arrested if they try to do the same, you must acknowledge that higher standards are needed for those who decide what people are going to be forced to do.
Me spending money to raise money for a campaign that gets some guy to hike the tax rate and give me or my friends a subsidy is not an expression of free speech, it's cronyism and blatant robbery backed by the force and violence of laws. And you know what? It should be prosecuted as extortion by the courts.
"Deciding we're not going to fix our political system because we're too afraid of making it worse is..."
...is common sense in this political climate. In this political climate, stated intentions are more important than reality in the minds of the voters, in which shit like the Unaffordable and Total Lack of Care Act can be named the Affordable Care Act and magically gain the support of millions of the moronic public who hasn't even read it nor could even understand how badly it fails even if they did, or where the Opposite of Patriotic and Basically Everything the United States Stands For Act can be named the Patriot Act and magically get passed by a bunch of retards. In this political climate, the lawmakers couldn't make their way out of a fun-house of mirrors, let alone solve major and complex problems like healthcare or terrorism. In this political climate, bills are passed with catastrophic consequences for everyone but the people who pass them, and the solution to these problems is to pass more laws that don't work and fuck people over even more.
In this political climate, it would be better for the federal government to shut down entirely and have the states and municipalities pick up any of the resulting slack than to expect congress or the senate to fix any problem facing the American public. I was cheering my way through the debt crises hoping for the entire system to die, sadly it's still around.
Stop trying to fix the system, just throw it out.
Several changes that I think our Government needs:
1) A cap on the number of terms a Senator or Congressman can serve. Too many politicians focus on staying elected rather than doing their job and play the game so long they fall out of touch with reality.
2) Elected positions are determined by the popular vote, not an electoral vote. Give the people back some voting power and make politicians care about each vote they get, not just the votes from the biggest population areas.
3) Get rid of corporate backing in politics. Laws should be determined by what will benefit the people most, no who has the biggest bank account.
4) Give the people some sort of voice in the lawmaking process. As it sits, all we can do is hope that a small handful of can try to agree to make a competent decision for millions of others. We should have a more direct say in the processes that most affect us.
5) Let the people hold the politicians responsible. The original Constitution allowed people to remove ineffective or corrupt politicians. Give the lawmakers a reason beyond money to walk the straight and narrow.
#2 is a non-issue. The way the electoral college works right now, major population centers are not politicians major concern. If you had the right people backing you, you could win an election with 20% of USA's population on your side. Check out CGPGrays stuff if you want to see what I mean.
But that's just it! A politician should be in office because the most people want him there, not because of who he knows or because he knew to campaign in the right area. The entire electoral college system is broken.
That I can agree on.
I had to laugh way too hard about the whole "Congress is like training for a Pokémon competition... and that would be kind of cool." Great vid once again!
I like that "flawed incentive systems" is paired with a picture of 3 gears that could never rotate together as shown. I can't tell if it was intentional or not, but it was funny regardless.
Just taking advantage of so few comments to say: you guys are awesome. Keep doing what you're doing; it's awesome! Good in you.
Sounds like we are entering CGP Grey's territory next week. He has a lot of good videos on improving the political system, especially on voting.
I love this little series. I'm wondering though, will there be anything on how we could possibly get this to be implemented? Because that's seems like the hardest part to me; convincing the government to do anything like this. :/
you got my like with "training congress like pokemon" and this episode sounded so much like the system we use in Australia.
This episode was much better than the first one. I have to say, while the viewpoints expressed here are still rather idealistic, they make much more sense than those expressed in episode one. The problem of the revolving door is well known to political scientists and the solutions you proposed are standard across the field. There's a few more creative ones out there, but they are quite tough to explain without wading into statistical models.
The eternal campaign is also something that is a major systematic problem in US politics. That isn't much of a one-sided problem. A lot of factors in the economy, advertising, the media, etc. are geared to work in a perpetual election cycle in Washington. So different solutions have to be devised for EACH sector that is made to work with an eternal campaign.
Good job. There's much improvement here from the first video. It's a nice overview of institutional problems in American politics.
The trouble I have with this is that most congress people HAVE jobs, careers, businesses that they had before going into politics. Leaving politics should NOT be a major concern for them. A good number of congress people are lawyers. Some are farmers. Others own their businesses. Every last one should be limited in the amount of time they may serve. Politics should NOT be a career, but a term of service.
They work maybe 6-8 months out of the year. Why should they be compensated much higher than their constituents who work longer and much harder than they do?
What I would really to see implemented is a mandatory Congressional School that teaches every single one of them about the Constitution that swore to uphold, and fail at miserably.
Holy (insert your favorite expletive here)! How is it that I'm hearing some of the most reasonable, well-thought-out political arguments I've ever heard on a video game show? Looking forward to the rest of the series.
I like when you take things from real life and discuss it in the realm of game theory. I am always telling my friends and family that a lot of things in life work like a game, but it is sometimes hard to explain it. I will tell them, "Pretty much anything that is a system of rules or laws is a game." Explaining the how just fumbles me at times.
This video was much better than part 1. It was less radical, and even offered a solution to the problems its simplistic solution made. You also pointed out the simplicity of your argument earlier in the video, as you usually do, albeit not as directly.
You know, I used to look at politics from a purely liberal lens, and now I look at it from the new lens you guys provided me. Thanks!
The system you described plus utilizing experts in the fields in which they govern would make the world a much better place.
I agree completely.. People (politician or not), have the tendancy to crave a better future for themselves and their lovedones.
Main problem with politics is that the normal people have no voice, no oppinion except if we strike, or riot.. So the thing that needs to be done, is to give anyone the possibility to put their ideas / change requests / wishes into a mailbox kind of thing, and have a repressentative who will present these ideas, so they have a fighting chance of being taken serious.
Politics should be like the roman council (ish), where they vote amongst eachother, each representative having a part of the country, and each of them having a "mailbox" where people can come with suggestions. The many corporations have no direct say in the decisions, they can suggest things to their representative, but ultimately the council will vote, and the most votes win..
These council members need to get a golden carrot for their loyalty to their district, and by law be bound to ophold the wishes of the district..
Currently democracy is a label we put on "non dictator / emperial" politics.. but what do us people get to decide? what choices can we make for our contries? :) choose between dumb or dumber, who was selected by who? :) do we have a say in what laws will be made? can we vote no when the government wants to establish a new tax?
I love your series. Most insightful series on video games while also being very accessible available.
This video gets the word out to the public and the way we can change for the good of our nation.
In the words of an infamous protestor in the Supreme Court, exercising his right to be in the public space, I quote part of the phrase he said that got him thrown out... "Money is not speech, and corporations are not people."
Think about it like this. Would you rather catch a rare pokemon, breed it until it becomes shiny and grind it to LV 100 or would you rather just get one from someone else. if there's an easier way to do something do you think other people wouldn't do the same thing.
Now think of it this way, the people who want the LV 100 shinys and get them from somebody else is the government, while the people grinding to get the pokemon to level 100 are the people. Is that fair?
Derpa-Saurus This is a terrible analogy. You can't take parts of a pokemon, the same way the government does not take away literally everything from you.
Good effort, but please try again.
nikolaast I'm sorry, I didn't know that food, shelter, and health care were all considered level 100 tier amenities in a modern society now. For a moment there, I thought we lived in the "greatest country on Earth", but I guess we might have to reconsider that title since we can't take care of our citizens.
It's not a glamorous life people are living on welfare, Medicaid, or food stamps. Stop treating them like they're asking for a level 100 when all they want is a starter.
sgtkasi This is very true, you can't become a pokemon trainer if your not given any pokemon to start with or pokeballs. Only than will people be able to work their way up to a champion.
These are so true and I would guess most people not only here but in the country in general would support this. Sadly I am a little scared to lets people in politics nowadays get the thought of rewriting the base of the political system. I have a feeling they will change something and mess up...
I like it that EC takes on topics outside gaming.
Instead if giving all congressmen who leave office a large pension, instead give them an amount based on how many bills they voted on. Not all legislators vote on every bill, and most actually vote ok very few. They more votes you make, the more you effect the world, the fewer opportunities you have after you leave office. SO giving someone more money for more action not only incentivizes action, but it also makes good decisions that benefit America beneficial to the decision maker as well, as someone who makes the people happy stays in office longer, and by extension can cast more votes, and by extension else with a larger pension.
Welcome to TH-cam EC! Glad to have you here and I hope it works out well for you folks.
This needs to be bigger. :(
Short-sighted solutions with more governmental over-reach to a problem created by governmental over-reach.
Have you guys considered adding additional shows from outside the Extra Credits team?
I like that the image you show to represent things working correctly is 3 cogs right next to one another. This is ironic because if an odd number of cogs are arranged like that they can't actually pin.
This was a fun and engaging discussion within this video. Fun to speculate this kind of stuff. I'm liking how the focus is more engaged with the country's population as a whole. My only concern with the whole philosophy so far is the implication of short term events negatively impacting the judgement of voters in long term issues, such as business legislation, debt ceiling, all that.
I wish there were less negative waves coming from a lot of the comments though. Sure, there are plenty of good points either way, but removing the context of the subject is yielding a disappointing abundance of "Oh my god this is stupid", "The system is awesome already! Don't touch it or the commienaziterrorists will win!", and "It's all the [insert party name]'s fault anyway". Sure, you can say this stuff, but give us all an example of how the benefit of these points would be counteracted by their failings. You can never convince someone that they're stupid just by calling them stupid. You must prove to them how and why their ideas are stupid. Trust me, it's a better use of energy.
Then again, I suppose the commenting culture on youtube and forums in general is always going to be a bit... eh... passionate.
After watching these, and the anologies to games that our political system is related to, I started looking at our current system kind of like a large MMO server, with the players being the people and the politicians being the newly hired, temporary admins. :P
love the BF4 reference. yeah... EA made DICE f*ck up.
I like that you used a 3 gear lock up as the symbol for function. It amused me.
A small recommendation to anyone watching; if you enjoyed this, watch The American Dream. It's right here on youtube, and about half an hour long, going into detail about the financial crisis in USA. Also, no, it's not spam, I'm not in any way affiliated with the Provocateur Network, I just love their stuff.
This sure is a weird subject for a show about games and the games industry. Just because there's a remote tangential relation to how games MIGHT POSSIBLY be used in politics doesn't mean it's in any way a relevant topic.
If in any way games might help us understand and build better societies to live on, I find the subject indeed relevant, good sir.
And just because you personally don't want to see episodes on this subject doesn't mean that they shouldn't make it.
This was covered in the first video, games are designed to bring about certain behaviors via incentives, mechanics and consequences. Isn't that exactly what political systems should be trying to do, too? Politics and law is a series of rules that everyone must follow. In order for our politicians to do good for the people, they have to be incentivized, we can't trust them on their own.
EC is trying to approach redesigning law from a game design perspective. Which both enlightens how we approach politics and game design.
Pseudoboss I'm not saying I don't understand the reasoning here, I'm saying that the reason is poor.
I agree. I don't feel like this is the place to have such a political discussion. I watch for the games, not the "political theories." If they are really that passionate, they should just make a new channel.
The hardest part about bringing about these changes really is just how little influence capability the people are given. We can vote and petition, and that's about it. Otherwise, just about all law is decided by the House, Senate, and President. (As well as those that do State laws, but I don't know enough to tell how much they can affect the system)
A lot of this political hell can easily be fixed by one thing, term limits. Not just for presidents, but EVERYTHING. The maximum amount of time we have a single person can occupy the office of President is 10 years, and the only way to serve less than a full term is if you are VP, and current pres. either resigns, or dies in office, so we will never get any of this "eh, we'll do it later" bullshit. Not only does this force lobbying firms to do extra work, but it also eliminates the possibility of another thing, a political dynasty. Imagine that right after George H. W. Bush took office, his son, W, Bush, took office, and then his son, and so on. While this is unlikely, it can happen, which is why term limits should also apply to entire immediate families (siblings, children, parents, and all the grands and greats in between).
But as far as the corporate influence, www.wolf-pac.com. Call you representives and senators on the STATE level and purpose an amendment to get money out of politics. We CAN call for a convention through the states, and even add an amendment even if the national congress hates it.
Personally, I think it's fine even if the son of a previous president becomes a president as long as they're worthy of the title
I'm really glad they addressed this problem. Personally, I feel this is the key problem to why our government is broke. I have no complaints.
I'm absolutely in favor of this.
This isn't something that most Americans seem to be aware of, or are otherwise dismissive of it. I'd recommend visiting the Last Week Tonight channel and perusing some of their videos, especially the ones on Pay Day Lending and Net Neutrality...they paint a pretty interesting picture of how there is a big problem with conflict of interest in the lawmaking process.
For those that would argue that massive campaign contributions are necessary, my first question would be, why? Why does it take hundreds of millions of dollars to run an effective campaign in this country? Why is that the only way to get into office? Do we really want a system based on, "Whoever has the most money, wins?" Because, that's the reality right now, and that really needs to change. Otherwise, we continue to take backwards steps, and there are only so many steps you can take before we're either in another country, or we're in the water.
Before I criticize, I will state where I do agree with you.
A) I agree that congresspersons should not exempt themselves from the laws they pass. US Senator Rand Paul has proposed such a constitutional amendment that does just that.
B) I agree that limiting how much currently elected congresspersons can spend on campaigning would be a good thing. However, this should only apply to incumbents and not challengers. Challengers do not have the perks that incumbents get, such as easily getting on local talk shows, being in the news by proposing a new law, getting the capital "I" (for "incumbent") next to their name on the ballot, etc. Challengers need all the money they can get to overcome these HUGE advantages that incumbents enjoy.
Now for where I disagree with you.
1) Tying a congressperson's salary to the medium wage is a bad idea. You think if we do this that congresspersons will then grow the economy. But this assumes congresspersons grow the economy. They cannot and have never. Government doesn't make ANYTHING. Government is a parasite. No wealth is generated by government. It only consumes wealth. President Obama signed in a $1 trillion "stimulus" package and it didn't do jack. That is one TRILLION dollars blown with nothing to show for it. So for you to think that tying a congressperson's salary to the medium wage will raise wages, you simply show you're clueless about the true nature of government.
2) That you think fighting over the debt ceiling is ridiculous is simply ridiculous. Obviously you don't know that for every dollar the US government currently spends it BORROWS 43 cents. Think about that. That cannot continue forever. No bank would ever lend you more money if you living so far above your means. Eventually our national debt will be so much that the interest on it alone will consume all our taxes. The debate on our debt ceiling MUST take place as it is one of the way we can prevent the current borrowing shopping spree that the government is doing.
3) It is the US Senate that hasn't passed a budget in three years. Since the Republicans gained control of the US House, they have been proposing, voting on, passing, and sending budgets to the US Senate. But Democrats control the US Senate and have refused to pass a budget for purely partisan reasons. One of them is the prevention of the defunding of Obamacare. You see the Powers of the Purse constitutionally rest with the US House and not the US Senate or US President. The US President can propose a budget but his budget is simply a suggestion. It has no power of law behind it. It takes a US House Representative to propose it to the US House for it to be considered but then it is technically that US House Representative's budget bill. With the Republicans controlling the US House, they constitutionally are the only ones that can propose a budget. The US Senate and/or President can veto it, but they cannot propose one themselves and put it up for a vote in the US House.
4) The idea that congressperson's health care should be what average people get assumes a single-payer government health care system. But while Democrats dream of such a health care system, that isn't what we currently have. What you need to do is compare the congressperson's health care policies with those of corporate executives since that is essentially what they are in the federal government. When you make the comparison, you'll find their policies are actually not as good.
5) Political advertising is NOTHING new and the introduction of TV ads isn't anything special. From the third presidential election forward (the first two had George Washington elected unanimously and without opposition), political ads have been with us and have flooded us.
6) Political advertising isn't really that much. Read up on how much Procter & Gamble alone spend a year on advertising. Look at how much the cosmetic industry spends in a single month. All that will give you a better perspective on current political campaign spending.
7) Patching to just patch is just as stupid as not patching because you're afraid to patch. And what we're talking about isn't some meaningless leisure-time computer game but a system that runs our government. PLEASE read up on the Founding Fathers. They weren't idiots. They were highly educated and had a philosophy behind the system they created. It wasn't perfect but they knew that and knowingly put off some issues (slavery, women's voting rights, etc.) for a later day so they could forge a nation. But it is arrogance to think that you can simply devise something better or that what they devised is outdated simply because it wasn't written up yesterday.
8) Congresspersons ONLY leave office when they lose re-election or think they cannot win re-election. Yes, there are lucrative lobbying and corporate jobs that await them but it is the VERY rare congressperson that leaves office willingly. The few that have left voluntarily did so because of a campaign promise to only serve a limited number of terms. The rest ... the OVERWHELMING rest want to remain in power as long as they can. They're addicted to power. If anything, they want more power so they might leave the US House to run for the US Senate or leave the US Senate to run for the US President ... though neither US House Representative or US Senators usually give up their current office when running for a higher office.
9) As for not allowing congresspersons to ever work for any corporation that a law of theirs might have impacted is simply high stupidity. Congress pass laws that affect ALL industries. No businessman would then run for office. But maybe that's exactly what you're hoping for. And that you exempt government jobs (and teaching is a government job) from jobs they cannot later take is more stupidity. They're the ones who literally create government jobs and fund universities. If you think government and university jobs are cushy now, wait until you restrict politicians to only them after they leave office.
Lastly, PLEASE think before you post your next episode when it comes to filibustering. If you're against it, read about how and why our Founding Fathers set it up. The United States of America isn't a democracy. It is a CONSTITUTIONAL democracy. Pure democracy is mob rule. The Bill of Rights is ANTI-democracy. The Bill of Rights protects the individual and minority from the majority. Filibustering in the US Senate was designed to prevent a simple majority from deciding the fate of all of us. Super-majorities (60% or greater) is ANTI-democracy on purpose. The US Senate was specifically designed to be the place where bad bills from the US House go to die.
Hate to point this out man, but the government does in fact generate wealth. You might want to fact check before you go off stating other people are clueless. Just sayin'
Also, no it isn't "simply high stupidity" (btw that sentence was atrocious to read.) to expect congress to not work for companies they could directly help or harm. We already require high court judges to prove they aren't affiliated with specific political groups. This is no different. Great power does in fact come with great responsibility. See way back when, working in office wasn't about the money or the fame, it was about serving your country. Public service has a high price with a high reward for those who enjoy that work. Those who just want money or power can stay out of it.
Actually, filibustering wasn't created by the "founding fathers" or even thought of until around 50 years after we became a country. It was first theoretically possible in 1807. It wasn't used until much later. Again, you need to check your facts before you tell others they need to "think" before they do something. A simple google search would've sufficed.
Honestly, it would take me all evening to throw out every single point you made, but I don't have it. I wish you a happy holidays and would suggest a critical thinking course.
Fizzypopization, government doesn't create any wealth. Government only burns wealth (wastes it), redistributes it (welfare), or, at best, protects it (by way of the police). The wealth it has is taken by from the private sector by way of taxation. It creates none itself. If government could create wealth, the USSR would have never collapsed.
Jack Decker So basically you are using talking head points instead of your own opinions? I can kind of figured that, but I had to be sure. I love how you sneak in the "wasting wealth" talking point, oh yes because the government does nothing good with money, nope! The police that protect you? Totally a waste. The roads you drive on? Certainly a waste! Very predictable. Can you define wealth? I think you may be surprised at what you find. Or perhaps I give you too much credit and you'll continue going on about how the government wastes money on police, roads, and god forbid other Americans! Care to add anymore of the famous talking points to the list?
By the way, I like how you didn't comment on any of the other points especially the point that calls you out for not knowing the history you so clearly believe you know. This is the problem with Americans today you refuse to come to your own conclusions instead you rely on others to do your thinking for you. You didn't bother to google search your "own claims" simply because you'd rather believe in regurgitated nonsense. This is why I have no hope for America, not until this itself stops. Do you think finland would take me?
Fizzy, if you think government doesn't waste money, you have never done any research into the reality of governments. As for you saying that I say that police is a waste of money, read over again what I said. I put the police in the category of protecting wealth and not wasting it. As for roads, yes, government does waste a lot of money putting in roads that the private sector can do for less, better, and run cheaper. Read up on private toll roads for such examples.
As for your other points in your previous reply, my web browser didn't indicate there was more to your post. It looked like there was only one paragraph. I now see there is and, sure, I'll address your other points.
There is NO restrictions on federal judges when it comes to them having worked before becoming a judge for a political organization. None. Give me the federal statute that prohibits judge applicants from having worked for any political organization before serving as judges.
And, yes, is simply high stupidity to prohibit congresspersons from ever working for any corporation that legislation they have voted for has impacted since, in the course of even a two-year term as a US House Representative, a US House Rep would have voted on legislation that would have impacted every industry in the nation. To then say they cannot work for those impacted corporations after leaving office is moronic and completely unethical, irresponsible, and anti-liberty. You are then forcing people who are considering to run for office to either not run or never get a job in the private sector again. Simply HIGH stupidity! Moronic! All you'll then get are people who only want to work for government and those people are some of the worst people who should be running government since they are more likely to see nothing wrong with government doing anything it wants. That and they very likely not understanding how the capitalism (a.k.a. the economy) actually works.
As for the filibuster, you're correct. It wasn't an invention of the Founding Fathers. But I do think they would agree with it since they did build into the constitution the need for a supermajority for major legislation to be passed. This giving the minority a lower bar to bar major legislation they oppose. The filibuster is a similar tool of the minority to prevent legislation it opposes.
Seadalog, governments the only ones that can use physical force to get people to do as they say. Governments are the only ones that can force everyone to pay taxes whether they want to or not. Corporations, churches, yacht clubs, etc. all depend on voluntary association and trade for their existence. The "dividing line" is involuntary vs voluntary and that is a HUGE and very CLEAR dividing line.
As for China vs. USSR, China was a COMPLETE failure until it gave up on economic communism and embraced capitalism. The leadership in China didn't abandoned economic socialism because it was working but because it wasn't. Nearly at the same time, India did likewise. It was capitalism and not socialism that then raised a BILLION people out of poverty after the fall of USSR and the tearing down of economic socialism in China and India.
As for K-Mart vs. Target, capitalism is the survival of the fittest and that survival is all done on a voluntary basis. K-Mart failed because it didn't offer competitive prices and Target did. The failure of K-Mart is a GOOD example of capitalism. Unlike governments that will pull their people down in the grave with their involuntary policies (read up on the famines that occurred under and was caused by Mao in China), citizens are not forced to shop at one store but can choose. That voluntary ability to choose is the hallmark of capitalism as is involuntary mandates the hallmark of socialism.
As for your Thomas Hobbs paragraph, the answer to your long list of questions is simply this question: "Is it voluntary?" If it isn't voluntary, it is wrong. If it is voluntary, it is right. Government's rightful role is to be a fair arbitrator in such disputes based on established laws and to protect the property rights of rightful owners. But to say that government is the reason why we own anything is moronic. We own property through our own efforts ... unless you're Obama who thinks entrepreneurs didn't build their businesses. You might be able to say that government is the reason why we can assert claim to ownership of something but that is only as far as civil laws go. We do not need government for currency. We have used gold, silver, and other precious metals and stones for that for thousands of years. We are right now seeing BitCoin operate completely outside of government.
As for deregulation, no, we haven't been deregulating for 40 years. Just the opposite. We are steadily adding regulations for the last 40 years. Under Obama, federal regulation increased 7.4% in just his first three years. Federal regulations increased even more under George Bush Junior during that same time period in his administration. Our decline is because of over-regulation, not under-regulation.
As for the US House passing budget, actually they have. Repeatedly. Some say it was all partisan politics, but at least they repeated passed something. It is the US Senate that hasn't, until just recently, passed a budget since 2009. The current two-year budget bill originated in the US House, was just approved by the US Senate, and is now going to the US President to be signed in.
I truly think, that politician should be one of the best paid jobs in the world so that really, really, really good people strive for this. And some kind of system that you don't "inherit" your job and if you screw up public funds are eligible for it in some way. So yes, big pensions, all the options that are possible to really concentrate on their jobs...
I get so angry and so disappointed when politicians live with different rules than me.
I immensely enjoyed your take on gamification in education. And I like this series as well, even though not all will apply to my country.
These recommendations are so bad. Most would require several Constitutional Amendments and then still be a nightmare to enforce.
that still doesn't mean it wouldn't be worth it in the end if we got these ideas done.
Goombalove3000
You want an activist government that just redistributes wealth. thank god people like you have term limits.
PRINCECOUNTYBEATS ok, first of all i am british and have no real concern what happens to your country unless i can actually do some good. secondly, the reason this hasn't been done yet is that no-one can be bothered to wade through all the legal rubbish that has been put up to keep the rich getting money, and it's people like you that keep the systems alive with stupid complaints. thank god people like you have term limits.
PRINCECOUNTYBEATS
There nothing in this video or comment that talk or approach redistribution of wealth. It's about changing the rules to make sure politician take decision for the greater good of their fellow citizen interest (based on what they believe) than on their own interest. That is not socialist or capitalism, that's the goal of democracy.
SquishyProductions That's McCarthyism Squishy! The government should serve the people (Demos=people, cratos=rule). THAT is how the founding fathers would have wanted it. The average American should set the norm for the reach and power of the government and as the norm goes up, so does the influence of the people itself. The founding fathers believed in freedom, a live without oppression of a government and such a government that existed FOR the people not the other way around.
I'm not quite sure how to do that or even many of the other things said in both pt 1 and this, but I do agree to what you're main idea is.
We need to make it so that anyone, ANYONE can run. All you should need is, say, a 10,00 signature petition to get on the ballot. Airlines should give free flights so congressmen can campaign without millions, and lobby groups that pour thousands of dollars into a campaign should be illegal. This video is great, and looking at the current elections it applies more than ever.
Collin Keegan A 4 year old shouldn't be able to run.
Yeh he shouldn't. Which is why he wouldn't get the signatures.
The signature part was edited in after my comment
Also do we really want the election to be a popularity contest? That's a bit of my problem with democracy. Sure its great for the government to try and appeal to the people and be forced to meet their needs but with democracy people can be elected who either can't do what they say they would, didn't plan to do in the first place, or simply be elected in because they look good.
I feel people should be chosen based on what they have done which proves they can do what they say instead of looking good and having nice words.
As a non-American it's very interesting to see some of these points discussed - they aren't just puzzling to me as an outsider but to Americans as well :) ^^
The fundamental problem here with all of these "solutions" is that they take responsibility of the people away. You're taking the power of the vote and legislating it. In game terms, it's a user created problem, and patching it would actually take away the fundamental goal of the game, which is freedom. It is NOT the betterment of the people. People need to better themselves. Governments need to ensure freedom.
Governments can never ensure freedom because they are fundamentally opposed to it: you are not free to "fire" or "quit" the government. You must pay them, follow whatever rules they come up with and accept the atrocities they commit. They ensure all this through the loaded barrel of a gun.
It doesn't have to be like that. We have the power. Sure, if we let them rule education, and let them run our lives, then they will have the power. However, if we stop asking the government for handouts, and get them out of our kid's education, and if we USE our power at the polls to fire congressmen, and senators, and presidents, and Justices; then freedom will be assured. It's all up to the people. That's why this video is wrong. It disincentives the people from exercising their own power in favor of legislation.
doublechunkfunk
As long as a group of people has a monopoly on the use of force, you can't have freedom. The US started out as exactly what you're advocating for. What happened? Because the government was small and out of peoples lives the economy became a power house. The government grew accordingly and we now have one of the most bloated, vile governments in history.
The only solution is achieving a free society without rulers, a society based on voluntarism and the rejection of the initiation of force. It won't happen in our lifetimes but if we keep advocating for it, it can be achieved someday.
I feel I learn more here than I do in a full period of my social science class.
Actually even memoir writing, teaching, etc. could be lobbied for and directly affected in their better interest and not the peoples better interest. If you're going that route literally no job would be available for them except continued governance. Not that they couldn't benefit more indirectly anyways. Just at the most basic level I know many people who would gladly shoot themselves in the foot this way to create a golden meal ticket for a friend or family member in much the same way that they do for themselves now. Do you ban relatives and friends of the governors as well? At what point do you stop placing the ban? Do all these people gain pensions? How any people can you pay this pension for the rest of their lives and still have a reasonable budget?
Really interesting! A lot of what you talked about related well to my government class I just finished. It's neat to see two ways of explaining a system.
I will say, I do like this undertaking, and I really think the next couple episodes will be great. But I will say, this one I'm honestly not sure it'd be possible to implement. At all. I don't see how we could possibly swing the idea of making it so politicians can't become lobbyists or such for companies. Voting for such a bill could be political suicide for many congressmen, and I seriously wonder how many people would be scared to, if it was to be enacted, enact any bills in order to be able to work with a company after. It's sad, but I could see that system causing more problems and more stagnation than we already have.
On a brighter note, "Congress is like training for a Pokemon competition" is my favorite out of context line of the day.
I've been thinking along these lines for a while now. We basically have to remove the monetary incentives of government to ensure that the people who go into it do so for the right reasons.
However I suspect that this would be incredibly difficult to do, in a similar sense that it is difficult to get large corporations to pay tax. They have the power, so they can use that power to keep hold of the money which gives them that power. Tricky.
good question. I'd say the right reason to go into politics is to try and improve the lives of the people you govern. You should be able to listen to concerns about the issues these people face, and see if there are ways in which you can help them through changing the system. I agree that you need more than a pure heart. You need a wider sense of perspective than most people, and be intelligent or experienced enough to predict what is likely to work, or who to consult with to make effective solutions. I'm really not saying it's an easy job.
spiderplant3 that is some good incite you have there (if I spelled that right). I think you are correct. Problem is that receiving funds is the problem for political offices as that is the means in which to keep their jobs. Imagine if that changed in that someone in office does do exactly what they were "meant" to do in making the community/country/whatever happy? Imagine if that would be their "review"? That would most certainly be interesting to see. The only problem I can see is if someone else is trying to get into his position. How are they going to make a name for themselves to try and get into office without some type of "advertising?" And would that "advertising" be expensive or within limits to not make the possible new candidate broke? I don't know, but it would still be interesting to see.....
TheCherrycokeman
Hmm, I think I see your point. Personally I'm hoping that we see a world where politicians don't have to "advertise" themselves to the public. We already have extensive news reporting, it should be up to the people to look at all the candidates, what criticism and praise they have earned and decide for themselves. If someone is criticised for the way they handle an issue, and the other guy says that he will handle it differently, then that would be a good way for a new person to get into office. Maybe that's too much? Perhaps once they decide they're running for office, they have a budget which they can't exceed for campaign materials? I honestly don't know, but yeah it's an interesting idea.
As with many of the topic this show brings up, it sounds really great, and it would be great to see this kind of stuff take effect, bit too many people high ups would loose money, so I dont think we will ever see something like this actually happen.
This is a brilliant series, and its a novel way of looking how things would work better. Now do Simcity and local government?
Honestly I don't think we should allow our current congress people to be safe forever especially if they only complete one term. The fact is that we need term limits perhaps 2-4 and if you make it through say 4 each 5 years long you have spent 20 years of your life benefiting the country so you get say 60 years of being taken care of. I know this is a little absurd, but just make the reward congressmen and women get be = to how well they served the country.
Yes! To bad they will still get insain retirement money and loan forgiveness.
Somehow, the automatic captions for this video are actually very accurate.
the pokegen/pokesav 'cheating' really hit the spot
down here in Argentina, when in capping periods the state is the one who pays for those campaigns, radio, tv, billboards, basically that stuff, however it still allows the candidate to pay for extra adds, but having a lot of free ones, makes to not really super necessary for them to pay for the extra ones.you would this that solves part of the problem, and the answer is a "yesno" because they still don't really work for the people (even dough some claim to be "populist" but I won't talk a lot on which side they are on)the problem isn't just how the sister incentives, the problem is when bad people who claim to be good, and make terrible decisions, manage to get re elected, not if in what they had done, and the word part is when instead of watching old politics and trying to make them better, they flat out destroy them and replace them with their own. Oh a
So a thing to anyone who complains that right winged parties don't solve your problems, here it has been decades of left wing parties,mane guess what? Not really as cool as you think.
Whenever he's behind the podium I just sit wondering whether he's got a light green jacket, or a dark green tie. Then I find out it's a tie when he comes out...and forget again in the next video.