The U.S. has ‘worst elections of any long-established democracy,’ report finds

I've seen sites that aggregate both sides of an argument, though [0] [1]. It would be nice to see Facebook, Twitter, etc. start an experimental feed that combines both viewpoints to promote civic discourse.

I've also pondered about online comments sections, and what changes could be made to improve the civility of the discussion. Too many sites let their comments go unregulated in that you have people writing messages with full caps or instantly accusing the President or other political figure of being fascist, neo-nazi, etc. Would a "blind submission" system work, where the user can only read comments after submitting one of their own?

With no rules in place for online comment sections and social media, I'm afraid those sites will continue to be childish cesspools of incoherent arguments, and will result in no meaningful discussion to challenge people's views.

[0] http://graphics.wsj.com/blue-feed-red-feed/ [1] http://debate.org

It's not their fault. You'd have to be an idiot to now understand what guns are for: they're weapons designed to kill people efficiently. They can be used for good or evil, just like cars. Some guy in a pickup just murdered 5 bicyclists in Michigan; should we ban pickups because of this?

The whole thing about suing gun manufacturers is incredibly stupid. They're producing a product that is a tool for a certain purpose; if that product is used successfully for that purpose, but for killing someone who's innocent, that's not the manufacturer's fault, it's the user's fault. If you don't like that, then you need to enact laws to limit who's allowed to buy guns, instead of holding manufacturers responsible for improper usage. Using the court system to bankrupt gunmakers is nothing more than abuse of the legal system because some people couldn't achieve a political victory and get a legislative solution. If you really don't want people to have guns at all, then you need to ban guns from being sold to civilians, not allow it willy-nilly and then allow them to get sued. It's asinine. It's like allowing liquor store owners to sell to minors and then allowing them to be sued when those minors get drunk and do stupid stuff. If you don't want kids drinking, then pass a law forbidding it; don't muddy up the court system with BS cases because you couldn't figure out how to pass a law fixing the problem.

Personally, I do think we have done a poor job in limiting who has access to guns, but abusing the court system is not the answer. The answer is to pass better laws, get better background checks, etc. If you can't do that, you need to find some better candidates that people actually want to vote for.

The Mises Institute, founded in 1982, teaches the scholarship of Austrian economics, freedom, and peace. The liberal intellectual tradition of Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973) and Murray N. Rothbard (1926-1995) guides us. Accordingly, we seek a profound and radical shift in the intellectual climate: away from statism and toward a private property order. We encourage critical historical research, and stand against political correctness. The institute serves students, academics, business leaders, and anyone seeking better understanding of the Austrian school of economics and libertarian political theory.

EDIT: Source: https://mises.org/about-mises They are based here: 518 West Magnolia Avenue Auburn, Alabama 36832-4501

This would be a really nice comparison, if the cost of living in any random european country happened to be exactly the median cost of living over all US states. As it stands, that article is prettified data garbage.

The problem with the cited statistics is that even PPP-adjusted equivalized disposable household income that accounts for both cash and in-kind transfers still provides only a limited basis for comparison.

For example, observe that the average American person works 30% more than the average German or Dutch person [1]. It should not be surprising that shorter working hours are reflected in lower wages and lower household income.

However, while the reason for that is not always good – too many stay-at-home moms in Germany who'd rather pursue a career, for example – in general, this tends to express a voluntary trade-off of better work-life balance in lieu of higher income. This trade-off generally works because both income and expenses are less volatile; you may not need to save up as much for a rainy day, a huge coinsurance or deductible payment from a medical bill, for your kids' college funds, for the disruption of your income by a pregnancy, or figuring out how to pay for childcare. While few of these things have zero impact on your income situation, that impact tends to be greatly reduced. The modern European social democracy is less characterized by transfering cash from the rich to the poor, but by ensuring affordable essential services for everybody (which also tend to benefit the poor more than the rich and thus are typically redistributive).

In addition, even trying to normalize household income does not account for all the actual differences between the economies; for example, the effects on urban planning (suburban sprawl with a built-in dependence on cars vs. hybrid zones that are walkable, bikable, and have good public transport) can have a major impact on how you live. Likewise, the rise of helicopter parenting in some places comes with increasing demands on time and household budgets.

And while the Western European social democracies are not some magical paradise with both riches and year-long vacations (contrary to what some people seriously seem to believe), they are not socialist hellholes, either.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_time

Holy crap, really!? Source, please, I need more reasons to love Bernie.

Every single side has valid criticisms. We are foolish to think otherwise. My personal belief is that we cannot go for another 4 years without some kind of political movement. We can't keep seeing stagnation. That breeds discontent, anger, violence. You saw it in the 60s and you see it now.

When I listen to Sanders, though I am empathetic to many of his points, I see someone who can't operate within political realities. The right called Obama a socialist and refused to work with him. What do you think happens with an actual socialist? I don't agree with many of the very conservative views of the people who live around me, but I can tell you right now that those people would despise Sanders, whether that's his fault or not. Nothing would get done, another four years of gridlock, and maybe worse. Sanders can't help it that people are loons. But he can adapt to reality and come up with pragmatic positions. You can't go to the far left (relative to American politics as a whole) in one election cycle, ignoring whether you'd want to.

I also am very troubled with Sanders continued association with groups that are violent. He should as quickly disavow those groups as Trump should've disavowed the KKK. Political violence should be condemned in all forms, and those peple don't deserve a mouthpiece, regardless of the validity of their criticisms. The whole world ending up blind and all that.

JFK had a belief in idealism without illusions. Sanders is idealist but I fear he also has a lot of illusions, and part of that is because he's grown up in the echo chamber of a political career.

Do you believe that Sanders has a realistic change of changing American politics for the better? Why? Why is he a compelling candidate? If you believe that Clinton is a flawed politician, why was he not more attractive than her in the primaries?

And here's a part of the problem... those aren't the "three remaining presidential candidates". At the very least any discussion of the presidential election should include Gary Johnson, who is the only other candidate who will be, if I understand correctly, on the ballot in all 50 states. Not to mention he's a very popular former governor, whose running mate is also a popular former governor.

OK, look, I understand that Duverger's Law[1] says that our system will tend to favor a "two party system". But there isn't an ironclad law like, say, gravity, in play here. Third party candidates can and do win elections, and excluding them from the conversation just helps perpetuate the existing system.

Unfortunately, in most years, the media seem to try very hard to pointedly ignore/downplay third party candidates. This year is the first I can remember where the LP candidate is getting some serious, mostly non-biased, reasonable media coverage.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law

Eh, what???

Gerrymandering only affects Congressional districts, which only affects the House of Representatives. That's it. It does NOT affect: 1) gubernatorial races, 2) Senate races, 3) Presidential races. It is a problem, but it's not the huge problem that some people make it out to be. As we can see, our political system is totally broken at all levels: our Presidential races are a total farce, and we don't do much better electing Senators than we do House members. We elect some lousy governors too. Therefore, it's obvious that fixing gerrymandering is not going to fix our political problems, not by a long shot.

The sentence is specific about election process, not all the government. If you want to discredit the research, do it properly.