Political Stuff Maybe We Can All Agree On | TMI

[@joescott-tmi]

Also I would like to thank KZbin for picking a thumbnail for this video of me making just about the most punchable face I've ever made.

[@dernthehermit3541]

Don't be silly, Joe, you look like a champion in that thumbnail

[@jadoncampbell2740]

@@dernthehermit3541 true

[@spaceintel101]

I completely agree mate Trump is insane lo

[@stevechance150]

Joe, if you like CGP Grey, you should check out exurb1a his channel is fantastic. Different than CGP Grey, but really good videos.

[@ClarenceCreekwater]

Joe, I think you are the most level headed guy on Tube

[@racookster]

I'm single-issue on getting donations out of politics too, Joe. Legalized bribery has to end. Corporations are not persons, and money is not speech.

[@Anankin12]

Ok but without those who can run? Only billionaires who already have the money. So, you shift from corps having great influence on politicians to corps BEING the politician. There should be some public funding for campaigning, so you can actually remove donations without excluding literally everyone who isn't a Billionaire.

[@larrymanns364]

How dare you try to unite people in such a tumultuous time! RABBLE! RABBLE! RABBLE!

[@MasterMatter]

Hoopla hoopla hoopla

[@madderhat5852]

Pass out the pitchforks and torches.

[@Nikenik2001]

The nerve on some people.

[@joescott-tmi]

That's how a person gets drawn and quartered.

[@zacherychapman8474]

Joe's perspectives here may be apolitical in the sense that support and opposition to these suggestions don't fall along party lines (or rather, they do, but oscillate depending on which party is currently in power), but that doesn't necessarily mean universal or even near universal support. For example, I oppose a national popular vote for the presidency, because the USA should be, and, constitutionally, IS a federation of states in which states share sovereignty with the central government, and it is appropriate for the leader of a federation to be chosen by the states rather than the majority of people lumped together from different states into a single pot.

[@timprobst7905]

Election day should be a national holiday.

[@NickCombs]

Idk, I kinda like the alternative: every state votes like Oregon. 100% by mail. It's beautiful man. Got mailed my pamphlet on the candidates and measures last week. Filled out a practice ballot with it at home. Got my real ballot yesterday and copied my marks over. Dropped that off at the nearby city hall. I can track the ballot online the whole way.

[@antiisocial]

National Holiday or National Day of Mourning? Depends on if the person you voted for wins or not!

[@enriquegarciacota3914]

And weekend

[@snygg1993]

In a lot of Nations, elections are always on Sunday.

[@rogerstarkey5390]

@@NickCombs I was going to say 🤔 But then you mentioned tracking. Isn't technology wonderful! Taking that a stage further, I'm in the UK. I'm required to register on the electoral roll every year. I receive a paper form with a unique code.... But it also has a QR code. I scan that, takes me to the website. Punch in the code on the paper form. That sends a confirmation message to my *pre registered* phone. I enter *that* number, select any changes to status and send. I'm now registered. It's quick, simple, secure (due to the "real time" element) That would be a "21st century" voting method? No doubt extra security could be installed at the receiving end, maybe a text back on polling day to confirm your vote was counted?

[@matttower455]

My top two political issues: 1) No more daylight savings. 2) No more pennies. Whenever I mention these nearly everyone seems to be on board,... so why can’t we get these done?

[@thinkabout602]

Andrew Yang's one of many smart positions

[@ericskagerberg9160]

Interestingly, from poll results I've seen, it looks to me like most Californians want to make Daylight Saving Time =permanent=. It would still accomplish the real issue, which is eliminating the disruptive one hour shifts twice a year, plus keep the extra daylight at the end of the day. In essence, the change would put the state in the next time zone to the East.

[@DanSolowastaken]

Daylight savings is a ridiculously simple way to get energy conservation in the United States. As we have al learned quite the hard way, Americans will sacrifice nothing for the benefit of strangers. If we asked them to conserve power by turning the lights on later they wouldn't do it. That is problem solved by making working hours daylight hours. I know it's irritating and in some cases of statistical anomaly deadly, but the offset to our collective good more than makes up for it.

[@Oldjohn52]

The Zinc lobby, for the main reason there are pennies. Lobbying ought to go away

[@nebuchadne33ar]

@@DanSolowastaken Unfortunately true

[@Monkey-fv2km]

It’s difficult to agree when the current political environment seems to be "whatever position the other team champions, take the counter position and make it a moral argument rather than a practical one, that way we can demonise our opponents". It makes me sad.

[@MattieAMiller]

commenting because I can't like it twice. It is very saddening for me too.

[@CharlesBosse]

It means there are some really weird things in the national debate. I didn't think I would ever have political discussions about cell phone standards.

[@ku8721]

If I was the moderator for a debate my first question would have been "Is there anything you two can agree on? Lets start with an easy one. Earth is flat or spherical?"

[@jerryonlychild7003]

It’s true. Like, I’m a Republican but it doesn’t mean that I agree with everything that Trump says or does. In fact, I agree with nothing he says lol I’m about policy, and what the person in office does and how they do their JOB. I care about the economy, immigration, social welfare, etc. I could give two shits about his Twitter and SM. I think if a lot of people took all the SM out of the equation, that they would see it differently.

[@notapplicable7292]

I'm in Australia which has ranked voting (called preferential voting here) and because of that parties like the greens actually hold seats in parliament meaning if a party wants to pass a reform they often have to collaborate with independents or smaller parties which gives far better representation.

[@jasonlast7091]

I don't think our system is quite as good as the US overall but this little bit makes an absolute world of difference.

[@MrFrg-fp9vq]

how does it work tho. I am confused on how it is determined if your vote goes to your second choice.

[@panta_rhei.26]

@@MrFrg-fp9vq There are several really good videos out there explaining it all. I think Vox has one that's pretty to-the-point.

[@panta_rhei.26]

I'd love to see something like this in the Senate, even if it means smaller parties I disagree with get better representation too. I see it as a win for everybody.

[@heathrichardson4242]

We also have compulsory voting in Aus.... they fine us if we don’t vote.

[@Android_Steed]

I love your thoughts on this, Joe, and I appreciate you trying to bring a voice to it. Sending good vibes your way :)

[@MTerrance]

As a 72 year old white male I wish we old farts would exit stage left (or right). That doesn't mean people over some age could not run for office, but I have to believe younger candidates are needed. One way to get to that would be to reform campaign finance. It would be a miracle if that were to happen, but one can hope. My final wish is to require new elected officials to file a statement of their assets. Then they would be audited periodically and if they were found to have gained more than some reasonable wealth, to require an explanation for that sudden wealth. This should continue for 5 years after they leave office.

[@969typO]

As a Libertarian (where the Constitution comes first) I agree, everything you have mentioned would absolutely be in the interest of the people. The biggest issue that would change elections forever would be completely removing monetization of elections. Great thoughts Joe!

[@chrrmin1979]

As a Canadian, i can comfirm not having a million pennies in your pocket all the time is nice

[@Q12366]

I mean do your really pay with cash that much, i think that 9 out of 10 times I pay with a card. I REALLY HATE when places only take cash i mean it's 2020 and unless you are buying lemonade a your six year old on the corner..

[@chrrmin1979]

@@Q12366 lol i use cash all the time. Its great for budgeting yourself, because you are physically handing over money and seeing and feeling how much money you are spending.

[@kathytoy5055]

But you do have to reinforce your pockets to carry around all the loonies and twonies. ;-)

[@chrrmin1979]

@@kathytoy5055 hahaha very true, they get heavy after just a few

[@Q12366]

@@chrrmin1979 lol i just buy everything all at once twice a week and then unless its an emergency i keep my wallet in my pocket as long as possible lol

[@jeffreysmith4586]

Thank you Joe for trying to bring us together. I think we often forget just how much we have in common no matter what beliefs we may have. It's refreshing to hear.

[@SkunkPresant]

I’m from New Zealand and We changed system from First Pass the Post some years ago. We voted for MMP. Mixed Member Proportional. One vote for who will lead the government and another for the regional member. Electoral boundaries are drawn on population. Coalition governments do work. And are balanced for the people.

[@roelofjacobs5807]

Here in The Netherlands things work slightly different, but I too am happy for having a multi-party system. You can throw mud at one other party, you cannot throw mud at six. Especially if after the election there is a chance that you might have to work together to form a coalition. Sure, when things gets polarized, forming governments becomes harder, but I see that as a proper result of having a more polarized population. Just as long as the worst parts of tribalism stays out.

[@pakde8002]

Yes Indonesia also has multiple parties. If they didn't it would probably lead to civil war in a very short time but the radical right and left both get a voice which is toned down by the moderate majority. Much more difficult for a demagogue us versus them candidate to win, as we saw in the last election to some extent.

[@robsquared2]

That's the most depressing thing, there are people who actually don't want what what others do. Even basic things like "everyone should be fed and housed." Thanks for tring to bring people together though. There are also lots of people who do want to help each other out, and are only held back by bad info.

[@clintford6716]

I wish we could vote for or against specific issues. Not just party platform

[@webx135]

Switzerland does quarterly referendums on possible laws by direct vote. Simon Whistler on VisualPolitik did a good video on them.

[@davepermen]

I like the direct democraty we have in Switzerland. A joy to vote on individual topics, independent of parties

[@jimmykelly2809]

I think a direct democracy would do wonders. Online direct voting from the public with 2 factor authentication and a public voting register to keep it transparent is the way to go. No political parties and involvement of the citizenry on issues directly affecting them. I think the forefathers having today’s technology would be in agreement with that as long as it was secure, safe and transparent

[@Jttuomi]

@@jimmykelly2809 Its an interesting idea but i think the main issue might be voter fatigue and low turn out. Opens up a debate on whether the vote truly represents the will of the people, if voter turnout is low. Also it gives more room for manipulation and propaganda e.g. Brexit. Many people didn´t understand the issue so they were prone to manipulation. These are just my initial thoughts. I haven´t really researched it much.

[@KaiHenningsen]

On the other hand, I seem to recall that thanks to that very direct voting, Switzerland was *_very_* late in extending voting to women, so ... that kind of thing is why we have much less (but not none) of this here in Germany.

[@jmacd8817]

Direct voting with a population of over 350,000,000 is not practical. Has anyone looked at the list of items that get voted on by the houses of congress here (Federal) Very few people have the time to just vote for everything, let alone have time to read and digest it. Then there are all the state, county and local topics. Voting for all that is impractical.

[@dinoschachten]

That sounds wonderful indeed! The way democracy was meant to be... ;)

[@svfirefly7424]

Love this and love both channels Joe. Take care man, you're a great guy.

[@malbrownie]

Hi Joe, I hope you read this. I've been watching your videos for several years and I listened to your podcast as well. Please don't take offence but in that time I have realised how behind the times the USA is. Australia removed our one cent coin years ago and the two cent coin ! We have different colored money so it's easier to identify and it's a polymer so it lasts longer. We use metric, like the rest of the world. We use degrees celsius for measuring temperatures, like the rest of the world. We have proportional representation in our electoral system and the system is run by an independent organisation that the government cannot influence. If you run for government, you get paid for each vote. We have heaps of different people who run for the senate, many of which are nutters and some win. That's fun. Our health system is great and the safety net for the unemployed is OK. There is much more but don't get me wrong. In many ways we aspire to be like the USA and in many ways we don't. Keep up the good work. I enjoy your videos immensely.

[@Jcewazhere]

The polymer window makes it harder to counterfeit too. Meters and grams are easier than feet and pounds, sure, but for everyday use Fahrenheit is easier because it's more granular. At least America doesn't have a bunny or emu problem :P

[@lostintime8651]

and skynews is owned by an America. Hmmm

[@BabyMakR]

They're talking about getting rid of the 5C as well now. TBH I haven't had cash in my wallet for a couple of years.

[@JohnSmith-ch6pt]

Australian former prime minister Kevin Rudd has even launched a royal commission into Rupert Murdoch’s media monopoly, imagine if his home country did the same! He ruined Australia’s attempt to nationalise and modernise the internet almost single handedly, so I can’t imagine the level of havoc he is causing in the country where he lives and has even greater ties/interests.

[@atlanticx100]

@@JohnSmith-ch6pt He affects us a lot in the UK lol

[@leesmith-qi4tj]

Joe - thanks for such a balanced and objective discussion starter. From across the pond here in the UK - we have some similar challenges, and it’s refreshing to have a ‘tuber that strikes the right tone so thank you.

[@iancornell141]

"I dont have a skin condition" says every shapeshifting lizard alien. You can't fool me!

[@christimmreck1610]

Cleaning up my desk while listening and I picked up a penny and at that exact moment Joe said "can we get rid of the penny" ...Holy Smokes!

[@benfrost148]

Holy Cow, I was scrolling through the comments and read yours EXACTLY as Joe said "Can we get rid of the penny?" (OK, not really, but that would have been awesome!) ;)

[@Jodah175]

Me: Ok, time for bed cuz its midnight. Joe Posts new video Also Me: well shit...

[@jadoncampbell2740]

Me to it's 11:30

[@nik_cage]

Yep

[@antiisocial]

Yep.

[@ClarenceCreekwater]

lol ... I feel your pain Jodah

[@paulthepainter2366]

*cracks open another beer*

[@jeremydow3674]

Haven’t even watched the video yet, but the headline... THAT HEADLINE! “Politics we can agree on”. Thank you Joe. Now on to the video.

[@gennielayton2858]

Joe... I totally and completely agree with you! Thank you for sharing these thoughts and veiws. What does our future hold, if we can't learn from our past

[@wbrandon78]

Hey man, 2 things: first, I love listening to how well you can keep your channel and opinions middle of the road. I really mean it. It's great to hear from someone who doesn't try or want to push their views down your throat. Second, I would love to see a few things take place in the coming decade: money out of politics, one bill/one purpose (not have 50 other interest groups tack on an agenda that has nothing to do with the bill), no more live debates (each candidate is filmed answering the same questions at the same time, then played one after another, so we don't have the bickering back and forth. We just hear uninterrupted views of the candidate for a specific topic for a specific amount of time, and then move onto the next question), finally, no more slandering your opponent during an election. I'm sick of seeing each side nit-pick at each other. Spend your time speaking to the reasons a candidate should win, not what their opponent failed to do, etc. I really appreciate your channel, and hope to continue to see great content from you!!! Take care my friend!

[@tarabros2476]

I mean most people here are interested in science and learning and sadly those two have become political sooo...

[@kylianwieringa5862]

@kavika lowgun weren't they referring to the two subjects of science and learning, making two correct? Idk

[@antiisocial]

@kavika lowgun Could be read either way. I'm just gonna go with the original wording and assume that OP worded it the way he meant it. Also look at us! Can't even agree on the wording of a comment on KZbin. 🌎🔥

[@tarabros2476]

@@antiisocial what on earth gave you the impression I was a guy?

[@GadgeteerFarm]

Of course, learning and science is the base of a society so that’s the first target for an enemy attack.

[@roelofjacobs5807]

Yup, the best way to destroy science is to make it political. Although there is probably a point to be made with regards to which side politicize science more, groups on both sides are now doing it. Our best tool to discover the truths getting politicized... I have an opinion about it.

[@christianpattison8238]

Ranked voting is called preference voting and is how all elections work in Australia , we still have two major parties but it gives us voters a chance to vote 1 for a small/ alternative party and maybe vote 2 for a major

[@myscreen2urs]

Yeah but the problem is that a lot of those third party votes go to one of the 2 major parties as preferential votes.Labor out liberal. It's a bit of an illusion.

[@pakde8002]

And how many times do they win? Doesn't it just keep the two party system running, which by definition creates division? I've been living Indonesia for the last ten years and despite the institutional corruption as a result of the new order era, I am somewhat impressed with the idea of many parties. You can't win an election without building a coalition. And even at the end of a very bitter election the contender for the presidency was folded into the new government to smooth things over with his supporters and avoid any more trouble. That's very mature for such a young democracy imo

[@scottwhat3362]

@@myscreen2urs That's up to you. You can either simply choose your first choice, then they give their vote to who they want. Or you number all of the candidates, and you decide where your preference goes. On many issues, the major parties have to amend their policies to get them through parliament because of the balance of power small parties often hold.

[@JohnSmith-ch6pt]

@@myscreen2urs the greens do have a few seats most years tho. And while they do (often intentionally) take power away from labour, I do think in general having more representation is better. The greens and nationals do represent folks who would otherwise feel unrepresented by liberal and labour, it’s unfortunate they’re plagued with problems, but the system itself isn’t it.

[@JackieOdonnel]

I feel like if more states would hop on board the National Popular Vote wagon, that this would essentially eliminate gerrymandering. While I think it's fine and dandy to cater (somewhat) to the smaller communities (who get screwed because their numbers are low), I'm really and truly for One Person = One Vote and it wouldn't matter if WA (my state) is blue, because the Red folks wouldn't get squashed. Honestly, I firmly believe it would all even out in the wash. But that's me! And I just live here...

[@rogerstarkey5390]

Message to politicians You can't please all of the people all of the time..... But you should represent their collective will, not the interest of "sponsors".

[@KeiranR]

Your country also has too many varying laws some things you can do in one state but we'll go to jail for multiple years in others that's fucken bulshit...

[@BrightBlueJim]

Gerrymandering doesn't affect the presidential elections; it affects the House of Representatives. Here's how it works: the district in which Joe lives is overwhelmingly Republican, EXCEPT for this little sliver where he lives, which has been included in the district because by including these Democrats in an overwhelmingly Repbulican district, it keeps them from being in another district where they could tip the balance toward the Democrats. So by "sequestering" Democrats in a few districts, they can eliminate a Democratic representative. Senators are not affected, because all citizens vote for both Senators. The Electoral College isn't affected by this. Each state has a number of electors, who they choose each in their own way. Most states appoint all of their Electors from the party whose candidate won the popular vote in their state, and the number of electors is equal to the number of Representatives plus the number of Senators, which is always two. This has nothing to do with those Representatives and Senators, so a state can have more Republican Representatives and Senators than Democrats, and still appoint Democratic Electors, based on the popular vote for the whole state.

[@michaelwiebers9656]

@@BrightBlueJim I can remember how the party out of presidential office wàs called the “loyal opposition” - not the “take no prisoners” party

[@zombiasnow15]

Agree! Agree!

[@myscreen2urs]

Me: A penny for your thoughts? Joe: NO! Me:".... How about a dime for a dozen?😃" Joe: "Get out now!"

[@speerboom]

Actually, I thought it was going to be about all the pennies for all the thoughts. Simply because pennies are not a thing here in the Netherlands. Some euro countries still use them and you’ll get EXACT change, here in the NL the total amount is rounded to the nearest nickel or dime when physical money is used (if you pay by card, money transfers etc, then the exact amount is paid).

[@extropiantranshuman]

at least I got your 2 cents of wisdom there! How can we split nickels when we get rid of them?

[@Tathlibash]

Mainer checking in: Ranked-choice is freakin sweet, but there's a vibe among the more conservative locals that it's too complex and they feel like their vote is going to be distorted. Also our former governor made it so it can't apply to our gubernatorial election (Because a republican would probably never get voted in again and he knew it)

[@MI-wc6nk]

love your vids per usual. the practical issue with changing the system is - it requires BOTH parties (current power holders) to agree on giving up power.

[@magisterrleth3129]

#1, butter makes everything better. #2, Smoking is bad. #3, The Bee Gees were sent by benevolent aliens to make the human species more groovy.

[@victortauber2233]

butter is not that good

[@rogerstarkey5390]

@@victortauber2233 There's a difference between "healthy" and "good"! 😁

[@rogerstarkey5390]

3) Hence "Spirits Having Flown"? 🤭

[@LAZARUSL0NG]

Don’t listen to SASKE MAINECREFT, he’s drunk. Although, I would like to point out that for the purposes of your list, butter is interchangeable with Mayo and/or Melted Cheese, and while smoking is lethal and fatally stupid, it does make you look 15-20% cooler.

[@geoffsecombe]

@@victortauber2233 but it's better than the Bee Gees

[@P0lite0ne]

As a Maineiac, I like the RCV system. But from what I can see from the local debates I've seen, we've managed to make this as much of a partisan issue as wearing a face mask. Sometimes I think we just pick sides for the sake of having something to argue about. Good video BTW.

[@spacemansookie]

I'm from Maine as well. I actually volunteered for Ranked Choice (a few hours, not much) even though I've never volunteered for anything or anyone else. Pretty contentious for some people but I believe it increases accurate representation and independent candidates. I knew going into it that it may mean my party or candidate loses an election they may have won otherwise, but I think it's worth it for better elections.

[@spacemansookie]

Based on the resistance that RCV had and the arguments against it (not the mathematical arguments, mind you) I wonder if approval voting would have been passed. The argument that people seemed to stick with was "in RCV, people can vote more than once, and that's against the constitution". In approval voting, I feel like that argument would have been even more persuasive. Even someone who approves of RCV might look at approval and say "that's voting more than once. That's not OK". I'm not arguing that RCV is better than approval. I'd be willing to look at the data, and favor accuracy above all, but a lot of people (especially those who stand to lose when elections aren't done by plurality) aren't going to do that. I'd like to see a study on which system of voting would be approved if put up to a vote, based on different methods of vote counting :) since you have to vote on whether or not to adopt a new voting system. At worst I think RCV breaks the ice by getting us away from plurality.

[@spacemansookie]

@@IlIlllIllIlIIIll cool, thanks for the info! Yeah, the 1 person 1 vote argument drove me nuts. It seemed like the default fallback position. Maybe I just wasn't articulate enough to get people past it.

[@snikermom]

I didn’t realize ranked choice voting was a think, I’ve always wished we could do it so it was great to hear you discuss it.

[@roscojenkins7451]

My sisters name is penny... I agree with your stance

[@antiisocial]

Lol!

[@michaelginever732]

Ha ha ha.

[@dinoschachten]

Oh no, not Penny!

[@andrewhickman9369]

Don't forget, Penny is Inspector Gadget's niece and saved his butt pretty much every episode. Get rid of all the Penny's in the world and he won't even live thru the first episode.

[@rememberJAW]

Everybody in the US is fighting over Biden and Trump, and I am still sitting here, Is anybody Yang Gang?

[@thinkabout602]

Yang Gang ALL THE WAY 💯%

[@constantinosvorkas7532]

The same is true in any country that experiences some kind of political crisis - can’t even agree on day and night!

[@sebbubusse4111]

Yes. But I'm in Europe so I don't get to vote :-)

[@dannydenison6253]

Gang gang

[@nathansmith3244]

Yang Gang right here

[@erinrising2799]

I think candidates should have to pass the same citizenship test that immigrants take.

[@anatypicallyhumanperson7200]

Maybe we all should.

[@erinrising2799]

@@anatypicallyhumanperson7200 yeah, honestly I think it should be included in the high school curriculum.

[@rogerstarkey5390]

Considering you have a high court nominee who (apparently) doesn't know the cornerstones of the constitution, maybe that's a good idea?

[@KaiHenningsen]

Unfortunately, that's already been ruled unconstitutional because it is too easy to abuse to exclude minorities, who often get worse education - at least in the US.

[@alexandervallera4592]

@@erinrising2799 100% a civics class should be required material to obtain a high school diploma

[@Ryan-pz4dh]

Thanks Joe, that was a real refresher after seeing the debate last night. I still have hope in this country that we will eventually get back to our nation’s moral center and come to agree on all those issues. Because you’re right, fair representation is what we all need and big money should be out of politics. Also, I think we can all agree that all human beings are created equal, that is a self-evident truth.

[@hawkdsl]

"We hold these truths self evident".. meaning, they are not limited by time or place. The Constitution was constructed in such a way that it can be changed to meet the demands of modern times. You don't have to start over. The Constitution makes it hard to change though, and for good reason. What is popular today, may not be so tomorrow. I trust the Founders 200+ year wisdom over anything by anyone of today's self interest, participation awarded, victims of [enter your cause here].

[@crazierthan-u7571]

Is there a way to change the Constitution to protect us online? A massive amount of our political conversations are happening on Twitter, Facebook, You Tube. And all of them, particularly Facebook, can cancel your account permanently for failure to "conform to their community standards" if they don't like something you say. And you may never know what that was. The decision is final, it can't be appealed. Then there's the collection and brokering of everyone's data, which certain Internet providers arbitrarily decided was theirs to sell, which continue to be contested in the courts. These threats to our free speech and privacy rights -- threats the Founders could not have foreseen -- await resolution. It'll probably be done through legislation and voter propositions rather than constitutional amendments (if it ever gets done).

[@Way2Death]

3 things: 1)nost important thing from this video is the start. It's super important that we don't get stuck in out believe systems but adjust to new findings and circumstances. It's like adjusting to new technology. You don't have to run with every trend that pops but you have see what sticks around and actually is an improvement (like changing from a phone booth to a mobile phone). The same is for ideas. If there is new information try to be open, analyse it and from a new opinion on that topic. It's pretty hard and can be exhausting but it's necessary for living with so many humans on such a small planet. 2) the European voting system could also be a reasonable choice. Here each party has the chance to get seats in the parlament. It has advantages over rank choice voting. For example if you favorite party doesn't get a majority of votes, you still get some seats to represent your vote. Of course there is a natural threshold because if only 0.001% of all people vote for your party, you won't get 0.001 seats of like a 100 in the parlament. The system also isn't free of issues but it represents minority parties better. 3) for the idea of restarting a nation (not just America). It's something that Iceland basically has done after the financial crisis. They rewrote their whole constitution. And not by politicians but with a process that included the people. I actually to look deeper into this again, because I only remember parts of the process and not the outcome.

[@toppersundquist]

Iceland, sadly, is so tiny and with such a strong and fairly unified sense of identity, that I don't think that would work in America, where you have a million diametrically opposed ideas of what it means to be American. Maybe break up the monopoly? Just a thought?

[@half421965]

The unintended consequences of a great idea. If your “fixes” depend on humans behaving with logic and honesty? Whew....good luck with that.

[@NickCombs]

That's why we have the executive and legislative branches. Sadly they have just as many systemic issues as our elections.

[@rogerstarkey5390]

Maybe each state needs a randomly selected committee of voters to decide whether the "representative" is "representing" every 6 months? 3 strikes and you're out?

[@jonaslillard4310]

Lets put robots in office :D or at least have advanced AI cross referencing quality of life with possible solutions given the budget and systems currently in place 👉👈

[@eliad6543]

@@jonaslillard4310 you reminded me of this kzbin.info/www/bejne/hn-Wo3evqdNqg5I

[@jonaslillard4310]

@@eliad6543 i like it XD the end got a bit wild but as far as i know, consciousness and free will cant just develop! And it doesn’t need to be conscious to help us. We just need to assign values to everything :D thank you for sharing the song!

[@jimiweezer]

You are the most reasonable person that I don’t agree with, I respect that.

[@crooker2]

What do you disagree with?

[@jimiweezer]

I would respond, but I’m sensing hostility. I have no intent to get drawn into debate in his comment section. I just meant I am inclined to listen to his thoughts regardless if I agree with them or not. I mean one of his main points is that someone retains their ability to be swayed by new ideas. Also not to throw your current beliefs in people’s faces.

[@samhickman3642]

@@jimiweezer good approach. I would have said the same thing

[@user-hu3iy9gz5j]

@@jimiweezer A humble discussion however is not "throwing believes in people's faces"

[@jimiweezer]

@Fu-uck Riott 🤔If there was no hostility or intention to debate, I apologize. I guess starting with the word “yeah” threw me off.

[@joshmellon390]

OMFG You nailed it the best saying that money needs taken out of politics! You said a LOT good here Joe, I think starting from scratch would be a beautiful opportunity.

[@nicolasdellipaoli4629]

Hey Joe! Thanks for your fun and informative channel. I live in Maine and Ranked Choice Voting is amazing because it leads to our elected officials getting a majority, not a plurality, of votes. This makes an actual representational government and we need it nationally! I will be putting the Green Independent candidates first for both senate and presidential races on my ballot. Well done with making integrative political conversations, all voices and sides need to be heard. 😊

[@dakotadad8835]

I’m from North Dakota Joe and I take personal offense to your comment about the population of our great state! (Kidding of course) your a good guy

[@dannydenison6253]

When Joe sayed ranked choice voting I was pumped

[@atclj]

I was born in Jacinto City, east of Houston. We lived in South Houston at the time. We moved to Pearland, a suburb of Houston. I live in League City now, another suburb of Houston. I will be 60 in December and this year I've developed skin issues. I've been to 2 dermatologist and the consensus is that my problem is sun damage and old age. So I sayd, old man skin. And she said, yeh.

[@brettjohnson6807]

Our country was founded on the statement that "all men are created equal" what that really meant was as long as you were a wealthy, white, landowning man. Not exactly all or equal there are we? We could and should try to do a much better job than we currently are in this country. Lincoln was absolutely correct when he said "you can't please all the people all the time" however, and getting us to agree on anything seems almost impossible in this current day. Great video Joe! Keep up the great work!

[@jonathanbiggs5857]

Thankyou Joe for a sensible voice amongst the madness. Love ya!

[@georgemunro1512]

As a Canadian, I really want a ranked choice system. With several parties we usually have a majority of our representatives winning with well under half the vote.

[@georgemunro1512]

@Jeff Lee too conservative

[@georgemunro1512]

@Jeff Lee Still able to get guns up here, just need a different license if you want a handgun. We never had any gun rights similar to the US so we didn't lose anything. Even in the "Wild West" Days there wasn't much gun action up here. Possibly due to not participating in the US Civil War we didn't have as many of the new repeaters and revolvers around after the war. Gun culture was never that big in the old Commonwealth countries when you compare it to the states. But I can still purchase a semi-automatic rifle or a hand gun

[@NateDecker1982]

Eliminating the electoral college moves us away from a Republic and closer to a direct Democracy. Some people probably think that's a good thing. It isn't. A direct democracy doesn't protect the interests of marginalized groups. The classic example is "Democracy is two wolves and sheep voting on what to have for dinner." Democracy is what got us Jim Crow laws. A Republic weights power toward marginalized groups and ensures that they need to be represented. The senate helps with that, but it isn't enough by itself. The senate isn't even an entire branch of government, it is only half of the legislative branch. The electoral college allows for a president to be selected who didn't win the popular vote. But that's by design. It's on purpose. It was specifically set up to allow that. That is one of the founding principles of our country and it has worked for our entire existence so far. I think there is space for improvements to the electoral college though. I would argue that rather than allotting a state's electoral votes in a winner-takes-all approach, those votes should be allocated proportionately with how the vote was in that state. So, for example, if 30% of California voted Republican, then the Republican candidate should get 30% of California's votes, not zero percent. This enfranchises voters in states that are heavily skewed toward the opposite political party.

[@richdobbs6595]

Keeping the Electoral College won't protect you from direct democracy. Once the Democrats win the Trifecta they can bring in new states easier than than getting the Constitution amended, starting with Puerto Rico and DC. Once that happens, the larger existing states can be broken up to give California 10 or 20 Senators, and equivalent power in the Electoral College. Same with Texas once it goes solid Blue. Packing the Supreme Court can gut any nominal protection that the Bill of Rights gives you.

[@seven6372]

While instituting your ideas is improbable in these times, voicing them like you have has a bonding or unifying effect (at least for me). We need to have more conversations like this.

[@IdleWorker]

"Changing your mind is something you should be able to do" *NO!* Change my mind.

[@Coolhand-Luc]

What I like most about you Scott is that you give the break we all need from all the BS going on. So thank you!!

[@NickCombs]

I've read some positive side effects of RCV include: 1. Multiple parties can compete. 2. Because it's no longer R vs D, gerrymandering actually becomes pretty useless since that relies on knowing voters will pick one of those choices. 3. Candidates will run as supportive teams to benefit from each other's bases. 4. Debates and messaging will switch to positive points because it no longer helps to trash one opponent, and trashing multiple opponents is a hard sell. That said, the instant runoff part can give unintuitive results in some cases. I'd like to see a hybrid ranked-score vote where last rank scores 0, 2nd last rank scores 1, next scores 2, and so on. Tally once, highest score wins.

[@falsificationism]

I believe you're referring to STAR voting and you're absolutely correct. Everyone search KZbin for "STAR Voting." It combines the best elements of RCV and Score Voting.

[@NickCombs]

@@falsificationism I would require a ranking for each candidate and do away with the runoff. Mathematically there's no need to figure out who of the top 2 "gets my vote" when I've already ranked everyone.

[@falsificationism]

@@NickCombs I think I understand what you're saying. The reason you do a rate THEN runoff is to offset some of the downsides of scoring alone. Is there any other modeling to show your version is superior? The research on STAR voting shows that the runoff doesn't take away anything from scoring (and the result is almost always the same), but improves other measures of voter preference.

[@NickCombs]

@@falsificationism In typical score voting, there can be strategic voters who exaggerate their scores (max/min scores only). But that's not possible in a ranked score where there has to be one of each score assigned 0-N, where N+1 is the number of candidates.

[@falsificationism]

@@NickCombs exactly right! My understanding of the research is that when we do simulations accounting for different varieties of strategic voting, STAR voting does as well or better than simple score voting. In order of simulation performance: plurality voting, ranked choice voting, score voting, STAR voting...for exactly the reasons you’re citing. Am I misreading the simulation data?

[@nickimontie]

My #1 issue is term limits for national office. The electoral college makes sense to me, though. Good video, Joe!

[@zimmy4868]

Agreed. I'm surprised Joe didn't mention term limits for elected officials..

[@ben1895]

“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” ― Winston S. Churchill

[@softb]

The best argument for democracy is spending the day with a politician.

[@Betterhose]

I don't really understand how people love democracy. The system is extremely vulnerable to demagogues and the progress of making decisions takes forever.

[@softb]

@@Betterhose ok commie

[@gcod3d161]

@@softb or they could be capitalist

[@softb]

@@gcod3d161 capitalists have inly profit in mind that’s not sustainable

[@CaptainJack2048]

I think that's why you're so good at science and engineering explanations. Your desire to stay near the center and show your evolving understanding lends itself to that, and I see it as one of your strong suits.

[@isaacmissi5920]

I don't care who's party is in office. We need to get money out of politics. It really makes the water murky on any side. Get people in there that want the job to better the state and country not get rich

[@DanimalCannonOfficial]

Senate is fine counterbalance to removing the electoral college, but also we need to grant statehood to DC, Puerto Rico, and Guam. Literally American citizens without representation.

[@droidwest90]

DC yes, a majority of its people want this. You may be surprised though to hear that its not so overwhelming for Puerto Rico and Guam.

[@scottz45]

American Soma!

[@NateDecker1982]

Puerto Rico isn't interested in becoming a state because it means they have to start paying federal taxes. Right now, they get to reap all the benefits of federal social programs, but pay none of the costs. It's a pretty sweet deal from their perspective. It's basically a welfare state. D.C. was specifically set up in the constitution to not have representation. I would be very cautious about reversing something that was explicitly and expressly done on purpose. D.C. has less than 700,000 people and making it a state would give it two senators with ~1/50th the power when it only has 1/500th of the population of the country. Given that the Democrats are the ones pushing this idea and that D.C. is predominantly Democrat, this is clearly just an attempt at a power grab on their part.

[@jonathonallen7126]

@@NateDecker1982 Thank you for expressing the thoughts on DC. So few people seem to understand this and I often get pushback, sometimes borderline hostile, when I try making this point.

[@joesterling4299]

@@NateDecker1982 It was a pretty sweet deal until Section 936 was allowed to die. That dried up the incentive for American corporations to establish a presence in Puerto Rico, and many trickled away. The economy of the island was agrarian originally, but that dwindled with the influx of American capital and industry last century. When that went away too, Puerto Rico's economy suffered a severe contraction. Additionally, Puerto Rico is not allowed to deal with its own shipping. It must all go through US rule. So there are no opportunities there either, in an island whose name literally means "rich port". Hence, the $70-billion debt--not that this hurts a country with a $7-trillion debt a whole lot.

[@jedediahwright6959]

You should definitely do the starting over from scratch constitution video!

[@thirtythree680]

You’re a Progressive bro, and that’s perfectly fine. All power to ya.

[@katherineperry5035]

Thank you for this. I agree with what you shared, 100%. So thoughtful, articulate and 'breath of fresh air' simple and generally all inclusive.

[@miriam-english]

I totally agree with your suggestions, Joe. I'd like to add a few of my own: 1) Politicians should be required to pass a qualifying exam. You need to pass a test in order to drive a car. You need to pass an even more stringent exam to fly an airplane. But any idiot can pilot an entire country. That's just insane. Politicians should have an excellent understanding of history, ethics, science, and technology. Knowing a lot about history reduces the chance of repeating terrible mistakes. Ethics lets them understand the ramifications of decisions. This age is entirely dependent upon science; is it too much to ask that politicians understand what they are making decisions about? Technology is the base for our entire industrial system, and making decisions without knowing about that is asking for trouble. 2) Privacy should be for humans, not for organisations. Government should not be allowed to keep secrets. Ditto for corporations. Individuals require privacy -- most animals, if not allowed any privacy, just curl up and die. Organisations are not human. They have no right to privacy. The bigger an organisation is, the more dangerous it becomes. What about national security? As a computer programmer, I'm very aware of how secrets can make things LESS secure, not more so. If security organisations need secrecy, they are doing it wrong. Openness makes corruption very difficult. 3) Consequences. Spiderman said it well: "With great power comes great responsibility." Somehow politicians and corporate leaders reliably weasel out of fair consequences. If an ordinary person lied and cheated and caused death and destruction like they do, it'd mean a lot of prison time. Their greater power should expose them to more severe consequences, but they get less. That is the perfect recipe for corruption. I have more, but those three are the most important things we could change to fix things, I think. As you said, these should be completely okay for all sides of politics.

[@OscarMarquez]

We should agree that we the voters must count our votes without the parties "help" by hand without machines.

[@Elitistb616]

We do not all want fair representation, and we definitely do not all want the best ideas to win. There are certainly politicians who do not care about "best ideas" or "fair representation", they care about maintaining power to the exclusion of all else, especially the health of the nation.

[@KaiHenningsen]

And voters, too, who just want their side to win - and/or who are convinced (rightfully or otherwise) that the majority wouldn't vote for the best ideas or for people who will represent them fairly.

[@BrightBlueJim]

@@KaiHenningsen And people who live in small states, too. They are quick to tell us how wrong it would be to take away their advantage. Several examples of this in the comments already.

[@tomservo5007]

when one side brags about not letting anything from the other side make it past him (mitch mcconnell ) it becomes impossible to have a bipartisan issue

[@KaiHenningsen]

I seem to recall that over here in Germany, the conservatives tried that once. They lost their majority in the next election. I don't recall if the other side then tried it once, but I do know that the concept is since dead. If, of course, the voters approve of this behavior, no wonder it gets continued ...

[@ShieldSniper]

I dont agree, I like when one side becames a barrier to any politics the other side is trying to push. In my country congress just go around buying votes to form coallitions.

[@NateDecker1982]

Does it bother you equally when Nanci Pelosi does it in the house of representatives? There shouldn't be singular individuals with so much power in either house of the legislature, but it isn't an exclusive Republican problem.

[@rob9560]

One side? LOL. Only if you were born in 2016

[@rob9560]

@@NateDecker1982 Exactly. We can't have rational discussions when people have such absurdly selective memories. "OMG, McConnel is blocking stuff how horrible!!". I'm like, "well, mmkay, but, McConnel didn't invent this". Personally, I think that anything that passes the house should HAVE to get voted on in the Senate. But just LOL at anyone who asserts that when Schumer was in charge, it was even a TINY bit different.

[@DrPeter0]

Joe, You’ve been reading my mind! I’ve been advocating for years the exact same ideas you just put forward in this video. I can’t run for President as I wasn’t “Born in the USA” 🎼🎶, but I’ll vote for you if you run!!! With a name like Joe, you’ve got it made!!!

[@LoisSharbel]

Joe, YES! You're advocating the some of the same things the RepresentUs group is publicizing. We can ALL agree we want to be represented.....and we're not. Thank you for a political discussion I actually enjoyed listening to. Unbelievable! We're not screaming epithets at one another.

[@Betterhose]

Konrad Adenauer, a former chancellor of Germany is know for his quote: "Why would I care about my chatter of yesterday? Nothing stops me from becoming wiser everyday." I think changing your opinion should be seen as personal progress. You learn something new everyday, so you might want to update your believes accordingly.

[@andrasbiro3007]

The problem is, in case of politicians, is that 99% of the time they change their opinion according to their agenda that day, so nobody believes them if they occasionally genuinely learn something. You can find video compilations about many politicians saying completely opposite things with equal enthusiasm. Another issue is that unless they are very powerful, they can't go against their party and their voters without serious consequences.

[@Betterhose]

@@andrasbiro3007 I understand the point you are making, but I think it is something very positive if politicians are willing to change their mind on some topics. Take climate change for example. I would say a converted politician that used to deny climate change is worth more than one that used to address it all along. You don't need to reach out to the people that already support the right cause. You have to get through to those on the other side.

[@andrasbiro3007]

@@Betterhose Again, the problem is that even if the change of mind is genuine, they'll never get rid of that baggage. As we see regularly, someone's career can be destroyed by some stupid little thing from 20 years ago.

[@ahmadjavedaj]

One other thing we should keep in mind about privately funded elections is its going to skew towards people who are rich. This also leaves out people like professors, nurses, firefighters...

[@Shamrock627]

Professors views are always represented because they indoctrinate entire generations of young people with their ideology. The other two i agree with completely.

[@Flexible_photon]

@@Shamrock627 you mean like Church and families and Fox News?

[@Shamrock627]

@@Flexible_photon no.....family of course matters to most people, and im absolutely for freedom of religion, but any televised news is at best told with a spin and at worst flat out propaganda. Fox also hired Donna Brazile, and one of the weekend anchors(i think, cant quite remember ill have to look it up) worked for Biden when he was VP. honestly, the left/right bullshit is just that. they play characters like professional wrestlers to keep the population occupied with hating each other instead of trying to bring people together so we can take a look at why our society is breaking and work toward fixing it together. conflict makes more money than unity, and until we completely restructure how our system is working we're fucked....in my opinion.

[@gardencompost259]

We very well may be fucked. There are a lot of things that can sink our civilization, as Joe has presented. However as he started in this post, some things we can agree on and ( do our best, my words), to change in the political world.

[@ThrottleKitty]

"Lets talk about something not political for a second" **Basically discusses Andrew Yang's entire running platform**

[@Luke-jo4to]

Hell I’m a libertarian and I’d vote for Yang over Trump or Biden.

[@ThrottleKitty]

@@Luke-jo4to I really think he's the kind of politician who cold have brought us together. Even if Biden wins, I will still be sad, since he's not much better than Obama or Bush. At least he's not trump.

[@extropiantranshuman]

seems like evrything that's not political turns out to be

[@Steven-ud8kz]

I agree! We need to be able to change our minds! I have changed my mind as to which party to vote for. I have voted "one way" my entire life, but this US election, it's clear I need to vote a different way.

[@striveseekfind]

This year has had me researching the why behind the divisiveness, but I do love everything you said here.

[@elliot6584]

This is American politics nobody can agree on anything Joe

[@magisterrleth3129]

Oy vey, tell me about it. I don't think the phrase, "rational and even-keeled discussion," exists in the American lexicon. You tell someone, "hey maybe the people on the other side are normal people with a different worldview shaped by their unique experiences," and they'll respond with, "what are you, a [insert 20th century totalitarian regime] apologist?"

[@ZZTalkZZ]

I would agree but then it may invalidate the message...

[@chrrmin1979]

@@magisterrleth3129 i dont know, sounds like a commie to me.

[@chrrmin1979]

@@ZZTalkZZ agreed, best not risk it...

[@madderhat5852]

@@ZZTalkZZ No it wouldn't 😖

[@jimmykelly2809]

Didn’t Andrew Yang want to get rid of the penny?

[@thinkabout602]

yes and daylight saving time

[@ThrottleKitty]

All of these things. Literally all his points are Andrew Yang platform pieces. Shame everyone just associated him with UBI.... and on occasion, this penny thing.

[@jimmykelly2809]

I liked yang though maybe him and Tulsi would of made a great ticket. He kept his word and backed the dem nominee but I wish he would of went 3rd ticket

[@thinkabout602]

@@jimmykelly2809 A 3rd party is a loser, example Ralph Nader

[@jimmykelly2809]

thinkabout yeah unfortunately I know but it has to start somewhere, it has to Start somehow, what better place than here? What better time than now?

[@BrentHollett]

In Australia, the Greens party has a significant minority party powerbase.

[@damfadd]

that they can't do much with Adam Bant the great white ( green) hope that turned out well swing voter here never liberal cunts

[@dinoschachten]

Over here in Germany the Green Party is the strongest in some districts (and currently the second strongest on the national level). ;)

[@NateDecker1982]

You get more representation of fringe parties in countries that have a parliament. However, that means you also get people in parliament representing communists and literal Nazis. So it's not all good.

[@leftaroundabout]

@@NateDecker1982 yes, but better some nazis in parliament with whom the conservative head of government doesn't want anything to do with, than a conservative-party president who cosies up to nazi voters. ...Also something we can all agree on, no?

[@pakde8002]

The only option in the US is for green party and progressives in general to get involved at the grass roots level, do the door to door long march and take over the party as the conservative Christians did in the Republican Party. If they only get involved in an election year and then sit out or vote for a write in or third party candidate they only ensure a republican victory which obviously hurts their agenda. Even in the current DNC establishment they can get someone to at least give lip service to their ideas.

[@MG-er6dm]

Joe, you're a step of the curve by at least booking in regular dermitalogical appointments. Smart man. It's the poor folk who don't who are sadly far more inclined to come unstuck. From someone who'se had well over 1,000 spots frozen (part of the great Aussie curse!!) I can't stress this enough = see your Doctor and walk off any spotted stigma!

[@Nuovoswiss]

Let me make a counter-point on the pennies issue: it ends up being a drop in the bucket in terms of federal spending, yet provides hobbyists with a readily available (and cheap) source of zinc. Zinc is great for amateur metal casting, and the copper-nickel alloy used in nickels is good for learning how to blacksmith (it's workable at lower temperatures than iron/steel). By keeping these coins in circulation we're basically creating a public resource for hobby chemists and metal workers.

[@jasonlast7091]

That's the best worst argument I've ever heard.

[@trevinbeattie4888]

Re: gerrymandering, I’d prefer we adopt mixed-member proportional representation, and reduce or eliminate the number of congressional districts we have altogether. No district lines means no opportunities to gerrymander.

[@webx135]

What becomes the issue is in how different political views overlap. Such as conservative conservationists or liberal gun-owners, which can't be alotted representatives directly. Then again, I answered my own question in my head while typing this. Used ranked-choice voting. When someone wins, run the remainder of the votes to see who wins. Keep doing this until you fill the seats.

[@JohnSmith-ch6pt]

@@webx135 ‘It’s ranked choice voting all the way down...’

[@Jabberkong]

I too suffer from Joe's medical condition. I live in Houston. 😂

[@MaineCoonMama18]

Same here, except I live in Florida. So much suncreen!

[@Jcewazhere]

300 days of sunshine here in the Mile High City. :P With the occasional blizzard, tornado, extreme hailstorm, etc thrown in for good measure. All four seasons, in a week some weeks.

[@billbyrnes4703]

100% agree , we need to reorganize our electoral system. It has become a system that only represents, for the most part, the money and not the people. On the penny, I can’t remember the last time I had any change in my pocket. Most all my financial transactions are electronic. Great vlog , it is refreshing to hear we rather than them against us!

[@jakepotrebic]

Yes, the world has changed a lot in 240 years. What hasn't changed at all, is human nature, which is what the US Constitution was designed around, to prevent a government based on trust or men, but based on laws, that change when the peoples' representatives vote to change them.

[@kykk3365]

"I don’t care who does the electing as long as I get to choose the candidates."

[@kykk3365]

@jody dymun Quote is attributed to William "Boss" Tweed. He also said: "I don't care a straw for your newspaper articles; my constituents don't know how to read, but they can't help seeing them damned pictures." This is from the 1800's but seems just as true today.

[@traderkaz]

I like the penny. 😂 Thats all I’m saying.

[@NickCombs]

Once they're officially valueless, you can make art with them!

[@thinkabout602]

You can have ALL of mine 👍

[@nathansmith3244]

We could just stop making them. So they would still exist.

[@BrightBlueJim]

@@nathansmith3244 It takes more than just stopping making them. If shops can't get pennies because the bank doesn't have any because they're not being replaced as they wear out, then people are going to demand their pennies in change, and the shopkeepers will have no choice but to round-up the change. And everybody will be angry. Or we could be civilized like Canada, where they still PRICE everything in dollars and cents, but payment is to the nearest $.05, if I remember correctly.

[@duskrider1724]

"Safe seats" are terrible for democracy.

[@duskrider1724]

@@IlIlllIllIlIIIll Mighty Morphin Power Rangers?

[@duskrider1724]

Sounds like a good plan

[@pakde8002]

No politician should be "safe" unless they're doing a good job for everyone in the district or state they represent

[@deinococcusradiodurans2700]

I agree with you 100%. Popular vote should be done and everyone should be represented, and definitely I would start our government from scratch!

[@billhardy7870]

Very good, very informative. Probably my feelings are supportive because I agree with each point you brought up. One other I have been thinking about of late is that the person who wants to run for president should have some sort of vetting period where they could be grilled as to how they would handle this or that, what sort of experience they have. Basically, a lengthy interview for the job to ensure if they have any qualifications for doing said job. I know that flies in the face of those who think ALL politicians suck, but experience has shown us, at least the 'us' who agree with the points you bring up and discuss, that a non politician could have the tendency to create a major set back for our country. Heaven forbid anything like that to REALLY happen!

[@VoIcanoman]

*Just FYI Joe, but no...we don't all want the same things.* That's the reason that we're in this situation. For example, there is the question of government...how much should they be in charge of, and how much taxes should be paid to fund those things? Some people legitimately don't understand that taxes are, fundamentally, a good thing. You see people griping about taxes all the time - selfish people, people who are against "wealth redistribution." These people erroneously believe that all of their achievements were made possible ONLY because of their hard work, and neglect to realize that while being a hard worker may be a prerequisite to success (in most cases - lots of people still inherit wealth and don't have to work a day in their lives), it is by no means the ONLY factor. Plenty of people are working just as hard or harder, and failing. Taxes are absolutely a form of wealth redistribution because nobody DESERVES their wealth...those who are wealthy are just...lucky.* The same goes for healthcare. Some people just...don't care that other people are suffering. As long as they have access to quality care, they're fine. And they'll happily pay MORE on insurance than they would pay in taxes to fund a form of universal healthcare. Because doing the latter would be "wealth redistribution" and they'd be paying for lazy people to have healthcare. You can go right down the list of issues, and on one side, you find people who believe that they and they alone are responsible for their successes and failures...and by extension, so is everybody else. The just-world fallacy is alive and well in conservative America. On the other side, you find people who, rich or poor, recognize that we all rely on a society to keep us fed, healthy, educated, safe, etc. Our world is interconnected now - nobody is fully capable of supporting themself off the grid. Sure they might provide food and water and shelter for themselves (with the help of a family unit)...but what happens when they get sick? Or break a bone? Or their barn catches fire? We all need governments, and one side of the political spectrum seems determined to both reduce the role of government as much as possible while simultaneously making it as incompetent as possible, thereby ensuring that their statement "government is the problem" is a self-fulfilling prophecy. [Also, ironically, they're perfectly willing to use government to get what they want...for example, to use it to ban abortions or mandate the primacy of certain religions in governmental institutions. The only good government is a government that conforms to their own ideas of morality and propriety - any other functions a government could perform are swiftly destroyed.] The people who argue against government and taxes and for "freedom" (presumably from government "interference") are a minority of Americans. Maybe 20-25%. But they control one of the two major political parties, and have the wealth and influence to limit what the Democrats are able to achieve (not that Democrats are perfect...far from it), while portraying ANY kind of proposed or existing social program as super-extreme leftism (even ones that the vast majority of Americans support, which technically makes these programs _centrist_ by virtue of majority rule). So while it is possible to say that MOST Americans want the same thing, those in power often want very different things, and they are doing all they can to stall social progress in the United States. *The "original position" doctrine of John Rawls' philosophy states that, as luck is the only thing determining whether you succeed or fail (even your capacity for hard work comes down to luck - what values your parents instilled in you and how neurologically-predisposed towards self-motivation you are, are both things for which you cannot claim credit), when determining the ideal structure of a society, you should do so in TOTAL IGNORANCE of the position you will occupy in that society. In other words, a society where everybody really does have an opportunity for a good life, no matter what kind of brain or upbringing they have, is better than one that essentially penalizes people for factors which they cannot control. If you design a society with this in mind, no matter what number comes up when you roll the dice, you know that your needs will be taken care of.

[@Way2Death]

I can agree on that. I think one of the problems is that most people also only ever encounter the current system they live in and can't comprehend what it would mean living in a different system. I'm from Germany and I have lived in both systems (thinking mainly of the healthcare system) and I van tell you that I definetly favor the German one. It might be more expensive over a normal year but I know that the general insurance is gonna pay for it if I should ever have something really bad (major accident/ cancer). So far I have put quite a bit more money into the system than I got out of it but I know I can rely on it when I need it. Even if I'd safe all I have spent on insurance yid probably couldn't pay for procedures and recovery and wheelchairs and so on if I ever had a major accident (damages can go into the hundred thkunds or more) Do taxes feel good for me? No, after all you see part of the money you spent hours working your ass of just 'vanish' And I think that's the main problem. Our paycheck is something very direct. We see the taxes getting taken off of that. Vor we see the taxes getting added to a bill. What we don't see in numbers is how much we benefit from it (infrastructure/public transport/social facilities/ many many more) We have the same issue with ecosystems. People often don't like protection measure because upfront they cost money that can be written down as numbers. What we don't see is the benefits. A field of science trying to shed a bit of light on that is Ecosystem Services (en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecosystem_service)

[@ilovegoats3851]

Were did you hear that most people inherit wealth? (That's not what I heard, but maybe you know something I don't) 😁😀

[@a-takit9633]

@@ilovegoats3851 The inheritance thing use to be fact and possibly still is a fact though I'm not to sure about that. Myself I could care less about inheritance and those kinds of things I only wished we could put something in place where someone didn't have to worry about kissing the right persons ass to succeed!

[@a-takit9633]

I don't see tax's as wealth distribution and would really question someone's mind set if they said that they did. That being said I do agree with the rest of what you said. Actually I'm glad to see that someone else actually read/heard about that study that showed how someone becoming successful had more to do with luck than any other thing they had done except for CEO'S being 6 foot tall or taller was the common trait and that the highest paid ones actually tended to be the poorest performing. And just like I do they all sufferer from Dunning Kruger effect well maybe not all of them

[@VoIcanoman]

​@@ilovegoats3851 The "in most cases" was in reference to hard work being a prerequisite for success. But lots of people inherit wealth and never have to do any hard work too...they're just in the minority.

[@CrackerJakkTV]

"So I'm not saying we should burn down Washington... yet" *Boog Intensifies*

[@mbryson2899]

It's not just a Boog thing...

[@CrackerJakkTV]

@@mbryson2899 It's a joke and not really meant to be taken literally. Kinda just a meme.

[@account4345]

I can’t believe I just scrolled through 1.1k comments my god I need to go to bed

[@leedogification]

As a longtime watcher of your Channel, I'm pretty sure our political views are different ( don't worry I still love your Channel!). That being said, I agree with you on all of these points except one. With the Electoral College (me living in ND) the flipside that no one ever mentions about our votes being worth more per person is that if California's population increases their electoral votes go up. If North Dakota's population increases it would have to increase a massive amount before we would get another electoral vote.

[@TribalGuitars]

Nice video. What you said about adapting to new info has been coming up in a bunch of areas of discussions I've been having online and in person. Bill Clinton made a speech about ideology vs philosophy many years ago, and how one party seems to lean towards ideology. The problem he pointed out was that if you have an ideology you marry yourself to an idea you have to "bend" the truth to your idiology, but facts can't bend, they can only break. But in having a philosophy one is able to take in new information and roll with it.

[@almonjoinye]

love joe's channel

[@johnlittle8975]

For the last time; Joe's skin condition is DAMAGE

[@ShamballaStyles]

The problem nowadays with politics is most people cannot agree to disagree. Diversity is a good thing but it’s more like “my way or you are the enemy” Sadly I think it is so set in motion it cannot be fixed. Feels like the fall of Rome all over. I also think all voters should be registered with proof of citizenship with a picture Vote identification card.

[@rob9560]

I think you are partially right. People do need to be able to agree to disagree. But, they can't because people no longer see each other as seeking the same goals. I look at people I disagree with on issues........let's say for example, Education...............and, I assume they also want to see great progress. I just believe their ideas for that progress won't achieve what they claim. THEY tend to see me as "not giving a fuck out education". It's the whole, "it's so utterly impossible that my conclusion isn't correct that anyone disagreeing with me must not even want to solve the problem" syndrome. THAT is why no one can "agree to disagree". Too many people think "disagreement with my idea = some form of evil motivations"

[@BothHands1]

100% agree w/ you, on all points, especially ranked choice voting and abolishing the electoral college. also, end lifetime appointments to justice positions, especially supreme court, and get big business outta politics. then those big businesses will have to make their own cases to the people, rather than just dumping money on a politician in secret

[@tunnelnugget3181]

I'm glad that you called out the people who aren't going to agree with something because it's currently working in their favor. I think that's a really prevalent mindset that needs to be called out more. I've been doing that a lot on Reddit lately and it seems like people only want to push the message of tolerance and open mindedness when it suites their goals.

[@misanthropistmusic]

damn. never been this early to anything

[@julians7268]

Yea... Thats what she said?

[@brianbeswick]

Yes please Ranked Choice Voting!!!

[@tomservo5007]

can you imagine the average voter , on election day ... ranking candidates for each office on the ballot ?

[@brianbeswick]

@@tomservo5007 I like to think I’m the average voter so yes I can imagine it would go something like this... President, #1 Bernie #2 Biden... Governor, #1 The other guy #2 The current guy... The next 5 offices no rank because their all unopposed... School Board, reverse alphabetical order to mess with the statistics.... and done.