[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]

/leftistpol/ - Leftist Politics

Fiscally Left-wing Politics; Pro-Reformist; Current events; Brosocialist safe space

Catalog

Name
Email
Subject *
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
dicesidesmodifier
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, swf, pdf
Max filesize is 8 MB.
Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000.
You may upload 5 per post.

File: 1415551644495.jpg (144.69 KB, 700x866, 350:433, pyramidofcapitalism.jpg)

 No.6[Reply]

Welcome to /leftistpol/.

Ground Rules

No spamming, No CP (cheese pizza OK, not the other CP)

Please Be Civil

What is the purpose of this board?

It is a place to discuss leftist issues, ranging from labor, class struggle, wealth inequality, to communism and anarchism. Furthermore it's a place for general political or news discussion from a left perspective.

Is this a board for leftists only? Am I excluded as a right-winger or moderate?

No. The above description pertains to topics only. You are free to have any stance on those issues; you can be pro-free market, pro-nationalism or pro-religion. Opinions aren't censored here.

But keep in mind that the plan is that most threads will be pertaining to left issues rather than the usual /pol/ fare. The right-wing already has /pol/ and most of 8chan and 4chan to begin with. And for all the talk from /pol/acks that their board has free speech, we know that is bullshit. They censor leftist threads and comments on there. Your opinion from a non-left stance is valuable and welcome when it comes to those specific topics.

What are the most important board rules?

Please do not open threads, or try to derail threads, with a blatant /pol/-premise (for example Blacks and crime; Jews and the media; gay degeneracy), even if they are factual. A good self-check before posting is: "Would I open this thread on /pol/? Would it be applauded there?" If yes, it is probably better suited there rather than here in the first place.

Are you a SJW?

No. /leftistpol/ is firmly anti-SJW and anti-identity politics. Anti-SJW threads are ok. After all the SJWs have infiltrated our leftist movement. So this is obviously an issue of concern for us. But it's not cool when Anti-SJW threads dominate the board. The primary purpose of this imageboard isPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Post last edited at

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

 No.343[Reply]

Ethicists approve ‘3 parent’ embryos to stop diseases, but congressional ban remains

An elite panel of scientists and bioethicists offered guarded approval Wednesday of a novel form of genetic engineering that could prevent congenital diseases but would result in babies with genetic material from three parents.

The committee, which was convened last year at the request of the Food and Drug Administration, concluded that it is ethically permissible to “go forward, but with caution” with mitochondrial replacement techniques (MRT), said the chairman, Jeffrey Kahn, a bioethicist at Johns Hopkins ­University.

But the advisory panel’s conclusions have slammed into a congressional ban: The omnibus fiscal 2016 budget bill passed by Congress late last year contained language prohibiting the government from using any funds to handle applications for experiments that genetically alter human embryos.

Thus the green light from the scientists and ethicists won't translate anytime soon into clinical applications that could potentially help families that want healthy babies, said Shoukhrat Mitalipov, a pioneer of the new technique at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, Ore.

“It seems like the FDA is disabled in this case by Congress," Mitalipov said. “At this point we’re still not clear how to proceed."

The FDA released a statement Wednesday saying it will carefully review the report from the advisory committee, but added that the congressional ban prohibits the agency from reviewing applications "in which a human embryo is intentionally created or modified to include a heritable genetic modification. As such, human subject research utilizing genetic modification of embryos for the prevention of transmission of mitochondrial disease cannot be performed in the United States in FY 2016."

MRT should be used rarely, with extreme care and with abundant government oversight, and it initially should be applied only to male embryos, the advisory panel said.

The report comes at a time of dazzling advances in genetic engineering and a commensurate struggle to understand the ethics of “playing God,” a phrase uttered twice Wednesday by committee member RPost too long. Click here to view the full text.


File: 1454106402020.jpg (62.76 KB, 937x646, 937:646, libertarianism explained.jpg)

 No.332[Reply]

Why aren't you anarchists yet, /leftistpol/?

1 post omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.335

>>332

Democracy is far from perfect. But you need to have a police force, military and public roads, fire fighters and other public administration in order to keep order.


 No.336

>>335

Everything you mentioned can be privatized.


 No.337

>>336

Yes because only the government can be a coercive entity, not the private sector right?


 No.341

>>337

In the private sector, coercion is pathological. In the government, it is a defining factor. The Chicago Police Department got away with outright torturing innocent citizens, while people worldwide lost their shit about Amazon not treating its workers right.


 No.342

>>341

Exactly. The difference is like night and day.



File: 1457381988184.jpg (33.52 KB, 655x473, 655:473, reasonstowork-basicincome.jpg)

 No.340[Reply]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ontario-to-pilot-a-universal-basic-income-experiment-a6916571.html

archive: http://archive.is/eAQ83

I have long been a proponent of basic income. This is not socialism. It's a social democratic reformist proposal. But it's a step in the right (or shall I say left?) direction. Accelerationism leads to nothing else but fascism. Not socialism.

Due to the nature of capitalism, labour productivity in our society continues to improve in the long-run (sure you will see short-term setbacks in labour productivity from time to time. But the general trend has been upward). We are seeing more and more automation. More outsourcing to firms that more efficiently utilize labour or to firms abroad based in countries that provide a large supply of cheap labour. As a result, the demand for labour decreases.

But the labour supply is still high. Because there were so many baby boomers and then those baby boomers had kids (us). With an excess of labour supply to labour demand, there is going to be a lot of unemployment and underemployment (ie. part-timers who want to work full-time but can't get full-time hours because there isn't enough demand for their labour).

You'd think that with there being a large surplus in labour supply and an ever decreasing demand for labour that employers would naturally gravitate to reducing full-time work week hours. But capitalism doesn't exactly work like that. Employers want to gain as much productivity as they can out of every employee they have on their payroll. Recruiting additional staff and increasing the size of your payroll costs money.

Corporations want to slim down as much as they can. They would rather have 75 employees on their payroll working 40 hours/week plus undisclosed overtime than have 100 employees on their payroll working 30 hours/week. The amount of hours they enPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Post last edited at

File: 1449559209250.jpg (15.03 KB, 145x145, 1:1, IRV.jpg)

 No.265[Reply]

Every American knows their electoral system is completely fucking broken and forces people to regularly choose between the less of two evils instead of the people they would actually like to see running things.

What is the best method to go about finally fixing this shitheap?

5 posts omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.318

Switching to a proportional system will shake up things more and allow more breathing space for new parties than replacing one sort of single-winner system with another one. That said, there is a place for single-winner elections (eg. voting for mayor and a group voting to select one proposal from a heap of competing ones), and for that I prefer Top-Flop Voting (TM):

For each candidate, you vote either for or against or stay neutral. The candidate with the highest score wins. How a candidate gets scored works a bit differently from range voting: the bigger side counts. If a candidate gets more votes for than against, only this number of votes for the candidate is the score, with a plus in front of it. If a candidate gets more votes against, this number of votes against is the score, with a minus in front of it.

Sounds weird, but the result of that shares many nice properties with range voting, while also respecting majority vote patterns: If there is a set of candidates with each member receiving a for-vote by the majority of voters, the winner will come from that set. If there is a strict subset of candidates with each member receiving a vote against by the majority of voters, the winner will not come from that set. See page 2 of this pdf.


 No.319

File: 1451165064700.pdf (155.28 KB, Top-Flop Voting and Co-ope….pdf)

If you want to shake up things and allow more breathing space for new parties, then switching to a proportional system will do more than replacing one sort of single-winner system with another one. That said, there is a place for single-winner elections (eg. voting for mayor and a group voting to select one proposal from a heap of competing ones), and for that I prefer Top-Flop Voting:

1. For each candidate, you vote either for or against or stay neutral.

2. How a candidate gets scored works a bit differently from range voting: the bigger side counts. If a candidate gets more votes for than against, only this number of votes for the candidate is the score, with a plus in front of it. If a candidate gets more votes against, this number of votes against is the score, with a minus in front of it.

3. The candidate with the highest score wins.

Sounds weird, but it's a robust method that shares some nice properties with range voting, while also respecting majority vote patterns: If there is a set of candidates with each member receiving a for-vote by the majority of voters, the winner will come from that set. If there is a strict subset of candidates with each member receiving a vote against by the majority of voters, the winner will not come from that set. See page 2 of this pdf.


 No.333

>>265

Do away with democracy and embrace anarchy.


 No.338

burn it to the ground


 No.339

File: 1457379157918.jpg (217.43 KB, 931x623, 133:89, deadanarchists-spain.jpg)

>>333

Yes because anarchy worked so well in Spain



File: 1449465482333.jpeg (70.24 KB, 800x600, 4:3, 1419581298981-1.jpeg)

 No.253[Reply]

>Our mission is a reformist/incrementalist approach to agitate for the working-class (non-reformers are welcome to post). Without alienating the white heterosexual cis male as is typically the case with modern leftism (which makes up a huge chunk of the working-class in the west. It's politically suicidal). We think identity politics is divisive. We want to be inclusive to people of all races, genders and sexual orientations. That doesn't mean that we're in favor of giving preferential treatment to one group over the other. That seems to be the modern leftist view of "equality". If the left didn't actively try to alienate white heterosexual males, the conservatives/Republicans would never win. The whole conservative/Republican strategy is to feed off working-class white heterosexual male resentment and it's working. I'm Pro-Bernie Sanders/Jeremy Corbyn/Kshama Sawant/Elizabeth May. Though I wish these candidates weren't so Pro-IDpol/SJW (Bernie Sanders is only Pro-IDpol/SJW because he feels that he needs to be to be politically relevant. But we know his true power level.)

So BO never lurked /leftypol/ too much? because /leftypol/ is illiberal as fuck most of the time.

Still I'll post and browse here because BO promised that this place will be action based and not theory based.

32 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.317

File: 1451160965524.jpg (41.85 KB, 500x529, 500:529, moderate-side-of-islam.jpg)

>>316

I don't buy into the genetic nationalism argument. My girlfriend isn't white and she is very much westernized. Non-white women who have sex with white men are more loyal to western civilization in my experience than white liberal women who have sex with white liberal cuck bfs (and cheat on him with Chad and maybe even Tyrone and Badr on the side). My girlfriend's mom doesn't like that she dates white guys. But she eventually got used to it.

She and her husband immigrated from a brown-majority country to a white-majority country. They knew the risks going in. If you don't want your daughter to sleep with white men, don't immigrate to a white-majority country. If my girlfriend's mom eventually learned to live with it. Then surely Muslims should eventually learn to live with the fact that their daughter wants to have sex with western infidels. Instead of forcing her to cover up, not drink alcohol, pray 5 times a day, go to a mosque regularly and forcing her to not have premarital sex.

But you see, it's not as simple as telling religious Muslims "if you don't like it here, LEAVE." No you see religious Muslims are here because they want to impose Sharia Law on us. They want to establish a Caliphate in the west. They are consciously aggressing against us.

I am also pretty sure that I'm not pure-white. Given the migration history of my parents' country and some of the swarthy phenotypes that I have seen in my family tree. I bet if I did an ancestral DNA test, I'd find that I have some North African DNA. Because the Muslims occupied the region. And then when the Christian Knights won, they were forced to convert to Christianity. Maybe even a remote chance of Jewish DNA or maybe even an outside chance of Sub-Saharan African DNA. But I prefer to live in the west and I prefer western values. I don't want to live under Sharia Law and a Caliphate.

At the end of the day people migrate, mix races and cultures change. But unlike the cultural relativist cuck liberals who think western civilization bad, eastern civilization good, I see western civilization as superior to Islam. There arePost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Post last edited at

 No.322

>>310

honesty is a virtue


 No.323

>>317

Your post is well thought out but the 1960s 70s thing isn't accurate

Yes they had modernized in some ways and dressed modestly but not shower curtain on her head retarded but they still had their own culture

don't get me wrong and assume i mean genetic differences are all that's involved in violence and poverty

any race can get violent and aggressive or peaceful and wise

That doesn't mean two or more peaceful and wise societies should compromise themselves for some forced narrative given to them of a shared one world culture.

genetic differences account for different goals and desires and that is the primary reason you can't just move people by the millions then force them to integrate

Governments are always there to make replaceable pawns of the masses of people. Governments are glad to pretend all races are the same and recently all genders are the same.

Maybe some medical advances could allow reproduction and a single sex. Who knows if that would be good or bad.

But to transform society into that would take numerous human rights violations.

What we do now by just pretending we're all the same is even worse.

People can own their houses communities cities regions and countries without a bureaucracy class forcing people to obey. Involuntary orders and gun to the head.

It does not make sense to force free movement of people by a powerful government because that inherently means people aren't free, even if they can shift around.


 No.330

>>256

>It's important that the left be "updated" for 2015

Quit living in the past BO. It's current year already, 2016.


 No.331

>>256

>even though corporations benefit from all kinds of subsidies and tax cuts

I always found it strange that the modern political "left" was the side that robbed working people of 3 TRILLION dollars and gave it to the very investment bankers who deliberately collapsed the economy for profit. And then also failed to jail those bankers that simply pocketed the money instead of using it for the intended economic purpose (all of them).

The actual left's worse enemy are politicians like Obama and H.Clinton that call themselves progressives and liberals. One understands how people then associate the worst abuses of capitalist excess and a government owned and operated by billionaire bankers with leftist philosophy.



File: 1450081095451-0.jpg (41.85 KB, 500x529, 500:529, moderate-side-of-islam.jpg)

File: 1450081095453-1.jpg (90.05 KB, 600x831, 200:277, parisattackcorpses.jpg)

 No.299[Reply]

Are liberals and socdems today absolutely fucking INSANE?

 No.329

>>299

yes



File: 1449950474778.png (282.06 KB, 1023x513, 341:171, neonazi-tumblr.png)

 No.294[Reply]

http://8ch.net/leftypol/res/465660.html#q465725

http://8ch.net/leftypol/res/465660.html#q465744

Whenever you play the reality card and point out the facts to SJW liberals, they can't help but play the race/"nationalist" card. That's the only card they have left in their deck. And I consider myself a liberal. A libertine in fact. And I abhor nationalism. National borders are just imaginary lines. But I don't want to be shot up or blown up by a bunch of Islamist nutjobs. And I'm not down with the political correctness bullshit that is destroying the modern left.

/leftypol/ also goes on to justify suicide bombing as military tactic. Ow the edge.

My stance is this: If you are Muslim and you are not a terrorist, don't support terrorists, willing to cooperate with authorities to identify terrorists ("snitch") and don't support Sharia Law and accept our liberal democratic way of life, you're welcome to live among us.

If you're a terrorist, terrorist sympathizer, terrorist enabler or support Sharia Law, we don't want you here. And unfortunately a large percentage of Muslims in the west fall within this camp.

It is a moral dilemma sure. I don't want to deny the good Muslims a chance of life here in the west. But there are lots of fucking crazy Muslims in the Middle-East, North Africa and the Indian Subcontinent (ie. Pakistan, Bangladesh, some parts of India) who are terrorists and terrorist sympathizers and want to establish Sharia Law and a Caliphate in the west. But when you have a bag of M&Ms and 35% of those M&Ms will kill you, what do you do? STOP EATING M&Ms.

I think it's perfectly justified for France and Sweden to put a severe limitation or moratorium on Muslim immigration right now. Even if we manage to somehow weed out all the nutjobs and accept only moderates, keep in mind that many of these Muslim youths committing these terrorist atrocities came from moderate families. They Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

1 post omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.296

It looks like /leftypol/ banned me.

Fucking social justice warriors got triggered. They need their little safe space.


 No.297

>>294

good logic


 No.320

>>294

I know. They unironically defend Tumblr and claim you can't be a socialist without being a feminist. I used to like that place but it's been pissing me off more and more lately.


 No.321

>>320

Any place that allows certain types of shitposting but bans and deletes political discussions is not really a useful place for any thing even if you agree with the general ideology.


 No.328

archive it or it's worthless

archive.is



File: 1453078226995.jpg (18.66 KB, 236x255, 236:255, 1448419525033.jpg)

 No.324[Reply]

What if the same old governments that pushed Europe into a prolonged war in WWII knew the best way to reverse rights and freedoms quickly was to import millions of slimerabs and mohamenigs and the rabble to fight among the streets with other poorshits?

Europe swings far right? Great! "we already have candidates campaigning who could be installed as nationalist champions while their primary goals will be corporate as usual."

 No.326

>>324

Yea the Nazis were called the National SOCIALIST German WORKERS Party ffs. You would think that working-class interests would have been a top priority for the Germans (along with Nationalism of course). But then once the Nazis got in power, they abolished labour unions (WTF?! What kind of workers party takes away a worker's right to organize?) and got cozy with German corporate interests…

/leftypol/ can talk about how the material conditions are the reason why young Muslim men in Europe have become delinquents and join ISIS. But the bottom line is that poverty is hitting white working-class people very hard too in the west and you don't see them committing crime at the same clip. You see isolated incidents of young angry white men going postal. When white people are distressed, they lash out inwardly. They don't lash out outwardly like Muslims and Blacks. Ever noticed why suicide rates are low among Blacks but they kill, assault, rape, mug a fuckload more people per capita?

So when white working-class people see that then, do you really fucking think they are going to see Muslims and blacks as fellow global proletariats? Really? Class is absolutely not the only thing that matters to Muslims and Blacks. So why should it be the only thing that matters to white people? Do you really think Muslims and Blacks would share the wealth if they were the ones in charge? Islam is a backwater religion and gangsta niggaz are the most degenerate of lumpenproles. White working-class men have voted for the Republican Party for the past 50 years. Clearly they are fed up with the SJW shit. White working-class people want a bigger paycheque. They don't give a fuck about Muslim immigrants, Syrian refugees and Black people. That's just reality. If you want white working-class people to vote for your leftist party, you actually have to listen to what they want. Or else guess what? They are going to vote in the far-right.



File: 1453661925327.jpg (545.63 KB, 2000x1709, 2000:1709, jews communism.jpg)

 No.325[Reply]

Communism (and leftism in general) is jewish. It cannot divorce itself of anti white jewry.

 No.327

>>325

Good 'ol /pol/, never change



File: 1450167090337.jpg (507.21 KB, 850x565, 170:113, relax.jpg)

 No.303[Reply]

I'm curious how socialists interpret tourism.

 No.304

I think it would be counterproductive to condemn tourism if your goal is to spread class consciousness in the developed world. Tourism is exploitative by nature. But capitalism by its nature is exploitative. Let people buy the goods and services that they want. Including working-class people. The reason why capitalism has been so successful thus far is because people buy into the illusion that capitalism grants them freedom. If you start restricting their behaviour directly or shaming them for buying certain goods and services, they start to resent it.

If poorer tourist destinations had something like a basic income, whether universal (UBI) or for people who are below the poverty line or within a certain range from the poverty line (means-tested welfare), the nature of tourism and sex tourism would be less exploitative.

If you didn't have to labour or didn't have to labour as much in order to get shelter, food, health care, clothing, transportation and other basic needs met, economic transactions within capitalism would be a lot more voluntary than they are now.

And in a socialist society where the workers or "the people" (the state) own the means of production, in theory, the workers would be getting a fair cut of the revenues. There would be no private ownership/shareholders taking their cut of the revenues. By receiving more money for their labour, financial transactions would be more free. That said, I don't see socialism (full ownership of the means of production by the state or workers) as obtainable anytime soon. Social democracy (private ownership of the means of production with public social services, social safety net, redistribution of income, some public ownership of the means of production) is much more attainable in the short-term than socialism.


 No.305

Forgot to make this point as well: The developed world is so privileged that many working-class people in the developed world actually engage in tourism themselves. It's a hard sell to tell working people in the developed world that tourism is immoral and they should avoid it. Considering that most working-class people here engage in tourism or aspire to engage in tourism if they make more money someday.

I haven't went travelling myself because I don't have much interest in it. It's funny how whenever I see profiles on dating sites and Tinder, women (many of them liberals and social justice warriors) like to talk so much about how they love to travel and brag about their "adventures". They love to show off. Showing pictures of their travel on Instagram, Facebook, etc.

I get the impression that people travel just to show off to people at social gatherings and on social media. I've never really seen the appeal in travelling. I don't care to swim in a gorgeous beach resort, sipping on alcoholic cocktails by the beach. Taking pictures of tourist attractions from a bunch of different angles when thousands/millions of people have already done this before and posted the images on social media. I don't really get the appeal.

Tourism just seems to really bring out some of the most decadent, consumerist, narcissistic behavior out of people. It's something people do to appear cool and interesting and "worldly". It's a status symbol, another way to show off.

When I see these women on Tinder and dating apps (and you could say the same about men), I get the impression that they are just slaves to the system working jobs that they hate to buy shit they don't need. Their day-to-day cubicle hell lives are so dreary and stressful that they try to sedate themselves with consumerist distractions.

I don't want to seem holier-than-thou though. But I get the impression that people spend a lot of their money in an effort to impress people. Even without consciously realizing it. And they also spend a lot of money indulging in the senses. I don't live my life to impress people. But I do like to indulge in the senses sure. But it's a trade-off that you have Post too long. Click here to view the full text.


 No.313

>>304

>>305

Okay but what about all those island nations that pretty much subsist entirely on their tourism industries? Would such a thing still be possible under socialism?


 No.314

>>313

So as long as there is demand for tourism, I don't see why island nations that subsist mostly on tourism-related industry wouldn't be able to continue to do so. Whether the resort workers owned the resort. Or whether the government owned it.



File: 1450303189670.jpg (43.81 KB, 415x600, 83:120, hijabqt.jpg)

 No.306[Reply]

First-round re-cap

-Far-right Front National was leading in 6 of the 12 mainland regions in France.

-The centre-right coalition Union of the Right was leading in 4 of 12 mainland regions in France.

-The centre-left coalition Union of the Left was leading in 2 of 12 mainland regions in France.

Second-round highlights

Centre-right coalition (Union of the Right)

- WON in 7 of the 12 mainland regions in France.

- GAIN of 3 regions from far-right Front National

- HOLD of 4 regions from the first-round

Centre-left Coalition (Union of the Left)

- WON in 5 of the 12 mainland regions in France.

- GAIN of 3 regions from Far-Right Front National

- HOLD of 2 regions from first-round

- The Far-Right Front National wasn't able to maintain a lead in any of the 6 mainland Regions they led in in the first-round.

Analyzing the Defeat of the Far-Right

- In the 2 regions where the Far-Right was the strongest (Nord-Pas-de-Calais - Picardie, Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur), the third-placed Union of the Left decided to bow out for the second-round and backed the Union of the Right to defeat the Far-Right. Which they successfully did. The Front National increased their overall share of the vote in the second-round. But the Union of the Right was able to beat them in the head-to-head second-round run-off.

- In Alsace - Champagne-Ardenne - Lorraine, the Union of the Right was beating the third-placed Union of the Left by a 1.6:1 margin in the first-round. But in the second-round, voters for the parties that were eliminated in the first-round decided to back the Union of the Right instead of the Union of the Left because they thought they had a better chance to beat the Far-Right. So the Union of the Right's margin over the Union Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

Post last edited at

 No.300[Reply]

CUCK

 No.301

>>300

Greetings from /pol/ I take it?



File: 1449618959720.jpg (577.94 KB, 800x770, 80:77, Marion_Maréchal-Le_Pen_-_2….jpg)

 No.279[Reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_regional_elections,_2015

http://elections.interieur.gouv.fr/regionales-2015/

The centre-left Union of the Left "list coalition" headed by the "Socialist" Party got hit hard by the polls while the far-right Front National more than doubled their votes in the regional elections. The centre-right Union of the Right list headed by the Republican Party saw very modest gains.

It looks like both the centre-left and the centre-right are paying the price for blatantly ignoring the wishes of the French people. It's worth noting that the majority of registered French voters abstained from voting. Which suggests that the French people feel very alienated by the "choices" that their democracy has on offer. Or worse, they just don't fucking care about French regional politics. The voter turnout was just under 50% and that figure drops down to just under 48% if you count valid votes only. 1.2% of the electorate left their ballot blank (probably a protest vote) and another 0.79% cast an invalid/spoiled ballot (some of these could be protest votes). That's fucking embarrassing.

They just completed the first round of voting Dec 6th. The second round of voting will be on the 13th in regions where no single party won a majority vote. In each region, 75% of the seats are distributed via proportional representation with a 5% minimum vote threshold for each party or list coalition. That means that in order to be represented in regional council, your party/list coalition must have had at least 5% of the vote in the first round.

The remaining 25% of seats in regional council are distributed to the party/list coalition that wins a plurality (first-past-the-post) in that region in the second round. If any one party/list coalition won a majority vote in the first round, they win the remaining 25% of seats and then there is no second round.

In the second round, parties who finished with less thPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

 No.288

File: 1449732781436.png (42.08 KB, 860x280, 43:14, 2015FrenchRegionalElection….png)

Here is a simplistic visual breakdown of the first round of the French regional elections in the 12 mainland French regions.

In terms of the centre-left vs centre-right vs far-right war

- The centre-left has an opportunity to win a majority in 8 regions and an opportunity to win a minority plurality in 2 other regions (they'd have to rely on the centre-right for support to pass laws).

- The centre-right has an opportunity to win a majority in 4 regions and an opportunity to win a minority plurality in 8 regions (they'd have to rely on the centre-left for support to pass laws.)

- The far-right Front National has an opportunity to win a majority in 6 regions. They would be able to win a minority plurality in an additional 4 regions but they can't get the support they need from the other parties in council to form government (the centre-left and the centre-right have vowed not to support the far-right).

Another way of looking at the breakdown

- There are 2 regions where the winner determines whether the far-right obtains a majority or whether the centre-right governs with the support of the centre-left (central block rule).

-There is 1 region that is an effective three-way dance but only the far-right would be able to obtain a majority. If the centre-left wins, they'd have to rely on support from the centre-right. If the centre-right wins, they'd have to rely on support from the centre-left. Central Block Rule.

- There is 1 region that is a three-way dance in which both the far-right and the centre-right have a chance to win a majority. But the centre-left would have to rely on the centre-right for support if they win (central block).

- There are 2 regions where both the far-right and the centre-left have an opportunity to win majorities. But the centre-right would have to rely on the centre-left for support if they win (central block).

- There are 3 regions where the centre-left have an opportunity to win a majority but the centre-right would have to rely on the centre-left for support if they won (central block). If the far-right actually won the secondPost too long. Click here to view the full text.


 No.289

It's also worth noting that before 2004, France's regional council seats were distributed entirely via Proportional Representation (PR). But since 2004 both the Union of the Left and Union of the Right conspired to change the law to make it so that only 75% of the regional council seats would be distributed via PR. The remaining 25% would be distributed in a winner-take-all second-round run-off vote. Both the centre-left and the centre-right conspired to do this because they were tired of the far-right Front National holding the balance of power in a PR system. This would result in a situation in which the centre-left and the centre-right would often have to work together, forming a central block government, in order to pass legislation. Much to the irritation of all of France. Because let's face it, when you just have one big central block government, nothing really changes. Everything just remains status quo and remains the same pretty much when the top two rival parties go into bed with one another.

But you see, instead of actually reducing Muslim immigration and getting rid of the social justice warrior crap in order to compete with the far-right Front National on a democratic stage, instead the big 2 just decided to change the electoral system to make it less democratic. We can't have the far-right holding the balance of power you see. Because they are a bunch of racist fascists. So we're going to be a bunch of social justice warrior fascists instead and undermine your democracy by reducing Proportional Representation down to only 75% instead of 100% proportionality.



File: 1449613307636.jpg (99.79 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, 500eurobanknotes.jpg)

 No.277[Reply]

https://archive.is/uH4B6

There's all sorts of talk in the media that Finland is actually going to implement a 800 euro/month basic income policy and I actually thought this was the case. I supported this policy in social media and condemned the administration in my province for not following suit and for paying a comparatively paltry sum to workfare and disability benefit recipients. But then when I went digging further, I found out that this was not exactly true. They are going to be conducting pilot basic income experiments from 2017-2019 in Finland. And it won't apply to the whole country. Only select communities.

We have seen basic income pilots before. In Dauphin,Manitoba from 1974-1979 in Canada, in select regions in India, Namibia, etc. And they are just that pilots. They never resulted in permanent adoption of basic income as policy. I'm tired of "pilots". We've done pilots before and the results of these pilots were quite positive. Let's actually implement basic income policy that applies to an entire nation or province/state. And let's fight to get basic income implemented all across the world.

There's no reason why anyone in a developed country should be homeless, experiencing food insecurity or lacking access to needed health care, clothing, transportation, telecommunications, etc. In a world where you have millionaires and billionaires who acquire exorbitant amounts of wealth off the backs of labour. They are rent-seekers and usurers. And idle rich trust fund kids who were lucky enough to be born into a family where daddy is rich and has connections.

The idea of a basic income is that everyone would receive a basic amount every month that would be just enough to cover basic needs - both ongoing regular expenditures (ie. food, rent, etc.) and allowing people the ability to save some money to cover less frequent basic expenditures (ie. durable or semi-durable goods like clothing, household appliances, and services that you pay for less often than once a month). And then you would raise taxes in order to control for inflation. Like obviously we don't want the 1% to be a net recipient of a basic income. We want tPost too long. Click here to view the full text.


Delete Post [ ]
[]
Previous [1] [2] [3]
| Catalog
[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]