Showing posts tagged with “politics”

Canadian government sends dead soldier cheque for one cent

This government is despicable. Regardless of your position on the military and foreign intervention, when a veteran commits suicide likely due to PTSD (and a serious lack of mental health resources for veterans), this kind of response is completely inappropriate and I can’t believe someone didn’t catch the error. For a government that positions itself as so pro-military, there has been a startling lack of awareness regarding veterans once they have returned to Canada.

Why Americans Are So Polarized: Education and Evolution

[O]ver the past 40 years, Americans have been sorting themselves into communities where people increasingly live, think, and vote like their neighbors. In 1976, for example, just more than a quarter of Americans resided in counties where presidential candidates won the election by a margin of 20 percent or more; but by the year 2004, nearly half of Americans lived in these more politically homogeneous counties.

Ask Americans about gun control or Washington in abstract terms, and you’ll hear kneejerk skepticism. People reach for the ideologically correct answer: Big government is bad. But the more you burrow into the weeds of specific programs, the less reflexively anti-government Americans become. Should insurance companies be able to discriminate based on pre-existing conditions? Suddenly, it’s not clear what the ideologically correct answer is, so Americans fall back on common sense—and often favor reasonable regulation. They start sounding less like Ayn Rand, and more like Canadians.

Americans: Republicans in General, Democrats in Particular

Can’t we all just get along? Get along my way, that is, not everyone else’s wrong way.

lolmythesis:

Political Science, Reed College

This is the realest thing I have ever read about politics

It’s well-established at this point that, while both parties have gotten more ideological in recent years, the Republicans have gone way further off the deep end than Democrats. This “asymmetric polarization,” an aftershock of the post-civil rights political realignment of the South, means that Republicans are significantly more likely to nominate “extreme” candidates than Democrats are. Hall’s research suggests that this could ultimately erode the Republican advantage in the House.

Are Republicans Throwing Away Their House Majority?

This all follows with the literature on polarization, but here’s the key to why political polarization will continue to be troublesome.

…gerrymandering creates a glut of “safe” Republican districts, then Hall’s extremism penalty won’t end up being much of a penalty at all.

Kirsten Gillibrand Won't Take No For An Answer

Unf, I love Kirsten Gillibrand. Enough to buy this issue of TIME. 

Why Do We Insist That Only One Woman Can Run for Office at Any Given Time?

This one-woman only instinct is left over from an age of tokenism, when the political imagination could only accommodate a single red suit in a sea of gray. But as more women get into politics, a lot of local primaries include more than one woman. The one woman strategy also assumes that all women candidates are fighting for the votes of women, so the prospect of having two of them adds up to a zero sum game for both.

(Source: crisitunity)

Men look in the mirror and see a Senator, and women look in the mirror and say ‘I’m not qualified.’

Panel Dissects Gender Imbalance in Politics

Default is not in our stars, but in ourselves.

Rebels Without a Clue

Paul Krugman, killing it as usual. Is it bad that I’m more fascinated by the partisan machinations behind political wrangling than the actual potential default itself?

I’ve been reading several good articles on partisanship, will be sharing them soon!