I actually agree with most, if not all of his critique of the nomination processes employed by the major parties in the US and specifically regard the direct primary as one of the worst legacies of the Progressive Era. I will add that primaries dramatically increase the cost of election campaigns, thereby favoring well financed candidates, especially incumbents. I differ somewhat, though, as to the prescription. I would abolish state-sponsored primaries and all legal mandates regarding the nomination process (leaving party leaders directly accountable for the success of their parties at the polls); but I would also abolish plurality voting, requiring either majority voting in single member constituencies (with runoffs if necessary), or proportional representation in multi-member constituencies small enough to make those elected individually responsible to the voters (those elected should primarily represent their constituents, not their parties). Presidential electors should be chosen statewide using proportional representation and if no candidate gets a majority, the House of Representatives should choose between the top two votegetters (each member having one vote instead of each state delegation). Regardless, there should be no restrictions whatever on independent candidacies (the influence of the parties should be proportional to the public's confidence in them). I absolutely do not think that the national committees should be nominating candidates for Congress (that should be the job of state and local party organizations as it once was).
@@tmarbut Thank you. I tried listening years ago, but the 'sound' issue remains. I notice that others here in comment have the same problem; it is rather distracting. Do you know if Professor Ian Shapiro is related to Ben Shapiro? What are the chances. ruclips.net/video/_QBDgwtO_Xk/видео.html
His comments at 6:32 about significant anti-immigrant sentiment within the supporters of Bernie Sanders have absolutely no basis in reality whatsoever. I honestly can't imagine what Mr. Shaprio was thinking about when he said that because it is so far from reality.
That has been the case historically though, workers haven't been fans of immigration generally. But Sanders has moved away from being a working class candidate so that no longer applies.
@@Tomsfilipsons So, because it's happened with other (right, NOT left wing) movements in the past, it's okay to just make shit up today? Alright. If that behavior is considered in bounds for a tenured professor today, to just make shit up because it conveniently fits a narrative . . . well, I think there's a much broader cultural and ethical problem here that goes way beyond Trump alone.
@@Tomsfilipsons According to Sanders' biography, he wasn't very fond of work --- period. He certainly did enjoy his honeymoon in Moscow; videos show quite the jovial side of him.
@@robertfreitag687 You clearly have no idea what he is talking about. Leftist movements were extremely anti-immigration for most of their history. Look up Chavez's United Farm Workers who actually beat illegal immigrants with bats because they were considered the same as scabs. It's very simple: Increasing the labor supply depresses wages. Period. That is basic economics. When Sanders was asked about "open borders" years ago he replied with dismay "That's a Koch Brothers proposal." It's the forces of global capitalism who want increased immigration. It's the interest of the working class to oppose it.
@@codyvandal2860 So you've given up trying to find direct evidence of Nativism in Sanders' own speeches, and instead decided to rely on some Transitive Property of Made Up Bullshit to press the case? I guess that's an argument. It's just that it's a terrible argument. It relies entirely on the Association Fallacy. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy No third party reading our exchange should regard your reply as anything but pure Grade A bullshit. But if that's the way you swing, ain't nothing anyone else can do about it.
@@TheZodiacz I do get the sense that the meaning of the word "globalist" has shifted. I've heard enough of his lectures to know that he's critical of the neoliberal economic program, to include efforts to remove any and all barriers to international trade (he specifically addresses offshoring in this lecture).
![[Q&A] Ian Shapiro: The Long Term Impact of Trump on the Evolution of American Democracy](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ztbFb9EGVBQ/mqdefault.jpg)
![[Q&A] Ian Shapiro: The Long Term Impact of Trump on the Evolution of American Democracy](/img/tr.png)
I wish they would have given him a new microphone.
The sound quality significantly detracts from the talk.
That one boi slippin in EXTRA late at 15:45
Prof. I request transcript of the lecture please. Thank you
I actually agree with most, if not all of his critique of the nomination processes employed by the major parties in the US and specifically regard the direct primary as one of the worst legacies of the Progressive Era. I will add that primaries dramatically increase the cost of election campaigns, thereby favoring well financed candidates, especially incumbents. I differ somewhat, though, as to the prescription. I would abolish state-sponsored primaries and all legal mandates regarding the nomination process (leaving party leaders directly accountable for the success of their parties at the polls); but I would also abolish plurality voting, requiring either majority voting in single member constituencies (with runoffs if necessary), or proportional representation in multi-member constituencies small enough to make those elected individually responsible to the voters (those elected should primarily represent their constituents, not their parties). Presidential electors should be chosen statewide using proportional representation and if no candidate gets a majority, the House of Representatives should choose between the top two votegetters (each member having one vote instead of each state delegation). Regardless, there should be no restrictions whatever on independent candidacies (the influence of the parties should be proportional to the public's confidence in them). I absolutely do not think that the national committees should be nominating candidates for Congress (that should be the job of state and local party organizations as it once was).
Nut job
Half wit mouth breather
What's up with the cuts in audio Eh?
The lecture is fantastic, but the audio is shite
How can this video be about Trump's impact on Democracy when he hadn't yet been elected at the time the video was made?
Because he would have made an impact even if he had lost. Indeed, he had already made an impact.
If you’re asking this question it is clear that you didn’t bother watching the lecture. That or you didn’t understand what he was speaking on.
The lecture is about the selection of candidates by parties. You should watch it.
@@tmarbut
Thank you. I tried listening years ago, but the 'sound' issue remains. I notice that others here in comment have the same problem; it is rather distracting. Do you know if Professor Ian Shapiro is related to Ben Shapiro?
What are the chances. ruclips.net/video/_QBDgwtO_Xk/видео.html
@@johnries5593 Agreed, a profound impact; he's accomplished more in less than 4 years than his opponent's 47 years in politics.
My right ear didn’t learn a thing.
His comments at 6:32 about significant anti-immigrant sentiment within the supporters of Bernie Sanders have absolutely no basis in reality whatsoever. I honestly can't imagine what Mr. Shaprio was thinking about when he said that because it is so far from reality.
That has been the case historically though, workers haven't been fans of immigration generally. But Sanders has moved away from being a working class candidate so that no longer applies.
@@Tomsfilipsons So, because it's happened with other (right, NOT left wing) movements in the past, it's okay to just make shit up today?
Alright. If that behavior is considered in bounds for a tenured professor today, to just make shit up because it conveniently fits a narrative . . . well, I think there's a much broader cultural and ethical problem here that goes way beyond Trump alone.
@@Tomsfilipsons According to Sanders' biography, he wasn't very fond of work --- period. He certainly did enjoy his honeymoon in Moscow; videos show quite the jovial side of him.
@@robertfreitag687 You clearly have no idea what he is talking about. Leftist movements were extremely anti-immigration for most of their history. Look up Chavez's United Farm Workers who actually beat illegal immigrants with bats because they were considered the same as scabs. It's very simple: Increasing the labor supply depresses wages. Period. That is basic economics. When Sanders was asked about "open borders" years ago he replied with dismay "That's a Koch Brothers proposal." It's the forces of global capitalism who want increased immigration. It's the interest of the working class to oppose it.
@@codyvandal2860 So you've given up trying to find direct evidence of Nativism in Sanders' own speeches, and instead decided to rely on some Transitive Property of Made Up Bullshit to press the case? I guess that's an argument. It's just that it's a terrible argument. It relies entirely on the Association Fallacy.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy
No third party reading our exchange should regard your reply as anything but pure Grade A bullshit. But if that's the way you swing, ain't nothing anyone else can do about it.
Yaaawn
Speaking in a globalist authoritarian capitalistic country such as Singapore is interesting indeed.
Shapiro is a globalist authoritarian propagandist.
@@TheZodiacz I do get the sense that the meaning of the word "globalist" has shifted. I've heard enough of his lectures to know that he's critical of the neoliberal economic program, to include efforts to remove any and all barriers to international trade (he specifically addresses offshoring in this lecture).
He’s a bad dude
@@guyvanburen ohgodnoHelPUSNOOOO