I think your assessment -- that social security has a long-term sustainability issue and something must change -- is misleading in the context of the usual discussion on the topic. As I understand, in most detail from Dean Baker, social security projected income falls short of projected expenses such that, if projections are correct, there will be a period in which only about 80% of benefits will be available to disburse. Because the payment projections are indexed, the actual value of the...

The deficit of the past few years does not represent a sudden increase in spending. Revenue is down because unemployment is up and demand is down.

We have a recession problem.

Surely the possibility that the budget could improve with increased economic productivity--such as would arise from reducing unemployment--deserves at least a footnote in this discussion. The current budget deficits are not primarily a result of a ramp-up in spending, but of a loss of revenue when the economy went over the cliff.

I like IRV. But I tend to think we'd get most of the benefit by simply requiring a runoff election of the top two candidates when no one gets 50% of the votes cast. Once we get tired of always having run-offs, then the remaining advantages of IRV may be more appealing.

And really, with 15% turnout considered high, is there really that much difference between plurality and majority in terms of electoral mandate?