• givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    7 hours ago

    Trying to fix our original system of government and update it for modern day iis like trying to turn a race horse into a Formula 1 racecar…

    If you spend enough money and take enough time you could conceivably say you did it.

    But why the fuck wouldn’t you just switch to a racecar when the racehorse couldn’t run anymore?

    Why put the horse thru all that when you’re going to have to spend all that time with a freak combination as your only mode of transportation?

    In this analogy it’s not just weeks or months, we’re talking decades and generations. Arguably centuries.

    Hell, the first time universal healthcare was part of a presidential platform was Teddy Roosevelt literally a century ago.

    We were born in the time of the geriatric racehorse pulling the racecar like a cart, and we need to decide if we’re gonna keep going for slow change, or just get it over with.

    Cuz damn near anything we could be doing right now would give us better results. Especially since our parents are in the driver’s seat of the racecar since they can’t walk on their own and keep slamming the brakes because they have dementia and think it’s funny.

    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 hours ago

      Replying here again to take the discussion a different direction… What if instead of each representative casting a single vote, they instead acted as a proxy, and cast one vote for each member of the district they represent? The Wyoming representative at large would cast 584,057 votes on every issue in the house. The Delaware representative would cast 989,948 votes. Vermont, 643,077 votes in the house.

    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      Trying to fix our original system of government and update it for modern day iis like trying to turn a race horse into a Formula 1 racecar…

      Democracy is government by consent of the governed. That means if you want to govern Wyoming and Montana, you have to get a majority of Wyoming and Montana residents to agree to your plan. And if every decision is going to be made by California, regardless of their local opposition, why the hell would they agree to be unilaterally ruled from afar? Why wouldn’t they maintain their own sovereignty and independence from you, and govern themselves?

      California certainly has no problem establishing laws for itself that the rest of the country broadly reject.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        7 hours ago

        That means if you want to govern Wyoming and Montana, you have to get a majority of Wyoming and Montana residents to agree to your plan.

        The vast majority of human history disagrees…

        Hell, modern events disagree, like 35% of the country voted for trump, most Americans disagree with their plans, it’s just the only other option was still pretty shitty

        • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 hours ago

          The vast majority of human history disagrees…

          The vast majority of human history involved dictatorial regimes imposing their will on the unwilling. Democracy is a fairly recent development.

          You certainly can establish a government without the consent of the governed, but you cannot reasonably describe such a government as “democratic”.

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            6 hours ago

            The vast majority of human history involved dictatorial regimes imposing their will on the unwilling.

            And modern events are apparently still similar…

            like 35% of the country voted for trump, most Americans disagree with their plans, it’s just the only other option was still pretty shitty

            But this?

            but you cannot reasonably describe such a government as “democratic”.

            Oh shit…

            We’re close…

            Would you consider that more “republican”?

            • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              6 hours ago

              Would you consider that more “republican”?

              Not at all. A government where the senate is eliminated, and California is free to impose itself against the will of Wyoming and Montana would be “populist” at best, and there are much more fitting terms. Not Democratic; Not a Republic. Eliminate the Senate, and you have Panem.

              Populism is two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner. Democracy is what keeps the sheep off the ballot.

              • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                5 hours ago

                A government where the senate is eliminated, and California is free to impose itself against the will of Wyoming and Montana would be “populist” at best, and there are much more fitting terms

                Right, like “democracy”.

                Where the direction is chosen by what theajority of people want.

                Currently we have a system where a minority of the people tell the rest what to do…

                • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 hours ago

                  Right, like “democracy”.

                  What is the form of government of the fictional nation of Panem?

                  I would not describe Panem as a democracy, as the satellite districts have no effective voice in their own governance. Panem is missing anything resembling a Senate. There is no means for the satellite districts to limit or reject the imposition of the capitol district.

                  Currently we have a system where a minority of the people tell the rest what to do…

                  That is absolutely false. California is free to establish law for Californians, regardless of what Montana has to say about it. California doesn’t have to listen to Montana.

                  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    5 hours ago

                    California doesn’t have to listen to Montana.

                    They have to listen to federal law and each person in Montana has way more federal representation thru the electoral college for president, Senate because every state gets two, and House because the number of seats are frozen.

                    Both chambers and the Oval they have more representation.

                    How is that not the minority telling the majority what to do?

                    Like, this has to be working even a little right?

                    There’s no shred of doubt in there?

                    Because buddy, I got doubts on how much I’m gonna be able to help you understand, I can’t make this any simpler. So hopefully you needed just that one comment.

        • Stovetop@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 hours ago

          like 35% of the country voted for trump, most Americans disagree with their plans

          The numbers can’t really be interpreted that way. The best one could say about those who didn’t vote at all is that they had no preference for the outcome.