Jump to content

Democracy - We had a good run


Jaime L

Recommended Posts

So letting a few high population States determine what the nation as a whole does is fair?

California, New York, Florida, Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Illinois are hardly monolithic entities that always bloc-vote the same way.

Of course, at the moment it is technically possible (due to the Senate filibuster) for Alaska, Wyoming, Montana, Vermont, North Dakota, South Dakota, Delaware, Idaho, New Hampshire, Maine, Rhode Island, Hawaii, Nevada, New Mexico, Nebraska, Utah, West Virginia, Arkansas, Kansas, Mississippi, and Connecticut to block every single piece of legislation that goes through the US Congress. It is worth mentioning that these states have a combined total of 50 House seats between them - fewer than California does by itself.

By comparison, California, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, Florida, Ohio, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Iowa, Louisiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Oklahoma, Illinois, Indiana, Washington, Oregon, Arizona, Missouri, and Colorado (not to mention DC!), who total almost 90% of America's population, could (in theory) find themselves getting held hostage by the aforementioned states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TLM,

So letting a few high population States determine what the nation as a whole does is fair?

Each person should have equal representation with decisions involving the country as a whole. My idea for making that happen was crap, I'll admit. It's difficult -impossible maybe- to come up with a fair system that keeps the senate and states intact.

ETA ok, not impossible. Forced migration could even things out, I suppose. could Rhode Island handle 6,172,360 people, though? They'll have to learn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beyond that, Ormond, are you telling me you don't feel the difference between this decade and even the last two? I agree it's likely we've always had contradictory beliefs but in today's environment this failing has become absolutely malignant. My point about Democracy no longer working, is of course, half tongue in cheek, but underlying it is a deep concern that system grows less effective every year. I don't see leaders on Capitol Hill with the political backbone to do the right or unpopular thing nor do I see voters prepared to hold them accountable for their many hypocrisies, lies and crippling inertia. The way our system continues to not address all the ticking time bomb issues that exist on the very near horizon (i.e.: The economy, the deficit, Social Security, Healthcare, The Environment) speak to me of a government that's becoming dysfunctional. All the issues that we haven't addressed and continue not to address speak to me as the clearest sign of a potential American decline in our lifetimes. If we collapse (which BTW, was a distinct possibility as recently as a year ago), it's because we've failed our democracy as much as it has failed

I

I think there is some difference in political discourse now, though not as much as you seem to think. I also don't think the main cause of this is either political party per se. I think part of it may be the gerrymandering in the House, but I think a great deal of it is the rise of cable television and the Internet, which has broken up public discourse into smaller little worlds where people can insulate themselves from opinions they disagree with and develop more of a sense that only people who are either stupid or immoral can possibly disagree with them.

However, I don't think this is really new, but a return to a type of political rhetoric which was common in the 19th century. Surely you don't think things are more dysfunctional now than they were in the 1850s, for example. I don't think we are leading up to a Civil War any time soon.

I said I would like to see some reforms in the way government operates. Where I disagree with you is that this is some unprecedented situation, or that the general public is any less informed or rational about politics than they've ever been. It's just that with the Internet and Fox and MSNBC, the irrationality and idiocy is on greater public display than it ever was before.

And when in past history do you think that voters have really held politicians "accountable" for hypocrisy, lies, and inertia?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup. It's a design defect. :ohwell: Goes to Ormond's point that the Founding Fathers (urf, I hate that phrase) either didn't foresee certain developments or they had to hack together the best machine they good out of some pretty awkward parts.

I really don't think I was the person who made that point. I don't necessarily disagree with it, but I don't want to take credit for something that wasn't my idea. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The true misfortune of this country is that it works so well as a single economic entity and yet is an utter disaster as a single political entity. If we could fragment into several states while retaining the absolutely unimpeded flow of goods, services, and employment across borders that we have now it would be ideal. I don't really think that could happen though.

Also, every time someone tells me that if you don't like how the country works, well, change it...I want to punch them in the fucking face. This is a country of 300 million people. It would be easier for me to make the sun rise in the west than influence our political system to the smallest degree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So letting a few high population States determine what the nation as a whole does is fair?

But letting a few high population states pay for the low population states seems fair? We're a democracy, not a landownership-ocracy. A person in California should have the same political power as some eskimo in Alaska.

Probably the best solution to the problem would be to break up the high population states into micro-states... California could easily be broken in 3-4 pieces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But letting a few high population states pay for the low population states seems fair? We're a democracy, not a landownership-ocracy. A person in California should have the same political power as some eskimo in Alaska.

Probably the best solution to the problem would be to break up the high population states into micro-states... California could easily be broken in 3-4 pieces.

Or one country. let the counties be states. That'd show em'.

WHERE YOU GETTIN YOUR AVOCADOS FROM NOW, WYOMING?!?!?!?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cuellar,

But letting a few high population states pay for the low population states seems fair? We're a democracy, not a landownership-ocracy. A person in California should have the same political power as some eskimo in Alaska.

Probably the best solution to the problem would be to break up the high population states into micro-states... California could easily be broken in 3-4 pieces.

Last time I checked the US has never been a democracy in the true meaning of the word. We're a representative Republic with a bi-cameral legislature. One body with representation of States based on population and another with representation of States equally divided.

If you want to change the Senate I suggest you start a move to convene a new Constitutional convention throw out the existing document and start from scratch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or one country. let the counties be states. That'd show em'.

WHERE YOU GETTIN YOUR AVOCADOS FROM NOW, WYOMING?!?!?!?!

Oh noes! People here still talk about the Great Guacamole Famine of 1927. We shall have to enter negotiations with Mexico. *snif*

Ormond: I was commenting on your point that people in the US were never much brighter or purer or more clear-headed about how the country should run. Much of what we are experiencing now was due to mistakes, self interest, strong-arming, and savage compromises built into the basic documents themselves, and even if we as a population are measurably more literate and educated than the Americans of 1789, we're still no closer to resolving the inherent contradictions of our nation. No better, no worse. Just people muddling along. Difference is, now we're 340 million people, which means a bigger muddle and one harder to extricate ourselves from. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The true misfortune of this country is that it works so well as a single economic entity and yet is an utter disaster as a single political entity. If we could fragment into several states while retaining the absolutely unimpeded flow of goods, services, and employment across borders that we have now it would be ideal. I don't really think that could happen though.

We're trying something similar in Europe - we'll let you know how it pans out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're trying something similar in Europe - we'll let you know how it pans out.

The EU model would probably work in the US, but I don't think we could ever get to that point. Americans aren't exactly enthusiastic supporters of radical reform as evidenced by the fact that we've been governed by the same piece of paper for 220 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ormond -

Although I agree there was no Golden Age of Enlightened Voting, I think Jaime L's perception that something has changed is correct. Lately I've been thinking that America can't do big things anymore. In the current environment we could never build the interstate highway system, or enact Medicare or Social Security, or set up and empower OSHA and the FDA, or become key players in the United Nations. Conservatives would use their power in the Senate to stymie every one. Hell, I wonder if we could pass even the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in today's environment. Didn't I read that in this congressional session 70% of bills were filibustered in the Senate, whereas 70 years previously that number was around 8%?

Giving the minority viewpoint an unfettered right to shut down debate has in my view robbed the US of the ability to think big and to act big. Instead of big solutions to big problems, we just nibble around the edges. That's not right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I

I think there is some difference in political discourse now, though not as much as you seem to think. I also don't think the main cause of this is either political party per se. I think part of it may be the gerrymandering in the House, but I think a great deal of it is the rise of cable television and the Internet, which has broken up public discourse into smaller little worlds where people can insulate themselves from opinions they disagree with and develop more of a sense that only people who are either stupid or immoral can possibly disagree with them.

Agree with this. Couldn't figure out how to smoothly integrate the rise of the cable news channel and AM Talk radio into the greater point I was making before.

People say it's great we all get news from our own preferred sources, but the upshot of this is there's no common language.

And when in past history do you think that voters have really held politicians "accountable" for hypocrisy, lies, and inertia?

Think during the 60s and 70s, people made their displeasure with the government extremely well known. Public outrage most definitely affected public policy.

There's virtually nothing today that provokes anywhere near a similar degree of mobilization even though I'd argue the problems are just as dire if not moreso. I think it'll take NYC getting flooded by rising ocean levels or a collapse of the U.S. dollar to create a similar sense of urgency. But the point is, by then it's too late. There are so many fronts we need to start acting on now but there isn't the popular will for any of that. The American people have become deeply irrational about the things we need to fear. And that's not going to change as long as whenever one side says something is white, the other screams that it is infact, black.

ETA: Tracker Neil just said summarized my overarching point better than I have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ormond -

Although I agree there was no Golden Age of Enlightened Voting, I think Jaime L's perception that something has changed is correct. Lately I've been thinking that America can't do big things anymore. In the current environment we could never build the interstate highway system, or enact Medicare or Social Security, or set up and empower OSHA and the FDA, or become key players in the United Nations. Conservatives would use their power in the Senate to stymie every one. Hell, I wonder if we could pass even the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in today's environment. Didn't I read that in this congressional session 70% of bills were filibustered in the Senate, whereas 70 years previously that number was around 8%?

Giving the minority viewpoint an unfettered right to shut down debate has in my view robbed the US of the ability to think big and to act big. Instead of big solutions to big problems, we just nibble around the edges. That's not right.

I think what's unprecedented is the speed of information. That's whats really changed these days.

And it seems with that speed, politicians are thinking even shorter term. Can't do anything that makes tomorrows opinion polls come in lower.

Also, you know what else is completely different from how it used to be?

The Filibuster. Changed completely from it's old form a few decades ago and only now are the Republicans showing the true brokenness of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This could work out even better than each state as it's own country.

Ridiculous! Ecotopia has legitimate claims on the Lake Tahoe region: it's been part of the Greater Ecotopian Homeland since the dawn of time, and we have to wrest it back from the backstabbing EQ's. We have to defend our vacation homes and ski resorts--our way of life is being threated, and it's time we stepped things up. It's time we had payback for the Sins of '23. Remember our brave boys at Salem and Portland! It's time those butchering Meateaters got there due. That's why as your Predisdent-for-life I'm ordering the construction of new Bambi-class missile platforms along the border and three new Peacekeeping cores in New Harmony* and The Commune**. Glory to Ecotopia!

Not to mention they threaten our national Latte stockpiles. But that's beside the point.

*Formerly known as San Fransisco

**Formerly known as Seattle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think US democracy is fundamentally broken: the problem is that a completely intransigent minority in the Senate is simply abusing procedure in an unprecedented manner, and the media is refusing to call them up on it.

Or maybe that the Democrats ran up sizeable majorities and won the Presidency by running on a different platform than the leadership is now promoting, but individual members still want to get re-elected. If I'm right, expect the Republicans to pick up seats in the mid terms. If you're right, the Democrats will sweep enough of the intransigent Republicans out of power, on the strength of the popularity of their ideas that all of these delays and 'proof' that the system is broken will just be a temporary hiccup, anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great article on the idiot American mindset at the moment:

One year ago, 59 percent of the American public liked the stimulus plan, according to Gallup. A few months later, with the economy still deeply mired in recession, a majority of the same size said Obama was spending too much money on it. There's nothing wrong with changing your mind, of course, but opinion polls over the last year reflect something altogether more troubling: a country that simultaneously demands and rejects action on unemployment, deficits, health care, climate change, and a whole host of other major problems. Sixty percent of Americans want stricter regulations of financial institutions. But nearly the same proportion says we're suffering from too much regulation on business. That kind of illogic—or, if you prefer, susceptibility to rhetorical manipulation—is what locks the status quo in place.

That article is simplistic crap. I haven't read the whole thread so maybe someone said it before, but just because someone is against stimulus bill, doesn't mean he's against public spending (just a minor part of stimulus was infrastructure investment after all and there was almost no funding for alternative energy). The same about healthcare - if someone is against that horrible proposal of US Congress called "healthcare reform" doesn't mean they are against reform completely - after all public option was supported by majority. And you can feel that manufacturing industry is overregulated, while financial is the exact opposite. The problem are polls and simplistic conclusions, not "American mindset".

As an asside on the regional thing, I think the #1 problem with California right now is not irresponsible spending, rather the unfair bi-cameral system in the US. All large states pay a DISPROPORIANATE amount of federal taxes (Link). If the sissy liberals NE and the West left the union, the US would suffer the same fate as the USSR. Also, if instead of sending money to the federal government, all of "Real America" went to go fuck itself, and the Governator got back our additional 22% of $313B in federal income taxes we paid (2007), it'd easily cover our budget deficit, universal healthcare, and all the pixies and rainbows Californians want. The only reason we don't is that the Senate provides the shitty little rural states disproportionate representation in our government.

California (and other wealthy states) always paid more than they recieved. But it never caused budget problems before. ( and prop 13 was in effect for 2 decades without problems too BTW - that's another thing people tend to blame). Budget problems in California are relatively new - it's really just 2000 thing. California problem IS that it became welfare state (plus, that it is basically becoming Mexico) not with how much they give to Federal goverment.

The Senate gives the GOP an unbelievable amount of power with only 40% in there.

The Senate is where good things go to die.

GOP has no power in Senate at all. All democrats need is 50 votes, not sixty. And balls. And maybe coherent political ideology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ormond -

Giving the minority viewpoint an unfettered right to shut down debate has in my view robbed the US of the ability to think big and to act big. Instead of big solutions to big problems, we just nibble around the edges. That's not right.

Neil, I would just point out that if you eliminated the filibuster, which is what you seem to be advocating, one of the primary effects would be that a Republican Senate and a Republican President could appoint whatever wild-eyed conservatives they wanted to the Supreme Court. It would also mean that they would have the ability to repeal overnight tons of programs you likely support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...