3 ms·
It isn't just first past the post, either. * It is gerrymandered districts, setup over decades to guarantee seats go to one or the other party. The number of a
by zanny 9y ago
It isn't just first past the post, either.
* It is gerrymandered districts, setup over decades to guarantee seats go to one or the other party. The number of actually competitive elections is at historic lows every cycle.
* Representation per person is at historic lows. The population rises, but the seats in state and federal houses doesn't change. Even in the best case scenario, Wyoming still has over 250k people per senator. Nobody can actually represent the interests of that many people (albeit, given the original intent of senators they shouldn't, but that is a different can of worms). House seats are no better.
The information era has siloed people into ideological extremes. Coupled with the fptp disaster you pointed out, the corrupt media owned by centralized interests keep the poor at war with themselves.
* The obvious loopholes and exploitation of the constitution is blatant and apparent. Either anti-corruption clarification amendments are required, or a modernized rewrite maintaining the principles of separation of power and explicit rights and liberties but updated to insure things like freedom of privacy are necessary.
It is a chicken and egg problem to fix, of course. Regular people cannot rewrite laws or constitutions without the ample resources to wage a revolutionary war. However, the powers that be won't either, because the current rules set them up for power and give them their legitimacy. They are a product of the system as it exists and will fight to protect it, not change it.
Historically the best answer was to sail or caravan to the unsettled and unclaimed lands and try it over again, but we have run short on those options.
- maxerickson 9y agoThe broad population that each Senator represents provides a good check on gerrymandering.
- zanny 9y agoI use senators as an example, but it is hard to have representative democracy when you have no relationship with those you are meant to represent. I always bring up Dunbar's number[1] in the context of politics, because I have concluded that you can't have legitimate representation much beyond it. You can't care about your constituents legitimately as a limit of human psychology. Without fail, every single state and federal representative today is representing on the orders of tens of thousands to millions of people per elected official. It is unreasonable to expect them to act in the will of their constituents when they have no way to know them as people and not figures. It is a fundamental fault I have always seen in democracy the world over, and think it is where the pressure from many people for direct democracy comes from, albeit misguided. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number