3 ms·
The problem is choice, or lack thereof. The root of the problem is we only have 2 choices: red vs blue. 2 choices is only slightly better than no choice (1 ch
by pascalxus 9y ago
The problem is choice, or lack thereof.
The root of the problem is we only have 2 choices: red vs blue. 2 choices is only slightly better than no choice (1 choice). With just 2 choices, almost no one gets what they want. And every 4 years, one party just undoes what the last party did.
What we need is 50 different choices. Let each state do what it wants, give states most of the power. States should get most of the taxes, federal should get a small sliver. Federal government should be small, and only do things that can only be done at the federal level. States having all the power is how the US started out and that's how it was meant to be. We need to get back to that. The US is way too large for a 1 size fits all policy.
- lowbloodsugar 9y agoOh happy friend! There is only one choice. All our congresspersons represent the rich and Princeton University did the analysis to prove it: https://youtu.be/5tu32CCA_Ig https://youtu.be/5tu32CCA_Ig
- John_Cena 9y agoSo any polling method besides first past the post? Sign me up
- twobyfour 9y agoThere's that and the fact that our federal representation being so heavily based on the arbitrary geographic divisions that are states is in practice a giant gerrymander in favor of rural voters. Some rural citizens of low population states (say, in Wyoming) have Senate votes that carry 100 times the weight of the Senate vote of a citizen of a large state like New York, California, or Texas. Their Congressional vote may have nearly triple the weight of that of a city dweller simply because of minimum district sizes in states with more than one district, and their Presidential vote 8x because the 2 extra electoral votes corresponding to the senate seats are diluted among fewer congressional districts. As long as we have this system, our democracy and the ideal of "one person, one vote" is a joke.