6 ms·
I'm glad this is finally being discussed cogently. For the longest time one would be painted as un-patriotic or some other slur-of-the-moment for even suggesti
by existencebox 8y ago
I'm glad this is finally being discussed cogently. For the longest time one would be painted as un-patriotic or some other slur-of-the-moment for even suggesting there were vicious-cycles of pathologies in the current incarnation of this system. (And in how human psychology/game theory plays into it) But as you summarized, all incentives are aligned to maintain the status quo. How do we break out of this? Expansion of executive/corporate/partisan power is _nothing new_ in American history, and the trends and outcomes are very clear cut. (I do not know the answer, I've been contemplating this nonstop for the last decade at least, and the best answer I have is trying to engage more people to think about it)
What's remarkable to me is that very few people are even aware of the sheer mathematical/structural issues at hand: e.g. that we've expanded congressional representation from 1:(max)30000 citizens at the start, to 1:747184 as of 2017. We're engineers. We should understand scalability, and that _alone_ should be a giant red flag regarding its implications.
- mythrwy 8y agoCongress has a heck of time getting anything done right now. I can't imagine what would happen if it were comprised of 20 times the members with all kinds of minor political parties each with their own narrow agendas. Personally I'm hoping at some point evidence based governance takes over. Which might mean it's not people doing it.
- sjg007 8y agoI think it could work. You would get alignment of subgroups and better representation. If say Berkeley wants to be a green party they would be. So the averaging out would take place in Congress vs at the ballot box. This would get more ideas into Congress and blur party lines.