6 ms·

Unbelievable how Americans can be so brainwashed about their country's status in the world yet believe that they're completely "free"

by typon 7y ago

bluejekyll 7y ago
America did not elect this administration by a majority of the popular vote. The electoral college did. It’s an artifact of the original founding of the country where there were checks and balances put in place to deny direct democratic rule. It’s been slowly rolled back over many years, but until we get rid of the electoral college, it always has the possibility of ignoring the will of the people.
- BigChiefSmokem 7y ago
  Theres a good reason why we shouldn’t use direct democracy and the Founders where very clear about that.
  - spease 7y ago
    You mean the concern that the people might elect a demagogue...?
    - Fjolsvith 7y ago
      After the next 6 years of "America being greater", I am sure that your concern will definitely be a sticking point to returning to a majority rule election system.
    - aey 7y ago
      Yes, the concern is that in a direct democracy demagogues will be elected far more often and with far more extreme views. Bicameral parliamentary systems are even less prone to this since the prime minister is elected by the ruling coalition. But they have other problems.
  - onemoresoop 7y ago
    All these tools from the founding fathers were abused and misused.
    - a3n 7y ago
      1. All systems can be gamed. 2. All systems will be gamed. 3. The people are not the players, they are the chips.
- andrewla 7y ago
  > America did not elect this administration by a majority of the popular vote. This is technically correct. Less accurate, but implied, is that a majority of voters wanted a different president. That may be the case, but the evidence is not sufficient to confirm or reject it. First off is that turnout is very low relative to the number of eligible voters. Secondly is that the electoral college and states' decision to only do "all-or-nothing" apportionment means that it's a totally rational decision to stay home if your state is not close, since your vote has no chance of affecting the election besides the value of signalling that opposition to the consensus exists. If Lessig's scheme [1] works out to break the winner-take-all apportionment, we could at least start to see some meaningful turnouts because the battle for a single electoral vote can be a close contest. More likely to succeed by less interesting (because your vote does not contribute to a single outcome but just to the collective) we have the interstate compact [2], which this year has made good progress towards achieving a majority. [1] https://equalvotes.us https://equalvotes.us [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta...
- sigzero 7y ago
  Getting rid of the Electoral College would destroy America. You would basically have two large areas control the whole process. Nope, no thank you. The only reason it failed last time is Hillary failed to understand it.
  - zanny 7y ago
    Mind blowing that a majority of the people might win a democratic election. Its all hyperbole overshadowing the root problem - first past the post non-proportional elections are hugely undemocratic. You need proportional legislatures where you have both multiple winners per race for better proportional distribution and alternate votes to first past the post regardless of what they are - STV, ranked choice, IRV, etc. Anything is better than what we have now.
    - warmwaffles 7y ago
      > Mind blowing that a majority of the people might win a democratic election. People in dense urban areas should not have a dictatorial say in what those who live in rural areas do.
      - josephdviviano 7y ago
        Yes but also, people in rural areas should not have a dictatorial say in what those who live in urban areas do. If democracies like the USA (Canada has a similar problem) simply counted the votes, the majority of the country would be happier with the outcome. From a pragmatic standpoint, this is a good thing. "U.S. Cities are Home to 62.7 Percent of the U.S. Population, but Comprise Just 3.5 Percent of Land Area" https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-33.html https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-33....
        AnimalMuppet 7y ago
        You might have a system where neither side can force anything down the other side's throat. To do that, you might need something like one legislature where the cities predominate, and another where the rural has more sway. You might call it a "bicameral legislature" or something.
- jki275 7y ago
  This country was not founded as a direct democracy, was not intended to be a direct democracy, and absent a Constitutional amendment cannot be made a direct democracy. States are supposed to have a voice -- going to a direct democracy completely removes almost all of the states in favor of a few small high-population states, which leaves all the rest of the states unrepresented in the Presidential election. It's the same reason we have a Senate -- to represent the states in government, and a house -- to represent the people in government.
- zanny 7y ago
  The electoral college is the tip of the iceberg. It is fundamentally undemocratic to have a winner take all first past the post race for head of state no matter what middlemen you put between the ballot and the winner. I'm a firm believer US ballots are way too broad and have people direct electing (almost always first past the post) way too many positions, especially esoteric and irreverent ones like justices, sheriffs, school boards, etc. For representative democracy to legitimately work we need people electing representatives to appoint and delegate the responsibilities of government on their behalf, because of those that actually do vote (only about 60% of voting age peoples do) 99% don't actually vet individual candidates for every one of the 12+ direct elections they are participating in on the ballot every year. Even when I try to do that, information on these esoteric position candidates is so sparse and I'm so hugely unqualified to judge what makes a good district magistrate or police chief its mostly a waste of time - I end up going off very limited information on anyone running, often people running without opponents, for positions whose function I cannot fully understand because specialization for my locality on whatever they do isn't readily available. That is a fully intentional design, though. Both parties have it in their self interest to bloat the ballot with tons of esoteric positions so voters feel choice paralysis and fatigue and just start voting party line en masse without actually auditing the people they are actually electing. Its a mockery of democracy and republicanism, though. I should be voting for a professional representative to make these decisions on my behalf in forum, and if I did only have a, preferably, singular elected role I vote for with multiple winners where I just need to judge all the candidates for that one function whom I could then rank at the ballot people would be much less privy to falling under the total influence of party lines when voting. Which, being against the interest of the ruling duopoly, would never practically happen anywhere except where the demographics are so skewed in favor of one or the other they are nigh guaranteed to win anyway.
- cmurf 7y ago
  Federalist 68 applies to any conversation on the original intent of how the Electoral College was supposed to work. Unfortunately, state legislatures long ago perverted this system by making the worst possible people in America the Electors, by law: party loyalists. By definition a party loyalist is not a deliberative person, as described in Federalist 68. And further, party loyalists are the people most centrally located in bitter partisanship, the very thing that lends itself to "cabal, intrigue, and corruption" referred to as things most to be avoided, in Federalist 68. We have all permitted this perversion of something that, despite its also racist past, could actually be useful but is instead detrimental. The Electoral College could play a role if we were serious, but Americans right now take their TV shows more seriously.
roenxi 7y ago
It is easy to complain generally, but is is better to be specific about what ways you think America is not free. Americans still enjoy great freedom of speech and association, for example. No Lèse-majesté in the land of the free. There is a lot of propaganda but that isn't necessarily inconsistent with freedom. The real issue is there is a risk that economically speaking America is less free than China. For all that what China does with intellectual property is illegal under American law, it is very free. The US would for sure like them to be a little less free with IP. America's policies over interest rates also look decidedly like the sort of thing that a centrally planned economy would try and execute; it handicaps building savings which might give China an advantage if they are more middle-class-savings-tolerant. That is balanced by the strictly superior American rule of law, for all its warts. But America has given themselves some interesting competitive handicaps. POSTSCRIPT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_to_GDP_ratio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_reven... For reference, China has a ratio of 4:1 private to public income vs America with a 2.6:1 ratio. Technically, China might be running a smaller government. Or lying, it is hard to know. POSTPOSTSCRIPT Hong Kong and Taiwan are nearly 9:1. Capitalist paradise is in Asia. Nothing lower down the list looks appealing to me.
- olefoo 7y ago
  > That is balanced by the strictly superior American rule of law The rule of law is looking pretty tattered and worn in the US of A right now. What with the President committing obstruction of justice in plain view and his AG declaring that a sitting President may not be indicted for any crime. Not to mention the grotesque violations of human rights that are happening at the network of concentration camps the current administration has repurposed.
  - adventured 7y ago
    The US is not running a network of concentration camps. A hundred thousand illegal immigrants per month are being caught crossing into the US through the southern border. No other liberal democracy - from Canada to Finland to Japan to Australia - would tolerate such a flood of illegal immigration. Not even remotely close. Canada freaks out when a couple thousand illegal immigrants cross into its territory from the US in a given month. Holding illegal immigrants in detention facilities, because there is nowhere else to put them until they can be processed, is not the same thing as a concentration camp. Claiming that they're the same thing is a gross abuse of the term and its history.
dang 7y ago
Please do not post unsubstantive comments and especially not flamebait to HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Unbelievable how Americans can be so brainwashed about their country's status in the world yet believe that they're completely "free"

by typon 7y ago

Unbelievable how Americans can be so brainwashed about their country's status in the world yet believe that they're completely "free"

bluejekyll 7y ago

America did not elect this administration by a majority of the popular vote. The electoral college did. It’s an artifact of the original founding of the country where there were checks and balances put in place to deny direct democratic rule. It’s been slowly rolled back over many years, but until we get rid of the electoral college, it always has the possibility of ignoring the will of the people.

BigChiefSmokem 7y ago
Theres a good reason why we shouldn’t use direct democracy and the Founders where very clear about that.
- spease 7y ago
  You mean the concern that the people might elect a demagogue...?
  - Fjolsvith 7y ago
    After the next 6 years of "America being greater", I am sure that your concern will definitely be a sticking point to returning to a majority rule election system.
  - aey 7y ago
    Yes, the concern is that in a direct democracy demagogues will be elected far more often and with far more extreme views. Bicameral parliamentary systems are even less prone to this since the prime minister is elected by the ruling coalition. But they have other problems.
- onemoresoop 7y ago
  All these tools from the founding fathers were abused and misused.
  - a3n 7y ago
    1. All systems can be gamed. 2. All systems will be gamed. 3. The people are not the players, they are the chips.
andrewla 7y ago
> America did not elect this administration by a majority of the popular vote. This is technically correct. Less accurate, but implied, is that a majority of voters wanted a different president. That may be the case, but the evidence is not sufficient to confirm or reject it. First off is that turnout is very low relative to the number of eligible voters. Secondly is that the electoral college and states' decision to only do "all-or-nothing" apportionment means that it's a totally rational decision to stay home if your state is not close, since your vote has no chance of affecting the election besides the value of signalling that opposition to the consensus exists. If Lessig's scheme [1] works out to break the winner-take-all apportionment, we could at least start to see some meaningful turnouts because the battle for a single electoral vote can be a close contest. More likely to succeed by less interesting (because your vote does not contribute to a single outcome but just to the collective) we have the interstate compact [2], which this year has made good progress towards achieving a majority. [1] https://equalvotes.us https://equalvotes.us [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta...
sigzero 7y ago
Getting rid of the Electoral College would destroy America. You would basically have two large areas control the whole process. Nope, no thank you. The only reason it failed last time is Hillary failed to understand it.
- zanny 7y ago
  Mind blowing that a majority of the people might win a democratic election. Its all hyperbole overshadowing the root problem - first past the post non-proportional elections are hugely undemocratic. You need proportional legislatures where you have both multiple winners per race for better proportional distribution and alternate votes to first past the post regardless of what they are - STV, ranked choice, IRV, etc. Anything is better than what we have now.
  - warmwaffles 7y ago
    > Mind blowing that a majority of the people might win a democratic election. People in dense urban areas should not have a dictatorial say in what those who live in rural areas do.
    - josephdviviano 7y ago
      Yes but also, people in rural areas should not have a dictatorial say in what those who live in urban areas do. If democracies like the USA (Canada has a similar problem) simply counted the votes, the majority of the country would be happier with the outcome. From a pragmatic standpoint, this is a good thing. "U.S. Cities are Home to 62.7 Percent of the U.S. Population, but Comprise Just 3.5 Percent of Land Area" https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-33.html https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-33....
      - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
        You might have a system where neither side can force anything down the other side's throat. To do that, you might need something like one legislature where the cities predominate, and another where the rural has more sway. You might call it a "bicameral legislature" or something.
jki275 7y ago
This country was not founded as a direct democracy, was not intended to be a direct democracy, and absent a Constitutional amendment cannot be made a direct democracy. States are supposed to have a voice -- going to a direct democracy completely removes almost all of the states in favor of a few small high-population states, which leaves all the rest of the states unrepresented in the Presidential election. It's the same reason we have a Senate -- to represent the states in government, and a house -- to represent the people in government.
zanny 7y ago
The electoral college is the tip of the iceberg. It is fundamentally undemocratic to have a winner take all first past the post race for head of state no matter what middlemen you put between the ballot and the winner. I'm a firm believer US ballots are way too broad and have people direct electing (almost always first past the post) way too many positions, especially esoteric and irreverent ones like justices, sheriffs, school boards, etc. For representative democracy to legitimately work we need people electing representatives to appoint and delegate the responsibilities of government on their behalf, because of those that actually do vote (only about 60% of voting age peoples do) 99% don't actually vet individual candidates for every one of the 12+ direct elections they are participating in on the ballot every year. Even when I try to do that, information on these esoteric position candidates is so sparse and I'm so hugely unqualified to judge what makes a good district magistrate or police chief its mostly a waste of time - I end up going off very limited information on anyone running, often people running without opponents, for positions whose function I cannot fully understand because specialization for my locality on whatever they do isn't readily available. That is a fully intentional design, though. Both parties have it in their self interest to bloat the ballot with tons of esoteric positions so voters feel choice paralysis and fatigue and just start voting party line en masse without actually auditing the people they are actually electing. Its a mockery of democracy and republicanism, though. I should be voting for a professional representative to make these decisions on my behalf in forum, and if I did only have a, preferably, singular elected role I vote for with multiple winners where I just need to judge all the candidates for that one function whom I could then rank at the ballot people would be much less privy to falling under the total influence of party lines when voting. Which, being against the interest of the ruling duopoly, would never practically happen anywhere except where the demographics are so skewed in favor of one or the other they are nigh guaranteed to win anyway.
cmurf 7y ago
Federalist 68 applies to any conversation on the original intent of how the Electoral College was supposed to work. Unfortunately, state legislatures long ago perverted this system by making the worst possible people in America the Electors, by law: party loyalists. By definition a party loyalist is not a deliberative person, as described in Federalist 68. And further, party loyalists are the people most centrally located in bitter partisanship, the very thing that lends itself to "cabal, intrigue, and corruption" referred to as things most to be avoided, in Federalist 68. We have all permitted this perversion of something that, despite its also racist past, could actually be useful but is instead detrimental. The Electoral College could play a role if we were serious, but Americans right now take their TV shows more seriously.

roenxi 7y ago

It is easy to complain generally, but is is better to be specific about what ways you think America is not free. Americans still enjoy great freedom of speech and association, for example. No Lèse-majesté in the land of the free. There is a lot of propaganda but that isn't necessarily inconsistent with freedom. The real issue is there is a risk that economically speaking America is less free than China. For all that what China does with intellectual property is illegal under American law, it is very free. The US would for sure like them to be a little less free with IP. America's policies over interest rates also look decidedly like the sort of thing that a centrally planned economy would try and execute; it handicaps building savings which might give China an advantage if they are more middle-class-savings-tolerant. That is balanced by the strictly superior American rule of law, for all its warts. But America has given themselves some interesting competitive handicaps. POSTSCRIPT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_to_GDP_ratio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_reven... For reference, China has a ratio of 4:1 private to public income vs America with a 2.6:1 ratio. Technically, China might be running a smaller government. Or lying, it is hard to know. POSTPOSTSCRIPT Hong Kong and Taiwan are nearly 9:1. Capitalist paradise is in Asia. Nothing lower down the list looks appealing to me.

olefoo 7y ago
> That is balanced by the strictly superior American rule of law The rule of law is looking pretty tattered and worn in the US of A right now. What with the President committing obstruction of justice in plain view and his AG declaring that a sitting President may not be indicted for any crime. Not to mention the grotesque violations of human rights that are happening at the network of concentration camps the current administration has repurposed.
- adventured 7y ago
  The US is not running a network of concentration camps. A hundred thousand illegal immigrants per month are being caught crossing into the US through the southern border. No other liberal democracy - from Canada to Finland to Japan to Australia - would tolerate such a flood of illegal immigration. Not even remotely close. Canada freaks out when a couple thousand illegal immigrants cross into its territory from the US in a given month. Holding illegal immigrants in detention facilities, because there is nowhere else to put them until they can be processed, is not the same thing as a concentration camp. Claiming that they're the same thing is a gross abuse of the term and its history.

dang 7y ago

Please do not post unsubstantive comments and especially not flamebait to HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html