4 ms·

The point isn't that corruption goes away when power is given to the states, the point is that the state is easier to protest than the federal government. I can

by dgzl 7y ago

The point isn't that corruption goes away when power is given to the states, the point is that the state is easier to protest than the federal government. I can get to my state capital in ~4 hours of driving, but it would take me >40 hours to get to DC. The electoral college is better than straight democracy.

fzeroracer 7y ago
It should be obvious by now that if that were the case, scenarios like what happened in Flint, Michigan should've ended with Rick Snyder in jail and more action taken. And in cases like these, the federal government is needed in order to apply some culpability to times when the local government behaves negligently. Not to mention this only really works if the state government actually cares about local issues, otherwise you end up with cases such as states vying to ban gay marriage because there's a tyranny of the majority at the local state level and a tyranny of the minority at the federal level. It's a lose-lose situation because then the rural votes dictate not only the things within their state but the things that are completely outside of their purview.
- malandrew 7y ago
  > the federal government is needed in order to apply some culpability to times when the local government behaves negligently. And who will apply culpability when the federal government behaves negligently? Creating a higher institution to address the issue just shifts the problem of apply culpability to an institution that you have even less chance of influencing.
  - fzeroracer 7y ago
    The answer is that we have a system of checks and balances in the federal government which are meant to ensure that one branch doesn't overshadow another. The states and the electoral college were supposed to add another layer of said balance, but what they've done is shifted power further towards the federal government advancing rural interests. Many of those rural areas could not survive without the federal government's aid because they already suffer from dwindling infrastructure and population. Now if you want to break apart the federal government entirely from the equation, then you would also have to agree to let those rural areas die out instead of being propped up through subsidy and taxes from the urban taxpayer's pocket. Otherwise you would be arguing that not only do the rural states get to dictate policy, but they also get to benefit from the GDP generated by the urban states. Why is it fair then, for the federal government to give preferential treatment?
    - IG_Semmelweiss 7y ago
      You just made his point. The balance of power is working precisely because the legislative is very much majority rule. As such, if the executive did away without the electoral college, it would also overrepresent populous, majority populations. By doing away with the electoral college , you literally destroy whatever is left of the Republic

by dgzl 7y ago

fzeroracer 7y ago

It should be obvious by now that if that were the case, scenarios like what happened in Flint, Michigan should've ended with Rick Snyder in jail and more action taken. And in cases like these, the federal government is needed in order to apply some culpability to times when the local government behaves negligently. Not to mention this only really works if the state government actually cares about local issues, otherwise you end up with cases such as states vying to ban gay marriage because there's a tyranny of the majority at the local state level and a tyranny of the minority at the federal level. It's a lose-lose situation because then the rural votes dictate not only the things within their state but the things that are completely outside of their purview.

malandrew 7y ago
> the federal government is needed in order to apply some culpability to times when the local government behaves negligently. And who will apply culpability when the federal government behaves negligently? Creating a higher institution to address the issue just shifts the problem of apply culpability to an institution that you have even less chance of influencing.
- fzeroracer 7y ago
  The answer is that we have a system of checks and balances in the federal government which are meant to ensure that one branch doesn't overshadow another. The states and the electoral college were supposed to add another layer of said balance, but what they've done is shifted power further towards the federal government advancing rural interests. Many of those rural areas could not survive without the federal government's aid because they already suffer from dwindling infrastructure and population. Now if you want to break apart the federal government entirely from the equation, then you would also have to agree to let those rural areas die out instead of being propped up through subsidy and taxes from the urban taxpayer's pocket. Otherwise you would be arguing that not only do the rural states get to dictate policy, but they also get to benefit from the GDP generated by the urban states. Why is it fair then, for the federal government to give preferential treatment?
  - IG_Semmelweiss 7y ago
    You just made his point. The balance of power is working precisely because the legislative is very much majority rule. As such, if the executive did away without the electoral college, it would also overrepresent populous, majority populations. By doing away with the electoral college , you literally destroy whatever is left of the Republic