5 ms·

I stopped paying any attention to politics years ago and I'm a person who coordinated and planned 2 campaigns in my local state. It saddens me that a large amo

I stopped paying any attention to politics years ago and I'm a person who coordinated and planned 2 campaigns in my local state. It saddens me that a large amount of people are stressed and consumed by a process that they have very very little impact on. Unless you live in a select few states, your state probably gets 2 electoral votes for your senators and a few more based on your district size. If you live in Montana, Alaska, North or South Dakota then you're getting the minimum of 3 electoral votes. It's really more about outrage culture at this point I think. I actually wonder how much harm is done by the election process in how it makes people think problems are being debated or solved when no legitimate debate is taking place and no real solutions are being implemented. Also, it doesn't matter which political party you are on. If you're a "left" leaning person who wants socialized healthcare, we never really got that. We got something that had some of the same words and ideas, but in the end nobody could actually go to a doctor without wealth being a large factor. If you're a "right" leaning person you probably want a smaller government that spends less and we never get that. For every reduction in law hundreds are added. One step forward, 99 steps backwards.

jrumbut 7y ago
It's actually the people in the small states whose votes are disproportionally powerful, since Wyoming voters elect the same number of senators as California voters and everyone's house district is within an order of magnitude size wise. New Hampshire gets ridiculously outsized attention in election years, as a small state, early primary state, and a swing state. Truly the trifecta and probably the state where an individual's vote matters the most. As for the last couple paragraphs, as someone who possesses an ideology I am disappointed I don't always get my way, and live in my utopia. But as someone who is aware others possess contrasting ideologies, I am glad I don't live in their dystopias. We have a system that encourages compromises, including very ugly and unjust compromises, as a way to avoid one side winning entirely and establishing a totalitarian (or anarchist) state. People seem to appreciate this less than they once did, but haven't done anything really to change it yet.
- jrs235 7y ago
  People forget the U.S is a democratic constitutional republic. The federal government is not the humans government. It's the governing body for the States. Hence the reason for the electoral college and the way States are represented. Each state [government] has an equal voice in the Senate (and were represented by the Senators prior to the 17th Amendment). The house had a proportionate representation because it is ultimately the humans who have to pay for the running of the federal government. The president it the head of the day to day operations of the government. They are supposed to faithfully see that the laws passed by Congress are executed properly.
  - eaandkw 7y ago
    And of course you would get down voted.
  - tathougies 7y ago
    And this is why most policy should be relegated to the states. But try making that argument and you'll be branded a nutty conservative. But really, the states have always had the authority to do what people nowadays want the feds to do. Universal healthcare? The states are allowed to provide that. universal basic income? The states can do that too. Lower the drinking age? Yup, states can do that. No one needs to wait for the federal government to 'approve' or 'allow' your state to do something. The states have ultimate, pretty much absolute authority.
    - smcg 7y ago
      Just because they technically "can" doesn't mean they actually can. Universal healthcare requires high buy-in and very different systems from what we have now. Drinking age is tied to necessary federal highway funding, so states aren't going to lower the age.
      - tathougies 7y ago
        > Universal healthcare requires high buy-in and very different systems from what we have now. States can regulate all of them. They are under no requirement to follow federal policy. In fact, they can even erect pretty substantial border controls (like California does) and send armies to protect their borders, if they really want to (yes this has actually been done outside the civil war). For example, California recently 'threatened' to start universal health care. I'm unsure why the news framed it this way given that it has always been california's right to provide free health care to its citizens, and no one can really legally stop it. Perhaps California cannot raise enough money to do so, but that is an issue of feasibility, not legality. It's not like the feds would magically be able to raise money that California couldn't. > Drinking age is tied to necessary federal highway funding, so states aren't going to lower the age. Um sure, but states are not required to take federal funding for highways. That's like saying 'Aunt Irma requires me to send her a Thank You note whenever I ask for her knit sweaters', while neglecting to mention that you actually do want the knit sweaters because they keep you warm and cozy.
glenra 7y ago
> If you're a "right" leaning person you probably want a smaller government that spends less and we never get that. For every reduction in law hundreds are added. Actually, under Trump government finally did get smaller. Maybe not cheaper just yet but we absolutely DO have fewer laws today - a LOT fewer. Trump promised to repeal two laws for every new one and he basically did do that. One way to measure the amount of regulation is by counting the number of pages in the Federal Register. In 2016 that metric hit an all-time high of over 95,000. Under Trump, it dropped to and has remained below 70,000. https://cei.org/blog/trump-regulations-federal-register-page-count-lowest-quarter-century https://cei.org/blog/trump-regulations-federal-register-page... https://cei.org/blog/trumps-2018-deregulatory-effort-3367-rules-68082-pages https://cei.org/blog/trumps-2018-deregulatory-effort-3367-ru... Quote: "Under Trump, there has also been a substantial reduction in the number of rules and regulations published within all those Federal Register pages. The Federal Register closed out 2018 with 3,367 final rules in all. The only lower count was 3,281 under Trump a year ago, which was the lowest count since records began being kept in the mid-1970s."

jrumbut 7y ago

It's actually the people in the small states whose votes are disproportionally powerful, since Wyoming voters elect the same number of senators as California voters and everyone's house district is within an order of magnitude size wise. New Hampshire gets ridiculously outsized attention in election years, as a small state, early primary state, and a swing state. Truly the trifecta and probably the state where an individual's vote matters the most. As for the last couple paragraphs, as someone who possesses an ideology I am disappointed I don't always get my way, and live in my utopia. But as someone who is aware others possess contrasting ideologies, I am glad I don't live in their dystopias. We have a system that encourages compromises, including very ugly and unjust compromises, as a way to avoid one side winning entirely and establishing a totalitarian (or anarchist) state. People seem to appreciate this less than they once did, but haven't done anything really to change it yet.

jrs235 7y ago
People forget the U.S is a democratic constitutional republic. The federal government is not the humans government. It's the governing body for the States. Hence the reason for the electoral college and the way States are represented. Each state [government] has an equal voice in the Senate (and were represented by the Senators prior to the 17th Amendment). The house had a proportionate representation because it is ultimately the humans who have to pay for the running of the federal government. The president it the head of the day to day operations of the government. They are supposed to faithfully see that the laws passed by Congress are executed properly.
- eaandkw 7y ago
  And of course you would get down voted.
- tathougies 7y ago
  And this is why most policy should be relegated to the states. But try making that argument and you'll be branded a nutty conservative. But really, the states have always had the authority to do what people nowadays want the feds to do. Universal healthcare? The states are allowed to provide that. universal basic income? The states can do that too. Lower the drinking age? Yup, states can do that. No one needs to wait for the federal government to 'approve' or 'allow' your state to do something. The states have ultimate, pretty much absolute authority.
  - smcg 7y ago
    Just because they technically "can" doesn't mean they actually can. Universal healthcare requires high buy-in and very different systems from what we have now. Drinking age is tied to necessary federal highway funding, so states aren't going to lower the age.
    - tathougies 7y ago
      > Universal healthcare requires high buy-in and very different systems from what we have now. States can regulate all of them. They are under no requirement to follow federal policy. In fact, they can even erect pretty substantial border controls (like California does) and send armies to protect their borders, if they really want to (yes this has actually been done outside the civil war). For example, California recently 'threatened' to start universal health care. I'm unsure why the news framed it this way given that it has always been california's right to provide free health care to its citizens, and no one can really legally stop it. Perhaps California cannot raise enough money to do so, but that is an issue of feasibility, not legality. It's not like the feds would magically be able to raise money that California couldn't. > Drinking age is tied to necessary federal highway funding, so states aren't going to lower the age. Um sure, but states are not required to take federal funding for highways. That's like saying 'Aunt Irma requires me to send her a Thank You note whenever I ask for her knit sweaters', while neglecting to mention that you actually do want the knit sweaters because they keep you warm and cozy.

glenra 7y ago

> If you're a "right" leaning person you probably want a smaller government that spends less and we never get that. For every reduction in law hundreds are added. Actually, under Trump government finally did get smaller. Maybe not cheaper just yet but we absolutely DO have fewer laws today - a LOT fewer. Trump promised to repeal two laws for every new one and he basically did do that. One way to measure the amount of regulation is by counting the number of pages in the Federal Register. In 2016 that metric hit an all-time high of over 95,000. Under Trump, it dropped to and has remained below 70,000. https://cei.org/blog/trump-regulations-federal-register-page-count-lowest-quarter-century https://cei.org/blog/trump-regulations-federal-register-page... https://cei.org/blog/trumps-2018-deregulatory-effort-3367-rules-68082-pages https://cei.org/blog/trumps-2018-deregulatory-effort-3367-ru... Quote: "Under Trump, there has also been a substantial reduction in the number of rules and regulations published within all those Federal Register pages. The Federal Register closed out 2018 with 3,367 final rules in all. The only lower count was 3,281 under Trump a year ago, which was the lowest count since records began being kept in the mid-1970s."