5 ms·
On the other hand, it effectively makes the voices of each and every citizen of the USA not equals among themselves.
by Juliate 6y ago
On the other hand, it effectively makes the voices of each and every citizen of the USA not equals among themselves.
- TheAdamAndChe 6y agoThat's the point. Otherwise highly populous states would steamroll smaller states, causing tremendous political tension and long-term could trigger a war.
- dundarious 6y agoThe President can do far more than veto Goliath from steamrolling David. Flipping an unfair power balance, is still an unfair power balance.
- TheAdamAndChe 6y agoWhen considering political systems, fairness doesn't matter if it causes an unstable system. Think of it kind of like an organism. Only those that can survive can evolve and pass on their genes. That isn't to say that fairness is a bad goal, because it's a good goal. But the system needs to remain stable.
- dundarious 6y agoReplace “fair” with whatever word you would use to describe your steamrolling example, then.
- linkdd 6y agoIt is a different kind of equality.
- rglullis 6y agoThe voices of the citizens are represented by Congress and Senate.
- Juliate 6y agoWhich means that some representatives, elected by fewer people, hold as much power (1 voice) as others (elected by more people). Which means their own voices are effectively not equals. If you're fine with it, fine for you.
- rglullis 6y agoYes, not only I am fine with it, I am trying really hard to find a place where the amount of votes linearly translates to the amount of power a representative has. Every parliamentary system with barrier clauses are out. Every district-based election is out, etc, etc. Swiss' cantons, maybe?
- Juliate 6y agoIt may also translate into: representatives grouping into parties. Which parties get the more votes globally, get to have proportionally as many seats, which they distribute to the elected members of the group.
- rglullis 6y agoI am failing to understand the point you are trying to make. You just described most parliamentary systems. There is still one PM that concentrates the executive power. Also, most parliamentary elections (that I know of) have some form of barrier clause. This is explicitly done to avoid pulverization of power. In Germany, your vote needs to be along with a minimum of 5% of the population to actually count. There is no "one vote, one share of power" as well. So what gives? You asked me if I was "fine with it". I am saying that I am fine with it because I don't know of any alternative that has implemented anything better. If you know of any place with a functional government, as big as the USA and with a "one vote, one share of power", by all means do share.
- Juliate 6y agoIn a democracy, rules to elect an executive power (where you need one decisive direction within a framework) are obviously not the same as those to elect the controlling powers of this executive power -- among which parliaments, where you need a fair representation of all the citizens. That is ok. I'm fine with a low barrier clause for keeping unorganized/low stakes ones out; that does not prevent proportionality in the final representation distribution though. My point is that a system where a representative college does not reflect the full vote across the country has a deep design issue. See an earlier comment from someone: "it's a different kind of equality".