3 ms·

It seems like a good design to me. We don't want a congress that always votes along party lines, and if there is not a strong consensus, then keeping the statu

It seems like a good design to me. We don't want a congress that always votes along party lines, and if there is not a strong consensus, then keeping the status-quo is often not the worst thing. Especially since law-makers have a strong incentive to further their own careers by introducing changes. This system forces law-makers to work harder to get change passed, it often must be a change that benefits more than just a simple majority.

jfengel 6y ago
"Keeping the status quo" sometimes is the worst thing, because it leads to tyranny of the majority. The majority has configured the laws to its benefit, and as the margin of its majority reduces, fights harder and harder to prevent minorities from seeking justice through the legislature. It doesn't even require a majority: we've so predisposed the system to inaction that a small number of people can block it. To pass legislation you need the consent of the House and the President and a supermajority of the Senate. Any of those can stop a law in its tracks. It's easy to say that we should favor not changing things, and there are definitely ways that we should force people to seek consensus. But when the current setup works against you, you can suffer for decades without getting relief, and it's not a good look to just shrug our shoulders and say, "Well, it's working for me".
- Supermancho 6y ago
  > it leads to tyranny of the majority This is the overall design.
  - joquarky 6y ago
    Wouldn't that just be direct democracy with extra steps?
  - jfengel 6y ago
    The design incorporates the idea that we're going to behave with some sense of compassion and justice. There are, famously, four boxes of liberty[1], and if the majority uses the first three to the detriment of the minority, we'll find ourselves the target of the fourth. So out of simple self interest it behooves us not to just say "the status quo should be hard to change". When we see an injustice, we should fight to change it, even when it's not to our own immediate advantage. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_boxes_of_liberty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_boxes_of_liberty
  - brobdingnagians 6y ago
    The Federalist Papers #10 [1] deals with this. The original design was made very different and was intended to blunt the force of tyranny by majority by splitting power centers. One major issue is that over the centuries, the system was changed to be like what Fed #10 warned about. It is an amazing read, but the things that stand out to me are these. 1. Have diffuse/decentralized power centers to make it harder for special interest groups to gain power and control things. The last two centuries have had a tendency to move power from states to federal government; and from Congress to the President. So the balance of power has centralized. 2. Avoid a direct democracy because they tend to get subjected to demagogues. The direct election of senators was a major turning point in helping centralize power; since states became more and more irrelevant. I am always impressed by how much Madison understood the nuances of political power and tyranny. [1] https://billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/primary-source-documents/the-federalist-papers/federalist-papers-no-10/ https://billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/primary...
- aeternum 6y ago
  The only thing worse than the tyranny of the majority is the tyranny of a minority (oligarchy). Generally though, I agree with you that we should all strive to vote for the greater good. We should fight against injustices even if they do not directly affect us. I think that many of the issues come down to differing views of what more just: IE employment opportunities for a citizen vs. an immigrant, rights of a criminal vs. a victim, autonomy over one's body vs. a potential life. Those don't have easy answers.

jfengel 6y ago

"Keeping the status quo" sometimes is the worst thing, because it leads to tyranny of the majority. The majority has configured the laws to its benefit, and as the margin of its majority reduces, fights harder and harder to prevent minorities from seeking justice through the legislature. It doesn't even require a majority: we've so predisposed the system to inaction that a small number of people can block it. To pass legislation you need the consent of the House and the President and a supermajority of the Senate. Any of those can stop a law in its tracks. It's easy to say that we should favor not changing things, and there are definitely ways that we should force people to seek consensus. But when the current setup works against you, you can suffer for decades without getting relief, and it's not a good look to just shrug our shoulders and say, "Well, it's working for me".

Supermancho 6y ago
> it leads to tyranny of the majority This is the overall design.
- joquarky 6y ago
  Wouldn't that just be direct democracy with extra steps?
- jfengel 6y ago
  The design incorporates the idea that we're going to behave with some sense of compassion and justice. There are, famously, four boxes of liberty[1], and if the majority uses the first three to the detriment of the minority, we'll find ourselves the target of the fourth. So out of simple self interest it behooves us not to just say "the status quo should be hard to change". When we see an injustice, we should fight to change it, even when it's not to our own immediate advantage. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_boxes_of_liberty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_boxes_of_liberty
- brobdingnagians 6y ago
  The Federalist Papers #10 [1] deals with this. The original design was made very different and was intended to blunt the force of tyranny by majority by splitting power centers. One major issue is that over the centuries, the system was changed to be like what Fed #10 warned about. It is an amazing read, but the things that stand out to me are these. 1. Have diffuse/decentralized power centers to make it harder for special interest groups to gain power and control things. The last two centuries have had a tendency to move power from states to federal government; and from Congress to the President. So the balance of power has centralized. 2. Avoid a direct democracy because they tend to get subjected to demagogues. The direct election of senators was a major turning point in helping centralize power; since states became more and more irrelevant. I am always impressed by how much Madison understood the nuances of political power and tyranny. [1] https://billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/primary-source-documents/the-federalist-papers/federalist-papers-no-10/ https://billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/primary...
aeternum 6y ago
The only thing worse than the tyranny of the majority is the tyranny of a minority (oligarchy). Generally though, I agree with you that we should all strive to vote for the greater good. We should fight against injustices even if they do not directly affect us. I think that many of the issues come down to differing views of what more just: IE employment opportunities for a citizen vs. an immigrant, rights of a criminal vs. a victim, autonomy over one's body vs. a potential life. Those don't have easy answers.