4 ms·

In 18th century theory. In 21st century practice it's incredibly influential. Do we tax more for social security or cut benefits, do we extend medicare to 55

In 18th century theory. In 21st century practice it's incredibly influential. Do we tax more for social security or cut benefits, do we extend medicare to 55 year olds or delay it until 70, can my daca friends get a job, can Icontinue to operate a company(Obamacare), not to mention war. It's far more influential than my city( or state government.(I live in Houston, this would probably be less true in states like New York or California which has have a larger government) Another proxy for influence is money, and I contribute far more to the federal government than I pay in state and local taxes, which reflects the very large impact it has on our lives.

rayiner 6y ago
It’s not an 18th century versus 21st century thing. Switzerland manages to be a 21sr century country without equal representation at the federal level.
- JamesBarney 6y ago
  My point was just that you're right, in the 18th century when the founding fathers designed this system the federal government was weak and federal law had very little influence. But in the 21st century the u.s. federal government has a much larger influence on people's lives. When a government is closer to a defense pact like Nato it makes sense to have voting apportioned by regional power. But as that government starts to have a larger impact on your day to day life than it makes less sense. If we started sending nato several trillion dollars a year it makes less sense for Bulgaria to have the same say in how that money is spent as we do. And there isn't really any political appetite to roll back the federal government to a size where that type of representation made sense. Moving social security and Medicare from the federal to the state or city level would be a political non starter.
- vinay427 6y ago
  I live in Switzerland. There are a few key differences. 1. The scale of population difference between the most and least populous full cantons (that have equal representation in the Ständerat) is somewhat lower than CA versus WY, and they're geographically much (!) closer which I suspect at least allows for a bit more "intercantonal" exposure. 2. Even more importantly, in my opinion: the two houses in the bicameral system have essentially identical powers. There isn't a system of important executive or judicial appointments requiring only a Senate appointment (although the analogs here are blurry), so a majority of the national population's representatives must also sign off as well as a majority of cantons. Providing the Senate unique powers protect the tyranny of less-populous states without limiting the dependence on the federal government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assembly_(Switzerland) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assembly_(Switzerland)

rayiner 6y ago

It’s not an 18th century versus 21st century thing. Switzerland manages to be a 21sr century country without equal representation at the federal level.

JamesBarney 6y ago
My point was just that you're right, in the 18th century when the founding fathers designed this system the federal government was weak and federal law had very little influence. But in the 21st century the u.s. federal government has a much larger influence on people's lives. When a government is closer to a defense pact like Nato it makes sense to have voting apportioned by regional power. But as that government starts to have a larger impact on your day to day life than it makes less sense. If we started sending nato several trillion dollars a year it makes less sense for Bulgaria to have the same say in how that money is spent as we do. And there isn't really any political appetite to roll back the federal government to a size where that type of representation made sense. Moving social security and Medicare from the federal to the state or city level would be a political non starter.
vinay427 6y ago
I live in Switzerland. There are a few key differences. 1. The scale of population difference between the most and least populous full cantons (that have equal representation in the Ständerat) is somewhat lower than CA versus WY, and they're geographically much (!) closer which I suspect at least allows for a bit more "intercantonal" exposure. 2. Even more importantly, in my opinion: the two houses in the bicameral system have essentially identical powers. There isn't a system of important executive or judicial appointments requiring only a Senate appointment (although the analogs here are blurry), so a majority of the national population's representatives must also sign off as well as a majority of cantons. Providing the Senate unique powers protect the tyranny of less-populous states without limiting the dependence on the federal government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assembly_(Switzerland) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assembly_(Switzerland)