7 ms·

Rendering the federal government impotent by ensuring that 10% of rurals owned it but 90% of populous states were subject to it wouldn't discourage people from

Rendering the federal government impotent by ensuring that 10% of rurals owned it but 90% of populous states were subject to it wouldn't discourage people from getting their policy goals done at the federal level it would insure that there wouldn't BE a federal level in 10 years.

rayiner 6y ago
Which would be great.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
kls 6y ago
I think the point being made is the federal government was originally given a very limited charter, over time that charter has expanded to the point where factions are battling for control of it, because it is now the seat of power. When the republic, as it was designed, was intended to deal with things at the state level. The foundational republic looked more like 13 small countries that bound together by a federated agreement on defense, taxes, liberties, citizenship. This was the idea, that the states could look very different from one another on the way they governed. The problem was while this was great for the individual to find a representative government, it creates a horrible business climate for those so inclined. So gradually business money wanted to move more of their regulation to the federal level and avoid state regulation as they had to comply with each state to conduct business. It started with banking, then the railroad barons, then electric companies and other public works, then moved on the the military industrial complex and now we have the tech companies getting in on the actions. So in today's context, due to distortion towards business interests, it is very disjointed and does not make sense, but under the limited federalist contract of the founding republic it made sense that each state had equal representation at the table that bound them together. Now we have gotten to the point where we are pushing social issues to the federal level and it is not going to end well. That being said, the remedy is not just go to a popular vote, a popular vote is just mob rule by the majority. The republic was designed to co-exist with people that don't agree on everything, federalization forces them to agree, and the popular vote, just silences the minorities voice and will eventually lead to their rights being revoked, which is not a formula for success.
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  The solution to "mob rule" isn't less democracy traditionally it to provide rights that require more than a simple majority to abrogate. This also means that if you believe that the document requires amendments to better protect rights NOW that also means that you will require overwhelming support for that as well. The interesting thing is what DOES not take 2/3 is a compact by an increasing number of states to give their votes to whom ever wins the popular vote if enough states to equal 270 votes enact it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta... States worth 196 states have enacted it and states worth 60 are pending. If we push hard we can have this in the next 10 years whether people like you disagree or not.
throwaway0a5e 6y ago
"Rendering the federal government impotent" is a good thing in the eyes of the ~50% of the US that lives outside your filter bubble. Having a strong federal government is not the settled matter you seem to imply it is.
- amanaplanacanal 6y ago
  Depends what you mean by settled matter. In discussion, I'm sure you can find a lot of people that think it's a bad idea, and I'm ambivalent myself. But as a matter of reality a strong federal government is what we now have. I think the federal government and the executive in particular is much stronger than the founders thought it would ever be.
  - rayiner 6y ago
    But it doesn’t have to be that way. Other countries have maintained a robust federalism. (Canada has 80% of total spending at the provincial level, versus our 50%.) Some countries like Sweden which are unitary reformed to push more decisions and spending down to the provincial level. Some unitary countries like Spain are exploring it: https://www.internationalaffairs.org.au/resource/federalism-may-save-spain-from-itself/ https://www.internationalaffairs.org.au/resource/federalism-...
  - tastyfreeze 6y ago
    The federal government absolutely has more power than was intended. The constitution only allows the federal government to do very specific things. This includes the power to coin money, to regulate commerce, to declare war, to raise and maintain armed forces, and to establish a Post Office. Everything else is left to the states. How many powers does the federal government have that are above those enumerated powers? The government we have is not what the constitution defines. It is what the constitution was designed to prevent. But, we have slowly marched towards a central government that the founders feared and warned needed to be protected against. A central government has a much higher risk of tyrannical control.
    - 6y ago

rayiner 6y ago

Which would be great.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

kls 6y ago

I think the point being made is the federal government was originally given a very limited charter, over time that charter has expanded to the point where factions are battling for control of it, because it is now the seat of power. When the republic, as it was designed, was intended to deal with things at the state level. The foundational republic looked more like 13 small countries that bound together by a federated agreement on defense, taxes, liberties, citizenship. This was the idea, that the states could look very different from one another on the way they governed. The problem was while this was great for the individual to find a representative government, it creates a horrible business climate for those so inclined. So gradually business money wanted to move more of their regulation to the federal level and avoid state regulation as they had to comply with each state to conduct business. It started with banking, then the railroad barons, then electric companies and other public works, then moved on the the military industrial complex and now we have the tech companies getting in on the actions. So in today's context, due to distortion towards business interests, it is very disjointed and does not make sense, but under the limited federalist contract of the founding republic it made sense that each state had equal representation at the table that bound them together. Now we have gotten to the point where we are pushing social issues to the federal level and it is not going to end well. That being said, the remedy is not just go to a popular vote, a popular vote is just mob rule by the majority. The republic was designed to co-exist with people that don't agree on everything, federalization forces them to agree, and the popular vote, just silences the minorities voice and will eventually lead to their rights being revoked, which is not a formula for success.

michaelmrose 6y ago
The solution to "mob rule" isn't less democracy traditionally it to provide rights that require more than a simple majority to abrogate. This also means that if you believe that the document requires amendments to better protect rights NOW that also means that you will require overwhelming support for that as well. The interesting thing is what DOES not take 2/3 is a compact by an increasing number of states to give their votes to whom ever wins the popular vote if enough states to equal 270 votes enact it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta... States worth 196 states have enacted it and states worth 60 are pending. If we push hard we can have this in the next 10 years whether people like you disagree or not.

throwaway0a5e 6y ago

"Rendering the federal government impotent" is a good thing in the eyes of the ~50% of the US that lives outside your filter bubble. Having a strong federal government is not the settled matter you seem to imply it is.

amanaplanacanal 6y ago
Depends what you mean by settled matter. In discussion, I'm sure you can find a lot of people that think it's a bad idea, and I'm ambivalent myself. But as a matter of reality a strong federal government is what we now have. I think the federal government and the executive in particular is much stronger than the founders thought it would ever be.
- rayiner 6y ago
  But it doesn’t have to be that way. Other countries have maintained a robust federalism. (Canada has 80% of total spending at the provincial level, versus our 50%.) Some countries like Sweden which are unitary reformed to push more decisions and spending down to the provincial level. Some unitary countries like Spain are exploring it: https://www.internationalaffairs.org.au/resource/federalism-may-save-spain-from-itself/ https://www.internationalaffairs.org.au/resource/federalism-...
- tastyfreeze 6y ago
  The federal government absolutely has more power than was intended. The constitution only allows the federal government to do very specific things. This includes the power to coin money, to regulate commerce, to declare war, to raise and maintain armed forces, and to establish a Post Office. Everything else is left to the states. How many powers does the federal government have that are above those enumerated powers? The government we have is not what the constitution defines. It is what the constitution was designed to prevent. But, we have slowly marched towards a central government that the founders feared and warned needed to be protected against. A central government has a much higher risk of tyrannical control.
  - 6y ago