7 ms·

Historically, what are actual pragmatic ways to bring lawmakers to justice when those lawmakers themselves have made it impossible to improve things by voting?

rjtavares 5y ago
I highly recommend Mike Duncan's "Revolutions" podcast, starting with season 3 (the French Revolution). It is really interesting to see how sometimes the even the threat of revolution brings change.
- jdikatz 5y ago
  Agreed. Currently devouring the Russian revolution series: concrete decisions on reforms are made based on elite opinion of conditions on the ground, and arguments to sway those opinions can turn on seemingly minor events / personalities
baybal2 5y ago
> when those lawmakers themselves have made it impossible to improve things by voting? If things can get to this point despite full availability of functioning voting booths, you need to seek the problem with voters themselves. 2020 elections in US were historic because they set a record for the most voted candidate, and the second most voted one at the same time. You know all well who that second most popular candidate was, who didn't make it past the finish line by a shoestring.
- tolbish 5y ago
  That implies that voting is a fair system and corruption like gerrymandering has no effect.
  - tedunangst 5y ago
    Correct, gerrymandering has no effect on senate races.
    - tolbish 5y ago
      That's not true at all. A lot of Americans vote based on former politicians' recommendations (e.g. endorsements from the president, respresentatives, or other elected officials), or they just vote straight down the party line. In addition to elections themselves, gerrymandering effects the demographic makeup of your region.
      - tedunangst 5y ago
        So how should we redraw state lines so that presidential endorsements don't affect gerrymandered senate races?
        tolbish 5y ago
        State lines? No. But there are many ongoing efforts to fight gerrymandering if you are interested. However, that is one piece. I'm not sure how effective that would be in the short/medium term.
        jrockway 5y ago
        Redrawing state lines to affect the makeup of the Senate is definitely something that's been considered. DC statehood is an example, so is the proposal to split California into two states. (Then there are less serious proposals, like New York City seceding from New York State.) Trust me, if there's a plan to make "your guy" win, someone has seriously considered it. It is also worth noting that redrawing lines like this do have some real benefits beyond just making a certain party have more representation. A lot of people live in DC, and it's pretty unfair that they don't have voting power in the federal government. The only reason they don't get representation is that 50% of people don't agree with the way they vote, and you need more than 50% to admit a state. It is very awkward.
        jkhdigital 5y ago
        There’s actually an incredibly simple solution: allow DC residents to vote as part of Virginia or Maryland, for the purposes of congressional races. There, problem solved.
  - ta988 5y ago
    Which is also why parties are fighting to make sure some people can't vote by making it much more complex for them.
    - stevenicr 5y ago
      Assuming you mean some repub states making so you have to show an ID, signatures need to be verified for mail ins.. limiting early votes from months to weeks or days.. Not sure what is 'more complex'? Consider the opposite... everyone in State G gets sent a check for 2,000 - you could not require ID or signature to cash it.. that might not affect people at all - but it might get some to try to take and cash other folks check. Sometimes it helps me to consider reverse things to see if they still make sense. Admittedly I have not read every line of every bill to know if there are more complexity add-in issues being passed.. but I've tried to hear and consider the talking points from several different news portals.. some types of portals get very specific about things and compare them - other party's news portals just talk very broadly about how things are so much harder. let's throw a wrench in both party's plans - if you don't want to show an ID when you vote, or have your signature verified - then you don't have to if you did not cash your payoff check.
      - toast0 5y ago
        Have you considered the difficulty of obtaining an ID if you don't have one? That is very complex, and out of reach for some.
        hokumguru 5y ago
        Fun fact that somewhat swayed my opinion recently, we are essentially the only first world country that doesn’t require ID of some kind to vote.
        morsch 5y ago
        In Germany, you're required to submit your address of residence to a municipal office. When there's an election, you'll get a notification sent to this address. At your assigned polling station (which, at least for city dwellers, is usually within walking distance), you can just show the notification, no ID required. Or, if you forgot the notification card, you can show your ID, that works, too.
  - jkhdigital 5y ago
    Gerrymandering isn’t corruption. You should probably read up on this subject; I assumed gerrymandering was inherently bad until I actually heard an intelligent discussion of it.
dahfizz 5y ago
Tarring and feathering used to serve us pretty well.
craftinator 5y ago
The French peasantry came up with a method that was effective.
- tclancy 5y ago
  No one ever credits the Irishman behind it all. Gil O’Tyne.
  - detritus 5y ago
    I actually copied 'Gil O’Tyne' to Google it, then as soon as I pasted it in the search box, realised what a fool I'd been. . And yes, I appreciate that I could have just right-clicked the selection to Google it direct, but my brain doesn't work that way. - ed And I'd write it "Gil O'Teen' which whilst a bit more obvious, is a bit more Irish-looking, rather than the confusing ScotsIrish-Northumbrian name you came up with! :) </reddit>
creato 5y ago
Insider trading was already made illegal once: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act We could just vote for politicians like those that passed that law the first time around. Defeatism in politics is really annoying. The last several (and ongoing) serious attempts at extra-political change in this country are likely the polar opposite of what you want. Be careful what you wish for.
- tolbish 5y ago
  That's a bit of a nonsensical argument. You fear extra-political change because you assume the worst. And whatever it is you're afraid of, there is more alternatives than that to make change. Aside from that, you suggested voting...which is exactly what was attempted to make insider trading illegal in the first place.
  - creato 5y ago
    > Aside from that, you suggested voting...which is exactly what was attempted to make insider trading illegal in the first place. ... And succeeded. That was the whole point.
adolph 5y ago
The better route would be to eliminate the methods that allow injustice. For example, instead of delegating decision authority to a politician retain all decisions as a popular vote in a basket of decisions put to voters at a certain tempo, say weekly. Voting for a politician has too high latency between voter decision and effective decision.

rjtavares 5y ago

I highly recommend Mike Duncan's "Revolutions" podcast, starting with season 3 (the French Revolution). It is really interesting to see how sometimes the even the threat of revolution brings change.

jdikatz 5y ago
Agreed. Currently devouring the Russian revolution series: concrete decisions on reforms are made based on elite opinion of conditions on the ground, and arguments to sway those opinions can turn on seemingly minor events / personalities

baybal2 5y ago

> when those lawmakers themselves have made it impossible to improve things by voting? If things can get to this point despite full availability of functioning voting booths, you need to seek the problem with voters themselves. 2020 elections in US were historic because they set a record for the most voted candidate, and the second most voted one at the same time. You know all well who that second most popular candidate was, who didn't make it past the finish line by a shoestring.

tolbish 5y ago
That implies that voting is a fair system and corruption like gerrymandering has no effect.
- tedunangst 5y ago
  Correct, gerrymandering has no effect on senate races.
  - tolbish 5y ago
    That's not true at all. A lot of Americans vote based on former politicians' recommendations (e.g. endorsements from the president, respresentatives, or other elected officials), or they just vote straight down the party line. In addition to elections themselves, gerrymandering effects the demographic makeup of your region.
    - tedunangst 5y ago
      So how should we redraw state lines so that presidential endorsements don't affect gerrymandered senate races?
      - tolbish 5y ago
        State lines? No. But there are many ongoing efforts to fight gerrymandering if you are interested. However, that is one piece. I'm not sure how effective that would be in the short/medium term.
      - jrockway 5y ago
        Redrawing state lines to affect the makeup of the Senate is definitely something that's been considered. DC statehood is an example, so is the proposal to split California into two states. (Then there are less serious proposals, like New York City seceding from New York State.) Trust me, if there's a plan to make "your guy" win, someone has seriously considered it. It is also worth noting that redrawing lines like this do have some real benefits beyond just making a certain party have more representation. A lot of people live in DC, and it's pretty unfair that they don't have voting power in the federal government. The only reason they don't get representation is that 50% of people don't agree with the way they vote, and you need more than 50% to admit a state. It is very awkward.
        jkhdigital 5y ago
        There’s actually an incredibly simple solution: allow DC residents to vote as part of Virginia or Maryland, for the purposes of congressional races. There, problem solved.
- ta988 5y ago
  Which is also why parties are fighting to make sure some people can't vote by making it much more complex for them.
  - stevenicr 5y ago
    Assuming you mean some repub states making so you have to show an ID, signatures need to be verified for mail ins.. limiting early votes from months to weeks or days.. Not sure what is 'more complex'? Consider the opposite... everyone in State G gets sent a check for 2,000 - you could not require ID or signature to cash it.. that might not affect people at all - but it might get some to try to take and cash other folks check. Sometimes it helps me to consider reverse things to see if they still make sense. Admittedly I have not read every line of every bill to know if there are more complexity add-in issues being passed.. but I've tried to hear and consider the talking points from several different news portals.. some types of portals get very specific about things and compare them - other party's news portals just talk very broadly about how things are so much harder. let's throw a wrench in both party's plans - if you don't want to show an ID when you vote, or have your signature verified - then you don't have to if you did not cash your payoff check.
    - toast0 5y ago
      Have you considered the difficulty of obtaining an ID if you don't have one? That is very complex, and out of reach for some.
      - hokumguru 5y ago
        Fun fact that somewhat swayed my opinion recently, we are essentially the only first world country that doesn’t require ID of some kind to vote.
        morsch 5y ago
        In Germany, you're required to submit your address of residence to a municipal office. When there's an election, you'll get a notification sent to this address. At your assigned polling station (which, at least for city dwellers, is usually within walking distance), you can just show the notification, no ID required. Or, if you forgot the notification card, you can show your ID, that works, too.
- jkhdigital 5y ago
  Gerrymandering isn’t corruption. You should probably read up on this subject; I assumed gerrymandering was inherently bad until I actually heard an intelligent discussion of it.

dahfizz 5y ago

Tarring and feathering used to serve us pretty well.

craftinator 5y ago

The French peasantry came up with a method that was effective.

tclancy 5y ago
No one ever credits the Irishman behind it all. Gil O’Tyne.
- detritus 5y ago
  I actually copied 'Gil O’Tyne' to Google it, then as soon as I pasted it in the search box, realised what a fool I'd been. . And yes, I appreciate that I could have just right-clicked the selection to Google it direct, but my brain doesn't work that way. - ed And I'd write it "Gil O'Teen' which whilst a bit more obvious, is a bit more Irish-looking, rather than the confusing ScotsIrish-Northumbrian name you came up with! :) </reddit>

creato 5y ago

Insider trading was already made illegal once: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act We could just vote for politicians like those that passed that law the first time around. Defeatism in politics is really annoying. The last several (and ongoing) serious attempts at extra-political change in this country are likely the polar opposite of what you want. Be careful what you wish for.

tolbish 5y ago
That's a bit of a nonsensical argument. You fear extra-political change because you assume the worst. And whatever it is you're afraid of, there is more alternatives than that to make change. Aside from that, you suggested voting...which is exactly what was attempted to make insider trading illegal in the first place.
- creato 5y ago
  > Aside from that, you suggested voting...which is exactly what was attempted to make insider trading illegal in the first place. ... And succeeded. That was the whole point.

adolph 5y ago

The better route would be to eliminate the methods that allow injustice. For example, instead of delegating decision authority to a politician retain all decisions as a popular vote in a basket of decisions put to voters at a certain tempo, say weekly. Voting for a politician has too high latency between voter decision and effective decision.