4 ms·

does the establishment of washington dc as an unrepresented area make sense today in 2022? it has over 700,000 residents and its own school system… since its in

does the establishment of washington dc as an unrepresented area make sense today in 2022? it has over 700,000 residents and its own school system… since its inception it has struggled time and time again due to its awkward status… the people living there want it overwhelmingly!

mschuster91 5y ago
> does the establishment of washington dc as an unrepresented area make sense today in 2022? Many things in the US political system don't make sense in 2022, especially from an European point of view - mining and water rights, inequality of rural and urban votes because of unproportional representation in the Senate, Presidential votes in "stronghold" states being effectively wasted thanks to the Electoral College, the effective two-party system caused by the effects of FPTP, the fact that the US votes on Tuesday because of farmers going to church on Sunday in Ye Olde Days, the entire gun rights complex (it was reasonable and made sense back in Ye Olde Days that everyone could own a handgun and a hunting rifle, it was not anticipated that civilians would be able to own weapons of war), the fact that "gerrymandering" is not only a thing but actively and maliciously used, the general lack of federal protections for voters, that "union busting" is legal, the weirdness that is how DC and the US Territories are set up... the list is endless, that's just what came up in my mind in five minutes. The problem is, the US and the UK are the only geopolitically relevant (sorry, Australia and Canada) countries in the Western sphere that haven't had a revolution and/or WW1/2 in the last century to re-set and modernize their constitution, power balance and judicial precedence - and that lack is really, really showing. It's no coincidence that the US and the UK are the Western countries hit the hardest by the rise of populist demagogues.
- PickledHotdog 5y ago
  Don't forget little old Australia
- pseudo0 5y ago
  > it was not anticipated that civilians would be able to own weapons of war) That was in fact the entire point (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246). > (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. > The problem is, the US and the UK are the only countries in the Western sphere that haven't had a revolution and/or WW1/2 in the last century to re-set and modernize their constitution, power balance and judicial precedence - and that lack is really, really showing. It's no coincidence that the US and the UK are the Western countries hit the hardest by the rise of populist demagogues. Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Switzerland, Sweden, and likely a few others I'm forgetting all seem to be doing fine.
  - samplatt 5y ago
    Australia is definitely NOT doing fine; our populist demagogues have us by the balls possibly even more so than the US. Ours just make slightly less noise about it.
  - Mandatum 5y ago
    New Zealand is not doing fine. Populism has fucked over a generation, and the chickens have started coming home to roost.
    - pseudo0 5y ago
      Isn't Arden's government considered fairly neoliberal? Her and Trudeau are the two that seem to be most frequently praised in legacy media for winning reelection despite the recent surge in populism.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
  - mschuster91 5y ago
    > Switzerland, Sweden, and likely a few others I'm forgetting all seem to be doing fine. They are distinctly not. Switzerland has a massive problem with the right-wing populist SVP, they are slowly breaking apart from the EU [1] as a result of their specific brand of obstructionism involving the direct-democracy voting mechanism, and in Sweden the right-wing populist SD (which stands for Sweden Democrats, not Social Democrats) has been growing and growing, to a point the established parties are seriously considering cooperating with them [2]. As for Australia, NZ and Canada, there have been enough other replies in this thread. [1]: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-57251681 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-57251681 [2]: https://taz.de/Mitte-Rechts-Buendnis-in-Schweden/!5765511/ https://taz.de/Mitte-Rechts-Buendnis-in-Schweden/!5765511/
- nradov 5y ago
  Back when the Constitution was written there were private citizens who owned weapons of war. Specifically they owned large artillery pieces that were used both on land and on sailing vessels. The lack of a recent revolution in the US is a feature, not a bug. Our Constitution isn't perfect, but it can be amended and has been many times.
  - unethical_ban 5y ago
    The Senate is entirely vestigial and needs to be dissolved or other wise made to be proportional to population, if we are going to keep an upper house at all. The House needs to be rid of single member districts, ideally, and move to a multimember party system. Barring that, first-past-the-post should be completely replaced as a voting mechanism. The Supreme Court should be reformed with term limits of some kind, and/or have a second tier of justices which are appointed unanimously by the politically appointed justices. The Electoral College needs to be removed entirely, the President should be elected by the people directly. The method of voting should be mandated NOT to be first-past-the-post. In other words, our national government is fundamentally broken in its representation of the people of this country, and broken in how its members are chosen. At this point, we need a bit of a revolution, though the less blood the better.
    - josephcsible 5y ago
      The point of the Senate and Electoral College is that states are supposed to have quite a bit of sovereignty, and so more populous states shouldn't be able to run roughshod over less populous ones. Your suggestions completely miss that point.
      - metabagel 5y ago
        Everyone knows the reason for the system. There are 50 states now. Hard to form a coalition of states which will be able to run roughshod over other states, but what we do have is a very unfair system where a minority of the country can block the will of the majority.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  As an American I find it absolutely hilarious that you went off half cocked listing a bunch of issues that are of second and third rate importance to most Americans. Most Americans want the feds to make minor policy tweaks that will make their lives better, more healthcare, federally, minor financial tweaks, fund some things a little more, fund others a little less, minor procedural tweaks on certain government things.
  - mschuster91 5y ago
    The average American won't get any of the policy tweaks you mention without fixing the most glaring issues of my list since almost everything federal requires at least a full congressional majority. Reagan and Bush Sr. had none of eight / four years, Clinton two of eight years, Bush Jr. four of eight, Obama two of eight, Trump two of four and Biden at least two of four. And even when the respective Presidents had a majority in Congress, they would usually require not just ordinary majority but filibuster-proof majority in the Senate - and the last president to enjoy that one was Jimmy Carter in 1977-1979. Every Western country except the US and UK has a system in place that the leader of the government usually has the majority to pass laws in parliament, at least a budget law, without depending on the opposition - we do have some countries that love their minority governments, but even they manage to do just fine. Something like "government shutdowns" resulting out of the legislative chambers being unwilling to do their most basic job of ensuring the government is actually funded is completely unheard of here - and you Americans have had ten of these since 1980 that resulted in furloughs and eight more that did not [1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_funding_gaps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_...
    - pmyteh 5y ago
      The UK does in fact have such a system (unlike the US). We use first-past-the-post voting, like the US, but our Prime Minister is selected by the majority in Parliament (rather than directly). Consequently, we don't have 'cohabitation', where the PM and Parliament are of different parties (which can happen in France and other Presidential systems), and it's quite rare to have minority government, where the PM relies on the support of other parties to govern. Having said that, our system is like the US in that our parties are strictly oppositional and have no real history of collaboration. So when there is a 'hung parliament' with no majority (like in the run up to 1979, and during the second May administration from 2017-2019) then you tend to get a disintegrating administration rather than the kind of stable coalitions that are the norm in other European countries.
- flavius29663 5y ago
  As a European, we could have used a neutral zone like the Americans...rather than having the parliament move every week between Bruxelles and Strassbourg because France could not conceive not being the home of the EU capitol. Which one is more absurd? How would it sound if the US congress would move every week between Boston and Philadelphia?

mschuster91 5y ago

> does the establishment of washington dc as an unrepresented area make sense today in 2022? Many things in the US political system don't make sense in 2022, especially from an European point of view - mining and water rights, inequality of rural and urban votes because of unproportional representation in the Senate, Presidential votes in "stronghold" states being effectively wasted thanks to the Electoral College, the effective two-party system caused by the effects of FPTP, the fact that the US votes on Tuesday because of farmers going to church on Sunday in Ye Olde Days, the entire gun rights complex (it was reasonable and made sense back in Ye Olde Days that everyone could own a handgun and a hunting rifle, it was not anticipated that civilians would be able to own weapons of war), the fact that "gerrymandering" is not only a thing but actively and maliciously used, the general lack of federal protections for voters, that "union busting" is legal, the weirdness that is how DC and the US Territories are set up... the list is endless, that's just what came up in my mind in five minutes. The problem is, the US and the UK are the only geopolitically relevant (sorry, Australia and Canada) countries in the Western sphere that haven't had a revolution and/or WW1/2 in the last century to re-set and modernize their constitution, power balance and judicial precedence - and that lack is really, really showing. It's no coincidence that the US and the UK are the Western countries hit the hardest by the rise of populist demagogues.

PickledHotdog 5y ago
Don't forget little old Australia
pseudo0 5y ago
> it was not anticipated that civilians would be able to own weapons of war) That was in fact the entire point (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246). > (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. > The problem is, the US and the UK are the only countries in the Western sphere that haven't had a revolution and/or WW1/2 in the last century to re-set and modernize their constitution, power balance and judicial precedence - and that lack is really, really showing. It's no coincidence that the US and the UK are the Western countries hit the hardest by the rise of populist demagogues. Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Switzerland, Sweden, and likely a few others I'm forgetting all seem to be doing fine.
- samplatt 5y ago
  Australia is definitely NOT doing fine; our populist demagogues have us by the balls possibly even more so than the US. Ours just make slightly less noise about it.
- Mandatum 5y ago
  New Zealand is not doing fine. Populism has fucked over a generation, and the chickens have started coming home to roost.
  - pseudo0 5y ago
    Isn't Arden's government considered fairly neoliberal? Her and Trudeau are the two that seem to be most frequently praised in legacy media for winning reelection despite the recent surge in populism.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- mschuster91 5y ago
  > Switzerland, Sweden, and likely a few others I'm forgetting all seem to be doing fine. They are distinctly not. Switzerland has a massive problem with the right-wing populist SVP, they are slowly breaking apart from the EU [1] as a result of their specific brand of obstructionism involving the direct-democracy voting mechanism, and in Sweden the right-wing populist SD (which stands for Sweden Democrats, not Social Democrats) has been growing and growing, to a point the established parties are seriously considering cooperating with them [2]. As for Australia, NZ and Canada, there have been enough other replies in this thread. [1]: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-57251681 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-57251681 [2]: https://taz.de/Mitte-Rechts-Buendnis-in-Schweden/!5765511/ https://taz.de/Mitte-Rechts-Buendnis-in-Schweden/!5765511/
nradov 5y ago
Back when the Constitution was written there were private citizens who owned weapons of war. Specifically they owned large artillery pieces that were used both on land and on sailing vessels. The lack of a recent revolution in the US is a feature, not a bug. Our Constitution isn't perfect, but it can be amended and has been many times.
- unethical_ban 5y ago
  The Senate is entirely vestigial and needs to be dissolved or other wise made to be proportional to population, if we are going to keep an upper house at all. The House needs to be rid of single member districts, ideally, and move to a multimember party system. Barring that, first-past-the-post should be completely replaced as a voting mechanism. The Supreme Court should be reformed with term limits of some kind, and/or have a second tier of justices which are appointed unanimously by the politically appointed justices. The Electoral College needs to be removed entirely, the President should be elected by the people directly. The method of voting should be mandated NOT to be first-past-the-post. In other words, our national government is fundamentally broken in its representation of the people of this country, and broken in how its members are chosen. At this point, we need a bit of a revolution, though the less blood the better.
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    The point of the Senate and Electoral College is that states are supposed to have quite a bit of sovereignty, and so more populous states shouldn't be able to run roughshod over less populous ones. Your suggestions completely miss that point.
    - metabagel 5y ago
      Everyone knows the reason for the system. There are 50 states now. Hard to form a coalition of states which will be able to run roughshod over other states, but what we do have is a very unfair system where a minority of the country can block the will of the majority.
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
As an American I find it absolutely hilarious that you went off half cocked listing a bunch of issues that are of second and third rate importance to most Americans. Most Americans want the feds to make minor policy tweaks that will make their lives better, more healthcare, federally, minor financial tweaks, fund some things a little more, fund others a little less, minor procedural tweaks on certain government things.
- mschuster91 5y ago
  The average American won't get any of the policy tweaks you mention without fixing the most glaring issues of my list since almost everything federal requires at least a full congressional majority. Reagan and Bush Sr. had none of eight / four years, Clinton two of eight years, Bush Jr. four of eight, Obama two of eight, Trump two of four and Biden at least two of four. And even when the respective Presidents had a majority in Congress, they would usually require not just ordinary majority but filibuster-proof majority in the Senate - and the last president to enjoy that one was Jimmy Carter in 1977-1979. Every Western country except the US and UK has a system in place that the leader of the government usually has the majority to pass laws in parliament, at least a budget law, without depending on the opposition - we do have some countries that love their minority governments, but even they manage to do just fine. Something like "government shutdowns" resulting out of the legislative chambers being unwilling to do their most basic job of ensuring the government is actually funded is completely unheard of here - and you Americans have had ten of these since 1980 that resulted in furloughs and eight more that did not [1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_funding_gaps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_...
  - pmyteh 5y ago
    The UK does in fact have such a system (unlike the US). We use first-past-the-post voting, like the US, but our Prime Minister is selected by the majority in Parliament (rather than directly). Consequently, we don't have 'cohabitation', where the PM and Parliament are of different parties (which can happen in France and other Presidential systems), and it's quite rare to have minority government, where the PM relies on the support of other parties to govern. Having said that, our system is like the US in that our parties are strictly oppositional and have no real history of collaboration. So when there is a 'hung parliament' with no majority (like in the run up to 1979, and during the second May administration from 2017-2019) then you tend to get a disintegrating administration rather than the kind of stable coalitions that are the norm in other European countries.
flavius29663 5y ago
As a European, we could have used a neutral zone like the Americans...rather than having the parliament move every week between Bruxelles and Strassbourg because France could not conceive not being the home of the EU capitol. Which one is more absurd? How would it sound if the US congress would move every week between Boston and Philadelphia?