3 ms·

>"You don't need a civil war when you can vote for a different government." This is one of those things that works perfectly in principle but does not seem to

>"You don't need a civil war when you can vote for a different government." This is one of those things that works perfectly in principle but does not seem to work in practice. I've lived in solidly red or blue districts all my life and in only one election did the party representation switch to a different team. That was only because blue team had two top-tier names splitting the vote which allowed a red team representative to win the special election. They were defeated in the next general election by a landslide. Furthermore, I also see Congress as having a single digit to low teen approval rating as evidence that being unhappy with one's government does not correlate with actually getting "a different government". Without getting into a long drawn out discussion of why this is the case, I nevertheless think that voting is not the solution it is touted to be. Edit: I still vote regularly and I encourage others to do so as well. It's not a totally hopeless situation but people should have realistic expectations and expect to be disappointed.

matthewdgreen 4y ago
The US has a lot of problems. For one thing, we have a Presidential system in which control of Congress can be held by a different party than the Presidency, which leads to a situation where there are two "plausibly legitimate" elected governments that are in conflict. In many other countries this has resulted in coups and instability (usually in favor of unilateral executive power.) The US is unique in that we're basically the only country that has thrived under this system. For what it's worth, the alternative is a Parliamentary system where the legislature elects the executive. The US also has a lot of gerrymandering of Congressional districts, and far too few of them (don't get me started on the ridiculous Senate.) Plus it has lots of minority veto points like the filibuster requiring 60 votes, the electoral college, and the Supreme Court. Some of these exist "by design" and can be beneficial, but they also present the possibility of legitimacy concerns.
- germinalphrase 4y ago
  Gerrymandering will never stop grinding on me. Districts should be drawn to make races artificially competitive so leaders need to be responsive to their constituents, not the opposite.

matthewdgreen 4y ago

The US has a lot of problems. For one thing, we have a Presidential system in which control of Congress can be held by a different party than the Presidency, which leads to a situation where there are two "plausibly legitimate" elected governments that are in conflict. In many other countries this has resulted in coups and instability (usually in favor of unilateral executive power.) The US is unique in that we're basically the only country that has thrived under this system. For what it's worth, the alternative is a Parliamentary system where the legislature elects the executive. The US also has a lot of gerrymandering of Congressional districts, and far too few of them (don't get me started on the ridiculous Senate.) Plus it has lots of minority veto points like the filibuster requiring 60 votes, the electoral college, and the Supreme Court. Some of these exist "by design" and can be beneficial, but they also present the possibility of legitimacy concerns.

germinalphrase 4y ago
Gerrymandering will never stop grinding on me. Districts should be drawn to make races artificially competitive so leaders need to be responsive to their constituents, not the opposite.