4 ms·

I don't understand how "the leader of all progressive countries" could fall back into the dark ages by taking away rights that make sense. A country where consu

I don't understand how "the leader of all progressive countries" could fall back into the dark ages by taking away rights that make sense. A country where consuming cannabis is not outlawed but abortion is. What is wrong and how can that country be put back on track?

titzer 4y ago
End minority rule. Abolish the Senate and the Electoral College.
- flenserboy 4y ago
  Why do you think mob rule is better?
  - MereInterest 4y ago
    Abolishing minority rule does not mean establishing mob rule. It means re-establishing equal representation.
    - bequanna 4y ago
      The US government didn’t end up formed this way on accident. It is to avoid a “winner takes all” situation where 51% of the country dictates all laws, policy to the other 49%.
      - tunap 4y ago
        Tell that to Reddit. SMH
      - MereInterest 4y ago
        My understanding is that it was largely as a way to appease slave states and provide reassurance that there wouldn't be abolition at the federal level, not to provide an idealized balance between states. And even if it were for that purpose, having a "winner takes all" that requires 51% to achieve would still be better than the current system, which still allows for a winner-takes-all state but with much less than 51%. Checks and balances were designed under the assumption that the legislative, executive, and judicial branches would be balanced by a constant struggle against each other. They didn't account for political parties, which can result in multiple branches of government being controlled by an overarching party, effectively negating those balances.
    - dexterdog 4y ago
      More equal, maybe. Equal, certainly not. The power will just shift from the land-controlling rich to the city-controlling rich.
      - MereInterest 4y ago
        That would still be an improvement, as it would require getting the approval of the majority of voters, rather than a majority of land.
- MereInterest 4y ago
  And end gerrymandering at the state level. Picking Michigan as I'm familiar with it, there's a ridiculous bias in the state legislature toward Republicans. Comparing the 2006 and 2010 state senate races is probably the best comparison. In 2006, the popular vote was 55% R and 45% D, with the reverse in 2010. In 2006, a 10% lead toward Republicans gave Republicans a 26 to 12 majority in the state senate. In 2010, a 10% lead toward Democrats gave Republicans a 21 to 17 majority in the state senate. These maps were found by a federal court to be illegally gerrymandered in 2019, but unfortunately, was overruled following similar cases at the Supreme Court[2][3] that year. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Michigan_Senate_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Michigan_Senate_election [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Michigan_Senate_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Michigan_Senate_election [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benisek_v._Lamone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benisek_v._Lamone [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rucho_v._Common_Cause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rucho_v._Common_Cause
- trelane 4y ago
  Changing the EC would require a national constitutional amendment. If you're looking to make the presidential results look more like the national vote, there is an easier step that only requires changing your state. End winner-takes-all EC allocation in your state, and allocate proportionally. This would give red and blue minorities in a state a say (and even third parties!) and reduce the impact of a handful of votes in "swing states".
  - MereInterest 4y ago
    The problem with allocating the state's electoral college votes proportionally is that there's no advantage in doing so on a state-by-state level. For each individual state, the result is having a much smaller influence on the election overall. There's a first-mover problem, where it would result in a better end state, but any state that makes this allocation is shooting themselves in the foot. Instead, there's a better solution in the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact[0]. All states in the compact give the entirety of their votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote on the national level, but only once the NPVIC has sufficient electoral votes to be the deciding factor. This way, the electoral college still exists, doesn't require a constitutional amendment to change, but effectively becomes a rubber stamp. Because it only takes effect once the NPVIC controls the majority of electoral college votes, it avoids the first-mover effect. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta...
    - trelane 4y ago
      > For each individual state, the result is having a much smaller influence on the election overall So do it in small groups. You just have to convince a comparable set of red and blue states, and it'll be easier to convince them that you'll both win some and lose some than to convince the red states to make themselves irrelevant. Such is the nature of compromise--find common ground, both sides win and lose a little. Of course, if you solely care about the fact some votes count less than others--which was the underlying argument against the EC--then just having your state allocate proportionally improves the lives of your fellow citizens now, and it's for the greater good. > Instead, there's a better solution in the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact[0] This is just a constitutional amendment with less steps and slightly lower threshold. It's not coincidence that blue states are in it and not red. The red states will not sign on to this because it would make them irrelevant. A blue state would not allocate their EC votes proportional to their state results because it would reduce the blue party's influence, even though it would be fairer to their citizens.
- bequanna 4y ago
  “Abolish the senate” “Abolish the Supreme Court” …when my party isn’t in control of it.
  - titzer 4y ago
    sigh. The Supreme Court was never intended to be as polarized and partisan as it is today. The framer's thinking on lifetime judicial appointments was that it would give them independence from politics, never needing to be concerned about elections. If you look at the history of votes on Supreme Court nominees, the hyper-partisan divide, splitting along party lines, is an anomaly. We're in a new era. The last 4 nominees[1] just barely squeaked by, while historically, nominees usually got 60, 70, even 80+ votes in the Senate. What we are seeing now is very, very different. It used to actually be based on qualifications, and now it's 100% ideological and politics. A party "controlling" the Supreme court. What a crappy reality we are in now. edit: [1] I should say 5 nominees, because Garland didn't even get a vote for an entire year because the Senate majority quashed it in order for the next President to nominate someone else. Blatant theft of a constitutionally-enumerated power allotted to the President, if you ask me.
    - bequanna 4y ago
      > A party "controlling" the Supreme court. What a crappy reality we are in now. Absolutely. But the problem of partisan courts is endemic in the US Judicial system. Encountering Far-left or right judges at all levels is fairly common. It doesn't matter which side started packing the courts because now it is a race to see who can do it the fastest. By luck, planning or whatever the conservatives did it at the highest level. The liberals really shouldn't say anything because they are also doing the same thing at every level. In general, we need to get away from Courts, especially at the Federal level, writing laws. In fact, anyone who is not elected (including the bloated, highly partisan admin fed/state agencies) should not be writing law.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  Keep the Senate the way it is, but elect Senators through proportional representation: each voter votes for a party, and that party gets as many Senate seats as its percentage vote share. Parties can choose the Senators they seat by any method that they officially publish before the election. This could be, for example, by having an internal election/primary that results in an ordered list, or even something strange like a rotating lineup of Senators, or the weekly winner of a contest. People who cling to the Senate system because of the inordinate representation it gives to white, small states would happily give that up for the guarantee that they could get at least one neonazi Senator. We would have to deal with the fact that both Kim and Kanye would have a Senate seat, though.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
pennaMan 4y ago
Consuming cannabis IS outlawed. What are you talking about?
olalonde 4y ago
You got it reversed. AFAIK, there are no federal laws prohibiting abortion but there are federal laws prohibiting the use and sale of cannabis. Some states chose to criminalize abortion, but not all do. And many states chose to basically ignore the federal laws on cannabis (I'm not sure exactly how that one works, to be honest).
- yetanother4968 4y ago
  States aren’t required to enforce federal law, and the federal government can’t force states to help enforce federal law, as it’s unconstitutional.[1] If the feds want to enforce the marijuana ban and the state doesn’t volunteer to help, the feds would have to use e.g. the FBI or DEA to enforce the law. The feds don’t have the capacity to do that nationally, though, so it mostly goes unenforced, except maybe for large busts where it’s worth it for the feds to put the effort in. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commandeering#In_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commandeering#In_the_United_Sta...
  - tunap 4y ago
    >States aren’t required to enforce federal law But Federal funds can, and are, withheld if the States don't enforce Federal Laws. EG: Universal 55 MPH speed limits & 21 yo drinking age come to mind.
Schroedingersat 4y ago
The US has never been progressive. Chattel slavery was active until the 40s. Child marriage occurs frequently. Thousands of children of asylum seekers and immigrants have been separated from their parents and 'lost'. Politicians may only be christian, or in a very small minority muslim. There are small progressive pockets, but that is all.

titzer 4y ago

End minority rule. Abolish the Senate and the Electoral College.

flenserboy 4y ago
Why do you think mob rule is better?
- MereInterest 4y ago
  Abolishing minority rule does not mean establishing mob rule. It means re-establishing equal representation.
  - bequanna 4y ago
    The US government didn’t end up formed this way on accident. It is to avoid a “winner takes all” situation where 51% of the country dictates all laws, policy to the other 49%.
    - tunap 4y ago
      Tell that to Reddit. SMH
    - MereInterest 4y ago
      My understanding is that it was largely as a way to appease slave states and provide reassurance that there wouldn't be abolition at the federal level, not to provide an idealized balance between states. And even if it were for that purpose, having a "winner takes all" that requires 51% to achieve would still be better than the current system, which still allows for a winner-takes-all state but with much less than 51%. Checks and balances were designed under the assumption that the legislative, executive, and judicial branches would be balanced by a constant struggle against each other. They didn't account for political parties, which can result in multiple branches of government being controlled by an overarching party, effectively negating those balances.
  - dexterdog 4y ago
    More equal, maybe. Equal, certainly not. The power will just shift from the land-controlling rich to the city-controlling rich.
    - MereInterest 4y ago
      That would still be an improvement, as it would require getting the approval of the majority of voters, rather than a majority of land.
MereInterest 4y ago
And end gerrymandering at the state level. Picking Michigan as I'm familiar with it, there's a ridiculous bias in the state legislature toward Republicans. Comparing the 2006 and 2010 state senate races is probably the best comparison. In 2006, the popular vote was 55% R and 45% D, with the reverse in 2010. In 2006, a 10% lead toward Republicans gave Republicans a 26 to 12 majority in the state senate. In 2010, a 10% lead toward Democrats gave Republicans a 21 to 17 majority in the state senate. These maps were found by a federal court to be illegally gerrymandered in 2019, but unfortunately, was overruled following similar cases at the Supreme Court[2][3] that year. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Michigan_Senate_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Michigan_Senate_election [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Michigan_Senate_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Michigan_Senate_election [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benisek_v._Lamone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benisek_v._Lamone [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rucho_v._Common_Cause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rucho_v._Common_Cause
trelane 4y ago
Changing the EC would require a national constitutional amendment. If you're looking to make the presidential results look more like the national vote, there is an easier step that only requires changing your state. End winner-takes-all EC allocation in your state, and allocate proportionally. This would give red and blue minorities in a state a say (and even third parties!) and reduce the impact of a handful of votes in "swing states".
- MereInterest 4y ago
  The problem with allocating the state's electoral college votes proportionally is that there's no advantage in doing so on a state-by-state level. For each individual state, the result is having a much smaller influence on the election overall. There's a first-mover problem, where it would result in a better end state, but any state that makes this allocation is shooting themselves in the foot. Instead, there's a better solution in the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact[0]. All states in the compact give the entirety of their votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote on the national level, but only once the NPVIC has sufficient electoral votes to be the deciding factor. This way, the electoral college still exists, doesn't require a constitutional amendment to change, but effectively becomes a rubber stamp. Because it only takes effect once the NPVIC controls the majority of electoral college votes, it avoids the first-mover effect. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta...
  - trelane 4y ago
    > For each individual state, the result is having a much smaller influence on the election overall So do it in small groups. You just have to convince a comparable set of red and blue states, and it'll be easier to convince them that you'll both win some and lose some than to convince the red states to make themselves irrelevant. Such is the nature of compromise--find common ground, both sides win and lose a little. Of course, if you solely care about the fact some votes count less than others--which was the underlying argument against the EC--then just having your state allocate proportionally improves the lives of your fellow citizens now, and it's for the greater good. > Instead, there's a better solution in the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact[0] This is just a constitutional amendment with less steps and slightly lower threshold. It's not coincidence that blue states are in it and not red. The red states will not sign on to this because it would make them irrelevant. A blue state would not allocate their EC votes proportional to their state results because it would reduce the blue party's influence, even though it would be fairer to their citizens.
bequanna 4y ago
“Abolish the senate” “Abolish the Supreme Court” …when my party isn’t in control of it.
- titzer 4y ago
  sigh. The Supreme Court was never intended to be as polarized and partisan as it is today. The framer's thinking on lifetime judicial appointments was that it would give them independence from politics, never needing to be concerned about elections. If you look at the history of votes on Supreme Court nominees, the hyper-partisan divide, splitting along party lines, is an anomaly. We're in a new era. The last 4 nominees[1] just barely squeaked by, while historically, nominees usually got 60, 70, even 80+ votes in the Senate. What we are seeing now is very, very different. It used to actually be based on qualifications, and now it's 100% ideological and politics. A party "controlling" the Supreme court. What a crappy reality we are in now. edit: [1] I should say 5 nominees, because Garland didn't even get a vote for an entire year because the Senate majority quashed it in order for the next President to nominate someone else. Blatant theft of a constitutionally-enumerated power allotted to the President, if you ask me.
  - bequanna 4y ago
    > A party "controlling" the Supreme court. What a crappy reality we are in now. Absolutely. But the problem of partisan courts is endemic in the US Judicial system. Encountering Far-left or right judges at all levels is fairly common. It doesn't matter which side started packing the courts because now it is a race to see who can do it the fastest. By luck, planning or whatever the conservatives did it at the highest level. The liberals really shouldn't say anything because they are also doing the same thing at every level. In general, we need to get away from Courts, especially at the Federal level, writing laws. In fact, anyone who is not elected (including the bloated, highly partisan admin fed/state agencies) should not be writing law.
pessimizer 4y ago
Keep the Senate the way it is, but elect Senators through proportional representation: each voter votes for a party, and that party gets as many Senate seats as its percentage vote share. Parties can choose the Senators they seat by any method that they officially publish before the election. This could be, for example, by having an internal election/primary that results in an ordered list, or even something strange like a rotating lineup of Senators, or the weekly winner of a contest. People who cling to the Senate system because of the inordinate representation it gives to white, small states would happily give that up for the guarantee that they could get at least one neonazi Senator. We would have to deal with the fact that both Kim and Kanye would have a Senate seat, though.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

pennaMan 4y ago

Consuming cannabis IS outlawed. What are you talking about?

olalonde 4y ago

You got it reversed. AFAIK, there are no federal laws prohibiting abortion but there are federal laws prohibiting the use and sale of cannabis. Some states chose to criminalize abortion, but not all do. And many states chose to basically ignore the federal laws on cannabis (I'm not sure exactly how that one works, to be honest).

yetanother4968 4y ago
States aren’t required to enforce federal law, and the federal government can’t force states to help enforce federal law, as it’s unconstitutional.[1] If the feds want to enforce the marijuana ban and the state doesn’t volunteer to help, the feds would have to use e.g. the FBI or DEA to enforce the law. The feds don’t have the capacity to do that nationally, though, so it mostly goes unenforced, except maybe for large busts where it’s worth it for the feds to put the effort in. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commandeering#In_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commandeering#In_the_United_Sta...
- tunap 4y ago
  >States aren’t required to enforce federal law But Federal funds can, and are, withheld if the States don't enforce Federal Laws. EG: Universal 55 MPH speed limits & 21 yo drinking age come to mind.

Schroedingersat 4y ago

The US has never been progressive. Chattel slavery was active until the 40s. Child marriage occurs frequently. Thousands of children of asylum seekers and immigrants have been separated from their parents and 'lost'. Politicians may only be christian, or in a very small minority muslim. There are small progressive pockets, but that is all.