4 ms·

The vast majority of Americans are pretty happy with their local set of laws and politicians. How much better would politics be if we collectively focused only

The vast majority of Americans are pretty happy with their local set of laws and politicians. How much better would politics be if we collectively focused only on issues that affect our jurisdiction? I sometimes wonder if it would really be that bad to revert to the original system defined in the constitution - vastly increase the number of representatives, and make the senate and presidency appointed positions. It seems like it would undercut a lot of the lowest-common-denominator populist rhetoric.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
notfromhere 4y ago
Appointing senators didn't work because it became a corrupt office you could purchase. In a world where gerrymandering is scientifically practiced, state-wide federal elections are some of the few where democracy is actually practiced. Reverting senators to being appointed is just removing what few levers of accountability currently exist in the federal system.
- throw0101c 4y ago
  > In a world where gerrymandering is scientifically practiced […] And the official policy of at least one political party: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REDMAP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REDMAP
crooked-v 4y ago
The Senate and the Electoral College are a basic part of the problem here. For example, Los Angeles County alone has a greater population than entire states but gets a fraction of the proportional representation of Rhode Island.
- anonymouse008 4y ago
  As it should. The problems that affect LA County are vastly different than RI - we should never cater the Federal to local aims. That was the original understanding... the most ubiquitous should be discussed at the federal level, not the mundane. Identity politics made everything ubiquitous to everyone - which ruined the whole lot - now we are eating ourselves from the inside out.
  - midoridensha 4y ago
    The original understanding was wrong, and federal governments are wrong and should be abolished. A unitary government is better for democracy. People shouldn't lose representation just because they live in a place with more people than another place.
    - anonymouse008 4y ago
      So this future is only possible if technology creates extremely tight vote loops -> or in the abstract, technology enables greater representation. The Federal Government basically admits that the unitary policy is not the global, or Pareto, optimum - this analysis was made when votes took orders of magnitude more effort to produce and tabulate, does that thesis need to be revisited?? I think so, or at least re-affirmed what deserves to be at the National level vs. the state.
  - test098 4y ago
    > The problems that affect LA County are vastly different than RI - we should never cater the Federal to local aims Except now it's reversed: RI - with a fraction of citizens of LA county - is catering Federal to local aims. Not sure how identity politics ruined the electoral college but go off.
    - anonymouse008 4y ago
      The things we federally legislate + judicature, which now affects what we see as the things we execute - that has a feedback loop into the L + J - are not what we should discuss at the federal level - i.e. everyone's 'problems' with the electoral college having too much influence... yes, exactly, the worry is about things that shouldn't matter - that's the design, don't discuss stupid things up in the power centers. [Edit] Identity politics is the 'cheater' in the US government prisoners dilemma. Now everyone cheats, and we get less utility out of the system.
- legitster 4y ago
  I think that would be less important though in a world where national politics took second stage. Senators on paper are only a procedural body. Their ability to jam up legislation in the current era has largely been a function of their need to draw votes.
- Ekaros 4y ago
  Yes. Get rid of all divisions. Move everything in to single central government. With representatives voted in in single proportional pool. The x hundred top vote winners get elected. Remove all levels below single central government run in Washington DC...
Buttons840 4y ago
My biggest complaint about society is housing costs. That's bigger than just my jurisdiction, but affects my jurisdiction so I guess I should care about it? Recently I got into a political argument with family. They started it by talking about a school district policy in a school district 2,000 miles away. Things were said I wanted to challenge and so I got involved in the argument. Only afterwards did I realize how strange it was for us to be arguing about the policies of a high school 2,000 miles away. So you're right in that regard, most of what we think and argue about is far from our sphere. I decided in any future arguments like that I want to clearly establish whether we're arguing over a general principle or specifics. Otherwise it's too easy for the conversation to wander between the two. And again, I'm not concerned about the specifics of some distant state, though I may have beliefs about general principles.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

notfromhere 4y ago

Appointing senators didn't work because it became a corrupt office you could purchase. In a world where gerrymandering is scientifically practiced, state-wide federal elections are some of the few where democracy is actually practiced. Reverting senators to being appointed is just removing what few levers of accountability currently exist in the federal system.

throw0101c 4y ago
> In a world where gerrymandering is scientifically practiced […] And the official policy of at least one political party: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REDMAP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REDMAP

crooked-v 4y ago

The Senate and the Electoral College are a basic part of the problem here. For example, Los Angeles County alone has a greater population than entire states but gets a fraction of the proportional representation of Rhode Island.

anonymouse008 4y ago
As it should. The problems that affect LA County are vastly different than RI - we should never cater the Federal to local aims. That was the original understanding... the most ubiquitous should be discussed at the federal level, not the mundane. Identity politics made everything ubiquitous to everyone - which ruined the whole lot - now we are eating ourselves from the inside out.
- midoridensha 4y ago
  The original understanding was wrong, and federal governments are wrong and should be abolished. A unitary government is better for democracy. People shouldn't lose representation just because they live in a place with more people than another place.
  - anonymouse008 4y ago
    So this future is only possible if technology creates extremely tight vote loops -> or in the abstract, technology enables greater representation. The Federal Government basically admits that the unitary policy is not the global, or Pareto, optimum - this analysis was made when votes took orders of magnitude more effort to produce and tabulate, does that thesis need to be revisited?? I think so, or at least re-affirmed what deserves to be at the National level vs. the state.
- test098 4y ago
  > The problems that affect LA County are vastly different than RI - we should never cater the Federal to local aims Except now it's reversed: RI - with a fraction of citizens of LA county - is catering Federal to local aims. Not sure how identity politics ruined the electoral college but go off.
  - anonymouse008 4y ago
    The things we federally legislate + judicature, which now affects what we see as the things we execute - that has a feedback loop into the L + J - are not what we should discuss at the federal level - i.e. everyone's 'problems' with the electoral college having too much influence... yes, exactly, the worry is about things that shouldn't matter - that's the design, don't discuss stupid things up in the power centers. [Edit] Identity politics is the 'cheater' in the US government prisoners dilemma. Now everyone cheats, and we get less utility out of the system.
legitster 4y ago
I think that would be less important though in a world where national politics took second stage. Senators on paper are only a procedural body. Their ability to jam up legislation in the current era has largely been a function of their need to draw votes.
Ekaros 4y ago
Yes. Get rid of all divisions. Move everything in to single central government. With representatives voted in in single proportional pool. The x hundred top vote winners get elected. Remove all levels below single central government run in Washington DC...

Buttons840 4y ago

My biggest complaint about society is housing costs. That's bigger than just my jurisdiction, but affects my jurisdiction so I guess I should care about it? Recently I got into a political argument with family. They started it by talking about a school district policy in a school district 2,000 miles away. Things were said I wanted to challenge and so I got involved in the argument. Only afterwards did I realize how strange it was for us to be arguing about the policies of a high school 2,000 miles away. So you're right in that regard, most of what we think and argue about is far from our sphere. I decided in any future arguments like that I want to clearly establish whether we're arguing over a general principle or specifics. Otherwise it's too easy for the conversation to wander between the two. And again, I'm not concerned about the specifics of some distant state, though I may have beliefs about general principles.