7 ms·

It sucks how everything is a political football instead of just doing the right thing. They had full control and could have legalized it. But no, they keep hold

It sucks how everything is a political football instead of just doing the right thing. They had full control and could have legalized it. But no, they keep holding onto just to drag voters along every election.

gamegoblin 4y ago
It does suck, but it's what the system of democracy we currently have incentivizes. I've kind of become a bit of a voting reform absolutist for this reason. Publicly funded elections, get rid of first-past-the-post plurality voting (and replace with approval, ranked choice, anything really), electoral college reform, Wyoming rule, etc. If these problems were fixed, the incentives to solve the other problems are much more aligned.
- ratorx 4y ago
  I think the problem is more fundamental than that. There’s no mechanism in the system for feedback on improving the system itself because it would disadvantage the people who have been elected by the current system (since those are the people that have figured out how to exploit it the best). The only current method would be to somehow convince the people in power that they will need to overhaul the system to stay in power in the future. But that’s not gonna happen because the existing loopholes are so massive (e.g. gerrymandering), that they can basically guarantee that anyway. It’s also not a policy issue, and it feels weird to vote for it (or vote for people who promise it), because it’s not a direct thing that will affect your daily life and is more second order than that.
  - Spooky23 4y ago
    You’re right. The federal system is designed to blunt the mob.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    What’s the Wyoming rule?
    - human_person 4y ago
      The Wyoming Rule is a proposal to increase the size of the United States House of Representatives so that the standard representative-to-population ratio would be that of the smallest state, which is currently Wyoming (copied from Wikipedia)
GeneralMayhem 4y ago
>They had full control and could have legalized it That's not how the Senate works. A 50-50 "majority" is not full control. In any case, it's pretty silly to blame the party that's on your side for not being able to overcome the bad-faith obstructionism of the opposing party. It's not about political "footballs", it's about having finite time and public attention to be able to get things done. If every single fight has to be dragged into the public to shame the other side into taking a few minutes off from looting and pillaging, then you have to prioritize and pick the optimal time for each battle.
- gamegoblin 4y ago
  Yes, the current fillibuster rules require a 60-40 supermajority to get anything done, but the fillubuster rule itself can be changed with a simple majority of 50%+1. But the incentive structure is not there to actually change this rule -- both parties benefit from it.
  - wyldfire 4y ago
    > both parties benefit from it. Is that really the case? It is a bias towards the status quo. Regardless, IMO the constituents represented by those parties don't benefit from it.
    - rewgs 4y ago
      > both parties benefit from it. > It is a bias towards the status quo. These are the same thing.
    - bobthepanda 4y ago
      There are “kingmaker” senators in both parties that cross the aisle occasionally, that this rule benefits (and also generally their specific constituents, since their outsize influence gets them more than they might otherwise get in negotiations.) Given that these kingmakers are what causes things to go over 50-50 they want to preserve their power.
    - BurningFrog 4y ago
chiefalchemist 4y ago
Similar is true of abortions. The majority/control was there - more than once - and despite knowing Roe v Wade was on shifting sands the Dems refused to act. The issue empowers The Politics Industrial Complex but does little to work for We The People. https://freakonomics.com/podcast/im-your-biggest-fan/ https://freakonomics.com/podcast/im-your-biggest-fan/
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Similar is true of abortions. The majority/control was there - more than once - and despite knowing Roe v Wade was on shifting sands the Dems refused to act. Act how? Unlike marriage (where the FFC clause gives Congress an explicit power), the “codify Roe” refrain was always hollow since without Roe being a 14th Amendment right there is no real Constitutional argument for authority for federal codification.
  - chiefalchemist 4y ago
    I don't know the particulars but the current POTUS did come out and promise a codified response. Other reports at the time also implied proactive action could have been taken. This was simply yet another issue that was intentionally managed to benefit The Politics Industrial Complex. Note: I don't consider HuffPost to be a beacon of journalism. It's simply the top of the SERP. I'm confident better have reported the same. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/biden-codify-roe-v-wade-congress_n_634eb359e4b0e376dc10cb7e https://www.huffpost.com/entry/biden-codify-roe-v-wade-congr...
quadrifoliate 4y ago
It sucks how uneducated about basic things US voters are. The Affordable Care Act is probably the most impactful law passed by Democrats in the recent past. In a survey of 2000 voters, a staggering thirty-five percent did not know [1] that the ACA and the colloquial "Obamacare" were the same thing. Bizarrely, an additional number didn't know that 'Obamacare repealed = ACA repealed'. I cannot blame either party for playing political football when dealing with this sort of electorate. ---------------------------------------- [1] https://www.npr.org/2017/02/11/514732211/obamacare-and-affordable-care-act-are-the-same-but-americans-still-dont-know-tha https://www.npr.org/2017/02/11/514732211/obamacare-and-affor...
- mjevans 4y ago
  I can. People are so focused on not disenfranchising voters (like actually happened / might still happen against marginalized segments of the population), that they don't wonder, what is _empowering_ a citizen as a voter? I DO support a basic civics and mathematics test, on a recurring basis, for voters. HOWEVER, that's only with the catch that failing or opting out of the test creates benefits designed to encourage the citizen to pass the test in the future. A benefit like, access to public education to work on that math skills and civics awareness. Or possibly someone is disabled (often silently, dementia is a real issue!) and the voter tests might be one of the places it's discovered.
  - ownlife 4y ago
    A democracy is not a system of government in which the government's power derives from the people who know calculus. It a system wherein power comes from the people, period. Also, literacy tests were ruled unconstitutional in Oregon v. Mitchell.
    - mjevans 4y ago
      Please do not put words in my mouth. Calculus is currently an AP / college subject, not a required public education one.
kapildev 4y ago
>They had full control and could have legalized it. Them having full control wasn't enough. Democrats passed it in the House and all Democratic Senators supported it in the Senate. However, Republicans killed it because Democrats wanted the Omnibus bill to pass for which support from Mitch McConnell was necessary. Mitch McConnell was opposed to this Cannabis bill. Link: https://thehill.com/policy/finance/3782514-marijuana-advocates-stunned-after-mcconnell-opposition-dooms-banking-bill/ https://thehill.com/policy/finance/3782514-marijuana-advocat...
anon84873628 4y ago
Really we should blame all the executive administrations for not forcing the DEA to do their job properly. Keeping cannabis as a Schedule 1 is completely scientifically unjustified. There was already an existing legal framework available to legalize the drug. But since the DEA/FDA is so corrupt, we have to fall back to checks & balances available in the states and Congress.
- janalsncm 4y ago
  Vast majority of cannabis arrests are at the local level. Even a federal legalization law would not stop that.
- pstuart 4y ago
  We should be legalizing (and regulating/taxing) all drugs. The DEA is obviously incentivized to fight this as that would kill their raison d'être. The War on Drugs has effectively brainwashed most people to think that the best way to control "dangerous" drugs is to make them illegal. And the politics of this is that were the Dems to try to do this then the GOP would campaign on the Dems trying to give drugs to kids like candy.
- pyuser583 4y ago
  The whole Schedule business is pure propaganda. The DEA regularly describes it as dangerousness: “Schedule I is the most dangerous!” But it’s not dangerousness, it’s whether there is a medical use. Marijuana didn’t have a medical use, because it’s not very powerful. It makes you feel dizzy and hungry. If it was a drug, spinning around in circles would he schedule I. Heroin is powerful enough to be a legit pain killer, so it’s Schedule II. This really is a case of reporters not doing their job.
janalsncm 4y ago
> political football That’s what a democracy is. Democracies aren’t nicer places to live because our politicians are nice people. It’s because our interests happen to align with those of politicians. It’s not a bug, it’s a feature. CGP Grey had a nice video on this, which I plagiarized for the comment above: https://youtu.be/rStL7niR7gs https://youtu.be/rStL7niR7gs
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
refurb 4y ago
“Do the right thing” has no absolute answer in a nation of 330M. Every decision will result in some people supporting you and others working to kick you out of office. If you don’t tread carefully you won’t be in power long. It has nothing to do with the American system and everything to do with democratic representation in government.

gamegoblin 4y ago

It does suck, but it's what the system of democracy we currently have incentivizes. I've kind of become a bit of a voting reform absolutist for this reason. Publicly funded elections, get rid of first-past-the-post plurality voting (and replace with approval, ranked choice, anything really), electoral college reform, Wyoming rule, etc. If these problems were fixed, the incentives to solve the other problems are much more aligned.

ratorx 4y ago
I think the problem is more fundamental than that. There’s no mechanism in the system for feedback on improving the system itself because it would disadvantage the people who have been elected by the current system (since those are the people that have figured out how to exploit it the best). The only current method would be to somehow convince the people in power that they will need to overhaul the system to stay in power in the future. But that’s not gonna happen because the existing loopholes are so massive (e.g. gerrymandering), that they can basically guarantee that anyway. It’s also not a policy issue, and it feels weird to vote for it (or vote for people who promise it), because it’s not a direct thing that will affect your daily life and is more second order than that.
- Spooky23 4y ago
  You’re right. The federal system is designed to blunt the mob.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  What’s the Wyoming rule?
  - human_person 4y ago
    The Wyoming Rule is a proposal to increase the size of the United States House of Representatives so that the standard representative-to-population ratio would be that of the smallest state, which is currently Wyoming (copied from Wikipedia)

GeneralMayhem 4y ago

>They had full control and could have legalized it That's not how the Senate works. A 50-50 "majority" is not full control. In any case, it's pretty silly to blame the party that's on your side for not being able to overcome the bad-faith obstructionism of the opposing party. It's not about political "footballs", it's about having finite time and public attention to be able to get things done. If every single fight has to be dragged into the public to shame the other side into taking a few minutes off from looting and pillaging, then you have to prioritize and pick the optimal time for each battle.

gamegoblin 4y ago
Yes, the current fillibuster rules require a 60-40 supermajority to get anything done, but the fillubuster rule itself can be changed with a simple majority of 50%+1. But the incentive structure is not there to actually change this rule -- both parties benefit from it.
- wyldfire 4y ago
  > both parties benefit from it. Is that really the case? It is a bias towards the status quo. Regardless, IMO the constituents represented by those parties don't benefit from it.
  - rewgs 4y ago
    > both parties benefit from it. > It is a bias towards the status quo. These are the same thing.
  - bobthepanda 4y ago
    There are “kingmaker” senators in both parties that cross the aisle occasionally, that this rule benefits (and also generally their specific constituents, since their outsize influence gets them more than they might otherwise get in negotiations.) Given that these kingmakers are what causes things to go over 50-50 they want to preserve their power.
  - BurningFrog 4y ago

chiefalchemist 4y ago

Similar is true of abortions. The majority/control was there - more than once - and despite knowing Roe v Wade was on shifting sands the Dems refused to act. The issue empowers The Politics Industrial Complex but does little to work for We The People. https://freakonomics.com/podcast/im-your-biggest-fan/ https://freakonomics.com/podcast/im-your-biggest-fan/

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 4y ago
> Similar is true of abortions. The majority/control was there - more than once - and despite knowing Roe v Wade was on shifting sands the Dems refused to act. Act how? Unlike marriage (where the FFC clause gives Congress an explicit power), the “codify Roe” refrain was always hollow since without Roe being a 14th Amendment right there is no real Constitutional argument for authority for federal codification.
- chiefalchemist 4y ago
  I don't know the particulars but the current POTUS did come out and promise a codified response. Other reports at the time also implied proactive action could have been taken. This was simply yet another issue that was intentionally managed to benefit The Politics Industrial Complex. Note: I don't consider HuffPost to be a beacon of journalism. It's simply the top of the SERP. I'm confident better have reported the same. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/biden-codify-roe-v-wade-congress_n_634eb359e4b0e376dc10cb7e https://www.huffpost.com/entry/biden-codify-roe-v-wade-congr...

quadrifoliate 4y ago

It sucks how uneducated about basic things US voters are. The Affordable Care Act is probably the most impactful law passed by Democrats in the recent past. In a survey of 2000 voters, a staggering thirty-five percent did not know [1] that the ACA and the colloquial "Obamacare" were the same thing. Bizarrely, an additional number didn't know that 'Obamacare repealed = ACA repealed'. I cannot blame either party for playing political football when dealing with this sort of electorate. ---------------------------------------- [1] https://www.npr.org/2017/02/11/514732211/obamacare-and-affordable-care-act-are-the-same-but-americans-still-dont-know-tha https://www.npr.org/2017/02/11/514732211/obamacare-and-affor...

mjevans 4y ago
I can. People are so focused on not disenfranchising voters (like actually happened / might still happen against marginalized segments of the population), that they don't wonder, what is _empowering_ a citizen as a voter? I DO support a basic civics and mathematics test, on a recurring basis, for voters. HOWEVER, that's only with the catch that failing or opting out of the test creates benefits designed to encourage the citizen to pass the test in the future. A benefit like, access to public education to work on that math skills and civics awareness. Or possibly someone is disabled (often silently, dementia is a real issue!) and the voter tests might be one of the places it's discovered.
- ownlife 4y ago
  A democracy is not a system of government in which the government's power derives from the people who know calculus. It a system wherein power comes from the people, period. Also, literacy tests were ruled unconstitutional in Oregon v. Mitchell.
  - mjevans 4y ago
    Please do not put words in my mouth. Calculus is currently an AP / college subject, not a required public education one.

kapildev 4y ago

>They had full control and could have legalized it. Them having full control wasn't enough. Democrats passed it in the House and all Democratic Senators supported it in the Senate. However, Republicans killed it because Democrats wanted the Omnibus bill to pass for which support from Mitch McConnell was necessary. Mitch McConnell was opposed to this Cannabis bill. Link: https://thehill.com/policy/finance/3782514-marijuana-advocates-stunned-after-mcconnell-opposition-dooms-banking-bill/ https://thehill.com/policy/finance/3782514-marijuana-advocat...

anon84873628 4y ago

Really we should blame all the executive administrations for not forcing the DEA to do their job properly. Keeping cannabis as a Schedule 1 is completely scientifically unjustified. There was already an existing legal framework available to legalize the drug. But since the DEA/FDA is so corrupt, we have to fall back to checks & balances available in the states and Congress.

janalsncm 4y ago
Vast majority of cannabis arrests are at the local level. Even a federal legalization law would not stop that.
pstuart 4y ago
We should be legalizing (and regulating/taxing) all drugs. The DEA is obviously incentivized to fight this as that would kill their raison d'être. The War on Drugs has effectively brainwashed most people to think that the best way to control "dangerous" drugs is to make them illegal. And the politics of this is that were the Dems to try to do this then the GOP would campaign on the Dems trying to give drugs to kids like candy.
pyuser583 4y ago
The whole Schedule business is pure propaganda. The DEA regularly describes it as dangerousness: “Schedule I is the most dangerous!” But it’s not dangerousness, it’s whether there is a medical use. Marijuana didn’t have a medical use, because it’s not very powerful. It makes you feel dizzy and hungry. If it was a drug, spinning around in circles would he schedule I. Heroin is powerful enough to be a legit pain killer, so it’s Schedule II. This really is a case of reporters not doing their job.

janalsncm 4y ago

> political football That’s what a democracy is. Democracies aren’t nicer places to live because our politicians are nice people. It’s because our interests happen to align with those of politicians. It’s not a bug, it’s a feature. CGP Grey had a nice video on this, which I plagiarized for the comment above: https://youtu.be/rStL7niR7gs https://youtu.be/rStL7niR7gs

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

refurb 4y ago

“Do the right thing” has no absolute answer in a nation of 330M. Every decision will result in some people supporting you and others working to kick you out of office. If you don’t tread carefully you won’t be in power long. It has nothing to do with the American system and everything to do with democratic representation in government.