4 ms·

How would that be accomplished? What are the options here? 1) an elected legislature that's supposed to consider the greater good? 2) a generally non-elected

How would that be accomplished? What are the options here? 1) an elected legislature that's supposed to consider the greater good? 2) a generally non-elected judiciary that is supposed to consider the greater good to override the legislature? 3) a hopefully-benevolent dictator to consider the greater good? Obviously any of these methods can fail; the first of them is the easiest to "edit," as it were. Things like term limits would likely improve it, though.

kelseyfrog 4y ago
We're kinda taught that we choose representatives which reflect our values through the process of election and that those elected officials should they not reflect our values, are at the mercy of the electorate in the next election. Instead, few elections are competitive and the representation happens through the lobbying process. In short, the accountability story we're taught isn't true and money talks more than votes. It's this bait and switch that has the unintended consequence of fueling populism and the disbelief that representatives represent us, and that institutions work. Here's a dumb idea. Create and advocate for a congressional proportional representation interstate compact in the same vein as the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact[1]. Then advocate for pooled campaign financing as a function of proportional representation[2]. The nice thing about interstate compacts is that they can eventually capture a majority given election variability over time. They divide and conquer the problem into actionable tasks that effectively aggregate. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta... 2. purposefully being vague. what would softmax(T>>1) look like, for instance?
- Dalewyn 4y ago
  Citing the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact indicates you have no understanding of the political organization of the United States of America. I implore you to do your homework, but I will tell you the compact would only serve to reduce the voice of the people (that is to say, reduce democracy) rather than increase them.
  - kelseyfrog 4y ago
    Please look into responding with empathy and grace instead. You took a chance to educate and threw it away. What would you hope to gain from such an interaction?
    - Dalewyn 4y ago
      Alright then: The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (hereafter "the Compact") would reduce democracy by reducing and eventually destroying the sovereignty of each individual State. The United States of America is exactly what it says on the tin: A Union of States. Each State is equal to all the others, united somewhat loosely as a Federal Republic. With regards to the consequences of the Compact, it would destroy the democratic right of the people of each State to decide, for themselves, who will represent their State in the Executive Branch of the Federal government. The President of the United States represents the States in the Union and is elected by the States, the States in turn determine who they elect as President by respectively asking for their people to vote who their State should vote for. You might ask who in the Executive Branch of government represents the peoples of each State directly, that role falls upon the Governor of each respective State. The Compact would reduce the voice of the people and the sovereignties of States by removing their right to decide, for themselves, who to elect for President of the United States. People from one State would be able to overrule the people of another State, and vice versa. You're in California and voted for Bob? Tough shit, someone in North Dakota voted for Alex and your vote quite literally does not matter. Citing and supporting the Compact indicates you have no understanding of who, and more accurately what, the President of the United States represents. It indicates you have no understanding what powers and rights each State and their respective peoples hold. If you are in a larger State, it indicates you have no care for what your fellow Americans and Statesmen think; if you are in a smaller State, it indicates you are fine with forfeiting your right to vote in deference to the nationwide majority. If you sincerely think the Compact would improve democracy in the United States of America, at best you are misguided and were misled, and at worst you are disingenuous with ulterior motives.
      - kelseyfrog 4y ago
User23 4y ago
Term limits are predicated on the notion that our so-called legislators legislate. They do not. They merely sign off on the bills their principals give them. While for the tv issues the two parts of our bifactional ruling party are happy to pretend to be at odds, when it comes to the real priorities of those who are actually in charge they inevitably fall in line.

kelseyfrog 4y ago

We're kinda taught that we choose representatives which reflect our values through the process of election and that those elected officials should they not reflect our values, are at the mercy of the electorate in the next election. Instead, few elections are competitive and the representation happens through the lobbying process. In short, the accountability story we're taught isn't true and money talks more than votes. It's this bait and switch that has the unintended consequence of fueling populism and the disbelief that representatives represent us, and that institutions work. Here's a dumb idea. Create and advocate for a congressional proportional representation interstate compact in the same vein as the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact[1]. Then advocate for pooled campaign financing as a function of proportional representation[2]. The nice thing about interstate compacts is that they can eventually capture a majority given election variability over time. They divide and conquer the problem into actionable tasks that effectively aggregate. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta... 2. purposefully being vague. what would softmax(T>>1) look like, for instance?

Dalewyn 4y ago
Citing the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact indicates you have no understanding of the political organization of the United States of America. I implore you to do your homework, but I will tell you the compact would only serve to reduce the voice of the people (that is to say, reduce democracy) rather than increase them.
- kelseyfrog 4y ago
  Please look into responding with empathy and grace instead. You took a chance to educate and threw it away. What would you hope to gain from such an interaction?
  - Dalewyn 4y ago
    Alright then: The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (hereafter "the Compact") would reduce democracy by reducing and eventually destroying the sovereignty of each individual State. The United States of America is exactly what it says on the tin: A Union of States. Each State is equal to all the others, united somewhat loosely as a Federal Republic. With regards to the consequences of the Compact, it would destroy the democratic right of the people of each State to decide, for themselves, who will represent their State in the Executive Branch of the Federal government. The President of the United States represents the States in the Union and is elected by the States, the States in turn determine who they elect as President by respectively asking for their people to vote who their State should vote for. You might ask who in the Executive Branch of government represents the peoples of each State directly, that role falls upon the Governor of each respective State. The Compact would reduce the voice of the people and the sovereignties of States by removing their right to decide, for themselves, who to elect for President of the United States. People from one State would be able to overrule the people of another State, and vice versa. You're in California and voted for Bob? Tough shit, someone in North Dakota voted for Alex and your vote quite literally does not matter. Citing and supporting the Compact indicates you have no understanding of who, and more accurately what, the President of the United States represents. It indicates you have no understanding what powers and rights each State and their respective peoples hold. If you are in a larger State, it indicates you have no care for what your fellow Americans and Statesmen think; if you are in a smaller State, it indicates you are fine with forfeiting your right to vote in deference to the nationwide majority. If you sincerely think the Compact would improve democracy in the United States of America, at best you are misguided and were misled, and at worst you are disingenuous with ulterior motives.
    - kelseyfrog 4y ago

User23 4y ago

Term limits are predicated on the notion that our so-called legislators legislate. They do not. They merely sign off on the bills their principals give them. While for the tv issues the two parts of our bifactional ruling party are happy to pretend to be at odds, when it comes to the real priorities of those who are actually in charge they inevitably fall in line.