4 ms·

I think the actual long-term goal should be a government which reflects the will of the governed. There are a lot of mechanisms that prevent the will of the pe

I think the actual long-term goal should be a government which reflects the will of the governed. There are a lot of mechanisms that prevent the will of the people from being expressed at the federal level right now, but the two-party system, first past the post, and Citizens United are probably the big three. The increasing power of the executive and the courts have come about almost entirely because the legislature has abdicated its power and responsibility. One of our two political parties is heavily invested in preventing action at the federal level, and the other two branches have stepped in to fill that power vacuum. This is sort of necessary, in that it keeps our country from grinding to a halt, but it also consolidates power to fewer, and in many cases unaccountable, people. There are, unfortunately, no easy solutions here.

weard_beard 3y ago
When you talk to folks in politics around the periphery of Congress and the white house and you bring up major systemic change, in my experience they shake their head and say, "let me stop you there." There is only 1 issue they care about. They all say it is the root, the basis for any and all other change. Campaign finance reform. When you are campaigning and fundraising full time you cannot and will not do your job as a legislator. I have heard this over and over and over. "What if we..." Campaign finance reform. "But isn't..." Campaign finance reform. "How about..." Campaign finance reform.
- thomascgalvin 3y ago
  I'm pretty sure I agree with this. Money in politics isn't the only issue we need to solve, but it is likely the most important. As long as politicians are beholden to people who can afford to fund their campaigns, the will of the people will always be a secondary consideration.
troyvit 3y ago
I've been flummoxed by the legislature's abdication of power for awhile now too, but your post brought a disturbing idea into my head. What if this abdication actually _is_ the will of the people? From my limited exposure it seems that the only people who communicate with their legislators are the most polarized constituents who would demand obstruction.
- thomascgalvin 3y ago
  I don't think people want the legislature to cede its power to the other branches, but I do think the other branches are easier to understand. When the President issues an executive order, or a court issues a ruling, there are one, three, or nine people. It conforms more to what people think of as "rulership," and it allows for "easy" "victories" that route around the long and clumsy process of legislation. But you do point out a significant problem, regarding polarized constituents. More than just communication, it's usually the most polarized members of a party who take part in the primaries. This has the effect of dragging politics towards the extremes, rather than the center, and makes cooperation between parties essentially impossible. Removing first past the post, through ranked choice or some other mathematically superior method of handling elections, would do a lot to correct that.
- balderdash 3y ago
  I wish I could find it - but there was a great study that’s probability 20-30years old that basically said legislators did an excellent job of representing their constituents interests - but that voters were not rational (they wanted it cheap, fast, and good, but we’re not willing to pick two) and hence the disconnect

weard_beard 3y ago

When you talk to folks in politics around the periphery of Congress and the white house and you bring up major systemic change, in my experience they shake their head and say, "let me stop you there." There is only 1 issue they care about. They all say it is the root, the basis for any and all other change. Campaign finance reform. When you are campaigning and fundraising full time you cannot and will not do your job as a legislator. I have heard this over and over and over. "What if we..." Campaign finance reform. "But isn't..." Campaign finance reform. "How about..." Campaign finance reform.

thomascgalvin 3y ago
I'm pretty sure I agree with this. Money in politics isn't the only issue we need to solve, but it is likely the most important. As long as politicians are beholden to people who can afford to fund their campaigns, the will of the people will always be a secondary consideration.

troyvit 3y ago

I've been flummoxed by the legislature's abdication of power for awhile now too, but your post brought a disturbing idea into my head. What if this abdication actually _is_ the will of the people? From my limited exposure it seems that the only people who communicate with their legislators are the most polarized constituents who would demand obstruction.

thomascgalvin 3y ago
I don't think people want the legislature to cede its power to the other branches, but I do think the other branches are easier to understand. When the President issues an executive order, or a court issues a ruling, there are one, three, or nine people. It conforms more to what people think of as "rulership," and it allows for "easy" "victories" that route around the long and clumsy process of legislation. But you do point out a significant problem, regarding polarized constituents. More than just communication, it's usually the most polarized members of a party who take part in the primaries. This has the effect of dragging politics towards the extremes, rather than the center, and makes cooperation between parties essentially impossible. Removing first past the post, through ranked choice or some other mathematically superior method of handling elections, would do a lot to correct that.
balderdash 3y ago
I wish I could find it - but there was a great study that’s probability 20-30years old that basically said legislators did an excellent job of representing their constituents interests - but that voters were not rational (they wanted it cheap, fast, and good, but we’re not willing to pick two) and hence the disconnect