5 ms·
The law is the will of ”we”. ”They” can’t change the law – only ”we” can.
by pasiaj 3y ago
The law is the will of ”we”. ”They” can’t change the law – only ”we” can.
- concordDance 3y agoI'm not sure this is actually true anywhere but Switzerland.
- dotancohen 3y agoInterestingly, it was true in Gaddafi's Libya as well.
- harimau777 3y agoDue to gerrymandering, the electoral college, weak campaign finance laws, etc. that's not the case in the United States.
- edgyquant 3y agoWhat does the electoral college have to do with legislation? Sounds like you’re just regurgitating a sound bite to me
- harimau777 3y agoThe electoral college determines who becomes president and the president has the overt power to veto bills and the more subtle ability to influence the government's agenda. The number of electoral votes a state has is also equal to the number of representatives that they send to congress. So the unbalanced distribution of electors also reflects an unbalanced distribution of representatives.
- underlipton 3y agoPresident can veto laws. President has the bully pulpit and gets things on and off the agenda. Twice in my lifetime has the candidate who won the popular vote lost the presidency, with massive ramifications for the country I live in. I'm not endorsing GP's point, but the electoral college is massively important to legislation.
- Detrytus 3y ago> Twice in my lifetime has the candidate who won the popular vote lost the presidency, with massive ramifications for the country I live in. I see this repeated often, and I need to say it's bullshit. The rules of presidential elections are known to the general public, which affects voters behavior, i.e. Republican voters in California might not even bother voting, since they stand no chance of affecting the results. Similar thing can be said about Democrats in Florida. There are even names for this: "blue states", "red states", "swing states". Until you actually hold the elections with different rules the claim of "winning the popular vote" is meaningless. EDIT: to clarify - the current system means that some votes matter more than others: a single Republican vote in a swing state matters more than a single Republican vote in blue state. People behave accordingly, i.e. voter turnout is higher in swing states.
- harimau777 3y agoThat's a reasonable point, but I don't think that changes the underlying issue: some votes count more than others.
- underlipton 3y ago>I see this repeated often, and I need to say it's bullshit. It's an objective truth. You can qualify it if you like.
- zogrodea 3y agoI think this is one of those cases where representative democracy diverges from democracy proper. I doubt most people (who lack a financial incentive, unlike some politicians) will incline towards copyright extensions for companies.
- wredcoll 3y agoAnd yet poor people constantly vote for tax cuts for rich people.
- zogrodea 3y agoIs that true? One's options are limited if all one can do is vote for representatives, instead of directly voting on an issue themselves. It's helpful to distinguish between the side-effects coming from one's vote and the intention/motivation for that vote. (This is called the doctrine of double effect.) I would be surprised if many poor people vote with the intention of giving tax cuts for rich people, instead of voting for a candidate who they feel resonates them for other reasons, where it is an incidental fact that this candidate will push tax cuts for rich people.
- wredcoll 3y agoThis is true and I was being a bit snarky, but let us not forget the story of "Joe the plumber"