4 ms·

Maybe we can stop acting like the Founding Fathers were political geniuses. They created a system where the only real recourse against a president is political,

Maybe we can stop acting like the Founding Fathers were political geniuses. They created a system where the only real recourse against a president is political, and a political system where political recourse is essentially impossible. A two party system is the logical conclusion of a first past the post voting system, which they have created. It is a bug, and fixing it is also effectively impossible.

jedilord 2y ago
[dead]
code_biologist 2y ago
I mean, they were pretty good. The founding documents addressed many problems that been seen in British political history. I think they may have lacked tools to prevent two party rule, but some were aware it would be a problem. From George Washington's presidential farewell address: "However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."
- janalsncm 2y ago
  Washington’s farewell address is exactly what I’m referring to. Hoping that people won’t form political parties rather than understanding that they are the logical result of the system that’s been created. No matter how nicely you ask, parties will form. Just as another example, the Framers forgot to even mention that courts could strike down unconstitutional laws, causing a political crisis that came up only 15 years later. Oops!
beaeglebeachedd 2y ago
The 10th amendment was supposed to restrain the federal government to a few enumerated powers. It was gutted via interstate commerce being everything, and you can't give it up because people will start screaming about the civil rights act or the EPA or something. President, as envisioned by founders, should barely even matter outside of war.
- stetrain 2y ago
  There was also a pretty significant constitutional crisis in the middle of that that involved an actual war between states with the deaths of many Americans to settle it. Whether we have adequately updated the constitution along the way to cover the new realities is a valid question, but governing by just what the original founders wrote doesn't have a great track record either.
- janalsncm 2y ago
  > the civil rights act How would you square the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause with enumerated powers?
  - beaeglebeachedd 2y ago
    The 14th amendment is a restriction on government. Civil rights acts on private entities involved in intrastate trade. CRA also expressly allows racism unlike the 14th. For instance the civil rights act allows a business to preferentially treat an Indian in a near reservation (but off res) business while outlawing discriminating say in favor of blacks near a historically black neighborhood.
    - stetrain 2y ago
      But the 14th amendment didn't actually work in practice. Nearly 100 years later and many states had explicitly racist laws and policies - in some cases supported by the Supreme Court - and those that the 14th amendment were supposed to protect were disenfranchised. If the 14th had actually worked then the Civil Rights Act wouldn't have actually been needed, but there is a lot of hard evidence that it, or something like it, was needed.
cma256 2y ago
> A two party system is the logical conclusion of a first past the post voting system, which they have created. It is a bug, and fixing it is also effectively impossible. AFAIK it only mandates it for the President. We're free to elect representatives and Senators how we please.
- beaeglebeachedd 2y ago
  There's no federal dictate on how electoral college votes IIRC. Sometimes they go rogue,though it may violate state law.
- stetrain 2y ago
  There is only a mandate for how the electoral votes cast by states determine who becomes president, but now how states cast those votes. Some states cast them all for the popular winner in that state. Some split them proportionately among the top scoring candidates. Some states have agreed to a pact that, if enacted by enough states, will switch those states to casting their votes for the national popular vote winner. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact#:~:text=The%20National%20Popular%20Vote%20Interstate,and%20the%20District%20of%20Columbia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta.... In theory a state could hold ranked choice votes among any number of candidates and cast their electoral votes for the final ranked choice winner. Even the primary system is something managed at the state level. So a lot could be done but it requires changing state laws or potentially state constitutions.
mpalmer 2y ago
This fails to acknowledge that today's decision has a weak/non-existent constitutional basis. I defy anyone to craft any political system or subset thereof that correctly anticipates societal shifts over the course of two and a half centuries.
- janalsncm 2y ago
  You don’t need to anticipate societal shifts, you need to empower the political system to handle them. As for the longevity of the U.S., there’s a strong argument that it has in fact not lasted 250 or so years, and that the reconstruction era amendments created a qualitatively different, more centralized country. But even if we ignore that, the U.S. has a lot going for it that has nothing to do with politics. Two oceans, peaceful neighbors, and more natural resources than we knew what to do with that we bought for practically nothing. The US emerged from WW2 as basically the only advanced economy that wasn’t flattened, did essentially zero introspection and assumed our politics were superior. And yet we have open bribery of politicians, and the highest court opened the floodgates for the wealthiest to donate to politicians. The only thing left is to allow politicians to keep donations for personal use. Europe has surpassed us in life expectancy, and soon China will surpass us in GDP. And no matter how much free speech we have, we can’t have a conversation about it because the media is weaponized to distract us.
  - dingnuts 2y ago
    Europe's lifestyle is subsidized heavily by the American defense industry and they had better buckle in if Trump wins and starts more seriously winding down America's defense commitments there
    - janalsncm 2y ago
      There is approximately zero chance Trump would redirect military spending towards healthcare for regular people. His main accomplishment last term was a trillion dollar handout to corporations. He doesn’t represent you and me.
    - xnx 2y ago
jimbokun 2y ago
They wrote the document defining the currently longest running continuous government in the world. Is the Constitution perfect? No. But it's still fair to call them geniuses for what they accomplished. Also, you are arguing the Founders interpretation of the Constitution is the same as the current Supreme Court. I'm not sure they would agree, but there's no way we can ever know.
- buildbot 2y ago
  > They wrote the document defining the currently longest running continuous government in the world. This is untrue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_San_Marino https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_San_Marino
- rich_sasha 2y ago
  Surely, the UK government predates the US, dating back to at least Cromwell, so 17th century, and tenuously as far as Magna Carta (and even Alfred tbe Great if you like, so deep deep medieval).
- almostdeadguy 2y ago
  It's not even clear what "longest running continuous government" means or how it would be defined.
- asdff 2y ago
  By that logic we drop everything and adopt the government of ancient rome because its one thats good for at least a thousand years by precedent
- blibble 2y ago
  > the currently longest running continuous government in the world. the Isle of Man goes back to 1000 or so the current UK system is essentially identical to that of 1689 and has legal governmental continuity since 1066
  - janalsncm 2y ago
    If anything that is more impressive given the tiny size of the UK, few natural resources, and miserable weather.
TeeMassive 2y ago
It also goes the other way. A recourse against the only elected official of the executive is also political in itself. Without immunity, any of the thousands of prosecutors could charge, blackmail and kidnap any predidents during and after their terms. This would make Presidents effectively answer to the courts and not the people.
- iAMkenough 2y ago
  Are courts not made up of the people?
- teg4n_ 2y ago
  kidnap? what are you even are you talking about?
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

jedilord 2y ago

[dead]

code_biologist 2y ago

I mean, they were pretty good. The founding documents addressed many problems that been seen in British political history. I think they may have lacked tools to prevent two party rule, but some were aware it would be a problem. From George Washington's presidential farewell address: "However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."

janalsncm 2y ago
Washington’s farewell address is exactly what I’m referring to. Hoping that people won’t form political parties rather than understanding that they are the logical result of the system that’s been created. No matter how nicely you ask, parties will form. Just as another example, the Framers forgot to even mention that courts could strike down unconstitutional laws, causing a political crisis that came up only 15 years later. Oops!

beaeglebeachedd 2y ago

The 10th amendment was supposed to restrain the federal government to a few enumerated powers. It was gutted via interstate commerce being everything, and you can't give it up because people will start screaming about the civil rights act or the EPA or something. President, as envisioned by founders, should barely even matter outside of war.

stetrain 2y ago
There was also a pretty significant constitutional crisis in the middle of that that involved an actual war between states with the deaths of many Americans to settle it. Whether we have adequately updated the constitution along the way to cover the new realities is a valid question, but governing by just what the original founders wrote doesn't have a great track record either.
janalsncm 2y ago
> the civil rights act How would you square the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause with enumerated powers?
- beaeglebeachedd 2y ago
  The 14th amendment is a restriction on government. Civil rights acts on private entities involved in intrastate trade. CRA also expressly allows racism unlike the 14th. For instance the civil rights act allows a business to preferentially treat an Indian in a near reservation (but off res) business while outlawing discriminating say in favor of blacks near a historically black neighborhood.
  - stetrain 2y ago
    But the 14th amendment didn't actually work in practice. Nearly 100 years later and many states had explicitly racist laws and policies - in some cases supported by the Supreme Court - and those that the 14th amendment were supposed to protect were disenfranchised. If the 14th had actually worked then the Civil Rights Act wouldn't have actually been needed, but there is a lot of hard evidence that it, or something like it, was needed.

cma256 2y ago

> A two party system is the logical conclusion of a first past the post voting system, which they have created. It is a bug, and fixing it is also effectively impossible. AFAIK it only mandates it for the President. We're free to elect representatives and Senators how we please.

beaeglebeachedd 2y ago
There's no federal dictate on how electoral college votes IIRC. Sometimes they go rogue,though it may violate state law.
stetrain 2y ago
There is only a mandate for how the electoral votes cast by states determine who becomes president, but now how states cast those votes. Some states cast them all for the popular winner in that state. Some split them proportionately among the top scoring candidates. Some states have agreed to a pact that, if enacted by enough states, will switch those states to casting their votes for the national popular vote winner. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact#:~:text=The%20National%20Popular%20Vote%20Interstate,and%20the%20District%20of%20Columbia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta.... In theory a state could hold ranked choice votes among any number of candidates and cast their electoral votes for the final ranked choice winner. Even the primary system is something managed at the state level. So a lot could be done but it requires changing state laws or potentially state constitutions.

mpalmer 2y ago

This fails to acknowledge that today's decision has a weak/non-existent constitutional basis. I defy anyone to craft any political system or subset thereof that correctly anticipates societal shifts over the course of two and a half centuries.

janalsncm 2y ago
You don’t need to anticipate societal shifts, you need to empower the political system to handle them. As for the longevity of the U.S., there’s a strong argument that it has in fact not lasted 250 or so years, and that the reconstruction era amendments created a qualitatively different, more centralized country. But even if we ignore that, the U.S. has a lot going for it that has nothing to do with politics. Two oceans, peaceful neighbors, and more natural resources than we knew what to do with that we bought for practically nothing. The US emerged from WW2 as basically the only advanced economy that wasn’t flattened, did essentially zero introspection and assumed our politics were superior. And yet we have open bribery of politicians, and the highest court opened the floodgates for the wealthiest to donate to politicians. The only thing left is to allow politicians to keep donations for personal use. Europe has surpassed us in life expectancy, and soon China will surpass us in GDP. And no matter how much free speech we have, we can’t have a conversation about it because the media is weaponized to distract us.
- dingnuts 2y ago
  Europe's lifestyle is subsidized heavily by the American defense industry and they had better buckle in if Trump wins and starts more seriously winding down America's defense commitments there
  - janalsncm 2y ago
    There is approximately zero chance Trump would redirect military spending towards healthcare for regular people. His main accomplishment last term was a trillion dollar handout to corporations. He doesn’t represent you and me.
  - xnx 2y ago

jimbokun 2y ago

They wrote the document defining the currently longest running continuous government in the world. Is the Constitution perfect? No. But it's still fair to call them geniuses for what they accomplished. Also, you are arguing the Founders interpretation of the Constitution is the same as the current Supreme Court. I'm not sure they would agree, but there's no way we can ever know.

buildbot 2y ago
> They wrote the document defining the currently longest running continuous government in the world. This is untrue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_San_Marino https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_San_Marino
rich_sasha 2y ago
Surely, the UK government predates the US, dating back to at least Cromwell, so 17th century, and tenuously as far as Magna Carta (and even Alfred tbe Great if you like, so deep deep medieval).
almostdeadguy 2y ago
It's not even clear what "longest running continuous government" means or how it would be defined.
asdff 2y ago
By that logic we drop everything and adopt the government of ancient rome because its one thats good for at least a thousand years by precedent
blibble 2y ago
> the currently longest running continuous government in the world. the Isle of Man goes back to 1000 or so the current UK system is essentially identical to that of 1689 and has legal governmental continuity since 1066
- janalsncm 2y ago
  If anything that is more impressive given the tiny size of the UK, few natural resources, and miserable weather.

TeeMassive 2y ago

It also goes the other way. A recourse against the only elected official of the executive is also political in itself. Without immunity, any of the thousands of prosecutors could charge, blackmail and kidnap any predidents during and after their terms. This would make Presidents effectively answer to the courts and not the people.

iAMkenough 2y ago
Are courts not made up of the people?
teg4n_ 2y ago
kidnap? what are you even are you talking about?

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]