3 ms·

Because the liars who have already profited from lying will defend the current system. The best fix that we can work on now in America is repealing the 17th am

Because the liars who have already profited from lying will defend the current system. The best fix that we can work on now in America is repealing the 17th amendment to restrengthen the federal system as a check on populist impulses, which can easily be manipulated by liars.

touristtam 8mo ago
So your senators were appointed before that? No election needed?
- bitwize 8mo ago
  Yes, by state legislatures. The concept was the Senate would reflect the states' interests, whereas the House would reflect the people's interests, in matters of federal legislation.
  - throwaway2037 8mo ago
    For those unaware, the German Federal democratic system works in a similar way. They have two houses: the Bundestag (directly elected) and the Bundesrat (appointed by state legistatures). As a outsider, their democracy appears to be very high functioning, which demonstrates this form of democracy can work well.
    - logifail 8mo ago
      > their democracy appears to be very high functioning, which demonstrates this form of democracy can work well This probably depends on your definition of "working well". In March 2025, after the last Federal elections were held in Germany (February 2025), but before the new parliament was constituted (within 30 days of the results?), the new governing coalition engineered a constitutional amendment which required a supermajority which they would not have in the new parliament, so instead they held the vote in the old parliament. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/18/world/europe/germany-debt-brake.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/18/world/europe/germany-debt... This was perfectly legal, although if you explain it to an outsider it might seem like an abuse of process.
      - throwaway2037 8mo ago
        I added that last line as a honeypot, as part of my ongoing project on HN. No matter what I say positive about some country, culture, or institution, someone will pop into the conversation to say: "Yes, but what about this one incident. See, X is not so great after all." I think we need an equivalent of Brandolini's law for counterpoint of negativity in all HN discussions. It is as though people think they are disproving a maths proof by counterpoint. That's not the way the Real World of Human Society works. Weirdly, I see the same pattern on Wiki pages about living people. There is always a section of a bunch of random one-off events trying to discredit the person. To react to your specific incident, I think a more nuanced view would be to say that all highly functioning democracies have incidents that are "perfectly legal, but appear as an abuse of process". I don't really think that detracts from the overall statement that Germany is a highly functioning democracy. Moreover, highly functional democracies regularly change parliamentary rules to reduce incidents like this.
        disgruntledphd2 8mo ago
        > To react to your specific incident, I think a more nuanced view would be to say that all highly functioning democracies have incidents that are "perfectly legal, but appear as an abuse of process". I don't really think that detracts from the overall statement that Germany is a highly functioning democracy. Moreover, highly functional democracies regularly change parliamentary rules to reduce incidents like this. I agree with the repealing of the debt brake (it was a dumb idea that lead to badness, exported right across the EU), but there's no question that how it happened was pretty un-democratic. Like, procedurally it's fine but it was essentially making a big change in a lame-duck session of Parliament. None of this disputes the notion that Germany is a high functioning democracy, but I guarantee that this action will be brought up again and again by populists in the future, as an example of how the "elites" don't care about democracy. The sad part is, they will be entirely correct in this particular case.
        throwaway2037 8mo ago
        Another idea for the debt brake: What if they set strict limits, like a max of 3% for 7 years, or 5% for 5 years. Literally, you have a "bank of GDP percent points". You can gain them by running a surplus and spend them by running a deficit. Start the initial bank balance at 25%. > but I guarantee that this action will be brought up again and again by populists in the future, as an example of how the "elites" don't care about democracy. This is a good point that I didn't think about.
shimman 8mo ago
lol what the fuck, no. Can't believe you look at the current system and think "you know what, political parties should be able to choose senators not the citizens." Good lord.
godelski 8mo ago
> Because the liars who have already profited from lying will defend the current system. Okay? And so we just have to deal with it? Give up? Throw in the towel? Not push back? > repealing the 17th amendment Did you read your first sentence? *By your own logic,* the liars who have already profited from lying will appoint those who will help them defend the current system.

touristtam 8mo ago

So your senators were appointed before that? No election needed?

bitwize 8mo ago
Yes, by state legislatures. The concept was the Senate would reflect the states' interests, whereas the House would reflect the people's interests, in matters of federal legislation.
- throwaway2037 8mo ago
  For those unaware, the German Federal democratic system works in a similar way. They have two houses: the Bundestag (directly elected) and the Bundesrat (appointed by state legistatures). As a outsider, their democracy appears to be very high functioning, which demonstrates this form of democracy can work well.
  - logifail 8mo ago
    > their democracy appears to be very high functioning, which demonstrates this form of democracy can work well This probably depends on your definition of "working well". In March 2025, after the last Federal elections were held in Germany (February 2025), but before the new parliament was constituted (within 30 days of the results?), the new governing coalition engineered a constitutional amendment which required a supermajority which they would not have in the new parliament, so instead they held the vote in the old parliament. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/18/world/europe/germany-debt-brake.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/18/world/europe/germany-debt... This was perfectly legal, although if you explain it to an outsider it might seem like an abuse of process.
    - throwaway2037 8mo ago
      I added that last line as a honeypot, as part of my ongoing project on HN. No matter what I say positive about some country, culture, or institution, someone will pop into the conversation to say: "Yes, but what about this one incident. See, X is not so great after all." I think we need an equivalent of Brandolini's law for counterpoint of negativity in all HN discussions. It is as though people think they are disproving a maths proof by counterpoint. That's not the way the Real World of Human Society works. Weirdly, I see the same pattern on Wiki pages about living people. There is always a section of a bunch of random one-off events trying to discredit the person. To react to your specific incident, I think a more nuanced view would be to say that all highly functioning democracies have incidents that are "perfectly legal, but appear as an abuse of process". I don't really think that detracts from the overall statement that Germany is a highly functioning democracy. Moreover, highly functional democracies regularly change parliamentary rules to reduce incidents like this.
      - disgruntledphd2 8mo ago
        > To react to your specific incident, I think a more nuanced view would be to say that all highly functioning democracies have incidents that are "perfectly legal, but appear as an abuse of process". I don't really think that detracts from the overall statement that Germany is a highly functioning democracy. Moreover, highly functional democracies regularly change parliamentary rules to reduce incidents like this. I agree with the repealing of the debt brake (it was a dumb idea that lead to badness, exported right across the EU), but there's no question that how it happened was pretty un-democratic. Like, procedurally it's fine but it was essentially making a big change in a lame-duck session of Parliament. None of this disputes the notion that Germany is a high functioning democracy, but I guarantee that this action will be brought up again and again by populists in the future, as an example of how the "elites" don't care about democracy. The sad part is, they will be entirely correct in this particular case.
        throwaway2037 8mo ago
        Another idea for the debt brake: What if they set strict limits, like a max of 3% for 7 years, or 5% for 5 years. Literally, you have a "bank of GDP percent points". You can gain them by running a surplus and spend them by running a deficit. Start the initial bank balance at 25%. > but I guarantee that this action will be brought up again and again by populists in the future, as an example of how the "elites" don't care about democracy. This is a good point that I didn't think about.

shimman 8mo ago

lol what the fuck, no. Can't believe you look at the current system and think "you know what, political parties should be able to choose senators not the citizens." Good lord.

godelski 8mo ago

> Because the liars who have already profited from lying will defend the current system. Okay? And so we just have to deal with it? Give up? Throw in the towel? Not push back? > repealing the 17th amendment Did you read your first sentence? *By your own logic,* the liars who have already profited from lying will appoint those who will help them defend the current system.