You're viewing a single thread.
Guys, they’d be overjoyed their government the hammered out in overnight binge drinking sessions lasted 200+ years.
All the present problems are our problems. They gave us the amendment system for a reason.
Not universally. Jefferson would have been horrified that the same government he established was still trucking along. 50 years was the longest he wanted it to last, and called for dramatic change at that point
Do you honestly want to live in a country where the established foundations of government changed every 50 years? That kind of chaos and instability would be crushing. There are places like that right now, and first world countries they are not.
Can you imagine if that change happened during like 2018/19 when the government was full of people I liked slightly less than the people in their right now? That would have sucked.
Hmm... Sounds to me like someone understood the need to update a country's systems with the cultural and technological progress of humanity.
You're right, which is why it should be slowly and continuously changed along with the times and through the mechanisms in place to do so, not drastically and sweepingly every 50 years or so. You don't throw out and replace the constitution or other foundations of law without massive societal upheaval, which is just as bad as permanent stagnation.
They also wrote that system not expecting it to be able to be gummed up by as little as 2% of the population because of how stupid we were about drawing state borders
I feel like that comment severely lacks nuance but I'm also not sure how best to state the problem in few words so I haven't downvoted.
I would put it like this. The founding fathers did a decent job in writing the Constitution, but it is evident that they were humans that didn't expect in having to handle how to actually make the system work with less than trustworthy people. The need for the 12th Amendment is a prime example.
However, we've kept it for the most part while changing base assumptions over time as the want to rewrite everything from the ground up disappeared.
How? Assuming you're talking about Wyoming we only have one vote in the house and two in the senate. We can hardly gum it up by our little lonesome.
Well for starters that's a disproportionate 3 electoral votes for president
It takes as little as less than a fifth of the population to elect a president if they embark on a small states crusade.
As for constitutional amendments, it takes THREE QUARTERS of the states to approve an amendment, meaning that starting from the smallest states and working our way up, less than 7 million people can decide for the other 343 million that an amendment doesn't pass.
And that's all assuming state action reflects popular will within the states, which it often doesn't.
The United States is a republic of States. In it all states are equal in the union. That's why the senate is locked at two senators per state and why all states have equal say on amendments.
And all that is working as intended, because the US is a gestalt entity created of 50 states cooperating in concert with each other. We have an electoral college to balance the power between the biggest and smallest states so that every state gets representation under a representational republic. Extrapolate out to other similar organizations like the European Union. Would Luxembourg join or remain in the EU if votes were done by direct democracy of the population of each member country and Germany alone nearly outnumbers the bottom half of the EU by population? Each member state deserves representation. The same is true for the US, where it's illegal to leave the union after you've joined.
The House of Representatives are the voice of the actual people (unfairly restricted in size which needs to be fixed but that's another story), the Senate is supposed to be the voice of the States (but we made them directly elected instead of appointed by the state governments making them just a super version of the House but that is yet another conversation), and the President to run the government and act as our figurehead. This is supposed to allow the vastly different needs of each state and for the differing needs between urban and rural areas to be represented. This is why yes, if your amendment cannot convince 75% of states that it's a good amendment, it probably shouldn't pass in the first place.
TL/DR: Direct democracy is practiced at the local and state level, then representationally at the federal level because we are a republic of cooperating states that each have their own needs and desires. We have fucked with/fucked up how that representation works in the republic for better or worse, and the system as designed allows the possibility for a tyranny of the minority because it was the only way to prevent permanent tyranny of the majority.
I like how that question about Luxembourg basically just outed your whole point, because the EU basically does work like that save issues like new members, and Luxembourg did join.
The mechanisms that right wing fucksticks like to argue are protection for small states and local autonomy are archaisms that collectively give a severe balance tilt to mid sized states that "swing" from election to election.
Not to mention how this fear of overbearing higher authority never seems to be respected within small states, like say whenever a local city decides it wants to do things differently and small states that bitch and moan about local rule whenever it's about not being able to mow down 40 walmart patrons before they even know someone's shooting, but then act like local autonomy is separatism when someone within their borders wants to build affordable housing or allow teachers to acknowledge that gay people exist.
You apparently believe that the enlightened EU apportions votes by equal proportionality based on population of member nations, but that isn't true. Germany, with over 84x the population of Luxembourg does not get 84x the number of MEPs. Luxembourg's population get 8x the MEP representation of Germany's. It is a degressive proportion system just like the Electoral College, for exactly the reasons I stated.
Point two is literally just you saying you don't like the way it works and trying to discredit it by calling it archaic, as if the concept of direct democracy isn't just as old as representational republics. No one is arguing that it doesn't create swing states and tilt the balance back towards the mid and small sized states, because that's what it was designed to do: make it so the smaller states must be included.
Really not sure what your last paragraph is about as it's not very clear, but within a state everything is direct democracy. This means that the large population centers do run the states like you want, which results in situations like parts of California trying to split off because they have no representation. Unless it violates the constitution or other applicable federal law, states get to set their own rules and laws.
If each state was as dominated by large population centers as you think the country as a whole would be muuuuuch farther to the left, except it isn't because those little mini republics decided voting and human rights are also a states rights issue.
Also, those parts of California do have representation, just representation equal to their true size within the state, you know, power representative of their share of the population, and all those "small states" know it to, which is why state republican parties are now petitioning to make this country even less democratic by instituting state level electoral colleges
You fucking know it's just a power fix, "states rights" is just a dogwhistle for pulling the democratic rug before the browns and queers get too many rights.
Once again, state politics are direct democracy. You don't go vote for your Governor and Representatives and your federal House and Senate candidates, and then have your county or district results generate an elector to vote on your behalf. There are no mini republics. Those states are operating as you are arguing for the federal level to operate, while complaining about their results and believing you can erase those results by removing the last vestiges of states rights. Throwing the baby out with the bath water, because there are no legitimate states rights issues, only bigoted ones. Your dismissal of any concerns from the rural and agricultural regions of California out of hand as there aren't enough of them to matter, and the later implication that they are just bigots anyway so should be ignored is pretty clear.
Your entire argument is that you don't like how conservative rural states are, because you are apparently better than them and want to rewrite the rules to finish writing them off. Not everything you disagree with is a dog whistle, Wyoming doesn't want to retain its 3 electoral college votes to disenfranchise brown people, and everything isn't a conspiracy of white supremacy. You seem to just want to handwave all state level rights conversations away as bigotry, and I guess you just keep on doing you. I don't expect this conversation to actually go anywhere from:
You fucking know it's just a power fix, "states rights" is just a dogwhistle for pulling the democratic rug before the browns and queers get too many rights.
Wow, been a while since I've seen strawman of such girth and density. You could thatch a mid size town with all this.
Go to any blue town in a red state and tell me more about how this supposed yearn for local autonomy being a farce is just a strawman.
Funny how you don't see a connection between the establishment of the US and now.