this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2024
576 points (97.7% liked)

Political Memes

5432 readers
2607 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Etterra@lemmy.world 7 points 39 minutes ago

This is an example of why the House of Representatives also exists.

[–] theuniqueone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 29 minutes ago

Representative democracy is unstable and corruptible by design and it can't be anything else.

[–] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 minutes ago

I always thought it'd be interesting if one senator were elected only by the most populous municipality in each state.

[–] Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 1 points 19 minutes ago

It is as it needed to be to get the states to sign on. But times have changed, and it needs to as well

[–] dingdongmetacarples@lemmy.world 26 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

Don't forget, those senators translate to electoral college votes.

[–] tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip 10 points 1 hour ago

Them plus the house reps, which are artificially capped at a low number, again benefitting the low population states

[–] Sgt_choke_n_stroke@lemmy.world 1 points 49 minutes ago

Diddnt they cap the amount of house of representatives?

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 149 points 6 hours ago (3 children)

Don't worry the House balances it*

*Until they froze the House because they couldn't fit anymore chairs...

[–] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 21 points 4 hours ago

This is where the issue is. The Senate works as intended, it is meant to give the States equal power so a State like California can't just dictate what Delaware does. The House is supposed to represent based on population. The arbitrarily low cap has turned it into a second pseudo-Senate.

The House should have something like 1600 members to properly represent States. Every House seat should represent roughly the same amount of people, but that's not how it works now because of the limit. Two Representatives from different states can represent massively different sized populations.

[–] BanjoShepard@lemmy.world 50 points 5 hours ago (3 children)

I'm not inherently opposed to the Senate as a concept, I think it can serve as an important check/balance, but for it to exist while the house has been capped and stripped of its offsetting powers is completely asinine. I also think that attempting to get anything done in the house with 1,000 members may also be unproductive however. Perhaps capping the house to a reasonable number of representatives while also adjusting voting power to proportionally match the most current census could work. Some representatives may cast 1.3 votes while others may cast .7 votes.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 10 points 2 hours ago

1,000 members? The original plan was for 1 house member for every 30,000 people, eventually changing to 1 in 50,000:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Apportionment_Amendment

Doing that now, on a population of 330,000,000 would give us between 6,600 and 11,000 congress critters.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 18 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

. I also think that attempting to get anything done in the house with 1,000 members may also be unproductive however

Kind of the opposite.

The less people, the more power each one has.

So if you need a couple votes you add some things people personally want that are completely unrelated to get them on board.

With twice the people, that becomes twice as hard. So the strategy would have to pivot to actual bipartisan legislation and not just cramming bribes and personal enrichments in there till it passes.

The thing about our political system, it's been held together with duct tape so long, there's nothing left but duct tape. We can keep slapping more on there and hoping for the best, at some point we're gonna have to replace it with a system that actually works.

We might have been one of the first democracies, but lots of other countries took what we did and improved on it. It makes no logical sense to insist we stick with a bad system because we have a bad system.

[–] ChicoSuave@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

If America gets a chance to rebuild it will probably make some changes to be more democratic.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago

Well, the good news is regardless of what you thought of accelerationists plans a couple weeks ago...

We're all about to find out if they were right or not.

So we got that going for us.

[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 3 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

China has a system where you have an obscenely large legislative body (almost 3,000 members) select a standing committee of a more reasonable size which actually does the bulk of the legislative work on a day-to-day basis. I think this is a good system to copy or take ideas from.

Or at least, that is how it is supposed to work on paper. In reality the standing committee is staffed with the most loyal and powerful Government cronies and the National People's Congress is a rubber-stamping body rather than a venue for genuine political debate and expression.

[–] lime@feddit.nu 2 points 2 hours ago

also, with 3k MPs, that's one for every... half a million people.

that would give most countries a government small enough to fit in a classroom.

[–] Wogi@lemmy.world 6 points 4 hours ago (3 children)

Freezing the house did more damage than the Senate alone could ever do.

I understand where you're coming from, I do. But hear me out.

Nebraska has a unicameral, we have only the Senate. Every district in the state sends a senator and that is the only legislative house.

The number of times a single senator from downtown Omaha has single handedly filibustered a fucking awful bill to prevent the state from fucking itself is more than I'd like to count.

For a while that senator was Ernie Chambers. A man who more than once made national news because a point he was trying to make by doing something crazy was lost in the woods and it just looked like a crazy old guy from Omaha was doing something crazy in the unicameral. Omaha and the state of Nebraska owes that man a lot.

A second house would be a huge barrier to the kind of fuckery they try to get up to in the unicameral.

I know the system isn't perfect, but pulling out a safety net because it's getting in your way sometimes is definitely not the answer you think it is.

Uncap the house, fuck it, make Congressperson a remote job, keep them in their districts. They don't need to be physically present and in fact decentralizing the house might prevent some of the rampant corruption now that lobbyists suddenly have to travel all over the country to issue ~~bribes.~~ campaign contributions.

[–] dharmacurious 2 points 1 hour ago

uncap the house... make congressperson a remote job, keep them in their districts.

I can't say that's my ideal solution (as it doesn't involve completely rewriting our constitution), but that's honestly the best solution we have to most of our problems. Completely uncap, remote congress, 1 per 30k. At that point, we'd be pretty close to a real democracy. There's no reason why it couldn't be a remote job. Stay in your fucking district where we can yell at you when you fuck up. In fact, there should be a law about how many days per year they can be out of their district. Live with, work with, know the people you represent. And with that many congressional reps, it'd be hard as hell to bribe enough of them.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] masterofn001@lemmy.ca 10 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

Can we get 25 million volunteers to move proportionally to red states for the next few years?

[–] yeahiknow3@lemmings.world 5 points 56 minutes ago (2 children)

I moved to a red state. Absolutely awful. Don’t do it. Texas is an irremediable shit hole.

[–] McNasty@sh.itjust.works 1 points 18 minutes ago

West Virginia checking in

[–] BaroqueInMind@lemmy.one 1 points 20 minutes ago (1 children)

Move to the parts where it isn't (Austin, Houston).

[–] yeahiknow3@lemmings.world 2 points 16 minutes ago* (last edited 1 minute ago) (1 children)

I’m in Austin, TX. I’ve lived on two continents, three countries, ten US states. This region of the world is by far the worst place I’ve ever lived... fellas, I lived in a third world country and Texas is worse. It’s a dystopian shit hole. You can’t go outside. It’s 100 degrees half the year with high humidity. The air is dirty, polluted, full of allergens. People burn garbage everywhere. There is no wildlife. Trash in the street. Everything is dead, except a few biting insects, there’s no living creatures — not even birds. Dogs chained outside in the heat. Nature is dying, yellow and faded, except for the artificial grass — desertification and pollution. Houston is a gridlocked pile of parking lots built on a swamp, so whenever it rains it floods (which is comical — why does anyone live here?). Don’t come. There is no hope. Run away.

[–] BaroqueInMind@lemmy.one 1 points 13 minutes ago (1 children)

Then what's stopping your from leaving?

[–] yeahiknow3@lemmings.world 1 points 3 minutes ago* (last edited 2 minutes ago)

Wife’s job.

[–] 5715@feddit.org 9 points 3 hours ago (3 children)

Half a million movers per month would both wreck California and rural states real quick.

[–] Wrench@lemmy.world 4 points 2 hours ago

Also Cali would turn red quickly. I don't think our voter numbers show the true story. There are a lot of MAGA crazies in CA. I just doubt they bother voting atm because they know it's pointless.

[–] rickyrigatoni@lemm.ee 0 points 1 hour ago

So a win win.

[–] masterofn001@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 hours ago

California can take 2 for the team.

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 51 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

They came up with the best thing they could agree on at the time. They did not intend on it to become sacred, untouchable, and without the ability to change with the times, and sometimes we have changed it. Just not quite enough times.

[–] IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

It may be one of those myths, but I remember that one of the founders initially were proposing the constitution to be rewritten every 10 years.

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 33 points 5 hours ago

19 years, in a letter from Jefferson to Madison.

To James Madison from Thomas Jefferson, 6 September 1789

He thought that firstly no document or law could be forever relevant, so it needed revisioning occasionally, and the 19 years seems to tie into the idea of each generation taking a new look and either accepting existing laws as still good or making changes.

[–] TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com 4 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

The French Revolution created an easier method for reforming The Republic and rewriting their constitution.

They enshrined the revolutionary aspects of revolution instead its leaders.

That said the Federalists got part of the idea from ancient Lycia on having proportional representation and then added in keeping it in check by another chamber with equal footing.

https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20230906-the-ancient-civilisation-that-inspired-us-democracy

It is a good idea. But we need more Congresspersons to lower the people each congressperson represents. It was ~95,000 in 1940 ... in 2020 it is closer to 750,000 per congresscritter.

[–] miak@lemmy.world 62 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

I may be misremembering, but I believe the way things were originally designed was that the Senate was supposed to represent the states, not the people. The house represented the people. That's why the Senate has equal representation (because the states were meant to have equal say), and the house proportionate to population.

[–] MumboJumbo@lemmy.world 34 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

That is correct. The state legislatures generally (if not always) picked the senators, but due to huge state corruption, it was almost always political qui pro quo, and some states even going full terms without selecting sla sentaor. This led to the 17th amendment (which you'll here rednecks and/or white supremacists asposing, because states' rights.)

Edit to add: Wikipedia knows it better than I do.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] invertedspear@lemm.ee 8 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

This is correct, and this part of the system works fine. What should have happened though is a population break point where a state has to break up if they exceed a certain population. CA should be at least 3 states. New York needs a split as well, probably a few others. There is no way a state can serve its population well when the population is measured in the tens of millions.

[–] Stovetop@lemmy.world 9 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

I agree in theory, but big cities are where things get muddy.

When a single city (e.g. New York City, population ~8 million just to use the biggest example) has a population larger than entire states, how do you "split" the state of New York? If the city itself, excluding any of the surrounding "metro area", was its own state, it would be the 13th most populous in the US and also the smallest by area.

Do we carve up each of the boroughs as a separate state, and give New York City 10 senators? It would be more proportional representation for the people of NYC, but also their close proximity and interdependence would very much align their priorities and make them a formidable voting bloc. And even then, you could still fit 4 Vermonts worth of people into Brooklyn alone. How much would we need to cut to make it equitable? Or do we work the other way as well and tell Vermont it no longer gets to be its own state because there aren't enough people?

For states like California, which still have large cities but not quite to the extreme of New York, how do we divide things fairly? Do we take a ruler and cut it into neat thirds, trying to leave some cities as the nucleus of each new state? Or do we end up with the state of California (area mostly unchanged), the state of Los Angeles, and the state of The Bay Area?

[–] joyjoy@lemm.ee 6 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Are we bringing back city-states? We already have city-counties.

[–] Manalith@midwest.social 1 points 29 minutes ago

I like city-states, they're my favorite part of fantasy novels.

[–] paddirn@lemmy.world 16 points 6 hours ago (3 children)

I'm assuming it's working as intended.

[–] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 3 points 4 hours ago

The Senate is. The House is not. The artificial limit of 435 set in 1911 has turned it into a pseudo-Senate and done a lot of harm to this country. With the same population representation as then, we should have around 1600 Representatives now.

A lot of the issues we currently have in Congress simply wouldn't exist with the House operating as it was designed.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›