this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2024
1265 points (96.9% liked)

Political Memes

5612 readers
1039 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 236 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Don't worry the House balances it*

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

[–] BanjoShepard@lemmy.world 73 points 1 month ago (4 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.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 41 points 1 month ago (2 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 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[–] nickwitha_k@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yup. We get to be the data points in an experiment to test a hypothesis that has no historical data to support it and whose majority of subjects have not consented to participate in.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

that has no historical data to support it and whose majority of subjects have not consented to participate in.

What?

America is already the result of accelerationism...

What do you think the Boston Tea party was?

England seized smuggled tea, it would have put smugglers out of business.

Smugglers threw legal tea off British ships in response. Now the colonies had to choose expensive legal tea or expensive smuggled tea.

And that was used as a way to make people made at the King, when if the smugglers hadn't of destroyed the legal tea, colonist would be paying the same price they always had, except instead of a small group of smugglers, the taxes went to the government that ensured the colonists safety (somewhat).

Our country is fucking built on accelerationism, there's tons of historical data from here and all over, like France obviously.

Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't.

[–] nickwitha_k@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 1 month ago

And what countries not ruled by a wealthy oligarchy as well as providing sustained increased levels of equality and justice to all peoples compared to before have resulted from accelerationism? The US has never not been a slave state, unlike other nations that did not see violent revolutions or wars of independence.

In addition, tea, while a staple at the time, is a bit incomparable to freedom from violent repression, self-determination, and general human right to live, all of which and more have been offered up, without regard for the people who will involuntarily see great harms because of it. It's the ideological equivalent of "Some of you are going to die but that's a sacrifice that I'm willing to make."

It really bears repeating that destruction of non-essential foodstuffs is not anywhere near equivalent to willingly sacrificing the lives and well-being of vulnerable populations. Even if the Boston Tea Party can be concretely tied to US independence, there is no evidence to suggest that increased levels of negative pressure would correlate to increased levels of resistance or embrace of revolutionary ideals. Especially in a populace conditioned to be anti-revolutionary.

Don't get me wrong, at this point the train is already in motion so, I hope that the accelerationists' unproven ideas pan out with minimal human suffering. But, with the Palestinian and Ukrainian peoples, as well as women and LGBTGQ+ already being fed into the hopper of the Genocide-Machine-That-Will-Totally-Result-In-A-Better-World-Trust-Me™, I'm not confident that it's holds any more plausibility than other "Pie in the Sky when you die" ideas offered by major religions. Add the impending acceleration of damage to the biosphere and I must say that I'm pretty pessimistic about the future of the human species and suspect that accelerationism will only make the end of the species more filled with unnecessary misery and suffering.

The silver lining though, is that it is extremely unlikely that humans can end all life - there are too many resilient little beasties on the planet that can survive everything short of atomization of all matter on Earth.

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago

Nice application of the selectorate theory.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 34 points 1 month 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.

[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month 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 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It isn't a big concern as none of them represent any constituents in any meaningful way. Their job is to smile, wave, and clap. And wear an ethnic costume if you're a designated token minority. Each member of the National People's Congress represents zero citizens.

[–] lime@feddit.nu 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

of course it doesn't really matter in that particular case. i was more thinking about how it would work in a country with an actually functioning government.

[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

If we allow the least populous state, Wyoming, to have three representatives, then that gives about 192,000 constituents per representative. So the House of Representatives would have about 1,720 members. Some substantial remodelling of the Capitol may have to be done. This would be enough people to fill a concert hall, but that's not undoable.

Fill the standing body by collecting nominations. Each member can nominate exactly one member to the standing body. A member who collects exactly ten nominations will sit in the standing body. This means the standing body has 172 members.

A praesidium would be elected by the standing body's political groups consisting of a president and several vice-presidents. In a proposed American system, they would probably have the title "speaker" and "deputy speaker". In China, the praesidium consists of 178 people which is far too many. Nine is a more manageable number—one speaker and eight deputy speakers. The praesidium is an administrative body responsible for scheduling votes and establishing the rules of debate. It's likely that the standing body is the only place where legislation can be introduced and debated, and then it is presented to the larger body for ratification.

The speaker is the presiding officer of the entire assembly, but the members of the praesidium can rotate presiding over the standing body. This is intended to ensure the political neutrality of the praesidium (useless in China's case because everyone is a Communist but probably more effective in a hypothetical American adaptation).

In China, the standing body is plenipotentiary (has full legislative powers) when the entire Congress is not in session. This could also be the case under the American adaptation but the US Congress is almost always in session anyway. The standing body is in permanent session.

In essence, this creates a tricameral legislature.

There are some other powers that China's Standing Committee has that the American version wouldn't. Under the Communist principle of unified power, the Standing Committee also has the power to interpret the constitution. This is incompatible with the Western concept of separation of powers so it would be left out.

[–] lime@feddit.nu 2 points 1 month ago

the US? what part of "functioning" did you miss?

(/s, obviously)

[–] GraniteM@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

The Wyoming Rule would only increase the size of the house to 574, still a totally manageable number.

[–] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 53 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 22 points 1 month ago

You're correct that the senate was designed not to represent people and give the number of states more power. To say that isn't an issue though is pretty fucked up. It was literally done this way to get slave states to sign on, giving them power to protect the institution of slavery.

States are made up. People are not. Only one of these should have power in a democracy. States can have their own laws that effect themselves, but federal policy should be dictated by the will of the people, not the will of arbitrarily drawn borders.

[–] Wogi@lemmy.world 18 points 1 month ago (2 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@slrpnk.net 15 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Infomatics90@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] dharmacurious@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

On top of that, if it's a remote job and they're not all congregated in one room, harder to have a Jan. 6 type moment. Better for national security.

Jesus Christ, I'd honestly forgotten about the uncap the house movement, but it reminds me of all the shit we're missing out on. We'd be a different country. Imagine knowing your congressperson personally? Seeing them at the grocery store. Being able to to speak to them. Hell, imagine from their point of view, being able to run for election and only having to worry about 30k voters/constituents, and tailoring campaigns to the areas you represent. Id they did it, I'd run, even in my conservative ass area, because at that point you can appeal to voters based on the things that actually plague their communities, instead of bullshit scare tactics and nationwide/statewide issues. I'm surrounded by MAGA morons, but in campaigns that small, you could win this area with a campaign based on legal weed, road construction and a push to make sure the factories around here can stay in business.

[–] Infomatics90@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 month ago

This is such a problem here (at least for me) in Canada that even my city councillors only care about talking with the rich and forget reaching out to anyone else. I don't know how they plan to dictate proper policy when you don't talk to constituents who aren't stuffing your pockets.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

...

While I'm sure that has done a lot of good.

Unfortunately we're talking about representative democracy, and that's probably the opposite.

By no means am I an expert on Nebraska, but lm pretty sure the majority are conservative and voted for that awful shit.

But setting up a system of government that isn't really a democracy because you think voters are too stupid (in Nebraska you may be right) to vote in their own self interest is literally what got us to where we are nationally today. And what people are brainstorming about how to fix.

[–] Wogi@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

Omaha voted for Harris. We split the vote, though that's not likely to survive this session.

It doesn't fucking work. Nebraska is a unicameral still because the biggest population center leans to the left. The rest of the state would suddenly have to compromise with the people in Omaha. And they don't want to fucking do that. So, when they try to fuck us we have to hope that Megan Hunt or Ernie Chambers is around to put a stop to it. And even then, we still get fucked by the state.

A second house would likely preserve the split electoral vote in Nebraska. Without it, it's a matter of time before they muster up the 33 votes to kill it.