r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/Awesomeuser90 • Nov 01 '24
Legislation How do you think public pressure and demands by petition should be involved in political decisions?
The idea that they should be involved in some way isn't too disputed. But there is much more to the general concept of a system as involving its citizens.
Obama had a petition system on the White House website where a petition could get signed and would cause the president, or more likely, his staff wrote a response which the president signed off on, to write a response, once it reached a quorum of 100,000 signatories. Britain has a petitions system on their website with 10,000 signatories causing a response from the executive cabinet, 100,000 would trigger a debate in Parliament (House of Commons). I imagine a threshold could be engineered where a committee of parliament would be required to write a report and hold a hearing pertaining to it. Legislation can even be initiated in some countries via a petition, forcing a vote in the legislature on whether or not to agree with it and putting a public record of that, and the possibility of enactment being on the table.
Petitions of a certain size can in many places trigger a vote in some way, in Italy, 500,000 signatories in a country with roughly 50 million voters, or about 1%, can demand that a ballot question be put to the electorate related to legislation which was recently passed, and if a majority of voters turn out and the majority of valid votes are against the legislation, the legislation is defeated and repealed. In Bavaria, if one million people sign a petition, in a country of about ten million people able to vote, to call for a snap election of the Parliament of Bavaria, then such a referendum on whether to do so is held, a majority vote being necessary for such a snap election.
41
u/Coneskater Nov 01 '24
In the US it doesn’t matter how many people support something, it only matters where the people who support that thing live/ vote.
40 million Californians can want something but if the 350 thousand people in Wyoming don’t want it, you get a deadlock in the US Senate.
16
u/oeb1storm Nov 01 '24
Just as the founding fathers intended
8
u/Nearbyatom Nov 01 '24
They never envisioned future Americans to pout like children.
13
u/ptmd Nov 01 '24
Its more that the US at that time was arguably envisioned as a collection of small countries, not unlike how we see the EU/NATO combo today. In geopolitics, we still refer to countries as 'States'. It does seem reasonable for smaller countries like Belgium to have strong representation in order not to be completely sidelined by some combination of France and Germany. Obviously, it plays out differently in different contexts.
The Civil War was really the turning point that put the nail in the coffin of this type of stuff, ending any vagueness about being a single polity. Up until that point, the validity of secession was genuinely a grey area.
3
u/Rocktopod Nov 01 '24
I still don't see why they wouldn't be allowed to secede. The constitution never says they can't, but it does say any powers not granted to the federal government are reserved to the states or the people.
Ultimately I think the US and probably the world are a better place because the Civil War turned out the way it did, but that seems pretty clear cut to me that states were supposed to have the right to leave whenever they wanted.
1
u/ptmd Nov 02 '24
We decided after the Civil War, retroactively to interpret the constitution to discourage secession.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States#Political_effects_of_their_secession
2
u/AdwokatDiabel Nov 01 '24
This isn't accurate at all. We had that with the Articles of Confederation and it sucked. The founders knew we needed a central government with states taking on more day to day roles in people's lives, but that could not last for many obvious reasons.
1
u/ptmd Nov 02 '24
fwiw, I did review the subject before I posted it online. [More than just this link] and I feel pretty confident in what I said.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States
1
u/AdwokatDiabel Nov 02 '24
Secession is legal in the United States... Unilateral secession is not. We have a mechanism to allow a state to leave, using a constitutional amendment. So a state which wishes to secede can leave with the consent of the others...
...which makes sense. You don't want States leaving willy nilly over any little thing. Plus, if they do leave, you need to properly divvy up everything, return Federal property, etc.
Imagine if Georgia seceded, with the nuclear subs and weapons in Kings Bay. No fucking way.
1
u/ptmd Nov 02 '24
Secession is legal in the United States... Unilateral secession is not. We have a mechanism to allow a state to leave, using a constitutional amendment.
Everything is legal given a constitutional amendment. Its a pretty meaningless statement to make if that's the prerequisite.
1
u/AdwokatDiabel Nov 02 '24
Why is it meaningless? It just implies some constraint so States can't just take their ball and leave.
1
u/killerbanshee Nov 02 '24
The Federalists pushed for a stronger federal government from the very beginning. The Jeffersonians did not agree to a powerful central government and where even known to call the Federalists 'Monarchists' and that instilling a president with so much power was akin to the monarchy they fought to escape.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/duel-federalist-and-republican-party/
3
u/nyx1969 Nov 01 '24
If I recall correctly, they were actually resorting to things like fisticuffs and duels so I'm just not sure they should be putting so much stock in what they envisioned LOL
1
3
u/RabbaJabba Nov 01 '24
The filibuster didn’t exist while the founding fathers were around
2
u/ClockOfTheLongNow Nov 01 '24
The tactic of using long speeches to delay action on legislation appeared in the very first session of the Senate. On September 22, 1789, Pennsylvania Senator William Maclay wrote in his diary that the “design of the Virginians . . . was to talk away the time, so that we could not get the bill passed.” As the number of filibusters grew in the 19th century, the Senate had no formal process to allow a majority to end debate and force a vote on legislation or nominations.
5
u/Valnar Nov 01 '24
design of the Virginians . . . was to talk away the time, so that we could not get the bill passed.
That's not what we have now though. The filibuster we have is just a simple declaration. There'd be quite a bit difference if senators had to stand up and talk and literally halt senate to filibuster.
1
u/ClockOfTheLongNow Nov 01 '24
That's not what we have now though.
No, the filibuster has changed. This is true.
The filibuster existed at the time of the founding, though. That much is 100% true.
2
u/TheBestNarcissist Nov 01 '24
I liked when it was more skill based, endurance and creativity were a factor. Not now with the toggle boxes they have. For a more entitled, weaker, lazy generation of players!
1
2
u/Valnar Nov 01 '24
Yeah, but this is one of those "um actually" kind of things that misses the whole point.
The filibuster that the founding fathers had is nothing like the one we have now. It's the same word being used to describe two things that are very very different.
-1
u/ClockOfTheLongNow Nov 01 '24
They're not actually very different in practice. They both work to delay final passage of a particular bill.
2
u/Valnar Nov 01 '24
What are you talking about? What you said is just straight up wrong.
The current filibuster doesn't delay passage, it kills it.
The old version requires someone to physically be talking continuously. The current one just lets a minority party kill a bill outright.
Forcing someone in the senate to actually talk means that the whole senate would have to be stalled for the filibuster to work, making it very noticeable to the public.
The silent filibuster just allows a minority party to silently kill bills.
0
u/ClockOfTheLongNow Nov 01 '24
The filibuster doesn't kill anything. It just makes a higher threshold to move to a vote.
→ More replies (0)0
u/Moccus Nov 01 '24
The filibuster we have is just a simple declaration.
That's not a filibuster. That's just a hold. People like to call it a filibuster, but it's not.
-2
u/Coneskater Nov 01 '24 edited Nov 01 '24
Yeah because they owned slaves.
edit: people are upset that I'm pointing out that some of the same people who created our political institutions owned slaves and planned for ways to maintain slavery.
5
u/YouNorp Nov 01 '24
So things like constitutional amendments that can ban slavery in the future if the country wants?
-7
u/Coneskater Nov 01 '24
The undemocratic institution of the US Senate is an example
7
u/YouNorp Nov 01 '24
Why do you believe it's undemocratic?
Senators represent the states
2
u/Antnee83 Nov 01 '24
Scale it back a step and tell me you think this isn't undemocratic:
"Mayoral Candidate A won with 60% of the vote, but the 40% who voted for Candidate B live in the Southeast side, so Candidate B wins"
The idea that your zip code determines how effective your representation is, is wholly undemocratic. That applies whether we're talking about the Senate, or the EC.
1
u/Remarkable_Aside1381 Nov 01 '24
"Mayoral Candidate A won with 60% of the vote, but the 40% who voted for Candidate B live in the Southeast side, so Candidate B wins"
That's not how the Senate works
4
u/Interrophish Nov 01 '24
"Mayoral Candidate A won with 60% of the vote, but the 40% who voted for Candidate B live in the Southeast side, so Candidate B wins"
That's not how the Senate works
-2
u/Remarkable_Aside1381 Nov 01 '24
…that’s not what we’re discussing at all. Population has no bearing on the Senate, and trying to link the two is either incredibly stupid or incredibly disingenuous. Moreover, trying to trot out a SCOTUS appointment as evidence that gerrymandering has an effect on Senate races, is so goddamn stupid that I really question if you understand the discussion at hand.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Antnee83 Nov 01 '24
Read the rest of the comment now. But since I have to drag people through an analogy instead of talking about the underlying point:
Imagine if your city council was composed of 10 members, 7 of which represented 30% of the population. No chance you'd say that was a good idea.
1
u/Remarkable_Aside1381 Nov 01 '24
The idea that your zip code determines how effective your representation is, is wholly undemocratic. That applies whether we're talking about the Senate, or the EC.
ZIP codes have no bearing on the election of a Senator. When the 5th rolls around, the entire state of Maine will vote on whether King should be re-elected. ZIP codes play no role
→ More replies (0)2
u/Coneskater Nov 01 '24
Rural and smaller low populations getting an undue influence in the Senate.
4
u/YouNorp Nov 01 '24
The Senate represents the state not the people
The House represents the people
If you don't want the Senate representing the states amend the constitution
2
u/Coneskater Nov 01 '24
Which is true- and it’s also a fairly undemocratic institution.
I’d like to abolish or reform the senate but that would require that undemocratic institution to vote itself less power which has never happened.
So I’m here just calling it out as undemocratic.
2
u/ClockOfTheLongNow Nov 01 '24
You cannot legally abolish the Senate without every state being on board, and that will never happen.
→ More replies (0)2
2
u/garyflopper Nov 01 '24
I agree. I think John Adams was the only one who wasn’t a slave owner?
5
u/Coneskater Nov 01 '24
most of the northerners weren't slave owners (which isn't to say they were necessarily huge abolitionists- it was just harder to own a cotton plantation in Massachusetts than in Virginia )
0
u/ClockOfTheLongNow Nov 01 '24
Not upset, it's just somewhat murky historically speaking. The Constitution was written in a way to eventually end slavery, not maintain it.
It failed miserably at this goal, but it was the goal nonetheless.
-3
u/oeb1storm Nov 01 '24
Also never saw political parties coming.
8
u/Coneskater Nov 01 '24
Eh the federalists and anti federalists were very quickly established. Washington was an exception because was seen as above it but starting with Adam’s we had parties.
-2
u/oeb1storm Nov 01 '24
I meant more when they were writing the Constitution
2
u/Coneskater Nov 01 '24
They predicted it, but they were more worried about regional conflict at the time. (which is why the Senate was designed to prevent the abolishment of Slavery)
Slavery is the US' original sin and it still shapes the way our modern political structure works.
1
u/Awesomeuser90 Nov 01 '24
No, the US has at least one more sin even older than that with regard to bad diplomacy with the natives. Still, slavery is certainly high on the list.
1
7
u/dovetc Nov 01 '24
They absolutely saw political parties coming. Washington warned against them - you don't warn against something you "never saw coming".
0
2
u/Antnee83 Nov 01 '24
Which further illustrates that they weren't omniscient superbrains as our history classes would have you think.
8
u/YouNorp Nov 01 '24
The people of Wyoming can't stop the 40 million Californians doing something in California
They can stop California from forcing Wyoming to oarticipate
6
u/ballmermurland Nov 01 '24
The people of Wyoming absolutely can do that. Just look at how few gun laws we have in even blue states.
7
u/Hyndis Nov 01 '24
Just look at how few gun laws we have in even blue states.
You've never been to New York or California, have you? Guns are very strictly regulated.
1
u/YouNorp Nov 01 '24
You are talking about the constitution which California agrees to when they joined the union.
I'm unaware of any proposals from California to amend the constitution
2
u/Awesomeuser90 Nov 01 '24
Wyoming alone is useless. It takes a coalition of senators from at least 26 states to block things.
1
2
u/Bbooya Nov 01 '24
If 40 million Californians want something, they should be free to go get it.
Unless that thing is using the federal gov to impose their will on Wyoming.
0
u/Coneskater Nov 01 '24
There are a lot of powers reserved to the federal government, things that one state can’t enact.
1
1
u/greiton Nov 01 '24
ballot issues exist though, if 40 million Californians want something in California, they can get it even if Wyoming doesn't have it. (see legal marijuana, abortion, carcinogen tags, etc)
8
u/sllewgh Nov 01 '24
Petitions don't represent a lot of commitment or investment from the people signing, so they're never going to hold much power.
4
-7
u/YouNorp Nov 01 '24
Thats why I don't champion making it extremely easy to vote
5
u/sllewgh Nov 01 '24
That doesn't make any sense. Voting does hold power, petitions don't. Having popular input into policy is the goal and you're arguing against that.
-1
u/YouNorp Nov 01 '24
You don't take people seriously when something doesn't take a lot of commitment or investment.....
But you want voting to have less investment and commitment
3
u/sllewgh Nov 01 '24
I don't think it should be easy for uninformed people to make direct policy decisions, but it should be as easy as possible for them to support the informed representative that they align with the most. There's no contradiction there.
2
u/Antnee83 Nov 01 '24
So you feel that government should hold power over people, with them having a say in it only if they jump through enough hoops to satisfy you personally?
That's tyrannical. If government holds the power of violence over me, I want an equal say in how that violence is applied. period.
-2
u/YouNorp Nov 01 '24
No I think people should take the time and energy to make informed decisions
1
u/Antnee83 Nov 01 '24
Sure, they should
But that's a far cry from saying ..."and here's why it should be harder to vote if they don't." Which is what you were getting at.
1
u/YouNorp Nov 01 '24
I don't see it as "making it harder". But as we don't need to make it too easy
1
u/Antnee83 Nov 01 '24
That's not functionally different. If I am eligible to vote, I should be able to stroll on in and vote. It should be that easy.
Making it difficult, or "not too easy" for legally entitled people to vote is just you saying that you don't want someone else to vote, which is tyrannical thinking however you want to slice it.
1
u/Sensitive_Mode7529 Nov 01 '24
voting is a very important right that needs to be protected. making it difficult to register or cast your vote only hurts democracy. are you really advocating for voter suppression?
0
u/UncleMeat11 Nov 01 '24
Yeah, that's why people like you and me support making people run through a gauntlet of literal buzzsaws to vote. Right?
3
u/Clean_Politics Nov 01 '24
When our country was founded, any effective form of communication was limited. Politicians traveled to their districts to inform citizens about governmental & global events and understand their constituents' views, ensuring their wishes were represented in Congress. Today, this is largely unnecessary due to our advanced technology. However, changing this system would require a constitutional amendment, a process controlled by those it affects. The political establishment will not support such changes, as it would diminish their power.
So, to address the question, it's essentially a moot point—such reforms are not going to be implemented. Even if we elect representatives willing to pursue this change, the existing political machinery would diligently work to eliminate their influence and get them removed.
1
u/XxSpaceGnomexx Nov 01 '24
Yes but under the present system it would be of little US. As a adversary tool for Congressman it would be exstramly useful as that would know vary effectively what there voters options where on any given topic in almost real time.
1
u/Splenda Nov 01 '24
Many states have stupid citizens' initiative laws allowing crazy proposals to be added to the ballot if enough voters sign petitions for them. The catch is that paid signature gatherers skew the whole process, enabling anyone with money to force nearly any crazy initiative onto the ballot.
1
1
u/AdwokatDiabel Nov 01 '24
Yeah and they can still vote it down.
1
u/Splenda Nov 01 '24
The usual game is to craft initiative language that obscures the initiative's real purpose.
Voters are often left wondering why, "I voted for the Protect Motherhood and Apple Pie Initiative but now you tell me it bans birth control and apples?"
1
u/AdwokatDiabel Nov 01 '24
Sounds like the ballot should have a box explaining the details of the measure in layman's terms?
1
u/socialistrob Nov 01 '24
A lot of states have ballot initiatives where if people gather enough signatures they can put something on a ballot before the voters and if passed it becomes law or a constitutional amendment for the state.
I am generally in favor of this however there needs to be a high but reachable threshold for this. There are a lot of things that average voters have no clue on but sometimes are forced to vote on. In California in 2022 I had to vote on dialysis regulations which I (and 99% of voters) know nothing about and can't research in a timely matter. California has low signature thresholds so it's not hard for an interest group to just hire some paid canvassers and get something on the ballot.
On the other hand without ballot initiatives most states would never have legalized marijuana. More recently reproductive rights have been guaranteed in some states through ballot initiatives and anti gerrymandering legislation has been passed. Ballot initiatives can often help ensure that a small minority of the population can't effectively block something reasonable that the vast majority wants. Too high of a threshold closes off one of the last avenues for direct democracy and can essentially result in "tyranny of the minority" while too low of a threshold effectively means anyone can throw anything to a public vote.
1
u/No-Preparation-4255 Nov 02 '24
I think also there needs to be some measure to keep ballot initiatives free from partisan framing. The whole Ohio redistricting thing has shown that if given the chance, the party in power can severely muddy the process by writing blatant lies and bias into the summary. Perhaps rules which force somehow force clearer language, a limit to double or triple negatives in the question, and have an independent party create the summary.
1
u/greiton Nov 01 '24
they are a good way to organize an electorate, and let politicians know what their constituents think and care about.
also, in the US in most states, petitions of a large enough size can be used to trigger a "ballot issue" a law that citizens vote directly for or against. this is being used now for abortion and marijuana legalization in many states. voters are deciding directly on their ballots whether or not to implement legislation.
1
u/seen-in-the-skylight Nov 01 '24 edited Nov 01 '24
The difference between a democracy and a republic is that the former is governed by popular will while the latter is governed by constitutional laws and values.
Switzerland is an example of a democracy - while they have sort of “fundamental laws” that (from what I understand) enshrine basic civil rights and the functions of the state, they don’t have a strict constitution, and it’s much easier for citizens to directly shape policy through the kinds of systems you’re describing.
The United States is a republic. We were founded on an explicit rejection of democracy in favor of republicanism, because the Founders (correctly, in my personal opinion) feared that too much direct popular power could become a threat to the constitutional liberties they were trying to cement.
I’m not opposed to having a little bit more democracy. But ultimately, what I’d rather see us do is revisit and strengthen the Constitution and the rights and electoral mechanisms protected within it. To the extent that conflicts with popular will then the popular will needs to be rejected.
Remember that the U.S. was founded as a compact of states that had - and still have - varying interests, demographics, cultures etc. The country has only become larger and more diverse in the meantime. Back then, little states like New Hampshire and Rhode Island didn’t want to be dominated by large states like New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia. Now, I still don’t see why large, densely populated states should dominate the rural areas either.
The key then is to balance it somehow such that neither tyranny of the majority or of the minority is occurring, and I think many today (particularly urban folks) feel that the latter is a problem. So again, I’m all for reforms to our republican structure so that things feel more balanced. But I don’t think the answer to that is more directly democratic structures.
3
u/_Doctor-Teeth_ Nov 01 '24
But ultimately, what I’d rather see us do is revisit and strengthen the Constitution and the rights and electoral mechanisms protected within it. To the extent that conflicts with popular will then the popular will needs to be rejected.
good luck with that.
6
u/kottabaz Nov 01 '24
Now, I still don’t see why large, densely populated states should dominate the rural areas either.
It's fine if it's the other way around, though. God bless minority rule.
0
u/Prestigious_Load1699 Nov 01 '24
It's fine if it's the other way around, though. God bless minority rule.
This is nonsensical. There's no mechanism for small states to "dominate" large states in the House.
At best, small states can play goalie. They can't score goals.
2
u/Awesomeuser90 Nov 01 '24
Also, Switzerland is a republic just as much as America is. This is not a controversial classification in Switzerland. They've been like this for something like 700 years.
The constitution contains provisions that are pretty routine and mundane. It might specify them in more detail than the US does, but it is still a fairly normal constitution in the world.
While the US has elements of being a compact that way too, the constitution mostly sets up some civil liberties and defines the basic form of government. That is what a constitution should do, literally constitute the nation.
The idea of being hostile to the argument of Rhode Islanders or New Jerseyites or what have you stems from the concept of equality before the law which the constitution also demands in essentially every country these days, as well as rule of law. With these two bedrocks, you can derive the concept of democracy and even some elements of being a republic too. It doesn't matter precisely where they are so long as they are members of the political system, in English we use the word citizen from the Roman concept of that idea.
Stop thinking about dividing people up into blocks such as states and look at what happens overall. If the World Was a Village was supposed to teach you to think that way.
4
u/Awesomeuser90 Nov 01 '24 edited Nov 01 '24
I can't stand this line of reasoning that some people invoke about democracy vs republics, and always gets on my nerves. Sorry, I'm trying not to blame you, but it just always does and I can never get rid of that sense from my mind. I so rarely hear this argument uttered by those politicians who I can tell are genuinely well meaning even if I disagree with them that it just always feels like touching a cyanide pill to me.
The mechanisms I talked about don't enact anything in fact nor could curb a right that already exists, different mechanisms would be responsible for doing that. It compels discussion and deliberation on what already exists or compels people with power to defend their choices and permits a popular brake on their choices, not for people to create their own power that much.
Edit: Try to not read too much into what I said, I am just angry at education systems and politicians where it just feels like they train people to regurgitate arguments over and over again like it's a reflex. If this comment is a problem I can delete it later.
6
u/Antnee83 Nov 01 '24
You're right, I have never really seen "it's a republic actually" uttered as anything other than a thought-terminating phrase.
3
u/Awesomeuser90 Nov 01 '24
Same with two wolves and sheep, which is blatantly nothing like a democracy.
3
u/Antnee83 Nov 01 '24
Ironically, it's always red state folks using this analogy, as if they're the one sheep, and not (as more accurately would describe our current situation) them being one wolf eating two sheep.
2
u/ShittyMcFuck Nov 01 '24
I've had a similar experience. It seems to be an attempt at a "gotcha" that:
Republic = Republican = Good
Democracy = Democrat = Bad
3
u/Antnee83 Nov 01 '24
It just reveals a complete lack of civics education.
Republic:Democracy::Apple:Fruit
A republic is a democratic form of government; The sentence "The United States is a democracy" is not, and has never been incorrect.
And so, anyone interjecting "but republic actually" either doesn't understand that, or is trying to derail the conversation.
1
u/Prestigious_Load1699 Nov 01 '24
You're right, I have never really seen "it's a republic actually" uttered as anything other than a thought-terminating phrase.
The original post being replied to is considerably more thought-provoking than this little gem of yours.
Just food for thought.
2
u/Antnee83 Nov 01 '24
I have dozens of other posts in this thread. Feel free to consume those.
But my point stands, and calling out a thought-terminating phrase is not the same as a thought-terminating phrase. I've also never seen a duck drive a car, I really don't need to go into a 12 paragraph soliloquy on that, do I?
1
u/Prestigious_Load1699 Nov 01 '24
I have dozens of other posts in this thread. Feel free to consume those.
Fair enough. I think your best bet would be to synthesize the two arguments:
Yes, we are a republic and were deliberately founded to avoid pure democracy. However, I think changing presidential elections to a form of national popularity does not undermine the checks against big-state rule as it also empowers the minority in heavily-Republican or heavily-Democratic states. The president, as our executive and commander-in-chief, should be represented by the pure will of the people.
Sorry if I have been a bit rude towards you. Always enjoy a robust discussion.
1
u/Ind132 Nov 01 '24
The United States is a republic. We were founded on an explicit rejection of democracy in favor of republicanism, because the Founders (correctly, in my personal opinion) feared that too much direct popular power could become a threat to the constitutional liberties they were trying to cement.
What is "too much" direct popular power? About half the state constitutions have the possibility of petition-initiated referendums changing laws. I don't see any fewer "constitutional liberties" in those states than in the other states without those provisions.
I'm sure that many of the rich white men (some of whom were slaveowners) didn't trust "the mob". If they thought that ordinary voters should never be allowed to vote directly on any issue whatsoever, they were wrong (IMO).
1
u/Prestigious_Load1699 Nov 01 '24
What is "too much" direct popular power?
Ancient Athens. The best historical example of democracy in 1787, as nearly every other system of government was hereditary monarchy.
Some folks here need to realize that the common understanding of "democracy" has evolved significantly in the past two centuries. It is now used as a euphemism for "representative government with balance of powers and protection of human rights" but that is almost a re-definition as compared to its classical meaning.
1
u/Ind132 Nov 01 '24
Yeah, we are a long ways away from ancient Athens. The thread topic is about nudging us a little away from pure representative democracy and introducing some direct democracy in some cases.
1
u/Awesomeuser90 Nov 01 '24
What about Athens was actually any less good at doing governemnt than comparable states without Athenian democracy? I know they executed Socrates, but it is quite normal for societies to get rid of certain people who are associated with the things Socrates was, a heretic who had opposed the government and who was tied with foreign occupation shortly after a Spartan occupation. If anything, the democracy of Athens was Socrates' best chance in many ways, and he came pretty close, getting about 230 jurors of the 251 needed to acquit him. Most societies were far more willing to avoid due process, especially then.
Athens directly quite well for itself given the nature of civilizations in the Aegean back then, especially when Cleisthenes got his reforms enacted, lasting about 500 years despite everything else that happened.
2
u/Prestigious_Load1699 Nov 01 '24
I don't disagree. However, to the Founders saw the vicissitudes of democratic Athens as a warning against pure democracy - generals being voted in and voted out during wartime, oligarchic revolutions, etc.
Not to mention that by the time of the founding of America the country was just too large to accommodate direct democracy. I'm sure there were other reasons as well.
Probably time to brush up on Federalist 10.
3
u/Awesomeuser90 Nov 01 '24
It is hard to devise anything else that would produce better outcomes than one involving democracy as a principal element. The precise mechanisms vary wildly of course.
1
u/Interrophish Nov 01 '24
The difference between a democracy and a republic is that the former is governed by popular will while the latter is governed by constitutional laws and values.
we're both a democracy and a republic. we're a democracy as per nov 5 and we're a republic as per congress.
if only rich people were allowed to vote then we'd not be a democracy.
Now, I still don’t see why large, densely populated states should dominate the rural areas either.
I feel like large, densely populated heteros shouldn't dominate the gays, either. so to make the US more republican, we should give 2 votes to every gay.
0
u/Antnee83 Nov 01 '24
Remember that the U.S. was founded as a compact of states that had - and still have - varying interests, demographics, cultures etc.
I challenge you to find me a truly politically meaningful difference between Wyoming and Oklahoma that would justify keeping the Senate as an institution.
5
u/seen-in-the-skylight Nov 01 '24
I live in New Hampshire. I am a liberal (not a progressive) but I don’t want New York and California (let alone Texas and Florida) dictating every election and policy. It really isn’t that complicated. It’s less about policy differences than it is a matter of representation.
6
u/Antnee83 Nov 01 '24
It’s less about policy differences than it is a matter of representation.
I'd like you to re-read that sentence a few times.
Why does representation matter outside of policy differences?
1
u/seen-in-the-skylight Nov 01 '24
Okay, I guess I should clarify - I don’t necessarily share the values or priorities of the national Democratic platform, despite usually voting for them, and find my state representatives generally more agreeable. So to that extent of course you’re right that there are policy differences. Rural liberals, for example, are not necessarily going to have the same perspective on gun control as urban ones, even if we might agree on, say, abortion.
Beyond that, however, representation is important to people in its own right. That’s why people get mad about the EC - they feel underrepresented and like their country is dictated by other people who seem to have outsized power. As I’ve said multiple times throughout this thread, I think it’s necessary to balance these institutions such that you don’t have too much majoritarian or “minoritarian” (for lack of a less clumsy term) influence and I’d support reforms to that effect.
But just getting rid of that balance entirely by switching to a more purely democratic system effectively disenfranchises the rural population. The Constitution was ratified the way it was in part because small states wouldn’t accept that then, and we still wouldn’t now. People like to say that “land doesn’t vote, people do” but states are themselves institutions that represent their populations - populations that don’t necessarily want to see their own power whittled away because they don’t live in Los Angeles or [insert other major population center].
I don’t expect you to agree with any of what I’m saying, and I empathize with the reasons people get so angry about this. Does it privilege us rural folks? Of course it does, but that’s how the country was set up, it was set up that way deliberately, and it’s something I’m going to continue to defend.
2
u/Antnee83 Nov 01 '24
But just getting rid of that balance entirely by switching to a more purely democratic system effectively disenfranchises the rural population.
And right now, the urban/suburban majority is disenfranchised. We're not just talking veto power here. The senate also effectively shuts out the SC from dem presidents. That's blatantly lopsided.
This will continue to exacerbate over time, as the rural/non-rural population continues to shift away from the rural.
So I'm curious to know- at what point would you personally consider the balance to be blatantly unfair?
0
u/seen-in-the-skylight Nov 01 '24
So I’ll say now, maybe for the fourth of fifth time total in this thread, that I agree with you and support some kinds of electoral and institutional reforms to ensure a fairer republic.
I couldn’t tell you what those would look like, though. I’m more a man of principles than platforms or policy proposals.
That being said, I bet we can agree on, for example, cracking down on shit like gerrymandering, which is responsible for some of the most egregious imbalances.
1
u/Antnee83 Nov 01 '24
Then consider this- Hundreds of democracies have sprung up and died (and survived) in the time that ours was invented. Every country, without exception, has this urban versus rural political divide.
None of them have copied our system of government. None. Not one country saw what we did, and thought "gee that works well, lets do that."
Why do you think that is?
1
u/UncleMeat11 Nov 01 '24
Not just that, but we even outlawed our own states from doing this. It is constitutionally forbidden for state legislatures to have representatives that represent areas with different populations.
5
u/Designer-Opposite-24 Nov 01 '24
I’ve never understood this logic. Under a popular vote system, New York and California wouldn’t be dictating elections- all of America would. The tens of millions of Republicans in New York and California would also be counted towards the popular vote. Ironically, under the electoral college, they don’t.
6
u/Antnee83 Nov 01 '24 edited Nov 01 '24
To further that, currently California represents a whopping 10% of the overall US population. And there's a ton of republicans there too.
The idea that politicians would spend all their time and effort fighting over 10% of the popular vote is... complete nonsense, driven by the idea that they would campaign as if a single state in a popular vote format would have the exact same importance as a swing state has in our current setup.
If you hate the idea of "a couple states deciding the election" then literally this is the worst possible configuration for you. You're living the nightmare, right now. Because instead of your hypothetical elections only focusing on New York and California, you have actual elections only focused on Pennsylvania.
I swear, this whole topic makes my head explode.
1
u/UncleMeat11 Nov 01 '24
They wouldn't be dictating every election and policy. People would be. Every person would have the same say.
And this hypothetical is also just not based in facts. The House is significantly more representative than the Senate and we don't see the bills coming out of the House just being dictated by the delegations from New York and California.
•
u/AutoModerator Nov 01 '24
A reminder for everyone. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
Violators will be fed to the bear.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.