this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2024
738 points (96.6% liked)

Political Memes

5433 readers
2261 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
[–] [email protected] 6 points 52 minutes ago

We pay more in taxes than the welfare states, have less representation... Seems like there was something in US History about taxation without representation.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 hours ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

In Germany we have two votes, one for a local representative and one for a party. In itself it's a pretty decent system

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 minutes ago

Yet, the local representatives represent districts of approximately the same population number. Thus, no vote has more value than another.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 minutes ago

The German system is what the US would have been if they would have regularly updated their constitution.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 5 hours ago (3 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 25 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (3 children)

Except CA isn't fairly represented in the House either. CA would need 68 representatives just to have the same representation as Wyoming.

And say, shouldn't the states that have a huge economy and bring in more tax dollars have more of a say than the red welfare states that suck up those tax dollars? Just sayin...

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

And say, shouldn’t the states that have a huge economy and bring in more tax dollars have more of a say than the red welfare states that suck up those tax dollars?

By that logic, a rich person should have more say in government?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 45 minutes ago

It's not a question of should. They do.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 hours ago

I disagree with the economy part. Fuck that. Your value isn't described by how much wealth you generate.

Republicans are (or were) hypocritical with their talk of fiscal responsibility while representing states that take in more money than they give back. This should be pointed out if they ever return to that argument. This isn't to say poor people from republican states (or anywhere else) are less valuable though. It's only hypocrisy that's wrong, not trying to help lower income people that's wrong.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 hours ago

shouldn't the states that have a huge economy and bring in more tax dollars have more of a say

Wtf, dude? Can you make something even more american-sounding?

[–] [email protected] 15 points 4 hours ago

The house were any given rep represents between 550k and close to a million constituents?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 hours ago

There's no need for a bicameral system. It was a system designed to capitulate to wealthy interests and nothing more.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 4 hours 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

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 hours ago

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

[–] [email protected] 44 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 29 points 6 hours ago

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

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 hours ago

Diddnt they cap the amount of house of representatives?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 hour ago

Republicans would just create a mega-municipality of all the rural voters.

[–] [email protected] 183 points 10 hours ago (6 children)

Don't worry the House balances it*

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

[–] [email protected] 36 points 8 hours 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.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 hours 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.

[–] [email protected] 62 points 10 hours ago (6 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.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 6 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.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 9 hours 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.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 62 points 10 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.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 10 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.

[–] [email protected] 44 points 9 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 76 points 10 hours ago (21 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.

[–] [email protected] 44 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 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)
load more comments (20 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 8 hours ago (3 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour ago

Lol if enough democrats moved to texas and flipped it blue, we would never have a republican president again.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 5 hours ago (7 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 hours ago

West Virginia checking in

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 7 hours ago (4 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 hours ago

That's a bit incomplete.

Those who stay back would find cities, economy, infrastructure and culture crumbling and uprooted. Ghost town culture doesn't exactly inspire hope and confidence.

On the other hand, there would be somewhat of a plague syndrome benefitting those.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›