Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Which is why American Democracy has been downgraded from a "FULL" democracy to "FLAWED" democracy by The Economist
Because none of that actually addresses the points I made.
Where precisely did they create a mechanism for referendum?
The existence of the Senate may have been a compromise between large and small states, but if they wanted so badly for the people to have direct control over everything they would've just made it be directly elected by the whole state from the start. They didn't do that.
As for your claim of it becoming corrupt, accusations of corruption in the choosing of Senators appear to have been rather exaggerated, though they sure made good polemics by those who wanted reform. This is not to say the Senate did not run into some serious issues that required an adjustment to how it worked, however. Sometimes state legislatures would deadlock and be unable to choose a Senator. But it seems to me the biggest problem with the Senate is that it eventually turned state legislature races into proxy elections. Just as no one cares who the electors they vote for in a presidential election are so long as whoever they vote for will then vote for the person they want, people started not caring much about who they were voting for in a state congress race and caring far more about the identity of the Senator that person would vote for.
The 17th Amendment did fix those, but unfortunately created some new issues that weren't there before. You mention issues of corruption, but requiring people to campaign statewide probably made them far more beholden to special interests because you need serious cash to be able to reach everyone in a state (the smallest state is nearly 600K, and the largest nearly 40 million people!). There's also how it appears to have played a big role in changing the filibuster from something to make sure everyone got a chance to talk into a blunt cudgel used to prevent bills that had majority support in the Senate from advancing. There's a pretty good writeup here of the ideas behind the Senate, what worked with it, what ended up going wrong with it, and how while the 17th Amendment fixed some of those issues, it did create some new ones:
A Senate, If You Can Keep It
Some Constitutional Amendments #6, Part I: The Senate is dead. We, the People, were found over the body with the murder weapon: democracy.decivitate.jamesjheaney.com
I think its points are pretty valid. (that said, I can't say I find the follow-up post detailing the author's suggestion on how to fix it particularly feasible)
Regardless, the indirect election of the Senate was a reflection of how the founders were against giving the people too much direct power in government. There's no shortage of quotes from them talking about the dangers of excess democracy, such as this one by John Adams (noted in the above link):
"Remember Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes exhausts and murders itself. There never was a Democracy Yet, that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to Say that Democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious or less avaricious than Aristocracy or Monarchy. It is not true in Fact and no where appears in history. Those Passions are the same in all Men under all forms of Simple Government, and when unchecked, produce the same Effects of Fraud Violence and Cruelty."
This is why they set up things like checks and balances and the indirectly elected Senate and how the President was (supposed to) not be directly elected. He then uses the government France set up after the French Revolution as an example of excell of democracy gone bad:
"What can I Say of The Democracy of France? I dare not write what I think and what I know. Were Brissot, Condorcet, Danton Robespiere and Monsiegnieur Equality less ambitious than Cæsar, Alexander or Napoleon? Were Dumourier, Pichegru, Moreau, less Generals, less Conquerors, or in the End less fortunate than <him> he was.?"
Now, some people obnoxiously pull out quotes like this to try to win push pedantic claims like "the United States isn't a democracy", which is dumb because the word has expanded in meaning since then and is used to refer to countries like the United States. Regardless, it's still pretty clear that the founding fathers were not particularly big fans of the idea of giving the general public direct and complete power over the government and certainly not that referendums were good ideas (as easily shown by the fact the constitution doesn't give it as an option). Maybe you think they were wrong. Maybe they were. But it's pretty clear their ideas of self-governance did not include or even come close to granting the people the ability to pass laws directly by popular vote.
Tricky question. But we can ask it a different way. When you vote for your local MP, do you vote for how that person can benefit you and your locality? Or are you voting for the party you want to see in government.
That's actually a good question I'm surprised I never thought about before. Why do almost all the states have bicameral legislatures?
Oh of course! Sorry - I've had health issues this month resulting in insomnia.
Yes.
Side topic: The House selecting the Senate sounds very much like today's EU. I really hope they Federate into a new Super-Power called "Europe" and can tidy up that system - as it's weird and fragile as it stands. I do NOT want it to splinter and leave us prone to more European wars - nor do I want it to suffer more Brexits!
Yes - having 2 systems run like this with different timings means there would be some overlapping stability. There's a smallish movement in Australia that wants to Abolish our Federation (get rid of the State Governments) and move to a National unitary legislative government that makes ALL laws and collects taxes, and Local Governments (like larger municipalities) that receive the tax money on a per capita basis and provide services. We could save SO much money in running our excessive State governments that have our mere 27 million population completely over-governed!
Sure! A certain moment in history gets to decide these things - and unless a REALLY generous constitutional reformation process was put in place - it's just gonna stay that way!
Yes everything you said is leftist tripe.
Yes Obama was the great divider and his leftist policies were bad for America. I dont agree with all of Trump's policies. Most of his policies have been good, but not all. In fact some may actually be counter productive to rhe whole agenda. But we'll have to wait and see.
Of course not. We aren't going to. Newsome wants to rig stuff more than its already rigged in California.
I note there is STILL no evidence about what is happening to fight these trends? But then again - I need to moderate my expectations from you given you're MAGA and call all the evidence to the contrary "leftist tripe".
Part of the gerrymandering problem is the fact that the United States (for whatever reason(s)), fixed the number of representatives in the house at 435. This was originally done over a century ago, and set in stone in 1929, when the population was a mere 121,000,000.
It will never happen because - like here in Australia with one of our biggest faults - the Constitutional Reform process itself needs Reform. We're stuck in prejudices and norms of over a century ago, you guys 3 centuries ago!
decivitate.jamesjheaney.com
decivitate.jamesjheaney.com
It's unlikely salaries or perks would need to be reduced. The increased amount of money would be a drop in the bucket compared to US federal spending.
I guess that's why so many former Republican Trump staffer's are speaking out against it?
Is that why BBY closed *all* of their stores? California regulation?
From their CEO. His own words:
The protestations of a company with no retail outlets that they won't open a retail store in a particular jursdiction for [reasons] are meaningless. I also refuse to open a retail store in California, but I don't even have a business, so why would anyone care?
We'll see if that happens. It would be a pale shadow of what they once were.
The only retailer opening fewer or closing preferentially in California is BBB. The rest of your table describes closing stores in Cali and elsewhere or moving HQ to another state.
Which is why prices tend to be higher in Cali, right?
Are they going to be developing stores in protected environments, or are they going to build/lease them in existing "big box" shopping centers or malls?
A trend that Cali seems to be further along than other states as has been the case for (checks watch...) nearly 3 decades.
And what has this to do with your claim that the redistricting is anti-democratic?
