Octopus here's your own thread to shit all over

[k9bfriender]

@DemonTree

if your country is doing better than most, that suggests you may not have much room for improvement

If our country is doing better than most, then that means that there are still others doing better that we can learn from.

It was not pointed out that we were doing better than most, only that India and Brazil are worse. That’s not like saying that your yard is better than most, so you don’t need to do much to improve it, that’s saying that you have a couple neighbors who neglect their yards, so you can, too.

@DemonTree

it seems disproportionate representation is common in large countries composed of states/provinces/etc, as a compromise between larger and smaller subunits. So that’s something to bear in mind when planning reforms.

As we are by far the largest and most powerful country that has a government that is worth the parchment its constitution is written on, do you think that it is inevitable, or that other countries followed our example?

[k9bfriender]

The amendment process or a constitutional convention.

The other alternative is to keep doing what we are doing until we collapse as a failed state, then the chips fall as the do.

[octopus]

If you were writing the amendment(s) how’d you do it? You think it’s likely they would be ratified?

Because I have no clue what language would convince the smaller states to sign on.

[DemonTree]

@k9bfriender

It was not pointed out that we were doing better than most, only that India and Brazil are worse. That’s not like saying that your yard is better than most, so you don’t need to do much to improve it, that’s saying that you have a couple neighbors who neglect their yards, so you can, too.

I had no idea you would read so much into a throwaway comment. From all the complaining I had expected to find that the US was especially bad in this area, as with the electoral college, but no. Here’s what the article said:

Higher levels of inequality of representation may be expected in larger, more diverse polities where the political complexity of federal arrangements leads to awkward institutional compromises, which is definitely the case of the EU. In our sample, high voting Gini coefficients are indeed also observed for the lower houses in India and Brazil, which come closest to the EP on that measure. For example, in Brazil voters from Sao Paulo state are notoriously underrepresented. Yet the US and Indonesia, which are also large and diverse, both display comparatively low voting Gini coefficients.

The article is from the perspective of suggesting reforms to the European Parliament, so the US appears as a neighbour doing better and an example of what the EU could reasonably aim for. Doesn’t mean there isn’t still room for improvement in the US.

@k9bfriender

As we are by far the largest and most powerful country that has a government that is worth the parchment its constitution is written on, do you think that it is inevitable, or that other countries followed our example?

Wow, I don’t think other countries are that bad. And the article writers seem to think it’s a compromise inherent to the situation.

@k9bfriender

We brag that we have the oldest constitution in the world, but that’s a bit like bragging that we have the oldest car in the parking lot. It doesn’t work all that well, it breaks down from time to time, they don’t make replacement parts for it. Others have looked at what we have done, and improved upon it. It’s about time that we put the old girl into a museum, and get ourselves a new daily driver.

That is something to brag about. Not because it means your constitution is the best thing since sliced bread, but because it means your country is working. New constitutions mostly happen when something has gone very wrong, and if you get one it’ll probably be because your suggestion of collapse as a failed state has come true.

[DemonTree]

@k9bfriender

The UN is nothing like a country, so your analogy falls flat to begin with. But yes, it is similar, due to historical reasons, a minority gets to bully the rest of the world around. As you support continued disproportionate power in the US, it doesn’t surprise me that you also want to have disproportionate power over the rest of the world.

Would you give up the UNSC veto if you could?

[Heffalump_and_Roo]

@k9bfriender

It’s not just you, I hear that assertion all the time. And is simply asserted, with no hint of critical thinking behind it. The slightest bit of effort on your part would put to rest this line of thought, but it is not just laziness, but motivated reasoning that allows this fallacy to continue to persist.

The first time I heard the argument was on an interview with Andrew Yang, 2020 Presidential candidate and Lawrence Lessig, Harvard Law Professor, 2016 Presidential candidate and founder of Equal Citizens, in an event called Restoring Democracy. Here is where Andrew Yang expresses his position that he is not a supporter of abolishing the electoral college or for the national vote compact, a movement based on the idea of getting around the winner-take-all electoral vote states adhere to now by providing that all states’ votes would go to the winner of the popular vote.

Lawrence Lessig appears to agree. I trust the critical thinking skills of Andrew Yang and Lawrence Lessig, along with their combined experience with Presidential politics. The motivation for their reasoning appears to be a desire for equal representation.

Restoring Democracy | Andrew Yang Town Hall with Lawrence Lessig

[ETA: For more background on the electoral college, go back to minute 40]

Lessig and Yang support proportional electoral representation where the proportion of electors would vote for the President based on popular vote in the state.

As Yang says in the piece, if the electoral college were abandoned, then the Presidential candidates would spend their limited time and money in densely populated urban centers.

For argument’s sake, let’s take your numbers that 1/3 of the population are in CA and NY. And let’s say that people don’t vote in lockstep as you say, so only 1/4 of the population are in those states. The argument is not that winning those states is all that’s needed to win the election. It’s that losing those votes would lose the election. So candidates would spend a lot of their time in those states because it would be the most time efficient way of getting the most votes and ensuring the campaign is not an instant loss… Right now, they only spend time there to fundraise.

My point in bringing that out is that one would think, as octopus stated, that the small states would be against abolishing the electoral college. But that hasn’t historically been the case, as shown by the author of that book in my post. The reason for that is probably due to the traditions and norms that put some of the small states in the forefront of elections as belweather states, etc. But there are a complex array of reasons why the electoral college is entrenched, not having to do with small states protesting against it.

[octopus]

Well, that is interesting Heffalump and Roo and I might stand corrected. You know, if this thread doesn’t get back on track it might get moved to GD.

[Heffalump_and_Roo]

Sorry for messing up your thread, dude. I just thought some of the concepts you were talking about were interesting.

[octopus]

They are interesting. I was joking about the thread getting moved to GD.

[k9bfriender]

@octopus

Because I have no clue what language would convince the smaller states to sign on.

Exactly, I also have no clue what language would convince someone to take the gun away from your head.

Just so long as we are clear that they have that power because they demand that power, not because there is any sort of argument that justifies it.

@DemonTree

I had no idea you would read so much into a throwaway comment.

I didn’t realize it was a throwaway comment, and treated is though you intended it to be relevant to the discussion.

@DemonTree

The article is from the perspective of suggesting reforms to the European Parliament

Once again, the EU is a different sort of federation. The countries involved maintain much more sovereignty than US states do. One of the reasons that reform is desired to decrease the inequality of representation is because the member nations are threatening to leave if it is not done. That is something that US states do not have the option to do.

@DemonTree

Doesn’t mean there isn’t still room for improvement in the US.

Yes, there is. Lots of room that we could improve upon a 250 year old document that was written for a different world and a different people.

@DemonTree

Wow, I don’t think other countries are that bad.

Are we not the largest country outside of India and China? Are we not the most powerful nation in terms of military and economic power?

To be second to the US is not to be that bad.

@DemonTree

And the article writers seem to think it’s a compromise inherent to the situation.

That seems to be his opinion, yes. Even as he points out the flaws, criticisms, and attempts to reform it.

@DemonTree

That is something to brag about. Not because it means your constitution is the best thing since sliced bread, but because it means your country is working.

Is it really though? Less than 100 years after it was ratified, our country broke down into civil war. It took another 100 years before a significant chunk of our population were considered to have rights.

Now we are facing a number of crises, all coming home to roost at once. One of those crises is the increasing inequality of representation, which makes tackling the other ones even harder.

@DemonTree

New constitutions mostly happen when something has gone very wrong,

Not always, some are just because it needs to be updated to keep up with the changing world and population it is meant to serve.

@DemonTree

if you get one it’ll probably be because your suggestion of collapse as a failed state has come true.

The trick is to fix things before they break.

[k9bfriender]

I do think that the UN is a mess, and could and should be organized entirely differently than it is.

With the current setup, I would not suggest unilaterally getting rid of our veto. But, keep in mind that Russia and China also have veto power. If getting rid of ours also meant that they also did not have veto power(as well as France and UK), then I think that that would be an improvement.

[octopus]

There is no gun to anyone’s head with regards to state vs federal power. It just is. History matters and just like the borders of the world exist politically and result in citizens of nation A having a disproportionate impact on the world compared to nation B the folks that make up each nation are for the most part loathe to willingly shift power.

Citizens of nations that realize the era of competing nations isn’t going anywhere any time soon have a distinct advantage of living in a nation that is realistic. This idealized nonsense does nothing productive.

[k9bfriender]

@Heffalump_and_Roo

Lessig and Yang support proportional electoral representation where the proportion of electors would vote for the President based on popular vote in the state.

That’s still a change that decreases the inequality, and it’s a change that would require an amendment to do.

@Heffalump_and_Roo

As Yang says in the piece, if the electoral college were abandoned, then the Presidential candidates would spend their limited time and money in densely populated urban centers.

I still don’t take that as a given, but if that were to be the case, that means that they are campaigning to people, not land.

@Heffalump_and_Roo

For argument’s sake, let’s take your numbers that 1/3 of the population are in CA and NY.

And FL and TX.

@Heffalump_and_Roo

let’s say that people don’t vote in lockstep as you say, so only 1/4 of the population are in those states.

Yes, so one candidate gets about half, and the other gets about half of those who live in urban areas.

The tie breaker is going to be those who do not live in urban areas. They will still need to be campaigned to.

@Heffalump_and_Roo

So candidates would spend a lot of their time in those states because it would be the most time efficient way of getting the most votes

If candidates are spending more time where more people live, I see that as a feature, not a bug.

@Heffalump_and_Roo

Right now, they only spend time there to fundraise.

Yeah, don’t you think that’s a bit of a problem? They don’t go to California to discuss the needs of the residents there, just to get money.

@Heffalump_and_Roo

But there are a complex array of reasons why the electoral college is entrenched, not having to do with small states protesting against it.

Right, it’s not just the small states. There are other states that tend to vote republican that also want the status quo maintained.

[DemonTree]

@k9bfriender

To be second to the US is not to be that bad.

You didn’t say second to the US, I don’t have a problem with that. You said other large and powerful countries’ governments aren’t worth the paper their constitutions are written on. Seems unnecessarily harsh.

@k9bfriender

Once again, the EU is a different sort of federation. The countries involved maintain much more sovereignty than US states do. One of the reasons that reform is desired to decrease the inequality of representation is because the member nations are threatening to leave if it is not done. That is something that US states do not have the option to do.

The EU is much bigger mess of compromises and special interests than the US for that exact reason. But I don’t think any member states are threatening to leave because of poor representation in the parliament. There are much bigger issues.

@k9bfriender

Is it really though? Less than 100 years after it was ratified, our country broke down into civil war. It took another 100 years before a significant chunk of our population were considered to have rights.

Heh, but if you compare to other large and powerful countries…?

@k9bfriender

Not always, some are just because it needs to be updated to keep up with the changing world and population it is meant to serve.

@k9bfriender

The trick is to fix things before they break.

That’s what amendments are for, no? Looking at other countries, if you did make a new constitution, you’d just get a bunch of extraneous junk written into it due to all the bargaining among different interests. And IMHO the American people’s belief in the current document is worth way more than any improvements you could get by scrapping and rewriting it.

@k9bfriender

With the current setup, I would not suggest unilaterally getting rid of our veto. But, keep in mind that Russia and China also have veto power. If getting rid of ours also meant that they also did not have veto power(as well as France and UK), then I think that that would be an improvement.

Yes, that’s the issue. And Russia and China are not giving up theirs any time soon. But I wouldn’t particularly trust a collection of small countries to make any better or fairer decisions than those big ones. Votes in the UN are the ultimate in disproportionality.

[k9bfriender]

@octopus

There is no gun to anyone’s head with regards to state vs federal power.

It’s a metaphor. It means that those who are in the position of being oppressed don’t get to have a say in that oppression.

@octopus

History matters and just like the borders of the world exist politically and result in citizens of nation A having a disproportionate impact on the world compared to nation B the folks that make up each nation are for the most part loathe to willingly shift power.

Exactly, and that’s all I’m saying here, is that it is an accident of history that they don’t want to give up because it would decrease their disproportionate power. As long as it is acknowledged that it is that way because they are the ones who keep it that way, not because it is actually the better way of doing it, then we are in agreement.

The “gun to the head” metaphor is apt, IMHO, because California is not able to leave the union if it no longer represents its interests. As the power becomes more and more concentrated in the hands of a smaller and smaller minority, more and more states are going to find themselves facing the hostile whims of an oppressive minority. It’s might makes right, and that might is enshrined only on some words on a moldy old parchment.

That’s not sustainable, and something is going to give. It is better, IMHO, to acknowledge and address these issues before they lead to a breakdown of our society.

[k9bfriender]

@DemonTree

You didn’t say second to the US, I don’t have a problem with that. You said other large and powerful countries’ governments aren’t worth the paper their constitutions are written on.

The only two countries bigger than the US are India and China, and yes, I do not think that their governments are all that great. I suppose it is hyperbole in that the parchment is worth at most a few dollars, and the government is worth at least a dozen.

I did not say “other large and powerful countries’ governments”, I said that we are the largest and most powerful. There is a very large difference between what I said, and how you chose to change it.

@DemonTree

The EU is much bigger mess of compromises and special interests than the US for that exact reason.

You say compromise like it’s a bad thing.

@DemonTree

But I don’t think any member states are threatening to leave because of poor representation in the parliament.

Ever hear of Brexit?

@DemonTree

There are much bigger issues.

Yes, and those issues mainly stem from the unequal representation of countries.

And the EU doesn’t even tax its citizens, unlike the US.

Comparing the EU to the US is not very helpful, IMHO.

@DemonTree

Heh, but if you compare to other large and powerful countries…?

Then what? I do not know how your mistaken paraphrase of an earlier statement of mine relates to this.

@DemonTree

That’s what amendments are for, no?

Yes, it is, exactly.

@DemonTree

Looking at other countries, if you did make a new constitution, you’d just get a bunch of extraneous junk written into it due to all the bargaining among different interests.

We don’t need a new constitution to fix this one problem, just an amendment. But, both face almost the same uphill battle.

I don’t know that adding in some “junk” as you call it is an inherently bad thing. That “junk” is what is needed to keep our country functional. If it is actually just “junk” then it will not be included. You almost seem to think that it will just be turned over to a team of infinite monkeys, and you don’t know if you will end up with Shakespeare or The Eye of Aragon, and that either way it works out, you will be stuck with it as your book club book of the forever.

@DemonTree

And IMHO the American people’s belief in the current document is worth way more than any improvements you could get by scrapping and rewriting it.

We all get nostalgic for old things. I still miss my first car. But, I don’t know that you are correct here. About half the country wants to update it to get with the times, and the other half wants to ignore it and install authoritarian rule.

@DemonTree

Yes, that’s the issue. And Russia and China are not giving up theirs any time soon.

Right, as I said, I certainly wouldn’t give up ours unilaterally.

@DemonTree

But I wouldn’t particularly trust a collection of small countries to make any better or fairer decisions than those big ones.

I don’t know that I trust the current governing body to make good or fair decisions, given the track record. The votes that are up to the General Assembly seem to be just as, if not more fair than those by the Security Council.

@DemonTree

Votes in the UN are the ultimate in disproportionality.

As the UN has pretty limited control over the operations of sovereign nations, that’s not really that bad a thing. If the UN were to gain more power over how nations conduct their business, if it were to impose taxes and apportion benefits, then I would expect it to go to become more reflective of the will of the populations, rather than solely to their respective nations.

[octopus]

Secession isn’t the answer as that’s been settled by the US Army. Sherman vs Atlanta sorta set the binding precedent.

Now, if citizens of California are unhappy they can always that the US is not a pure democracy then they are going to be unhappy for a very, very long time. The funny thing is, folks who advocate for a change in the power structure aren’t doing it based on altruism or a noble principle. They are advocating for a change in power structure precisely because they’d get more relative power.

Nobody who advocates for a shift of power within the US is ever willing to give up their disproportionate power in the world with respect to the rest of the world’s citizens. The most equitable solution is a global government where everybody has one vote and we have a pure democracy.

[Spice_Weasel]

@octopus

The funny thing is, folks who advocate for a change in the power structure aren’t doing it based on altruism or a noble principle. They are advocating for a change in power structure precisely because they’d get more relative power.

So let me get this straight. Republicans aren’t resisting change because they’d have to give up power, but Democrats are only advocating change because they want power?

I miss the dubious smiley.

[k9bfriender]

@octopus

Secession isn’t the answer as that’s been settled by the US Army. Sherman vs Atlanta sorta set the binding precedent.

Exactly, that would be the “gun to the head”.

@octopus

Now, if citizens of California are unhappy they can always that the US is not a pure democracy then they are going to be unhappy for a very, very long time.

That sounds like a problem. You may want to think that it’s just a problem that those in California should need to endure, but it really is a problem for the entire country.

@octopus

The funny thing is, folks who advocate for a change in the power structure aren’t doing it based on altruism or a noble principle.

I didn’t say that they did. If someone has their foot on my neck, I don’t want them to remove them based on altruism or a noble principle. I want them to remove it because I can’t breathe.

@octopus

They are advocating for a change in power structure precisely because they’d get more relative power.

They are advocating for a change because they would get equitable power. The fact that that it would take an increase in their relative power to achieve equitable power is exactly the problem here.

@octopus

Nobody who advocates for a shift of power within the US is ever willing to give up their disproportionate power in the world with respect to the rest of the world’s citizens.

That’s shortsighted of them. The US will not always be at the top, and wouldn’t we rather have a system where we have equitable power once we no longer are able to bully others into getting our way?

@octopus

The most equitable solution is a global government where everybody has one vote and we have a pure democracy.

No one wants a pure democracy. However, any body that governs people should be obligated to give anyone so governed as close to equal representation as anyone else governed by the same body. Anything else is tyranny and oppression.

I personally advocate for a pentacameral legislature, as any method of apportioning power has its flaws, so having multiple methods of apportioning that power will tend to even those flaws out.

A world government is becoming more necessary. As the world is getting smaller, and the actions of one country impact those living in others more and more, some sort of regulatory body, at least, needs to have authority. How involved it is in the governing of the people, and what kind of taxes and benefits it provides to them is a whole different matter entirely.

[octopus]

Well, that’s quite a strawman. Or straw person.