Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder
People say this, but it's nonsense. We wouldn't be voting by state any more. There's no reason to cater to "California" because there is no value in winning it as a state.
Yeah, as things stand right now, that means that Dems will campaign hard in cities and the GOP will campaign in smaller towns are rural areas, because that's where the marginal voter are for each of them. But that's kind of what happens now, whereas without voting by state, Dems might actually show up in Houston, San Antonio and Austin and Rs might actually show up in the Central Valley, Orange County or Northern California.
Elections would still be won on the margins, but instead of parochial issues, those margins would be on policy and substance. That's fair. Wyoming getting a veto over national policy is not.
You admit that it would be better. Why are you writing words?
No, we're effectively saying that people who choose to be more isolated have exactly as much say as those who choose to live together.
|
Well, I guess I have to say it, so I will. We can't really have true democracy because, as de Tocqueville said, the common person will vote himself the riches of the treasury until it is bankrupt.
Putting aside MMT, which one should as it is a scary concept, it seems we have that sort of voting going on right now via lobbyists. Corporations and oligarchs are voting themselves control. And look what we have. Fucking shitshow.
Is the answer giving the common minded man control? Is it false to say that he who herds together with everyone next door in all desiring the same thing aren't exactly the brilliant minds who'd be taking us into the future? Would they not merely lead us into a stagnant European welfare state? Granted, that is arguably better than what we have now, but that improvement is just trading one defective situation for another.
I have to believe there's a better answer. I also have to believe that, having met the common folk on the right and left, as have you and everyone else here, you realize a lot of these people probably should not have the right to vote.
The country works best when a good blend of elites (read, not the "elites" of media or academia who've never met a payroll or had any real metric applied to them and are therefore dangerous abstract thinkers), right and left, balanced, is the best way to run the country. But of course, at all times, giving the people the belief their vote significantly counts.
We have people running on "Hope," "Compassionate Conservatism," "MAGA," and now, "I'm Not Trump." And these people succeed. Are the last two decades not proof enough democracy here simply does not work?
