this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2024
1263 points (97.0% liked)

Political Memes

5611 readers
538 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

That means if you want to govern Wyoming and Montana, you have to get a majority of Wyoming and Montana residents to agree to your plan.

The vast majority of human history disagrees...

Hell, modern events disagree, like 35% of the country voted for trump, most Americans disagree with their plans, it's just the only other option was still pretty shitty

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The vast majority of human history disagrees...

The vast majority of human history involved dictatorial regimes imposing their will on the unwilling. Democracy is a fairly recent development.

You certainly can establish a government without the consent of the governed, but you cannot reasonably describe such a government as "democratic".

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

The vast majority of human history involved dictatorial regimes imposing their will on the unwilling.

And modern events are apparently still similar...

like 35% of the country voted for trump, most Americans disagree with their plans, it’s just the only other option was still pretty shitty

But this?

but you cannot reasonably describe such a government as “democratic”.

Oh shit...

We're close...

Would you consider that more "republican"?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Would you consider that more "republican"?

Not at all. A government where the senate is eliminated, and California is free to impose itself against the will of Wyoming and Montana would be "populist" at best, and there are much more fitting terms. Not Democratic; Not a Republic. Eliminate the Senate, and you have Panem.

Populism is two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner. Democracy is what keeps the sheep off the ballot.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

A government where the senate is eliminated, and California is free to impose itself against the will of Wyoming and Montana would be “populist” at best, and there are much more fitting terms

Right, like "democracy".

Where the direction is chosen by what theajority of people want.

Currently we have a system where a minority of the people tell the rest what to do...

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Right, like "democracy".

What is the form of government of the fictional nation of Panem?

I would not describe Panem as a democracy, as the satellite districts have no effective voice in their own governance. Panem is missing anything resembling a Senate. There is no means for the satellite districts to limit or reject the imposition of the capitol district.

Where the direction is chosen by what theajority of people want.

You are confusing "Populism" for "Democracy". The two are not the same. Populism is the idea that political power flows from the majority. Democracy is the idea that political power flows from the people. The difference is subtle, but significant to the issue at hand.

Where the people are not in agreement on a particular direction, populism says that if 50%+1 want to go left, everyone goes left. Democracy is the idea that we collectively take both paths.

Currently we have a system where a minority of the people tell the rest what to do...

That is absolutely false. California is free to establish law for Californians, regardless of what Montana has to say about it. California doesn't have to listen to Montana.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

California doesn’t have to listen to Montana.

They have to listen to federal law and each person in Montana has way more federal representation thru the electoral college for president, Senate because every state gets two, and House because the number of seats are frozen.

Both chambers and the Oval they have more representation.

How is that not the minority telling the majority what to do?

Like, this has to be working even a little right?

There's no shred of doubt in there?

Because buddy, I got doubts on how much I'm gonna be able to help you understand, I can't make this any simpler. So hopefully you needed just that one comment.

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

The urban states greatly outnumber the rural states in the house, and California has fewer than the optimal persons per congressional district, meaning they are slightly overrepresented. The fact that 52 > 1 tells me that Montanans are not dictating policy to California.

I understand what you're trying to say, but the fact is that even if Montana were able to build a coalition of the 26 smallest states, they would not be able to enact law without support from several of the larger states. Especially if California opposed the measure.

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

like 35% of the country voted for trump, most Americans disagree with their plans

The numbers can't really be interpreted that way. The best one could say about those who didn't vote at all is that they had no preference for the outcome.