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

Political Memes

5605 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
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago

Land doesn't vote, but groups do. The Constitution was written to accommodate both points, the Senate so each state has an equal vote, which is fair in respect to the fact that the Constitution is and agreement between states, and Congress where states with more people get more votes, because that is a legitimate perspective as well. It's not perfect to start with, and it's been modified poorly over time (representation hasn't been kept proportional in Congress), but it is fair to say that each state having an equal vote is one valid point of view, and the founders realized that it wasn't the only valid point of view.

Don't attribute the 'states rights' phrase to me as though I'm on the wrong side of the civil war or something. The country can't be entirely directed by states regardless of population, but the states can't be directed by other states based solely on population either.

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

While they benefited from it later at this point Virginia was a population powerhouse, the actual states pushing for this were the small New England states, I think some of them only gave up their giant western claims(google 'long connecticut') in exchange for it.

It was also a compromise. Proto-Federalists wanted a direct democracy determined by population, Proto-Democratic-Republicans wanted each state to get one vote. In the end they split the difference, House was determined by population, Senate by states, and the president by a hybrid system that didn't fully give either what they wanted.

If you went back in time to stop the electoral college you could just as easily get a 'One vote per state for president, 26 votes wins' system instead of a direct democracy.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago

And there we have the only reason why the US is as fucked up as it is.

If the US would have an actual democracy, Republicans would never ever ein anything anymore

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The Kentucky fried chicken chef guy is absolutely SLAYING those short shorts and boots 🔥🤩

Edit: apparently I already made this joke and forgot about it lmao

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

yeah...

It's the senate.

You forgot to look at the house lmao.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

We have the technology to implement some direct democracy and get away from all this "represntitive democracy" that doesnt work so well. Let people vote on the actual issues and we'll get progressive policies pretty quickly, we wont get into wars, we'll spend much less on defense, and the corporatists wont be able to buy influence as easily.

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

i honestly don't believe that any of this would be true. Unless you went the libertarian route and pretend that the people know better than the government at all levels. Maybe i'm just cynical. But there's a federal government for a reason so.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

so you dont beleive in democracy, sounds like.

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

i like democracy, just not when people are allowed to make decisions directly. Look at brexit.

Representative democracy, or something like the US has with actual electors who aren't just idiots would be great. But unfortunately they're also stupid.

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

It would be somewhat OK if the House was much more powerful relative to the Senate, similar to how the (unelected) Canadian Senate rarely if ever opposes the will of the House.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Blame Connecticut. It’s their fault. It would up benefiting the South, but it was Delaware and CT mad about larger states having more a say.

The South actually wanted proportional representation. They were growing faster and had more land.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Compromise

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

Should have stuck with the monarchy they had.

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

Brave of the Bri'ish to remind America they exist as we're on the cusp of our own outright Empire phase.

It's not poor countries that speak a different language that empires like to annex first.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I don't even care so much about the Bicameral Compromise; but I do care that the electoral votes apply toward electing the President.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 month ago

The reapportionment act of 1929 is screwing us over in the electoral college. The House should have a LOT more representatives, which would make the it more fair.

But more representatives would make it more difficult for big businesses to bribe them, and nobody is going to vote to dilute their personal power, so changing that is a nonstarter.

load more comments
view more: next ›