Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

September 17, 1787: "A Republic, If You Can Keep It"

nps.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 87 posts

Re: September 17, 1787: "A Republic, If You Can Keep It"

#41

Post by eszed »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #31
orochimaaru wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe when this document was written, the only people allowed to vote were white males not in indentured servitude. The document was written by people who were actively amassing wealth. It doesn't mean its not a wise document but make no mistake about the people who were excluded from its initial benefits. The major benefit of the document was an establishment of a constitutional republic with the ability to modi…

> I believe when this document was written, the only people allowed to vote were white males not in indentured servitude. No, the rules for who could vote were determined by the individual States. Women and Africans could vote in New Jersey when this document was written, for example. Later Constitutional amendments made the practices much more consistent across States. Something to keep in mind is that people voting…

TIL:

> Suffrage was available to most women and African Americans in New Jersey immediately upon the formation of the state. The first New Jersey state constitution (of 1776) allowed any person who owned a certain value of property to become a voter. In 1790, the state constitution was changed to specify that voters were "he or she". Politicians seeking office deliberately courted women voters....

But, unfortunately:

> Under the auspices of election reform, in 1807 a "progressive" law was passed which abolished the property requirement for voting, boosting the number of eligible voters, while explicitly barring women and black voters. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage_in_New_Je...

Thank you for that!

Re: September 17, 1787: "A Republic, If You Can Keep It"

#42

Post by dogsgobork »

IncreasePosts wrote: post #15
relaxing wrote: post #5

A couple interesting references in this article- - The constitutional debate with Elbridge Gerry (MA), the name behind Gerrymandering - The proposal to increase the size of the House of Representatives from one representative for every 40,000 people to one for every 30,000, which if continued today would make it much harder to gerrymander, among other things.

We have legislated racial gerrymandering which that would do nothing to combat. The simple fix against gerrymandering is to get rid of the concept of districts and just let people vote on house members at the state level, and have enough representatives that one populous locale couldn't dominate the reps

I would think that majority-minority districts would arise more naturally with smaller districts. Currently the average district covers over three quarters of a million people, more than the population of Seattle. Something like fifty thousand people per district would give the neighborhood of Harlem in NYC four representatives.

Re: September 17, 1787: "A Republic, If You Can Keep It"

#43

Post by Amezarak »

mullingitover wrote: post #14

This is very timely, and reminds me of George Washington pleading for Americans to beware party politics in his farewell address[1], where he willingly surrendered power and went home: > The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.…

Washington was mad about political parties because his federalist-aligned coalition was collapsing. He resigned because of his declining health and because it was no longer obvious he could win if be ran again, and he feared the resulting reputational damage. There was extreme political contention at the time and Washington’s administration was becoming increasingly controversial. This very deeply bothered him, because he didn’t like opposition.

In the words of Thomas Paine: > Being now once more abroad in the world I began to find that I was not the only one who had conceived an unfavourable opinion of Mr. Washington. It was evident that his character was on the decline as well among Americans as among foreigners of different nations. From being the chief of a government, he had made himself the chief of a party; and his integrity was questioned, for his politics had a doubtful appearance.

This culminated in his federalist allies later criminalizing free speech and deporting dissidents under the Alien and Sedition Acts.

The farewell address was an explicitly political speech and you should read it in its historical context. You wouldn’t read Bush, Obama, or Trump speeches and take them at face value. Don’t read past ones at face value.

Re: September 17, 1787: "A Republic, If You Can Keep It"

#44

Post by immibis »

tomrod wrote: post #33
jmyeet wrote: post #10

Spoiler: we could not in fact keep it. The US "experiment" is touted as a success but it demonstrably is not. Less than 80 years after this utterance, the country descended into a Civil War, then the most deadly war ever fought. The US was founded on white supremacy and chattel slavery. Chattel slavery may be gone but slavery is alive and well in the form of convict leasing. And of course white supremacy is resurgent…

We can reclaim it.

How?

Re: September 17, 1787: "A Republic, If You Can Keep It"

#45

Post by klooney »

eszed wrote: post #39
mmooss wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US has been a 'democratic republic' for almost 250 years, so many generations have learned. Such government has thrived in every culture and place, from East Asia to South Asia to almost all the Americas, many parts of Africa, Europe of course. Somehow, democracy works exceptionally well - far better than any alternative ever has - and is resilient. ... unless the people are somehow convinced that it is not, that…

Indeed. However, parliamentary democracies have a better track record of stability than federal structures (modeled after that of the US). Adjust for cultural and historical differences as you see fit, but the US has heretofore been an outlier.

Matt Yglesias wrote a great summary of this awhile back- https://www.vox.com/2015/3/2/8120063/american-democracy-doom...

Re: September 17, 1787: "A Republic, If You Can Keep It"

#46

Post by Mountain_Skies »

vkou wrote: post #16
readthenotes1 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A friend of mine suggested that one for every 40,000 would be exactly the right amount of representation. Not only would there be much more accurate representation, and much more accountable representation, it would also be much more difficult to bribe enough

The reps actively seek bribes, because they need campaign warchests. Whether there are 8,000 of them, or 400, that dynamic isn't going to change. Also, at the moment the problem isn't bribes, the problem is that the tail is wagging the dog, and the Party will destroy anyone in it who dares to push back on the glorious leader.

Using the 14th Amendment to give corporations free speech rights combined with the belief that campaign contributions are a form of speech is a big part of the problem. The intention of the 14th Amendment had nothing to do with corporations but someone wanted that hack and the consequences have been immense.

If we went back to campaigns being funded by individuals, the pandering to mega-corporations would be significantly reduced. Since wealth disparity exists, it still wouldn't eliminate the influence of wealthy donors but without corporations being able to effectively purchase elected officials, it's likely that wealth concentration would also be reduced.

Re: September 17, 1787: "A Republic, If You Can Keep It"

#47

Post by vkou »

bobthepanda wrote: post #34
vkou wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reps actively seek bribes, because they need campaign warchests. Whether there are 8,000 of them, or 400, that dynamic isn't going to change. Also, at the moment the problem isn't bribes, the problem is that the tail is wagging the dog, and the Party will destroy anyone in it who dares to push back on the glorious leader.

I actually think the advantage is that it is significantly more realistic to fund a campaign for a 40,000 size seat than a couple hundred thousand, so it’s easier to have upstart campaigns from third parties.

And yet if you look at who drives politics and finances all the campaigns in a small town, it's all the usual suspects. Landowners and major employers and sometimes some out of town gigacorp that wants to ban municipal broadband, or open a coal mine, or something of the sort.

For some reason, you never really get some field of a thousand flowers of unique political insights blooming.

Re: September 17, 1787: "A Republic, If You Can Keep It"

#48

Post by relaxing »

BuyMyBitcoins wrote: post #26
kiba wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not sure why you think thousand of representatives are inherently difficult to manage.

Consider that for each representative you add, each individual representative becomes less influential and has fewer opportunities to affect change. While I do believe the house should be larger, perhaps 600 representatives, once the house gets too large you simply won’t be able to allocate speaking time on the floor in a reasonable way. The house would organize itself around voting blocs and certain representatives…

Floor time isn’t all that important. The important work is done in committee anyway (or in back rooms with lobbyists, but with 10x the representatives to lobby the value proposition there shifts a bit.)

Re: September 17, 1787: "A Republic, If You Can Keep It"

#50

Post by dartos »

bobxmax wrote: post #25
mullingitover wrote: post #14

This is very timely, and reminds me of George Washington pleading for Americans to beware party politics in his farewell address[1], where he willingly surrendered power and went home: > The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.…

Two parties, each controlled entirely by corporate interests ferrying out puppets for the populace to choose from The American republic is failing in exactly the ways Plato and Socrates would've predicted it would.

At this point I’d settle for the party that at least pretends to follow the rules they make.

It’s better for my mental

Post reply on HN