51–60 of 87 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am not sure if that's overkill. It might be a logistical issue with the current building though. 1 per 40,0000 is like the mayor of a town.
What if it were a two-tiered system, in which 8500 local representatives elected their set of ~435 national representatives?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think not getting too enmeshed in their politics is still generally a good idea though I doubt that George Washington of all people would be unsympathetic towards people fighting for their own independence and liberty against a foreign power looking to strip them of those rights Since context is important the speech also references the Neutrality proclamation of 1793 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proclamation_of_…
When Washington was giving this speech, France, the key benefactor to the infant United States, was in the middle of a pretty nasty revolution and probably really wanted some repayment for their help. So the context here might also be relevant, the US was basically saying "Uhh...yeah, as a matter of principle we really shouldn't get involved with whatever crazy stuff Europe is up to!" So I think the context matters a…
You can see what the anti-federalists thought of this generally; Paine’s open letter to Washington airing some of the grievances is an interesting read.
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-20-02-...
He also let Thomas Paine rot in a French prison.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Not sure what you’re looking for, but the national scene howls whenever a locality gets creative with decriminalization or harm reduction or de-policing or school curriculums etc etc.
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…
Almost everyone chooses who to vote for based on which party best matches their ideology, not based on the individual candidate who happens to be endorsed by the party in their congressional district. So it’s not obvious why it’d be bad to decrease the influence of these individuals and increase the influence of parties.
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.…
> The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. > Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversi…
Care to use your own words to carry on the conversation rather than just stirring the pot with a seemingly unrelated and controversial opinion stated via someone else's words?
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.…
> The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. > Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversi…
Engines to power trains and ships, air travel, intercontinental missiles, satellite surveillance, instantaneous global communication, real-time video streaming, and programmatic information synthesis and distribution were unimaginable in the 18th century, but unavoidable military and economic realities in the 21st, and have great strategic importance. A nostalgic retreat into autarchy and isolation is about as realistic as erecting large statues to ward off natural disasters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
This is how every functioning democracy already works. The blocs are called political parties. Almost everyone chooses who to vote for based on which party best matches their ideology, not based on the individual candidate who happens to be endorsed by the party in their congressional district. So it’s not obvious why it’d be bad to decrease the influence of these individuals and increase the influence of parties.
Political parties are natural; what is not natural is our voting system that limits is to two realistic options.
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, becau…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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, becau…
[flagged]