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

The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

681–690 of 747 posts

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#681

Post by tomp »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #606
tomp wrote: post #534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Parliamentary systems are generally considered more stable Hm... Germany's system changed at least 3 times in the 20th century. France is on its Fifth Republic. Italy is a shitshow. To me it seems that the oldest democracies (UK, US) are the most stable (even today!) and they're majority systems (first-past-the-post).

To actually do comparative politics, you need to regress over regimes not just call out counter examples. This is a quantitative problem, not a logic problem.

No, because I don't care about averages. I care about minimum, and maybe maximum.

The worst case for representative democracy is literally Hitler. The second worst (you could argue that Hitler was a unique set of circumstances) is the dysfunctional German, Italian, or French states.

The best case is probably Switzerland (party proportions barely change, I assume because the power of parliament is diminished because of elements of direct democracy that Swiss practice).

What's the worst case for first-past-the-post democracy?

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#682

Post by tomp »

funcDropShadow wrote: post #630
tomp wrote: post #534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Parliamentary systems are generally considered more stable Hm... Germany's system changed at least 3 times in the 20th century. France is on its Fifth Republic. Italy is a shitshow. To me it seems that the oldest democracies (UK, US) are the most stable (even today!) and they're majority systems (first-past-the-post).

Replacing a prime minister after 6 weeks is an extremely short term, even for Italy. The current German constitution --- basic law to be precise -- has lasted twice as long as the previous German constitution. And its end doesn't appear on the horizon. The stability of the US system looked quite dire from the outside less than two years ago.

> The stability of the US system looked quite dire from the outside less than two years ago.

Only if you believe fake news media propaganda who equated "mostly peaceful protest" with "coup" (for real examples of a coup, look no further than Libya, Ukraine, or Myanmar; hint: it usually involves guns & people getting killed).

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#683

Post by pyuser583 »

theluketaylor wrote: post #637
WalterBright wrote: post #605

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." So the law can override it as they please? I prefer the US version that says "Congress shall make no law ..."

For a long time now I have tried to sum up the differences between the US and Canada in our founding principals. Canada's is "Peace, Order, and Good Government". Contrast that against the "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" and the fundamental differences in our approaches to government make a lot more sense. We're much more like the UK than the US in the function of government and the construction of laws,…

> something the UK is going to have to grapple with over the next decade now that they are no longer subject to the European Court of Human Rights.

I’m shocked to hear this! I thought the UK was still very much subject to the European Court of Human Rights!

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#684

Post by kelseyfrog »

tomp wrote: post #681
kelseyfrog wrote: post #606

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To actually do comparative politics, you need to regress over regimes not just call out counter examples. This is a quantitative problem, not a logic problem.

No, because I don't care about averages. I care about minimum, and maybe maximum. The worst case for representative democracy is literally Hitler. The second worst (you could argue that Hitler was a unique set of circumstances) is the dysfunctional German, Italian, or French states. The best case is probably Switzerland (party proportions barely change, I assume because the power of parliament is diminished because o…

Thanks for being transparent. When I say stable, I'm referring to regime-years which is a standard way of operationalizing stability in comparative politics. It makes sense that if you're interested in things other than regime-years then most of what I have to share isn't going to be interesting to you.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#685

Post by colinmhayes »

prottog wrote: post #107
colinmhayes wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

That's glib. Do you know much about Mississippi? Do you live there, or have close friends who do? I live in a neighboring state and it's unthinkable that the people of this state would bring back slavery or segregation. In fact, a much bigger portion of the population here lives amidst people of other races -- break bread with them, celebrate each others' big life events -- compared to certain other states where an a…

you're right, it was a joke. What isn't a joke is that Mississippi has been torturing their prisoners and would 100% continue to if the rest of the states had not objected via the federal government. https://www.wlbt.com/app/2022/04/20/years-deliberate-indiffe...

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#686

Post by bumby »

Veelox wrote: post #660
candu wrote: post #570

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meanwhile, Ireland manages to amend its constitution regularly [1] without exploding. I _very much disagree_ with the assertion that the US constitution's rigidity is its greatest strength. Similar to taking on too much technical debt, this rigidity makes it impossible to update in response to changing circumstances! I'm not convinced that's ever a good thing; what good reason is there to believe that a constitution…

> Meanwhile, Ireland manages to amend its constitution regularly [1] without exploding. Ireland has population of ~5 million or about the same as Alabama. It isn't the best example. Instead of a general critique could you instead offer a specific general improvement?

I don't think it's fair that you were downvoted, at least without that person elaborating on why.

I would tend to agree that larger, more pluralistic societies may have a larger downside to the ability to rapidly changing their laws. As one group gets within power, they have the ability to make lots of changes, only to be upset by the next group that ascends to power. The U.S. has a history of voting out the current party in power and that constant whipsawing of policy might be a recipe for instability.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#687

Post by bumby »

dragonwriter wrote: post #351
nyokodo wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> These are dark times for US democracy The US system has little d democratic aspects but it is not a democracy. It was intentionally setup to protect the minority from the majority in critical respects like constitutional amendments. Also, population shifts are ongoing and the coastal blue populations are the most rapidly aging in the country and the increasingly red US born Hispanic populations are the most rapidly…

> the coastal blue populations are the most rapidly aging in the country No, they aren’t. [0] > the increasingly red US born Hispanic populations are the most rapidly growing. The Hispanic population isn’t clearly “increasingly red”. [1] It is also growing slower (between the 2010 and 2020 censuses, 23%) than the Asian (35.5%), American Indian (27.1%), and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (27.8%) groups, as…

While you're not wrong, the strongest interpretation of the OP claim is that they meant growing in absolute numbers. By that measure, Hispanic population grew roughly 3x as much as Asian, 10x more than Native American, and 30x more than Pacific Islander (using your census link).

You're own link seems to indicate that Hispanics are shifting to the away from the Democratic party. (In the article, it says they follow a muted version of national trajectory). While that's not the same as saying they are becoming "increasingly red", it is important to note they may be "increasingly less blue."

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#688

Post by theluketaylor »

pyuser583 wrote: post #683
theluketaylor wrote: post #637

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For a long time now I have tried to sum up the differences between the US and Canada in our founding principals. Canada's is "Peace, Order, and Good Government". Contrast that against the "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" and the fundamental differences in our approaches to government make a lot more sense. We're much more like the UK than the US in the function of government and the construction of laws,…

> something the UK is going to have to grapple with over the next decade now that they are no longer subject to the European Court of Human Rights. I’m shocked to hear this! I thought the UK was still very much subject to the European Court of Human Rights!

I could easily be mistaken. I think it's currently a weird grey area where the UK government has said they will continue to respect it, but there is nothing binding them to that decision.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#689

Post by edmcnulty101 »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #397
edmcnulty101 wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The framers of the constitution did not intend for presidential election by popular vote. The intention was for state legislatures to nominate electors who would then vote for president. It wasn't until mid 1800's that states started elections (of electors) by popular vote. Note: still through an elector proxy. Also this is not a government run by popular vote, it is a mixture of state and population based government…

California could not win any popular vote about any matter whatsoever on its own. The only thing that wins popular votes is ... having a majority of voters voting for it. Doesn't sound so bad does it? At least until you start to introduce the petty tribalism of "I don't want those folks who ain't from round here telling us what we can and can't do". The real question is: there are obviously different "ideal sized bod…

Direct democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

tyranny of the masses is equally as bad as tyranny of the one especially considering how tribalistic people are.

That's why the framers of the Constitution decided against what you're proposing.

as to the right size question. there is no right size. it's totally arbitrary. States are what we have and that's fine.

Re: The United States’ Unamendable Constitution

#690

Post by edmcnulty101 »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #321
edmcnulty101 wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What will most likely happen is that the prices of pork will go up in Cali to accommodate for their laws and stay the same everywhere else. Regulation simply equals increased prices which is essentially a tax on the middle class and poor. Whatever was regulated will become a luxury. The rich will have it but the middle class and poor will not. See car prices, gas prices, food prices, liquor licenses, etc. Anything th…

> What will most likely happen is that the prices of pork will go up in Cali That assumes: * either pork production for CA takes place only inside CA or in other states they have two levels of pork production * if the latter, this further requires that pork producers are happy maintaining two levels of production * it also requires that no or few other states follow CA lead on requirements > Regulation simply equals…

adding additional friction to a process always increases the difficulty of the process and the cost of overcoming that friction is always borne by the consumer.
Post reply on HN