this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2024
957 points (98.8% liked)

Political Memes

5483 readers
2423 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] yeahiknow3@lemmings.world 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

If a federal government that levies taxes and enacts laws affecting individual citizens represents “states” in a manner disproportional to the population, the result is undemocratic.

This is a normative fact.

You can’t argue that giving some citizens hundreds of times the voting power over others is somehow democratic. Or is a person in California and Texas worth less than someone living in Alaska or Delaware? Why do they get less say in how they are taxed?

1 person, 1 vote.

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

You are thinking of democracy as a binary thing instead of as a sliding scale. Not to mention you can have democratic form of government that isn't very democratic or representative in actuality.

Federations often have that sort of two tiered setup where there's general population vote and a level where each state can represent themselves as the states. The idea makes sense when you think of it as a federation of separate and equal units, with the state tier you make sure every state is equally represented. Otherwise they might not want to be part of the whole federation. Of course it can be horribly uneven when you consider the populations. But that's not too different from EU, where amount of MEPs differs but council seats and number of commissioners stays the same. Both Germany with 83 million people and Malta with 0,5 million people have the same number of council seats, commissars and both have veto rights. Unsurprisingly it's a topic that sometimes gets heated, but like i said, without it there'd be outrage because everyone would be worried of core big countries deciding everything. Many countries would probably fuck right off from the Union.

I think there's been some misunderstanding here. None of this is some value take from me or me arguing for or against something. I haven't at least consciously given much of an opinion on this, I've just described the reasoning behind the system and how it makes sense to me from the member state perspective.

[–] yeahiknow3@lemmings.world 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

Democracy is not binary. That is why democratic scholars consider the United States to be what’s called “a flawed democracy.”

And the Senate is one of those flaws.

The idea makes sense when you think of it as a federation of separate and equal units

That’s the problem. California and Wyoming are separate, but they are not equal! (Arguably they’re not even separate.) Wyoming has 1/40th the population. One person in Wyoming has the same voting power as 40 Californians to determine their own laws and taxes. That’s reminiscent of taxation without representation. For all practical purposes, the people of California have been disenfranchised by the US government.

Lastly, how Ireland, or Star Wars, or anyone else organizes their federal system has no bearing on whether the US Senate is in fact anti-democratic. 92% of the countries in the world are not full democracies.

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Democracy is not binary. That is why democratic scholars consider the United States to be what’s called “a flawed democracy.”

Yes. It just seemed like you considered it as democratic/not democratic, instead of a scale where you could have such a thing as flawed democracy. I might've just misinterpreted your words.

That’s the problem. California and Wyoming are separate, but they are not equal. Wyoming has 1/40th the population. One person in Wyoming has the same voting power as 40 people in California to determine their own laws and taxes. That’s reminiscent of taxation without representation. For all practical purposes, the people of California have been disenfranchised by the US government.

I guess they could've made the original system such that US Senate accounted for population, but it would've been hard to get smaller states to join. It's the reason why we in EU have the equal status.

Lastly, how Ireland, or Star Wars, or anyone else organizes their federal system has no bearing on whether the US Senate is in fact anti-democratic.

It was just an aside I was hoping you'd find interesting.

[–] yeahiknow3@lemmings.world 2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

True, I know we don’t disagree on the fundamentals. And you make a good point about how some governing bodies like the UN aren’t proportional in their representation. Although to be fair, the UN doesn’t levy taxes or directly interfere in the lives of citizens.

I suppose we could reform the US Senate to be more proportional by adding some seats so people living in populous states aren’t locked out of Federal decision-making.