It's a government by rich owners for rich owners and it's working as designed
this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2024
1260 points (96.9% liked)
Political Memes
5479 readers
2519 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes 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 misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
We pay more in taxes than the welfare states, have less representation... Seems like there was something in US History about taxation without representation.
Secede. That'll teach 'em.
Honestly of all the states, California probably has the best chance at seceding successfully.
At this point I wouldn't be surprised if California's GDP has surpassed that of the UK, which would make it the fifth largest economy in the world if it were to secede.
A quick Google search says you are correct
Dare I say... defederate? *smugface*
load more comments
(1 replies)
Don't forget, those senators translate to electoral college votes.
Them plus the house reps, which are artificially capped at a low number, again benefitting the low population states
load more comments
(1 replies)
This is an example of why the House of Representatives also exists.
Except CA isn't fairly represented in the House either. CA would need 68 representatives just to have the same representation as Wyoming.
And say, shouldn't the states that have a huge economy and bring in more tax dollars have more of a say than the red welfare states that suck up those tax dollars? Just sayin...
I disagree with the economy part. Fuck that. Your value isn't described by how much wealth you generate.
Republicans are (or were) hypocritical with their talk of fiscal responsibility while representing states that take in more money than they give back. This should be pointed out if they ever return to that argument. This isn't to say poor people from republican states (or anywhere else) are less valuable though. It's only hypocrisy that's wrong, not trying to help lower income people that's wrong.
load more comments
(2 replies)
And say, shouldn’t the states that have a huge economy and bring in more tax dollars have more of a say than the red welfare states that suck up those tax dollars?
By that logic, a rich person should have more say in government?
No, they don't generate the tax dollars
load more comments
(3 replies)
shouldn't the states that have a huge economy and bring in more tax dollars have more of a say
Wtf, dude? Can you make something even more american-sounding?
load more comments
(9 replies)
The house were any given rep represents between 550k and close to a million constituents?
There's no need for a bicameral system. It was a system designed to capitulate to wealthy interests and nothing more.
load more comments
(1 replies)
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
One person, one vote.
In Germany we have two votes, one for a local representative and one for a party. In itself it's a pretty decent system
Yet, the local representatives in the pairlaments (Bundestag, Landtag) represent districts of approximately the same population number. Thus, in our first chamber, no vote has more value than another.
But in the Bundesrat, which comes closest to the US senate, states with higher population number do have more representatives than small states, which weakens the inequality of votes, yet still one vote from Bremen (population 700k, 3 representatives) has 13 times as much value as one from NRW (p. 18 mio, 6 rep.).
I'm not really happy with our democracy. It always feels like our say stops at the ballot box, we need more direct democracy.
load more comments
(3 replies)
The German system is what the US would have been if they would have regularly updated their constitution.
load more comments
(2 replies)
But then the poor would run the country instead of a handful of unimaginably rich individuals! What kind of democracy would THAT be?
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
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.
It is as it needed to be to get the states to sign on. But times have changed, and it needs to as well
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.
Can we get 25 million volunteers to move proportionally to red states for the next few years?
I moved to a red state. Absolutely awful. Don’t do it. Texas is an irremediable shit hole.
load more comments
(7 replies)
load more comments
(9 replies)
I don't even care so much about the Bicameral Compromise; but I do care that the electoral votes apply toward electing the President.
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.
Representative democracy is unstable and corruptible by design and it can't be anything else.
view more: next ›