this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2024
1228 points (96.8% liked)

Political Memes

5445 readers
3204 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
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ThatOneKrazyKaptain@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

While they benefited from it later at this point Virginia was a population powerhouse, the actual states pushing for this were the small New England states, I think some of them only gave up their giant western claims(google 'long connecticut') in exchange for it.

It was also a compromise. Proto-Federalists wanted a direct democracy determined by population, Proto-Democratic-Republicans wanted each state to get one vote. In the end they split the difference, House was determined by population, Senate by states, and the president by a hybrid system that didn't fully give either what they wanted.

If you went back in time to stop the electoral college you could just as easily get a 'One vote per state for president, 26 votes wins' system instead of a direct democracy.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 5 points 8 hours ago

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

[–] Moah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 69 points 1 day ago (2 children)

It's a government by rich owners for rich owners and it's working as designed

[–] Letsdothis@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

And none of you poors can do anything about it.

[–] GladiusB@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

I mean, that's most governments

[–] derf82@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Compromise

[–] sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz 76 points 1 day ago (2 children)

We pay more in taxes than the welfare states, have less representation... Seems like there was something in US History about taxation without representation.

[–] bitwaba@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Secede. That'll teach 'em.

[–] LemmyFeed@lemmy.world 19 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Honestly of all the states, California probably has the best chance at seceding successfully.

[–] Saryn@lemmy.world 15 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Chekhovs_Gun@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago

A quick Google search says you are correct

[–] Lemminary@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago

Dare I say... defederate? *smugface*

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 day ago

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.

[–] TriflingToad@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

The Kentucky fried chicken chef guy is absolutely SLAYING those short shorts and boots 🔥🤩

Edit: apparently I already made this joke and forgot about it lmao

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 227 points 2 days ago (8 children)

Don't worry the House balances it*

*Until they froze the House because they couldn't fit anymore chairs...

[–] BanjoShepard@lemmy.world 72 points 2 days ago (15 children)

I'm not inherently opposed to the Senate as a concept, I think it can serve as an important check/balance, but for it to exist while the house has been capped and stripped of its offsetting powers is completely asinine. I also think that attempting to get anything done in the house with 1,000 members may also be unproductive however. Perhaps capping the house to a reasonable number of representatives while also adjusting voting power to proportionally match the most current census could work. Some representatives may cast 1.3 votes while others may cast .7 votes.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 33 points 2 days ago

1,000 members? The original plan was for 1 house member for every 30,000 people, eventually changing to 1 in 50,000:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Apportionment_Amendment

Doing that now, on a population of 330,000,000 would give us between 6,600 and 11,000 congress critters.

[–] GraniteM@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

The Wyoming Rule would only increase the size of the house to 574, still a totally manageable number.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 52 points 2 days ago (1 children)

This is where the issue is. The Senate works as intended, it is meant to give the States equal power so a State like California can't just dictate what Delaware does. The House is supposed to represent based on population. The arbitrarily low cap has turned it into a second pseudo-Senate.

The House should have something like 1600 members to properly represent States. Every House seat should represent roughly the same amount of people, but that's not how it works now because of the limit. Two Representatives from different states can represent massively different sized populations.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 21 points 1 day ago

You're correct that the senate was designed not to represent people and give the number of states more power. To say that isn't an issue though is pretty fucked up. It was literally done this way to get slave states to sign on, giving them power to protect the institution of slavery.

States are made up. People are not. Only one of these should have power in a democracy. States can have their own laws that effect themselves, but federal policy should be dictated by the will of the people, not the will of arbitrarily drawn borders.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I don't even care so much about the Bicameral Compromise; but I do care that the electoral votes apply toward electing the President.

[–] Dragonstaff@leminal.space 10 points 1 day ago

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.

[–] qyron@sopuli.xyz 32 points 1 day ago (3 children)
[–] beebarfbadger@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

But then the poor would run the country instead of a handful of unimaginably rich individuals! What kind of democracy would THAT be?

[–] qyron@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 day ago

We don't know but it was guaranteed to be different.

[–] Dry_Monk@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

But look at the US popular vote. Even with different representation of the populace, this election would still have been fucked. We do need massive reform of the US voting structure, but this is not the biggest thing. Getting rid of first past the post in favor of at least ranked choice would make a much bigger difference.

That would open the door for a true left wing party to actually have a voice.

[–] qyron@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 day ago

Ranked voting is a very good thing all countries should implement.

[–] Jumi@lemmy.world 23 points 1 day ago (4 children)

In Germany we have two votes, one for a local representative and one for a party. In itself it's a pretty decent system

[–] Successful_Try543@feddit.org 15 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

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.).

[–] Jumi@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago (3 children)

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)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Etterra@lemmy.world 44 points 1 day ago (4 children)

This is an example of why the House of Representatives also exists.

[–] freddydunningkruger@lemmy.world 54 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (8 children)

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...

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 32 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

It's pointed out every time. Their base is completely blind to any kind of irony or hypocrisy.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 27 points 1 day ago (5 children)

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?

[–] brlemworld@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago

No, they don't generate the tax dollars

[–] Atlas_@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It's not a question of should. They do.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] uis@lemm.ee 20 points 1 day ago

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 (5 replies)
[–] nickwitha_k@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 1 day ago

Except the House of Representatives had its numbers capped in the early 1900s, breaking its proportionality. Wyoming has 1 rep with a population 584k. California had 52 reps with a population of 38.97M. This makes the ration approximately 1 rep per 750k people. Working people count as nearly 1.5 Californians, for representation in the House, and similarly in the Electoral college.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] dingdongmetacarples@lemmy.world 57 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Don't forget, those senators translate to electoral college votes.

[–] tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip 44 points 2 days ago

Them plus the house reps, which are artificially capped at a low number, again benefitting the low population states

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] miak@lemmy.world 94 points 2 days ago (22 children)

I may be misremembering, but I believe the way things were originally designed was that the Senate was supposed to represent the states, not the people. The house represented the people. That's why the Senate has equal representation (because the states were meant to have equal say), and the house proportionate to population.

[–] MumboJumbo@lemmy.world 55 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

That is correct. The state legislatures generally (if not always) picked the senators, but due to huge state corruption, it was almost always political qui pro quo, and some states even going full terms without selecting sla sentaor. This led to the 17th amendment (which you'll here rednecks and/or white supremacists asposing, because states' rights.)

Edit to add: Wikipedia knows it better than I do.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (21 replies)
[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 84 points 2 days ago (5 children)

They came up with the best thing they could agree on at the time. They did not intend on it to become sacred, untouchable, and without the ability to change with the times, and sometimes we have changed it. Just not quite enough times.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›