How Would You Fix Government?

Reply Fri 8 Jan, 2021 08:25 am
You can be as extreme as possible, or as weird. I don't care. But I'll consider one of these smarmy "things are fine just the way they are" answers an automatic fail, and downvote the heck out of it, because you didn't answer the question.

No they are not. I've been to Georgia. The fact is, most of the state is rural and have no patience for democratic politics. They lost in such a way that reflects exactly what the founders feared, a "tyranny of the majority". That is, the founders hated most of all the idea that one or two areas smaller than the whole could rule the rest solely by population. For an extreme example, you would imagine a state that only has one city (we'll name the state Nebraskarkansas to give you an idea of how rural it is). It's an absolutely huge landmass that has a decent population as a whole with alot of farmers, but it has one ten mile domed city that has people literally stacked on top of each other, and they all vote the opposite way. If ten miles can set policy for 500 thousand miles, something is wrong, no matter how many people are there. There is a disconnect between what "me and all my friends packed inside this city" believe and what the larger lands outside who have to grow crops and mine for a living believe. That's why we have precincts and districts, to divide land up by vote. Yet a population advantage screws the whole thing up.
The other problem is slim majority flaw. That you can have 49.999999% feel one way, and 50.000001% feel another, and the first have to do what the second want. So for these two reasons, I'm asking, "Build me a better government."
1. Where a close 49% and 51% majority doesn't leave alot of people very unhappy.
2. Where there isn't a disconnect between two sets of people, who both want to run each other's lives.
3. Possibly where there isn't a vote at all, but some new better system.
As a child, I never liked voting. It was probably better than some king being born into power regardless of how fit he was for throne. And it theoretically gave people a choice. But it also meant that one or two people who were the minority opinion always got to be bullied by a gang of people who felt otherwise. On two occasions during my life, I was able to defy a vote, and it actually felt really great. The first was a vote whether to go on a field trip or stay in and watch a movie. I really didn't want to sit through a long boring bus trip, so I made an economic case to the teacher that I could stay and for the price of a teacher's assistant and some popcorn and a rented movie, you could do both. The other was a time where I abstained when there was no abstain vote, and told the teacher that I wanted to take the test alone when they voted Monday or Friday. I'd been getting distracted, and I needed to be able to think (and the students in that class made a racket, scraping their chairs in, and pounding their pens). Since I wasn't voting how other people behaved but for what I wanted, the teacher obliged.

So for my answer, I'd like a system that divided rule by zone. In close states, they split by district or precinct. Whoever that area voted for, that is their president. So like if Vermont voted Bernie Sanders, they get him as their candidate, Texas gets Trump, California gets Hillary/Biden (depending on 2016 or 2020). You should be able to move somewhere that makes you happy rather than being part of a disgruntled 49%.

How would do things? At this point, I'd take a lottery over what happened to Georgia.
Reply Fri 8 Jan, 2021 09:20 am


I wanna go back to Dixie
I wanna be a dixie pixie
And eat cornpone 'til it's comin' outta my ears
I wanna talk with Southern gentlemen
And put my white sheet on again
I ain't seen one good lynchin' in years

The land of the boll weevil
Where the laws are medieval
Is callin' me to come and nevermore roam
I wanna go back to the Southland
That you all and "shet-ma-mouth" land
Be it ever so decadent
There's no place like home
0 Replies
Reply Fri 8 Jan, 2021 09:21 am
Let's be brutally honest here.

You are making an argument for segregation and White Supremacy. I disagree strongly with both of these things.

It took us a brutal civil war and 150 years of hard work to get rid of these things. I don't want to go back.
0 Replies
Reply Fri 8 Jan, 2021 09:32 am
Why are you equating land mass with population? Why do you believe a million acres with a few thousand residents is more important than all the people living in a city? The "tyranny of the majority" does not refer to the majority driving policy, it refers to the majority taking actions to deprive the minority of their rights. That is why we have a Bill of Rights although as someone who has also been to Georgia and lived in the South all my life, that has not stopped some of those Georgia residents which you champion from trying to deprive minority citizens of their rights.

We have local control in government. As long as the rights of all citizens are respected, cities and states can pass laws that represent their respective areas. That is why you have different laws in rural Georgia than you do in Atlanta at the local level and you have a state legislature where rural areas are extremely well represented. In fact I'd argue that low population rural areas are overrepresented in state legislatures due to gerrymandering focused on reducing urban representation. Your argument that they need even more representation because they own a lot of land seems off base.

How would do things? At this point, I'd take a lottery over what happened to Georgia.

What happened in Georgia is no different than any other state. There is always a large population who voted for the loser.
0 Replies
Reply Fri 8 Jan, 2021 03:51 pm
I have a list of things:
- where people can help them themselves, they must first try to help themselves before asking government for help (people are losing their problem solving skills. This leads to the need for more government services, and also leads to greater anxiety in the community from people who can no longer problem solve)
- stop trying to solve the problems of people who don't want help (it never works). People must want help (ie. not just ask for it, but actively participate in the solution)
- have help available where it is needed
- stop teaching just individual rights in schools. Teach individual rights that are balanced by the communities rights, and your responsibilities to your community.

My view of this is government 'initiatives' are deskilling people, making them less able to solve their problems (which then requires ever more government services), which increases their anxiety (because they can no longer solve by themselves as many of their own problems), which makes them more likely to call for government services...and focusing just on individual rights, leads the community to become self entitled. And also leads kids making bad decisions that cause others to get angry at them (because the others rights are being infringed)...but no understanding why the conflict arises and both claiming victimhood, and anger at government for not standing up for their rights.

- and mostly because this is being lost: have a class at the begining of high school that teaches kids what self esteem means, how and why you should stand up for yourself, why respect for others is necessary etc. So, so many young people no longer have any idea about the importance of these, how to do these things well, or how to obtain such.

The government has been enabling the loss of peoples resilience over decades. It should do something to help rectify it.

There's a list of other things too, but that's more than enough
0 Replies

Related Topics

An Alternate Siberian Traps - Discussion by MissouriRiver
  1. Forums
  2. » How Would You Fix Government?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/26/2024 at 02:25:06