The Gaming Den

So I was thinking about reviving the 'how do we get rid of this stupid U.S. Constitution' but I realized that it wouldn't get anywhere without taking care of the biggest problem. That is, the basis for creating a new constitution is that the original one was based on the existence of 'states' and I propose that the new one should be based on the existence of 'population'. This met some resistance and I feel that reviving that thread wouldn't get anywhere without clearing up this crap first.

I am opposed to the existence of states and the U.S.'s interpretation of federalism for a number of reasons and I also reject their arguments for existence. So I will talk about them below.

[*] The existence of a state as envisioned by the U.S. Constitution is distinctly outmoded thinking. The very fact of Texas's admission (which came after the French Revolution) should be a big red flag that the idea was shopworn in the mid 19th century, let alone today. Of course, something being old isn't a reason to get rid of it, but I am just kneecapping anyone ahead of time who wishes to argue this on a basis of authority or that stupid Founding Fathers' wisdom crap.

[*] People say that the existence of states protect against the 'tyranny of the majority' (that is, large numbers of people forming factions and voting against the interests of some minority). Steve Kangas wrote a response so well to this that I am just going to spoiler it.

Democracy does have its critics, mostly on the right. One objection is that democracy results in the "tyranny of the majority." The short answer to this objection is that the best-designed democracies have constitutions that protect minority and individual rights.

The long answer is that viewing democracy as a "majority" and a "minority" is a bit of false dichotomy. Democracies have two inherent safeguards: first, everyone has the vote, which means that everyone exerts influence. Second, everyone belongs to minorities based on age, race, sex, special interests, religion, etc. Democracies need coalitions of minorities to form majorities, and the horse-trading that goes on is one of the best defenses against the tyranny of the majority. We can see the relative success of this system in the vastly different treatments that democracies and non-democracies reserve for their minorities. Non-democracies have a long and bloody history of minority genocide, like Nazi Germany slaughtering the Jews, or Turkey slaughtering Armenians. By comparison, democracies treat their minorities significantly better.

Critics then point out that democracies do not have perfect histories, either. The U.S. had slavery, for example. But here it’s crucial to note that America has evolved from a weak to strong democracy. The U.S. inherited slavery from a completely non-democratic institution, the British monarchy. And, as noted above, the U.S. began not as a true democracy, but as an aristocracy of land-owning white males. As various minorities won the right to vote, their greater influence considerably reduced their oppression. This gave rise to the common observation that "the problems of democracy are solved by greater democracy." In a strong democracy, any pro-slavery movement that swept through the white male population would be crushed at the polls, not only by the votes of blacks, but by every other minority who saw their rights threatened next. For this reason, strong democracies have greatly reduced the oppression of minorities.

In a democracy, the majority's wishes are often ameliorated to accommodate the minority's wishes. One could say the "tyranny of the majority" is counterbalanced by the "tyranny of the minority." This system, based on agreeable compromise, is the optimal way to minimize coercion.

Now that said, even granting the whole 'tyranny of the majority' issue, one must propose a better alternative than that. Because even though the concept is shameful, it still maximizes public consent of the law. I mean, which system was more heinous: Colonial India, where a tiny minority of British Whites were able to impose their tyranny or Jim Crow South, where a large majority of Southern whites were able to impose their tyranny? Assuming that tyranny is unavoidable (and notice that any way to ameliorate it short of revolution would apply to both systems) then obviously the latter system is 'better'. It's still heinous but you have a smaller proportion of the populace desperately unhappy.

And that's why the whole existence of states protecting of 'tyranny of the majority' is bullshit. For one, it's still theoretically possible for this to happen, since state boundaries are not drawn along populational lines. If the 30 most populous states designed to pick on the other 20 then the state setup is no defense at all. For two, the setup also allows the 30 least populous states to pick on the other 20, which is even more heinous. Not only do you have the same situation of a faction of states raiding another, but you're also maximizing the number of people hurt by this setup. That's what I meant by 'tyranny of the minority'?

Now the question is, how much does the United States engage in Tyranny of the Minority? Quite a bit, honestly. Not enough to cause open revolt, as one person stealing a quarter from four million people is less noticable than four million people stealing a quarter each from one person, but it's quite a lot. You only need to look at state unemployment figures and pork amounts. Disregarding the South, small states have lower unemployment and more federal money than larger ones. Which is a nice segway into the next problem.

[*] The very existence of states encourages factionalism. You can see the Eurozone right now for an example of this, but if you want something more in the vein of American Exceptionalism you can see California and Texas. Rick Perry is famous if that's the word for initiating a jobs program that directly sapped the jobs from California. Yet he will get away with this because few people in Texas -- who control the purse strings and his office -- are able to care. Hell, they might actually encourage sticking it to the West Coast liberals.

For more information on this, see You Are Not So Smart.com's article on Asymmetric Insight. People really do form bullshit disputes and factions not based on anything rational but just because there's a different group available. Indeed, even if it didn't entail additional organization just the existence of organizing people into factions entails a base, unavoidable harm. So the mere existence of a subgroup needs to have an additional justification in order to accept it. Shit is not free. So when pressed on this point, people mostly hem and haw something about state culture.

[*] Even if you believe that state culture is a sacred entity that must be preserved, can you please tell me why in the process of preserving state culture it needs to be accompanied by political power? Hell, can you even tell me what state culture is? I mean, the distinction of a state is a totally arbitrary entity. Can anyone not from either of the states tell me the difference between a Montanan and a North Dakotan resident? How about Virginia and South Carolina? And even when the difference is potentially profound like California vs. Mississippi, is it really all that much? I mean, both places have the same basic history starting in the 20th century, let alone 21st century. Even so, the fact remains that state culture changes over the timeframe of the country. The panhandle of Texas and Oklahoma have much more in common politically and economically than South Texas but redrawing the state lines to reflect this is almost politically impossible.

[*] The next generation does not give a shit about your stupid state boundaries and whatnot. Yes, even after the United States Constitution was drafted, it probably wasn't very hard to find citizens who were still resentful of this government change and though of themselves in private as British subjects. Some people converted, some people probably went to their grave jerking off to portraits of George the III and Sandwich. Regardless, the new country was drawn up with or without their consent. Do you think that their grandchildren gave a toss? Except for a handful of completely hopeless cases, no. Great Britain still didn't have freedom of religion and still had a relatively powerful House of Lords and monarchy so chances are they would prefer this new system more. When a child is born, they're not born attached to bullshit symbols like the football mascot and the state anthem and the state flag and all that shit. They're attached to what they grew up with, which if the parents were born in Texas but moved to Arkansas will be that.

But you know what your descendents will notice and care about across generations? The lack of a fair distribution of political power. Oh, sure, you can distract people from this by telling them that their arbitrary identity as a New Yorkian depends on their ceding some political power to some asshat in New Hampshire, but it's not something that can be justified on its own. You don't have to justify why the bluebonnet is the best flower and Texas is the awesomeness, but you do need to justify why 1/10th of your tax dollars is being pissed away propping up a state that's richer than yours.

[*] People say that we 'need' a Senate in order to increase the time for debate and prevent ill-considered legislation from sweeping through the public.

Disregarding that this same mechanism is also what causes 'good' legislation to wither up and die on the vine and also disregarding that the Senate has and will hastily approve ill-considered legislation anyway thus abdicating this dubious function, there's absolutely no reason for states (or more specifically, the U.S. Senate) to exist in this fashion. If a cooling off period is what's necessary for wise legislation, then you should either increase the time necessary for debate for non-emergencies or at an absolute minimum the 'cooling off' body should also ultimately derive its power from the people.

[*] The very existence of states hurts transparency of government. One of their arguments is that states are 'closer' to the people than the federal government but as least since WW2 this is very clearly not the case. A 'closeness' argument is just plain goddamn laughable. More people know the President than their governor. More people know their Congressional senator than their State senator. More people know their Congressional Rep than their state rep. Hell, more people know who the fuck the Secretary of Defense is than their states' Attorney General.

Here is some insight as to why this is the case. As I said in the last thread, I am a resident of Austin, TX. And I have a lot of people who I can vote for and elect director. Leaving out positions like dogcatcher or Lt. Governor (I know, I know) in roughly descending order of individual power I can vote for: 1 President, 2 Congressional Senators, 1 Governor, 1 Congressional Representative, an unknown number of state supreme court justices (Texas uses a hybrid of election and appointments), 1 State Senator, 1 State Representative, and 1 Mayor. Actually since Austin exists in more than one county and I live right on the edge of a Congressional district, I should ideally know more than I do.

But you know what? That's already too goddamn many people to know and keep track of. And I consider myself relatively well-informed compared to the public at large. Voting statistics reflect that; only like a fifth of the people even vote for their State Rep. And going back to my previous point, the reason why more people know the President than their Governor is because when there's just too much information to keep track of people just end up paying attention to what they perceive as important and then skimming the rest.

The entire state setup encourages that. That's why I originally proposed a bicameral legislature wherein the upper house was strictly assigned by party elections (I also support proportional representation, term limits just for this chamber, and eliminating 'first past the post' for this chamber, but that's another story) and you didn't particularly need to know the individual members. I mean, it's helpful to know who is the Majority leader and which individual leads committee assignments, but it's not necessary. You are voting for a party, not for a person. The lower house works pretty much like it does now, but with the elimination of states the Congressional representative has a bit more power (since they will control their intra-district affairs more stringently but since the central government has a lot more power concentration it's a wash) and much more visibility. For cities that are too large to fit in a Congressional district, such as New York City, the cities will have specific powers invested in them and will elect a mayor which will probably have a different title to avoid confusion. But for most rural and suburban areas, the mayor is still the mostly weak and deck-chair rearranging office that it is now.

Now, even if you reject my proposal, you still need to tell me how you manage the fix the problems of visibility and accountability! And if you don't think it's a problem, tell me why.

I have a question...

States are further broken up into administrative divisions such as counties and municipalities. Given the size of our country, aren't states really just the layer of administrative division between county and country?

No, for several reasons.

1.) States, not their administrative divisions, have representation in the Senate. If the Senate was replaced by these administrative divisions and there was a provision in the Constitution to draw these divisions such that they were nearly equal in population to each, then yes. They could be thought of that way. But that would require ditching the entire U.S. Constitution.

2.) Because of this, administrative districts are drawn within the boundaries of the state as opposed to the boundaries of the state being drawn around them. This isn't a big deal, since it's piss-easy to arrange Graham Crackers in the shape of a heart if you crush them first (meaning that if the districts are small enough, they can still be population proportionate even with the hurdle of arbitrary state lines) but it's still ass-backwards.

Obviously if you were drawing up a new Constitution you'd have to accept #2 because people are irrational and would rather cling to their narrative than any notions of fairness or efficiency -- meaning that you'd have to preserve the state lines to assauge people's butthurt ignorant feelings in this mostly-harmless fashion for the greater good of 'New Constitution'. But ideally you wouldn't have to do that at all.

3.) Regardless of the above two, extra layers of bureaucracy and organization impose a finite harm to the function in of themselves. Once you have population-proportionate administrative districts like countries and to account for entities that must necessarily break these boundaries like cities, why do you need the additional layers of states? Again, if I was drafting a new constitution I would impose this layer anyway because people get all crybaby about their arbitrary divisions and it'd be easier politically to preserve a purely ceremonial function of states than convince the putrid American voter that they'd be better off. But that's because, well, it's an easy way to maximize consent and legitimacy even if it creates a longterm amount of harm.

The U.S. Constitution is based on the historical reality that the regional-level governing bodies in North America were different from each other, with their own distinct traditions, societies, economies, laws, populations, ties to Europe, etc. Now, two-hundred odd years of media and acculturation has leveled out a great deal of the individual idiosyncracies, but the states remain political entities under the current system, involved in government and people's lives at both the local and national level. The thing is, you don't see a lot of people today proudly claiming to be North Dakotans, or saying that all South Dakotans are dirty creek-jumping bastards. There are Texans and New Yorkers, yes, but those stereotypes would survive nuclear war, like cockroaches and Keith Richards.

The thing is - and I will stress this only as the existing reality, not the ideal reality - the states more or less work. Except for when "states rights" crap comes up, like the recent federal vs. state ruckus on legalizing marijuana for medical purposes, federal and state governments generally serve different functions, and the occaisional legal combat between State and Federal government is generally beneficial to the population, because it means either the state is fighting for something its citizens want, or the federal government is fighting because the state is being a dumbass hick regional power that's going to mess shit up. Those are both valid concerns - you need a constant check between what the regional administration is doing and what the non-regional administration is doing.

This is not to say that states are essential, but you do need a regional (geographic area) administration - you could tie it more directly to the Federal system, and it would probably be more efficient, but you'd have to be careful so you don't end up building a fleet of snowplows in Florida because Regulation XXX declares ever berg over >10,000 citizens must have X snowplows. That's wasteful.

As for the rest of your rant...blind-voting for parties sucks balls. All it does is encourage the formation of large, simplistic power blocks - your back to voting Red, Blue, Green, or Yellow (fuck Yellow) - and that shit goes back to at least Rome. It's not politics at that point, it's tribalism, and people will vote for a party just because its their party, not because they know or understand the issues. At least with the current system, individuals can be held up as responsible for their specific views, functions, words, and deeds. A man or woman that stands up to run for president has to endure a billion jabs; his life and philosophy will be systematically taken apart and put on display, and that is all to the benefit of the people.

So, my arguments about your reasons aside - seriously, I don't even want to get into the "tyranny of the majority/minority" shit - I think your proposal fails the basic test of any proposed system: it does not do a better job than the current system, flawed as the current system may be.

One other thing I am just now added to the list:

[*] People say that we 'need' a Senate in order to increase the time for debate and prevent ill-considered legislation from sweeping through the public.

Disregarding that this same mechanism is also what causes 'good' legislation to wither up and die on the vine and also disregarding that the Senate has and will hastily approve ill-considered legislation anyway thus abdicating this dubious function, there's absolutely no reason for states (or more specifically, the U.S. Senate) to exist in this fashion. If a cooling off period is what's necessary for wise legislation, then you should either increase the time necessary for debate for non-emergencies or at an absolute minimum the 'cooling off' body should also ultimately derive its power from the people.

Ancient History wrote: This is not to say that states are essential, but you do need a regional (geographic area) administration - you could tie it more directly to the Federal system, and it would probably be more efficient, but you'd have to be careful so you don't end up building a fleet of snowplows in Florida because Regulation XXX declares ever berg over >10,000 citizens must have X snowplows. That's wasteful.

But this happens in the current Federal system anyway. So it's not a unique concern.

Ancient History wrote:At least with the current system, individuals can be held up as responsible for their specific views, functions, words, and deeds.

Which is not true, at least not on any meaningful level. Have you heard of a thing called 'Party Line Voting'? Once again, how many people of a mid-sized city know who their mayor is? Or their state representative?

Yes, there are some individuals out there whom people will vote on based on their individual personalities and viewpoints. But these people are rare and it's just impossible to have more than a few Olympia Snowes or Ben Nelsons where people will vote for the individual rather than what party they represent since voters can only retain a finite amount of knowledge.

Like it or not, the political party is pretty much the only way the vast majority of voters can judge and direct the direction of government. The fact that Senators So-and-So voted for a particular upper quintile tax cut that caused a budget deficit that caused a cut in social services makes it much harder for people angry with the decision to hold the people accountable. This is especially hard to do when the responsibility for an unsatisfactory political reality is diffused between several representatives. For example, Sen. Blowhard may have been the vital vote for the tax cut but opposed the corresponding cut in social services. But Sen. Gasbag may have ineffectually voted against the tax cut but supported the cut in social services. Collectively they have a responsibility for the bad situation but it's impossible for most voters to assign judgment. But 'Yellow Party supported a situation to cut taxes for millionaires while defunding schools' is much easier to grok and makes it easier for Voter Joe Schmoe to vote for the government that they want.

Now, once you realize that political parties are not just helpful, but inevitable for the proper functioning of government (at least at the current level of awareness in citizens), why not formalize that process directly rather than making the same mistakes that the Founding Fathers did and pretend that not addressing the reality will somehow magically create an ideal situation?

Regardless of the fact that people by and large do not and cannot vote for individuals and their viewpoints rather than the party that they represent, I'm not even sure that this would be an ideal way to run the government.

I'm against the trustee model of government. Because despite what the Founding Fathers may have thought, the United States government has by and large been staffed with people ignorant of the workings of government and U.S. History. The fact that the U.S. Courts, as undemocratic as they are, have been a greater defender of rights and good government than the actual elected representatives indicates to me that there is a problem with the representatives themselves -- after all, the same justices ultimately derive their power from the people as well, so it can't just be a problem with the voters.

The other problem is that people do not vote for an individual representative's policies but on their overall record. This gives disproportionately popular representatives wiggle room to use their power against the wishes of the electorate because the rest of what they vote for is popular with their constituents and the challenger, while perhaps being able to avoid specific things that grates on their constituents' nerves, has an overall voting record or proposed voting record that is less popular. The Democratic and Republican parties obviously use this system to their advantage. The generic defense of the trustee model of government is that representatives may use their knowledge and power in a way for the greater good that the public proposes. I disagree, since the Huey Longs and Phil Gramms of the world are much more numerous than the John Adams (who is a bit of a bastard himself). Moreover, the bloom has come off of the rose and we've realized that the average Congressman is not much smarter and is often dumber than a modestly educated constituent.

Voting for a group of individuals rather than a particular individual allows people to cut through the chaff and focus on political philosophies rather than individual personalities.

TL;DR version:

[*] In a first-past-the-post individual representative system, representatives who have a comfortable margin of support are tempted to engage in policies that will benefit them but anger constituents. And do so. In a party-proportional system where you vote for the party and not the individual, those representatives avoid doing such a thing because even if they maintain a majority they will still lose power. Having 70% of the seats is better than having 55% of the seats. This is not always the case, but is more true than the trustee model.

[*] By the same token, individual representatives can be tempted to engage in policies that will please their particular constituents but displease the public at large. In a party-proportional system people shy away from policies that benefit one sector but anger the public at large. Yellow Party Senator #34 suffers just as much as Senator #19 when word gets out that that they voted for a transfer of wealth from California to Texas, but in a trustee system Yellow Party Senator Mr. Texas can ignore how the rest of the country feels as long as his individual constituents are happy.

Maj wrote:I have a question...

States are further broken up into administrative divisions such as counties and municipalities. Given the size of our country, aren't states really just the layer of administrative division between county and country?

Well kinda, but that kinda emphasizes Lago's point about inequity:

The State of Alaska has only 772 thousand residents. For contrast, Allegheny County has 1,223 thousand.

That is one of the reasons which I am of the (admittedly crazy fringe) opinion that Allegheny County should break from Pennsylvania and become it's own state - our population is not getting a fair shake from our representatives in DC. There are a dozen States with fewer residents than my County - and each of those states gets 2 senators and their accompanying electoral votes to themselves, whereas we get a moderate amount of attention from the Senator who might-or-might not be from this half of our State.

Furthermore, the subdivisions below that are at least as unequal and unfair. Allegheny county is subdivided into 4 cities and several dozen additional municipalities, townships and boroughs. This contrasts starkly with the other large urban center in the state: Philadelphia. That is just divided into Philadelphia - their city and county government are one and the same.

Lago wrote:I mean, which system was more heinous: Colonial India, where a tiny minority of British Whites were able to impose their tyranny or Jim Crow South, where a large majority of Southern whites were able to impose their tyranny? Assuming that tyranny is unavoidable (and notice that any way to ameliorate it short of revolution would apply to both systems) then obviously the latter system is 'better'. It's still heinous but you have a smaller proportion of the populace desperately unhappy.

With the admission that I have not suffered under Colonial India or the Antebellum South, and am thus an ignorant white dude, I disagree with you that the former was worse than the latter, simply because "more people were oppressed". Degree of oppression is also important.

If a large group is oppressed by a smaller, it is easier for them to revolt. Circumstances are often less brutal and governance is often more careful when a small imperial power is trying to keep a much larger populace pinned down, because they realize that the balance of power is somewhat fragile.

If a small group is oppressed by a larger, they do not have that worry. They can be as brutal as they want, because the smaller group is going to find it much more difficult to change things without external assistance. This is part of why slavery in the South was resolved by a massive war (notably, involving lots of people other than the oppressed), whereas India was eventually freed by nonviolent protest (largely by the oppressed inhabitants).

Lago wrote:Even if you believe that state culture is a sacred entity that must be preserved, can you please tell me why in the process of preserving state culture it needs to be accompanied by political power? Hell, can you even tell me what state culture is?

I can't tell you what "deaf culture" is, but a lot of people seem to think it's really important. *shrug* That said, I'm not really going to argue this one with you very much; I'm Alaskan, but I'm not really part of any "Alaskan culture"...I don't fish, I don't hunt, I'm not Native American, and I could give a shit about 'the last frontier'. I just happen to live here. But I am aware that there are people other than myself, who really do belong to some kind of dog-mushing, seal-eating, salmon-catching, gold-panning Alaskan culture. Who are you to say their culture is bullshit?

Lago wrote:One of their arguments is that states are 'closer' to the people than the federal government but as least since WW2 this is very clearly not the case. A 'closeness' argument is just plain goddamn laughable. More people know the President than their governor. More people know their Congressional senator than their State senator. More people know their Congressional Rep than their state rep. Hell, more people know who the fuck the Secretary of Defense is than their states' Attorney General.

You have this entirely ass-backwards. The point is not whether you know who the mayor is, but whether the mayor knows who YOU (as in, the municipality) are. Lots of people may know the president, but he doesn't know dick about the nuts-and-bolts situation of those people in their communities...he can't, because there are too many. Not to mention, if you take even a small amount of time, it is MUCH easier for you to get to know your mayor than your president...for starters, you can probably walk into his office and meet him.

So we can agree that we need smaller-scale governance...so tell me how replacing elected petty politicians (who at least CAN be held accountable and voted out) with unelected petty bureaucrats (who can't) is going to improve the situation? Especially when the petty politicians usually at least have to be from the area they're representing, and bureacrats can be hired from anywhere? I mean, you seem to think that holding the party responsible is going to fix this, but if I've learned anything from investigating police abuses, it is that it is much harder to hold organizations accountable than people.

Lago wrote:Now, even if you reject my proposal, you still need to tell me how you manage the fix the problems of visibility and accountability! And if you don't think it's a problem, tell me why.

I do think it's a problem, and I'm honest enough to admit I don't have a solution.
That said, I do not consider your proposal to solve either the visibility or accountability issues.

PoliteNewb wrote: With the admission that I have not suffered under Colonial India or the Antebellum South, and am thus an ignorant white dude, I disagree with you that the former was worse than the latter, simply because "more people were oppressed". Degree of oppression is also important.

I didn't want to get into degree of consent either nor am I arguing that the net effect of the oppression is better or worse than in one area.

I just wanted to point out that, all other things being equal, a tyrannical government that maximizes consent is better than a tyrannical government that doesn't. Obviously both are horrible enough that they should be fought on first principles, but if your choices are seriously only 'tyranny of the majority' and 'tyranny of the minority' you should go with the first one.

Yes, a system where a pro-slavery majority enslaved a minority is terrible and should be combated both when it springs up and ahead of time. But you do not do this by setting up an anti-majoritarian government based on some arbitrary division of power. Declaring that people who lived in the Northwest part of the country (who are small but strongly anti-slavery) get 100 times the votes as the rest of the country would be a terrible solution to this outcome even if it ended the immediate concern of slavery; once that crisis passes and the Northwest part of the country continues to hold on to their power, they'll inevitably use it to exploit the rest of the country.

PoliteNewb wrote:Who are you to say their culture is bullshit?

All cultures, no matter how enlightened, are bullshit entities in of themselves and should not be awarded political power because they're distinct. They should only exert any kind of political power because they have enough voters that identify by that culture and they exert it by population size, not by distinctiveness. I mean, seriously, you could hardly find a culture that's more distinct from the rest of the U.S. than the Mennonites or the Amish; why should they get a voice in the government for any reason other than a plurality of voters agree with their viewpoints?

So we can agree that we need smaller-scale governance...so tell me how replacing elected petty politicians (who at least CAN be held accountable and voted out) with unelected petty bureaucrats (who can't) is going to improve the situation?

Any system of government is going to have a large number of unelected petty bureaucrats. For example, the generals and admirals in the United States military command vast amounts of power and are still totally unelected (even persisting through several administrations). A system in which voters had to elect the leaders would be a fucking mess because there are too many slots to be filled for voters to intelligently select candidates.

However, they all answer to someone who is elected. If someone down the military chain of command is displeasing to the public and the voters let this be known, someone midway in the hierarchy will take action. If not, the person at the top of the chain of command (the President) will be kicked out and replaced in hopes of the President giving orders to fix this problem. This system has three effects:

1.) Since the President is ultimately responsible for anything that happens in the military and has power over everyone in his chain of command there is the implicit threat to punish and/or replace anyone who displeases or embarrasses him.

2.) Because the President's underlings presumably do not want to punished and/or replaced they monitor their own minions. The hope is that if a problem starts down near the bottom rungs of the chain of command they will personally be able to exert influence to fix the problem before the leader decides that they are unable or unwilling to replace them. Because if they do not, then their boss, wanting to avoid the wrath of the person above them, will mete out punish him or herself. And this cycle continues all the way up to the President.

3.) Finally, because displeasure at a problem will persist longer than it takes to fix the problem, the bureaucratic hierarchy has a vested interest in creating a climate that will prevent problems from the outset. So people have a further vested interest in hiring and promoting underlings that are competent.

Of course, the downside to this is that the larger the organization becomes, the less control the person of the top has over it. We thus cannot blame the boss for every little thing that happens in it no matter how much power s/he wields. Even if you did hold the President accountable for the bad behavior of the local school board, it's doubtful that the replacement would be able to fix the problem because it would be just as invisible -- if there is a nationwide scandal of local school board malfeasance then yes, the President could do something, but not to local problems.

So obviously that system is not perfect because in real life bureaucratic excesses are evident. It would be ideal if voters were aware enough to personally evaluate and elect candidates for each slot in the hierarchy. But the sad fact is that they're not. The best we can do is give them as control over as many bosses as their awareness threshold can stand and make them hold the bosses accountable for the behavior of their underlings. And considering that most voters are completely ignorant of who their, say, state senator is it appears to me that there are too many decision points where people elect independent representatives.

Colonial India wasn't even that oppressive in the first place; certainly little more oppressive compared to before the British established their rule.

For the most part, the Brits allowed the Indians to maintain their little Rajs so long as they ultimately swore fealty to the British crown and allowed Brits to do business in India.

Heck, they were so successful that the British "occupation" force ultimately amounted to just one Division (10,000 men) of British regulars to cover a population of several hundred million. The rest of the British Army in India was composed of native Indians loyal to the various Rajs / Princes.

The South by contrast practiced chattel slavery. Which is MUCH worse.

So, I'm going to try and cut Zinegata's provocation off right here and say let's please not turn this into another "which of these two bad governments was worse." Because even though that discussion was kind of interesting and provided some decent moral exercise, the discussion that started this thread was much more important.

Concerning the actual topic at hand, "state" cultures don't exist. Cultures exist, and a few of them happen to conform to state lines. Northern California has more in common with Oregon than with southern California. New York City is far more distinct from upstate New York than upstate is from practically any bordering state. The only real exceptions to this are Alaska and Hawaii, and that's just because of the obvious reason that there are huge geographical distances between them and the nearest states, so they end up with significantly more distinct cultures. So "state cultures" aren't really a thing.

I don't particularly like the idea of having unelected bureaucrats making decisions for me. If the only method I have of threatening a cop's job is "I'm going to write the president about this," I can no longer trust the police.

Chamomile wrote:I don't particularly like the idea of having unelected bureaucrats making decisions for me. If the only method I have of threatening a cop's job is "I'm going to write the president about this," I can no longer trust the police.

The fundamental character of the federal system is concurrent sovereignty.

Nothing about abolishing state would require that you only elect the President, or that intermediate levels of government couldn't exist.

States have incorporated cities. Cities have elections for Mayor. The City doesn't have concurrent sovereignty with the state. All of the cities authority is directly granted by the state, and there is no reason that there couldn't be an administrative organization that runs in place of the current New Jersey state government, but the Federal government would be able to regulate it better, IE by just making school standards, instead of making school standards and only giving funding to states that meet them.

So you could still just threaten to write the mayor or governor.

Of course, all that is really beside the point, because if the only way you can threaten a cops job is by threatening to write the governor or mayor, you also have nothing, and the cop will do whatever he wants.

However, if you just sue the fucker, like you are supposed to, then it doesn't matter if the court is a state court with plenary jurisdiction hearing a case against a state cop or a federal court with plenary jurisdiction hearing a case against a federal cop. (Neither would technically be called federal any more, since there would be no federal system but fuck it.)

I mean really people, Germany has four times the population of the most populous state. How do you think the country is run, do you really think that everyone in Germany writes the fucking Chancellor about problems, because there is no state?

Kaelik wrote:I mean really people, Germany has four times the population of the most populous state. How do you think the country is run, do you really think that everyone in Germany writes the fucking Chancellor about problems, because there is no state?

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Districts_of_Germany wrote:Wikipedia: Districts of Germany[/url]]Divisions

• States (Länder)
• Administrative regions
  (Regierungsbezirke)
• Districts (Kreise)
• Collective municipalities
• Municipalities (Gemeinden)

That wouldn't be getting rid of states, that'd just be getting rid of the Senate. A lawsuit is also significantly less threatening if the only elected person who's record it'll show up on is the President. A lawsuit is messy and, if properly publicized, can do a lot of damage to the mayor's next campaign, but the President doesn't even need to care, nor would unelected bureaucrats ultimately appointed by the President (through about fifteen layers of subordinates) need to care nearly as much as if they were directly elected.

Maj wrote:

Kaelik wrote:I mean really people, Germany has four times the population of the most populous state. How do you think the country is run, do you really think that everyone in Germany writes the fucking Chancellor about problems, because there is no state?

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Districts_of_Germany wrote:Wikipedia: Districts of Germany[/url]]Divisions

• States (Länder)
• Administrative regions
  (Regierungsbezirke)
• Districts (Kreise)
• Collective municipalities
• Municipalities (Gemeinden)

Exactly my point Maj. People are saying that without coequally sovereign states, you couldn't possibly administer. Every other country in the world, including Virginia when it was a country, figured out that you could create lower organizations that serve your purposes without coequal sovereignty.

Lago is not proposing that there be a Congress, and a President, and nothing else ever. He's just proposing that we get rid of federalism. (And change the way senate representation works, because once you get rid of it's coequal sovereignty, there is no reason for the administrative district of Wyoming to have more representation than people in the Administrative districts of Texas, Texas II, Austin, and Rural-Stan-Stan.)

Chamomile wrote:That wouldn't be getting rid of states, that'd just be getting rid of the Senate.

??? You are confusing the fuck out of me. There are already counties and school districts and cities and federal districts within states. The thing that makes states states is the coequal sovereignty. If you get rid of that, you have gotten rid of states, even if you still have administrative districts larger than counties and smaller than the nation. They would only derive their authority from the national government. Which would mean that Congress could pass the "free abortion law" and then people in Mississippi would not be able to argue that based on their own coequal sovereignty, they can just not provide free abortions.

Chamomile wrote:A lawsuit is also significantly less threatening if the only elected person who's record it'll show up on is the President. A lawsuit is messy and, if properly publicized, can do a lot of damage to the mayor's next campaign, but the President doesn't even need to care, nor would unelected bureaucrats ultimately appointed by the President (through about fifteen layers of subordinates) need to care nearly as much as if they were directly elected.

Um? You are an idiot? Lawsuits are not important because they scare elected officials. If a Texas state trooper pulls me over and bitch slaps me, and then steals my car and drives off laughing, I don't threaten to call the governor, and if I did, he would just laugh harder. Likewise, Rick Perry is not in any political danger from this lawsuit, and will do nothing about it.

Lawsuits are important because you fucking win them. And it doesn't matter if you win them against an elected official or an appointed one. Because what happens when you win, is the police officer has to give you back your car, and then the government pays you a bunch of money, and then fires him.

That's why lawsuits are important, not because Rick Perry will be shamed by the actions of a random state trooper.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:

PoliteNewb wrote: With the admission that I have not suffered under Colonial India or the Antebellum South, and am thus an ignorant white dude, I disagree with you that the former was worse than the latter, simply because "more people were oppressed". Degree of oppression is also important.

I didn't want to get into degree of consent either nor am I arguing that the net effect of the oppression is better or worse than in one area.

I just wanted to point out that, all other things being equal, a tyrannical government that maximizes consent is better than a tyrannical government that doesn't. Obviously both are horrible enough that they should be fought on first principles, but if your choices are seriously only 'tyranny of the majority' and 'tyranny of the minority' you should go with the first one.

So perverse is mankind that every nationality prefers to be misgoverned by its own people than to be well ruled by another.

All things being equal, a tyrannical government that maximizes public welfare and happiness is best. Democracy is unnecessary to this endeavor and often counterproductive. Democracy's greatest value is that it helps prevent the selfish, the brutal, and the batshit insane from taking disproportional amounts of power. It doesn't always work. People voted for Hitler, after all, and were quite happy with his governance. But it works better than every other system devised for preventing madmen and sociopaths from unilaterally exercising power over entire nations.
The result, though, is that it tends towards mediocrity.

Federations are relatively popular for a reason; they work. They work especially well for geographically large countries. It provides an effective outlet for tribalist tendencies while still remaining subordinate to a central authority. Yes, State borders are pretty arbitrary. That's true of every federation. But that isn't particualrly harmful.

hyzmarca wrote:All things being equal, a tyrannical government that maximizes public welfare and happiness is best. Democracy is unnecessary to this endeavor and often counterproductive. Democracy's greatest value is that it helps prevent the selfish, the brutal, and the batshit insane from taking disproportional amounts of power. It doesn't always work. People voted for Hitler, after all, and were quite happy with his governance. But it works better than every other system devised for preventing madmen and sociopaths from unilaterally exercising power over entire nations.

Wow and I thought I was the batshit crazy person in the Den. A "tyrannical government that maximizes public welfare and happiness is best" is flat out impossible, barring the arrival of near perfect emotionless angels taking over the government. Absolute power corrupts absoluely. Tyrany flat out sucks. There is no ifs ands or buts about that one.

Democracy, in and of itself, is a short road to tyrany, as most average people really don't give a fuck and generally love to let some other bastard make all the decisions for them and those bastards are the ones who become tyrants. Still governments derive their consent from the people and without that consent it's really hard for a government to get anything done.

Thus the ideal government is not a tyrany but a structure where tyranical forces are set in balance against either other so that no one force is able to take absolute control. This is the basic idea behind checks and balances.

hyzmarca wrote: All things being equal, a tyrannical government that maximizes public welfare and happiness is best. Democracy is unnecessary to this endeavor and often counterproductive.

Technically, but uselessly true. Aside from the analysis you gave, there are a few more problems with dictatorships even with 'enlightened' dictators.

1.) Competitions for power tend to be violent; even if the dictator is 'enlightened' they still need to defend against would-be usurpers down below. This causes an enormous drain on resources. There's a reason why dictatorships spend such a huge portion of their budget on the military even if they're outwardly peaceful.

2.) Running a nation-state in the 21st century is a lot more complicated than running one in the 18th century. A dictator can't be expected to know everything but still must make decisions as if they do. Now while the 'obvious' solution is to have input come up from below, this doesn't work for several reasons.

2A) Whims and prejudices that would be harmless in a democracy are magnified when the power of enforcement is concentrated in one person. Lysenkoism, especially compared to bullshit beliefs like Creationism and Homeopathy, is a harmless pile of bullshit on its own but when imposed by a dictator caused massive amounts of suffering. The Nazis (rather fortunately) were fatally delayed on the construction of an atomic bomb due to Lenard and Stark's meddling. This of course could be avoided with a perfectly enlightened despot, but starvation could also be avoided with free-energy replicators.

3B) The temptation for a dictator to override the wisdom of the majority for their own prejudices or misconceptions is immense. The fantasy of some enlightened despot cutting through the shit past those petty bureaucrats and senators is just that: a fantasy. But as the Dunning-Kreuger effect has shown us, people totally believe in that shit. In order to reinforce their delusions, dictatorships have always found it irresistible to stifle debate and dissent -- not just because they're crybabies who can't think of themselves as wrong (though this is almost always the case) but because the mere existence of debate and dissent weakens their authority.

3C) Because a dictator has absolute power over their subordinates, people underneath them are afraid to give them the truth that will anger them. This is what gives us silliness like relatively 'sane' dictators Mugabe and Pinochet apparently thinking that they're the shit despite any outside observer being able to see that they're fuckups.

3) Dictators have an enormous incentive to demonize political and racial minorities in order to maintain their grip on the wheel of power. As much as people whine about the 'tyranny of the majority', in a dictatorship disliked minorities have absolutely no protection because the government does not derive its power or legitimacy from them. The worst persecution of citizens have almost always originated in dictatorships or aristocracies or other anti-majoritarian governments. Not to say that democracies have a perfect track record, not at all, but expecting a dictatorship or a strong constitution to protect minority rights is just absurd.


The only advantage of dictatorship, especially considering caveat 2, is that decisions can be made more quickly in an emergency. Which is why it's vitally important for democracies to conduct democratic debate ahead of time and why I gave Ancient History such a hard time about their criticizing my proposed constitution for making rules for things that haven't happened yet but could.

hyzmarca wrote: The result, though, is that it tends towards mediocrity.

That's a really weird statement to make. I mean, take a look at the Human Development Index or GDP per capita statistics or life expectancies or even literacy rates. Notice a trend here?

Yeah, cause there is no way a perishable perfect despot could pick out and groom a second perishable perfect despot to rule after.

Kaelik wrote:Yeah, cause there is no way a perishable perfect despot could pick out and groom a second perishable perfect despot to rule after.

Considering the odds that a perishable perfect despot could even come into existence in the first place? Yeah, those odds are so low as to be indistinguishable from "zero".

PoliteNewb wrote:

Kaelik wrote:Yeah, cause there is no way a perishable perfect despot could pick out and groom a second perishable perfect despot to rule after.

Considering the odds that a perishable perfect despot could even come into existence in the first place? Yeah, those odds are so low as to be indistinguishable from "zero".

Maybe you should read the quote? It assumes the existence of a perishable perfect despot.

Regarding the Senate, if it was not explicitly outlined as existing as it does in the Constitution, the federal government could not organize a representative body in the way the Senate is organized. It would violate the Constitution.

The federal government forbids the states from using the method that is used to populate the Senate (disproportionate representation by population) in organizing any of their political bodies.

do states even matter at this point?

politicians get elected into office by their state..then do whatever the fuck they want to do when there, without caring what the people who elected them want.

they think "you chose me to lead you", rather than "you chose me to REPRESENT you".

why dont the governors of the states replace the house and the senate all together?

the one running the state has the least to say in the running of the state because 3+ people in the house and senate combined do things at a national level that can be contradictory to what is good for the state.

are the people even getting represented? are the people being listened to at ANY level, after a politician is in office?