Hacker News Reader

I don't think this is actually all that insightful. Political parties are a component of every single democratic system on Earth, and were emerging in America even before Washington "warned" about them. Hell, he was actually doing to support his own faction, beginning the long American tradition of "it's partisanship when the other guy does it."

The real problems here are the assortment of the general population into self-selected "red America" and "blue America", who have different economic priorities, live in different sorts of municipalities, and fundamentally different analyses of the world.

(I'm actually partial to both for some reason: I like the "plainness" of the Reds, but think Blue usually has a somewhat half-decent analysis of reality while Red is usually wildly delusional. My actual preferred analysis might be called "the Other Red", the one with the gold stars and roses and such.)

Complain about "partisanship" all you like, but it won't sort out the difference between someone who thinks the economy runs on consumer demand, thus requiring a level of wages that lets most people consume without much debt, and someone who thinks it runs on manliness and resource extraction, thus requiring wage suppression until all those namby-pambies buck up and do a day's work. Those are just different causal models.

What we could really use is proportional representation, so that "partisanship" could at least sort itself out into multiple competing parties within each of the two broad coalitions, and every well-supported analysis of the world could find some official expression.

The solution isn't a better direct democracy -- that is the problem.

US Senators were elected by the state legislatures for 125 years prior to the 17th Amendment. They were supposed to represent the states and not national special interests.

Think how much easier it is to contact your state representatives than it is a US Senator which is basically impossible.

It is the loss of classical liberalism that is causing all the problems.

And I disagree that people are all that different or if economic philosophies are even relevant to most of the population.

Great comment! Also to add to the "folks that lived down the street" aspect of the House of Representatives: when we started out, we had 1 rep for something like 35,000 people. Now it's more like 1 rep per 750,000 people. That undoubtedly makes a big difference in how the rep views their individual constituents.

I think this is actually more important than the "too much democracy" argument top comment was heading towards. Representatives are supposed to do just that: represent their communities. They should be voted in based on how much the voters trust them to represent their interests, rather than along more abstract political orientations. When the community is small enough that everyone can easily see their representative speak, attend local debates, and here how they respond to questions, you can vote for someone based on your personal liking; when the community is too large for that, you need to vote based on party affiliation and stump speeches. This inherently leads to polarization: you're not voting for a person, you're voting for a team, and trying to beat the other team.

more represensitives means each representivies voice matters less.

If there were 6000 representivies rather than the 300odd there are now, political parties would dominate things even more than they already do.

Could we not then assert that perhaps we are at the useful limit of representative governments? 1 per 750,000 is not representations. And dammit, no taxation with representation.

>"They were supposed to only serve for a couple of years at a time. It wasn't a lifetime job"

Indeed. The order of priorities for law makers in Washington seems to be:

1) In keeping their job as long as possible. In order to accomplish this it takes vast sums of money. However this money flows freely from the lobbyists on K Street so is generally not a problem.

2) The concerns of special interests. See number 1.

3) The third concern of lawmakers in Washington is to blind allegiance to their party. They generally vote along party lines regardless of whether those votes reflect the will of the folks they are supposed to be representing.

4) Dead last - the wishes and concerns of the regular working folks back home.

Right, It basically boils down that the senators and representatives are essentially slaves of the party and the system. There's not much they can do if they want to keep on bringing food to the table every evening.

Wall street knows this, the politicians themselves know it, its a democracy purely for display purposes. Its essentially been hacked.

Sure, it's a good gig. They're entitled to full pensions once they've been in office for 5 years, they have indemnity health care plans for them and their family(the best money can buy), and they collect a 174K a year in salary. But other than that they are just regular working millionaires.[1]

http://time.com/373/congress-is-now-mostly-a-millionaires-cl...

A lot of the dumbasses are either rich and privileged themselves, or sponsored by people who are rich and privileged.

All political systems tend to aristocracy/oligarchy. It's incredibly hard to design a stable system that doesn't.

I suspect the only systems that work are ones where making smart policy is a considered a form of rather dull social service, not a surefire tool for self-advancement.

But humans don't work like that. We're too short-sighted and competitive, and the only way to fix that is to change the reward profile so actions that benefit long-term collective intelligence get better outcomes than actions designed for short term personal gain.

I never thought I'd see an argument against Democracy as a top post on HN. Shame. Partisanship isn't the problem. Politicians pushing forth their constituents agenda is the whole point. The problem is non-competitive districts where extremist agendas are allowed to fester. Fix gerrymandering.

gerrymandering is by far the biggest issues with incumbants being nearly 100% secure in their seats. It is absolutely critical it be fixed.

>Somehow we thought

It is never 'we'.

Organizations reward those who maximize their power. They're evolutionary environments.

Actions proceed when there is sufficient net clout from those who expect a power increase from it. Acting any other way is suboptimal. When's the last time the POTUS reduced their power?

Don't presume to call the people who made these changes dumb-asses. By effectively disenfranchising the public they consolidated their power base and reduced the amount of supporters they have to appease.

These are the politics of power.

Stupidity is an easy scapegoat that obviates the need for further analysis. Some politicians have been very effective at using it, like Bush. You may want to reconsider who exactly is the dumb-ass.

I'm from Georgia. I went to law school here. I have met many extremely capable jurists. Though not many of them seem to run for office.

My Congressman is a dumbass. I'm sort of okay with this because, in general, he's pretty representative of his constituency. He's also good about interacting with his constituency, which I applaud.

But my senators are also dumbasses. Not well educated in the law. Not able to think in a nuanced way about any remotely complex issue. Perdue said he wanted to get rid of the EPA, just, just get rid of it. This is not architect-level thinking. This is singleminded businessman thinking, which at the end of the day does tend to equate itself with a "rich people problem."

I don't think higher turnover in the House is really going to solve that problem. I know that there are hundreds of people better qualified to serve in that architect role. The question for me is, "Why aren't they incentivized to run?"

This is a remarkably insightful comment, and I hope that it receives attention. -Thank you

Thirty-thousand.org advocates the bill passed by the House in 1789: to require there be at least one Representative for every 50,000 people. At the current population level of approximately 300 million people, that formulation would require a minimum of 6,000 congressional districts.

50,000 seems reasonable to me. A congress member could have a townhall at a football stadium with every one of their constituents in attendance. It's unlikely there would ever be that level of interest, but it's nice to know it's possible.