Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by billfruit | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

billfruit

Possibly more urgent policy reforms/legislation required in India than this:

1. Codification of the law of Torts.

2. No-fault divorce.

3. More devolution of powers and policy making to states.

4. Ending the practice of Unelected Governers.

5. Remove power of the central government to dismiss elected state governments.

6. Dismantle the British Era civil service designed to preserve undemocratic control over the population to a modern federal system where all decision making authority lies with elected representatives only.

7. Repeal of colonial era police and criminal codes, and moving to a more humane police and criminal justice system as in other democratic countries, including the establishment of jury system.

8. Give equal representation all states in the upper house as in the US senate(2 senator s from each state).

View on HN

> 8. Give equal representation all states in the upper house as in the US senate(2 senator s from each state).

This is a terribly unfair system in the US, resulting in a voter from Texas (population 29 million) having 2% of the representation in the Senate as a voter from Wyoming (population 579000) or 5% of the representation in the Senate as a voter from Hawaii (population 1.4 million)

The system has its origins at a time when only land owning white men (by definition a minority at the time) had the right to vote, and senators were chosen by state legislators, not residents.

Only under that backward system could the current Senate seat allocation be seen as remotely rational, although it can in no way be viewed as just.

The Senate is intentionally designed to give more power to smaller states. Otherwise, the 10-15 biggest states could routinely gang up and pass federal legislation. Not a really nice outlook for a federal government.

Indeed. This is a problem that happens anyway. Getting rid of the Senate would make it worse. Just look what percentage of the western states is federal land, and what percentage of the Colorado river is claimed by California, both at the expense of people who actually live in those states.

The Senate was designed that way when the distribution of "Free white males 16 years and upward" - the only people who could vote at that time - was far more uniform across the states [1].

There was only 1 order of magnitude difference between the voting eligible population of the smallest state (Delaware) and the largest state (Virginia).

Today, that difference is 2 orders of magnitude, which is massive in comparison to what it was when the Senate seat allocation was designed.

Arguments for the preservation of that system are nothing more than shallowly disguised arguments for the continued selective erosion of voting power of individuals in high population states.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1790_United_States_census

The US system isnt perfect, but arguments against the current allocation of Senators is effectively arguing that the Senate should be abolished (which would take a constitutional amendment). I think small states suddenly finding themselves largely powerless would consider secession if that were the case.

> I think small states suddenly finding themselves largely powerless would consider secession if that were the case.

I have little doubt they would, and in doing so start a war. After all, it's happened before, and many people are plainly agitating for it now.

It's the "my enhanced privilege or your destruction, choose one" argument, which is a clear demonstration of one way the system codifies structural inequality and is transparently anti democratic. In a similar way, corporate lobbying distorts democratic representation, and by all appearances, they overlap quite a bit, differentiated only by the industry sector and which Senator they support.

> The Senate was designed that way when the distribution [...] was far more uniform across the states

Doesn't this goes against your argument then?

At a time where most of the voting population was at its peak uniformity, the 2-senator-per-state model was invented to ensure that the bigger states could not bully their way in federal legislation.

It was invented at the time where it was the least needed, since as you said, voting population was very uniform, so they mostly want the same things.

> Doesn't this goes against your argument then?

No. It was also anti-democratic at that time, but because the distribution of the vote was an order of magnitude less divergent, and the only people who could vote were landowning white men, it was able to succeed politically as a compromise.

Since then, its anti-democratic effects have magnified as the population divergence between states has magnified.

But what are states, artificial boundaries within a country for administration purposes.

Why should 5 million people in a particular boundary have the same say as 50 million people living in another boundary. It makes no logical sense..

In fact it is anti-democracy as all citizens’ votes are not equal. In fact this applies to the electoral vote system also.

so instead the small states get to gang up and impose their will on the rest with only a fraction of the population?

There are a billion ways you can split a democratic body in to a majority and minority. We don't give the left handed, orphans, or people whose name starts with F extra voting power because the righties, parent havers, and all the other name start letters could gang up on them. So if being a minority isn't an obvious reason on its own to be given more voting power, then there needs to be more reason to do so for the states, and every time I see this brought up the only defence is that the small states would have a minority of votes.

The bicameral congress lets small states join and maintain membership in a union safely. It is a net increase in the people's representation and this has only become moreso in the era of popularly elected senators. India, with its historically fraught relations between ethnicities, religions, languages and social ranks, would benefit greatly from such representation.

> It is a net increase in the people's representation and this has only become moreso in the era of popularly elected senators.

It's a net zero increase in the people's representation. It is a redistribution of representation toward smaller states, which has accelerated as state populations have diverged.

A multi-cameral legislature is a net increase in representation because it forces national considerations to be examined multiple ways. The increased attention and varied perspective represents the beliefs and desires of more people than just a majority as measured one way (e.g., by political party.)

By contrast, a single-house legislature fulfills the desires of a national majority population the most quickly, which is what you are advocating for. This is at the expense of more careful consideration.

In other words, we do not agree on the definition of representation as you see it as maximizing activity and I see it as maximizing consideration.

> In other words, we do not agree on the definition of representation as you see it as maximizing activity and I see it as maximizing consideration

The only thing it maximizes today is the continuation of hereditary and tribal concentrations of political power. It's a hostage situation, as the secessionists honestly will tell you.

While I appreciate your zeal, I suspect we will not proceed to real discussion. Setting aside that countries with histories different than that of the United States use bicameral legislature, consider how multi-cameral legislature might benefit a country even when one, relatively uniform, political party controls all houses.

No it balances the power between the states. The federal government should not be involved in day to day affairs of the general populace. As it was originally conceived it was a government of enumerated powers.

The house represents the people, the senate the states. In fact, allowing the direct election of senators was one of the worst decisions ever made.

That's an interesting view of electing senators. Is there somewhere I can read more about it? Never thought of it as a very important change.

Yeah, it's called "the great compromise". During the days when the founders were debating majority rule vs minority rights, they couldn't decide what to do. So they created two houses that both have to coordinate to pass law, but provided a few escape hatches.

Random, but this is also why adding Puerto Rico as a state is extremely threatening to the political paradigm today. It would add 2 extra senators, who would most likely be democratic.

Here's a link: https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing...

> The federal government should not be involved in day to day affairs of the general populace.

This is an argument that the Senate - a part of the federal government - should have less power than it does today, much as the House of Lords' power has diminished in the UK.

I'd argue the opposite - currently, the Senate is where legislation goes to die after being passed in the house (which arguably represents the will of the people, at least in theory). The government would be more involved in the day to day affairs of people if the Senate was weakened or eliminated.

> The system has its origins at a time when only land owning white men (by definition a minority at the time)

And even then, it was highly debated against, if I remember correctly even James Madison himself was against it, to say nothing of the anti-federalists.

In the end Madison saw it as a compromise towards the States, but after 200+ years I think the anti-federalists were right on this, it ended up like an aristocracy-like thing with too much power vested in its members.

Like the internet, government used to be more decentralized. States were the dominant law givers, and it meant that power centers were more decentralized and local to the people being governed. Instead of most laws that directly impact your life coming from far away in Washington DC from politicians you will never meet and can't influence, you had laws from more local government that you had more of a chance of participating in and influencing (e.g. for the things that mattered you had much more _meaningful_ representation). When states could elect senators, it had more of a chance of keeping that power decentralized. Now government power, like the internet, is increasingly centralized which makes it a battle of the federal government to make the entire country do what "our side" wants. It would be better if most laws were decided locally in your state or city-- and other states or cities could do things differently. That would be good for everybody.

Re: No fault divorce:

The concept of marriage in a tradition-based society like India has a completely different meaning than "let's voluntarily have a contract, and we can break it off any time we feel like it."

In order to protect the sanctity of marriage (straight or gay, I support both), the government must resist calls to make it easy to divorce. Divorce must be a painful, punishing process if society is to continue to take marriage seriously. (It must nevertheless be possible for either party in the marriage to initiate a divorce to completion. That's non-negotiable.)

Just my view on this subject. And I accept that others with different experiences than mine may have different views.

This promotes a system where the only reason anyone would get married is for a minor tax break or protection in a law suit

You have to remember the enormous social pressure to get married in India.

I don't necessarily agree with OP on it should be complicated , however there won't be any danger of reduction in legal marriages

I don't see why marriage should be a legal process "provided" by the state. People from different cultural and personal backgrounds have differing views on marriage. You think divorce should be difficult so that people take marriage seriously, but there are likely many others in your country that would vehemently disagree. Even the choice of words, "sanctity", suggests to me that marriage would be better served as a purely religious ceremony. The government can then provide the legal aspects of today's marriage in some kind of "registered partnership", which would have none of the cultural baggage and be purely functional.

Divorce should be easy. Marriage is not which needs protection and government meddling. Two consenting adults should choose to live together or apart as they feel fit. I would resist any call to make the government a part of our personal lives. Dangerous proposition to say the list with no limit to when we can draw the line.

How about make marriage harder to get and divorce easy? That way people don’t get married without earnestly wanting it and don’t get trapped in agonizing mistakes.

At least, make them equally easy.

It's just so strange that marriage is super easy. Divorce is like several months of processes (even both sides are amicable).

Hey, It's already harder in that it takes lot of money to get married)

There are so many horror stories of people committing suicide because of the anguish caused by husband/wife. If you're married, it's up to you to maintain its sanctity. Don't expect anyone else to care about your marriage. Least of all, our incredibly corrupt government machinery. "No fault divorce" spares the suffering spouse from having to legally prove a lot of things that happen in private.

> Divorce must be a painful, punishing process if society is to continue to take marriage seriously.

This might increase unhappy people stuck in a marriage, which likely won’t make the society take marriage seriously; the opposite seems true.

Can't a tradition based society just use tradition to keep divorce painful and punish those that do it? Like the core aspect of a wedding is to bring everyone you know together so you can tell them all at the same time "I promise to stick to this person". If you want that to have weight then just treat it like it has weight. Shame your friends in to staying married if they talk about considering divorce, and shun those that go through with it anyway.

I understand the concept of having different views of how serious of a commitment marriage should be, but I don't understand why "I want things to be this way" automatically means "the government should make things this way". They're the scariest institution that exists because of the overwhelming power they wield. Hell, they're largely defined by it. Bringing the government in to play for every little thing seems to me like buttering your bread with a scimitar.

> In order to protect the sanctity of marriage (straight or gay, I support both), the government must resist calls to make it easy to divorce. Divorce must be a painful, punishing process if society is to continue to take marriage seriously.

Yes, that's why it needs to be easy to divorce.

As much as I think this proposal is unneeded, harmful, draconian and problematic in other ways, I disagree with this apple-to-oranges what-aboutisms in legislation.

You can absolutely attempt improvements in one dimension while othe r more important ones are sorely neglected.

The article is unclear abot the panel, buit I guess they have little impact on the issues you mentioned.

>You can absolutely attempt improvements in one dimension while othe r more important ones are sorely neglected.

Yes. And you will be harming yourself and your country by doing so, by prioritizing the wrong things.

Ending up "better than now" (by prioritizing the wrong things, but still improving some dimension)

is worse than

Enging up "much better than now" (by prioritizing the most important dimension to improve)

Or you don't get anything done by trying to be "much better than now" vs "better than now". It goes both ways.

How is the state taking a monopoly on crypto "better than now"?

> How is the state taking a monopoly on crypto "better than now"?

India has a functioning payments system. It has a dysfunctional tax system and a massive black market. Banning cryptocurrencies doesn’t really do any practical harm. It does take away, or at least make more difficult, a major route for illicit payments.

Perhaps you shouldn't random walk to being better?

"House is on fire? Let's throw out the trash first! That would be a better than now house, a cleaner, better smelling, burning house!"

I think a global, decentralized pyramid scheme is fairly harmful - at least to the later adopters left holding the bag, and then the growing "army of HODLers" who are aligned financially to further adoption to realize gains or try to break even again; including the danger of regulatory capture.

> 4. Ending the practice of Unelected Governers.

> 8. Give equal representation all states in the upper house as in the US senate(2 senator s from each state).

I am sorry, but we certainly do not need the worst parts of the US system. It is not just bad. It is catastrophic.

Having 2 elected houses is monumentally stupid idea that allows politicians to trap the system in blockages, while pointing fingers at each other for no repercussions.

> Codification of the law of Torts.

I hope this never happens. The super litigious part of America through civic laws leads to a lot of services getting needlessly expensive.

________

India has big problems, but almost none of them are the ones you mention.

> Having 2 elected houses is monumentally stupid idea that allows politicians to trap the system in blockages, while pointing fingers at each other for no repercussions.

A democratic system's main concern is not efficiency, but rather robustness of the democratic process. Authoritarian states are much more efficient in passing legislation, but at what cost?

Democracy is about allowing people's representatives to effectively pass bills for which they put them in place.

Building structures at actively make that difficult are not democratic. They are just bad.

It is also about protecting minorities from the majority.

Checks and balances are part of any functioning democracy. Sure they make things less efficient, but once you take them out, you end up with a tyranny of the majority.

How about even more serious problems like road traffic discipline, dowry, child marriages and public toilets?

Those aren't problems that can be legislated away

8. There is no reason to give equal votes to all states. Why should citizes have unequal voting power ?. It is undemocratic in the U.S, The amount of power conservatives is disproportionate to the actual percentage of the population that wants them.

7. Jury system is not without its flaws. You talk about colonial era policy reformation. Juries are a commonwealth tradition! Mostly colonial countries have them. india had them till the 50-60s, it was intentionally removed as part of justice reformation.

5. In a federal or union government the state should have this power. The integrity of the state requires this power. This excerise of this power needs strong checks and balances in place , but lack of adequate controls is not a reason not to remove it entirely.

6. Elected officials always have final decision making power. Civil servants are career professionals sure have the ability to influence the decision making in what and how they present information to elected officials, abolishing civil service is basically like having a company with only senior management and no middle management. Who will execute the policy decisions?

4. Governor's power in states (not union territories or ncr) is actually pretty limited and largely ceremonial. The president and governors are artefacts of transforming from a colony. They don't have much power constitutionally by design. Electing them won't solve the problems of the office, they will just influenced by corruption by needing votes as before .

> Why should citizes have unequal voting power ?

Unequal voting power doesn't just arise from unequal votes, it also arises from correlated/block votes.

Making votes unequal can counteract unequal voting power.

Unequal voting is one of the reasons that e.g. people in urban centres can't just capriciously turn the far away state of Wyoming into a poorly managed nuclear waste dump.

Nevada is a poorly managed nuclear waste dump. There is nothing its citizen can do. 85 % of Nevada is federally owned and there zero recourse for its citizens on how that is used.

49% of land in Wyoming is owned by the Federal government and the federal can and will do as it pleases with the land. The two senators are not why Wyoming is a nuclear waste dump.

The Senate structure all through U.S. history is vestige of the comprise between souther slave owning and northern factions. The number of states, or what area actually should be state was never carefully planned or designed to protect any minorities, it was always political decision to keep power balanced from day 1.

It is political fiction to explain it as to give minorities rights, rural rights were never the intent, no document ( Bill of rights, Constitution etc) actually talks about any rural or minority rights being protected , they instead talk about 3/5ths instead. It was always about slaves, it was a huge part of the economy for the southern states.

I'll support the Clean-up Technical (Legal) Debt political coalition.

9. Free dosas

DosaCoin for everyone

this reform is good. it should stop black money and make market more lucrative

Reply on news.ycombinator.com