|
|
|
|
|
by PaulDavisThe1st
1324 days ago
|
|
California could not win any popular vote about any matter whatsoever on its own. The only thing that wins popular votes is ... having a majority of voters voting for it. Doesn't sound so bad does it? At least until you start to introduce the petty tribalism of "I don't want those folks who ain't from round here telling us what we can and can't do". The real question is: there are obviously different "ideal sized bodies" for a popular vote controlled democracy, depending on the issue at hand. It probably is right that "folks from round here" get to decide a bunch of issues, without having to convince the whole country. And there are issues where you really should only be able to move forward with a popular vote across the whole country. So the question is: what's the right scale/scope of the voting entities for different kinds of issues? I don't know the right answer, but I'm fairly sure that the states we have right now are not the correct choice for a lot of issues. |
|
tyranny of the masses is equally as bad as tyranny of the one especially considering how tribalistic people are.
That's why the framers of the Constitution decided against what you're proposing.
as to the right size question. there is no right size. it's totally arbitrary. States are what we have and that's fine.