Skip to main content

View Diary: Winner Take All: A Closer Look (67 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Right, but I still think... (0+ / 0-)

    ...that by giving power to a State, you are giving power to the people of that state, and thus giving them power over everyone else in the government. The power of the State should be viewed only as an extension of the power of the individuals within it, and no individual should have more influence than another in the government.

    •  I don;t think your second point follows from (0+ / 0-)

      your first.  

      You may well be right that giving power to a State is giving power to the people within it.  But it does not follow that the individual persons within different states have to be given identical amount of power.  The power, even if given to the people, is given to them as a body of the people.  Thus, each body of the people within a given state is empowered to the same extent.  That some bodies are more numerous than others may affect the power of persons, but not of people.

      •  But the fundamental unit (0+ / 0-)

        is the individual human being. That is the starting point of all of this. Every individual's rights, voice, and power in government should be equal. We choose a representative democracy because it is practical (as opposed to having a popular vote on every appropriations bill), but when we break people into groups and give those groups degrees of power that don't mesh with the size of the group we are distorting the rights of everyone involved. To one degree or another that may be inevitable, but it's something that should be avoided when possible.

        •  But we again are back to the initial disagreement (0+ / 0-)

          Within each State everyone's voice is equal.  But it is States that have a say  in the formation of national government, and so at that level, state voices must be equal or appropriately weighed.  At the local/State level, people can select their legislature that in turn has a voice in selecting the President.

          So we are again in disagreement on what constitutes a "fundamental unit."  I am of the view that in the federal system, with respect to the formation of the national government the fundamental unit is the State (and the body of the people), while for formation of State government it is a person.

          •  But I'm not talking about a system (0+ / 0-)

            I'm talking about reality. Within the context of a system, a state may be a fundamental unit, but I would simply view that as a sign to change the system.

            •  Fair enough, but I question whether (0+ / 0-)

              majority rule democracy, untempered by such things as some regionalism and some state-based allocation of power is necessarily a good thing.

              •  Well, I agree... (0+ / 0-)

       needs to be tempered by a certain amount of representation. It's impractical to, A: hold a national election for every vote, and B: expect every voter to have as good a grasp of every issue as a seasoned politician. And I'll even agree that some fundamental things, like changes to the Constitution, should require wide majorities that could fairly be handled on state levels. And there are various other benefits, I realize. So it's not as though I want to turn the US into England. ;)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (140)
  • Community (62)
  • 2016 (44)
  • Environment (40)
  • Elections (38)
  • Culture (36)
  • Bernie Sanders (36)
  • Republicans (34)
  • Hillary Clinton (27)
  • Education (26)
  • Climate Change (24)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (24)
  • Labor (24)
  • Media (23)
  • Barack Obama (23)
  • GOP (21)
  • Civil Rights (21)
  • Economy (20)
  • Spam (19)
  • Affordable Care Act (19)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site