Taxation without Representation

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jpietrzak8, Nov 17, 2016.

  1. jpietrzak8 macrumors 65816


    Feb 16, 2010
    Dayton, Ohio
    Just thought I'd throw a thought out there that has been rolling around in my brain for a while now: our political parties have become good at gaming the system. So good, in fact, that politics is far more about the game than about, well, actual politics.

    Point one: the gerrymandering of the House means that it really isn't representative of the people any more. One party has succeeded so greatly in gerrymandering that a majority of the other party's supporters are crammed into a small number of districts. It's gotten to the point now that, in an election of some 435 people, only like 30 are competitive. The only real competition now goes on in the primary for the party that controls that district.

    Point two: the electoral college means that the vote for the presidency is not a direct popular vote, and in recent years has now given that office twice to a candidate who has lost the popular vote.

    Point three: the senate has now shown it has the will and the power to block supreme court appointees forever if it wishes to. So, even if a president is elected by popular vote, they have now essentially lost the power to nominate justices.

    And, of course, the Senate is elected state-by-state.

    The American system of government was carefully crafted with numerous checks and balances, to ensure that government work would get done, avoiding mob rule but also avoiding the tyranny of a single individual or group gaining too much power. Two hundred years on, and political insiders now understand the system so well that there seems much less need to bother making compromises with opponents: the "Tea Party" leveraged the gerrymandering of the House to throw a wrench into pretty much everything in congress over the past six years, the senate thoroughly destroyed the president's ability to nominate supreme court justices this year, and the electoral college has now awarded the presidency to a man who did not win the popular vote.

    In short, a party which does not represent the will of the majority of the country now has absolute power. No checks, no balances.

    I'm not saying that the Democrats don't play the same game; they do. The problem I see is that, at some point, with the country being ruled by groups that represents fewer and fewer of the people, you start running into the question that started this country two centuries ago: if my vote doesn't actually mean anything, if I have no role in choosing who rules, what is the point of following the laws created by the people who do rule?

    I don't think America has actually reached that point yet. But the danger of having two parties who understand perfectly how to game the system, and work to divide all rulership between themselves, eventually makes our form of "democracy" pointless; and even moreso if a single minority party gains complete ascendancy. You might as well just get it over with and appoint a king...
  2. VulchR macrumors 68020


    Jun 8, 2009
    ...or watch the start of a revolution that will benefit nobody.

Share This Page