• Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I like how that question about Luxembourg basically just outed your whole point, because the EU basically does work like that save issues like new members, and Luxembourg did join.

    The mechanisms that right wing fucksticks like to argue are protection for small states and local autonomy are archaisms that collectively give a severe balance tilt to mid sized states that “swing” from election to election.

    Not to mention how this fear of overbearing higher authority never seems to be respected within small states, like say whenever a local city decides it wants to do things differently and small states that bitch and moan about local rule whenever it’s about not being able to mow down 40 walmart patrons before they even know someone’s shooting, but then act like local autonomy is separatism when someone within their borders wants to build affordable housing or allow teachers to acknowledge that gay people exist.

      • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Go to any blue town in a red state and tell me more about how this supposed yearn for local autonomy being a farce is just a strawman.

    • Narauko@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You apparently believe that the enlightened EU apportions votes by equal proportionality based on population of member nations, but that isn’t true. Germany, with over 84x the population of Luxembourg does not get 84x the number of MEPs. Luxembourg’s population get 8x the MEP representation of Germany’s. It is a degressive proportion system just like the Electoral College, for exactly the reasons I stated.

      Point two is literally just you saying you don’t like the way it works and trying to discredit it by calling it archaic, as if the concept of direct democracy isn’t just as old as representational republics. No one is arguing that it doesn’t create swing states and tilt the balance back towards the mid and small sized states, because that’s what it was designed to do: make it so the smaller states must be included.

      Really not sure what your last paragraph is about as it’s not very clear, but within a state everything is direct democracy. This means that the large population centers do run the states like you want, which results in situations like parts of California trying to split off because they have no representation. Unless it violates the constitution or other applicable federal law, states get to set their own rules and laws.

      • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        If each state was as dominated by large population centers as you think the country as a whole would be muuuuuch farther to the left, except it isn’t because those little mini republics decided voting and human rights are also a states rights issue.

        Also, those parts of California do have representation, just representation equal to their true size within the state, you know, power representative of their share of the population, and all those “small states” know it to, which is why state republican parties are now petitioning to make this country even less democratic by instituting state level electoral colleges

        You fucking know it’s just a power fix, “states rights” is just a dogwhistle for pulling the democratic rug before the browns and queers get too many rights.