• gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    19 hours ago

    the people can hold their politicians more easily accountable if the politicians live closer to the people.

    it’s some kind of “pitchforks and torches” thing: In historical times it was usual that people simply walked up to the castle of the feudal lord and demanded improvements if their life was too shitty or if they were treated too unfairly. That was possible because the feudal lord mostly lived within walking distance of where the peasants lived, like, maybe in the next village or sth, but not farther than that in most cases. As a consequence, feudal lords had a very significant interest in being on good terms with their neighbours and keeping the people happy enough so they won’t start a revolt over high taxes or sth.

    Today, that’s not possible because all those politicians that decide the law (and therefore our fate) live far-away (thousands of miles!) in places that neither you or me can ever personally visit. Hence, there is no accountability. We need to shift power back to the local levels; only that way we can personally ensure our wellbeing.

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      16 hours ago

      We need to shift power back to the local levels; only that way we can personally ensure our wellbeing.

      I agree with the conclusion, but not how you got there.

      My Senators and House rep live pretty close to me, like 15 minutes away driving, so I could go visit them if I wanted. They spend a lot of time in DC, but they come back several times throughout the year.

      The issue, IMO, isn’t where they sleep, but that they can’t easily be removed from office. Our districts are gerrymandered to the point that the main party usually wins with 20%+ margin. Why care about constituents if reelection is all but guaranteed? They could live next door to me and that wouldn’t change their mind. If I assassinate a rep, I’ll go to jail and the replacement will likely be worse. They’re more accountable to their party and donors than their constituents.

      But yes, I very much do believe decisions should be made locally because party affiliation matters far less. My local legislature behaves very differently from the federal Congress, not because of where people live, but because they’re much more easily replaced and they can’t hide behind other reps from other states and argue that their decisions are careful chess moves to get what really matters passed.

      • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 hours ago

        and they can’t hide behind other reps from other states

        yep, that’s what i meant. your representative might be easily replaced, but the other 49 representatives from the other 49 states don’t really care about you, and that’s the majority of congress.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          That’s the thing, mine aren’t easily replaced and it’s not because they live in DC much of the year, but because my district is gerrymandered, and that seems to be true for most districts in the country. Only a fraction of races are actually competitive after the primary, and there’s not going to be a primary to replace a sitting rep unless they piss off the party.

          If we simply made state politics more impactful than federal, parties would move their focus to rigging state elections.

          The issue, IMO, is there’s too much incentive to rig politics. Government interferes so much in all aspects of life and is so powerful that it will absolutely attract money. If we shift more of that to the courts, now that money would need to focus on everyday people, which I think is an improvement.