642
Does this plan make sense? v3 (lemmy.world)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/general@lemmy.world
431 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 15 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (4 children)

Ok so..

Mandatory voting

I think this can get messy. It would require a system to prosecute those who don't vote. That kind of registry can be very easily used for nefarious purposes by politicians or just anyone with access to that information. Also, it would really depend on what degree of mandatory this is. If you get thrown in jail then we are going to see a lot of poor people in prison for no reason. If you get just a fine then we are essentially introducing the inverse of a poll tax. Not voting is a protected form of free speech for a reason and can be interpreted as protest.

Merge house into senate

Last time something like this was posted I got flamed for asking what the point of this one is. The Senate is a representation of the states rights we have in our constitution. It serves as a safeguard against heavily populated areas dictating the laws for much less populated states. I'm all for reform but eliminating the Senate all together seems like a step backwards.

Ban tipping

I think this is another one where the spirit of the idea is right but the execution is wrong. What we need to ban is allowing restaurants to pay tipped positions far below minimum wage, and stop allowing restaurants to take a cut of the tip at all.

The act of tipping itself is a cultural thing that needs to be addressed culturally. If you can't tip someone for something, complications in the law arise that may disallow giving money to people in general. For example how do you distinguish between tipping a server for a meal and giving the server a dollar as a gift?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    +1 on the senate, it serves a purpose, if you don't think it does you clearly don't understand why it exists lol.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    It exists because there was a time when we needed buy in from states, not just people. The Senate was how that was accomplished.
    It's a way of ensuring our democracy isn't too democratic.

    You can understand the point of the Senate without thinking that we need to ensure that land is adequately represented in our government.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    legislatively it makes sense. it removes a significant portion of say from large states, like texas and california, over small states like wyoming, who have comparatively little say. The trick is that it's application specific. Unless we're restructuring the entire government the senate does exist for a pretty explicit purpose.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    I think it only makes sense if you think that it matters that Wyoming is fairly represented, and not the people in Wyoming.
    I don't particularly care about the representation of the land, only the people who live on it, where each person should have as much say as any other.

    The Senate is explicitly antidemocratic, and since I'm a fan of fair representation, I'm not a fan of the Senate.

    Well, I suppose you could also make it so states get equal numbers of senators and representatives. That would also be fine, since there's a slight use for the Senate having a longer election cycle.

    Since this whole thread is basically playing and dreaming, I'll easily agree that you can't just drop the Senate without at least giving a look at how that impacts the rest of the government organization.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    it depends on the legislation. If it's something that the states are involved in, and it isn't particularly relevant to the people of the state like most legislation probably is. And in that scenario, it would be beneficial for wyoming to not be overshadowed by.

    Also i dont think you understand how senate seats work, they're literally popular votes. We put them there. That's at least following the basic principles of democracy. I'm not sure how one would argue against that, unless you have a massive problem with the electoral college, would which would be fair i suppose.

    This isn't a supreme court situation where they're appointed magically.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    What? No, I understand how Senate seats work. It's not undemocratic because they're not voted on, it's undemocratic because they over represent some people over others. Wyoming and California should not be on equal ground because California has 80 times the population.
    All issues that impact a state impact the people of the state. States don't have interests, they're just collections of people living on a piece of land.

    Giving votes to land is an artifact of getting the country started.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago

    The problem here though is that the US doesn't work like the EU does for instance. The EU is the US if it were less federally controlled, and more "formally agreed upon" rather than legislated and codified into law.

    While it is true that most issues of the state are related to the people, it's also true that each state government is independent from the federal government. And they do need some level of individualism, in order to function appropriately, without the ability for larger states to pull a shenanigan that can negatively affect smaller states. It's not about representation of the land, it's about equal representation of the individual components of the hierarchical government body.

    This is like saying that because America is 75% white people, that they should have 75% control over everything, which by nature, is true to a degree, but this creates a problem where the majority, can overrule anything a minority says. And they have no course of action in response.

    A lot of legislation in the government is highly isolated from the average citizen. That's kind of the whole point of the government, if you truly wanted democracy. Wouldn't it be prudent to delete both the house and the senate? So that way we truly have democratic rule over the county? Seems like the better option here. Not to mention the fact that the house and senate co-exist in a similar space, and can be utilized to prevent further shenanigans. If we only had the house, it would only take the house in order to push through bullshit legislation that nobody wants. They exist as two separate entities, operating in two independent manners. With a reasonable level of democratic influence over the two.

    While technically not democratic, the US doesn't advertise itself as democratic, merely a democratic republic.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    Tipping is really hard to rein in. Your suggestion of banning the "tipped wage" is good, but the regular minimum wage is so far below living wage already that paying people minimum wage still leaves them relying on tips.

    As a Canadian I refuse to participate in the "tip for everything" grift that has sprung up recently. However when we're down at the local bar and the service is great, the food is good, the waitress is friendly and cheerful, I want to leave a tip.

    Also as a Canadian, the Canadian Senate is an irrelevant relic that doesn't serve the same purpose as the US Senate, and should totally be abolished. But it's a totally different situation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    The act of tipping itself is a cultural thing it needs to be addressed culturally. If you can’t tip someone for something, complications in the law arise that may disallow giving money to people in general. For example how do you distinguish between tipping a server for a meal and giving the server a dollar as a gift?

    If you are a customer at a food or retail business and opt to give one worker there a cash gift while they are on the clock, how can that not be a tip? Current US laws like FLSA already have a very clear definition of tipped wages which would include anything matching that description.

    Even if you want to allow that sort of cash "gift", eliminating tips for credit card payments should be enough to shift the norms and expectations. Namely, prohibit payment terminals from prompting for a tip as part of the same credit card transaction and prohibit the tip lines on receipts. Majority of Americans don't pay with cash. If a business says they accept credit card, customers clearly aren't expected to give a decent tip and by extension the advertised meal prices and wage amounts should reflect what the customer is expected to pay and what the staff should expect to earn independent of customer whims.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    I can see the argument for credit card tips not being necessary, especially given that it puts the onus on the restaurant to be honest and distribute that tip correctly instead of just pocketing it (thanks subway).

    But if I choose to give a server a dollar, that should be my right as an individual. Micromanaging who I'm allowed to give cash to is a step in the wrong direction.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    We already have a registry of who did or didn't vote.
    That you voted is a matter of public record, as is voter registration information.
    Registration data is used for campaign purposes, and voter participation data is mostly used to encourage people to vote.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent