I would push back on the idea that popular ideas are being blocked by the EC or the Senate's structure. There are a some social benefits that are city/state run (like supplementary free Pre-K), but many regions have avoided expanding the social safety net by choice and have pretty open electoral systems. Even on issues like healthcare a largely government run healthcare system is basically a 50-50 issue per Gallup. https://news.gallup.com/poll/654101/health-coverage-government-responsibility.aspx
Also it is very hard to actually get a majority issue on anything, and often times public policy priorities are mutually exclusive. Thus trying to get some kind of popularist democratic legitimacy from lots of whole of populace votes (like California and the referenda) is kind of problematic or infeasible.
Even countries like Australia with mandatory elections only have like 90% turnout, which per this framework would be illegitimate in your POV.
The consensus on rapidly expanding social democracy on all fronts is weaker than what is being presupposed here, which is probably why it hasn't been a public policy priority in recent years. (See: backlash to Obamacare).
This isn't an endorsement of no social insurance expansions, but they cost a lot of money and not everyone agrees with it. A simpler explanation of why it hasn't happened yet.
In 2009, roughly 65% of Americans supported a public option for Medicare, that was blocked by 41 senators. That alone is proof of my point. Consistently, bills have their backbone removed to appease the Senate to 60 votes. I don’t understand how one can grapple with the utter disproportionality and disparity between states in population and not come to such conclusion that it has a massive impact on policy. “Often it is hard to get a majority on anything”, I don’t know what you mean by this as there are a good amount of issues where Americans post numbers above 75% that are never acted upon (gun control, climate action). I also never argued in favor of mandatory voting and believe not voting when eligible represents that person’s decision in itself. You can blame money but I will not take austerity arguments in a time following the US government sending billions upon billions abroad to bomb civilians, money that could have covered many social programs.
Such a well written introduction and articulation of what I think many Americans are thinking at the moment
Like a modern-day Thomas Paine.
I would push back on the idea that popular ideas are being blocked by the EC or the Senate's structure. There are a some social benefits that are city/state run (like supplementary free Pre-K), but many regions have avoided expanding the social safety net by choice and have pretty open electoral systems. Even on issues like healthcare a largely government run healthcare system is basically a 50-50 issue per Gallup. https://news.gallup.com/poll/654101/health-coverage-government-responsibility.aspx
Also it is very hard to actually get a majority issue on anything, and often times public policy priorities are mutually exclusive. Thus trying to get some kind of popularist democratic legitimacy from lots of whole of populace votes (like California and the referenda) is kind of problematic or infeasible.
Even countries like Australia with mandatory elections only have like 90% turnout, which per this framework would be illegitimate in your POV.
The consensus on rapidly expanding social democracy on all fronts is weaker than what is being presupposed here, which is probably why it hasn't been a public policy priority in recent years. (See: backlash to Obamacare).
This isn't an endorsement of no social insurance expansions, but they cost a lot of money and not everyone agrees with it. A simpler explanation of why it hasn't happened yet.
In 2009, roughly 65% of Americans supported a public option for Medicare, that was blocked by 41 senators. That alone is proof of my point. Consistently, bills have their backbone removed to appease the Senate to 60 votes. I don’t understand how one can grapple with the utter disproportionality and disparity between states in population and not come to such conclusion that it has a massive impact on policy. “Often it is hard to get a majority on anything”, I don’t know what you mean by this as there are a good amount of issues where Americans post numbers above 75% that are never acted upon (gun control, climate action). I also never argued in favor of mandatory voting and believe not voting when eligible represents that person’s decision in itself. You can blame money but I will not take austerity arguments in a time following the US government sending billions upon billions abroad to bomb civilians, money that could have covered many social programs.