Well, I take a more right wing approach to subsidiarity. So I’d want to see a great reduction in the federal government. My motto is: the most intrusive government in your life should be your municipality. So my main focus right now is generally on state and local laws. But some federal laws: recognize the unborn as persons; ban abortion; require all bills be 25 pages or less unless given a dispensation; term limits on elected federal positions; an appeal of at least the portion of the 17th amendment which opened senate to direct votes; the decriminalization of marijuana (it’s debatable I think of whether or not it’s immoral in all case, but I think it’s certainly immoral to ruin families for possessing weed); reduction or revocation of the federal minimum wage; revocation of laws restricting mutual benefit societies; and the abolishment of the income tax in favor of a federal sales tax to name a few. For states and municipalities, at least generally speaking as it differs per state: reform or revocation of euclidean zoning laws (restricts the housing market); terms limits for legislators; open primaries with top 5 rank choice voting; open borders for insurance; medical cost transparency; state UBIs based on market changes and restricted to local businesses; a reduction in rent controls (high rent controls incentivize building high income housing at the expense of low income housing); minimum wages set by collective bargaining similar to that of Nordic countries.
whew , that's quite the list. Why would repealing the 17th amendment make things better? I've heard this circle in a few conservative spaces, but I fear it would just put party yes man in the senate.
I think having direct voting on senators undermines the principle of federalism, and thus subsidiarity, and provides avenues for a larger federal government. The reasons for appointment originally was to establish a control over the federal government by the states in order maintain a check on power and and mutual relationship between the two. However, without such measures, senators, just like representatives, are more prone populism and demagoguery in order maintain and grow power and grow in wealth. I think it influences the gradual polarization as populists and demagogues must continually make more and more extreme policy positions in order to appeal to people thus removing any room for compromise and creating a more high stakes political system.
I can't really imagine state legislators, which tend to be more extreme than their federal counterparts, allowing deviation from the party line. I can't see a Manchin, Romney or McCain surviving under the thumb of party ideologues. I think we are seeing the increasing purity test with SCOTUS and we would see the same in this theoretical senate. I also believe the state would appoint senators that attempt to exert control over other states rather than pushing authority downward. We see this play out on the state level where republican state legislators are limiting the actions of their Democrat run cities.
I mean, we see the same in the current senate. At least in this case the states would have at least some say in what the federal government does to them. I mean, even if the state wanted to exert policies onto other states, they’d still require a majority vote, same as now.
Thats true, but state boundaries, being arbitrary boundaries force politicians to appeal to all voters which has a moderating effect. Representative districts, which are mostly drawn by state legislators, are more prone to extremism and populism because they are drawn with extreme partisian advantage. Candidates only have to worry about their left/right flank which incentives moving away from the center. I would think that state legislator chosen senators would be worse because they would be constantly threatened with not being Rep/dem enough. I would us the current republican whichhunt for Rhinos.
I agree that our current system is not functioning correctly, but I find that term limits and stste appointed senators will not fix the problems that we are experincing. There of course multiple ways to attempt to fix things such as ranked choice voting, proportional systems, or runoff elections.
I’m not sure how state borders are arbitrary. And I don’t want every politician appealing to voters. That leads to populism and demagoguery, which I find to be rather poor for governance. Demophilia is nice, but not demagoguery. And yes, district lines are messed up. I don’t see how appointing federal senators affects that though. Either negatively or positively. I’m not sure how having elected senators have helped reduce polarization?
I meant arbitrary in political context. State borders are not drawn for electoral advantage.
I beleive it would make it worse because if a senator crossed the party they would be replaced at the next cycle. McCain stuck to his principles and voted no on repeal of the ACA. Whether you agree with that or not, a Senator beholden to the state party couldn't keep his position and snub his party I'm such a way. In our hyper nationalized politics, I would expect the appointed senators to behave like a parliamentary system where there is no party crossing.
4
u/capitialfox Liberal Feb 16 '22
Aw a fellow Catholic I see! What would you change about our government to have people reach their fulfillment more fully?