No it doesn't, political change is simply impossible without massive financial backing, which is why policies that benefit the classes that don't have a lot of money have to jump through all those hoops you mentioned to eventually get the money behind it.
Well, I wonder how to quantify all the "normalization" of homosexuality in tv shows/movies over the last 20 years or so (guesstimate) for example. Surely tv shows like Six feet under and culminating in Modern Family had a role to play though I wouldn't know how to put a dollar figure to it.
Worse, the senate is hugely anti-democratic. It's not 1/3-1/2 of the population; its the reps of 4/25.
""The 25 most populous states contain nearly 84 percent of the 50 states’ total population. So 16 percent of the country controls half of the seats in the United States Senate (and that’s not accounting for the fact that DC, Puerto Rico, and several other US territories have no representation at all in Congress).""[1]
Source to [1]: https://www.vox.com/2021/1/6/22215728/senate-anti-democratic...
I actually highly recommend reading the above. I found it insightful.
Not really, the flaw here is seeing each "blue state" as 100% blue and each "red state" as 100% red. A blue state can be simply a matter of a single blue city surrounded by red counties. The holdout states give a voice to the people in holdout counties whose lifestyles are at the whim of a super-majority in the city.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/upshot/2020-electio...
I prefer a government that does as little as possible and leave it up to each local population to do what's best for themselves. This thread, after all, is about the federal government abusing its people with the war on drugs. Changing the faction in charge and making things even easier for them doesn't solve that problem as that faction is then subject to corruption too.
The so called 'flaw' is exactly how the Senate works. A 51% red state will be represented by 2 100% red senators, and same for blue.
>The holdout states give a voice to the people in holdout counties whose lifestyles are at the whim of a super-majority in the city.
So instead the lifestyles are controlled by a super minority?
If 1% of CA moved to Wyoming; Wyoming would be majority Californian. Them having equal representation in a co-equal political body is insanity. Wyoming has a population half the size of the city of San Jose.
As an aside; I find the coding of land to be deeply misleading. https://www.washingtonpost.com/resizer/hpB3wkTVkPJsrJ6-qjtbU...
Every non-geographic minority group in this country somehow manages to deal with this problem. What makes rural conservatives require such a truly exceptional level of representation?
Yes, but not in the way that you say.
Political change happens step by tiny step. You have to hammer the same point for decades to get somewhere. You hammer it by winning elections, by having better candidates win your primaries, by getting the news media, large corporations, and celebrities to virtue signal, by rallies, by protests, by sabotaging the system from within.
No single one of these things moves the needle on its own, but push on all of them, and your grandchildren may have a chance to live in a better world.
And yes, anywhere between a third to half the country will dig their heels in, and fight you on it, every step on the way on it.