Except the government is a monopoly with its own agenda. In addition it already kind of owns us (well a large percentage), what would it gain if it negotiated this deal for us? I would argue it can gain more power by making a deal with facebook.

Everyone who doesn't vote and ignores their role in Democracy let's this happen. The president matters much less then the Mayor or the Governor.

Which is why all the choices are pre-approved by the people who would be most damaged by a President.

So let’s say I’m in CA voting for my two Senators. How much does my vote actually count when 10 other states combined have the same population but 20 Senators?

How much does my vote count even for representatives if I’m in a state that’s heavily gerrymandered?

If you're in a district that is heavily gerrymandered, your vote may actually be more important.

Still, the best proportional representation for you is local. So mayor, state rep, governor.

How do you propose the mayor legislate BigTech? Even on the state level, gerrymandering effects representation. Most of the population in GA (where I live), Florida, and Texas don’t support the state laws. Those three states are passing all kinds of laws to make it harder for people to vote. Especially after the “stolen election” that saw GA turn blue.

And before the whataboutism replies start, I’m sure the same happens on the other side. I just know more about my own state.

The allocation of Senators isn’t supposed to be proportionate to state population by design. It’s a non-issue.

Proportional representation occurs in the House.

Just because it was done by design doesn't mean it's a non-issue. The Senate is an extremely undemocratic organization. The population discrepancy between States is much higher now than when the country was founded.

Nor do the reasons the founders did it this way exist anymore.

People confuse the arguments made out of political expediency for political gospel.

Even though many points made about the constitution were rooted in political theory, and make good sense even today, that doesn’t change the fact that the people involved were politicians who were looking to make the best deal possible within the context of a rapidly failing state under the articles of confederation.

See also - slaves being counted as 3/5ths of a person…

The irony is that always gets brought up as though it was actually meant to represent the value of the slave’s humanity.

The large slaveholding states actually wanted 5/5ths whereas states will small slave populations wanted 0/5ths. Slaves couldn’t vote, their interests were ancillary to the whole discussion. The compromise was about pure political power for those that dominated them.

The repeal of the 3/5ths clause along with the subsequent legal restrictions and terrorism against the black population of the south that followed, gave the south more power, and subsequently made it harder to dislodge Jim Crow.

But your point is still very valid. Somehow people are comfortable compartmentalizing the notion that the constitution is/was perfect, except for that one part that somehow doesn’t count and was “inevitably doomed” anyways.

Fun fact, the 14th amendment would have never passed if the South had not seceded.

> The population discrepancy between States is much higher now than when the country was founded.

This is exactly why the Senate was designed this way.

> Nor do the reasons the founders did it this way exist anymore.

Federalism still exists even if you don’t see it.

Simply because something was designed a certain way 250 years ago, doesn’t mean it’s a non issue.

The political problem they were trying to solve at the time (balancing the interests of independent sovereign political entities with respect to land claims and future political power) doesn’t necessarily map onto the problems we have today.

Proportional representation also doesn’t occur in the house because of gerrymandering.

https://www.fairvote.org/votes_vs_seats_in_the_people_s_hous...

Sounds like the problem here is gerrymandering not the Senate.

There is no democracy other than direct democracy. If you cant fire your government this afternoon, they own you, not the other way around.

That's not how direct democracy works.

If we assume that Switzerland is probably closest to the ideal of a direct democracy please take note that voters can not directly vote for the executive government (The Bundesrat, or federal council).

They elect members of the two houses, which in turn elects the 7 executives. Usually this is based on the recommendation by the parties and with a specific formula considering party, language and area of the country.

We also can't fire government members this afternoon. It's just like everywhere else. We can just not re-elect them.

I looked up the Swiss system, and it certainly is not direct democracy.

> it certainly is not direct democracy

You appear to make up your own extreme definition of what the words "direct democracy" should be and what they should mean. But it's not like that. There are ways words and condepts are commonly used. [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy

Looks like I need a new word to describe a system where everyone rules, rather than certain people or organization, since both democracy and direct democracy are apparently taken to describe systems where all people don’t actually rule. Maybe “actual true direct pure democracy” should do.

> Maybe “actual true direct pure democracy” should do.

That would certainly be clearer :)

So many towns where I live put issues on the agenda for town meetings. How this works in practice is that, if there's some issue that someone (like a developer) feels strongly about, they pack the town meeting with allies and push it through because most people probably don't care much and don't even attend the meeting.

I'd argue that it's closest practical example of direct democracy. As in initiatives and referendums.

But I'm always happy to learn if you can come up with a counter example.

Under a direct democracy, you should be able to vote that you can't do that.

No.

You can't have a democracy with 100 IQ idiot majority, because their decisions are governed by whatever gets poured into their poorly working brains that week, so you end up with corporatocracy or fascism, pretending to be a democracy.

I know this isn't the point, but you do realize that the IQ is rearranged to fit a bell curve with 100 being the exact middle average, right? By literally the definition of IQ, 100 IQ is not "an idiot".

I think the point is that the average person is an idiot.

Then we need to fix the apparent problem of idiot majority. If you say most people are stupid why would you want them to vote every 4 years. Can you trust their vote? Do you still advocate for the current form of “democracy”? Maybe we should go back to monarchy and have only one glorious ruler rather than one glorious government.

You can fix most people, or you can just abandon one idea because it's incompatible with how most people are.

Tough choice, but I think I'll opt in for the latter.

Uh! Oh! But if not democracy, then what? Then fascism and corporatocracy - what we have had for as long as you've been alive. You just don't know it :)

Your reply is confusing. So you maintain that most people are stupid, and still want to give them voting rights. What is the logic behind that? To clarify, I don’t think most people are stupid, and I advocate for direct democracy.

Digital direct democracy is a potential opportunity that has only become possible with ubiquitous computing devices (iPhones)

“ In short, if you're excited about iOS 14, you are more likely to be poor than not”

Why are supposing that all rich people made their money through online advertising? It’s clearly untrue and certainly not a robust enough a conclusion to feel bad about your relative success.

I said "more likely," not "guaranteed to be."

> Why are supposing that all rich people made their money through online advertising

If you replace "all" with "most," which is how I phrased it, then your sentence sounds like this:

> Why are supposing that most rich people made their money through online advertising

Ok now we're onto something interesting, but I can see how you might be still struggling with the phrasing. May I suggest to reformulate as follows:

> Why are supposing that most rich people made their money by selling something for more than they paid for it?

Perfect! So we just have to answer if in the context of most people who became rich, "online advertising" = "selling something for more than they paid for it." I would argue that you can sell things without advertising them, but you certainly have to make people aware that you're selling those things one way or another (and mind you, in the context of rich people, you have to do that at a very large scale). So when answering how MOST rich people attracted attention in 2021, and that AT SCALE, I think the above is not so untrue (you will certainly find many who ALSO used TV and other channels, but very few people with a TV budget had a $0 paid social budget).