zlacker

[parent] [thread] 4 comments
1. _polit+(OP)[view] [source] 2010-07-23 23:24:42
Actually, the incumbency rate for the House of Representatives has been well over 90%, due to corporate financing, redrawing districts, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_stagnation_in_the...

As for Germany, it seems there's a lot more political choice, even at the top levels. Due to a greater diversity of parties, which more accurately reflects people's opinions than the US's two-party system. In my view, the US isn't particularly democratic, and anyway all of these nations have top-down "democracies."

replies(2): >>ugh+C >>stretc+g8
2. ugh+C[view] [source] 2010-07-23 23:49:28
>>_polit+(OP)
Is that the same in the state’s legislative bodies? I don’t know how relevant federal legislative bodies are in this discussion since criminal law is mainly a responsibility of the individual states, not the federal government.

America is a huge country, it’s not exactly surprising that you get all those effects you have on the federal level. That, at least to me, seems to be somewhat softened by a particular strong brand of federalism (in the European sense, meaning strong and independent local and state governments).

3. stretc+g8[view] [source] 2010-07-24 05:55:35
>>_polit+(OP)
I agree. And choice is even greater in Switzerland. You and your neighbors can even move your neighborhood to a different cantons.

These laws come from DC and the states have lost a lot of the power they had initially. The federal government had a list of powers. They call them the enumerated powers. The states had everything else.

And the citizens could leave a state if they didn't like it. A lot easier to do than leaving the country.

Which is why local laws are not really that oppressive, even if they are. But federal law is all encompassing and difficult for you to influence. They can pretty much ignore the individual and usually do, except when they need something to grandstand about.

replies(1): >>shalma+qE
◧◩
4. shalma+qE[view] [source] [discussion] 2010-07-25 08:13:52
>>stretc+g8
HOAs are even more local and yet they can have some of the most restrictive regulations around. I don't think your thesis holds.
replies(1): >>yalurk+0s3
◧◩◪
5. yalurk+0s3[view] [source] [discussion] 2010-07-28 22:59:17
>>shalma+qE
I think you misunderstand the parent post, HOAs are actually a perfect supporting example. Even the most tyrannical HOA rule isn't actually that bad, because you can just move a few blocks away to a less-strick HOA or a house with no HOA at all.

However, if a law is passed at the federal level, you're pretty much stuck with it. With local (or hyper-local like HOAs) you can vote with your feet by moving.

[go to top]