10-21-2016, 03:58 PM
I've been banging the oligarchy drum since I got interested in politics, 14-15 years ago.
My thinking is, once you get beyond your local representation (city councils in metro areas, county government or state reps in more rural areas), then you don't have representation. Beyond that — mostly when you're talking about people who represent hundreds of thousands of constituents — it becomes about access and networks. It's not really just a money issue, access to lawmakers (and therefore influence on how legislation is shaped) is more of a system of influence.
And when I say it's limited to your local representation, a good example of that is the drama over the SC bathroom bill.
It started out as a city trying to answer concerns of residents by raising the minimum wage. That's it. It might have effected some of the surrounding areas indirectly, but it was mainly aimed at the people represented by city government. Outside forces intervened and it morphed into the bathroom bill, which effected not just the state, but the nation.
I don't really think there is much fixing it, outside of moving to a model where smaller segments have more authority. No lawmaker at any level can effectively make laws that benefit and improve life for everyone when they represent such large numbers. It's just not feasible. Look at a state like Kentucky where one third is mountains and coal mines, one third is more industrial and the other third is more farms and recreation. You can't realistically pass a law that's going to treat all three areas fairly. And states like Illinois and California are worse as far as needs for their diversity. As long as you've got one guy representing so many, you aren't going to be able to reflect the needs of the community.
But — for better and worse — we've been moving further and further away from state's rights since the Civil War. Since at least WWII, states have been moving further away respecting the identity of their cities. So, no, I don't think that the situation is going to improve.
My thinking is, once you get beyond your local representation (city councils in metro areas, county government or state reps in more rural areas), then you don't have representation. Beyond that — mostly when you're talking about people who represent hundreds of thousands of constituents — it becomes about access and networks. It's not really just a money issue, access to lawmakers (and therefore influence on how legislation is shaped) is more of a system of influence.
And when I say it's limited to your local representation, a good example of that is the drama over the SC bathroom bill.
It started out as a city trying to answer concerns of residents by raising the minimum wage. That's it. It might have effected some of the surrounding areas indirectly, but it was mainly aimed at the people represented by city government. Outside forces intervened and it morphed into the bathroom bill, which effected not just the state, but the nation.
I don't really think there is much fixing it, outside of moving to a model where smaller segments have more authority. No lawmaker at any level can effectively make laws that benefit and improve life for everyone when they represent such large numbers. It's just not feasible. Look at a state like Kentucky where one third is mountains and coal mines, one third is more industrial and the other third is more farms and recreation. You can't realistically pass a law that's going to treat all three areas fairly. And states like Illinois and California are worse as far as needs for their diversity. As long as you've got one guy representing so many, you aren't going to be able to reflect the needs of the community.
But — for better and worse — we've been moving further and further away from state's rights since the Civil War. Since at least WWII, states have been moving further away respecting the identity of their cities. So, no, I don't think that the situation is going to improve.
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
