**** Elections thread *****

[BananaStand]

200 years is a nothingth of time in human history.

Anthropological finds and various dating methods place the human genome back something like 492,000 years.
Genetically modern humans are old hat.

The first cities (or precursors to cities) are about 12,000 years old.

So? Recent history >>> Ancient history

It's like if we were talking about who the best QB of all time is. You're nuts if you don't automatically throw out everyone who played before 1980.

Saying that the thing you do is the best thing ever is so passe'.

The truth does get old sometimes.

The number and scale of layers is arbitrary.

No it isn't. Each level of government represents a defined, not arbitrary, population of people. And their scope of powers is limited by clearly defined geographic boundaries. Why are we still using the word "arbitrary"? I mean, it's not like groups of people are sprouting up and saying "We're claiming this land, and we're gonna make our own laws".

The system of checks and balances within each layer is a separate issue, I think, but still arbitrary

Each of the three branches has the power to overrule the other two. It's like rock paper scissors, each is equally powerful and equally vulnerable. Those powers and vulnerabilities were carefully thought out to ensure democracy.

What is "arbitrary" about it? Why are we insisting on using that word? That seems to be the only arbitrary thing in this whole discussion.

[MadMojoMonkey]

So? Recent history >>> Ancient history

I don't accept the argument to ignore 99% of the history of humans when considering the success of any system of governance.

What I understand is that various forms of governance have different strengths and weaknesses. Each varies in how it performs as the size of the governed population changes.

It's like if we were talking about who the best QB of all time is. You're nuts if you don't automatically throw out everyone who played before 1980.

This ad hominem is not compelling me to see reason in your point.

The truth does get old sometimes.

I admire your confidence.

No it isn't. Each level of government represents a defined, not arbitrary, population of people. And their scope of powers is limited by clearly defined geographic boundaries. Why are we still using the word "arbitrary"?

All of these definitions are made up by nations (people), who had to bully, bribe, and coerce other nations (people) to agree. There is no objective reason that the lines on the map are where they are. It's just the current result of the path of political greed.

The current set of governed people are, by and large, people who happen to have been born in that place. It is quite arbitrary who is governed by each nation.

I mean, it's not like groups of people are sprouting up and saying "We're claiming this land, and we're gonna make our own laws".

Ummm... how do you think nations/states/counties/cities are formed?

Each of the three branches has the power to overrule the other two. It's like rock paper scissors, each is equally powerful and equally vulnerable. Those powers and vulnerabilities were carefully thought out to ensure democracy.

What is "arbitrary" about it? Why are we insisting on using that word? That seems to be the only arbitrary thing in this whole discussion.

What's not arbitrary about the number 3?
Why not 5? Rock, Paper, Scissors, Lizard, Spock is a perfectly balanced game, too, where each choice is equally strong and vulnerable. Any odd number will do.

USA is not a democracy, anyway. It's a democratic republic. You're talking about the republic aspects.
If not for the representative system, is there a need for a system of checks and balances?
I don't know how it works in practice on a national scale.

[BananaStand]

I don't accept the argument to ignore 99% of the history of humans when considering the success of any system of governance.....

Ummm... how do you think nations/states/counties/cities are formed?

You're conflating things quite a bit. There is quite a difference between arbitrarily staking out land and people, and creating governments within them. It's an entirely different thing to have a mature nation, with long established boundaries and robust governmental procedures.

The original question here was in regards to who should be making laws about abortions. The options are to allow individual states make laws that reflect the culture of their constituents, or to have the federal government make over-reaching, one-size-fits-all, regulations that often stand in stark contrast to the values of large groups of people.

It's pretty glib to just say "aaaahhh, those state lines were drawn arbitrarily centuries ago, so their sovereignty is invalid now"

You could use that argument to strip the states of any power at all, and you'll end up with one big super government running everything and telling everyone what to do.