I’ve decided that, of all liberal arts professors, those who teach History are the worst. It’s possible that they’re beaten out by Sociology, but since I avoid that subject like the Swine Flu, I can’t say for sure. Obviously, I’ve had experiences from across the board, but History professors, thus far, have been the only ones to bring up politics every single class period.
So the other day, we were learning about Athens. This, of course, included a discussion on their democratic system. I’ll not go into the boring details, because they don’t really matter. And it’s clear that they don’t from the fact that “we” very quickly transferred the conversation to our own system of government.
Let’s see if I can manage to relay the whole disaster before beginning my rebuttals.
The professor began with the obvious: we are not a direct democracy! Oh em gee. This must be remedied.
So he continued by proposing a modern system for every citizen to vote on every bill. That is, basically, meeting monthly at a local community center and electronically listening to the proposal and both sides of the issue, and voting on it electronically. This prompted a clever, “It’d take one hell of a server” from one student, but nothing more. As well it shouldn’t, in the grand scheme.
This next part takes the issue further: it is unfair that one of the houses of congress doesn’t base number of representatives on population of the state. One student began to argue that, you know, the other house does, but was interrupted by, “but a bill needs to pass both houses to be made into law. Thus, the votes of the people in Wyoming count more than those of the people in California (and that’s unfair)” (not a direct quote, but the basic gist of the interruption and subsequent rant).
That continued on for some time, and we eventually (sort of) got back to the proposal of implementation of a direct democracy in America (since, you know, whatever’s invented first is obviously better than what succeeds it), and students were asked for opinions (I would have given mine if I were fast-thinking enough and less pissed off at the diversion from what I’m my parents are paying them to teach me. Yay, rationalization!). No one raised a single critical point, save one guy who mentioned that the electronic system itself could be hacked, and everyone was just sort of saying random stuff about everyone voting on gun rights and abortion for a unifying federal law–frankly, I didn’t entirely pay attention since I was trying to figure out where to start in my own answer, as I fully intended to raise my hand and let them know just how idiotic this idea was. I was still working on it when class let out, using the bathroom afterwards, driving home, waiting for my sister to get here, and all up to now. And that, friends, is why I can’t hold a deep conversation and/or debate. Working on that too, though. I swear.
So, where have I decided to start? Besides the little parenthetical comments I couldn’t help but snark into my above summary? Well, there’s the fact that there shouldn’t even be the possibility of a national law on things like gun control and abortion, no matter how many people vote on it. There are just too many people in this entire country for even 1% to be controlled by the rest. Because 1% of the number of people in America is still about 3 million. Not one person who spoke that day even considered the possibility of leaving critical and controversial decisions like that to the local government. That, kids, is the education system using your tax dollars.
Major point number two: there is a reason that representation in the senate is “unfairly” distributed. And it’s a very good reason (or, even, pack of reasons). Initially, when the constitution was constructed, it was the case that the larger and westernmost states (ex: Viriginia) had an immense area of potentially new territory into which they could expand, thus increasing their population and thereby acquiring more votes, whereas the smaller, further east states (i.e. New Jersey) had no such option (this, by the way, is the bit of good information that could be gleaned from my last class). Currently, we don’t have such a problem, but the principle under which the New Jersey plan was formed still stands strong, and that is the fact that people in and from different places have different interests and needs. In particular, people in low-populated areas have immensely different interests than those in high-populated areas.
And therein lies the most important point that I will here make: if we were to have a purely 1:1 system for voting, those in rural areas would be forced to live under the laws and customs of city-dwellers, and let me say from experience, they can’t, don’t want to, and shouldn’t have to. This would mean that the Christmas tree farmers in Ashe County, NC–a beautiful place where there is one high school in the entire county (as a point of reference)–would have to live according to the interests of those in LA (or, for the sake of argument, if anyone realized that there was such a thing as state’s rights, those in Raleigh (who apparently don’t know how to signal for a turn… just saying)). Apparently, this currently counts as only 20% of Americans (though you have to wonder what definitions they used for “urban” and “rural”), but that’s plenty to form a good revolt if forced to follow laws that have no place in their community (I mean, it’s 60,000,000 people… many of whom are gun-owners).
Also, dude, the Californians aren’t currently forced to follow the customs of the Wyomians(?), because, as was explained in class, a bill must pass both houses to be made into law–the Senate can’t overlook the House any more than the House can.
Wow, was that all I really had to say? I suppose it was the major ideas, though I could go further into why first=/=best, or fly off on another rant about my idiotic peers. However, I don’t have too much currently in my mind on the former topic, and it’s not like the world doesn’t already know of my disdain for the ignorance of modern-day college students (if not, see here), so I believe I’ll spare my readers this time around.
By the way, the Athenian democracy only lasted 170 years, so technically you could say that we’ve already proven to be better simply due to lifespan, but on the other hand, I can’t very well say that our system is an absolute success, and those guys did only fall under Alexander the freakin’ Great.