The United States: Another Minoritarian Nation | Lawrence Lessig | TEDxWarwick
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 20 июн 2024
- NOTE FROM TED: TEDx events are independently organized by volunteers. The guidelines we give TEDx organizers are described in more detail here: storage.ted.com/tedx/manuals/t...
Harvard Professor Lawrence Lessig powerfully makes the case that the United States is becoming a minoritarian nation. He argues that in order for the United States to truly be a majoritarian democracy, there are several legislative changes which need to take place. Only these changes will allow American society to flourish. After transforming intellectual-property law with his Creative Commons innovation, he has devoted his career to finding solutions to the US’ broken political system. Lawrence Lessig is the Roy L. Furman Professor of Law and Leadership at Harvard Law School, a prominent author and an influential TED speaker. This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at www.ted.com/tedx
I’ve been studying the late Roman Republic and it’s dying days, and one of the greatest sicknesses in its eventual defeat to the new monarchy was the breakdown of functionality because of the filibuster. We really need to end this practice.
Can youtube push this into more people's feeds please? Seriously...
LOL. I'm sure that will create your utopia.
Another great TED talk from Professor Lessig 👏🏻
Excellent lecture.
If this were true, then we would expect the US Supreme Court to overrule a _very_ popular ruling such as _Roe v Wade,_ and that would _never_ happen.
No Brasil, o fundo eleitoral consome quase 1 bilhão de reais do orçamento da União.
cant hear, audio is bad. he needs a mic
oh, jeez - this was already evident before RBG passed?!? the images of SCotUS depict, her at least, and LL mentions 5 Justices nominated by sub-Majority GOP PotUSes. Are we at 6 now?
Hmm.... I assume that Professor Lessig would support the UN voting to become proportionate to countries' populations? Wasn't there a reason for the electoral vote and equal state representation in the Senate? I appreciate that "democracy", "majority" and other (poorly understood) buzz-words are extra-hip today, but - for goodness sake - Professor, let's use reason, not just "passion".
You seemed to have missed the point where in 2010 effectively 12% of states controlled the legislative agenda of congress. Even if there is some arguably objective value in retaining the Senate, surely you can recognize the imbalance that has arisen since it's inception? Jefferson said the constitution should be _rewritten_ every 19 years. Do you not think the Senate needs rebalancing for modernity?
@@jamarr81 I don't quite understand how the 12% "control" is possible, honestly. But to answer your question - No. Given what you say, there remains a wide discrepancy between states re: the legislative agenda. This means that there remains the need to give the smaller states some legal protection - the Senate is the only venue to do so.
Voting proportional to population may seem/be unfair to groups/entities/nations with small populations. However, the inverse is true as well. Voting disproportionate to population size is unfair to the larger populations. We see that play out term after term in both our Senate and Electoral College.
Let's use a microcosm as an example. Let's say the geography of your town/city of 50,000 people (the "nation") is arbitrarily carved up into 4 "States". Your property and the properties of two of your neighbors are now 3 States. The remainder of your town is a 4th State. Each of these 4 States is permitted 2 Senators in an 8 person Senate.
You might argue that you "deserve" an equal say in national governance. After all, your property is a State, and you "fear" majority rule from the overwhelmingly large 4th State.
Do you deserve equal say? Really?
I could argue that you and your two neighbors now represent more than a super majority of your Senate. Three families--whether 3 people or a dozen--effectively control the lives of nearly 50,000 people and the direction of your nation for no other reason than the arbitrary drawing of boundaries and treating those boundaries equally regardless the contents within. Over the next hundred years while your 3 States "grow" to a combined population of 30 and the 4th grows to a million, the inequity and imbalance only worsens.
That's what we have had with both the Senate and the EC for the past two and a half centuries completely independent of the existence of the House.
Back when the Founders compromised to appease lower population States and preserve their fragile loose confederation out of fear that those smaller States may align themselves with other countries, it probably seemed like an acceptable risk. They never in a million years imagined 1) the massive population growth and worsening imbalance of the next two centuries, and 2) the ability of those States to collectively use the imbalance to control the majority.
You may not like the threat of majority rule. I like neither the threat of majority or minority rule. The Senate wasn't and still isn't the right solution. Admittedly, while I have countless ideas about how we could more equitably represent the people, I doubt this country has what it takes to reinvent itself. I see it headed toward dissolution. Frankly, I'm ok with that. Perhaps something more equitable may rise from its ashes.
@@johnqpublic4012 thank you for elaborating on this point. I am curious as to the "countless ideas" you have in establishing a more balanced/equitable representation that better scales with population growth, should the senate/ec (or government as a whole) ever be demolished; can you elaborate on those?
When you understand what reason is, leave another comment. Meanwhile you're irrelevant.
All this highly educated and fancy talk amounts to nothing. but you are a good speaker.
I couldn’t agree more with him all along his points until he bemoans the poor Democrats being so disadvantaged. That’s BS. He makes me think that he would undo the electoral college if he could and let the legions on the coasts dictate how the rest of this massive nation should be governed…..and his distaste for voter ID is an outright fallacy.
Do you mean the majority have say about how we (this massive nation) is governed? We're not talking narrow voting blocs. We're talking about a massive majority being subject to a f(r)actional minority. Makes no sense and removes any meaning from the idea that we're a republic. And what's the fear? Of legions? What real concrete things is there to fear that isn't presently something to fear today under what really amounts to minority rule, which in our case means R party rule? Super duper easy access to semi automatic weapons? Really, truly, what's the fear of playing the game by the rules?
The electoral college should be done away with. Why do we not directly elect our chief executive who has arguably become the most powerful branch of our governement? Our desire to have voter id laws is to make sure that one legitimate voter has one legitimate vote. Historically our country has had much more problem with delegitimizing voters than it has had with illegal voters casting ballots. But that is a matter for a separate discussion. The electoral college is a significant driver of civic apathy. Republicans and Democrats alike repeatedly say that "my vote doesn't matter because it will be negated by the red/blue majority of my state." That is true. A liberal in Wyoming will have even less voice than a Republican in Vermont and they know it. Furthermore, the electoral college gives extra weight to some states over others and creates the excessive polarization that we decry in our system. For as long as I can remember FL has had an outsized impact on Presidential elections. It seems though that they are becoming reliably "red." They will then lose that attention going forward as other states become more contestable. So now candidates will focus on the issues that matter most to Georgia, or Arizona, or Michigan. Actually that isn't even quite correct because what matters to Georgians and Arizonans matters to the whole country, but what wins in those states is what motivates the base to come out and vote and that is to appeal to either extreme. What has happened is fewer people's opinions matter, they feel that, and act accordingly (or not at all) by not voting or even participating in the system. The best thing we could do to save our democracy is to let the majority voices be heard.
The electoral college is an abomination that should be destroyed.
is this a joke?