Asklemmy

43802 readers

1122 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

Alternatives to congress (lemmy.world)

submitted 1 month ago by Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

82 comments fedilink hide all child comments

What alternative ways can you think of to handle making legislation and passing laws that would negate the increasingly polarized political climate that is happening in more and more countries?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Seems like campaign finance reform is a more pertinent question then.

[–] Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Nah, unless you suspend the 1st ammendment, you can't really fix that enough. People will always be free to pay for an ad supporting thier opinion.

[–] GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You'll probably need to think beyond liberal dogma if you want to solve a problem with liberalism. "Paying for something is speech and therefore unimpeachable" is an insane thing to take as a fundamental element of how society is run when the end result is so obviously and demonstrably the rich using that ruling (which was always made for them) to buy elections.

People want to find some policy wonk solution to these fundamental problems ("Oh! Sortition fixes everything! Wait, maybe a parliamentary system. Ooh, ooh, how about . . .") but they are just red herrings, silly schemes that distract you from critical thought about the assumptions that brought you here.

[–] Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

I hear what you are saying, but that isn't campaign finance reform. Redefining what is protected speech seems like a prerequisite to campaign finance reform. And that does sound like a good idea. It certainly would help. But can it be leveraged to deal with the media which makes money polarizing the issues? If you don't fix that too I am not sure the problem will really be solved.