Democracy as it is designed in America doesn’t express the will of the majority, partially it was designed that way by the Constitution and partially because of corruption of the process via voter suppression and gerrymandering.
Because the states with the smallest population have two Senators just like the most populous states and the electoral college. People in the Midwest have far more voting power federally than someone in California.
It’s been shown time and time again in American politics that people will vote against their interest as long as the politicians can scare them with whatever the boogie man of the day is.
As much as it pains me to suggest this, the only answer is more states rights and taking power and funding out of the hands of the federal government and let the free market decide by having states compete with each other about what type of state they want. Yes, I’m acutely aware of what “states rights” means in the south. My (Black) parents grew up in the segregated south. If the federal government wasn’t “subsidizing” the same states that vote against “socialism” they would have to have more economically (not politically) progressive policies.
> If the federal government wasn’t “subsidizing” the same states that vote against “socialism” they would have to have more economically (not politically) progressive policies.
Restating, is this what you mean?:
Federal "subsidies" allow states that vote against "socially" oriented policies to avoid implementing more economically progressive policies.
(Hopefully this comes off as even handed. There are policies championed by the left and right that I don’t like).
No, what happens is that the federal government ends up subsidizing more conservative states in ways that benefit them - farm subsidies, “disability payments” for people who could work, but can’t do manual labor and would need job training, make-work military bases and other military spending that the military themselves are trying to get rid of but can’t because the civilian government doesn’t want to lose the jobs, etc.
Would states that are more welcoming of LGBTQ (who have higher income and education), have state provided health care (meaning a company could set up shop without paying for health care), taxpayer funded college/vocational education - attracting businesses and educated families, etc be more attractive than states that don’t?
On the other hand, what would happen in states that wanted to pull companies out of California (like Texas) that made it easier to build houses? More recently, if you are an independent trucker, the last place you want to live is California. The new law that passed has made it almost impossible for people who want to stay freelance/contract to do so. (http://www.dailynews.com/truckers-file-suit-challenge-states...)
Can you imagine a country where each state had to compete more vigorously for people?
Because the states with the smallest population have two Senators just like the most populous states and the electoral college. People in the Midwest have far more voting power federally than someone in California.
It’s been shown time and time again in American politics that people will vote against their interest as long as the politicians can scare them with whatever the boogie man of the day is.
As much as it pains me to suggest this, the only answer is more states rights and taking power and funding out of the hands of the federal government and let the free market decide by having states compete with each other about what type of state they want. Yes, I’m acutely aware of what “states rights” means in the south. My (Black) parents grew up in the segregated south. If the federal government wasn’t “subsidizing” the same states that vote against “socialism” they would have to have more economically (not politically) progressive policies.