"Spanfeller is a twat" (theaspiringengineer)
03/04/2018 at 20:54 • Filed to: None
0
4|
"Spanfeller is a twat" (theaspiringengineer)
03/04/2018 at 20:54 • Filed to: None | 0
| 4 |
After the jump I guess.
I’m not talking about gun control: that has been litigated quite thoroughly in the vastness of the Kinjaverse. I’ve had conversations with very smart people on both sides about it and it has helped me understand it. but again, it aint the point of this.
I want to talk about a place I have a bit of an issue with...Baja California Sur. A place that in my mind only exists because we want to have twice as many Californias than the US, or perhaps we missed having Alta California so we couldn’t imagine only having one Baja California.
It’s not like Baja California is huge either, when a group of investigators wanted to crash a remote control Boeing 727 airliner to test some security features first hand, the Mexican goverment said “Well, yeah, just crash it in Baja California, make sure to miss Mexicali tho!”
But I digress...
You see, this gorgeous place with one of the highest HDI of Mexico, beautiful highways, amazing weather, amazing people, and Americans wanting cheap, unrestricted drinking is the second least populated state in Mexico. It wasn’t even a state until 1974.
But why is it a state? Why isn’t the Californian peninsula a single state? Both Baja California and Baja California Sur are similarly rich, both are similarly developed, and both are governed by Mexico’s conservative party: PAN. I can’t think of any cultural differences between them either...
So, rather than governing under a single government, Baja California Sur gets it’s own governor with an executive branch, a legislature, a judiciary and a court system for 712,000 people, when next door they have the same infrastructure and it would probably be cheaper to just fuse them together.
Nevermind other services like healthcare, or the DMV, or even the police forces who might have an easier time chasing criminals along their border if they didn’t actually have one.
Yet because of it’s statehood, Baja California Sur gets to send 3 senators to the Federal congress, that’s almost one for every 200,000 people, where Baja California only gets one for about every million citizen.
I know that in the lower chamber of congress it is actually based on population, but still, why is the objectively democratic one
the lower one?
I understand that small states should be represented too, but why are we representing to the feds as states anyway? Why is federal law crafted with states in mind rather than closely monitored and often redrawned districts? Not getting into gerrymandering of course, you could draw districts that represent similar amounts of people with similar cultures, or interests and then base the effects of federal laws within those districts? or maybe just make the senate as important as the chamber of deputies. Who knows... I don’t.... I don’t think presidencialist systems are good anyway, for as defective as it sometimes can be I think that the best systems are parliamentary, with a strong focus on autonomy... alike Spain’s.
Ash78, voting early and often
> Spanfeller is a twat
03/04/2018 at 21:01 |
|
I’m of the opinion that representation should be proportional...but only to a point. In many places around the world, large cities tend to allow their politics to dominate everyone. In theory, this is fine because it’s proportional. However, the dominance can also be unfair because cities tend to breed a certain brand of politics because people are so dependent on service (government or otherwise). It’s almost the opposite of self-sufficience or indepenendence.
If it weren’t for the fact that it sounds like I’m proposing a built-in conservative bias to politics, this idea might gain some traction. But I truly believe that human beings do have a self-sufficient bent and generally want to be left alone.
All I’m saying is that places with very diverse political districts get diluted too much. So people become even more extreme just to get their points across.
|
Spanfeller is a twat
> Ash78, voting early and often
03/04/2018 at 21:07 |
|
That is true, I mean, Idaho might be close to Washington state and it might be cheaper to fuse them but they have quite different ideas of politics!
Which again is what surprises me about Baja California and Baja California Sur; these are pretty similar states in that regard and affording each a separate government to me seems a bit excessive. But size probably matters; I guess that La Paz would be angry if it seized being the most powerful city of its surrounding and replaced with far away Tijuana....
Not that politics here make any sense, PAN might brand themselves as conservatives but in fact they’re closet socialists that wear christian crosses, nothing wrong with that either! They normally keep their religion to themselves...until they talk abortion but that’s a political shitstorm for another day...
|
Ash78, voting early and often
> Spanfeller is a twat
03/05/2018 at 11:42 |
|
One thought I had just looking at the map — I suspect it might be geographically hard to manage services to both ends of the peninsula from a central location. It’s just such a unique landform, ignoring population density for a moment.
As an American, I see the north as dominated by border trade (legal or otherwise...Tijuana) and the south more by tourim (Cabo San Lucas, etc). I’m sure the politicians made this case, but in the end there are a lot more politicians on the payrolls with two separate states. Which is what they want!
|
Spanfeller is a twat
> Ash78, voting early and often
03/05/2018 at 11:50 |
|
That is true, but Veracruz does it too!
My main issue is the governor’s infrastructure and how expensive it is... But because we’re attached to imaginary things like a state border, even if we had a vote tomorrow to fuse them the citizens would say no