Some squatter who bought the rights to it for two twigs and a raspberry back when they were first selling off name rights 200,000 years ago

You might like single transferrable vote (STV), then. You have districts with several seats in them (preferably ~5), and then do a ranked-choice ballot to select the candidates who will fill those seats. Key advantages over proportional representation are that it maintains the idea of a constituency and that it maintains voting for individual candidates, not just parties.

Downside, of course, is that it’s not as proportional as proportional representation, but it still achieves pretty proportional results. That’s the tradeoff for maintaining constituencies and individual candidates.

deleted by creator

Yeah, it’s the expected outcome when you grant a group of people a monopoly on violence but with insufficient to non-existent incentives for good behavior and insufficient to non-existent disincentivizes for bad behavior.

The messaging on the “save the bees” was really poor. The honeybees are fine, but the big concern is all the thousands of species of wild bees that are at risk.

But all of that attention on honey bees has, some ecologists argue, overshadowed their native counterparts: the wild bees. They’re an incredible bunch, found in all sorts of colors and sizes, and they’re important pollinators, too — better, by some measures, than honey bees. On the whole, native bees are also at a much greater risk of extinction, in part, because of the proliferation of European honey bees.

https://www.vox.com/down-to-earth/2023/1/19/23552518/honey-bees-native-bees-decline

I love them. Not all foods release easily, but they work great for flatbreads, searing meat, stir-frying vegetables, etc. I avoid cooking cheese or anything particularly prone to sticking in them.

Yeah, one thing I hate is seeing pans slowly degrade over time. But with cast iron and carbon steel, they improve with use. Plus, no PFAS!

A big cast iron pan and two smaller carbon steel pans. I think I’ll be able to pass them on to my grandkids.

The quick basics I would want are single transferrable vote (STV), as it has a ranked ballot, regional representatives (important in a large, diverse country, imo), and pretty (although not perfectly) proportionate results.

I would also increase salaries and pensions for elected officials, but on the stipulation that they and their immediate family must liquidate all investments in order to take office, including real estate. The reason for this is to eliminate ulterior motives and reduce risk of corruption, and the compensation of course would be a very generous salary and pension so they never have to worry about their financial situation during or after leaving office.

I would also constitutionally eliminate the ability to take away someone’s vote, and to demonstrate why, I’ll copy-paste an old comment of mine from my reddit days:

What people like this miss about democracy is it’s more than just majority rule; democracy depends on minority rights, so the majority can’t just vote to trample over the minority.

This is not only to protect the minority (as you point out), but to protect democracy itself. An example:

There are 10 people. 4 of these people want to ban all fruits except mangos. 6 of them don’t want that.

So the 4 people scheme. One of those 6 people is really frickin ugly, and everyone can agree on that. So they propose to strip that ugly person of the right to vote (or just kill them or something). That vote passes 9 to 1. Ugly person is out of the equation.

The 4 people are still the minority, so they try again. One of those 5 other people likes to dip their pizza in marshmallow fluff, and everyone else agrees that that is absolutely vile. So they propose to strip that person with horrendous taste of the right to vote. That vote passes 8 to 1. Marshmallow pizza eater is out of the equation.

Now the 4 mango purists see they’re half the electorate. They just need to boot out 1 more pan-fruitarian. Fortunately for them, one of those remaining 4 pan-fruitarians always unnecessarily explains the punchlines of obvious jokes, and it really annoys everyone else. So they propose to strip that annoying joke explainer of the right to vote. That vote passes 7 to 1. Annoying joke explainer is out of the equation.

And now the mango purists have a majority and can ban all other fruits, counter to the true majority.

If this all seems abstract and unlikely, consider fascist movements and their tendency to start as big-tent to gain allies and gain power and then, once they’re in power, start trimming down who counts as the protected in-group until it’s only the core group they cared about in the beginning, producing lots of r/leopardsatemyface material in the process.

Yeah, and it’s really not hard to imagine why strict term limits increase the effect of lobbying. Consider this thought experiment:

You’re a relatively young 30-something hoping to make a change in politics. You run for office and somehow get elected! Great, right?

Well, now you have to actually do the job. Most of your time is not sitting in the hall of Congress, Parliament, etc. voting on bills; it’s much more mundane things like writing bills, meeting with constituents, discussing draft bills in committees and subcommittees, etc.

The thing is, however, there are no real job requirements to being an elected legislator. No job posting saying “minimum 5 years experience with drafting bills”. Here you are in office now, zero experience with actually legislating, and you have to actually write bills.

Suffice to say, you’re probably swamped, struggling, and have no clue how to actually do your job. And along comes some guy from a group like ALEC, and he’s got a pre-written bill for you! Great, right?

Well, you’re not totally lacking in dignity, so you’re a little suspicious, right? He’s a great salesman, though, and really tries to reassure you that the content of the 200-page bill he just handed you only does things you actually like. Further, he tells you that the things in it that do help him aren’t so bad, and they’re good for you and for the people at large, too.

You walk out of that interaction not totally comfortable, but hopeful that maybe it really is a decent bill. After all, he seemed like a nice chap, representing what seems to be just a group of concerned citizens… Anyhoo, you decide to give it a skim to make sure it seems legit.

You crack it open and see hundreds of pages of legalese and countless appendices full of definitions and edge cases. Further, it’s discussing some economic or industrial matter, and you’re just some guy, not an economist, and you’re not equipped at all to understand the nuanced impacts of the proposed policies on the market or wider economy. Or maybe it’s sociological and you barely know anything about sociology. Or maybe it’s technological and you know little more about technology than how to use Microsoft Office and what you read on the news.

You think about asking someone for help with understanding this bill, or perhaps drafting your own, but you realize you have no connections. You don’t know any federal judges or constitutional scholars who can give you off-the-cuff constitutional advice. You don’t know any fellow legislators well enough to feel comfortable asking them for potentially months of mentorship as you find your footing. You don’t know any economists you can call up and ask economic matters. You don’t know any experts on the Iowa pig farming business to tell you frankly about how that industry operates.

But what you do have is a lot of lobbyists willing to pretend to be your friend, willing to pretend to be a mentor of sorts, to sell you biased information on their particular brand of snake oil.

And maybe you think for a moment that you’ll just tough it out and ignore the lobbyists! But you realize another problem with that: not all of them are sleazy snake oil salesmen trying to earn special favors for their political or industrial agenda. Many of them are actual legit people representing actual organizations just trying to advocate for good policy.

Trouble is, you don’t know who is who. The sleazy guys will try their hardest to appear legit, and the non-sleazy guys will of course also try to appear legit. Both kinds of lobbyists know you won’t listen to them if you think they’re the sleazy kind.

So you take a chance on this particular lobbyist, do your best to make sure the bill they handed you wasn’t completely terrible, and submit it. You’re too tired and stressed and unsure in yourself to do much else. You tell yourself you’ll try to tough out the beginning and become a better legislator in the future, once you get the hang of it. You know accepting the lobbyist’s pre-written bill ain’t the best, but it’s probably not too bad, right? It’s just one small bill, affecting one relatively small issue, and at least it doesn’t affect you, right? There’ll be no media firestorm over this, you and your family won’t personally be impacted by some minor changes to the hog industry regulations. And besides, you’ll get better at this job and do better next time, right?

Anyhoo, long story short, legislating is a profession like any other. It takes real skills, knowledge, and experience to do well, and you need to be able to balance the ability to get rid of old do-nothing geezers and the ability for more junior folks to actually be able to gain experience and institutional know-how. A company run solely by junior engineers would be a disaster, but a company run solely by complacent do-nothing senior engineers would also be terrible.

Depending on what your level of experience is, it might just take more time and practice. When I was doing my degree, it took two years, an internship, and multiple serious programming courses before I truly felt comfortable programming.