←back to thread

258 points anigbrowl | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.225s | source
Show context
jleyank ◴[] No.44611189[source]
It's really depressing how the US system seems to have existed "on belief". Once somebody set out to damage or destroy it, away it went. Pretty much without a whimper.

As I recall, the system was set up with 3 branches of government in tension. Obviously, that was naive.

replies(20): >>44611243 #>>44611251 #>>44611274 #>>44611292 #>>44611294 #>>44611300 #>>44611372 #>>44611468 #>>44612747 #>>44612970 #>>44613048 #>>44613100 #>>44613128 #>>44613243 #>>44613469 #>>44613869 #>>44615093 #>>44616024 #>>44616939 #>>44617655 #
asperous ◴[] No.44613048[source]
The framers noted that the system was vulnerable to a single "faction" [1]. The solution was to have many competing factions. I think first-past-the-post, corporate election influence, and mass media consolidated power into a single faction that ended up causing the system to break down (in that the branches don't seem to be checking each other's power right now).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10

replies(6): >>44613331 #>>44613351 #>>44613478 #>>44613773 #>>44614498 #>>44615357 #
1. thaumasiotes ◴[] No.44614498[source]
> The framers noted that the system was vulnerable to a single "faction" [1].

That was hundreds of years ago; when Madison says "domestic faction", he doesn't mean "a faction", he means what we would today call "factionalism". The 18th-century use is a pretty direct mirror of the Latin word factio, also meaning factionalism.

The idea that "checks and balances" are built into the US governmental structure is interesting. It would make sense if governmental positions were held by right of heredity. They aren't, but you can see how the Framers would be working with that mental model.

As the US government is actually constructed, Congressmen, for example, have no incentives to preserve anything as a power exclusive to Congress, because they have no lasting affiliation with Congress.