this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2024
515 points (89.0% liked)

General Discussion

12084 readers
16 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy.World General!

This is a community for general discussion where you can get your bearings in the fediverse. Discuss topics & ask questions that don't seem to fit in any other community, or don't have an active community yet.


πŸͺ† About Lemmy World


🧭 Finding CommunitiesFeel free to ask here or over in: !lemmy411@lemmy.ca!

Also keep an eye on:

For more involved tools to find communities to join: check out Lemmyverse!


πŸ’¬ Additional Discussion Focused Communities:


Rules

Remember, Lemmy World rules also apply here.0. See: Rules for Users.

  1. No bigotry: including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
  2. Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
  3. Be thoughtful and helpful: even with β€˜silly’ questions. The world won’t be made better by dismissive comments to others on Lemmy.
  4. Link posts should include some context/opinion in the body text when the title is unaltered, or be titled to encourage discussion.
  5. Posts concerning other instances' activity/decisions are better suited to !fediverse@lemmy.world or !lemmydrama@lemmy.world communities.
  6. No Ads/Spamming.
  7. No NSFW content.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Seasoned_Greetings@lemm.ee 14 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (4 children)

Ok so..

Mandatory voting

I think this can get messy. It would require a system to prosecute those who don't vote. That kind of registry can be very easily used for nefarious purposes by politicians or just anyone with access to that information. Also, it would really depend on what degree of mandatory this is. If you get thrown in jail then we are going to see a lot of poor people in prison for no reason. If you get just a fine then we are essentially introducing the inverse of a poll tax. Not voting is a protected form of free speech for a reason and can be interpreted as protest.

Merge house into senate

Last time something like this was posted I got flamed for asking what the point of this one is. The Senate is a representation of the states rights we have in our constitution. It serves as a safeguard against heavily populated areas dictating the laws for much less populated states. I'm all for reform but eliminating the Senate all together seems like a step backwards.

Ban tipping

I think this is another one where the spirit of the idea is right but the execution is wrong. What we need to ban is allowing restaurants to pay tipped positions far below minimum wage, and stop allowing restaurants to take a cut of the tip at all.

The act of tipping itself is a cultural thing it needs to be addressed culturally. If you can't tip someone for something, complications in the law arise that may disallow giving money to people in general. For example how do you distinguish between tipping a server for a meal and giving the server a dollar as a gift?

[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

+1 on the senate, it serves a purpose, if you don't think it does you clearly don't understand why it exists lol.

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It exists because there was a time when we needed buy in from states, not just people. The Senate was how that was accomplished.
It's a way of ensuring our democracy isn't too democratic.

You can understand the point of the Senate without thinking that we need to ensure that land is adequately represented in our government.

[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

legislatively it makes sense. it removes a significant portion of say from large states, like texas and california, over small states like wyoming, who have comparatively little say. The trick is that it's application specific. Unless we're restructuring the entire government the senate does exist for a pretty explicit purpose.

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I think it only makes sense if you think that it matters that Wyoming is fairly represented, and not the people in Wyoming.
I don't particularly care about the representation of the land, only the people who live on it, where each person should have as much say as any other.

The Senate is explicitly antidemocratic, and since I'm a fan of fair representation, I'm not a fan of the Senate.

Well, I suppose you could also make it so states get equal numbers of senators and representatives. That would also be fine, since there's a slight use for the Senate having a longer election cycle.

Since this whole thread is basically playing and dreaming, I'll easily agree that you can't just drop the Senate without at least giving a look at how that impacts the rest of the government organization.

it depends on the legislation. If it's something that the states are involved in, and it isn't particularly relevant to the people of the state like most legislation probably is. And in that scenario, it would be beneficial for wyoming to not be overshadowed by.

Also i dont think you understand how senate seats work, they're literally popular votes. We put them there. That's at least following the basic principles of democracy. I'm not sure how one would argue against that, unless you have a massive problem with the electoral college, would which would be fair i suppose.

This isn't a supreme court situation where they're appointed magically.

[–] evranch@lemmy.ca 2 points 8 months ago

Tipping is really hard to rein in. Your suggestion of banning the "tipped wage" is good, but the regular minimum wage is so far below living wage already that paying people minimum wage still leaves them relying on tips.

As a Canadian I refuse to participate in the "tip for everything" grift that has sprung up recently. However when we're down at the local bar and the service is great, the food is good, the waitress is friendly and cheerful, I want to leave a tip.

Also as a Canadian, the Canadian Senate is an irrelevant relic that doesn't serve the same purpose as the US Senate, and should totally be abolished. But it's a totally different situation.

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 months ago

We already have a registry of who did or didn't vote.
That you voted is a matter of public record, as is voter registration information.
Registration data is used for campaign purposes, and voter participation data is mostly used to encourage people to vote.

[–] zarenki@lemmy.ml 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The act of tipping itself is a cultural thing it needs to be addressed culturally. If you can’t tip someone for something, complications in the law arise that may disallow giving money to people in general. For example how do you distinguish between tipping a server for a meal and giving the server a dollar as a gift?

If you are a customer at a food or retail business and opt to give one worker there a cash gift while they are on the clock, how can that not be a tip? Current US laws like FLSA already have a very clear definition of tipped wages which would include anything matching that description.

Even if you want to allow that sort of cash "gift", eliminating tips for credit card payments should be enough to shift the norms and expectations. Namely, prohibit payment terminals from prompting for a tip as part of the same credit card transaction and prohibit the tip lines on receipts. Majority of Americans don't pay with cash. If a business says they accept credit card, customers clearly aren't expected to give a decent tip and by extension the advertised meal prices and wage amounts should reflect what the customer is expected to pay and what the staff should expect to earn independent of customer whims.

[–] Seasoned_Greetings@lemm.ee 2 points 8 months ago

I can see the argument for credit card tips not being necessary, especially given that it puts the onus on the restaurant to be honest and distribute that tip correctly instead of just pocketing it (thanks subway).

But if I choose to give a server a dollar, that should be my right as an individual. Micromanaging who I'm allowed to give cash to is a step in the wrong direction.