Ah okay, I see.
No, I assure you Iām not. If you provided as much info as snark Iād be better informed about your opinions.
So, again, you think there should be hundreds of Senators? Why would this make anything any easier? This would be a massive expansive of government and taxes to pay for it. Just the Constitutional challenges it presents would be a massive undertaking.
I guess I am having difficulty seeing why you think this would offer better outcomes. You think this should be bc of representative fairness? I think you are fantasizing without looking at the near and far reaching effects your dreamwish entails. Might as well be wishing for a pony too.
Who said anything about hundreds? The populations of states like Wyoming, Utah, Rhode Island and Vermont (see? Iām being bipartisan and including blue states) are so small they should only have 1 Senator imo. While states like California and Texas are so massive they should have 3 or so (again being bipartisan). And other states in the middle, like Oregon or Louisiana, might have 2. This is very unscientific as I havenāt broken down the exact populations, but you get the idea of what I mean. Unlike the House, I donāt think they should be elected by individual districtsā¦ they should still be elected through statewide elections. However, there is absolutely no reason two Senators from Wyoming should wield as much power when it comes to our federal laws as California (or that Rhode Island should wield as much as Texas). Keep in mind population ranking is also how we determine how many electoral votes each state should have.
1 Like
Not really, since you said āallā branches of government should be subject to some census algorithm you donāt go into detail about.
I think the question is, do you mean both houses of Congress, or do you actually mean (as you wrote) all three, co-equal branches of government?
If itās the latter, how does your theory work for the Exec? 
I meant both houses of Congress. I misspoke.
A senator is meant to represent the interests of their entire state. The point was for states like new York to not be able to bully less populous slave states into things like, say, regulating slavery (no more slave raping, for example). Just because a bunch of dudes in the late 1700s came up with a theory of governance doesnāt make it unbreakable. Itās only survived for 200 years and arguably only because of its existence an ocean away from Europe.
States arenāt people and while the needs of a wisconsinite are different from those of a texan, so too are the needs of a houstonian from those of an el pasoian from those of a Paris, texan.
It was a decent enough idea but senators now wield way too much federal power. The differences in the populations are so vast now so as to make the idea of a strong federal government imo completely insane.
One solution I like is DrewCās , make the senate body representative (and also redo congress. States like california should have WAY more representatives). You may fear that populous states bully non populous ones but analyse that fear and what youāre ACTUALLY afraid of is that liberals will bully conservatives. Allow me to salve that fear by telling you that more people voted for Trump in california than the combined bottom 3 least populated states that voted for him.
So, bigger House, bigger (more granular) senate, no electoral college, slightly bigger supreme Court. After all, the country is orders of magnitude larger in terms of numberof states, population, and landmass than the founders envisioned.
Of course imo the country is too big and should be split into a federation so that far-gone conservatives and trump cultists can form their own yallqueda states but I guess patriotism is allowed to supersede common sense.
2 Likes
I get that it would be a near insurmountable undertaking. And you havenāt said WHY this would be beneficial for the country.
Ahemā¦I said the same thing and got this:
Iād love to hear a notes on a napkin version of why doing this would be preferable to the system as isā¦from your perspective. And letās just say that you seem to be far more big P Progressive than I am a small l classic liberal. Correct me if I misspoke.
For me, it would mean more snouts at the trough. The House remains flexible enough to meet the needs of growing or shrinking State populations. I just donāt get the change. It would seem to disenfranchise of bunch of folks in the bread basket of the countryā¦almost as if it were a prescriptive political act.
Again, youāre obtuse and focus on irrelevant details to pick on in order to keep an argument going thatās already been resolved. You quote me out of context (I was breaking down the connection between Senate power and SCOTUS Judges, I was not saying SCOTUS should be directly elected), ignore points and reasoning Iāve already explained repeatedly, and to be honestā¦ youāre just exhausting. If my approach is different to you than others I disagree with, itās because your style of debating is frustrating because you keep re-litigating the same points that Iāve already explained a thousand times. I get it, you disagree. Iāve already explained at least three times now why I prefer this system. (As for disenfranchising, Iām also against the presidential electoral system as I think itās disenfranchising to millions of voters when the popular vote loser can still be elected President)
1 Like
Iām not debating.
And Iām OK with that. Iām just trying to understand your point of view. I canāt do it with a look and a wish. I need to ask questions for clarity. If you are debating, you might think Iām setting some rhetorical trap. I am not. I donāt think youāre wrong for thinking what you think. Itās different from my perspective and I am a curious cat.
And Iāve said as many times, that it would be a massive undertaking to achieve, so why bother?
Thatās going to be a hard sell. You say āpopular vote loserā which is an odd way to negatively connote a positive thing when what it signifies in this situation is an āElectoral College winner.ā
The problem should be obvious. A interesting analysis shows that it is theoretically possible to win the presidency through the electoral college with only 23% of the popular vote using the 2012 election as a basis. Thatās scary. I donāt think anyone would want to live in a country run by a 1/4 of the population.
Add onto that the RED MAP initiative the GOP implemented in 2010 redistricting to turn the electoral college further in their favor by Gerry mandering the shit out of every district possible using computer modeling.
And on another note, conservatives might be scared of the popular vote because they fear being bullied by liberals. But there is a big difference between removing someoneās right to an abortion vs. liberal policies like gay marriage. The difference is clear. Gay marriage might concern conservatives but does not impact them personally. Whereas losing the right to an abortion can impact individually.
Legislating individual morality is a prerogative of the most vocal conservatives. If that small minority is able to then run the country and implement policy forcing others to adhere to their beliefs and their morality, then youāve just set the stage for perpetual conflict. Bipartisanship is really the only way forward. The GOP forgot this lesson when they catapulted the uncompromising Tea Party to power in 2010 and weāve been paying the price of gridlock ever since. Obama did his best to try and reinstate bipartisanship and the GOP basically spat in his face as their stated policy was to make sure he was a one term president. You canāt argue the same for Trump. Itās clear bipartisanship and working with others is not in his playbook.
The only thing I can see to make the GOP wake up is a massive electoral and popular vote win by the Democrats. Otherwise, we can pretty much guarantee a perpetual state of conflict/gridlock.
āOur math went through a few iterations on this but by our final math, in 2012 that could have meant winning the presidency with only around 23 percent of the popular vote.ā
1 Like
We live in a population where fewer than 50% of eligible voters actually vote.
I doubt that. Being a liberal is more popular these days. Being a liberal is more positively represented on TV and in film. Itās not a permanent thing. It may change. It has in the past.
OK. We shall see.
1 Like
I was talking about eligible voters. So 23% of eligible voters even less when considering the total population.
Why are Conservatives so staunchly against abortion when that issue is almost never on the ballot? The goal is to get the country to follow along with their morals. I agree most of the population is liberal and has been since maybe the 1960s which is why a conservative majority that openly refuses any effort to work on a bipartisan basis, is the perfect recipe for ongoing conflict.
They had a moment of introspection after Romney lost, but that quickly faded. A devastating loss for the GOP seems to be the only way to get them to change and realize bipartisanship is the only way forward. Anything else is a losing battle in the long term reliant on Gerry mandering and manipulating procedural rules to prop them up and keep them in power.
1 Like
Better that that a country run by a few thousand demagogues and scheming bureaucrats.
Fuck the political class and the morons who vote for them. The Electoral College is an intelligence test. Whoever canāt game it hasnāt the smarts to run the country.
I am in partial agree with Rowland here.
Changing the rules of governing an entire country, the most powerful in human history in every way, because one refuses or learn or understand how to manipulate the rules, which were designed for long term flexibility seems wishy washyā¦at best.
Redistricting (i.e. Gerry mandering) comes after the census so you could very soon be eating those words. Donāt underestimate that the political class and business class are close bedfellows. Your Trump experiment has only deepened that swamp and turned the office into a for profit venture.
First census of 1790 (can take it roughly for the colonies when Constitution signed): 1790 United States census - Wikipedia
- VA, 747k, 19.2% ā
- PA, 434k, 11.2% ā
- NC, 393k, 10.1% ā
- MA, 378k, 9.7% ā
- NY, 340k, 8.7% ā
- MD, 319k, 8.2% ā
- SC, 249k, 6.4% ā
- CT, 237k, 6.1% ā
- NJ, 184k, 4.7% ā
- NH, 141k, 3.6% ā
- GA, 82k, 2.1% ā
- RI, 68k, 1.5% ā
- DE, 59k, 1.5%
The theory doesnāt calculate. Only see one major slave state (DE not considered to be one, except for southernmost county) in the bottom 6 colonies by population.
So, it wasnāt to protect less populous slave states.
It was to protect Delaware, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Connecticut.
Looks like VA, NC, MD, and SC at nearly 44% of new nationās population agreed with that Senate idea. If the slave states could, then the leftist/extreme liberal, large states now can, too.
Roight! Like it never was before. 
As with anything in life, there are degrees of corruption. I have never before seen a president so blatantly trying to make money off the office by funneling diplomats through Mar a Lago, Trump hotels, or forcing official events to use Trump companies (*cough inauguration *cough).
See the difference?
You could try to compare that to Hillary being paid to give a speech or sell a book. You could tryā¦but it would look silly.
2 Likes
There are, and not all of them are linked to money.
Either way, the CCP is looking good in this US election.
There are no elections in China, and therefore, no riots.
Win-win for CCP.
Itās very unfortunate for the world that Americans have become like this.
Too much access to food and pharmaceuticals mayhaps.