goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: star seed 7 on July 15, 2018, 12:43:45 PM
-
https://twitter.com/NormOrnstein/status/1016789064379334656
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/07/12/in-about-20-years-half-the-population-will-live-in-eight-states/?utm_term=.f28aa3033c1b
-
Also feel free to expand this as the official "the electoral college is bullshit" thread.
-
What’s the solution LibBot7?
-
https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2016/11/22/13713148/electoral-college-democracy-race-white-voters
-
Getting rid of the electoral college is step one dax.
Undecided on what to do with the senate problem.
I would probably get rid of state boundaries for senators and have them be from geographic areas of similar populations, like the house but much less members. This of course creates a giant gerrymandering problem.
-
Our current state lines are really dumb. we've had a few state realignment threads IIRC
-
Hmm, this is fascinating timing on this discussion.
But, interesting.
-
we've discussed this quite a bit
http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=27870.msg895201#msg895201
http://fakeisthenewreal.org/reform/
-
Also two of the last three presidents have won elections they actually lost, so yeah, people have been talking about it for quite a while, bud.
-
I mean, our government was designed this way specifically to protect smaller states... That's been the whole point from the beginning. "The Senate problem" - wut??
-
Well, our government can't change so go ahead and wrap this thread up dudes
-
In this case, that really is the case. You'd need to amend the Constitution, and the "Senate problem"--as well as the states themselves--would never do that.
-
Not even worth discussing then, I don't even know why you felt the need to post :dunno:
-
Well it's a pointless exercise, but I suppose this is a message board, after all...
I think the compromise of creating the bicameral system we have is good and fair. Membership in the House is still tethered to population, and electoral votes are still tethered to population in a slightly diminished way. I think people who make the argument you make are really just saying we should do away with the concept of sovereign domestic states. And that's fine, if you want to argue that. But many/most people actually think of themselves as both citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside, and equal representation in the Senate is the only thing that prevents them from becoming jellyfish subject to the currents generated by big fish.
-
Yes, I don't care about the states themselves at all. What they originally represented is nothing like the reality of today. Our system should change to reflect that.
-
I like the states. An all-powerful central government is boring. States make things interesting. Spices things up, you know?
-
You can still have them, doesn't mean the senate needs to follow their arbitrary lines
-
You can still have them, doesn't mean the senate needs to follow their arbitrary lines
I can appreciate why you feel the way you do. You're a liberal living in conservative country, and Killary CantWin just won the popular vote yet got crushed in the electoral college. The thing you gotta understand is that we don't live in a democracy. Sovereignty and the right to govern arise from the consent of the People, and the People voted for a republic... Maybe you should start advocating for a constitutional convention?
-
You're better than a "but Hillary" spracs. I've been a very vocal opponent of the electoral college since I can remember.
The electoral college is nothing but voter suppression at this point.
And I'm not even talking about current state of the country. 8 years ago I would have said the same thing.
-
I was just testing out the Hillary stuff to see if it was a fun thing to do. Pretty fun!
It's fair to criticize the college. But I thought we were discussing the "Senate problem"?
-
If I fully admit that the states (aka the people) will never accept a senate change proposal, will you stop bringing up the obvious that the states would have to accept them for change to happen? It's radical, I accept that.
Save that stuff for nuchoochoo
-
Then, ignoring the practical impossibility of the proposition, what's your plan for a new form of government?
-
I already posted it above.
I'm open to other solutions.
I'm also open to arguments that a senate 70% controlled by 30% of the country is working as intended or good for the county.
-
How about this:
The Senate goes away. We elect House reps, and then we hold a giant raffle where each rep has his name on a ping-pong ball. A girl in a bikini selects, one-by-one, 50 ping-pong balls from a giant spinning thingy. Those 50 persons are now nuSenators, rather than House reps. The whole thing is broadcast live. It's must-see tv.
Also, all reps/senators are elected for 4 years terms, in sync with the general election. We pay them like $500,000/year and/or figure out how to actually jigger with financial corruption. Each rep/senator cannot serve for more than 1 consecutive term. But they can sit out 1 4 year cycle and try again the next time.
-
We’re the United States of America. The states aren’t just ceremonial - our union was specifically designed to give the states equal power in the Senate (and to a lesser extent in the Electoral College). But I’m not telling the liberals anything they don’t already know - they just hate the senate and the electoral college because they refuse to acknowledge the real problem: that liberals have increasingly isolated themselves in concentrated groupthink bubbles.
The more realistic road back to political dominance is for liberals to continue colonizing Texas, through illegal immigration and Californians moving to Austin.
-
The electoral college is population based, why are we talking about that?
-
The electoral college is population based, why are we talking about that?
Because it isn’t entirely population based because it add the number of senators to the number of reps. Hence Wyoming getting 3 electoral votes despite having a population of about 20,000.
-
The electoral college is population based, why are we talking about that?
Because it isn’t entirely population based because it add the number of senators to the number of reps. Hence Wyoming getting 3 electoral votes despite having a population of about 20,000.
Yeah, but the “problem” of the electoral college, if there even is one, is more that most states give all their votes to one candidate, rather than allocating votes proportionally.
-
We’re the United States of America. The states aren’t just ceremonial - our union was specifically designed to give the states equal power in the Senate (and to a lesser extent in the Electoral College). But I’m not telling the liberals anything they don’t already know - they just hate the senate and the electoral college because they refuse to acknowledge the real problem: that liberals have increasingly isolated themselves in concentrated groupthink bubbles.
The more realistic road back to political dominance is for liberals to continue colonizing Texas, through illegal immigration and Californians moving to Austin.
Why do you feel only liberals will make up the 70 percent of people who only are represented by 30 percent of the senate. Conservatives live in cities too, and they usually have points of disagreement with rural conservatives.
You're also completely ignoring that employment options are moving more and more to larger population centers. Maybe kdub only thinks liberals will have jobs in 2040? :dunno:
-
The #1 problem with the electoral college is 5million (registered) republicans in California have zero say at all in electing their president. They could vote or not and it has no impact on the outcome.
Now apply that proportionally to like 45/50 states
-
The #1 problem with the electoral college is 5million (registered) republicans in California have zero say at all in electing their president. They could vote or not and it has no impact on the outcome.
Now apply that proportionally to like 45/50 states
Yes - that’s the problem. Which is why I always hear pubs bitching about the electoral college. Oh wait, it’s the other way around. Liberals keep trying to change the rules because they keep losing. Tired of the “conservative Supreme Court”? Well the answer is obviously to pack the court or impose term limits. Tired of losing elections despite winning the popular vote because too many liberals are concentrated in urban centers? Well the solution is obviously to abolish the Electoral College!
-
You care more about your team winning than the right for each citizen to have equal value in voting. We already know that, you routinely support all manner of voter suppression.
-
You care more about your team winning than the right for each citizen to have equal value in voting. We already know that, you routinely support all manner of voter suppression.
Interesting take. Remember all the way back.... in 2016 when Dems we’re confident Hillarity would win the electoral college (just google all the references to the Dems’ “Blue Wall” if want a good laugh) but were worried that she might lose the popular vote? So worried that she actually campaigned in California instead of even once setting foot in, you know, Wisconsin? Funny thing is, I don’t recall many pubs clamoring to end the electoral college then. I know I didn’t.
I support the way our Senate and EC were designed for the reasons I’ve stated herein. It goes back to the bargain that was struck when this union of state’s was founded, and it probably wouldn’t be good for this country to be ruled by densely packed little bubbles of groupthink, Hunger Games style.
And by the way, we don’t even know whether Trump would have lost the popular vote had he followed the Dems’ strategy of “running up the score” instead of actually doing what he needed to win. It’s like one basketball team focusing on time of possession instead of actually scoring, and then whining that they actually should have won, and we ought to change the rules, because they possessed the ball longer than the other team.
-
I actually was one of the people who thought she'd possibly lose the popular vote. It didn't change my thoughts on the electoral college at all.
And you haven't given any reason to support the ec except that you think it hurts libs, which I guess is at least honest.
-
I'd also like to point out that while spracne is better than a but Hillary, it's right in kdubs wheelhouse.
-
You could organize a fatwah of sorts where you infiltrate enough small states with like minded political compatriots and elect people who would vote to dissolve the oppressive systems currently in place. It would probably only take one generation of sacrifice to make it work.
-
What needs to happen is for a Republican to win the popular vote but lose the EC. That should do it.
-
We’re the United States of America. The states aren’t just ceremonial
"United" is the ceremonial part.
-
the only change i would make is to abolish the winner take all allocation of votes and make every state distribute their electoral votes proportionally (husker style)
-
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1939792302700023&id=142474049098533
-
people must understand that when they live in an area of high population density, their individual per capita importance is reduced. i think thats fine
-
You care more about your team winning than the right for each citizen to have equal value in voting. We already know that, you routinely support all manner of voter suppression.
Interesting take. Remember all the way back.... in 2016 when Dems we’re confident Hillarity would win the electoral college (just google all the references to the Dems’ “Blue Wall” if want a good laugh) but were worried that she might lose the popular vote? So worried that she actually campaigned in California instead of even once setting foot in, you know, Wisconsin? Funny thing is, I don’t recall many pubs clamoring to end the electoral college then. I know I didn’t.
I support the way our Senate and EC were designed for the reasons I’ve stated herein. It goes back to the bargain that was struck when this union of state’s was founded, and it probably wouldn’t be good for this country to be ruled by densely packed little bubbles of groupthink, Hunger Games style.
And by the way, we don’t even know whether Trump would have lost the popular vote had he followed the Dems’ strategy of “running up the score” instead of actually doing what he needed to win. It’s like one basketball team focusing on time of possession instead of actually scoring, and then whining that they actually should have won, and we ought to change the rules, because they possessed the ball longer than the other team.
holy crap, that one is borderline renocat stupid :love: :love: :love:
-
You care more about your team winning than the right for each citizen to have equal value in voting. We already know that, you routinely support all manner of voter suppression.
Interesting take. Remember all the way back.... in 2016 when Dems we’re confident Hillarity would win the electoral college (just google all the references to the Dems’ “Blue Wall” if want a good laugh) but were worried that she might lose the popular vote? So worried that she actually campaigned in California instead of even once setting foot in, you know, Wisconsin? Funny thing is, I don’t recall many pubs clamoring to end the electoral college then. I know I didn’t.
People were worried Trump would win the popular vote?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I like the senate as it is. I think the president should be selected based upon popular vote, though. It's a bit ridiculous to me that somebody could win Florida by 1 vote and then get all of the electoral votes for a nation-wide election.
-
the only change i would make is to abolish the winner take all allocation of votes and make every state distribute their electoral votes proportionally (husker style)
At that point, why not just move to the popular vote, though? It would be a lot simpler.
-
The obvious, doable solution is to admit DC and Puerto Rico as states and then split up California in to 5-7 smaller states. You can go on from there, but it is a decent start.
-
The House is specifically designed to weigh in favor of larger populations. The Senate is specifically designed to equalize state representation regardless of population. So when you say the makeup of the Senate may not account for the makeup of the US population, I legit can’t tell if you mean that in a good or bad way.
The electoral college is a completely separate issue and needs to be done away with IMO. If there was any question before, the Civil War pretty much solidified how much power States can claim over the Federal Government. Taking their representation out of the Senate would be going way too far, though.
-
I mean, our government was designed this way specifically to protect smaller states... That's been the whole point from the beginning. "The Senate problem" - wut??
What is the advantage to protecting the power of small states in modern times as opposed to redrawing state lines to forming states with larger populations and updated commonalities?
Also, places like the Central Valley of California are harmed way more than folks in Wyoming are helped IMO.
-
People were worried Trump would win the popular vote?
not people that followed polls/models.
-
I mean, our government was designed this way specifically to protect smaller states... That's been the whole point from the beginning. "The Senate problem" - wut??
What is the advantage to protecting the power of small states in modern times as opposed to redrawing state lines to forming states with larger populations and updated commonalities?
These are two different questions, but I guess the real question is: if you favor drawing state lines based on population an common interest so that the Senate would reflect those characteristics, then what is the point of having a Senate at all?
-
Like, wouldn’t the ideal version of your proposal be splitting up into 435 states so folks can get the full bang for their vote?
-
Why do (most) states use upper and lower houses?
I see benefits from having local (lower) and regional (upper) representation.
-
Very good thread.
If the EC must exist, I like the idea of EC votes being made proportionally.
-
Why do (most) states use upper and lower houses?
I see benefits from having local (lower) and regional (upper) representation.
Maybe to model after the U.S. Congress? Cause that's what we've got right now...
-
Why do (most) states use upper and lower houses?
I see benefits from having local (lower) and regional (upper) representation.
Maybe to model after the U.S. Congress? Cause that's what we've got right now...
Maybe think about it for a minute and you'll see the difference
-
I'll help you out...
The Kansas Senate is the upper chamber of the Kansas Legislature. It is composed of 40 senators each representing one district with a population of approximately 70,986 (adjusted every ten years based on the most recent federal census).
-
Sure, they're not identical because there is no sovereign entity within a state, so I don't know how else you would come up with regional representation that isn't at least loosely population based. I'm just explaining to you why most state governments are modeled that way.
Just give me some slack because I have no idea whether you are trolling or serious right now.
-
I honestly don't know if YOU'RE trolling right now. Of course they'd be based on population. I said that on like post #5 of this thread.
-
I'll help you out...
The Kansas Senate is the upper chamber of the Kansas Legislature. It is composed of 40 senators each representing one district with a population of approximately 70,986 (adjusted every ten years based on the most recent federal census).
Good point. I will say, though, that a bicameral system will inherently be a conservative mechanism, in the sense that it requires more effort to change the status quo. So perhaps that's the rationale (but I do not know).
-
I view that as a positive. Wild swings are not good for stability
-
I think Kansas having a house and senate both based on population is fairly inefficient and doesn't make much sense. It would be a lot better to either split the senate representation into regions or do away with it.
-
I view that as a positive. Wild swings are not good for stability
Closet conservative?? :Wha:
-
I honestly don't know if YOU'RE trolling right now. Of course they'd be based on population. I said that on like post #5 of this thread.
Look friend, I was just answering your question. The state systems you mention are based on the style we have in the U.S. Congress. They just go by population because it is way easier and there is no practical way to allow representation for each local government within a state. I think the burden is on you to explain why regional representation would function better than state representation; and why those goals are not accomplished by just eliminating the Senate altogether.
-
I view that as a positive. Wild swings are not good for stability
Closet conservative?? :Wha:
I won't say I'm a centrist because I'm obviously not, but I appreciate (reasoned) opposition to liberal policies.
-
I honestly don't know if YOU'RE trolling right now. Of course they'd be based on population. I said that on like post #5 of this thread.
Look friend, I was just answering your question. The state systems you mention are based on the style we have in the U.S. Congress. They just go by population because it is way easier and there is no practical way to allow representation for each local government within a state. I think the burden is on you to explain why regional representation would function better than state representation; and why those goals are not accomplished by just eliminating the Senate altogether.
It really wouldn't be that impractical to have 1 representative from each county as one branch of state government.
-
I honestly don't know if YOU'RE trolling right now. Of course they'd be based on population. I said that on like post #5 of this thread.
Look friend, I was just answering your question. The state systems you mention are based on the style we have in the U.S. Congress. They just go by population because it is way easier and there is no practical way to allow representation for each local government within a state. I think the burden is on you to explain why regional representation would function better than state representation; and why those goals are not accomplished by just eliminating the Senate altogether.
It really wouldn't be that impractical to have 1 representative from each county as one branch of state government.
You mean comprising the senate? Or do you mean the legislative branch would be a single body comprised that way?
-
I honestly don't know if YOU'RE trolling right now. Of course they'd be based on population. I said that on like post #5 of this thread.
Look friend, I was just answering your question. The state systems you mention are based on the style we have in the U.S. Congress. They just go by population because it is way easier and there is no practical way to allow representation for each local government within a state. I think the burden is on you to explain why regional representation would function better than state representation; and why those goals are not accomplished by just eliminating the Senate altogether.
It really wouldn't be that impractical to have 1 representative from each county as one branch of state government.
You mean comprising the senate? Or do you mean the legislative branch would be a single body comprised that way?
Comprising the senate.
-
I honestly don't know if YOU'RE trolling right now. Of course they'd be based on population. I said that on like post #5 of this thread.
Look friend, I was just answering your question. The state systems you mention are based on the style we have in the U.S. Congress. They just go by population because it is way easier and there is no practical way to allow representation for each local government within a state. I think the burden is on you to explain why regional representation would function better than state representation; and why those goals are not accomplished by just eliminating the Senate altogether.
It really wouldn't be that impractical to have 1 representative from each county as one branch of state government.
You mean comprising the senate? Or do you mean the legislative branch would be a single body comprised that way?
Comprising the senate.
Yeah, I had considered that option. I just doubt whether Kansas needs 105 senators, especially considering they only have 125 house reps. It would cost the state $millions more each year. And the forces that determined the composition of the federal Congress aren't really present in the intrastate context, so I'm not sure the juice is worth the squeeze. Counties are mere governmental subunits. They have no recognized sovereignty in their own right.
-
I honestly don't know if YOU'RE trolling right now. Of course they'd be based on population. I said that on like post #5 of this thread.
Look friend, I was just answering your question. The state systems you mention are based on the style we have in the U.S. Congress. They just go by population because it is way easier and there is no practical way to allow representation for each local government within a state. I think the burden is on you to explain why regional representation would function better than state representation; and why those goals are not accomplished by just eliminating the Senate altogether.
It really wouldn't be that impractical to have 1 representative from each county as one branch of state government.
You mean comprising the senate? Or do you mean the legislative branch would be a single body comprised that way?
Comprising the senate.
I think this could be a decent alternative for some states, although it is kind of getting away from my initial point. As to whether it was contemplated by the founding fathers of each state, I know very little about the history of drawing counties, but my expectation is that the formation of the state legislature likely predated county formation in most states.
-
I honestly don't know if YOU'RE trolling right now. Of course they'd be based on population. I said that on like post #5 of this thread.
Look friend, I was just answering your question. The state systems you mention are based on the style we have in the U.S. Congress. They just go by population because it is way easier and there is no practical way to allow representation for each local government within a state. I think the burden is on you to explain why regional representation would function better than state representation; and why those goals are not accomplished by just eliminating the Senate altogether.
It really wouldn't be that impractical to have 1 representative from each county as one branch of state government.
You mean comprising the senate? Or do you mean the legislative branch would be a single body comprised that way?
Comprising the senate.
Yeah, I had considered that option. I just doubt whether Kansas needs 105 senators, especially considering they only have 125 house reps. It would cost the state $millions more each year. And the forces that determined the composition of the federal Congress aren't really present in the intrastate context, so I'm not sure the juice is worth the squeeze. Counties are mere governmental subunits. They have no recognized sovereignty in their own right.
You would think that many senators might break the bank, but Kansas only pays its state senators $88.66 per day and only budgets for 100 day sessions.
-
Break Up the United States. Or implement Constitution 2.0. Or both.
-
Why do (most) states use upper and lower houses?
I see benefits from having local (lower) and regional (upper) representation.
yeah it kind of makes sense. the upper house represents broader, more general concerns of a region and the lower house allows smaller groups to get more specialized voices at the national level. Like I enjoy folks like Ocasio in the House and I'm sure people like some the wild tea partiers because it allows more fresh ideas while the upper house can temper them somewhat.
Also, 435 is a pretty strange, arbitrary number for a legislature. (I don't know the correct number).
-
Break Up the United States. Or implement Constitution 2.0. Or both.
we absolutely should have constitution 2.0. there's a lot of good there but it could use a refresh to reflect modern times.
-
Break Up the United States. Or implement Constitution 2.0. Or both.
we absolutely should have constitution 2.0. there's a lot of good there but it could use a refresh to reflect modern times.
We've made no progress the past 2 years. :frown:
http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=37721.msg1576516#msg1576516
-
Break Up the United States. Or implement Constitution 2.0. Or both.
Aren't we already basically on Constitution 2.0?
-
Break Up the United States. Or implement Constitution 2.0. Or both.
we absolutely should have constitution 2.0. there's a lot of good there but it could use a refresh to reflect modern times.
We've made no progress the past 2 years. :frown:
http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=37721.msg1576516#msg1576516
wow I have great ideas
Should the constitution still be a thing in 2016?
there's some good stuff in there imo
it could still probably use a refresh. And in the refresh, specify the need for a refresh every 10 years or 25 years or whatever.
-
That's actually a pretty terrible idea, iyam.
-
That's actually a pretty terrible idea, iyam.
it's actually pretty great because it allows for handling of unforeseen technology changes in a much better way than we currently do. Adjust the constitution with the technology.
Big topics to address:
voting: why the eff isn't this crap online and why aren't we automatically registered?
state lines: why the eff do we allow them to make zero sense at all?
The District of Columbia: Why in the holy eff don't they get representatives in Congress?
health care and housing: why the eff aren't these "rights" in a civilized, enormously wealthy society?
guns: reword the 2nd amendment to a way that makes sense in the current context
Homosexuality/race/: need some more robust rough ridin' constitutional protections here
criminal justice reform: can we come up with a better rough ridin' way to deal with crime and punishment and address it in the constitution? LIke rough ridin' permanently ban for-profit prisons in the constitution for a start. And come up with a better way to convict people than juries. (Or at least talk about it)
you get the idea. at Constitutional Convention 2.0 you could decide how often to revisit and probably make certain rights virtually untouchable (speech, religion, search and seizure, hell even guns, etc.) but make it easier to adjust to the times than the current system.
-
:emawkid:
-
That's actually a pretty terrible idea, iyam.
it's actually pretty great because it allows for handling of unforeseen technology changes in a much better way than we currently do. Adjust the constitution with the technology.
Big topics to address:
voting: why the eff isn't this crap online and why aren't we automatically registered?
state lines: why the eff do we allow them to make zero sense at all?
The District of Columbia: Why in the holy eff don't they get representatives in Congress?
health care and housing: why the eff aren't these "rights" in a civilized, enormously wealthy society?
guns: reword the 2nd amendment to a way that makes sense in the current context
Homosexuality/race/: need some more robust rough ridin' constitutional protections here
criminal justice reform: can we come up with a better rough ridin' way to deal with crime and punishment and address it in the constitution? LIke rough ridin' permanently ban for-profit prisons in the constitution for a start. And come up with a better way to convict people than juries. (Or at least talk about it)
you get the idea. at Constitutional Convention 2.0 you could decide how often to revisit and probably make certain rights virtually untouchable (speech, religion, search and seizure, hell even guns, etc.) but make it easier to adjust to the times than the current system.
I personally agree with you on many of the issues you've identified, but most of those issues are fully capable of being addressed by the elected branches of government. And yet that has not happened. The process of changing the Constitution requires a higher threshold of assent than acts of Congress, so what makes you think it's feasible?
-
That's actually a pretty terrible idea, iyam.
it's actually pretty great because it allows for handling of unforeseen technology changes in a much better way than we currently do. Adjust the constitution with the technology.
Big topics to address:
voting: why the eff isn't this crap online and why aren't we automatically registered?
state lines: why the eff do we allow them to make zero sense at all?
The District of Columbia: Why in the holy eff don't they get representatives in Congress?
health care and housing: why the eff aren't these "rights" in a civilized, enormously wealthy society?
guns: reword the 2nd amendment to a way that makes sense in the current context
Homosexuality/race/: need some more robust rough ridin' constitutional protections here
criminal justice reform: can we come up with a better rough ridin' way to deal with crime and punishment and address it in the constitution? LIke rough ridin' permanently ban for-profit prisons in the constitution for a start. And come up with a better way to convict people than juries. (Or at least talk about it)
you get the idea. at Constitutional Convention 2.0 you could decide how often to revisit and probably make certain rights virtually untouchable (speech, religion, search and seizure, hell even guns, etc.) but make it easier to adjust to the times than the current system.
I personally agree with you on many of the issues you've identified, but most of those issues are fully capable of being addressed by the elected branches of government. And yet that has not happened. The process of changing the Constitution requires a higher threshold of assent than acts of Congress, so what makes you think it's feasible?
I didn't say it was feasible, but it should be discussed and investigated (not unlike topics such as reparations for government-sponsored racism). Ideally it would be initiated by a party in power that stands to lose some of that power overall because then it would be viewed as more credible and not just one side pointing fingers at the other for being selfish.
Another thing, let's address the rough ridin' 2 party nonsense while we're at it.
-
michigancat, we can't even pass a law saying our government shouldn't kidnap children.
-
Well, ok. I won't object to a purely hypothetical mental experiment. But I think changing it every 10-25 years is a horrible idea.
-
Well, ok. I won't object to a purely hypothetical mental experiment. But I think changing it every 10-25 years is a horrible idea.
surely you can agree that every so often we should come to a grinding halt and allow our political parties to fight each other to the death to see if they can completely uproot the fundaments of our society to disadvantage the other party for the next decade or two?
-
Well, ok. I won't object to a purely hypothetical mental experiment. But I think changing it every 10-25 years is a horrible idea.
surely you can agree that every so often we should come to a grinding halt and allow our political parties to fight each other to the death to see if they can completely uproot the fundaments of our society to disadvantage the other party for the next decade or two?
I see we agree. I was mostly thinking about it from the standpoint that people and businesses organize themselves around legal notice, confidence, and predictability. Fundamentally changing that every decade or so would be frightening. Constitutions should be enduring.
-
You'd have a big revision for the first one and less major check-ins for subsequent ones. Ideally the subsequent changes would focus on how new technology and science impacts the Constitution.
You wouldn't need to start from scratch every time, I mean even now it's pretty good overall.
-
You'd have a big revision for the first one and less major check-ins for subsequent ones. Ideally the subsequent changes would focus on how new technology and science impacts the Constitution.
You wouldn't need to start from scratch every time, I mean even now it's pretty good overall.
Do you trust The People to do a good job on these issues?
-
You'd have a big revision for the first one and less major check-ins for subsequent ones. Ideally the subsequent changes would focus on how new technology and science impacts the Constitution.
You wouldn't need to start from scratch every time, I mean even now it's pretty good overall.
Do you trust The People to do a good job on these issues?
Depends on the people! At first thought I'd want a mixture of business leaders, scientists, non-profit leaders, historians, and lawyers/politicians on the committee. But I could be swayed because I've never thought much about it before now!
-
You'd have a big revision for the first one and less major check-ins for subsequent ones. Ideally the subsequent changes would focus on how new technology and science impacts the Constitution.
You wouldn't need to start from scratch every time, I mean even now it's pretty good overall.
Do you trust The People to do a good job on these issues?
Depends on the people! At first thought I'd want a mixture of business leaders, scientists, non-profit leaders, historians, and lawyers/politicians on the committee. But I could be swayed because I've never thought much about it before now!
I'd also like a lot of non-elite folks and representation from different races and sexualities than we currently see in government.
-
You'd have a big revision for the first one and less major check-ins for subsequent ones. Ideally the subsequent changes would focus on how new technology and science impacts the Constitution.
You wouldn't need to start from scratch every time, I mean even now it's pretty good overall.
Do you trust The People to do a good job on these issues?
Depends on the people! At first thought I'd want a mixture of business leaders, scientists, non-profit leaders, historians, and lawyers/politicians on the committee. But I could be swayed because I've never thought much about it before now!
I'd also like a lot of non-elite folks and representation from different races and sexualities than we currently see in government.
So you've discussed the members of the convention, but surely The People will need to ratify this stuff, right?
-
You'd have a big revision for the first one and less major check-ins for subsequent ones. Ideally the subsequent changes would focus on how new technology and science impacts the Constitution.
You wouldn't need to start from scratch every time, I mean even now it's pretty good overall.
Do you trust The People to do a good job on these issues?
Depends on the people! At first thought I'd want a mixture of business leaders, scientists, non-profit leaders, historians, and lawyers/politicians on the committee. But I could be swayed because I've never thought much about it before now!
I'd also like a lot of non-elite folks and representation from different races and sexualities than we currently see in government.
So you've discussed the members of the convention, but surely The People will need to ratify this stuff, right?
Yeah definitely. Hopefully they can do it online.
-
You'd have a big revision for the first one and less major check-ins for subsequent ones. Ideally the subsequent changes would focus on how new technology and science impacts the Constitution.
You wouldn't need to start from scratch every time, I mean even now it's pretty good overall.
Do you trust The People to do a good job on these issues?
Depends on the people! At first thought I'd want a mixture of business leaders, scientists, non-profit leaders, historians, and lawyers/politicians on the committee. But I could be swayed because I've never thought much about it before now!
I'd also like a lot of non-elite folks and representation from different races and sexualities than we currently see in government.
So you've discussed the members of the convention, but surely The People will need to ratify this stuff, right?
Yeah definitely. Hopefully they can do it online.
Hey, I'm with you on the online voting thing. I just don't think you could trust a supermajority of The People to agree to the things you believe are good and right.
-
Lol online voting, you people crack me up.
-
You'd have a big revision for the first one and less major check-ins for subsequent ones. Ideally the subsequent changes would focus on how new technology and science impacts the Constitution.
You wouldn't need to start from scratch every time, I mean even now it's pretty good overall.
Do you trust The People to do a good job on these issues?
Depends on the people! At first thought I'd want a mixture of business leaders, scientists, non-profit leaders, historians, and lawyers/politicians on the committee. But I could be swayed because I've never thought much about it before now!
I'd also like a lot of non-elite folks and representation from different races and sexualities than we currently see in government.
So you've discussed the members of the convention, but surely The People will need to ratify this stuff, right?
Yeah definitely. Hopefully they can do it online.
Hey, I'm with you on the online voting thing. I just don't think you could trust a supermajority of The People to agree to the things you believe are good and right.
I'm not sure you could get anything in the current Constitution passed through a super majority today.
-
You'd have a big revision for the first one and less major check-ins for subsequent ones. Ideally the subsequent changes would focus on how new technology and science impacts the Constitution.
You wouldn't need to start from scratch every time, I mean even now it's pretty good overall.
Do you trust The People to do a good job on these issues?
Depends on the people! At first thought I'd want a mixture of business leaders, scientists, non-profit leaders, historians, and lawyers/politicians on the committee. But I could be swayed because I've never thought much about it before now!
I'd also like a lot of non-elite folks and representation from different races and sexualities than we currently see in government.
So you've discussed the members of the convention, but surely The People will need to ratify this stuff, right?
Yeah definitely. Hopefully they can do it online.
Hey, I'm with you on the online voting thing. I just don't think you could trust a supermajority of The People to agree to the things you believe are good and right.
I'm not sure you could get anything in the current Constitution passed through a super majority today.
Yup. Need more parties.
-
What makes a "supermajority" the best way to ratify a Constitution anyway?
-
What makes a "supermajority" the best way to ratify a Constitution anyway?
The Constitution saying so?
-
What makes a "supermajority" the best way to ratify a Constitution anyway?
I can't really tell if you're being serious or not. If so, what do you propose as a superior method?
-
What makes a "supermajority" the best way to ratify a Constitution anyway?
I can't really tell if you're being serious or not. If so, what do you propose as a superior method?
well, it might be the best but keep in you haven't exactly defined what "supermajority" means to you. Are you referring to the current process to amend the constitution?
But a sumpermajority is the best way to give a stamp of approval to ratify a new constitution, and we could only get a small portion of the constitution passed with a supermajority today, what does that say about the current status of the constitution?
-
What makes a "supermajority" the best way to ratify a Constitution anyway?
I can't really tell if you're being serious or not. If so, what do you propose as a superior method?
well, it might be the best but keep in you haven't exactly defined what "supermajority" means to you. Are you referring to the current process to amend the constitution?
But a sumpermajority is the best way to give a stamp of approval to ratify a new constitution, and we could only get a small portion of the constitution passed with a supermajority today, what does that say about the current status of the constitution?
That too many people don't even know what's good for 'em?
-
What makes a "supermajority" the best way to ratify a Constitution anyway?
I can't really tell if you're being serious or not. If so, what do you propose as a superior method?
well, it might be the best but keep in you haven't exactly defined what "supermajority" means to you. Are you referring to the current process to amend the constitution?
But a sumpermajority is the best way to give a stamp of approval to ratify a new constitution, and we could only get a small portion of the constitution passed with a supermajority today, what does that say about the current status of the constitution?
That too many people don't even know what's good for 'em?
well in that case we're back to a supermajority not being the be best way to ratify a constitution
-
What makes a "supermajority" the best way to ratify a Constitution anyway?
I can't really tell if you're being serious or not. If so, what do you propose as a superior method?
well, it might be the best but keep in you haven't exactly defined what "supermajority" means to you. Are you referring to the current process to amend the constitution?
But a sumpermajority is the best way to give a stamp of approval to ratify a new constitution, and we could only get a small portion of the constitution passed with a supermajority today, what does that say about the current status of the constitution?
That too many people don't even know what's good for 'em?
well in that case we're back to a supermajority not being the be best way to ratify a constitution
In the current political climate, I don't really trust the general masses to make decisions that affect my rights. So I'm good with keeping it like it is, with an un-elected, mostly Ivy League group of 9 elite fogies "calling balls and strikes" and "uncovering" new constitutional truths. It's not perfect, but it's what we got. We all know the amendment process is broken. It was designed and ratified in a time where only white male landowners could vote, and they were more likely to be civically engaged. Obvs I'm not advocating for a return to our salad days. Just saying times were different.
-
Hell I'd be OK with preserving current amendments if it made it easier to get stuff that seems relevant today in there. I mean, a lot of what I personally want from a new constitution would be expansion or updates/rewording of current amendments.
-
Hell I'd be OK with preserving current amendments if it made it easier to get stuff that seems relevant today in there. I mean, a lot of what I personally want from a new constitution would be expansion or updates/rewording of current amendments.
The clay is malleable enough to mold just about whatever you want into the 14th Amendment. Just vote for Democrats. Much easier than the route you've been discussing.
-
https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1023207485178560512
-
I click on threads and I click on links and all I get is SUCK
-
https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1023207485178560512
Is Washington more disfunctional than it was in the past?
What's most interesting to me about the increasing polarization of red and blue is how tiny the differences between the mainstream parties are.
-
Is Washington more disfunctional than it was in the past?
What's most interesting to me about the increasing polarization of red and blue is how tiny the differences between the mainstream parties are.
yes, but only if you limit your conception of the past to the post-ww 2 era. prior to that, dysfunction (in the sense of lack of cooperation btwn parties) was typical.
10-15 years ago, i would have agreed with the statement that the differences between democrats and republicans were relatively small, but that is no longer the case.
-
10-15 years ago, i would have agreed with the statement that the differences between democrats and republicans were relatively small, but that is no longer the case.
what's changed the most?
-
10-15 years ago, i would have agreed with the statement that the differences between democrats and republicans were relatively small, but that is no longer the case.
what's changed the most?
Operation Red Map happened, The GOP essentially removed swing districts in the redistricting effort of 2010. They removed 24-30 swing districts to create safe GOP seats and pack a strong majority of democrats into a few districts. So there is no incentive for anyone to compromise as if they do it's perceived as weak. That is the key if the GOP wouldn't have rat mumped the maps in 2010 as bad as they did, we'd probably have another 25-45 swing districts and less safe districts to encourage compromise.
-
i mean that's a subjective thing. in terms of polarization, i think both parties have moved from the center (pubs first, but dems seem to be intent on catching up - the 2020 dem candidate is almost certain to campaign way left of 2000, 2004, 2008 candidates). but i'd say the most dramatic change has been the pub shift to nationalism. racial/ethnic correlation with party identity has also increased, and seems to me likely to continue increasing - which likely has and will continue to influence policy divergence.
-
https://twitter.com/jeneps/status/1024409588869877760
-
Did you mean to put that in the LOL trump?
-
https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1031637719427018757
-
https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1031637719427018757
I really don't see a problem with this. We should just abolish the electoral college and keep the house and senate as they are.
-
10-15 years ago, i would have agreed with the statement that the differences between democrats and republicans were relatively small, but that is no longer the case.
what's changed the most?
Operation Red Map happened, The GOP essentially removed swing districts in the redistricting effort of 2010. They removed 24-30 swing districts to create safe GOP seats and pack a strong majority of democrats into a few districts. So there is no incentive for anyone to compromise as if they do it's perceived as weak. That is the key if the GOP wouldn't have rat mumped the maps in 2010 as bad as they did, we'd probably have another 25-45 swing districts and less safe districts to encourage compromise.
2010 is more than halfway across the axis of the chart. The trend was well under way for the decade prior. Granted, there's devil in the details of how they classify a swing seat that I haven't bothered to dig into that could be masking the effects of redistricting.
-
https://twitter.com/pbump/status/1048298670016405506
-
Yes our founding fathers would be appalled that Supreme Court Justices are not picked in line with prevailing popular sentiment. Seriously where do you find these dum dums?
-
Expand the Supreme Court :shakesfist:
-
Back to whining about populations of congressional districts and senate control. :cry: :Crybaby: :D
It's like they don't know what the words United and States and America mean. :gocho:
-
Just :ROFL: that the implication of "lost the popular vote" means they're all fine with a winning majority being an impressive 35% or so of people eligible to vote.