Expand the House

[Wulaw Horn 18981]

1 hour ago, Don Johnson said:

Conversely, should their be a maximum population allowed for a state?   If they go over, they have to divide in 2 or 3?  

This seems a better way to do it than taking away statehood from smaller states if you HAVE to do something. 

[Pato del Muerto 52342]

49 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

This seems a better way to do it than taking away statehood from smaller states if you HAVE to do something. 

Or if they remain a state, make them split their EC into areas and I guess give them 2 senators per EC area. Only statewide voting then would be for governor and state law referenda. Adjusts the senate imbalance too. 

[Don Johnson 4745]

7 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Or if they remain a state, make them split their EC into areas and I guess give them 2 senators per EC area. Only statewide voting then would be for governor and state law referenda. Adjusts the senate imbalance too. 

In the three most populous states, you had more people vote for Biden in Florida and Texas than any other state not named California.  And more people vote for Trump in California than any other state than Texas.  Making the (possibly incorrect) assumption that voters associate with the party they voted for President in 2020 ....In Texas, the 5.2 million (46.5%) that voted Democrat are represented by 0 Senators and 13 of 36 Representatives.  In Florida, the 5.3 million that voted D are represented by 0 Senators and 12 of 27 Representatives.  In California, the 5.8 million (34%) that voted R are represented by 0 Senators and 7 out of 54 Representatives.  

I can only imagine the gerrymandering that would be in play if these states had to divide into areas or new states.  Probably wouldn't be any worse than it already is, though.

[Huckleberry 32702]

53 minutes ago, Tuco said:

I concur that we aren't going to change the Senate, or the Electoral College for that matter.  But appreciating the practical obstacles to that change and agreeing that the current situation makes sense are two vastly different things.  

But they're interrelated. The current situation makes sense because that was the government structure that the States agreed to join. If you change the fundamental structure of the government then you've changed what they agreed to.

It would be like you and I signed a contract to go into business together based on the understanding that we each get one vote because I have customers in one state (Texas) and you have customers in one state (Nebraska). Then later I decide it needs to change to where I get two votes because more of our customers live in Texas. I mean sure there's a certain logic to it but you'd be well within your rights to tell me to fuck off with that change. You agreed to a business partnership because the rules said we had equal say. If you're not going to get equal say then you'll just split off and be your own separate business in Nebraska.

Dammit, you pulled me in to the sidebar again.

[pacman 7329]

I believe this would also provide more opportunities for parties to emerge outside the current duopoly.

[Js1 85110]

9 minutes ago, pacman said:

I believe this would also provide more opportunities for parties to emerge outside the current duopoly.

[Tuco 5076]

2 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

But they're interrelated. The current situation makes sense because that was the government structure that the States agreed to join. If you change the fundamental structure of the government then you've changed what they agreed to.

It would be like you and I signed a contract to go into business together based on the understanding that we each get one vote because I have customers in one state (Texas) and you have customers in one state (Nebraska). Then later I decide it needs to change to where I get two votes because more of our customers live in Texas. I mean sure there's a certain logic to it but you'd be well within your rights to tell me to fuck off with that change. You agreed to a business partnership because the rules said we had equal say. If you're not going to get equal say then you'll just split off and be your own separate business in Nebraska.

Dammit, you pulled me in to the sidebar again.

Contracts shouldn't last 100s of years and they really shouldn't span generations.  Nobody alive signed that contract. I am not bound by anything my great, great, great grandfather signed. Even if you talk about the states, most of the small states were US property prior to being a US state, so it's not like they needed that assurance. You're talking a few small eastern states that had to agree to join the union. So, the idea that there is some nobility in it because we are honoring an ancient bargain doesn't do much for me.  

If you really want to side bar, we can talk about whether the Reform Act of 1832 was a bad idea.  I mean, it reversed some ancient agreements. 

[pyrohornIII 4809]

43 minutes ago, pacman said:

I believe this would also provide more opportunities for parties to emerge outside the current duopoly.

Why not make ranked voting part of this restructure?    But I will say that more than two large parties isn't the answer anymore now than it was in Germany in the early 30s.

 

[Wulaw Horn 18981]

39 minutes ago, Tuco said:

Contracts shouldn't last 100s of years and they really shouldn't span generations.  Nobody alive signed that contract. I am not bound by anything my great, great, great grandfather signed. Even if you talk about the states, most of the small states were US property prior to being a US state, so it's not like they needed that assurance. You're talking a few small eastern states that had to agree to join the union. So, the idea that there is some nobility in it because we are honoring an ancient bargain doesn't do much for me.  

If you really want to side bar, we can talk about whether the Reform Act of 1832 was a bad idea.  I mean, it reversed some ancient agreements. 

Your argument, from a logical and perspective, against Huck is truly and absolutely awful. The same exact argument you are making is an argument against having a country period. Why honor that agreement by our gggggranparents?  I mean- if the past and history doesn’t compel us to agree to an agreement or change the agreement why do we even have to be a union?  
I personally think it would be awesome if we dissolved this whole shit and decided whether or not we wanted to be a union and on what terms. That would be fair and intellectually honest. But you are suggesting, instead, that you get to fuck me up the ass without my permission or agreement bc you are bigger than me, or because you want to, or it’s fair or some other reason. It’s bullshit. We have a union with agreed to rules and a mechanism for

making changes or we don’t. 

Edited November 16, 2020 by Wulaw Horn

[pacman 7329]

11 minutes ago, pyrohornIII said:

Why not make ranked voting part of this restructure?    But I will say that more than two large parties isn't the answer anymore now than it was in Germany in the early 30s.

 

I don't think it is an "answer" either. Rather, the opportunity for other parties should be available without the current roadblocks setup to favor R/D.

More granular House voting districts may provide this opportunity, should a legitimate party present itself.

Edited November 16, 2020 by pacman

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Don Johnson said:

In the three most populous states, you had more people vote for Biden in Florida and Texas than any other state not named California.  And more people vote for Trump in California than any other state than Texas.  Making the (possibly incorrect) assumption that voters associate with the party they voted for President in 2020 ....In Texas, the 5.2 million (46.5%) that voted Democrat are represented by 0 Senators and 13 of 36 Representatives.  In Florida, the 5.3 million that voted D are represented by 0 Senators and 12 of 27 Representatives.  In California, the 5.8 million (34%) that voted R are represented by 0 Senators and 7 out of 54 Representatives.  

I can only imagine the gerrymandering that would be in play if these states had to divide into areas or new states.  Probably wouldn't be any worse than it already is, though.

21 of our 254 counties in Texas went to Biden...

 

Fuck, if we just wanted to let the cities and urban areas rule, we fucking would have...

[Huckleberry 32702]

8 minutes ago, slorch said:

21 of our 254 counties in Texas went to Biden...

 

Fuck, if we just wanted to let the cities and urban areas rule, we fucking would have...

You understand that Texas is a unitary system and not federal, right?

[Wulaw Horn 18981]

1 hour ago, pacman said:

I don't think it is an "answer" either. Rather, the opportunity for other parties should be available without the current roadblocks setup to favor R/D.

More granular House voting districts may provide this opportunity, should a legitimate party present itself.

Still won’t change things without getting rid of the structure we currently have. 
only way to really make things changed with more parties is with a proportional system. 

[StassneyHorn 6540]

12 minutes ago, slorch said:

21 of our 254 counties in Texas went to Biden...

 

Fuck, if we just wanted to let the cities and urban areas rule, we fucking would have...

“Joe Biden last week won 16% of the nation’s counties, but those counties account for 70% of nation’s economic activity, Brookings analysts report. By contrast, President Trump won 84% of counties, accounting for less than 30% of GDP.”

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/latest-updates-biden-trump-election-2020/card/32vHNFTTc2xxNr7NITHY

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

You understand that Texas is a unitary system and not federal, right?

yep.

You just gonna pick and choose which existing statutes you'd like to abide by?

 

Of course you will.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, StassneyHorn said:

“Joe Biden last week won 16% of the nation’s counties, but those counties account for 70% of nation’s economic activity, Brookings analysts report. By contrast, President Trump won 84% of counties, accounting for less than 30% of GDP.”

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/latest-updates-biden-trump-election-2020/card/32vHNFTTc2xxNr7NITHY

LOLz. all of the sudden big commerce favors you?

 

Unfuckingbelievable.

 

Where is it produced?  Not in fucking Harris County...

Edited November 17, 2020 by slorch

[StassneyHorn 6540]

Big commerce? Lol 

Joe Biden wins counties that account for 70% of all bootstrapping in this country. Now I put it in a makers vs takers argument for you.

[Huckleberry 32702]

10 minutes ago, slorch said:

yep.

You just gonna pick and choose which existing statutes you'd like to abide by?

 

Of course you will.

This doesn't make any sense at all.

You're being dumb again.

[hobbes2702 12845]

9 minutes ago, slorch said:

LOLz. all of the sudden big commerce favors you?

 

Unfuckingbelievable.

 

Where is it produced?  Not in fucking Harris County...

You have to be smarter than this.

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

This doesn't make any sense at all.

You're being dumb again.

you can't think...so you blame it on the other guy.

typical.

 

you're discussing a hypothetical, but conveniently fall back on the pre-existing laws that support your case.

Edited November 17, 2020 by slorch

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

You have to be smarter than this.

you cannot refute it, so i am dumb.  Lolz.

Poster claims GDP as a qualifying factor for determining representation.  Virtually no oil and gas is produced in Harris County.  Let's overrepresent Ector and Midland Counties, shall we?

[formermav43 4599]

7 minutes ago, slorch said:

you can't think...so you blame it on the other guy.

typical.

 

you're discussing a hypothetical, but conveniently fall back on the pre-existing laws that support your case.

It’s more that this is gibberish. I don’t know what you’re arguing for. Or against, for that matter. Or how it’s relevant to the thread.

[StassneyHorn 6540]

I did not claim GDP output to be a qualifying factor for determining representation. All I did was reply to the mind numbingly simpleton statement that only 21 of 254 counties voted for Biden in Texas as if all counties are equal

[Huckleberry 32702]

16 minutes ago, slorch said:

you can't think...so you blame it on the other guy.

typical.

 

you're discussing a hypothetical, but conveniently fall back on the pre-existing laws that support your case.

You don't even know what my case is. You're completely lost.

Everyone who has read this thread realizes that I support the Federal system including the Senate and the idea that the Presidential election is by the States and not directly by the citizenry. Everyone, that is, except for you.

Because, again, you're being dumb.

[hobbes2702 12845]

7 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

It’s more that this is gibberish. I don’t know what you’re arguing for. Or against, for that matter. Or how it’s relevant to the thread.

Correct. That was my point.

 

[Pato del Muerto 52342]

Slorch’d all to hell already

[Pato del Muerto 52342]

Every time I see this thread title I start doing this

[Judge Roybeanbag 11810]

1 hour ago, StassneyHorn said:

“Joe Biden last week won 16% of the nation’s counties, but those counties account for 70% of nation’s economic activity, Brookings analysts report. By contrast, President Trump won 84% of counties, accounting for less than 30% of GDP.”

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/latest-updates-biden-trump-election-2020/card/32vHNFTTc2xxNr7NITHY

Robin Hood on a federal level.  

[Huckleberry 32702]

1 hour ago, slorch said:

LOLz. all of the sudden big commerce favors you?

 

Unfuckingbelievable.

 

Where is it produced?  Not in fucking Harris County...

 

1 hour ago, slorch said:

you cannot refute it, so i am dumb.  Lolz.

Poster claims GDP as a qualifying factor for determining representation.  Virtually no oil and gas is produced in Harris County.  Let's overrepresent Ector and Midland Counties, shall we?

I have to give you credit, when you really go for it you are able to achieve levels of self-ownage that rival 13-0 Branding Iron.

https://www.bea.gov/system/files/2019-12/lagdp1219.pdf

GDP Rank of Texas Counties for last available year (2018):

1. Harris - $361,353,302,000
2. Dallas - $241,375,801,000
3. Tarrant - $108,786,197,000
4. Travis - $102,486,231,000
...
9. Midland  - $26,786,004,000
20. Ector - $12,844,718,000

Edited November 17, 2020 by Huckleberry

[FondrenRoad 4378]

4 hours ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Your argument, from a logical and perspective, against Huck is truly and absolutely awful. The same exact argument you are making is an argument against having a country period. Why honor that agreement by our gggggranparents?  I mean- if the past and history doesn’t compel us to agree to an agreement or change the agreement why do we even have to be a union?  
I personally think it would be awesome if we dissolved this whole shit and decided whether or not we wanted to be a union and on what terms. That would be fair and intellectually honest. But you are suggesting, instead, that you get to fuck me up the ass without my permission or agreement bc you are bigger than me, or because you want to, or it’s fair or some other reason. It’s bullshit. We have a union with agreed to rules and a mechanism for

making changes or we don’t. 

Do states have rights or not?  The GOP argues for states rights non stop until blue states want rights.

How about every 20 years, every state gets to have a referendum on whether they stay in?  60% of the vote needed to leave.   Then, since all the small states want California to fund all infrastructure in their states, they might throw their sugar daddy a bone and support some of the social and environmental reforms that Californians want.  

[Wulaw Horn 18981]

49 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Do states have rights or not?  The GOP argues for states rights non stop until blue states want rights.

How about every 20 years, every state gets to have a referendum on whether they stay in?  60% of the vote needed to leave.   Then, since all the small states want California to fund all infrastructure in their states, they might throw their sugar daddy a bone and support some of the social and environmental reforms that Californians want.  

Ok?  Yeah- I said I’m ok with dissolving the union that makes as much sense as arguing to take away Wyoming statehood. 
sure- you want that mechanism to eject I’m fine with that- no need to have another civil war- bring on the no fault divorce. 
 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

17 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Ok?  Yeah- I said I’m ok with dissolving the union that makes as much sense as arguing to take away Wyoming statehood. 
sure- you want that mechanism to eject I’m fine with that- no need to have another civil war- bring on the no fault divorce. 
 

I dont really want Wyoming out. I just think people, rather than land, should vote. Wyoming is an example because they are the least populated state. However, they certainly aren't the worst state with disproportionate voting power.

And ejection isn't the right way really. Legal secession is. With legal secession, WY voters would have to actually give a shit about CA voters. Maybe we could all actually be Americans with common cause again. 

At any rate, Trump is what you get from our fucked up system. And really he was just the first to figure it out.  There's gonna be someone better at it.  Its not even that high of a bar.  All it requires is someone that can say the right things at McCain's funeral.  Dont shit on the military. And that person could have deported every immigrant in the country and rounded up political opponents.  That's literally how close we are/were.  We can have our civil war then, I guess. Personally, I'd just rather get it over with. It's clear this isn't working. 

So let's dissolve the union instead of fixing it. Because Republicans, like you, dont want to fix it anyway. 

Edited November 17, 2020 by FondrenRoad

[fattyflattie 4636]

This Wyoming talk sounds awful lot like my aggy coworker that thinks each dollar paid in tax, should get you a vote. You pay in 50k, you get proportional amount of votes.  If your are poor af (Wyoming), sorry, don’t be poor (sparsely populated).  If you are well heeled (NY, CA, TX) you get the votes you paid in because you contribute to society considerably more than a poor (WY, MT).  

[FondrenRoad 4378]

20 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

This Wyoming talk sounds awful lot like my aggy coworker that thinks each dollar paid in tax, should get you a vote. You pay in 50k, you get proportional amount of votes.  If your are poor af (Wyoming), sorry, don’t be poor (sparsely populated).  If you are well heeled (NY, CA, TX) you get the votes you paid in because you contribute to society considerably more than a poor (WY, MT).  

Except we are talking about people. 40 million vs 600,000.  We are talking about people getting 3 votes for President over other people that get 1.   We aren't talking about money getting votes. 

1 person, 1 vote. It shouldn't be this hard. But we are going to have another civil war over it instead. Because people like you want to support tyrants. 

The states rights people say the states are all sovereign. Thats really the only point where economics come into play. If California is sovereign, then let it be sovereign.  Let it collect its tax first. If you want the Federal government to be NATO or the UN instead of a nation, then let it be that instead.

Also ditch the expat tax entirely. 

Edited November 17, 2020 by FondrenRoad

[SquishMitten 10401]

I don’t know,it seems we are already scraping the bottom of the barrel to fill out the current number of representatives. 

That’s actually a pretty legit argument for not expanding it. We’d have a shit ton of Fitlumps in office.

[Huckleberry 32702]

8 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

1 person, 1 vote. It shouldn't be this hard.

You're right that it shouldn't be this hard but the issue isn't where you think it is. It's not and never has been a popular vote. You want it to be but you can't claim that it's unfair that a Wyoming person's vote counts more than a Californian's because that's not even true. A Wyomingite's vote should only be compared to other Wyomingites. And they are all worth the same because the only election they are participating in is the election to assign Wyoming's electors. Same thing for Californians.

And it's pretty obvious that the vast majority of people would prefer to participate in the California election rather than the Wyoming one.

[Js1 85110]

9 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

That’s actually a pretty legit argument for not expanding it. We’d have a shit ton of Fitlumps in office.

We pretty much do at this point. 

For goodness sake, we have a shitty Auburn and Texas Tech football coach in the Senate who doesn’t know who we fought in WW2 and the 3 branches of government. 

[Tuco 5076]

6 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

That’s actually a pretty legit argument for not expanding it. We’d have a shit ton of Fitlumps in office.

The counterpoint is that lowering the barriers to entry, by making the races smaller, will encourage greater participation and draw more people.  More people means better choices. 

 

[Tuco 5076]

15 hours ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Your argument, from a logical and perspective, against Huck is truly and absolutely awful. The same exact argument you are making is an argument against having a country period. Why honor that agreement by our gggggranparents?  I mean- if the past and history doesn’t compel us to agree to an agreement or change the agreement why do we even have to be a union?  
I personally think it would be awesome if we dissolved this whole shit and decided whether or not we wanted to be a union and on what terms. That would be fair and intellectually honest. But you are suggesting, instead, that you get to fuck me up the ass without my permission or agreement bc you are bigger than me, or because you want to, or it’s fair or some other reason. It’s bullshit. We have a union with agreed to rules and a mechanism for

making changes or we don’t. 

 

There are two basic questions here:

1. Is the current system fair/just/logical/good/etc.?

 

2. Should we change it?

 

[Huckleberry 32702]

My answer to both is yes. 

[bolverk 29399]

14 minutes ago, Tuco said:

The counterpoint is that lowering the barriers to entry, by making the races smaller, will encourage greater participation and draw more people.  More people means better choices. 

 

Well, yeah, and the barrier of entry for an effective small town mayor to a rep is much lower.

[Tuco 5076]

33 minutes ago, Tuco said:

 

There are two basic questions here:

1. Is the current system fair/just/logical/good/etc.?

 

2. Should we change it?

 

I accidentally posted prior to finishing this post: 

1. Is the current system fair/just/logical/good/etc.?

Is there anyone here that would choose the current system if they were drawing it from scratch?  Would you create one house of Congress with that is equally represented by 39M people on the coast and 800k people in a square in the middle of the country? Would you set up a system where the majority of the Supreme Court Justices have been selected by the party who has only won the plurality of votes in one Presidential election in the last 30 years?  Devoid of any history, background, obstacles to change, etc., is this the system you would choose?  Because, to me, it is objectively stupid.  

And it's an important question that should not be overlooked.  Does this system work as intended?  We can't fix something if we don't recognize the problem. And if you think it's a good system, there is no impetus to reduce the small state advantage by expanding the House. 

2. Should we change it?

2a, This is where practicalities are important.  There are barriers of change which are very high to changing any of this.  The practical costs of making a change may be worse than continuing the system.  I have acknowledged this several times.  I am not saying that changing the Constitution is high on priority list right now.  But that doesn't really affect my answer on point #1.  

2b, But, one of the things that drives me nuts is this sense of deference we give to the old way because it is old.  It is entirely unAmerican.  We hold more reverence for the founding fathers than they held for each other.  Pretty much the only mindset they had in common was a willingness to change something that no longer worked for them.  Being a British colony wasn't working for them, so they changed it.  Just about every argument that has been made against me on this thread, could easily be made against American independence.  What, violating contracts? Yeah, we did that.  Being willing to dissolve a country?  Yep.  Now, it took a Revolutionary War and the risk of being tried for treason, so there were certainly practical obstacles to change that were considered.  It wasn't easy, and I'm not looking for a Revolutionary War 2.0, but let's stop pretending that a reverence for tradition is a goal.  

And after the founding fathers won, they formed a nation under The Articles of Confederation. That shit didn't work, so they scrapped it.  They then formed a more perfect union (not a "perfect union", a "more perfect union) under the Constitution.  If I recall Jefferson thought it would be eventually scrapped, and that we would go through constitutions every generation or so. They included the Second Amendment with the idea that people should overthrow the government under this Constitution if need be.  They put in an amendment process so it could be changed in a less violent manner.  At no time did they say "this was handed down from the heavens to be followed forever."  They were just making shit up, failed the first time, and then created a pretty fucking awesome document their second time...for its time.  A failure to reevaluate the structure will ensure that we continue to become less democratic as time goes on.  

"Drive your plow over the bones of the dead." - William Blake, Marriage of Heaven and Hell 

 "...leaping over it as silly sheep leap over a vacuum, because their leader originally leaped there when a stick was held. There's your law of precedents; there's your utility of traditions; there's the story of your obstinate survival of old beliefs never bottomed on the earth, and now not even hovering in the air! There's orthodoxy!" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick

[Huckleberry 32702]

13 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

 

I have to give you credit, when you really go for it you are able to achieve levels of self-ownage that rival 13-0 Branding Iron.

https://www.bea.gov/system/files/2019-12/lagdp1219.pdf

GDP Rank of Texas Counties for last available year (2018):

1. Harris - $361,353,302,000
2. Dallas - $241,375,801,000
3. Tarrant - $108,786,197,000
4. Travis - $102,486,231,000
...
9. Midland  - $26,786,004,000
20. Ector - $12,844,718,000

Went ahead and finished this analysis for you, @slorch.

Biden won 22 of 254 Texas counties. The counties Biden won account for just under 61% of Texas GDP. The 232 counties Trump won account for 39% of Texas GDP.

[Huckleberry 32702]

2 minutes ago, Tuco said:

And if you think it's a good system, there is no impetus to reduce the small state advantage by expanding the House. 

Expanding the House needs to be done and it doesn't need to have anything to do with reducing small State influence. My OP details reasons it needs to happen and never mentions small States. 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Went ahead and finished this analysis for you, @slorch.

Biden won 22 of 254 Texas counties. The counties Biden won account for just under 61% of Texas GDP. The 232 counties Trump won account for 39% of Texas GDP.

IDGAF about GDP in this discussion., nor should it be a determining factor in representation.

Thank you.

 

there's a reason you're jacking off to this proposal.  You know why.  It's stupid.

Edited November 17, 2020 by slorch

[Tuco 5076]

1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

Expanding the House needs to be done and it doesn't need to have anything to do with reducing small State influence. My OP details reasons it needs to happen and never mentions small States. 

So, if you were creating a system from scratch, you'd draw a square in the middle of the country with 800k people and say, yep, they deserve as much say in the Senate as 39M people on the coast?  Because the small state advantage has some inherently beneficial value to our system? 

[Tuco 5076]

1 minute ago, slorch said:

IDGAF about GDP in this discussion., nor should it be a determining factor in representation.

Thank you.

 

there's a reason you're jacking off to this proposal.  You know why.  It's stupid.

But counties should?  

 

[Guest]

Just now, Tuco said:

But counties should?  

 

No. States do.   I only mentioned the counties  with regard to the disparity of what parts of the state voted for which candidate. 

Population matters.  Divide the 435 accordingly.

[Huckleberry 32702]

3 minutes ago, slorch said:

IDGAF about GDP in this discussion., nor should it be a determining factor in representation.

Thank you.

 

there's a reason you're jacking off to this proposal.  You know why.  It's stupid.

I'm sorry, I was simply pointing out how wrong you were with your assumption that the GDP analysis doesn't hold in Texas because the oil fields aren't in the big cities. 

Basically, every time you have an original thought it's wrong and I didn't want you to forget that. 

As another example, you still have no idea what I do and don't support (or why)  despite my stating it several times in this thread. 

[Huckleberry 32702]

4 minutes ago, Tuco said:

So, if you were creating a system from scratch, you'd draw a square in the middle of the country with 800k people and say, yep, they deserve as much say in the Senate as 39M people on the coast?  Because the small state advantage has some inherently beneficial value to our system? 

If I were starting a system from scratch today then in the analysis I would be trying to form a nation from 50 independent States so yes, the bicameral and Electoral College solution would likely be the result. States are political entities even if you keep trying to ignore that fact. 

The bigger issues are with the mechanics of government (e.g., if the Senate refuses to hold a hearing on a Justice then they should be automatically seated; Congress has ceded too much power to the Executive, etc.) rather than the fundamental design.