Expand the House

[Wulaw Horn 18980]

31 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?

 

Fair? Yes

Just?  Yes

Logical? Yes

Good?  I don't know- sure?

Capable of being improved? sure- just about everything we do probably has the possibility to be made better.  Does that mean that the entire system has to be blown up?  No.  Can we tinker around the edges?  Sure.

I think changing the house is totally and completely filed under tinkering at the edges. It sounds radical to say- we will triple the size of the house- but it's really not all that radical.  As Huck pointed out- the balance of power doesn't change.  If we went to 1500 reps, basically that drops us from what- about 500,000+ thousand per congressional district to about 220,000 people per district. I'd actually change that to 100,000 per district more or less. So- that makes Texas have 330 representatives in the house and Wyoming have 8 or 9 or something like that. Is that really, fundamentally different than 42 reps vs 1?  Na, not really I don't think. It's still the same power ratio- it's just that both places now have better representation b/c it's more likely to have access to a rep as a friend or neighbor- but it doesn't fundamentally change the power dynamic between the two states- nor their electoral college importance.  

As Huck (or someone else said) we have two houses- one for the states and one for the people. That was always the way that things were designed.  That would remain the way that things are.  

Also- the argument that you made earlier about power of vote just doesn't appeal to me in any way shape or form. I've lived in 7 different states in my life.  I've never felt like i had more power in one place or another. We have total and complete freedom of movement- we have the choice over where we want to live. Because of this, federalism has never bothered me- I've always loved it.  Want to live in a state that legalizes drugs?  Cool- move to Oregon.  Want to live in a place where that isn't possible?  Live somewhere else. It's the same argument I have always made against Roe-  I can't think of anything more directly dead balls on target to police power (public health, safety and wellfare) than that decision. If the states want to handle it differently I have no problem with that, nor do I have any problem with California doing whatever kooky shit they want to do at any point in time. People can vote with their feet.  And they do!  California is losing population for the first time ever. They are driving businesses out. And they are ok with that!  If they become not ok with that at some point in the future then they can course correct- but who am I to tell them that they should value Uber and Door dash drivers and the convenience to the population that this brings over giveaways to organized labor?  So they did a stupid law doing away with independent contractors. But the people saw what was going on and said- nope- we don't want that- and they passed a constitutional amendment essentially rolling that back.  Either way, my life doesn't change and that's their bed and they get to lay in it. Nobody is stopping you from wielding disproportionate power with your Senate vote- feel free to move to Butt fucking Egypt and get in on that awesome awesome representation of having 387,000 people per senator as opposed to my 1/17,000,000 share of my Senator here in Texas.  

Should we change it?  I mean I'd probably vote yes to Huck's proposal, but it isn't going to be something that would cause me to vote for one guy over another.

Will it change?  Of course not.  That would dilute the power of the reps and very very very few people are in favor of willingly diluting their own power.  

As mental masterbation goes this topic is pretty interesting. 

[Wulaw Horn 18980]

6 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

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.

Yeah that first paragraph is the part that he just doesn't get or absolutely refuses to acknowledge and if that can't be acknowledged than there's no actual discussion it's just talking at or past each other.  

I am in total and complete agreement with you about to much power being ceded to the executives by the congress. I would also argue that they've ceded too much power to the administrative state.  Finally, I would argue that the feds have taken way too much power from the states. The argument to almost everything that ails us, in my opinion, is more federalism, more power to local representation, with a corresponding respect for the idea that people are different, they are governed best by those closest to them, and we should respect each others right to chose this government, b/c it doesn't really affect us.  When there are issues of joint importance then we figure it out together.  I'm not holding my breath that any of this happens. Instead I think we will continue to see more power centralized in the white house. We are stupid animals and we need a strong leader I guess. Which is cool, b/c we do a really good job at selecting who we want to lead us as witnessed by the last 2 elections being able to chose between Hillary, Trump and Biden.  

[Pato del Muerto 52342]

38 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

 

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.

Wouldn’t seating a justice without senate approval be ceding more power to the executive?  It takes away one of their tools of limiting powers. 

[Huckleberry 32702]

5 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Wouldn’t seating a justice without senate approval be ceding more power to the executive?  It takes away one of their tools of limiting powers. 

No, it would simply prompt the Senate to do their job. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

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.

No it wouldn't. Most of the states that benefit from the Senate and EC disparities would not meet the economic or civil rights requirements to join this new nation. If they still wanted to join in order to receive an influx of cash from wealthy states, they would make this agreement understanding that rule making and governance is going to be population based. And they would also understand that they are giving up their sovereignty in order to join this new nation. Something they should have done in the first place.

If states are currently sovereign, then the United States is not currently a nation. And if it isnt a nation, then states should be able to leave unilaterally if they want to.  We were a grouping of convenience prior to the civil war.  Now we are a hostile forced grouping of otherwise sovereign states like the USSR and Warsaw Pact were.  For all the negativity Trumpists throw at the EU, at least member states are allowed to leave if they wish. 

[Huckleberry 32702]

1 minute ago, FondrenRoad said:

No it wouldn't. Most of the states that benefit from the Senate and EC disparities would not meet the economic or civil rights requirements to join this new nation. If they still wanted to join in order to receive an influx of cash from wealthy states, they would make this agreement understanding that rule making and governance is going to be population based. And they would also understand that they are giving up their sovereignty in order to join this new nation. Something they should have done in the first place.

If states are currently sovereign, then the United States is not currently a nation. And if it isnt a nation, then states should be able to leave unilaterally if they want to.  We were a grouping of convenience prior to the civil war.  Now we are a hostile forced grouping of otherwise sovereign states like the USSR and Warsaw Pact were.  For all the negativity Trumpists throw at the EU, at least member states are allowed to leave if they wish. 

That's a lot of words to completely miss the fact that it was hypothetically starting from scratch right now. Which means the 50 States are independent to start the exercise. 

The States aren't sovereign right now specifically because they agreed to join a union. You don't like the details of the union but that's what they all agreed to. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

1 hour ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Yeah that first paragraph is the part that he just doesn't get or absolutely refuses to acknowledge and if that can't be acknowledged than there's no actual discussion it's just talking at or past each other.  

I am in total and complete agreement with you about to much power being ceded to the executives by the congress. I would also argue that they've ceded too much power to the administrative state.  Finally, I would argue that the feds have taken way too much power from the states. The argument to almost everything that ails us, in my opinion, is more federalism, more power to local representation, with a corresponding respect for the idea that people are different, they are governed best by those closest to them, and we should respect each others right to chose this government, b/c it doesn't really affect us.  When there are issues of joint importance then we figure it out together.  I'm not holding my breath that any of this happens. Instead I think we will continue to see more power centralized in the white house. We are stupid animals and we need a strong leader I guess. Which is cool, b/c we do a really good job at selecting who we want to lead us as witnessed by the last 2 elections being able to chose between Hillary, Trump and Biden.  

In order to achieve that, you need to eliminate the federal income tax and allow states to have strict residency requirements for access to state services. The federal government can be funded by state taxes which the states would transfer upward. 

[Tuco 5076]

52 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

No, it would simply prompt the Senate to do their job. 

That's not really responding to the question.  You are just focusing on what you think the positive is without acknowledging the negative.  It would undoubtedly expand the power of the President.  

[Wulaw Horn 18980]

4 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

In order to achieve that, you need to eliminate the federal income tax and allow states to have strict residency requirements for access to state services. The federal government can be funded by state taxes which the states would transfer upward. 

I don't see why that necessarily follows with my larger point about federalism and freedom of movement.  I don't have an issue with something like this.  But it would have to come with a corresponding pay as you go situation where the feds operate on a balanced budget- which I wouldn't have a problem with.  

CA gets x apportioned as their share of the national defense bill, they get X spending on roads, x spending on social services etc and so forth.  But yeah, you haven't made the argument for why your suggestion would be necessary (it certainly doesn't refute my point that people can vote with their feet about where they want to live) but I'm not completely opposed to that idea.

[Tuco 5076]

1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

That's a lot of words to completely miss the fact that it was hypothetically starting from scratch right now. Which means the 50 States are independent to start the exercise. 

The States aren't sovereign right now specifically because they agreed to join a union. You don't like the details of the union but that's what they all agreed to. 

No, I asked would you intentionally create a system where 800k people in the middle of the country would have the same representation as 39M people on the coast.  I didn't say we needed to start with the existing states.  

To create this system from scratch would obviously be undemocratic and arbitrary.  The fact that it evolved this way makes it less arbitrary, but still undemocratic. 

 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

That's a lot of words to completely miss the fact that it was hypothetically starting from scratch right now. Which means the 50 States are independent to start the exercise. 

The States aren't sovereign right now specifically because they agreed to join a union. You don't like the details of the union but that's what they all agreed to. 

Yes and if they were independent and Wyoming wanted to join, they would not have the same power as California in the new Senate. California doesn't need Wyoming to join. Wyoming would not be able to name its terms. All these low population landlocked states would have no bargaining power. There is no urgent need to expand in order to block the British from land grabbing. 

And again, Wyoming is just an example. In reality, the deep south would not be able to join at all in spite of having ports.  And they may not even want to anyway.

[Huckleberry 32702]

2 minutes ago, Tuco said:

That's not really responding to the question.  You are just focusing on what you think the positive is without acknowledging the negative.  It would undoubtedly expand the power of the President.  

It completely answers the question and in fact doesn't expand Presidential powers. Right now POTUS appoints Justices with the advice and consent of the Senate. If the Senate refuses to do their job specifically to prevent the appointment then they are in fact overreaching beyond their authority. What their job entails is debate and a vote on the Justice. If they accordingly reject the nomination then fine, they've done their job. 

If Congress refuses to vote on legislation then there are no new laws. That's dumb but fine. In 50 years there would simply be the same laws as today. But if the Senate were allowed to simply never advise or consent then in 50 years there would literally be no Supreme Court. 

If the Senate ignores a nomination then it should be considered consent by silence. "Pure and simple silence cannot be considered as a consent to a contract, except in cases when the silent person is bound in good faith to explain himself, in which case, silence gives consent."

[Tuco 5076]

1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

It completely answers the question and in fact doesn't expand Presidential powers. Right now POTUS appoints Justices with the advice and consent of the Senate. If the Senate refuses to do their job specifically to prevent the appointment then they are in fact overreaching beyond their authority. What their job entails is debate and a vote on the Justice. If they accordingly reject the nomination then fine, they've done their job. 

If Congress refuses to vote on legislation then there are no new laws. That's dumb but fine. In 50 years there would simply be the same laws as today. But if the Senate were allowed to simply never advise or consent then in 50 years there would literally be no Supreme Court. 

If the Senate ignores a nomination then it should be considered consent by silence. "Pure and simple silence cannot be considered as a consent to a contract, except in cases when the silent person is bound in good faith to explain himself, in which case, silence gives consent."

1. Was President Obama able to do this under the old system?

2. Would President Biden be able to do this under your proposed system?

3. Is that a) expanding, b) reducing, or c) not changing the power of the President?

You can argue it is in line with the intent of the Constitution, and you'd get no disagreement from me, but it would obviously increase the power of the President from where it is today. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

2 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

I don't see why that necessarily follows with my larger point about federalism and freedom of movement.  I don't have an issue with something like this.  But it would have to come with a corresponding pay as you go situation where the feds operate on a balanced budget- which I wouldn't have a problem with.  

CA gets x apportioned as their share of the national defense bill, they get X spending on roads, x spending on social services etc and so forth.  But yeah, you haven't made the argument for why your suggestion would be necessary (it certainly doesn't refute my point that people can vote with their feet about where they want to live) but I'm not completely opposed to that idea.

Every state can pay for its own infrastructure. Where highways and rail lines are beneficial to other states, then those states can enter into an interstate compact to fund them. If a state provides universal healthcare, UBI, extended welfare, or child care, this should not be available to those who move there from other states until they meet long term residency requirements. 

You simply can't have open borders between a libertarian wonderland and a socialist wonderland. 

Spending on defense needs to be cut in half anyway. But giving states the ability to wipe their ass with their share of the defense bill will go a long way toward making that happen. 

[Huckleberry 32702]

27 minutes ago, Tuco said:

No, I asked would you intentionally create a system where 800k people in the middle of the country would have the same representation as 39M people on the coast.  I didn't say we needed to start with the existing states.  

To create this system from scratch would obviously be undemocratic and arbitrary.  The fact that it evolved this way makes it less arbitrary, but still undemocratic. 

 

So you're actually asking what we'd set up if for the last 245 years there'd just been anarchy in the land area currently known as the United States? 

And I'd probably set it up the same way anyway. Minority protection is important, especially in a vast land area where essential goods and services will necessarily be provided by local jurisdictions that are less populated than others. I'd end up with a very similar federal system with the main difference being that the Senate and House would be equal chambers rather than the States' chamber being viewed as higher ranking. 

Edit - crap, forgot one more difference. In my Electoral College every State would get 2 electors for every Senator and Rep. Then half the electors would go to the State winner and the other half would be assigned proportionally based on popular vote in the State. 

Well obviously also my House would have the number of Reps tied to population. Probably 100k to 250k. Call it one Rep for every 175k population. 

Crap again, forgot about anti-gerrymandering rules. Would definitely have those. 

Edited November 17, 2020 by Huckleberry

[Huckleberry 32702]

5 minutes ago, Tuco said:

1. Was President Obama able to do this under the old system?

2. Would President Biden be able to do this under your proposed system?

3. Is that a) expanding, b) reducing, or c) not changing the power of the President?

You can argue it is in line with the intent of the Constitution, and you'd get no disagreement from me, but it would obviously increase the power of the President from where it is today. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

C)

Never before has the Senate been as shitty at doing their job as under McConnell. What I'm saying is that every President ever has had the authority to do this when the Senate completely abrogates their responsibility. It's only that it never happened before. Obama's mistake was not pressing it. He should have said that silence is consent as the Senate is required by good faith to explain itself. That could have forced a vote but by not doing so he allowed the Senate to effectively appoint a Justice while escaping any political consequence for doing so that may have resulted from a vote. 

Edited November 17, 2020 by Huckleberry

[Tuco 5076]

Just now, Huckleberry said:

So you're actually asking what we'd set up if for the last 245 years there'd just been anarchy in the land area currently known as the United States? 

And I'd probably set it up the same way anyway. Minority protection is important, especially in a vast land area where essential goods and services will necessarily be provided by local jurisdictions that are less populated than others. I'd end up with a very similar federal system with the main difference being that the Senate and House would be equal chambers rather than the States' chamber being viewed as higher ranking. 

So, your belief is that rural states should have more representation per capita at the federal level? Are you cool with Delaware, or would you roll that into Pennsylvania?   Why not break Wyoming up into two states, that way "minority" protection is even greater? It worked for the Dakotas. 

I really don't understand your rationalization of "...especially in a vast land area where essential goods and services will necessarily be provided by local jurisdictions that are less populated than others."  Sure, rural states have their own challenges.  So do states with large cities.  So do states with bad winters, or bad hurricanes, or historic poverty issues.  I'm not sure why you think that rural states would require any additional (per capita) representation than other state.  To me, it just seems like a rationalization.  Arguing for democracy is a lot easier.  

[Huckleberry 32702]

I added more stuff. But the bottom line is they don't have more representation in my system. That's just an emotional reaction to not being able to roll over lower populated States because you happen to agree with the more densely populated areas. 

In my system nothing happens unless both a majority of the States and a majority of the People agree. I see no issue with that.

Do you think that China should have 4 UN Security Council votes? 

Edited November 17, 2020 by Huckleberry

[Wulaw Horn 18980]

19 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Every state can pay for its own infrastructure. Where highways and rail lines are beneficial to other states, then those states can enter into an interstate compact to fund them. If a state provides universal healthcare, UBI, extended welfare, or child care, this should not be available to those who move there from other states until they meet long term residency requirements. 

You simply can't have open borders between a libertarian wonderland and a socialist wonderland. 

Spending on defense needs to be cut in half anyway. But giving states the ability to wipe their ass with their share of the defense bill will go a long way toward making that happen. 

I think what this gets at is you and I don't want to live in the same country, really, and if we do we want to set it up so that we have as little to do with each other as possible. Which is how the founders felt. Which is how they felt in the civil war.  Which was probably a mistake and the union should have been allowed to dissolve. And I'd love to dissolve it again. The mediation would be a bitch and arguments over assets, but that's easier than killing like 8 percent of the population or whatever the civil war did at the time.  Lets do this!

[Huckleberry 32702]

22 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Every state can pay for its own infrastructure. Where highways and rail lines are beneficial to other states, then those states can enter into an interstate compact to fund them. If a state provides universal healthcare, UBI, extended welfare, or child care, this should not be available to those who move there from other states until they meet long term residency requirements. 

You simply can't have open borders between a libertarian wonderland and a socialist wonderland. 

Spending on defense needs to be cut in half anyway. But giving states the ability to wipe their ass with their share of the defense bill will go a long way toward making that happen. 

Are you under the impression that New Yorkers don't benefit from the highways in Iowa?

[Mole 4320]

1. The House should absolutely expand substantially.

2. There is a possible downside. I’ve heard representatives state that one possible cause of our increased partisanship is that Congress no longer acts like a community or normal workplace. They don’t spend time with one another socially, particularly across party lines. Moving to a remote Congress would make this worse. So while a larger house would make things more representative, remote Congress would be less collegial. Add in the higher number of nutcases being elected and there could be some trade offs. I still think it’s worth it, but the giant Zoom house could be very messy.

3. As long as we’re fixing the House, districts should be drawn by algorithm.

[Huckleberry 32702]

2 minutes ago, Mole said:

1. The House should absolutely expand substantially.

2. There is a possible downside. I’ve heard representatives state that one possible cause of our increased partisanship is that Congress no longer acts like a community or normal workplace. They don’t spend time with one another socially, particularly across party lines. Moving to a remote Congress would make this worse. So while a larger house would make things more representative, remote Congress would be less collegial. Add in the higher number of nutcases being elected and there could be some trade offs. I still think it’s worth it, but the giant Zoom house could be very messy.

3. As long as we’re fixing the House, districts should be drawn by algorithm.

Agree with all of this. But I think the exponentially greater responsiveness to constituents makes it worth the #2 tradeoff. 

[Js1 85110]

2 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Agree with all of this. But I think the exponentially greater responsiveness to constituents makes it worth the #2 tradeoff. 

Agreed with this. 

[Tuco 5076]

9 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

I added more stuff. But the bottom line is they don't have more representation in my system. That's just an emotional reaction to not being able to roll over lower populated States because you happen to agree with the more densely populated areas. 

In my system nothing happens unless both a majority of the States and a majority of the People agree. I see no issue with that.

Do you think that China should have 4 UN Security Council votes? 

Yes, they do have more representation per capita.  That's not political philosophy, that's math. You can keep talking about how the states are represented in the Senate, but the reality is the states are proxies for the population.  It is, or at least should be, the people who are being represented by the Senators. The Senate votes on the same shit the House does.  The states - the number of them and how they are split - does not conform to any moral, ethical, or political ideology.  When you are basing a system on how the states are split, you are creating a system that lacks any moral, ethical, or political ideology on how representation is established.  You think the current system just magically evolved in to how you would have done it?  Ok. I have a hard time believing that. No more states.  No fewer states.  West Virginia should be separate than Virginia.  Rhode Island should have equal representation to Texas, despite the vast differences in land area and population. Etc.  This is how you would have devised it?  Ok.  

No, I don't think China should have 4 UN SC votes.  I also don't think the UN is analogous to the US.  Is there any confusion on that? Do we really need to dive into the differences? 

[Wulaw Horn 18980]

15 minutes ago, Mole said:

1. The House should absolutely expand substantially.

2. There is a possible downside. I’ve heard representatives state that one possible cause of our increased partisanship is that Congress no longer acts like a community or normal workplace. They don’t spend time with one another socially, particularly across party lines. Moving to a remote Congress would make this worse. So while a larger house would make things more representative, remote Congress would be less collegial. Add in the higher number of nutcases being elected and there could be some trade offs. I still think it’s worth it, but the giant Zoom house could be very messy.

3. As long as we’re fixing the House, districts should be drawn by algorithm.

I don't think #2 is actually a thing. I know people say it is but I really don't buy it.  There is great collegiality on the supreme court but that didn't mean Ginsburg and Scalia liked each other or changed their mind b/c of collegiality.  I really think that is totally overrated and the ideological differences in Congress exist b/c the representatives power bases is incredibly ideologically different.  

[wildcat09 29256]

4 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

I don't think #2 is actually a thing. I know people say it is but I really don't buy it.  There is great collegiality on the supreme court but that didn't mean Ginsburg and Scalia liked each other or changed their mind b/c of collegiality.  I really think that is totally overrated and the ideological differences in Congress exist b/c the representatives power bases is incredibly ideologically different.  

I agree with your larger point that collegiality is overrated (in fact I think in practice it's usually bad for most Americans), but it's pretty widely known that Ginsberg and Scalia were good friends.

[Wulaw Horn 18980]

4 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I agree with your larger point that collegiality is overrated (in fact I think in practice it's usually bad for most Americans), but it's pretty widely known that Ginsberg and Scalia were good friends.

I wrote that really shitty. Yes, I know Scalia and Ginsberg were good friends. And they acted very collegially. What I was trying to say is that didn't change the way they voted or wrote opinions b/c they just came at it from a different place. Collegiality is good for personally how you feel about going to work. It doesn't change what you do there is what I was trying to say.  Good catch, and stating it more clearly makes my point more clear.

Imagine a hypothetical where Kevin Brady and AOC were bestest buddies and ate dinner together every day.  Brady represents Montgomery County and AOC represents deep blue NYC.  Their friendship isn't going to make them vote the same way, nor should it. That's all I was trying to say.  

 

Should have read "that doesn't mean that Ginsberg and Scalia liking each other changed their mind b/c of collegiality.  Probably just made them enjoy going to work and interacting with each other more.  Which is good for them, on a personal level, I guess, but means nothing to us. 

Edited November 17, 2020 by Wulaw Horn

[FondrenRoad 4378]

46 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Are you under the impression that New Yorkers don't benefit from the highways in Iowa?

See the part regarding interstate compacts for infrastructure funding where needed, and that would include interstate highways and farm to market highways in food producing states. And I have no problem with the main interstate system. Commuter spurs and loops should be locally funded however. 

So Iowa could say "we need this highway to get food and goods to you.  Can we get some money to do that?"  But instead Iowa says, "we are taking your money to build this highway.  And we are going to block you from using your money to build new infrastructure in your area like the Hudson rail tunnel. And we are going to take more money and subsidize our farmers.  And we are going to take even more and send it to the bloated military. And we are going to fight against everything you want for your people like universal healthcare, affordable housing, or any type of social services.  Oh and we are going to raise your federal taxes and damage your ability to self fund through state and local taxes, and we will laughably call this a tax cut.  We just want everything you have and we don't care if the subway collapses due to neglect."

Edited November 17, 2020 by FondrenRoad

[FondrenRoad 4378]

53 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

I added more stuff. But the bottom line is they don't have more representation in my system. That's just an emotional reaction to not being able to roll over lower populated States because you happen to agree with the more densely populated areas. 

In my system nothing happens unless both a majority of the States and a majority of the People agree. I see no issue with that.

Do you think that China should have 4 UN Security Council votes? 

China is a sovereign nation. So you now consider states sovereign?  

[Mole 4320]

7 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

I don't think #2 is actually a thing. I know people say it is but I really don't buy it.  There is great collegiality on the supreme court but that didn't mean Ginsburg and Scalia liked each other or changed their mind b/c of collegiality.  I really think that is totally overrated and the ideological differences in Congress exist b/c the representatives power bases is incredibly ideologically different.  

I don’t expect them to start a bowling team or even convince each other to change policy positions, but they should share the same reality. We have a larger social problem with regards to truth and we keep making it worse. It largely stems from our politicians and the media (or maybe those two are reflections of us, or a little of both).  
 

It seems intuitive to me that if our politicians were better colleagues they’d be less likely to engage in the nonsense we’ve seen in recent years; nonsense that is breaking down our society. It’s not simply decorum or finding bipartisan solutions to problems; it’s being able to have a coherent discussion with disagreements. If it were simply limited to Washington, it wouldn’t be a big deal, but it’s spread everywhere in our culture and it’s damaging. 
 

The Q Caucus teaming up with the Anti-reptilian Caucus to Zoom bomb committee hearings would be pretty unhinged and destructive to a functioning society.

[Pato del Muerto 52342]

1 hour ago, FondrenRoad said:

China is a sovereign nation. So you now consider states sovereign?  

China is a sovereign nation on a council of sovereign nations, and that have many times the population of most of their peer members. 
seems like a straightforward and apt analogy to me. 

[Huckleberry 32702]

1 hour ago, FondrenRoad said:

China is a sovereign nation. So you now consider states sovereign?  

No. Did that sound good in your head? 

China is a member of the United Nations, which represents an agreement between different political entities on certain grounds. China agreed to have one vote on the Security Council. According to your logic they should now insist on a proportion of votes based on population. You know, because people vote, not land. 

[Tuco 5076]

19 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

No. Did that sound good in your head? 

China is a member of the United Nations, which represents an agreement between different political entities on certain grounds. China agreed to have one vote on the Security Council. According to your logic they should now insist on a proportion of votes based on population. You know, because people vote, not land. 

Apparently you want to continue with this analogy.  A few points:

1.  The UN SC is not the democratically elected government of a country.  The US government is. 

2. Any permanent member of the UN SC can veto any substantial resolution in front of the Security Council.  It doesn't really matter how many votes China has. 

3. The permanent members of the UN SC were selected because they were considered the most powerful countries at the time.  Nobody thought it was a good idea to give Liechtenstein equal representation on the Security Council.  Because it would have been fucking stupid.  

Should we continue with this analogy?

 

[Huckleberry 32702]

Well I mean we can if you'd like. You made three statements that don't really have to do with anything but I'm willing to keep listening.

Let's start with the false statement within #1. The US government is not fully democratically elected. The executive is federally elected. You continue to beg the question when it comes to this by arguing from the position that Presidents are democratically elected when they are not. Of course it seems obvious that there should be a direct popular vote if you start from the erroneous basis that it's a democratic election. 

[Tuco 5076]

You're the one who thought the UN Security Council was relevant.  We can circle back to you denying that the United States is a democracy later.  I want to hear more about how Andorra has equal representation in the UN.  Please, continue. 

Edited November 17, 2020 by Tuco

[horn4life 3755]

The House is largely gerrymandered to favor Republicans, simply as the R's controlled more state houses and have virtually no sense of fair play.  Not that the Dems long, long ago were not similar, but the R's specifically districting to reduce minority voting influence is now a cornerstone of the GOP platforms in every state they control.  In both the Senate and the House the GOP does a MUCH MUCH better job of being a unified block than the Dems.  Of course when almost everyone in a party and all those with much power are old white men, it's easier to unify than the much more diverse Democratic elected legislators.  

The Senate is where the real problem is right now, as there has been so little discussion and deliberation the last 4 years it's comical.  You can't even discuss amendments with any credibility, it's all fixed between just a few people.  Again the GOP is best at keeping its predominantly old white males together than the Dems can.  

The sad thing is our Senate was meant to be a moderating influence on the more populous based house.  But without deliberation or amendments being allowed it's basically a shit show.  Having and extra "King" in the Senate in the Majority leader for either party is simply not good for America and certainly was NOT what the founders envisioned.  To be honest I would like to make the House vote up or down on Senate Bills, and the Senate vote up or down on everything the House sends over.  At least then there would be some debate, SOME FUCKING THOUGHTS PRESENTED!!!

IF you want to fucking hurt Republican States, simply pass a law where no state can receive annually greater than 2% of it's income tax revenue from the federal government.  The taxpayers of the more populous state give their tax dollars each and every year to Republican states.  The Republican version of socialism and income redistribution via sucking on the public tit. 

[Huckleberry 32702]

21 minutes ago, Tuco said:

You're the one who thought the UN Security Council was relevant.  We can circle back to you denying that the United States is a democracy later.  I want to hear more about how Andorra has equal representation in the UN.  Please, continue. 

It was relevant as an analogy, that doesn't mean it's an exact match. 

And I'm not arguing about whether or not the US is a democracy because that's an irrelevant sidebar. The Presidential election is absolutely not democratic; there's nothing to argue. Just like Senatorial elections didn't used to be democratic but that was changed via Constitutional Amendment. Just like the Supreme Court is not democratically elected (unless you don't consider SCOTUS part of the US government).

What you want is to change it to where it is a democratic election just like was done with the Senate. That is a perfectly reasonable discussion but being dishonest about how big a change it is doesn't help your cause. 

Edited November 17, 2020 by Huckleberry

[Tuco 5076]

10 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

It was relevant as an analogy, that doesn't mean it's an exact match. 

And I'm not arguing about whether or not the US is a democracy because that's an irrelevant sidebar. The Presidential election is absolutely not democratic; there's nothing to argue. Just like Senatorial elections didn't used to be democratic but that was changed via Constitutional Amendment. Just like the Supreme Court is not democratically elected (unless you don't consider SCOTUS part of the US government).

What you want is to change it to where it is a democratic election just like was done with the Senate. That is a perfectly reasonable discussion but being dishonest about how big a change it is doesn't help your cause. 

I said the US is a democracy.  That is true.  I did not say it was a pure democracy.  I did not say the President was elected by a direct election of the public. You took issue with me calling the US a democracy.  Which it is.  There are many deviations that from being a pure democracy that the US has adapted, either for practical or stability reasons.  But, in the end, we believe in the people elect the government, rather than the government being decided by birth right, or religious fiat, or despotic control.  This seems like a minor point, but it's actually one that conservatives have been trying to whittle away at.  The US is a democracy.  That's an important statement. 

The UN, doesn't make any such claim. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

No. Did that sound good in your head? 

China is a member of the United Nations, which represents an agreement between different political entities on certain grounds. China agreed to have one vote on the Security Council. According to your logic they should now insist on a proportion of votes based on population. You know, because people vote, not land. 

You continue to use a false equivalence. China is not equivalent to a single US state. It is a sovereign nation.  The UN as a whole is not equivalent to the USA.  The UN is an opt-in organization that China, as a sovereign nation, may leave whenever it chooses to.

[Wulaw Horn 18980]

5 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

You continue to use a false equivalence. China is not equivalent to a single US state. It is a sovereign nation.  The UN as a whole is not equivalent to the USA.  The UN is an opt-in organization that China, as a sovereign nation, may leave whenever it chooses to.

Yeah but the United States was made up of sovereign states when they decided to form. 
Nic Cage explained all this is National Treasure 

[Huckleberry 32702]

10 minutes ago, Tuco said:

I said the US is a democracy.  That is true.  I did not say it was a pure democracy.  I did not say the President was elected by a direct election of the public. You took issue with me calling the US a democracy.  Which it is. 

You can scroll up to see that you're incorrect about what you said. You said the US government is democratically elected. That is a partially correct and partially false statement. 

If you'd only said the US is a democracy I wouldn't have argued, but given that this entire discussion is about the mechanics by which the President is elected the distinction becomes important. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

9 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Yeah but the United States was made up of sovereign states when they decided to form. 
Nic Cage explained all this is National Treasure 

What each state was before is irrelevant. They are not sovereign now.  China did not cede its sovereignty to the UN. 

[Wulaw Horn 18980]

1 minute ago, FondrenRoad said:

What each state was before is irrelevant. They are not sovereign now.  China did not cede its sovereignty to the UN. 

Sure. But it could be argued that the states ceded their sovereignty to the greater political entity conditionally based upon the document that they were signatories to. And really, the entire point of my post was to talk about the genius of Nic Cage. 

[StassneyHorn 6540]

24 hours later and I’m still laughing at “big commerce.” 

[SydneyCarton 47884]

On 11/16/2020 at 11:53 AM, Tuco said:

The biggest negative I would see is that it would shift more power to the political parties.  Trying to get committee positions and bills prioritized is already a challenge.  If you triple the House, then access becomes more valuable, and the parties gain more strength.  But, they already have a ton of power, and while philosophically it would slant things their way, I don't believe it would make a practical difference.  And maybe that would be offset by reducing financial leverage the parties have. (Larger districts = more money required to campaign = more party (and lobbyist) power.) 

So, yeah, I favor it.  There are ways to get around the other issues. 

Unfortunately, I wonder how many Representatives would vote to reduce their power.  Tripling the size of the House means reducing the amount of influence any individual Rep has by a third. 

 

On 11/16/2020 at 12:13 PM, blacklab said:

I’m all for it. 
I think another benefit should be additional parties getting seats. The smaller the area and population the better chance they have of getting elected. 

That was my first thought, is that this could make the rise of 3rd parties actually viable. For starters, much smaller districts could win based upon actual grassroots or 3rd party movements. Once a few of those win, then they're a political demographic that can be courted in the legislature and start to accrue actual power for rule making and voting. And it could snowball from there. 

[Tuco 5076]

 

On 11/17/2020 at 5:05 PM, Huckleberry said:

You can scroll up to see that you're incorrect about what you said. You said the US government is democratically elected. That is a partially correct and partially false statement. 

 

I'm not going to worry about splitting hairs on this.  Obviously the UN and US are not analogous in their structure or purpose, so why bother on defining precisely why.  

I was just circling back on this thread because I actually enjoyed this discussion.  Sure, I may have been a bit of any asshole here and there, but in my defense, you are wrong and I am right. It took a bit to figure out why I was enjoying the discussion; I think I figured it out.  

It's because it doesn't really matter. So many of the discussions over the last four years have centered around cruelty to immigrants, or the age of misinformation, or Trump's treating the US government as his personal property to further his power, etc.  So many of the discussions over the last 8 months have centered around assholes ignoring science and medicine, in the face of a global pandemic, which is likely to kill a half a million Americans.  It just feels really nice to focus on a discussion that just doesn't matter, and doesn't really have any major ethical or moral implications for the people arguing it.  I don't think you're morally deficient for believing the current system make sense. I just think you're wrong.  'cuz you are.