Stunning Demographic Stats Re: the future of elections

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20342]

In about 20 years, half the U.S. population will live in 8 states.  70% of Americans will live in 15 states.  That means that, by 2040, 30 percent of the population of the country will control 68 percent of the seats in the U.S. Senate..  In other words, by 2040, 30 percent of the population will be electing 70 senators, and half the population will be electing 84 of the 100 senators. 










https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/07/12/in-about-20-years-half-the-population-will-live-in-eight-states/?utm_term=.fb4efa2317a3




 

Edited July 14, 2018 by Horn Under a Bad Sign

[tantric superman 4667]

Need to fix that.

[David Dennison 18652]

The Senate is a glaring problem.

[thrillhammer 683]

is the senate the glaring problem?  seems like it's the house to me.  why are we capped where we are capped? seems like a random number and it's relevancy bullshit in this day and age. 

as to the op, one thing we learned at the last election is we need to spread some motherfuckers out. 

 

[Incredulity 11559]

Thing is that our system is intentionally set up to be slow and deliberate.  

Harry Reid Blowing Up 60 Vote Threshold Moose out front should have told ya.  Changing our political systems for the sake of political expediency will always have massive unintended consequences.

 

 

[GSU&UT 1798]

1 minute ago, thrillhammer said:

is the senate the glaring problem?  seems like it's the house to me.  why are we capped where we are capped? seems like a random number and it's relevancy bullshit in this day and age. 

as to the op, one thing we learned at the last election is we need to spread some motherfuckers out. 

 

I do agree that it makes little sense the House doesn't have an equal distribution of reps across the population.

[TwiceHorn 31265]

Why don't we just abolish the states entirely?  I'm not saying we should, but an increasing number of people seem not to give much of a shit about their existence, except as convenient administrative units.

Edited July 15, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[David Dennison 18652]

3 minutes ago, thrillhammer said:

is the senate the glaring problem?  seems like it's the house to me.  why are we capped where we are capped? seems like a random number and it's relevancy bullshit in this day and age. 

as to the op, one thing we learned at the last election is we need to spread some motherfuckers out. 

 

The Senate is undemocratic. It needs to be reformed or eliminated.

I agree that the 435 limit on House members also needs to be changed.

[David Dennison 18652]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Why don't we just abolish the states entirely?

Also not a bad idea.

[TwiceHorn 31265]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

The Senate is undemocratic. It needs to be reformed or eliminated.

I agree that the 435 limit on House members also needs to be changed.

The Senate was intended to be undemocratic.

[David Dennison 18652]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

The Senate was intended to be undemocratic.

And that's a problem. 

[Incredulity 11559]

Geography having weight in the political process is truly part of the founding farthers genius.  A federal system run soley out of the coasts is a incredibly bad idea.

[TwiceHorn 31265]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

And that's a problem. 

The Supreme Court is undemocratic.

 

We should abolish judicial review.

Edited July 15, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[zork 629]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

The Senate was intended to be undemocratic.

yep, something, something, tyranny of the majority, etc, etc. 

[TwiceHorn 31265]

Actually, we should probably just go ahead and dissolve the union.  It's too damn big.

[David Dennison 18652]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

The Supreme Court is undemocratic.

We should abolish judicial review.

Congress could if it wanted to.

[GSU&UT 1798]

Libertarians getting triggered itt.

It's almost like a country founded almost 250 years ago isn't the same as it is today and it leads to very disproportionate power.

Edited July 15, 2018 by GSU&UT

[Incredulity 11559]

10 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

Libertarians getting triggered itt.

It's almost like a country founded almost 250 years ago isn't the same as it is today and it leads to very disproportionate power.

It’s designed that way.  Fuck.

[David Dennison 18652]

1 minute ago, Incredulity said:

It’s designed that way.  Fuck.

It's a design flaw. It needs to be fixed.

[Incredulity 11559]

Watch what you wish for

[GSU&UT 1798]

1 minute ago, Incredulity said:

It’s designed that way.  Fuck.

It was also designed on slavery and eventually we changed that. We can change the way our representatives are elected as well and I suspect in 20 years you'll see a lot of people calling for just that.

[TwiceHorn 31265]

11 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Congress could if it wanted to.

Actually, no.

[TwiceHorn 31265]

I mean it's not like population and power were concentrated in New York, Massachusetts and South Carolina in 1789 to the detriment of other states.

[DalTxHornFan 3085]

The 17th Amendment was a huge mistake.

[David Dennison 18652]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Actually, no.

So it must be in the Constitution?

[GSU&UT 1798]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

I mean it's not like population and power were concentrated in New York, Massachusetts and South Carolina in 1789 to the detriment of other states.

And Philly and Virginia, it's become way more disproportionate and that trend is continuing. I'm not even suggesting we change the 2 senator law, but perhaps DC and Puerto Rico should be granted statehood.

[Incredulity 11559]

DC being a state.  Good fucking god.  

Want to guess what might happen next?  LA, NYC, SF....  of course all the really densely populated areas “deserve” 2 senators.

[David Dennison 18652]

3 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

DC being a state.  Good fucking god.  

Want to guess what might happen next?  LA, NYC, SF....  of course all the really densely populated areas “deserve” 2 senators.

Taxation without representation.

[formermav43 4599]

19 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

It was also designed on slavery and eventually we changed that. We can change the way our representatives are elected as well and I suspect in 20 years you'll see a lot of people calling for just that.

There needs to be a corollary to Godwin’s law for slavery in American political discussions.

Edited July 15, 2018 by formermav43

[David Dennison 18652]

The sad fact of the matter is, slavery played a major role in the creation of a venerated system of government that has serious structural flaws. Nostalgia is getting in the way of much needed reform.

[GSU&UT 1798]

9 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

There needs to be a corollary to Godwin’s law for slavery in American political discussions.

Look at @David Dennison response. Slavery is unfortunately a major part of this country's past and has lead to an entire population of people in the current environment that have struggled to gain equal footing. I'm sure if you asked a lot of non-white people about who really has representation in congress they're not going to say "everybody equally."

[formermav43 4599]

6 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

Look at @David Dennison response. Slavery is unfortunately a major part of this country's past and has lead to an entire population of people in the current environment that have struggled to gain equal footing. I'm sure if you asked a lot of non-white people about who really has representation in congress they're not going to say "everybody equally."

None of which has any bearing on the Senate.

Which was kind of my point.

[GSU&UT 1798]

Just now, formermav43 said:

None of which has any bearing on the Senate.

Which was kind of my point.

Is the topic of this thread not about proper and proportional representation? Slavery and modern racial dynamics has no part in such a discussion? To me it's silly to discuss our current system while ignoring who benefited when it was created, who benefits now, and how the history of this country may provide insight into why that is.

[formermav43 4599]

8 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

Is the topic of this thread not about proper and proportional representation? Slavery and modern racial dynamics has no part in such a discussion? To me it's silly to discuss our current system while ignoring who benefited when it was created, who benefits now, and how the history of this country may provide insight into why that is.

That’s not the context in which you brought it up-it seemed to be a throwaway comment about how the Senate can change just like slavery.

At any rate, to me it’s silly to discuss proportional representation for a body that is not proportional by design. It’s an exercise in begging the question. 

Edited July 15, 2018 by formermav43

[David Dennison 18652]

2 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

That’s not the context in which you brought it up-it seemed to be a throwaway comment about how the Senate can change just like slavery.

At any rate, to me it’s silly to discuss proportional representation for a body that is not proportional by design. It’s an exercise in begging the question. 

It's not silly if you want to change it. 

[TwiceHorn 31265]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

It's not silly if you want to change it. 

There's not really any point in having a Senate if you are going to have strict popular representation.

 

While I agree that slavery has had a disastrous effect on the country, I disagree that it renders the entire Constitution and the form of government contemplated by it defective.

[TwiceHorn 31265]

55 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

So it must be in the Constitution?

Implied by the structure thereof, according to John Marshall.  No court since has really challenged the notion.

[David Dennison 18652]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

There's not really any point in having a Senate if you are going to have strict popular representation.

While I agree that slavery has had a disastrous effect on the country, I disagree that it renders the entire Constitution and the form of government contemplated by it defective.

There are plenty of other ways to structure an upper house of a nation's legislative body. The states do it. Do you have a problem with popular representation in the upper chamber in Texas?

[David Dennison 18652]

6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Implied by the structure thereof, according to John Marshall.  No court since has really challenged the notion.

That doesn't mean it can't be challenged or taken away by Congress. It's a tradition. It is not a power explicit in the Constitution.

[ScottishHorn 172]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

And that's a problem. 

If we went back to a true republic,  you would have the state/little country you wanted and wouldn't concern yourself with the country as a whole as much.

[RDCanecutter 26249]

Instead of states electing senators, find out which teams people cheer for. Find out which ones wear jerseys to games. Then don't let those people vote.

Whoever's left, let them vote by states or whatever.

[formermav43 4599]

10 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

There are plenty of other ways to structure an upper house of a nation's legislative body. The states do it. Do you have a problem with popular representation in the upper chamber in Texas?

The states do it because they have to. Reynolds v. Sims.

[Orca of Peace 109]

1 hour ago, Incredulity said:

Geography having weight in the political process is truly part of the founding farthers genius.  A federal system run soley out of the coasts is a incredibly bad idea.

isn't the Senate supposed to balance out regional weights then?

[TwiceHorn 31265]

17 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

That doesn't mean it can't be challenged or taken away by Congress. It's a tradition. It is not a power explicit in the Constitution.

Um yeah, the principle of judicial review is that Congress cannot make an unconstitutional law and the Supreme Court is the arbiter.  An attempt by Congress to abrogate judicial review would be unconstitutional and would be declared so by the Supreme Court.

I hope you aren't contending that Congress can overrule anything that isn't explicitly enumerated in the Constitution.

 

[Orca of Peace 109]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

The Senate was intended to be undemocratic.

Senate was meant to supercede public passions, note that a Senator serves 6 damn years which is more than the POTUS. Senate is designed to be ultra conservative. 

[David Dennison 18652]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Um yeah, the principle of judicial review is that Congress cannot make an unconstitutional law and the Supreme Court is the arbiter.  An attempt by Congress to abrogate judicial review would be unconstitutional and would be declared so by the Supreme Court.

I hope you aren't contending that Congress can overrule anything that isn't explicitly enumerated in the Constitution.

 

Not if you have a strict constructionist court, because judicial review is nowhere in the Constitution.

[Orca of Peace 109]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

The Senate is undemocratic. It needs to be reformed or eliminated.

I agree that the 435 limit on House members also needs to be changed.

the 435 House # is ok since is all proportional, based on the 10 year Census.  Meaning, even if you had 1000 Representatives, would not make a bit of difference (aside for possibly redoing districts ie gerrymandering, to give blacks/latinos more votes)

[Guest]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Why don't we just abolish the states entirely?  I'm not saying we should, but an increasing number of people seem not to give much of a shit about their existence, except as convenient administrative units.

Hell abolish the country while you're at it. 

 

It causes so many heartaches  and impediments.

[TwiceHorn 31265]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Not if you have a strict constructionist court, because judicial review is nowhere in the Constitution.

No one is an actual "strict constructionist."  Stupid term like judicial activist.

[David Dennison 18652]

2 minutes ago, slorch said:

Hell abolish the country while you're at it. 

 

It causes so many heartaches  and impediments.

It would be fascinating to see what replaces the United States when it finally winds down.