Jump to content

Stunning Demographic Stats Re: the future of elections

Horn Under a Bad Sign

By Horn Under a Bad Sign
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Horn Under a Bad Sign

Horn Under a Bad Sign 20834

Posted
Posted (edited)

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. 



LZXZGQR4MY4ULG4PMIHM22NKJY.jpg






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 by Horn Under a Bad Sign
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
thrillhammer

thrillhammer 686

Posted
Posted

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. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Incredulity

Incredulity 11859

Posted
Posted

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.

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GSU&UT

GSU&UT 1799

Posted
Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31982

Posted
Posted (edited)

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 by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 19439

Posted
Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GSU&UT

GSU&UT 1799

Posted
Posted (edited)

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 by GSU&UT
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GSU&UT

GSU&UT 1799

Posted
Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GSU&UT

GSU&UT 1799

Posted
Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
formermav43

formermav43 4607

Posted
Posted (edited)
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 by formermav43
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GSU&UT

GSU&UT 1799

Posted
Posted
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."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
formermav43

formermav43 4607

Posted
Posted
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.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GSU&UT

GSU&UT 1799

Posted
Posted
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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
formermav43

formermav43 4607

Posted
Posted (edited)
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 by formermav43
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 19439

Posted
Posted
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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31982

Posted
Posted
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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 19439

Posted
Posted
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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 19439

Posted
Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
formermav43

formermav43 4607

Posted
Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31982

Posted
Posted
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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 19439

Posted
Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Orca of Peace

Orca of Peace 109

Posted
Posted
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)

  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...