Reforms to our democracy that you'd like to see

[bolverk 29729]

I'll get this started with a great editorial arguing one of the issues I've long supported on this site and the older one: increase the number of representatives. 

America Needs a Bigger House

We’re nearly two decades into the 21st century, so why is America still operating with a House of Representatives built for the start of the 20th?

The House’s current size — 435 representatives — was set in 1911, when there were fewer than one-third as many people living in the United States as there are now. At the time, each member of Congress represented an average of about 200,000 people. In 2018, that number is almost 750,000.

This would shock the Constitution’s framers, who set a baseline of 30,000 constituents per representative and intended for the House to grow along with the population. The possibility that it might not — that Congress would fail to add new seats and that district populations would expand out of control — led James Madison to propose what would have been the original First Amendment: a formula explicitly tying the size of the House to the total number of Americans.

The amendment failed, but Congress still expanded the House throughout the first half of the nation’s existence. The House of Representatives had 65 members when it was first seated in 1789, and it grew in every decade but one until 1920, when it became frozen in time.

(Not all the elements in the above graph are showing. Each of the tick marks on the axis shows 50 years, starting in 1800).

There’s a solution, which involves adding 158 new seats to the House of Representatives, making it proportionally similar to most modern democracies. To understand the implications of a larger House, we enlisted software developer Kevin Baas and his Auto-Redistrict program to draw 593 new congressional districts for the entire country. (Read on for an explanation of how we chose that number.) Then we used historical partisan scores to determine which party would win each district.

While our expanded House map hasn’t been subjected to the same testing as a real redistricting plan, it offers a sense of how a bigger House might affect the nation’s politics. One main takeaway: it would create a more competitive landscape, with 25 percent of seats qualifying as toss-ups, compared to just 10 percent today. Many states that elect only Republicans today would elect a Democrat or at least become more competitive, and vice versa.

The bottom line is that the House today is far too small, and that poses a big danger to American democracy.

For starters, how does a single lawmaker stay in touch with the concerns of three-quarters of a million people? The answer is she doesn’t. Research shows that representatives of larger districts are more likely to take political positions at odds with what a majority of their constituents want. These representatives are also ripe targets for lobbyists and special interests, whose money enables them to campaign at scale, often with misleading messages. Special interests are more likely than regular voters to influence policy positions and votes.

Second, the cap on the number of House members leads to districts with wildly varying populations. Montana and Wyoming each have one representative, but Montana’s population — 1.05 million — is nearly twice the size of Wyoming’s. Meanwhile, Rhode Island, which has roughly the same population as Montana, gets two seats. These discrepancies violate the basic constitutional principle of one-person-one-vote, causing voters to be unequally represented in the chamber that was designed to offset the Senate, where every state gets two seats regardless of population.

Third, the size of the House determines the shape of the Electoral College, because a state’s electoral votes are equal to its congressional delegation. This is one of the many reasons the college is an unfair and antiquated mechanism: States that are already underrepresented in Congress have a weaker voice in choosing the president, again violating the principle that each citizen should have an equal vote.

There’s no constitutional basis for a membership of 435; it’s arbitrary, and it could be undone by Congress tomorrow. Congress set it in 1911, but following the 1920 census — which counted nearly 14 million more people living in the United States — lawmakers refused to add seats out of concern that the House was getting too big to function effectively. Rural members were also trying to forestall the shift in national power to the cities (sound familiar?), where populations were exploding with emigrants from farm country and immigrants from abroad.

In 1929, Congress passed a law capping the size of the House and shifting responsibility for future reapportionments onto the Commerce Department. That’s why, more than a century later, we find ourselves with a national legislature far too small to fairly represent both the size and diversity of modern America. This warps our politics, it violates basic constitutional principles of political equality, and it’s only getting worse.

There’s a simple fix: Make the House bigger. Many Americans will groan at the thought of expanding a government they already consider too big and unwieldy. Polls consistently show that the public would rather throw the bums out than hire more of them.

That response is understandable; The Times itself editorialized against a House expansion in 1920, arguing that the chamber was “top-heavy” and “the legislative machinery ... cumbrous.” The problem is that there’s virtually no evidence that a larger House would be less effective at governing. It is true that individual representatives would find their influence diluted by the addition of more members, but that’s not an argument against expansion. Nor would growing the House cost too much. Salaries for lawmakers and their staffs would total less than one million dollars per representative — which means a couple hundred representatives could be added for the price of, say, five F-14 fighter jets.

Most important, expanding the House would mean not just a government with more representatives, but one that is literally more representative — including more people from perennially underrepresented groups, like women and minorities, and making for a fuller and richer legislative debate.

What is the optimal number of House seats? There isn’t a simple answer. In the Federalist No. 55, James Madison wrote, “no political problem is less susceptible of a precise solution.”

By the founders’ own standards, the House could now hold nearly 11,000 members. That’s obviously too many to function. What about returning to the average district size of 1911? That would require more than 1,600 members — still probably too big.

There’s a better solution, which involves bringing America into line with other mature democracies, where national legislatures naturally conform to a clear pattern: Their size is roughly the cube root of the country’s population. Denmark, for instance, has a population of 5.77 million. The cube root of that is 179, which happens to be the size of the Folketing, Denmark’s parliament.

This isn’t some crazy Scandinavian notion. In fact, the House of Representatives adhered fairly well to the so-called cube-root law throughout American history — until 1911. Applying that law to America’s estimated population in 2020 would expand the House to 593 members, after subtracting the 100 members of the Senate.

That would mean adding 158 members. To some, this might sound like 158 too many. But it’s an essential first step in making the “People’s House” — and American government broadly — more reflective of American society today.

[David Dennison 18951]

Get rid of the electoral college.

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19151]

Get rid of the electoral college.

Not until (i) straight ticket voting is no longer allowed, (ii) voting is mandatory because voter turnout is abysmal, and (iii) you get rid of low information voters.

It's a complete joke how little people actually know about economics and the US Government. It is completely fucking embarrassing.

[staboner 4988]

pretty much everything

[Nice Guy Eddie 13528]

Don’t miss the second part of the story:  multi member districts https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/10/opinion/house-representatives-size-multi-member.html

this would could create fewer districts in each state but allow for multiple reps for these districts.  This allows the minority party to get representation.  Such as more dems for Texas and more republicans in Massachusetts. 

[atomheartbevo 89828]

Get corporate/lobbyist money out of politics.  

A company should not be able to donate to candidates who can then pass legislation that financially benefits those companies. It’s fucking ridiculous that they can openly bribe legislators. 

[NowThis 931]

the bigger problem is the Senate. Not every democracy has 2 legislative bodies, we inherited the idea from Britain with the Lords and Commons. Time to destroy that. 

[RDCanecutter 26476]

Treaty of Tordesillas was never revoked. As far as I'm concerned, we have spent a few hundred years larping until such time as Su Majestad The King of Spain sees fit to reassert his authority.

[bolverk 29729]

12 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

Not until (i) straight ticket voting is no longer allowed, (ii) voting is mandatory because voter turnout is abysmal, and (iii) you get rid of low information voters.

It's a complete joke how little people actually know about economics and the US Government. It is completely fucking embarrassing.

One shouldn't joke about little people.

Okay, I'll show myself out now.

[Celery Man 21003]

Figure out some sort of nonpartisan algorithm for districting to get rid of political gerrymandering.  Get rid of the electoral college.  Maybe take a look at the lifetime appointment of supreme court justices.

People complain about the senate since it is not representative -  I understand that it is not supposed to be representative, and should protect against the tyranny of the majority.  But the problem now is tyranny of the minority and I feel like 1 of 3 from the house, the senate, and the white house should be plenty of check for the aggies.

[Continental Op 3934]

16 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

Not until (i) straight ticket voting is no longer allowed, (ii) voting is mandatory because voter turnout is abysmal, and (iii) you get rid of low information voters.

It's a complete joke how little people actually know about economics and the US Government. It is completely fucking embarrassing.

If you make voting mandatory then we're going to have even more low information voters.  Do you think there's a few million Milton Friedmans sitting on the sidelines somewhere who need to be forced to vote?  

[NowThis 931]

Just now, Continental Op said:

If you make voting mandatory then we're going to have even more low information voters.  Do you think there's a few million Milton Friedmans sitting on the sidelines somewhere who need to be forced to vote?  

true, also forcing people to vote is probably unconstitutional. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

Set House district size to 300,000 people.  Readjust every 10 years to increase number of Reps.  Make Representative a remote position.  Only House members who are on committees that require top secret discussion should even have an office in DC.

Eliminate the electoral college.  President should be 1 person, 1 vote.  Everyone's vote equal.  Its the only truly national election we have.

Senate is fine as is.  Add DC to MD for federal elections, make PR a state that includes US Caribbean territories, add Pacific territories to Hawaii.  No more territories at all.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13528]

screenprint of how multi-member districts could work with expanding the size of the House, as per the NYT.  In this example, Texas's GOP loses some of their dominance but the MA Dems lose some of theirs.  The best part is that we get more mixed representation which may lead to more moderation.   

[David Dennison 18951]

24 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

Not until (i) straight ticket voting is no longer allowed, (ii) voting is mandatory because voter turnout is abysmal, and (iii) you get rid of low information voters.

It's a complete joke how little people actually know about economics and the US Government. It is completely fucking embarrassing.

I'm fine with eliminating straight ticket voting, but forcing people to sounds vaguely fascist.

The electoral college is an anti-democratic relic of our Constitution. It needs to go.

[Fudge Nuggets 19227]

Maximum voting age.  If you are going to be above the average life expectancy by the time the term for the office up for vote ends, you’re sitting this one out.  No more olds fucking up everything because they won’t have to be around to clean up the mess.

Edited November 11, 2018 by Fudge Nuggets

[BrazilHorn 6635]

Mandatory military or civil service. Raise voting age to accommodate. 

[hobbes2702 13078]

6 minutes ago, BrazilHorn said:

Mandatory military or civil service. Raise voting age to accommodate. 

Yea no.

[bolverk 29729]

I could probably get on board with the first sentence. The second one is nonsensical. To accommodate what?

[gmr548 16617]

Corporate and PAC money need to go - get rid of Citizen's United.

I also agree with expanding the house.

Independent or automated redistricting.

Paper ballots.

Puerto Rico and all other outlying territories are granted statehood and given federal representation accordingly. Fine to combine them or lump them in with others - like adding Guam to Hawaii - but they need to have representation.

The Senate and electoral college are fine as is but I'd probably scrap the EC if the rest of the above was accomplished.





Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[Nice Guy Eddie 13528]

i don’t think a free society should force its citizens to serve in the military or civil service unless their is a national emergency.  

[Blotto 23584]

1 hour ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

Not until (i) straight ticket voting is no longer allowed, (ii) voting is mandatory because voter turnout is abysmal, and (iii) you get rid of low information voters.

It's a complete joke how little people actually know about economics and the US Government. It is completely fucking embarrassing.

WTF? You can have (ii) or (iii) but not both.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

37 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I'm fine with eliminating straight ticket voting, but forcing people to sounds vaguely fascist.

The electoral college is an anti-democratic relic of our Constitution. It needs to go.

The electoral college preserves a republic. In a straight up democracy the minorities rights stand a much better chance of being trampled. 

[David Dennison 18951]

Just now, Onboard 2.0 said:

The electoral college preserves a republic. In a straight up democracy the minorities rights stand a much better chance of being trampled. 

Bullshit.

[bad_teammate 13225]

- Constitutional amendment to keep the house at a 1:50k ratio minimum (obviously this would require structural changes in how reps are seated/officed/etc...).

- Instant runoff/ranked choice ballots at the federal level

- On-site/instant voter registration

- Compulsory voting w/ national holiday

[CooterBrown 18032]

1. Total maximum annual political donations per person of $1,000. Not per candidate or level of candidate. Total. You figure out how to split that up each year.  PACs  and corporations are not people and are not allowed to fund raise or donate.

2. No campaigning until 12 weeks before the election.  

3. Political ads can't mention their opponents or opposing parties. They can only hype up themselves. No more boogeyman ads.

4. Any crime by an elected official while in office carries the automatic maximum sentence and forfeiture of all income and cost of benefits from that position.

 

[yoladu 4108]

1 hour ago, Celery Man said:

Figure out some sort of nonpartisan algorithm for districting to get rid of political gerrymandering.  Get rid of the electoral college.  Maybe take a look at the lifetime appointment of supreme court justices.

People complain about the senate since it is not representative -  I understand that it is not supposed to be representative, and should protect against the tyranny of the majority.  But the problem now is tyranny of the minority and I feel like 1 of 3 from the house, the senate, and the white house should be plenty of check for the aggies.

this.  cant think of anything more undemocratic than what is currently happening. makes my blood boil.

 

[77horn 216]

• Campaign finance - No entity can spend money supporting any candidate or election issue unless that person can vote in that election.  (Eliminates pacs, corps, unions, congressional coordinating committees, DNC/RNC, big $ national donors, Californians donating to Texas candidates). To accommodate the 1st amendment, you can spend discussing issues (abortion/gun control is bad/good), but no candidate recommendations.
• Political parties are bad - Congressmen/Senators are more beholden to their leadership than their electorate. To weaken the party power:
  • No state supported primaries
  • Only candidate's name on ballot, no party reference. Obviously no straight ticket voting
  • End direct election of Senators. Have them chosen by elected state officials (As opposed to original legislature only language, I'm thinking Governor nominates, Leg approves.)
  • Congressmen elected as current. As to the # of congressmen, I am amenable to increasing.  And let them attend sessions and vote via webinar or some such thing.
• Electoral college - I am generally ok with it, as long as there are no "winner take all" states.  For those who proclaim it is anti-democratic, well I don't really trust the electorate.  (The electorate gave us Trump and Hillary)

[NowThis 931]

30 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

i don’t think a free society should force its citizens to serve in the military or civil service unless their is a national emergency.  

which is never because emergencies are very localized and minor.

[maninblack 7974]

I'd like to see this shit stopped. Both the creation of wounded soldiers for needless wars and the experiments on animals done in their name

 

[TexArcher 38076]

1. Replace the Electoral College with straight majority.

2. Term limits for Congressmen.

3. Some sort of oversight of redistricting.  Judicial, maybe.  I don't know how you do it, but gerrymandering has to be done away with.

4. Caps on political contributions for individuals and corporations.

5. A voter registration exam prior to each election to test for basic understanding of how government works and each candidate's platform.  I don't care if it would lower voter turnout to 5% if those 5% actually understand how things work, what's at stake, and who they're voting for.  That's better than being a mostly stupid mob corraled into one of two pens by a handful of oligarch families and corporations.

6. 10% or 20% of all political donations are redirected to non-partisan voter education, to faciliate 5 above.

 

Edited November 11, 2018 by TexArcher

[David Dennison 18951]

1 minute ago, TexArcher said:

1. Replace the Electoral College with straight majority.

2. Term limits for Congressmen.

3. Some sort of oversight of redistricting.  Judicial, maybe.  I don't know how you do it, but gerrymandering has to be done away with.

4. Caps on political contributions for individuals and corporations.

5. A voter registration exam prior to each election to test for basic understanding of how government works and each candidate's platform.  I don't care if it would lower voter turnout to 5% if those 5% actually understand how things work, what's at stake, and who they're voting for.  That's better than being a mostly stupid mob corraled into one of two pens by a handful of oligarch families and corporations.

Number five is completely unworkable given the number of candidates. Also, it would cost a fortune.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

47 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

The electoral college preserves a republic. In a straight up democracy the minorities rights stand a much better chance of being trampled. 

Thats what the Senate is for.  The Senate is supposed to allow the minority party to check Presidential power.  Instead, the electoral college results in tyranny of the minority with a minority President and a rubber stamp minority Senate. 

The EC will ultimately result in outright revolution if it isn't reformed.  If an EC loser wins the popular vote by around 10 million, you'll see CA up and leave, and the Northeast and Northwest follow suit. Even 2020 could result in a breakup. Trump will likely lose by arounf 7 to 8 million votes, but we are entirely dependent on what the Midwest does. 

Edited November 11, 2018 by FondrenRoad

[Celery Man 21003]

the only minority the GOP gives a shit about

[Helobious 9467]

27 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

1. Replace the Electoral College with straight majority.

2. Term limits for Congressmen.

3. Some sort of oversight of redistricting.  Judicial, maybe.  I don't know how you do it, but gerrymandering has to be done away with.

4. Caps on political contributions for individuals and corporations.

5. A voter registration exam prior to each election to test for basic understanding of how government works and each candidate's platform.  I don't care if it would lower voter turnout to 5% if those 5% actually understand how things work, what's at stake, and who they're voting for.  That's better than being a mostly stupid mob corraled into one of two pens by a handful of oligarch families and corporations.

6. 10% or 20% of all political donations are redirected to non-partisan voter education, to faciliate 5 above.

 

Lulz at 5. I can’t tell you the number of tests I did well on in college that I would’ve failed if I took them again one week later. Cram the info I need and vacate it when it’s done, rinse and repeat for the next test needed. Minimal “understanding” involved. Also there are a lot of smart people that just don’t test well.

[BrazilHorn 6635]

1 hour ago, bolverk said:

I could probably get on board with the first sentence. The second one is nonsensical. To accommodate what?

Time spent in military/civil service. 4 year stint from 18. Finish @ 22 say and then you're able to vote.

Something along those lines.

 

[David Dennison 18951]

22 minutes ago, BrazilHorn said:

Time spent in military/civil service. 4 year stint from 18. Finish @ 22 say and then you're able to vote.

Something along those lines.

 

That sounds prohibitively expensive.

[Mack Tripper 696]

What are all these conscripted 18 year olds going to do in the military? If we’re already perpetually at war with a volunteer military, imagine what will happen if we give the military-industrial complex that many bodies. Also, space force!

[Celery Man 21003]

why would we put people on the military without giving them any representation?

[Grade of D as in David 13253]

3 hours ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

Not until (i) straight ticket voting is no longer allowed, (ii) voting is mandatory because voter turnout is abysmal, and (iii) you get rid of low information voters.

It's a complete joke how little people actually know about economics and the US Government. It is completely fucking embarrassing.

If you have mandatory voting I think low information voters as a percentage will rise.

[hobbes2702 13078]

51 minutes ago, BrazilHorn said:

Time spent in military/civil service. 4 year stint from 18. Finish @ 22 say and then you're able to vote.

Something along those lines.

 

So make them serve but take away their right to vote for the people that will send them to war? Wtf?

[hobbes2702 13078]

32 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

That sounds prohibitively expensive.

And fascist

[NowThis 931]

25 minutes ago, Mack Tripper said:

What are all these conscripted 18 year olds going to do in the military? If we’re already perpetually at war with a volunteer military, imagine what will happen if we give the military-industrial complex that many bodies. Also, space force!

the fucking military needs to be chopped down by 1/2 to save $300bil annually. There's no need to mass murder people anymore and if the need arises, well it won't, the flying death robots take care of everything and no need for a prolonged land occupation.  This is easily the key to everything that ails us but no politician has the guts, they are all militry lobby vaginas. 

[BrazilHorn 6635]

26 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

So make them serve but take away their right to vote for the people that will send them to war? Wtf?

Fair point. I’m looking for way to get people to serve country for period of time. Could be civil service, military, public works etc

clearly I don’t have details worked out. 

I think having people invest time in some type of service to their country is a net positive 

[Mole 4333]

2 hours ago, TexArcher said:

5. A voter registration exam prior to each election to test for basic understanding of how government works and each candidate's platform.  I don't care if it would lower voter turnout to 5% if those 5% actually understand how things work, what's at stake, and who they're voting for.  That's better than being a mostly stupid mob corraled into one of two pens by a handful of oligarch families and corporations.

1

We could call it The Voter Literacy Test.

I'm for a nonpartisan method of redistricting and nonpartisan oversight on voter suppression/fraud. It wouldn't be hard to make sure every eligible voter can vote and non-eligible people can't. If the goal was actually ensuring the right to vote rather than making sure only my side gets to vote, we'd have this worked out by next election. The right to vote is the foundation of everything. What's happened in Georgia should be illegal.

 

 

[hobbes2702 13078]

I agree but this is the United States. We shouldn’t even consider holding someone’s vote hostage

Edit: @BrazilHorn

Edited November 11, 2018 by hobbes2702

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

2 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

Thats what the Senate is for.  The Senate is supposed to allow the minority party to check Presidential power.  Instead, the electoral college results in tyranny of the minority with a minority President and a rubber stamp minority Senate. 

The EC will ultimately result in outright revolution if it isn't reformed.  If an EC loser wins the popular vote by around 10 million, you'll see CA up and leave, and the Northeast and Northwest follow suit. Even 2020 could result in a breakup. Trump will likely lose by arounf 7 to 8 million votes, but we are entirely dependent on what the Midwest does. 

 No state is leaving  the Union (general Grant and Mr. Lincoln out front should have told ya). The electoral college protects the country from being driven by large population 2-4 cities. 

[David Dennison 18951]

2 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

 No state is leaving  the Union (general Grant and Mr. Lincoln out front should have told ya). The electoral college protects the country from being driven by large population 2-4 cities. 

No, it doesn't.

[BrazilHorn 6635]

18 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

I agree but this is the United States. We shouldn’t even consider holding someone’s vote hostage

Edit: @BrazilHorn

I get it. I’d also like to see a flat tax on people and corporations with no deductions. 

And mandate a balanced budget. 

 

[RPM 26360]

Get the money out of politics. Make every candidate release their taxes for the previous 10 years. Term limits.