Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
@Rainehdaze As has been observed by pretty much everyone that doesn't happen to profit from the system. Problem is, though, that the people with the power to change the system happen to have gotten said power from the system.
"Hey, you guys know what would be a great idea? Me not having a job!" said no one ever. This is the sort of thing that take requires a full-blown revolution to be resolved.
edited 14th Jun '17 2:00:15 PM by Kayeka
If it requires a revolution then we're more or less doomed because I'm quite certain the fluffy Liberals are not the people taking charge in such a situation. It would be the authoritarian left or more likely the vastly more common authoritarian right.
edited 14th Jun '17 2:03:05 PM by Fourthspartan56
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang@Capsase- Thanks for the response. Because of the bicameral system, I had never thought of changing the Senate, and I don't think there's any push for that. Getting rid of the Electoral College is a more common/mainstream aim and as you say, would dilute the power of votes. But good to know you aren't making the "Democrats/people on this board want to disenfranchise Republicans" accusation again.
Regarding Bense's accusations, the story about the National Guard being mobilized to hunt undocument immigrants came from a draft memo that was leaked to the AP
. So given that as far as I can tell, the memo wasn't faked, it was (contrary to anything Sean Spicer asserted) something that at least someone was floating in the White House.
Also, RE the Gorsuch thing, while there was no actual club, and it was a thing he and his friends joked about
, I don't exactly think it paints a great picture of the young Gorsuch in his friends. I mean I'm sure he and they would say then and now that they were just reacting against liberals reflexively referring to conservatives as Fascists, but to me it seems more like a prefiguring of the phenomenon of online trolls "pretending" to be Nazis. More importantly, he was reacting against liberals at a super-exclusive Jesuit prep school. Makes me think the guy is/was the to right of Vlad the Impaler if he thought his classmates were on the far left.
edited 14th Jun '17 2:07:56 PM by Hodor2
No one has ever said that. There is nothing rhetorical about the anti-GOP and anti-Trump sentiment in America right now. The reason we keep finding new things to complain about is because they keep doing things worth complaining about.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.It'll also become an interesting discussion if Puerto Rico seriously pursues statehood in the Congress.
I'm... still not seeing the issue with the Senate, considering that at least theoretically, the Senate and the House balance out concerns on both sides. Also.... what? You said something about adding Senators, and didn't actually explain your thought entirely so I have no idea what you're trying to suggest here. Such as adding only eleven seats, with no lead up that I could see there explaining why that number. I even double checked your post to make sure, and sure enough you've left like eighty percent of your idea unexplained there.
![]()
I've suggested before keeping the equal seats in the Senate, and increasing the number of those seats before. That probably has a threshold for bullshit on its own, too, though.
edited 14th Jun '17 2:06:40 PM by AceofSpades
![]()
![]()
Are there evidence-based studies backing that number up? It sounds suspiciously like the "90%" chimera that plagued the national debt discussion back in the oughts.
What political value is gained by granting smaller states disproportionate representation in government that is not lost in stealing that representation from larger states? Or, more specifically, why does a citizen of North Dakota get many times more political power than a citizen of New York?
Edit: I know the historical answer, but I'm asking you to justify your assertion that this is a proper way to do things.
edited 14th Jun '17 2:08:31 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Double post because the subject changed while I was writing mine; Just a reminder that states banding together to say "we won't abide this shit" is one of the reasons King Donald's reign isn't currently worse. The difference between D and R in this case is that our side is using it to defend human rights while theirs wants to use it to take them away and then act hypocritical when a smaller municipality tries to pass laws protecting them. States rights should end where human rights start.
Some rebalancing in the representation is maybe not bad but I don't feel qualified to opine on that.
@fourthspartan Well, it would take a revolution to change stuff right now, but with the way demographics appear to be flowing, eventually the countrysides will be near-completely depopulated with everyone living in the cities instead, thus adopting city-folk interests and voting that way.
It will be a few generations, but I believe that it will be sorted out eventually. Sucks to be alive right now, though, but I'm sure that's how it's been for every generation having to live with outdated policies coasting on inertia.
edited 14th Jun '17 2:08:58 PM by Kayeka
![]()
![]()
Republican states commanding electoral influence disproportionate to their populations is how we got into this Donald Trump mess to begin with. Sure, Democratic states are resisting, but that should never have been necessary in the first place. He lost the popular vote, and not by a small margin.
edited 14th Jun '17 2:09:40 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"The cap on the number of reps came about because congress realized that they'd eventually be in a situation where the House would be comprised of several thousand reps, which is just ludicrous.
However with population growth slowing in the modern era, you could probably uncap the number of represenatives without things getting too crazy, but there's still no going back to anything close to the population:rep ratio we had when the cap was put into place.
Well, it's not based on hard evidence, just a reasonable number for our current political landscape (though one could argue if we're increasing the number of House Reps are landscape has changed dramatically, but I digress) 650 is the number of members in the UK Parliament, IIRC, and that's for a population for about 65 million+. Using the same ratio, would be around 1450+ for Congress.
You'd basically need to rebuild Captiol Hill to fit all the Reps, + Senators, for various offices, aides, and so they can all fit during a Joint-Session or a SOTU address.
And when you rebuild said capitol where do the Senators and Reps meet?
Number is based purely on pragmatism, not really on any hard data, so if anyone has anything contradicting this, I'd be glad to read it.
New Survey coming this weekend!@Aces: My suggestion was that the proportionality of the senate should be limited so that smaller states still have disproportionate influence there, but not nonexistent because the current disparity in senatorial representation is completely out of line with how the system was intended to function.
@Falrinn: Honestly a "better" solution, albeit one that's politically untenable would be to consolidate extremely small states into large administrative regions and simultaneously split up larger states to create units of roughly equal population to avoid the number of representatives having to become unreasonably high.
Then there's what Fighteer suggested below, which is a good idea and somewhat more politically feasible.
edited 14th Jun '17 2:17:09 PM by CaptainCapsase
That doesn't invalidate my point though. The Electoral College may be connected to the balance of power between states and that balance is out of whack but the basic ability of a state government to say "we think this thing the federal government wants is terrible and we don't want to do it" is something we need to have around right now and, if the bug could be worked out, possibly in the future.
@Fox: You could address the problem by increasing the population per House district, improving proportional representation while keeping the number of representatives to a manageable level. It's possible that this will leave the smallest states with zero representatives mathematically, such that they round up to one and gain a bit of extra advantage, but I'm willing to live with that problem.
@Elle: But why? What gives the states magical rights to resist the federal government? Well, I suppose the Constitution does, but what I mean is: what's the point? You could say that the states can organize resistance against a bad President or bad Congress, but realistically that power is strongly limited as long as the states so resisting do not form a majority of all states.
In other words, even if you think that "states' rights" should be a thing, there is every reason to want to apportion power among them more closely in line with their relative populations, because it makes no sense to treat a state as a discrete voting entity.
Edited to add: Our government is deliberately designed to allow an extremely small, but dedicated portion of the population to gum up the workings of power and prevent any meaningful change. The Republicans had the good sense to cultivate exactly such a bloc of voters, because unlike Democrats, they don't care about things like facts or reason and could therefore incubate a nice little cult mentality. That's why they're winning right now.
edited 14th Jun '17 2:21:25 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"There probably is no way way to make things properly proportionate in either chamber unless you're constantly evaluating the state with the lowest population, and determining seats from there. And like Fox said, at some point pragmatic size and workability enters into the equation, which also stops things from being perfectly 1:1 or even close to that.
Edit: I'm trying to avoid the "because there's no perfect solution, don't try to improve things", but as far as the Senate goes it's one of those things I think is okay to leave alone. In a not so polarized/hostile political climate, I doubt it would be such an issue. Even then, it's not really that big an issue now.
edited 14th Jun '17 2:21:17 PM by LSBK
![]()
A degree of local autonomy is necessary given the geographic scope of the United States and substantial regional cultural differences; what we have now is excessively decentralized, but a unitary state wouldn't be a viable option in the long term.
This isn't a binary dichotomy between disproportional and proportional representation; there's a whole range of possibilities between the two, and I'm arguing we need to move further towards the proportional side of that scale. We won't be able to devise a perfectly proportional system, just one that isn't as hideously disproportional as the one we have now.
edited 14th Jun '17 2:21:32 PM by CaptainCapsase
I never said we need to remove local autonomy. However, it should be a function of administration, not representation. And yes, we can improve things incrementally without completely tearing down the system.
It would be interesting if we removed the idea of statehood and had the nation instead divided into governmental districts of roughly equal population. The real issue would be adapting those districts ongoingly to migration and differences in population growth rates.
edited 14th Jun '17 2:24:45 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Well at least I don't see anyone saying "no, we totally need to ramp up the rhetoric against the Republicans."
I'll retreat back to the non-political threads again, then.