Trade one unfixable problem for another unfixable solution?!?!
Yeah, no.
Yeah, no.
National Divorce will mean a civil war and a lot of blood shed, create more chaos an instability than we have now, which will not fix the problem. In the end, it will be thousands, if not millions of lives lost for no real gain other than just to delay the truth. A national divorce is not the solution, it's just a temproary bandaid on the real issue. The only way to fix the problem, is for the people to stop putting dishonest, corrupt, greeding assholes into office. There will always be a governing body, so we have a choice, keep putting the same dishonest, corrupt people in possitions of power, or we can stop that cycle and start putting the right people in those positions that govern for the people and not themselves, and hold them all accountable. Of course that can't happen until we get ride of the power of money in our government, take the power away from the rich and big business (return it to the people), and remove classim in this country.America is unfixable due to the archaic constitution and how it divies up how many representatives there are, gerrymandering, how tilted to low population red states the senate is, and the messed up way the supreme court works.
I fail to see any scenario happening in time where these things can be changed, therefore, it is time for a national divorce. It is impossible to right the American government because it is too fundamentally flawed in favor of the GQP, regressives, and there is no real way to change it that's actually possible.
National. Divorce.
America is unfixable due to the archaic constitution and how it divies up how many representatives there are, gerrymandering, how tilted to low population red states the senate is, and the messed up way the supreme court works.
I fail to see any scenario happening in time where these things can be changed, therefore, it is time for a national divorce. It is impossible to right the American government because it is too fundamentally flawed in favor of the GQP, regressives, and there is no real way to change it that's actually possible.
National. Divorce.
America is unfixable due to the archaic constitution and how it divies up how many representatives there are, gerrymandering, how tilted to low population red states the senate is, and the messed up way the supreme court works.
I fail to see any scenario happening in time where these things can be changed, therefore, it is time for a national divorce. It is impossible to right the American government because it is too fundamentally flawed in favor of the GQP, regressives, and there is no real way to change it that's actually possible.
National. Divorce.
I’ve created a thread on this before and the fix is very doable…provided the democrats gain control of the three branches because republicans will block everything.
1) remove the filibuster (easy to do with a simple vote)
2) revise/remove the artificial cap Congress put on the number of representatives (I say at least double the number). More reps = better representation and the extremes/fringes go away.
3) campaign finance reform and passing a law that states corporations/businesses are not people (basically overturning citizens united).
Doing just those three would put us back on path to a working democracy and a functional government.
There should have never been a cap put on the number of house representives. That cap was put in place in 1911. Such a cap dilutes our representation in congress as population increases. One representative currently represents 760,000 citizens per house member, instead of the 34,400 in 1793. (over 200,000 in 1911)LOL you'd get double the gerrymandering then with the more representatives.
I think this is an effect of first past the post, where a 55% popular vote results in more than 55% of seats, even without significant gerrymandering.Yeah, I get that now - was slightly surprised at how bad the bias _against_ the Republicans was in previous decades. Now it's reversed, of course. Hard to imagine how such skewed system operating for such a long time could not have had long-term political effects, but the fact that it's flipped in terms of party affiliation/label I guess means the effects would be complicated (the one consistent aspect being a bias against black people).
Does "House seats" mean solely Congress, or is the Senate lumped in with those figures? Has the skew in the electoral college followed the same pattern?
[edit] And why is 2008 such an outlier? Like a brief return to the old pattern. Is it that it just takes one state to flip and the bias reverses?
Doubling house members massively weakens the default gerrymander of the EC. It would also be harder to create crazy districts when they are significantly smaller.LOL you'd get double the gerrymandering then with the more representatives.
Just look at WI.
Dem statewide but GOP wherever it's subdivided.
But there is a way proportional representation could work.. vote statewide what you want to represent you and then send that % of that party to congress.
Pretty much what I came here to sayDoubling house members massively weakens the default gerrymander of the EC. It would also be harder to create crazy districts when they are significantly smaller.
There should have never been a cap put on the number of house representives. That cap was put in place in 1911. Such a cap dilutes our representation in congress as population increases. One representative currently represents 760,000 citizens per house member, instead of the 34,400 in 1793. (over 200,000 in 1911)
United States congressional apportionment - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
It is my understanding that due to how it came to pass, ect, it would take a Constitutional Amendment to reverse #3.I’ve created a thread on this before and the fix is very doable…provided the democrats gain control of the three branches because republicans will block everything.
1) remove the filibuster (easy to do with a simple vote)
2) revise/remove the artificial cap Congress put on the number of representatives (I say at least double the number). More reps = better representation and the extremes/fringes go away.
3) campaign finance reform and passing a law that states corporations/businesses are not people (basically overturning citizens united).
Doing just those three would put us back on path to a working democracy and a functional government.
It is my understanding that due to how it came to pass, ect, it would take a Constitutional Amendment to reverse #3.
Correct me if I'm wrong please.
Me saying Republicans are chaotic and damaging, and that Democrats cannot win, wasn't some damn backhanded endorsement for Republicans.That’s demonstrably false. Under Nancy’s leadership we have had very positive and meaningful change including health care reform and infrastructure.
Complaining that that wasn’t good enough or didn’t go far enough is not only is antithetical to the founding fathers design of our government but it makes perfection the enemy of the good and only ensures that “nothing meaningful” will ever get done.
Me saying Republicans are chaotic and damaging, and that Democrats cannot win, wasn't some damn backhanded endorsement for Republicans.
This country isn't facing good outcomes for its problems. Because winning an election and even a majority, isn't winning the power needed to do what people wanted done.
That's dangerous, as it instills a belief that voting is useless and that the use of force is required to accomplish something.
Half measures like the ACA is how you get left holding the bag while people still don't have the means to pay for anything. It is how you get a President Trump.
Celebrate them at our great peril.
No celebrating needed but rather just accepting the fact that change will be slow and the quest for better outcomes odd never ending. It’s how the founding fathers set up this country. Poo poo incremental progress at your own peril.
I think people are too busy arguing amongst themselves to notice the news.
“If you look at where our conference is there’s still work to be done. Our conference still has to come together and is not there,” he said. “There are still some people that have their own agendas and I was very clear we have to have everybody put their agendas on the side and focus on what this country needs. This country is counting on us to come back together. This House of Representatives needs a speaker and we need to open up the House again, but clearly not everybody is there and there’s still schisms that have to get resolved.”
wasnt LBJ the person who started welfare to ensure blacks will vote Democratic for life?“If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.” - Lyndon B. Johnson
I recall from 2010 or CU creation through probably half of 2015 that a CA would be needed to reverse Citizens United. Citing Thom Harttman show during those years on Sirius/XM radio.I don’t know but option 3B would be for the Dems to pack the court and, after passing the law, we bring a case to the new non corrupt Supreme Court to overturn the original decision.
hahahahahahahah
#3 would not require a constitutional amendment. It was widely accepted until recently where SCOTUS decided otherwise. It just requires a return of SCOTUS to accepted constitutional norms.It is my understanding that due to how it came to pass, ect, it would take a Constitutional Amendment to reverse #3.
Correct me if I'm wrong please.
Too bad its not Al Scalise 59 years ago 🤣