RandyForRubio
Well-Known Member
Somebody tell that bitch Thriller to come and answer for himself.
Election Prediction Thread
- Thread starter Gameface
- Start date
Who were you before this?
Zombie
Well-Known Member
You know nothing he actually wrote in that post is wrong, right?
Taken as a whole the majority in the senate represents something like 20% of the population.
just the tip
He may not be wrong but it’s an irrelevant point. It’s by design. What’s the majority of the House cover population wise?
One Brow
Well-Known Member
It's the same picture as JustTheTip, and same job.
Zombie
Well-Known Member
It's not irrelevant when discussing the political divide in this country, which is what Thriller was talking about. Obviously the Senate isn't representational, but I would argue that's a big part of why it is so dysfunctional.
Only because we let the Rs and Ds monoplize it. I have zero problems with that 1 section of government giving equal vote to the states regardless of body count.
Zombie
Well-Known Member
Well, I don't know that I'd agree that's the only reason. The reason why you might consider the government giving two votes per state regardless of body count is that you can end up in a situation where a party only has to consider the wishes of a fraction of the country when enacting policy. So, in the current situation Mitch McConnell can ignore that the majority of people in this country support things like stricter gun control policies, expanded Medicare, action on Climate Change, easier ballot access etc.
This was less of a problem when filibusters were a thing, because then you would have to court those senators in the middle. Now the GOP can ignore them entirely.
I’d find more value on this of the House wasn’t much more representative of population. Again by design. It’s so California doesn’t steamroll Utah in all areas. Or Texas steamrolling Vermont. That has value. Any tie of senate to national population is just a dumb argument me. The way it was all set up is excellent imo. Only down side is we turned this fantastic design over to the Rs and Ds.
But ok. Let’s say you’re right. How do you fix it?
Zombie
Well-Known Member
There are a couple of things that would help. Giving statehood to DC and PR would help, as would bringing back the filibuster. You brougt up the House which could use a lot of improvement as far as being representational, we should increase the amount of seats to reflect the increased population disparity between states.
They already do represent the population disparity. CA has 53 and ID has 2. Or do you propose something along the line of 1 seat for every 500k in a state with no limit on the total number nationally? That seems short sighted. How reasonable will that be when the House jumps to 660 seats right now. How will that work in 2020 or 2030? Way to many details to really for an opinion on something so vague. I do think there can be work done to better contain house seats into more cohesive geographical areas to start unwinding the mess of gerrymandering.
I’m all for DC and Puerto Rico being states. But Puerto Rico doesn’t want it.
Also the weakening of the filibuster is again laid at the feet of the political party. Not the organizational rules of the senate. Chip by chip they killed the filibuster. Nuclear option anyone?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option
Zombie
Well-Known Member
The house is representational to the state's populations as of a century ago, I'm not saying it needs to change every election cycle, but it does need to be updated. It doesn't make sense to have both chambers of congress set up to favor states with small populations. It's not like 435 is set in stone or anything.
One Brow
Well-Known Member
I agree here.
One Brow
Well-Known Member
Filibusters are still a thing. You can't pass major changes without 60 votes in the Senate, which is why, among other things, there has been no extension of the southern border wall and the ACA is still the law of the land.
One Brow
Well-Known Member
It changes with the census, every 10 years.
RandyForRubio
Well-Known Member
I detailed it earlier, but even those numbers he used are misrepresentative because the California race was between two democrats so all of the votes in one of the most populous states went to Democrats. I mean...they absolutely should have more total votes in that case. And at the time of that tweet, the Democrats were winning 23/35 senate races.
It was overall a stupid, and irrelevant point to make.
The House make up is altered every census. Last time it changed was in 2010. 8 states gained seats and 10 lost them. The only limitation is it’s capped at 435. So it seems, unless I’m misunderstanding, that you just want to raise the 435 cap. While I’m no opposed to it I don’t see a real reason as it’s already proportional and the mechanism for altering it already exists and is used every census.
Also nice choice of words to end with. “Set in stone”. Because coincidentally it is capped as the result of The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929.
https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1901-1950/The-Permanent-Apportionment-Act-of-1929/
Zombie
Well-Known Member
You are correct, I should have been more specific, the filibuster has been killed with regard to presidential appointees.
Last edited: