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?
Election Prediction Thread
- Thread starter Gameface
- Start date
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?
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.
I agree here.
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.