1050
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 23 points 2 months ago

We could also just make it irrelevant by expanding Congress radically. Adding back all the seats we missed when we froze the numbers in the 1940s. Even better, we were slipping on the ratio of representatives to people even back then so we could go back to the original ratio or something in between. That would be a max of around 10,000 representatives, but you would be far more familiar with your representative and they could do elections without the support of the economic elite or being rich.

That doesn't require an amendment and it functionally obliterates this tyranny of the minority.

[-] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 2 months ago

We could also just make it irrelevant by expanding Congress radically. Adding back all the seats we missed when we froze the numbers in the 1940s.

or we could just do a CGPgrey and rework the math because we have computers now.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago
[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago
[-] Souroak@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 2 months ago

Insane, but modern technology makes it much more feasible today than ever before.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

Proper representation shouldn't be so unthinkable. And we could achieve the idea of better representation with one or two thousand. We don't need to go to ten thousand yet.

[-] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

This doesn't make the electoral college irrelevant, it just rebalances the votes per state so they're closer to proportional. California Republicans and Texas Democrats are still disenfranchised even if their states get a lot more votes.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Yeah but that last hurdle takes a lot more to get over and in the meantime we've done something we should have anyways.

[-] constantturtleaction@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

Doesn't change the number of senators, sadly.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

That was always the point of the system though. And if we need to 86 the Senate then having them constantly blocking the house provides that momentum. It would be a huge fight.

[-] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 months ago

yeah no, that should be the same, unless you wanted the senate to hold a proportional amount of seating to the house for some reason.

The senate and house are two independent bodies, they work together, and at odds simultaneously, the point is that the senate is different.

this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2024
1050 points (98.9% liked)

politics

19223 readers
2984 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS