5 ms·

The size of Congress isn't the main problem with funding infrastructure, the Senate is. Your Senators aren't directly accountable to the people in your state m

The size of Congress isn't the main problem with funding infrastructure, the Senate is. Your Senators aren't directly accountable to the people in your state making the budget. I get people stopped trusting their state legislator in picking their Senator, but that has caused a lot of conflict. I would suggest a better fix, given transportation and communication advances, to have the sitting Governor of each state act as the only Senator (thus saving the taxpayers about 1/2 on staff costs).

Retric 11y ago
I think the granularity between executive and legislative power is useful. Mix them and the temptation for corruption skyrockets. I would much rather change congress to be statewide elections to cut down on gerrymandering and make them proportional representation to put more states in play.
- protomyth 11y ago
  > I think the granularity between executive and legislative power is useful. Mix them and the temptation for corruption skyrockets. I don't think mixing across levels is a bad thing. I want the Senate to be answerable to the people in the state doing the budget. > I would much rather change congress to be statewide elections to cut down on gerrymandering and make them proportional representation to put more states in play. I strongly disagree with this one. You basically make sure no rural area has any representation again. Its like basing a Presidential election on popular vote, you get campaigns that run in 20 cities and tell many demographics to pound sand.
  - nickv 11y ago
    As opposed to now where presidential elections are decided by three-four fairly unimportant states?
    - protomyth 11y ago
      Which states do you feel are "unimportant"?
      - sammydavis 11y ago
        Since about 1980, only 10 states have been potential swing states. So those 10 get most of the attention (Ohio, Florida). We'd be far better off with direct vote for the prez. I want to make house of rep elections be fore an entire state too, this is one of the few ways to break gerrymandering.
        protomyth 11y ago
        > Since about 1980, only 10 states have been potential swing states. So those 10 get most of the attention (Ohio, Florida). We'd be far better off with direct vote for the prez. They are swing states because of how the population votes and divides between people in the US. We are based on states and a direct vote would be a nightmare and go against the principles this country was founded on (Federal, State, People). > I want to make house of rep elections be fore an entire state too, this is one of the few ways to break gerrymandering At the cost of no actual representation for rural areas of a state, no thanks.
        Grishnakh 11y ago
        You're right about the prez, but wrong about rep elections. The whole point of having two houses in Congress is that they'll have a different dynamic. The Senate is supposed to be the more stodgy of the two that prevents crappy laws from getting passed, while the House is supposed to be the more agile one. The idea was copied directly from England's Parliament, with its House of Commons and House of Lords. The House of Commons directly represents the people and proposes most new legislation, while the House of Lords is full of unelected aristocrats who act like an overseer and limit what the other house can do. Over here, the House of Reps are directly elected by the people by "congressional district" and serve short terms, while the Senators were elected by state legislatures and served longer terms. The 17th Amendment changed it so Senators were elected directly by the people in each state. But the effect isn't that much different: they have longer terms, and they represent all the people in the state, not just a smaller district as Reps do. Having the House members represent only their district is a good thing: if your district is a minority in your state (like if you live in rural, conservative California, or you live in liberal Austin, Texas), this means you're able to elect someone who represents you. If the reps were elected by everyone in the state, you wouldn't have any liberal Reps from Texas, nor any conservative ones from California. When you lump everyone together, it just creates disenfranchisement among minorities. As for the prez, yeah, the current system with the Electoral College and first-past-the-post voting and party primaries is total crap. But personally, I think we should scrap the whole concept of having a President, and adopt something like Canada's system with a Parliament and a Prime Minister. With the PM elected by Parliament, there'd be little conflict between the executive and the legislative branches, and voters would concentrate only on voting for their own representatives and senators, and do a much better job of that than they do now. But you're right, gerrymandering is a big problem. I wonder how other nations deal with that.
  - Retric 11y ago
    Your ignoring proportional representation it's not first past the post so most states will be contested. Senitors are still going by person, congress becomes vote for the party. As a bonus third party's can have a real shot in larger states. Of note you would still want more people in congess.

Retric 11y ago

I think the granularity between executive and legislative power is useful. Mix them and the temptation for corruption skyrockets. I would much rather change congress to be statewide elections to cut down on gerrymandering and make them proportional representation to put more states in play.

protomyth 11y ago
> I think the granularity between executive and legislative power is useful. Mix them and the temptation for corruption skyrockets. I don't think mixing across levels is a bad thing. I want the Senate to be answerable to the people in the state doing the budget. > I would much rather change congress to be statewide elections to cut down on gerrymandering and make them proportional representation to put more states in play. I strongly disagree with this one. You basically make sure no rural area has any representation again. Its like basing a Presidential election on popular vote, you get campaigns that run in 20 cities and tell many demographics to pound sand.
- nickv 11y ago
  As opposed to now where presidential elections are decided by three-four fairly unimportant states?
  - protomyth 11y ago
    Which states do you feel are "unimportant"?
    - sammydavis 11y ago
      Since about 1980, only 10 states have been potential swing states. So those 10 get most of the attention (Ohio, Florida). We'd be far better off with direct vote for the prez. I want to make house of rep elections be fore an entire state too, this is one of the few ways to break gerrymandering.
      - protomyth 11y ago
        > Since about 1980, only 10 states have been potential swing states. So those 10 get most of the attention (Ohio, Florida). We'd be far better off with direct vote for the prez. They are swing states because of how the population votes and divides between people in the US. We are based on states and a direct vote would be a nightmare and go against the principles this country was founded on (Federal, State, People). > I want to make house of rep elections be fore an entire state too, this is one of the few ways to break gerrymandering At the cost of no actual representation for rural areas of a state, no thanks.
      - Grishnakh 11y ago
        You're right about the prez, but wrong about rep elections. The whole point of having two houses in Congress is that they'll have a different dynamic. The Senate is supposed to be the more stodgy of the two that prevents crappy laws from getting passed, while the House is supposed to be the more agile one. The idea was copied directly from England's Parliament, with its House of Commons and House of Lords. The House of Commons directly represents the people and proposes most new legislation, while the House of Lords is full of unelected aristocrats who act like an overseer and limit what the other house can do. Over here, the House of Reps are directly elected by the people by "congressional district" and serve short terms, while the Senators were elected by state legislatures and served longer terms. The 17th Amendment changed it so Senators were elected directly by the people in each state. But the effect isn't that much different: they have longer terms, and they represent all the people in the state, not just a smaller district as Reps do. Having the House members represent only their district is a good thing: if your district is a minority in your state (like if you live in rural, conservative California, or you live in liberal Austin, Texas), this means you're able to elect someone who represents you. If the reps were elected by everyone in the state, you wouldn't have any liberal Reps from Texas, nor any conservative ones from California. When you lump everyone together, it just creates disenfranchisement among minorities. As for the prez, yeah, the current system with the Electoral College and first-past-the-post voting and party primaries is total crap. But personally, I think we should scrap the whole concept of having a President, and adopt something like Canada's system with a Parliament and a Prime Minister. With the PM elected by Parliament, there'd be little conflict between the executive and the legislative branches, and voters would concentrate only on voting for their own representatives and senators, and do a much better job of that than they do now. But you're right, gerrymandering is a big problem. I wonder how other nations deal with that.
- Retric 11y ago
  Your ignoring proportional representation it's not first past the post so most states will be contested. Senitors are still going by person, congress becomes vote for the party. As a bonus third party's can have a real shot in larger states. Of note you would still want more people in congess.