4 ms·
> it also contained a democratic system (first past the post/two party system) that is mathematically bound to breed divisiveness. It doesn't have anything abo
by MichaelBurge 9y ago
> it also contained a democratic system (first past the post/two party system) that is mathematically bound to breed divisiveness.
It doesn't have anything about parties in it at all, and leaves it up to the states to decide how to choose their electors. If California or any other state wanted a different system, it could decide to use ranked choice voting right now just like Maine chose last election.
- lyschoening 9y agoThat could make a difference in the House, but not in the Senate.
- jacobush 9y agoStill, pretty nice though?
- mcv 9y agoI think it could be reasonable to have system where the House represents the people (making proportional representation necessary) while the Senate represents the states. As long as the role of the Senate is sufficiently limited and not the core of the legislative process, that could be very reasonable. But it's vital that the people are more important than the states. For example, the House could decide on the laws, with the Senate only deciding whether this is an issue that belongs on the federal level at all. And maybe double checking whether the law is constitutional and in line with existing treaties. If they do the same thing, it makes no sense to have them both.