4 ms·

You’re correct. It’s a Republic with a sane voting system that keeps the mobs from the population centers from ruling the country. You say weakness I say streng

You’re correct. It’s a Republic with a sane voting system that keeps the mobs from the population centers from ruling the country. You say weakness I say strength.

UncleOxidant 6y ago
And so instead of the "mobs from the population centers" ruling the country we have the "mobs" from a few swing states running the country. How is that better? When it comes to the Senate why should dirt in one state get so much more say than people in another?
- sokoloff 6y ago
  I see the House as a faster-changing, populous body (which is generally a good thing) and the Senate as a much slower-changing balance against the worst of what a fast-changing, populous body could wreak on the country.
  - UncleOxidant 6y ago
    Ok, so why not a bicameral system where the Senate also has proportional representation while keeping 6 year terms? There wouldn't have to be a 1:1 ratio of senators to representatives. Maybe there would be something like 1 senator/2 representatives? Or, if we kept the same 2 senators/state maybe we split high population states into smaller states so that we don't have huge gap between number or residents/senator? Personally, I think we should probably move in the unicameral direction. I don't think that "fast-changing" adaptability is a negative in this modern world.
    - sokoloff 6y ago
      Unicameral systems seem to prevent beneficial compromises. I’d personally hate to see the country gyrate between policy extremes as the composition of that singular body changed. Even when going extremely “my way”, as an engineer I’d hate it. I find a lot of people spend time thinking “how much more progress could we make if we didn’t have to compromise with those assholes?” Far fewer think “how much more damage could those assholes do if they didn’t have to compromise with us?”
- tengbretson 6y ago
  Why must the will of these population centers be exercised at the highest level of our government in the first place? Surely they could just implement their policies at the state level, unless, that is, the goal is not to make effective policy but to instead vindictively assert their will over their ideological rivals.
  - jfengel 6y ago
    Uh... because they've got most of the population? Is this a trick question? Wasn't the whole idea that majority rules? If you're not going with majority rules, then what's the basis for picking this particular minority to vindictively assert their will over their ideological rivals?
    - tengbretson 6y ago
      You seem stuck in this binary where you believe that if you are not ruling over some else they must be ruling over you.
      - jfengel 6y ago
        You're the one making the claim that the majority is going to rule vindictively. If you believe that they're worse at that than other people, it's on you to demonstrate it. Or to demonstrate that the minority singled out by the Electoral College is somehow especially better at it.
        tengbretson 6y ago
        Lets put it this way: of all the policies that the OP sounded off on, which ones, if any, have had legislation pass through the senate addressing them? None? Spare me the talk of 'tyranny of the minority' in the senate. It's really telling as to the maturity level of those involved when the basis for calling out 'tyranny' is that those in the legislature simply say "no" to your whims, especially when those seeking change are more than capable of implementing those changes more locally but choose not to.
- roamerz 6y ago
  May not be a perfect system but there is not a perfect way to represent such a wide and diverse area and population. I think our founders did quite well.
  - UncleOxidant 6y ago
    Maybe they did well by the standards of their era, but a lot has changed since then.
toby 6y ago
If the concern is urbanites making decisions for rural people, then it's fair to point out that there are plenty more rural people in California than the total population of many other states. The state boundaries are completely arbitrary, yet they affect so much.

You’re correct. It’s a Republic with a sane voting system that keeps the mobs from the population centers from ruling the country. You say weakness I say strength.

UncleOxidant 6y ago

And so instead of the "mobs from the population centers" ruling the country we have the "mobs" from a few swing states running the country. How is that better? When it comes to the Senate why should dirt in one state get so much more say than people in another?

sokoloff 6y ago
I see the House as a faster-changing, populous body (which is generally a good thing) and the Senate as a much slower-changing balance against the worst of what a fast-changing, populous body could wreak on the country.
- UncleOxidant 6y ago
  Ok, so why not a bicameral system where the Senate also has proportional representation while keeping 6 year terms? There wouldn't have to be a 1:1 ratio of senators to representatives. Maybe there would be something like 1 senator/2 representatives? Or, if we kept the same 2 senators/state maybe we split high population states into smaller states so that we don't have huge gap between number or residents/senator? Personally, I think we should probably move in the unicameral direction. I don't think that "fast-changing" adaptability is a negative in this modern world.
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    Unicameral systems seem to prevent beneficial compromises. I’d personally hate to see the country gyrate between policy extremes as the composition of that singular body changed. Even when going extremely “my way”, as an engineer I’d hate it. I find a lot of people spend time thinking “how much more progress could we make if we didn’t have to compromise with those assholes?” Far fewer think “how much more damage could those assholes do if they didn’t have to compromise with us?”
tengbretson 6y ago
Why must the will of these population centers be exercised at the highest level of our government in the first place? Surely they could just implement their policies at the state level, unless, that is, the goal is not to make effective policy but to instead vindictively assert their will over their ideological rivals.
- jfengel 6y ago
  Uh... because they've got most of the population? Is this a trick question? Wasn't the whole idea that majority rules? If you're not going with majority rules, then what's the basis for picking this particular minority to vindictively assert their will over their ideological rivals?
  - tengbretson 6y ago
    You seem stuck in this binary where you believe that if you are not ruling over some else they must be ruling over you.
    - jfengel 6y ago
      You're the one making the claim that the majority is going to rule vindictively. If you believe that they're worse at that than other people, it's on you to demonstrate it. Or to demonstrate that the minority singled out by the Electoral College is somehow especially better at it.
      - tengbretson 6y ago
        Lets put it this way: of all the policies that the OP sounded off on, which ones, if any, have had legislation pass through the senate addressing them? None? Spare me the talk of 'tyranny of the minority' in the senate. It's really telling as to the maturity level of those involved when the basis for calling out 'tyranny' is that those in the legislature simply say "no" to your whims, especially when those seeking change are more than capable of implementing those changes more locally but choose not to.
roamerz 6y ago
May not be a perfect system but there is not a perfect way to represent such a wide and diverse area and population. I think our founders did quite well.
- UncleOxidant 6y ago
  Maybe they did well by the standards of their era, but a lot has changed since then.

toby 6y ago

If the concern is urbanites making decisions for rural people, then it's fair to point out that there are plenty more rural people in California than the total population of many other states. The state boundaries are completely arbitrary, yet they affect so much.