3 ms·
No, I didn't miss the point. I disagree with it entirely. The EC and the Senate function nothing like they were designed in the 18th century when the goal you m
by unethical_ban 5y ago
No, I didn't miss the point. I disagree with it entirely. The EC and the Senate function nothing like they were designed in the 18th century when the goal you mention seemed to matter. The filibuster and the 17th amendment and two centuries of societal advancement have something to say about the "state sovereignty" argument for the Senate.
The fact that the Electoral college allowed the previous President to take office is is an example of its failings from its supposed original intention, as is the fact that most citizens of any party or educational background expect that the President should be democratically elected.
- 0xBDB 5y agoThis debate is pretty academic though. Article V is clear that the composition (or existence) of the Senate can't be changed even by amendment without the unanimous consent of the states. Arguably, even a new constitution couldn't (legally) do it. Of all the things we might possibly ever do to improve the function of government, that alone is not one.
- unethical_ban 5y agoAssuming we wanted to get rid of the Senate but could not do it technically, we could strip it of all meaningful power and responsibility. We could make it an advisory panel for appointments, and an approval committee for war and intelligence operations, and nothing else in terms of legislation. But yes, there are other things in my incomplete list which need addressed as well - I think the one most critical thing I would do above all others is switch every Single-Member District election from first-past-the-post to ranked choice voting or approval voting.