7 ms·

If we can't figure out how to get a Congress that most people believe in then I worry that is the beginning of the end for this government. Hopefully we get to

If we can't figure out how to get a Congress that most people believe in then I worry that is the beginning of the end for this government. Hopefully we get to try from scratch a third time if that happens but I worry that collapse will be too tempting for Russia or China to not step in. Maybe we can be lucky and get conquered by Canada first in that case? What a weird thing to think...

stonogo 1y ago
Approval ratings for Congress, barring a post-9/11 spike, have been under 30% for most of my life. By this standard I'd say we're in the middle of the end.
- amanaplanacanal 1y ago
  For the most part, folks like their own Congress people though. They just don't like the others.
JauntTrooper 1y ago
Gerrymandering is at the heart of the rot.
- nullocator 1y ago
  The Senate is not subject to garrymandering and if we fixed the issues with the House (literally via any mechanism) the Senate would immediately go back to being the vehicle used to prevent the will of the people (see the Senate under Mitch McConnell any time the House was under Democrat control) Until the Dem party fixes their brand and wins back some of the Senate seats they used to control in the 90s and early 2000s there will be no positive progress.
  - JauntTrooper 1y ago
    The Senate is in a permanent state of gerrymandering. There were only 13 states when the Constitution was ratified. It was never envisioned to be as disproportionate as it is today, with California's two Senators representing 40 million people vs. Wyoming's 0.6 million.
    - Loughla 1y ago
      No, I like the way the Senate runs in theory. Equal representation for the states regardless of size. Only if it's alongside the house with proportionate representation. That seems like a good theory that would keep itself in check. In execution it's an absolute shit show, I'll give you. But I do believe the theory is sound. With the house and the Senate we get the best of both worlds. In theory.
      - lotsofpulp 1y ago
        Why is the theory sound? It’s an arbitrary number of regions delineated by arbitrary lines given a disproportionate amount of power that run completely counter to the goal of a democracy.
        echelon 1y ago
        States are sovereign entities with their own laws. They can even, in theory, secede from the union. The Senate is a good system, it's just that most states are Republican. Some of the larger states might consider splitting themselves into separate states to better represent their populations. Though that may not be constitutionally possible. If we ever add additional states to the Union (Puerto Rico, D.C., etc.), they'll want to enjoy having an equal say with every other state in the Union. It's a compelling feature of our system. The House, as a proportional system, actually needs to be re-normalized. There are not enough representatives to have an actually proportional vote.
        spankalee 1y ago
        The Senate is a terrible system. There's no logical reason why citizens in one state should have orders of magnitude more say in the federal government than citizens in another. The founders aren't infallible gods, and they really fucked up here.
        Centrino 1y ago
        Unlike in many other countries, where provinces or regions are merely administrative divisions created to decentralize or streamline administration, the US emerged when states voluntarily came together and decided to create a country. The states were willing to outsource part of their autonomy to a federal level, on condition that guardrails were put in place to limit the power of that federal level. Those guardrails were: bicameralism, equal representation of states in the Senate, and the electoral college. The House is the voice of the people, the Senate is the voice of the states. The practical consequence of this system is that it effectively prevents a majority of voters from large urban centers from imposing their will onto rural populations, at least at the federal level. It was designed that way. I've seen comments here claiming that countries like Canada or France deliver better outcomes than the US. They are stronger welfare states, yes, but they also have become overly paternalistic nanny states, with heavy-handed regulations, and high taxes stifling individual initiative.
- otikik 1y ago
  Money is. Politicians are for sale.
  - SaltyBackendGuy 1y ago
    This is my take as well. Nothing will improve until we roll back Citizens United.
    - spankalee 1y ago
      Citizens United is impossible to roll back with the structural problem of the Senate.
- moron4hire 1y ago
  Gerrymandering is particular powerful because Congress has refused to reapportion representatives for over a century. They just decided to stop following that part of the Constitution back in 1929. We still have the same number of representatives as we did when we were less than a third our current population. Each representative now covers 20 times more people than when the Constitution was ratified.
- specialist 1y ago
  Yes and: our first-past-the-post form of elections begets gerrymandering. My future perfect world: proportional representation for assemblies (eg US House), some arbitrarily low number of reps per citizens (200k - 400k?), no upper assembly (eg US Senate), approval voting for executive positions (eg Mayor, Sheriff, President), only public financing of campaigns, limit campaign season to maybe 6 weeks. Friendly amendments to my wishlist cheerfully accepted. There's so many reasonable, impactful reforms which could be done. And my wishlist is based on my (imperfect) understanding of best available (political) science. And I'm all ears about SCOTUS reforms. And I doubt any reforms will stick, so long as our gini coefficient is so out of whack (wealth vs democracy, the timeless struggle).
dragonwriter 1y ago
> If we can't figure out how to get a Congress that most people believe in then I worry that is the beginning of the end for this government. We know, from comparative study of existing representative democracies, how to do that better (have an electoral system for the legislative branch that provides results that are substnantially more proportional than under the current system); what we don’t have is a practical way to get from where we are to where we need to be given the construction of the electoral systems in the states and nationally and the politicians and interests that has entrenched and the Constitutional amendment process.
dylan604 1y ago
From fiction, we have Clancy's sudden loss of the majority of federal elected officials which allowed for a fresh start. However, that's subject to having governors submitting senators while having elections for congress. Starting from a clean slate would be the only fix. As it is now, it's who is willing to kowtow to the biggest backers to get them over the line and stay in office. On top of the gerrymandering that all but ensures the party in control stays in control, I see no change to the status quo in my life time without an uprising.

stonogo 1y ago

Approval ratings for Congress, barring a post-9/11 spike, have been under 30% for most of my life. By this standard I'd say we're in the middle of the end.

amanaplanacanal 1y ago
For the most part, folks like their own Congress people though. They just don't like the others.

JauntTrooper 1y ago

Gerrymandering is at the heart of the rot.

nullocator 1y ago
The Senate is not subject to garrymandering and if we fixed the issues with the House (literally via any mechanism) the Senate would immediately go back to being the vehicle used to prevent the will of the people (see the Senate under Mitch McConnell any time the House was under Democrat control) Until the Dem party fixes their brand and wins back some of the Senate seats they used to control in the 90s and early 2000s there will be no positive progress.
- JauntTrooper 1y ago
  The Senate is in a permanent state of gerrymandering. There were only 13 states when the Constitution was ratified. It was never envisioned to be as disproportionate as it is today, with California's two Senators representing 40 million people vs. Wyoming's 0.6 million.
  - Loughla 1y ago
    No, I like the way the Senate runs in theory. Equal representation for the states regardless of size. Only if it's alongside the house with proportionate representation. That seems like a good theory that would keep itself in check. In execution it's an absolute shit show, I'll give you. But I do believe the theory is sound. With the house and the Senate we get the best of both worlds. In theory.
    - lotsofpulp 1y ago
      Why is the theory sound? It’s an arbitrary number of regions delineated by arbitrary lines given a disproportionate amount of power that run completely counter to the goal of a democracy.
      - echelon 1y ago
        States are sovereign entities with their own laws. They can even, in theory, secede from the union. The Senate is a good system, it's just that most states are Republican. Some of the larger states might consider splitting themselves into separate states to better represent their populations. Though that may not be constitutionally possible. If we ever add additional states to the Union (Puerto Rico, D.C., etc.), they'll want to enjoy having an equal say with every other state in the Union. It's a compelling feature of our system. The House, as a proportional system, actually needs to be re-normalized. There are not enough representatives to have an actually proportional vote.
        spankalee 1y ago
        The Senate is a terrible system. There's no logical reason why citizens in one state should have orders of magnitude more say in the federal government than citizens in another. The founders aren't infallible gods, and they really fucked up here.
        Centrino 1y ago
        Unlike in many other countries, where provinces or regions are merely administrative divisions created to decentralize or streamline administration, the US emerged when states voluntarily came together and decided to create a country. The states were willing to outsource part of their autonomy to a federal level, on condition that guardrails were put in place to limit the power of that federal level. Those guardrails were: bicameralism, equal representation of states in the Senate, and the electoral college. The House is the voice of the people, the Senate is the voice of the states. The practical consequence of this system is that it effectively prevents a majority of voters from large urban centers from imposing their will onto rural populations, at least at the federal level. It was designed that way. I've seen comments here claiming that countries like Canada or France deliver better outcomes than the US. They are stronger welfare states, yes, but they also have become overly paternalistic nanny states, with heavy-handed regulations, and high taxes stifling individual initiative.
otikik 1y ago
Money is. Politicians are for sale.
- SaltyBackendGuy 1y ago
  This is my take as well. Nothing will improve until we roll back Citizens United.
  - spankalee 1y ago
    Citizens United is impossible to roll back with the structural problem of the Senate.
moron4hire 1y ago
Gerrymandering is particular powerful because Congress has refused to reapportion representatives for over a century. They just decided to stop following that part of the Constitution back in 1929. We still have the same number of representatives as we did when we were less than a third our current population. Each representative now covers 20 times more people than when the Constitution was ratified.
specialist 1y ago
Yes and: our first-past-the-post form of elections begets gerrymandering. My future perfect world: proportional representation for assemblies (eg US House), some arbitrarily low number of reps per citizens (200k - 400k?), no upper assembly (eg US Senate), approval voting for executive positions (eg Mayor, Sheriff, President), only public financing of campaigns, limit campaign season to maybe 6 weeks. Friendly amendments to my wishlist cheerfully accepted. There's so many reasonable, impactful reforms which could be done. And my wishlist is based on my (imperfect) understanding of best available (political) science. And I'm all ears about SCOTUS reforms. And I doubt any reforms will stick, so long as our gini coefficient is so out of whack (wealth vs democracy, the timeless struggle).

dragonwriter 1y ago

> If we can't figure out how to get a Congress that most people believe in then I worry that is the beginning of the end for this government. We know, from comparative study of existing representative democracies, how to do that better (have an electoral system for the legislative branch that provides results that are substnantially more proportional than under the current system); what we don’t have is a practical way to get from where we are to where we need to be given the construction of the electoral systems in the states and nationally and the politicians and interests that has entrenched and the Constitutional amendment process.

dylan604 1y ago

From fiction, we have Clancy's sudden loss of the majority of federal elected officials which allowed for a fresh start. However, that's subject to having governors submitting senators while having elections for congress. Starting from a clean slate would be the only fix. As it is now, it's who is willing to kowtow to the biggest backers to get them over the line and stay in office. On top of the gerrymandering that all but ensures the party in control stays in control, I see no change to the status quo in my life time without an uprising.