3 ms·

The electoral system is at the root of so many problems. We need sane redistricting, elimination of electoral college, dramatic expansion of the Congress, term

by xnx 8mo ago

The electoral system is at the root of so many problems. We need sane redistricting, elimination of electoral college, dramatic expansion of the Congress, term limit, age limits and many other changes.

mrichman 8mo ago
You've stitched together a contradictory grab bag of reforms from opposite ends of the political spectrum without a single coherent theory connecting them, which tells me you're emotionally venting about dysfunction rather than actually thinking about how power and representation work.
- no-name-here 8mo ago
  1. Which reforms are contradictory? 2. I’m not convinced of term/age limits, but I believe I've heard all these reforms proposed at least by the US left - which of the reforms have you not heard proposed by the left?
hunterpayne 8mo ago
You are all over the place. Let me make it simple for you. You want to end Gerrymandering. I agree with this. There are relatively simple algorithms that would do it much better. It won't make all races competitive but there will be far more. Expanding Congress probably isn't a great idea though. To get enough power as person in Congress to do anything takes a decade or more, your idea just makes it worse. As for getting rid of the EC, think of it as districts you can't Gerrymander. It also ensures those that grow our food get a voice. And since most of the people in cities can't keep a house plant alive yet somehow want to decide how a farm works, that's a good idea not to empower the lunacy of the mob. Term limits are good. Age limits I would support but its almost certainly unconstitutional.
- seanmcdirmid 8mo ago
  The EC gives rural unpopulated states more say in federal decision making than more populous urban states. This has nothing to do with agriculture, California is the country’s biggest agriculture producer yet its farmers have less of a voice than those in Wyoming where agriculture is actually much rarer. It is simply an accident of history that Wyoming, a state with less people than San Francisco (not even the Bay Area’s biggest city) has just as many senators as the entire state of California.
  - bigstrat2003 8mo ago
    > It is simply an accident of history... That is understanding the matter far too much. Without the compromise of the bicameral legislature, the country never would have existed. That is not simply an accident of history; that is a foundational part of the social contract which forms this nation.
    - xnx 8mo ago
      I'm sure that compromise was important at the time, but is an albatross now.
    - seanmcdirmid 8mo ago
      By the time Wyoming was admitted into the union it already led to huge distortions that weren’t present with the original 13 colonies. It’s ironic that it took Trump to bring America to a real breaking point though.
- xnx 8mo ago
  > Expanding Congress probably isn't a great idea though. * Better representation - Originally 35K constituents/congressperson. Now 770K! * More congresspeople (and therefore districts) also goes a long way to fix gerrymandering by itself. * Counterbalances the recent shift toward supreme/imperial President. * Would largely fix the distortions of the electoral college. * Smaller campaigns and therefore less prone to monetary influence. > Age limits I would support but its almost certainly unconstitutional. We already have age limits: 18 to vote. 35 to be President.
bigstrat2003 8mo ago
> elimination of electoral college We absolutely do not need that. Reform perhaps, but not elimination. The country is full of many different people with differing needs, and a president should have an incentive to balance those needs. The country would be a much worse place if the top N cities got to impose their will on the rest of the country which is nothing like them.
- xnx 8mo ago
  > The country would be a much worse place if the top N cities got to impose their will on the rest of the country which is nothing like them. Better for the bottom N states by population to impose their will on the rest of the country which is nothing like them?
- jjav 8mo ago
  Cities and states do not have needs or feelings. Humans do. The electoral college is deeply unfair system where humans in low population states have far more say than others. Everyone should have equal say.
- recursivecaveat 8mo ago
  I don't think having the small minority of swing states repeatedly determine the elections is doing anything for balance. The notion that the electoral college exists to balance rural and urban interests is a total fiction. Urban populations were at 5% in 1790, it wasn't on anybody's mind. The present effect is totally arbitrary and inconsistent. You may as well define a college where every religion gets an equal say: why should the atheists and Christians get to impose their will on the Sikhs and Druze? Just because there are more Christians who are nothing like them?

by xnx 8mo ago

mrichman 8mo ago

You've stitched together a contradictory grab bag of reforms from opposite ends of the political spectrum without a single coherent theory connecting them, which tells me you're emotionally venting about dysfunction rather than actually thinking about how power and representation work.

no-name-here 8mo ago
1. Which reforms are contradictory? 2. I’m not convinced of term/age limits, but I believe I've heard all these reforms proposed at least by the US left - which of the reforms have you not heard proposed by the left?

hunterpayne 8mo ago

You are all over the place. Let me make it simple for you. You want to end Gerrymandering. I agree with this. There are relatively simple algorithms that would do it much better. It won't make all races competitive but there will be far more. Expanding Congress probably isn't a great idea though. To get enough power as person in Congress to do anything takes a decade or more, your idea just makes it worse. As for getting rid of the EC, think of it as districts you can't Gerrymander. It also ensures those that grow our food get a voice. And since most of the people in cities can't keep a house plant alive yet somehow want to decide how a farm works, that's a good idea not to empower the lunacy of the mob. Term limits are good. Age limits I would support but its almost certainly unconstitutional.

seanmcdirmid 8mo ago
The EC gives rural unpopulated states more say in federal decision making than more populous urban states. This has nothing to do with agriculture, California is the country’s biggest agriculture producer yet its farmers have less of a voice than those in Wyoming where agriculture is actually much rarer. It is simply an accident of history that Wyoming, a state with less people than San Francisco (not even the Bay Area’s biggest city) has just as many senators as the entire state of California.
- bigstrat2003 8mo ago
  > It is simply an accident of history... That is understanding the matter far too much. Without the compromise of the bicameral legislature, the country never would have existed. That is not simply an accident of history; that is a foundational part of the social contract which forms this nation.
  - xnx 8mo ago
    I'm sure that compromise was important at the time, but is an albatross now.
  - seanmcdirmid 8mo ago
    By the time Wyoming was admitted into the union it already led to huge distortions that weren’t present with the original 13 colonies. It’s ironic that it took Trump to bring America to a real breaking point though.
xnx 8mo ago
> Expanding Congress probably isn't a great idea though. * Better representation - Originally 35K constituents/congressperson. Now 770K! * More congresspeople (and therefore districts) also goes a long way to fix gerrymandering by itself. * Counterbalances the recent shift toward supreme/imperial President. * Would largely fix the distortions of the electoral college. * Smaller campaigns and therefore less prone to monetary influence. > Age limits I would support but its almost certainly unconstitutional. We already have age limits: 18 to vote. 35 to be President.

bigstrat2003 8mo ago

> elimination of electoral college We absolutely do not need that. Reform perhaps, but not elimination. The country is full of many different people with differing needs, and a president should have an incentive to balance those needs. The country would be a much worse place if the top N cities got to impose their will on the rest of the country which is nothing like them.

xnx 8mo ago
> The country would be a much worse place if the top N cities got to impose their will on the rest of the country which is nothing like them. Better for the bottom N states by population to impose their will on the rest of the country which is nothing like them?
jjav 8mo ago
Cities and states do not have needs or feelings. Humans do. The electoral college is deeply unfair system where humans in low population states have far more say than others. Everyone should have equal say.
recursivecaveat 8mo ago
I don't think having the small minority of swing states repeatedly determine the elections is doing anything for balance. The notion that the electoral college exists to balance rural and urban interests is a total fiction. Urban populations were at 5% in 1790, it wasn't on anybody's mind. The present effect is totally arbitrary and inconsistent. You may as well define a college where every religion gets an equal say: why should the atheists and Christians get to impose their will on the Sikhs and Druze? Just because there are more Christians who are nothing like them?