What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

SCOTUS: sponsored by Harlan Crow

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deutsche Gopher Fan
  • Start date Start date
Kepler said:
Like say using Congress as more than a cheer squad. What a concept.

The last 50 years have shown me that a Parliamentary government with a PM is better. Madison was a genius but he got that part wrong.
Click to expand...
No I mean they can still do it at least two different ways without congressional involvement
 
Handyman said:
Parliamentary sucks...Congress would work way better with a few tweaks.
Click to expand...
I think you’re right.

The problem with congress is that we stopped adding seats to congress which was a mistake. We need the population to seats ratio to be significantly lower.

otherwise I think it works fine. It’s just that sycophants and cowards are in charge. If you have an opposition party running congress, it’s far more useful.

I’d also reintroduce pork spending. It was stupid that they got rid of that in favor of what we have now. Just a sham.

The thing about a parliament is that it’s pretty close to what we have now. The speaker is effectively a prime minister. That person is just given power over the house, not the whole government. Which is fine. Too powerful otherwise.
 
dxmnkd316 said:
Oh and obviously abolish the senate.
Click to expand...
Thank you! You are the first person from a Hee Haw state I have ever heard understand this.

Either that or redraw states but that's just Micro-House.

The Articles:
  1. Unicameral Congress: a House of Representatives where each Congresscritter represents 100k persons. That is currently 3420 members. Math redraw by sum of least squares or whatever. Receipt of gifts including campaign funds = immediate DQ.
  2. Shrink the Presidency so they can drown it in a bathtub. Receipt of gifts including campaign funds = immediate DQ.
  3. One new Supreme Court justice nominated and confirmed each Summer, just as the dean is retired. 20-year term; CJ is simply the judge with the longest tenure. 10-10 ties are the same as denials. Receipt of gifts = immediate DQ.
Hard age limit: the day you turn 70, you gone. Also counts for SCOTUS.

100% public financing of all elections based on percentage of registrations by party, as granular as you want. No private donors.
 
Last edited:
I remember talking about abolishing the Senate a long time ago, especially when Nate Silver, back when he was relevant, did a piece that showed how Republicans will eventually end up with a supermajority*, or close to it, based on representing every sparsely populated state. 53-47R is about as best as we could hope for as Democrats, minus Collins.
Parliamentary democracies are far better, always have been. Add in proportional representation, and voila, we don’t have two political parties anymore, with one hellbent on tearing everything down. Nearly every other developed country in the world has one…and they have passed crazy, crazy things like federal maternity leave and stronger social safety nets…man I’m sick of Trump, vote of no-confidence? Bye bye, now. Oh shoot, wait, nope, we have to wait until January 20, 2029, when this country will be a shell of its former self.
Parliamentary >>>>>> Presidential. Hell I found that out my first time through college.

*60/40R to where even the anti-democratic filibuster is irrelevant.
 
If we're going to reshape our Republic, I insist we copy Prime Minister's questions from the UK. Imagine a world where Twatwaffle has to submit himself to six questions from the opposition every week. And there's an independent speaker who determines if he answered or whether he has to try again until he does. Problem is this format is supposed to last minutes, whereas Twatwaffle could go hours emitting nonsensical noises from his blowhole and never answer the question he was asked...
 
Kepler said:
Thank you! You are the first person from a Hee Haw state I have ever heard understand this.

Either that or redraw states but that's just Micro-House.

The Articles:
  1. Unicameral Congress: a House of Representatives where each Congresscritter represents 100k persons. That is currently 3420 members. Math redraw by sum of least squares or whatever. Receipt of gifts including campaign funds = immediate DQ.
  2. Shrink the Presidency so they can drown it in a bathtub. Receipt of gifts including campaign funds = immediate DQ.
  3. One new Supreme Court justice nominated and confirmed each Summer, just as the dean is retired. 20-year term; CJ is simply the judge with the longest tenure. 10-10 ties are the same as denials. Receipt of gifts = immediate DQ.
Hard age limit: the day you turn 70, you gone. Also counts for SCOTUS.

100% public financing of all elections based on percentage of registrations by party, as granular as you want. No private donors.
Click to expand...
Don't have to do either.

The crime is that Puerto Rico and Washington D.C. are not States. That's 4 more seats. Also, there are other territories that should be states. We are only stuck on 50 because of racism.
 
psych said:
I remember talking about abolishing the Senate a long time ago, especially when Nate Silver, back when he was relevant, did a piece that showed how Republicans will eventually end up with a supermajority*, or close to it, based on representing every sparsely populated state. 53-47R is about as best as we could hope for as Democrats, minus Collins.
Parliamentary democracies are far better, always have been. Add in proportional representation, and voila, we don’t have two political parties anymore, with one hellbent on tearing everything down. Nearly every other developed country in the world has one…and they have passed crazy, crazy things like federal maternity leave and stronger social safety nets…man I’m sick of Trump, vote of no-confidence? Bye bye, now. Oh shoot, wait, nope, we have to wait until January 20, 2029, when this country will be a shell of its former self.
Parliamentary >>>>>> Presidential. Hell I found that out my first time through college.

*60/40R to where even the anti-democratic filibuster is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
I think you are giving them far far too much credit.

There is absolutely nothing to prevent them from passing insanely bad legislation will a coalition of different flavors of Nazis. There’s nothing magic about a parliament that prevents this.
 
Seems like there’s lots of reasons we don’t have a multiparty system…seeing as we still don’t have it. Do I want that? Of course. Would I vote for that? Of course. I’ve discussed proportional representation and multiparty systems a million times with the rest of y’all, and agree we need it. Why doesn’t a state like California try it? What’s holding back a progressive state from implementing that at the state level? California leads on all this business and environmental shit…why not on proportional representation? Where you at, anti-trans “progressive” Governor Newsom? Hm?

And far too much credit? I’m simply comparing what every other developed country in the world has compared to us. And yeah, you’re fucking right they could pass god awful legislation…but in a parliamentary system, it’s a lot fucking easier to reverse bad policies than it is in ours. The GOP will ruin us the next 3-4 years…even if we take back power in 2028, the “trifecta”, building through our slow system takes far longer than destroying, and our electorate has shown time and again how fucking ignorant and impatient they are…

I know we’ll never switch to a parliamentary system. I get that. We’re in agreement, for the most part, on the solutions in OUR system.
 
I’ll add…our GOP doesn’t need a parliamentary system to quickly implement their fucking awful legislation when they’re in power. They don’t even need the filibuster. Their tax shit can all be handled under budget reconciliation. And it’s been that way for a long time.
 
psych said:
Seems like there’s lots of reasons we don’t have a multiparty system…seeing as we still don’t have it. Do I want that? Of course. Would I vote for that? Of course. I’ve discussed proportional representation and multiparty systems a million times with the rest of y’all, and agree we need it. Why doesn’t a state like California try it? What’s holding back a progressive state from implementing that at the state level? California leads on all this business and environmental shit…why not on proportional representation? Where you at, anti-trans “progressive” Governor Newsom? Hm?

And far too much credit? I’m simply comparing what every other developed country in the world has compared to us. And yeah, you’re fucking right they could pass god awful legislation…but in a parliamentary system, it’s a lot fucking easier to reverse bad policies than it is in ours. The GOP will ruin us the next 3-4 years…even if we take back power in 2028, the “trifecta”, building through our slow system takes far longer than destroying, and our electorate has shown time and again how fucking ignorant and impatient they are…

I know we’ll never switch to a parliamentary system. I get that. We’re in agreement, for the most part, on the solutions in OUR system.
Click to expand...

Again, you can’t have it both ways. If it’s hard to undo it’s hard to do.

I should clarify, I’m talking about a house-only system. There’s nothing magic about a house vs parliament
 
ScoobyDoo said:
Don't have to do either.

The crime is that Puerto Rico and Washington D.C. are not States. That's 4 more seats. Also, there are other territories that should be states. We are only stuck on 50 because of racism.
Click to expand...

States have typically entered as part of political compromises. That is why we are stuck with 2 Dakotas too many.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top