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.

POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Jimjamesak said:
I know it's used in Germany and New Zealand while the U.K. and Canada are considering it.

The main pro is that it would empower minor parties, if they get the 5% minimum.

The main con being it doesn't exactly jive with the whole "collection of states" model.
Click to expand...

Although the US is the bigger impact...the states would probably execute that solution better. Again at the state level, voters really put importance in the party...not so much in the individual.

The Sicatoka said:
< hand up >
Question: Who do those additional representatives represent? They weren't elected by a district per se, so who are they beholden to? Dare I posit "the party"? I'm not sure I like that. Representatives are supposed to represent people, not party, no?
Click to expand...

They represent the broader state. Nothings perfect. JJ's general form of representation is probably better than...the current state where the government represents the extreme wing of the party that is opposite of the will of the people.

Another solution would be to redistrict so that each district has 50/50 dem/gop representation as much as possible in addition to population balanced. Then politicians would be focused on policies that benefit both sides rather than their specific extreme voting block - the latter results in political infighting. A 50 gop/50 dem (or whatever percentages it is for the whole state) block would result in wins by truly the best politicians.
 
Last edited:
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

I dont like proportional voting at all. It ranks up there with eliminating the EC in my top bad ideas for the Republic. I f every state had the same population I could but otherwise it gives too much power to areas of higher density.
 
Handyman said:
I dont like proportional voting at all. It ranks up there with eliminating the EC in my top bad ideas for the Republic. I f every state had the same population I could but otherwise it gives too much power to areas of higher density.
Click to expand...
At some point in this country we're going to have to decide whether we care more about people or areas.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Jimjamesak said:
At some point in this country we're going to have to decide whether we care more about people or areas.
Click to expand...

That's why we have a House and a Senate. One is population based; one is state based.

My follow-up question is this: Knowing CA has 53 Representatives in the House, does CA have to allocate them by district? Could they say the Ds won 58.5% of the statewide vote "for the House", the Rs 41.5%, so D's get 31 of the 53 House seats from CA. The Ds submitted a list of 53, in ranked order of their preference so the first 31 of their list of 53 are in (and the first 22 of the Rs 53 get in).

That's how we do it in ND: the Ds put out their list, the Rs put out theirs. Then again, the list is only one long for each. ;) :D
 
Last edited:
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

The Sicatoka said:
That's why we have a House and a Senate. One is population based; one is state based.
Click to expand...

For now I'm cool with this. If we were starting over I'd opt for a pure democracy, but we've got 240 years of success behind us and just because the Senate temporarily favors the dingbats that's no good reason to be rid of it.

Besides which once the GOP recovers its sanity we're going to need the rural states to kill the banksters.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

The Sicatoka said:
That's why we have a House and a Senate. One is population based; one is state based.

My follow-up question is this: Knowing CA has 53 Representatives in the House, does CA have to allocate them by district? Could they say the Ds won 58.5% of the statewide vote "for the House", the Rs 41.5%, so D's get 31 of the 53 House seats from CA. The Ds submitted a list of 53, in ranked order of their preference so the first 31 of their list of 53 are in (and the first 22 of the Rs 53 get in).

That's how we do it in ND: the Ds put out their list, the Rs put out theirs. Then again, the list is only one long for each. ;) :D
Click to expand...

Sic is right with his first paragraph. It's exactly why.

ETA: its why impeachment must go trough both houses. Kind of. The people and the states must agree.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

The Sicatoka said:
That's why we have a House and a Senate. One is population based; one is state based.
Click to expand...
If the House was population based you'd have districts representing areas of people regardless of what state they are in, proportioned strictly to a set number of people (say 1 member per 100k people).

Right now we have one state based and one state based proportioned sort of by population.
 
Kepler said:
For now I'm cool with this. If we were starting over I'd opt for a pure democracy, but we've got 240 years of success behind us and just because the Senate temporarily favors the dingbats that's no good reason to be rid of it.

Besides which once the GOP recovers its sanity we're going to need the rural states to kill the banksters.
Click to expand...

Will this stay tenable when Wyoming has 1/100th the population of California, or 1/500th?
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Kepler said:
For now I'm cool with this. If we were starting over I'd opt for a pure democracy, but we've got 240 years of success behind us and just because the Senate temporarily favors the dingbats that's no good reason to be rid of it.

Besides which once the GOP recovers its sanity we're going to need the rural states to kill the banksters.
Click to expand...
I'm not in favor of getting rid of the Senate but I am in favor of severely reducing it's power, i.e. no bills may be introduced, must vote on bills within a certain time frame, no committees and the like, basically a yes or no chamber. Essentially what they did to the House of Lords in Britain.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

joecct said:
One could also expand the size of the House, but they may need a bigger boat.
Click to expand...
The size of the House is laughable low at 435. Compared to the UK (650), Germany (630), France (577), Japan (475), or Russia (450).

I'd probably up to at least 650 or 700.
 
joecct said:
One could also expand the size of the House, but they may need a bigger boat.
Click to expand...

The house isn't really a problem, yet. The average house district is about 750,000 people per rep and Wyoming has 575,000. It's small but not grossly so.

But 38.8 million Californians have the same power as 575,000 Wyomingsians (Wyomingites?) in the upper chamber, and that disparity continues to expand. At some point it reaches the absurd, at least until cows get the right to vote.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

unofan said:
The house isn't really a problem, yet. The average house district is about 750,000 people per rep and Wyoming has 575,000. It's small but not grossly so.

But 38.8 million Californians have the same power as 575,000 Wyomingsians (Wyomingites?) in the upper chamber, and that disparity continues to expand. At some point it reaches the absurd, at least until cows get the right to vote.
Click to expand...
750k per rep is pretty absurd to be honest. We need to knock the number down to at least 500k, which would be ~617 as of the last census. 700 members would be 1 per 441k.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Jimjamesak said:
At some point in this country we're going to have to decide whether we care more about people or areas.
Click to expand...

Didnt you ever study The Great Compromise?

And sorry but there is a 0.000001% chance that if the roles were reversed that you would be begging for this type of change. No way would you want high population Red States to dictate the makeup of Congress. I know you will deny that but if you look into your heart you know it is true.

I like things the way they are. The Dems need to learn to play the game better if they want to win. You cant just fellate the coasts you need to care about us lesser beings in flyover country as well.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

unofan said:
The house isn't really a problem, yet. The average house district is about 750,000 people per rep and Wyoming has 575,000. It's small but not grossly so.

But 38.8 million Californians have the same power as 575,000 Wyomingsians (Wyomingites?) in the upper chamber, and that disparity continues to expand. At some point it reaches the absurd, at least until cows get the right to vote.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I mean if you want to add Senators to every state I am all for it but I dont want both houses to be based on population that gives too much power to states like California. Now it wont be parities mucking it up it will be the Big States. California will be able to act with impunity after a while.
 
Re: POTUS 45.2 - Same arguments, different sides

Handyman said:
Didnt you ever study The Great Compromise?

And sorry but there is a 0.000001% chance that if the roles were reversed that you would be begging for this type of change. No way would you want high population Red States to dictate the makeup of Congress. I know you will deny that but if you look into your heart you know it is true.

I like things the way they are. The Dems need to learn to play the game better if they want to win. You cant just fellate the coasts you need to care about us lesser beings in flyover country as well.
Click to expand...
This isn't based on political affiliation, it's based on personal political belief. I hate the fact that we have, as uno said, 1 representative per 750k people. That is ridiculously high and is a major factor in why we have a system that is beholden to money donors instead of actual people. It's also a system that boxes us in to the two party system that's put us in this mess.

If we increase the number of representatives to 700 or 750 and districts drawn fairly it would help BOTH parties and the political discourse in this country. Right now, urban liberals in heavily red states are completely shut out (I know this well living in Anchorage) as are conservatives in heavy blue states.

In fact, I'd be willing to bet that an increase in Reps would increase the majority for Republicans.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top