American Politics IV: 1400 Reasons Why(A Stimulus Serial)

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

"Switching" lol. Also, PR with one member for one district, is not PR at all, it's still majoritarian. Some states only have one district ... or did you mean a national list ?

No they mean the states would be the multi member constituencies. As in Georgia gets 14 seats so they’d have 14 seats to dish out proportionally, CA would get 55 and so on

Yes I said "some" states. 7 states have only 1 district; PR would make no difference. Another 5 only have 2 districts, which has another problem. From 3 up, PR sort of works, in that third parties have a chance.

Yes you could triple the size of the House. Or cull the runts. In any case, only a small proportion of the US voters are affected by the "no change" problem and is it even a problem? It's an imperfection, but a critical one if a constitutional amendment is required. Apologies if this has been covered; I just re-joined.

[Kowani]

Biden weighing keeping U.S. troops in Afghanistan until November

Biden is considering keeping U.S. troops in Afghanistan until November, rather than withdrawing them by a May 1 deadline outlined in an agreement his predecessor negotiated with the Taliban, according to two people familiar with the discussions.

In recent discussions with members of his national security team, Biden has pushed back against the Defense Department's efforts to keep U.S. troops in Afghanistan beyond May 1, one of the people said. But he has been persuaded to consider a six-month extension.

"Biden wants out," one of the people familiar with the discussions said. This person said Pentagon leaders have been making the case that the Taliban isn't living up to its end of the agreement, describing the argument as "Look, you own this now, Mr. President, and we can't guarantee you what will happen if we just precipitously pull everyone out."The military has presented several options, including pulling troops out by or close to May 1, keeping troops in the country indefinitely or keeping troops in Afghanistan for a defined period to be determined by Biden, which could include a six-month extension, said a second person familiar with the matter.

"The decision is with the president," the person said.

The people familiar with the administration's deliberations said no decision has been made. A spokesperson for the National Security Council declined to comment and pointed to White House press secretary Jen Psaki's most recent comments about troop withdrawal from Afghanistan. In late February, Psaki said that the question of whether to withdraw troops by May 1 was an ongoing discussion in the White House and that Biden would not be OK with the Taliban's taking over power in Afghanistan.

Pentagon press secretary John Kirby has said that a policy review is still underway and that no decision has been made about future troop levels. In an interview with ABC News that aired Wednesday, Biden said he was considering when U.S. troops would leave Afghanistan and acknowledged that a full withdrawal by May 1 "is tough."

"I'm in the process of making that decision now as to when they'll leave," Biden said.

The decision bears some similarities to the internal debate that raged during the Obama administration when Biden was vice president, although it involves far fewer troops. At that time, Biden strongly argued against sending tens of thousands of additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan and instead called for a smaller counterterrorism force that would focus solely on targeting Al Qaeda militants. The small force Biden advocated for then is close to the size of the one now in Afghanistan.

Any extension of the U.S. troop presence beyond May 1 would likely have to be presented to and negotiated with the Taliban, which has publicly said it will not accept any delay in the U.S. exit, current and former officials said. Otherwise, the Taliban could argue that the U.S. was violating the Doha agreement and resume an all-out war with the U.S. and NATO allies. The Taliban has mostly refrained from launching direct attacks on U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan since the deal was signed in February 2020.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

Putin challenges Biden to hold a discussion after Biden called him a killer

Russian President Vladimir Putin has reacted to President Joe Biden calling him a "killer" by challenging Biden to take part in a conversation with him broadcast live online.

“I’ve just thought of this now,” Putin told a Russian state television reporter. “I want to propose to President Biden to continue our discussion, but on the condition that we do it basically live, as it’s called. Without any delays and directly in an open, direct discussion. It seems to me that would be interesting for the people of Russia and for the people of the United States.” Putin’s invitation seemed to amount to a challenge to Biden to a live televised debate, following a day of diplomatic uproar that began when Biden said he thought Putin was a “killer” in an interview with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos. Russia recalled its ambassador to the United States in response to the remark.After issuing his invitation, Putin said he didn’t want to delay, proposing he and Biden hold the discussion as early as Friday. “I don’t want to put this off for long. I want to go the taiga this weekend to relax a little,” Putin said. “So we could do it tomorrow or Monday. We are ready at any time convenient for the American side.”

In response to reporters' questions, White House press secretary Jen Psaki suggested the discussion was unlikely to happen and noted that Biden is scheduled to travel to Georgia on Friday.

"I'll have to get back to you if that is something we're entertaining. I would say that the president already had a conversation with President Putin," Psaki said, noting Biden still had other word leaders to talk with. "The president, of course, will be in Georgia tomorrow and quite busy," she said.

Considering there are two places called Georgia, this is awesome trolling!

It's a great idea by Putin. If it happens there will need to be chess tournament rules: each country has at least one observer in the room with the other leader, to prevent them getting staff advice by teleprompter or earpiece.

Hmm. That vacant stare Putin has some of the time? I'm afraid we're going to have to ask him to submit to an MRI, at least of his head. He might have an implant.

[Zurkerx]

This is a good move. They're working, they're making money, they're abiding the law? They should be awarded with legal status.

it won't matter unless the filibuster gets neutered
they passed this same legislation in the previous congress
like 179 other House Bills, Mitch McConnell didn't let it come up for a vote
i somehow doubt his personal obstinance was the only thing at play there
welcome to the age of deadlock
good legislation depends on "bipartisanship" from a party with no incentives to be bipartisan in the first place

Is there any chance of it passing the Senate with that level of Republican support?

no
this is more or less the same amount of support it had in 2019
peeling of 10 republicans on anything is already herculean
on immigration?
wake up, you're dreaming

He's returned to his Playbook he used in the Obama years: basically oppose everything your opponent puts out, even if you support it. That way, by perceiving everything partisan, it makes voters angry despite the fact they may support such moves. It worked quite well for them so I'm not surprised they are returning to it.

[Kowani]

it won't matter unless the filibuster gets neutered
they passed this same legislation in the previous congress
like 179 other House Bills, Mitch McConnell didn't let it come up for a vote
i somehow doubt his personal obstinance was the only thing at play there
welcome to the age of deadlock
good legislation depends on "bipartisanship" from a party with no incentives to be bipartisan in the first place


no
this is more or less the same amount of support it had in 2019
peeling of 10 republicans on anything is already herculean
on immigration?
wake up, you're dreaming

He's returned to his Playbook he used in the Obama years: basically oppose everything your opponent puts out, even if you support it. That way, by perceiving everything partisan, it makes voters angry despite the fact they may support such moves. It worked quite well for them so I'm not surprised they are returning to it.

based on what i'm seeing, it backfired on covid relief
now we have to see how it does with other legislation, which is subject to different dynamics

[Cailona]

Hey guys
Who candidate for preident you are voted in 2020

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Hey guys
Who candidate for preident you are voted in 2020

Biden. I wasn't originally gonna vote for either but then Trump suggested herd immunity and I said "oh God he's actually that crazy. He's gonna kill even more ppl."

[The Black Forrest]

Beyond parody. Absolutely incredible.

Who would think that that is a good idea?

Hmmmm. *Flips coin* That would be the republicans.

After listening to the covid vs “liberty” arguments. The vaccines will inject nanoprobes; alien DNA and change your DNA. I would think there would be bills for a forced science curriculum.

[Zurkerx]

He's returned to his Playbook he used in the Obama years: basically oppose everything your opponent puts out, even if you support it. That way, by perceiving everything partisan, it makes voters angry despite the fact they may support such moves. It worked quite well for them so I'm not surprised they are returning to it.

based on what i'm seeing, it backfired on covid relief
now we have to see how it does with other legislation, which is subject to different dynamics

Tough to say: as we've learned with the American Public, they have a tendency to- vote against their interests. Certainly Republicans opposing COVID Relief hurt them but likely they'll rebound given how other past events have happened. Of course, it could be different this time but I won't hold my breath: my view of the general American populace is not a positive one.

[The Black Forrest]

Hey guys
Who candidate for preident you are voted in 2020

Biden without question. I would have voted for H. GWB, his brother, Reagans corpse to get rid of the ex-president.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Hey guys
Who candidate for preident you are voted in 2020

Biden without question. I would have voted for H. GWB, his brother, Reagans corpse to get rid of the ex-president.

I'd rather have Trump than Reagan. At least Trump was undeniably a bastard to everyone who wasn't a fan. Reagan gets way too much praise even from people who didn't totally like his policies. He was worse than history portrays him.

[North Washington Republic]

Biden without question. I would have voted for H. GWB, his brother, Reagans corpse to get rid of the ex-president.

I'd rather have Trump than Reagan. At least Trump was undeniably a bastard to everyone who wasn't a fan. Reagan gets way too much praise even from people who didn't totally like his policies. He was worse than history portrays him.

Regan would have listen to Dr. Fauci and would have taken the pandemic seriously.((Before anyone brings up HIV/AIDS, that is completely different case. COVID is a respiratory virus, HIV/AIDS is not))

[North Washington Republic]

Hey guys
Who candidate for preident you are voted in 2020

Joe Biden wasn’t my first choice. In fact, in late 2019/early 2020, essentially before COVID-19 was a pandemic, I was a “Never Biden” person solely because of his position on cannabis legalization. But as the pandemic came and people starting dying on a massive scale, I went with Joe Biden because I didn’t believe Bernie would beat Trump, and my politics overall was closer to Joe Biden. I voted for him in the primary and the general. Overall, I’ve been satisfied with my vote.

[Postauthoritarian America]

This is a good move. They're working, they're making money, they're abiding the law? They should be awarded with legal status.

it won't matter unless the filibuster gets neutered
they passed this same legislation in the previous congress
like 179 other House Bills, Mitch McConnell didn't let it come up for a vote
i somehow doubt his personal obstinance was the only thing at play there
welcome to the age of deadlock
good legislation depends on "bipartisanship" from a party with no incentives to be bipartisan in the first place

Is there any chance of it passing the Senate with that level of Republican support?

no
this is more or less the same amount of support it had in 2019
peeling of 10 republicans on anything is already herculean
on immigration?
wake up, you're dreaming

Senators from both parties just formed a "Group of 20" supposedly to deal with legislative gridlock; significantly it includes 10 Republicans. Watch this space.

[The Black Forrest]

Biden without question. I would have voted for H. GWB, his brother, Reagans corpse to get rid of the ex-president.

I'd rather have Trump than Reagan. At least Trump was undeniably a bastard to everyone who wasn't a fan. Reagan gets way too much praise even from people who didn't totally like his policies. He was worse than history portrays him.

I was in the DoD when he was around. There were things I didn’t like about him and yet he did think of the country more then the ex-president. You did get a sense he was looking out for people well in his own way.

The ex-president? It’s just words.

Of the two? The ex-president is just not equipped to be playing on the world stage. Too many reads to be an effective negotiator. Too easily manipulated.

Like I said; wasn’t a fan of Reagan and yet I will take him of the ex-president any day.

[North Washington Republic]

I'd rather have Trump than Reagan. At least Trump was undeniably a bastard to everyone who wasn't a fan. Reagan gets way too much praise even from people who didn't totally like his policies. He was worse than history portrays him.

I was in the DoD when he was around. There were things I didn’t like about him and yet he did think of the country more then the ex-president. You did get a sense he was looking out for people well in his own way.

The ex-president? It’s just words.

Of the two? The ex-president is just not equipped to be playing on the world stage. Too many reads to be an effective negotiator. Too easily manipulated.

Like I said; wasn’t a fan of Reagan and yet I will take him of the ex-president any day.

I can imagine what Ronald Reagan would do if Gorbachev put bounties on US troops and interfered with our elections...

[Kowani]

it won't matter unless the filibuster gets neutered
they passed this same legislation in the previous congress
like 179 other House Bills, Mitch McConnell didn't let it come up for a vote
i somehow doubt his personal obstinance was the only thing at play there
welcome to the age of deadlock
good legislation depends on "bipartisanship" from a party with no incentives to be bipartisan in the first place


no
this is more or less the same amount of support it had in 2019
peeling of 10 republicans on anything is already herculean
on immigration?
wake up, you're dreaming

Senators from both parties just formed a "Group of 20" supposedly to deal with legislative gridlock; significantly it includes 10 Republicans. Watch this space.

AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA

I’m sorry I can’t take this seriously
They’ve done this shit for years
Oh, they’ve given it different names, but it hasn’t actually gotten crap done
Maybe it’ll be different the fourth go-around…nahhhhhh
“Bipartisanship” is a myth
Don’t waste time caring about it

[Eahland]

"Switching" lol. Also, PR with one member for one district, is not PR at all, it's still majoritarian. Some states only have one district ... or did you mean a national list ?

No they mean the states would be the multi member constituencies. As in Georgia gets 14 seats so they’d have 14 seats to dish out proportionally, CA would get 55 and so on

Too many House delegations aren't big enough. California (probably 52 after the new census) or maybe Texas (probably 38) could make it work, but the median House delegation is only 6, which is really not enough resolution for PR to work properly. And the mode is actually 1. The size of the House is set by federal law, and can be changed as easily (i.e., not at all, because no legislation can pass except through budget reconciliation), but there's a Constitutional limit (1:30,000) on how big it can be. You'd have to push it all the way to the limit to get Wyoming (19) and Vermont (20) up to where they'd have enough seats to maybe make it halfway functional, and that'd result in California having a ridiculous and unmanageable 1,312 Congresscritters.

On the bright side, it would make the electoral college a lot closer to proportionate, which would reduce the advantage it gives the Republican minority, and maybe we could finally get rid of it. Though probably not. The winner-takes-all misfeature gives them a lot more payoff for cheating and suppressing their way to small local majorities.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

I might need to be corrected here, but I know some countries (see Canada) have an automatic voter registration system, wherein taxpaying citizens merely check off that they'd like to stay on the voter rolls when they're filing their annual income taxes.

Here in France you get automatically registered as a voter when you turn 18. The only paperwork you ever have to do is if you move to another town to be transferred there, if not you'll have to go to your previous place to vote.

Better than Australia then. We're strongly encouraged to register at 18, and once registered you can't unregister. Because the voter roll is public, people are allowed to show reason (eg stalkers) to be registered in secret. If you're registered but don't vote, you get a stern letter and if you don't respond with a good reason ("I live a hundred klicks from town and me ute broke down") under oath of course, you get fined. Yeah, compulsory voting. I used to love it.

One thing we do better: you don't have to travel to your "old" electorate/division. You can vote anywhere and they'll mail it across for you. It delays the results, very rarely when that division is very closely contested, but I think that's fun.

---

ASOT is letting Sanders live rent free in his head. I swear to God the amount of smugness and yet also bitterness he has toward Bernie Sanders and "Bernie bros" is unbelievable. I guess no one learned from 2016. Disrespecting the left of the democratic party and calling right wingers dipshits does not win elections. You can thank the smugness of Hillary and her fans for the last 4 years we went through because if she actually made more attempts to reach out to the "Bernie bros" and actually visited the Midwest more instead of assuming she was guaranteed to win, we wouldn't have had Trump as the president.

Honestly, I don't think there was any way Hillary could have won that election. The actual problems started decades before her campaign did. When the DNC decided to anoint her queen, they were dramatically underestimating how much hate there is for Hillary Clinton specifically, due in large part to the hatchet job Republican propaganda organs have been doing on her since she was merely a candidate for First Lady, particularly among the middle-aged blue-collar men we need to carry the Rust Belt. But they foisted her on us anyway, and, surprise surprise, we lost the Rust Belt.

I voted for Obama over Clinton in 2008, and got a lot of shit for it from Clintonistas who insisted that it had to be the omgsexism. You couldn't fit a sheet of paper between them policy-wise, and Obama was a complete unknown at the time. (Though I was previously familiar with him, because I had a friend - the guy who introduced me to NationStates, actually - who worked on his Senate campaign.)

But in actuality, part of it was that I was really not okay with having 4–8 years of Clinton right on the heels of 8 years of Bush, after 8 years of Clinton, after 4 years of Bush (and another 8 with Bush as VP). We are not a hereditary monarchy, and we need to stop fucking acting like one.

But mostly it was because I foresaw that if Hillary Clinton got the nomination, we'd get... well, 2016. (And I was really not pleased to be vindicated on this when actual 2016 rolled around. I sometimes wonder how things would've fallen out, and how much better off we'd be now if Clinton had won the 2008 nomination and had gotten her Presidential aspirations crushed by McCain then instead of Trump in 2016.

This also averts the rise of birtherism and similar racist conspiracy theories, and Trump probably never even runs.) And then her entitled reaction to losing to Obama guaranteed that I'd never willingly vote for her again. (I still did in the 2016 general, because I would have voted for literally anyone short of Benito Mussolini if they had a chance of beating Trump. But I held my nose while I did it.)

She was eight years younger and a lot smarter, also Obama's coat-tails weren't Reaganesque. She nearly won anyway, and I will take a lot of convincing that McCain would have beaten her with the coat-tails he was riding. 2016 was a much harder election than 2008 for any Democrat to win, as with the benefit of 2020 we can see that Trump with the outsider advantage was a more formidable opponent than any of us gave him credit for.

The years of Republican hatchet-jobs on Hillary Clinton seem to have affected your judgement. Or maybe it was the 2008 primary contest which radicalized you?

---

I don't quite understand the logistics of why our vaccine rollout is so damn successful these last few weeks, but I'm immensely grateful for it.

Trust your civil servants and trust your doctors and nurses. Experts always self-manage better than politicians can ... at least on a timetabled project like vaccination. After a few years they can become corrupted or complacent, and work less effectively in expectation of more funding. Otherwise we'd have an undemocratic technocracy, with the civil service basically hereditary. It's a shame about that, because technocracy is awesome when expenses don't matter.

---

Beyond parody. Absolutely incredible.

How would a one sentence bill eliminate states and counties from their role in school education? Let alone lay out a democratic mechanism for "teachers and parents" to control it? Well it wouldn't, of course. What a nozzle.

---

Who would think that that is a good idea?

People who don't want to pay taxes for public schools, i.e. the reliable funders of the Republican Party.

People in rich states who don't want to pay taxes for schools in poor states.
People in rich suburbs who don't want to pay taxes for schools in poor suburbs.

Rich assholes in short, who for centuries have kept school funding local more than state, and state more than federal. They're in favor of hereditary advantage and disadvantage, because it favors them and it favors their children.

"Virtue signalling" isn't the right word. Nor is "trolling". What do we call vain displays of moral turpitude?

---

Biden without question. I would have voted for H. GWB, his brother, Reagans corpse to get rid of the ex-president.

I'd rather have Trump than Reagan. At least Trump was undeniably a bastard to everyone who wasn't a fan. Reagan gets way too much praise even from people who didn't totally like his policies. He was worse than history portrays him.

Other than his military escapades, everything Reagan did was with the complicity of Democrats. In his 8 years, Republicans never controlled Congress. In his last 2 years, they didn't even have the Senate.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Here in France you get automatically registered as a voter when you turn 18. The only paperwork you ever have to do is if you move to another town to be transferred there, if not you'll have to go to your previous place to vote.

Better than Australia then. We're strongly encouraged to register at 18, and once registered you can't unregister. Because the voter roll is public, people are allowed to show reason (eg stalkers) to be registered in secret. If you're registered but don't vote, you get a stern letter and if you don't respond with a good reason ("I live a hundred klicks from town and me ute broke down") under oath of course, you get fined. Yeah, compulsory voting. I used to love it.

One thing we do better: you don't have to travel to your "old" electorate/division. You can vote anywhere and they'll mail it across for you. It delays the results, very rarely when that division is very closely contested, but I think that's fun.

---

Honestly, I don't think there was any way Hillary could have won that election. The actual problems started decades before her campaign did. When the DNC decided to anoint her queen, they were dramatically underestimating how much hate there is for Hillary Clinton specifically, due in large part to the hatchet job Republican propaganda organs have been doing on her since she was merely a candidate for First Lady, particularly among the middle-aged blue-collar men we need to carry the Rust Belt. But they foisted her on us anyway, and, surprise surprise, we lost the Rust Belt.

I voted for Obama over Clinton in 2008, and got a lot of shit for it from Clintonistas who insisted that it had to be the omgsexism. You couldn't fit a sheet of paper between them policy-wise, and Obama was a complete unknown at the time. (Though I was previously familiar with him, because I had a friend - the guy who introduced me to NationStates, actually - who worked on his Senate campaign.)

But in actuality, part of it was that I was really not okay with having 4–8 years of Clinton right on the heels of 8 years of Bush, after 8 years of Clinton, after 4 years of Bush (and another 8 with Bush as VP). We are not a hereditary monarchy, and we need to stop fucking acting like one.

But mostly it was because I foresaw that if Hillary Clinton got the nomination, we'd get... well, 2016. (And I was really not pleased to be vindicated on this when actual 2016 rolled around. I sometimes wonder how things would've fallen out, and how much better off we'd be now if Clinton had won the 2008 nomination and had gotten her Presidential aspirations crushed by McCain then instead of Trump in 2016.

This also averts the rise of birtherism and similar racist conspiracy theories, and Trump probably never even runs.) And then her entitled reaction to losing to Obama guaranteed that I'd never willingly vote for her again. (I still did in the 2016 general, because I would have voted for literally anyone short of Benito Mussolini if they had a chance of beating Trump. But I held my nose while I did it.)

She was eight years younger and a lot smarter, also Obama's coat-tails weren't Reaganesque. She nearly won anyway, and I will take a lot of convincing that McCain would have beaten her with the coat-tails he was riding. 2016 was a much harder election than 2008 for any Democrat to win, as with the benefit of 2020 we can see that Trump with the outsider advantage was a more formidable opponent than any of us gave him credit for.

The years of Republican hatchet-jobs on Hillary Clinton seem to have affected your judgement. Or maybe it was the 2008 primary contest which radicalized you?

---

I don't quite understand the logistics of why our vaccine rollout is so damn successful these last few weeks, but I'm immensely grateful for it.

Trust your civil servants and trust your doctors and nurses. Experts always self-manage better than politicians can ... at least on a timetabled project like vaccination. After a few years they can become corrupted or complacent, and work less effectively in expectation of more funding. Otherwise we'd have an undemocratic technocracy, with the civil service basically hereditary. It's a shame about that, because technocracy is awesome when expenses don't matter.

---

Beyond parody. Absolutely incredible.

How would a one sentence bill eliminate states and counties from their role in school education? Let alone lay out a democratic mechanism for "teachers and parents" to control it? Well it wouldn't, of course. What a nozzle.

---

People who don't want to pay taxes for public schools, i.e. the reliable funders of the Republican Party.

People in rich states who don't want to pay taxes for schools in poor states.
People in rich suburbs who don't want to pay taxes for schools in poor suburbs.

Rich assholes in short, who for centuries have kept school funding local more than state, and state more than federal. They're in favor of hereditary advantage and disadvantage, because it favors them and it favors their children.

"Virtue signalling" isn't the right word. Nor is "trolling". What do we call vain displays of moral turpitude?

---

I'd rather have Trump than Reagan. At least Trump was undeniably a bastard to everyone who wasn't a fan. Reagan gets way too much praise even from people who didn't totally like his policies. He was worse than history portrays him.

Other than his military escapades, everything Reagan did was with the complicity of Democrats. In his 8 years, Republicans never controlled Congress. In his last 2 years, they didn't even have the Senate.

And yet they helped him. Man I can't stand when people praise Reagan.

[North Washington Republic]

Senators from both parties just formed a "Group of 20" supposedly to deal with legislative gridlock; significantly it includes 10 Republicans. Watch this space.

AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA

I’m sorry I can’t take this seriously
They’ve done this shit for years
Oh, they’ve given it different names, but it hasn’t actually gotten crap done
Maybe it’ll be different the fourth go-around…nahhhhhh
“Bipartisanship” is a myth
Don’t waste time caring about it

I would have to strongly disagree with you there. Bipartisanship get stuff done and promotes good governance. The polarization that the United States is experiencing right now is terribly unhealthy for our republic in our society. We do need to go back to the olden days where politicians actually try to be bipartisan.
I will be the first one to admit right now that there are more Democrats than Republicans want to be bipartisan, and the majority of Republicans want to play to their far-right/QAnon base because they’re scared do death of them. However, seeing Democrats and Republican politicians coming together is good for the Country. If we continue down this road of Polarization, you can expect more extremist inspired acts of (mass) violence and terrorism.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA

I’m sorry I can’t take this seriously
They’ve done this shit for years
Oh, they’ve given it different names, but it hasn’t actually gotten crap done
Maybe it’ll be different the fourth go-around…nahhhhhh
“Bipartisanship” is a myth
Don’t waste time caring about it

I would have to strongly disagree with you there. Bipartisanship get stuff done and promotes good governance. The polarization that the United States is experiencing right now is terribly unhealthy for our republic in our society. We do need to go back to the olden days where politicians actually try to be bipartisan.
I will be the first one to admit right now that there are more Democrats than Republicans want to be bipartisan, and the majority of Republicans want to play to their far-right/QAnon base because they’re scared do death of them. However, seeing Democrats and Republican politicians coming together is good for the Country. If we continue down this road of Polarization, you can expect more extremist inspired acts of (mass) violence and terrorism.

Whenever the GOP and dems come together, it's usually to do something awful (i.e. Iraq War). Please no.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

No they mean the states would be the multi member constituencies. As in Georgia gets 14 seats so they’d have 14 seats to dish out proportionally, CA would get 55 and so on

Too many House delegations aren't big enough. California (probably 52 after the new census) or maybe Texas (probably 38) could make it work, but the median House delegation is only 6, which is really not enough resolution for PR to work properly. And the mode is actually 1. The size of the House is set by federal law, and can be changed as easily (i.e., not at all, because no legislation can pass except through budget reconciliation), but there's a Constitutional limit (1:30,000) on how big it can be. You'd have to push it all the way to the limit to get Wyoming (19) and Vermont (20) up to where they'd have enough seats to maybe make it halfway functional, and that'd result in California having a ridiculous and unmanageable 1,312 Congresscritters.

On the bright side, it would make the electoral college a lot closer to proportionate, which would reduce the advantage it gives the Republican minority, and maybe we could finally get rid of it. Though probably not. The winner-takes-all misfeature gives them a lot more payoff for cheating and suppressing their way to small local majorities.

Increasing the size of the House would make the EC more proportionate. But that's the exact reason Republicans will never allow it.

I don't understand your expectation of PR, that it be "halfway functional" because it has 19 or 20 representatives for the smallest states. Being at all functional for them, means that nationally it's very functional indeed. Considering that a state with only one district would be no less proportional than it is now.

Would tripling the size of the House (so the smallest states have 2 or 3) be too much, do you think?

[North Washington Republic]

I would have to strongly disagree with you there. Bipartisanship get stuff done and promotes good governance. The polarization that the United States is experiencing right now is terribly unhealthy for our republic in our society. We do need to go back to the olden days where politicians actually try to be bipartisan.
I will be the first one to admit right now that there are more Democrats than Republicans want to be bipartisan, and the majority of Republicans want to play to their far-right/QAnon base because they’re scared do death of them. However, seeing Democrats and Republican politicians coming together is good for the Country. If we continue down this road of Polarization, you can expect more extremist inspired acts of (mass) violence and terrorism.

Whenever the GOP and dems come together, it's usually to do something awful (i.e. Iraq War). Please no.

Please, yes. Because our safety and livelihoods depend on it.

[Eahland]

Hey guys
Who candidate for preident you are voted in 2020

I voted for Bernie in the primary, but while he was my preference, I was basically okay with anyone but Bloomberg.

Biden in the general, without hesitation. He didn't excite me, but he didn't offend me, either, and I'd vote for a bucket of warm piss if it was the only way to get Trump out of there.

I don't know what I'd've done if it had come down to Bloomberg vs. Trump. Destroyed the world, probably.