American Politics: Fiscal Cliffhanger

[Port Caverton]

You can have the house be proportional to fix that issue while keeping the senate as it currently is to prevent California, Texas, New York and Florida from taking all of the country's decisions

How do you feel about my suggestion. Congress is entirely proportional of some sort. The house considers votes from all over the country and so is proportional to the country. The senate gets more senators and considers only the votes within the state they are supposed to represent. The House should represent the country as a whole while the senate represents the individual states as a whole.

That could work too

[Galloism]

You can have the house be proportional to fix that issue while keeping the senate as it currently is to prevent California, Texas, New York and Florida from taking all of the country's decisions

How do you feel about my suggestion. Congress is entirely proportional of some sort. The house considers votes from all over the country and so is proportional to the country. The senate gets more senators and considers only the votes within the state they are supposed to represent. The House should represent the country as a whole while the senate represents the individual states as a whole.

We should do a jury duty-like system for the house. Can’t be worse.

[Bienenhalde]

I am. But I’m simply making a point (obviously exaggerating partly). The Republicans began democratic backsliding, and hey, fair is fair. Proportionally appointing senators and house seats would be a good start.

The senate should stay as it is. The house can be proportional.

Fair, but states should replace first-past-the-post elections for the senate with ranked-choice voting or non-partisan blanket primaries.

[San Lumen]

I do accept that but the minority does not get to hold the majority of population hostage and prevent the government from functioning. I once again ask if the minority gets to completely stall the agenda of the majority party why even bother having a Republic?

I already answered that question. If they have sufficient numbers to do so, YES. This is the result of democracy, they have the numbers to force the issue. They also get to deal with the consequences of it, namely that it makes it much more difficult to negotiate with the majority on things they do want to get passed. Both because while there is no quorum nothing, including the things they want passed, gets passed and also because the majority is far less likely to want to negotiate with someone who has used what is essentially the nuclear option.

What therefore is the solution?

The senate should stay as it is. The house can be proportional.

Honestly I want both to be proportional, where the House represents the county and so is proportional to the country as per votes while the senate gets more individuals per state (say 5) and is proportional per state. The members of the national senate should not represent individual districts but rather the state as a whole. Individual districts can be represented within the state government.

The reason we eliminated county based districts was because it was unfair and undemocratic.

I once again point out Nevada as a prime example. 75 percent of the population is Clark County add in Washoe and that’s 85 percent in just two counties.

Why should 15 percent of the population always control one chamber? How is that fair or Democratic?

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

And, how is this "Who votes for a “No Malarkey executive order”, officially banning all Republican officeholders who have denied the result of the 2020 election? Or maybe just shift Congress towards a more proportional system, which definitely won’t result in the Republicans having all of 10 senators vs like 10 from California." fair?

if republicans are unpopular, maybe they should have to change their policies instead of relying on an increasingly rigged system to maintain power. just a thought.

[EuroStralia]

And, how is this "Who votes for a “No Malarkey executive order”, officially banning all Republican officeholders who have denied the result of the 2020 election? Or maybe just shift Congress towards a more proportional system, which definitely won’t result in the Republicans having all of 10 senators vs like 10 from California." fair?

if republicans are unpopular, maybe they should have to change their policies instead of relying on an increasingly rigged system to maintain power. just a thought.

Republicans aren't unpopular.

[Tarsonis]

You don't have the right to dictate who can represent these districts in the state legislature. If you support democracy then you have to accept that people will sometimes elect someone you don't like.

---

So you don't care about the erosion of democratic rights, you just want your team to be the one that does it.

I do accept that but the minority does not get to hold the majority of population hostage and prevent the government from functioning. I once again ask if the minority gets to completely stall the agenda of the majority party why even bother having a Republic?

You really don't understand how government works, do you...

[Pizza Friday Forever91]

So you don't care about the erosion of democratic rights, you just want your team to be the one that does it.

did you just quote a literal nazi in favor of your point?

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

if republicans are unpopular, maybe they should have to change their policies instead of relying on an increasingly rigged system to maintain power. just a thought.

Republicans aren't unpopular.

okay, so then the problem you just complained about doesn’t exist.

[Neutraligon]

I already answered that question. If they have sufficient numbers to do so, YES. This is the result of democracy, they have the numbers to force the issue. They also get to deal with the consequences of it, namely that it makes it much more difficult to negotiate with the majority on things they do want to get passed. Both because while there is no quorum nothing, including the things they want passed, gets passed and also because the majority is far less likely to want to negotiate with someone who has used what is essentially the nuclear option.

What therefore is the solution?

To what? This is working as intended. There are drawbacks to the walkout and the people walking out have to decide whether the drawbacks are worth the gain.

Honestly I want both to be proportional, where the House represents the county and so is proportional to the country as per votes while the senate gets more individuals per state (say 5) and is proportional per state. The members of the national senate should not represent individual districts but rather the state as a whole. Individual districts can be represented within the state government.

The reason we eliminated county based districts was because it was unfair and undemocratic.

I once again point out Nevada as a prime example. 75 percent of the population is Clark County add in Washoe and that’s 85 percent in just two counties.

Why should 15 percent of the population always control one chamber? How is that fair or Democratic?

I did not mention how state governments should divide things up at all. What I recommended removed gerrymandering on a national level entirely as far as Congress is concerned.

[EuroStralia]

Republicans aren't unpopular.

okay, so then the problem you just complained about doesn’t exist.

I didn't complain about a problem, I argud against The Rio Grande River Basin supporying authoritarian policies that he is suppodidly against.

[Galloism]

You don't have the right to dictate who can represent these districts in the state legislature. If you support democracy then you have to accept that people will sometimes elect someone you don't like.

---

So you don't care about the erosion of democratic rights, you just want your team to be the one that does it.

I do accept that but the minority does not get to hold the majority of population hostage and prevent the government from functioning. I once again ask if the minority gets to completely stall the agenda of the majority party why even bother having a Republic?

As I recall, you supported the minority getting to ‘hold the majority of the population hostage’

[Ifreann]

You don't have the right to dictate who can represent these districts in the state legislature. If you support democracy then you have to accept that people will sometimes elect someone you don't like.

---

So you don't care about the erosion of democratic rights, you just want your team to be the one that does it.

I do accept that but

But nothing. These districts should get to choose their own representatives, not have their choices dictated by big city east coast liberals.

[The Rio Grande River Basin]

did you just quote a literal nazi in favor of your point?

A broken clock is right twice a day. By which I mean a cynical literal Nazi was at least correct in finding the problem (and no, I don’t mean the Jews, I mean the flaw with zero-sum democracy), and his cure was far, far worse.

[The Rio Grande River Basin]

okay, so then the problem you just complained about doesn’t exist.

I didn't complain about a problem, I argud against The Rio Grande River Basin supporying authoritarian policies that he is suppodidly against.

I don’t support ejecting Republican congresspeople; I support proportionally assigning senators and representatives tho.

[Neutraligon]

I didn't complain about a problem, I argud against The Rio Grande River Basin supporying authoritarian policies that he is suppodidly against.

I don’t support ejecting Republican congresspeople; I support proportionally assigning senators and representatives tho.

The Senate exists to ensure there is not tyranny of the majority. Do you like my suggestion?

[EuroStralia]

I didn't complain about a problem, I argud against The Rio Grande River Basin supporying authoritarian policies that he is suppodidly against.

I don’t support ejecting Republican congresspeople; I support proportionally assigning senators and representatives tho.

Than you support unneccasary solutions.

[San Lumen]

I do accept that but

But nothing. These districts should get to choose their own representatives, not have their choices dictated by big city east coast liberals.

And they do get to pick their own representatives as do urban areas. What they don’t get to do is hold the government hostage so nothing can get done.

[Pizza Friday Forever91]

https://www.startribune.com/minnesota-m ... 600276465/ Legal Marijuana Now and Grassroots—Legalize Cannabis Parties leaders ARRESTED, TRIALED, AND EXECUTED.

SOURCE: THE MILITARY.

[The Rio Grande River Basin]

I don’t support ejecting Republican congresspeople; I support proportionally assigning senators and representatives tho.

The Senate exists to ensure there is not tyranny of the majority. Do you like my suggestion?

The issue is that we either have tyranny of the majority or tyranny of the minority (if the Republicans get their way, which is arguably worse). Your suggestion is good, but unfortunately functional democracy in the US seems to be collapsing.

[Khurkhogur]

(Image)

did you just quote a literal nazi in favor of your point?

Heidegger was a member of the nazi party - his philosophy is valued nonetheless. The same goes for Schmitt. His political theory is highly regarded. I quoted him in a uni paper once before knowing he was a nazi. When I found out, I asked a friend who studied political philosophy how I wasn't failed. Apparently, no professor would bat an eye at that.

[The Rio Grande River Basin]

I don’t support ejecting Republican congresspeople; I support proportionally assigning senators and representatives tho.

Then you support unneccasary solutions.

Are they unnecessary though? They seem democratic to me.

[Neutraligon]

But nothing. These districts should get to choose their own representatives, not have their choices dictated by big city east coast liberals.

And they do get to pick their own representatives as do urban areas. What they don’t get to do is hold the government hostage so nothing can get done.

Except that they cannot pick their own representative since the state has made it so that the only method they have to prevent a law from passing that they do not like is basically unavailable. They get to choose, either they get the representative they want (who is ineffective) or they do not get the representative they want. What the state has done is created tyranny of the majority.

[Pizza Friday Forever91]

did you just quote a literal nazi in favor of your point?

Heidegger was a member of the nazi party - his philosophy is valued nonetheless. The same goes for Schmitt. His political theory is highly regarded. I quoted him in a uni paper once before knowing he was a nazi. When I found out, I asked a friend who studied political philosophy how I wasn't failed. Apparently, no professor would bat an eye at that.

That's an interesting way to defend the crown jurist of the third reich.

[San Lumen]

And they do get to pick their own representatives as do urban areas. What they don’t get to do is hold the government hostage so nothing can get done.

Except that they cannot pick their own representative since the state has made it so that the only method they have to prevent a law from passing that they do not like is basically unavailable. What the state has done is created tyranny of the majority.

How can they not pick their own representatives? Do certain areas of Oregon not have free and fair elections?