American Politics Thread VI: Can't We All Just Get Along?

[Proctopeo]

Finally, this

unfair Senate where small rural states have as many Senators as states with over 10x their population

Demonstrates to me that you have absolutely no knowledge of civics whatsoever, American or otherwise. Do you want me to explain how it would be unfair if we only had one of our legislative houses?

the senate is a terrible institution for many reasons (unrepresentative by design being one of those) but the house also disproportionately benefits rural areas-and that one's arguably worse in the framework of american governance because its not supposed to
the senate is bad by design, the house is bad by dysfunction

Ah, you really don't know civics either. The Senate is only a bad institution if you think less populated states don't deserve any effective representation, and I hope that's not the case, as that would be a hilariously stupid thing to believe.

The House can be "fixed" to be less "beneficial" to rural areas by expanding it - the number of representatives has been fixed since 1911, after all. But if you look at who has representation, it's clear that the "benefit" is marginal; out of 435 Representatives, who gives a damn about what the two from Idaho have to say?

Though do note, that it "benefits" small states, not strictly rural ones; it just happens that the most populated states are predominantly urban, not rural. So I must ask you, what contempt do you have for rural people?

The core idea of representative democracy is one citizen = one vote, and all votes are equal. The US Senate is very, very, very bad at that, worse than most chambers in any other western countries. That's basic civics.

That doesn't necessarily mean there should be only one chamber, there are many other options. You could have the current House become the Senate, and the House being elected with proportional vote on nation-wide lists. You could have the House kept as it is but the Senate being made of randomly sorted citizen, like a giant jury. You could have the House and the Senate both use similar districts, but the House being short-term (as it is now) while the Senate keeps being for longer terms. You could keep them elected as they are but require a qualified majority, like in the EU Council, where you need 50% of Senators representing 60% of the population to pass a bill. There are many other options, all which would be fairer than "40m people California and 600k people Wyoming have exactly the same weight".

So your "solution" to a perceived "problem" with the Senate is to make it into a carbon copy of the House? I just... that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

The fundamental purpose of the Senate is to prevent big states from fully overshadowing small states; the voice of states like Delaware or South Dakota are basically irrelevant in the House, but they can actually have some meaningful input in the Senate. This only looks like a "problem" if you view it through a blind dogmatic lens of "ONE MAN ONE VOTE" instead of considering how alternatives would lead to an even worse situation.

[Cannot think of a name]

The January 6th Select Committee has demanded records from 15 social media companies related to data and analysis on domestic violent extremists affiliated with efforts to overturn the 2020 electionl, as well as what the companies did or did not do to stop the spread of misinformation
the full list

Facebook
Twitter
Google
Parler
Reddit
Snapchat
Gab
Telegram
8Kun
Tik Tok
Twitch
YouTube
Zello
4chan
Thedonald.win

Well...this is a tricky wicket...

[Cannot think of a name]

Republicans saying "Better not remove that filibuster, could come back to bite you in the ass" feels like a Scary Terry moment.

I'm sure everyone on this forum is familiar with the most important philosophical treatise of the 21st Century, Rick and Morty. Appearing in season 1, episode 2, Scary Terry tells Rick and Morty that they can run, but they can't hide(bitch). They do run, through various people's dreams, all to no avail, and they only escape Scary Terry when Rick finally decides to just hide, pointing out that they have no reason to take Scary Terry's advice.

Your political opponents are not going to give you advice on how to defeat them and thwart their movement. They are not going to warn you away from a course of action that they sincerely believe would put the reins of power ultimately in their hands. Republicans telling Democrats not to remove the filibuster is Scary Terry telling you not to hide. If Democrats ditch the filibuster and pass electoral reforms strengthening the right to vote in federal elections, Republicans would be completely and utterly fucked. They know this. Thus the friendly advice to keep the filibuster.

This actually changed my mind.

[Proctopeo]

Republicans saying "Better not remove that filibuster, could come back to bite you in the ass" feels like a Scary Terry moment.

I'm sure everyone on this forum is familiar with the most important philosophical treatise of the 21st Century, Rick and Morty. Appearing in season 1, episode 2, Scary Terry tells Rick and Morty that they can run, but they can't hide(bitch). They do run, through various people's dreams, all to no avail, and they only escape Scary Terry when Rick finally decides to just hide, pointing out that they have no reason to take Scary Terry's advice.

Your political opponents are not going to give you advice on how to defeat them and thwart their movement. They are not going to warn you away from a course of action that they sincerely believe would put the reins of power ultimately in their hands. Republicans telling Democrats not to remove the filibuster is Scary Terry telling you not to hide. If Democrats ditch the filibuster and pass electoral reforms strengthening the right to vote in federal elections, Republicans would be completely and utterly fucked. They know this. Thus the friendly advice to keep the filibuster.

I'm not a Republican but go off I guess. How's that Pickled Cucumber Richard tattoo, my G?

[Kilobugya]

The core idea of representative democracy is one citizen = one vote, and all votes are equal. The US Senate is very, very, very bad at that, worse than most chambers in any other western countries. That's basic civics.

That doesn't necessarily mean there should be only one chamber, there are many other options. You could have the current House become the Senate, and the House being elected with proportional vote on nation-wide lists. You could have the House kept as it is but the Senate being made of randomly sorted citizen, like a giant jury. You could have the House and the Senate both use similar districts, but the House being short-term (as it is now) while the Senate keeps being for longer terms. You could keep them elected as they are but require a qualified majority, like in the EU Council, where you need 50% of Senators representing 60% of the population to pass a bill. There are many other options, all which would be fairer than "40m people California and 600k people Wyoming have exactly the same weight".

So your "solution" to a perceived "problem" with the Senate is to make it into a carbon copy of the House? I just... that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

I offered 4 broadly different solutions, only one could be considered "make it into a carbon copy of the House"...

The fundamental purpose of the Senate is to prevent big states from fully overshadowing small states; the voice of states like Delaware or South Dakota are basically irrelevant in the House, but they can actually have some meaningful input in the Senate. This only looks like a "problem" if you view it through a blind dogmatic lens of "ONE MAN ONE VOTE" instead of considering how alternatives would lead to an even worse situation.

States have no rights, people do. Cattle and rocks don't matter, people do. The voice of Delaware and South Dakota don't matter much because... there aren't many people living there. More live in just in the Bronx than in the whole state. Does the voice of the Bronx matter in the House ? Well, not much either In fact each individual citizen in those states already have more say than each individual citizen in NY, Chicago or Miami in the House, and it's 10x worse in the Senate. You didn't even start with giving one reason why someone living in South Dakota should have their opinion matter 20x more than the opinion of someone living in Los Angeles. You just keep saying that any alternative, whatever it is, the 4 radically different one I proposed and tens of others which are possible, would all be worse with no reason.

[Michel Meilleur]

States have no rights, people do. Cattle and rocks don't matter, people do. The voice of Delaware and South Dakota don't matter much because... there aren't many people living there. More live in just in the Bronx than in the whole state. Does the voice of the Bronx matter in the House ? Well, not much either In fact each individual citizen in those states already have more say than each individual citizen in NY, Chicago or Miami in the House, and it's 10x worse in the Senate. You didn't even start with giving one reason why someone living in South Dakota should have their opinion matter 20x more than the opinion of someone living in Los Angeles. You just keep saying that any alternative, whatever it is, the 4 radically different one I proposed and tens of others which are possible, would all be worse with no reason.

The issue is that you're thinking from a Unitary perspective while his own viewpoint is firmly anchored in a Federalist one. The kind of System we have in France (which is as close to "the best" for us that we've ever gotten near to) where we elect a "president-monarch" only works because both of our culture, national character and the very nature of our state.

For the U.S. , and while I'm honestly the first one to think that they'd need to change their colonial republic model and reform if not rebuild their whole democratic system, what they have is actually (in principle) what makes the most sense.
Because in a Federalist System, the state isn't ruling over people. It's ruling over regions that are ruling over peoples. If you stop putting all regions on an equal footing, then your system is bound to crumble and secession to happen.

[Kilobugya]

The kind of System we have in France (which is as close to "the best" for us that we've ever gotten near to) where we elect a "president-monarch" only works because both of our culture, national character and the very nature of our state.

I strongly disagree the 5th Republic, especially its current version, is "the best", actually it's among the worst, but let's move it to French politics thread if you want to continue discussion on that.

Because in a Federalist System, the state isn't ruling over people. It's ruling over regions that are ruling over peoples. If you stop putting all regions on an equal footing, then your system is bound to crumble and secession to happen.

It's not like the US is the only federal state around - Germany is federal, Mexico is federal, Brazil is federal, ... and none of them have this level of inequality in the Senate with enormous states like California and tiny states that have less population than one district of a city having exactly the same weight. EU is also federal in its nature, and yet there is this qualified majority system where you need a majority of member states representing 60% of the population to pass a directive. Among all the federal systems around the world, the US is the most caricatural in how undemocratic it is.

[Washington Resistance Army]

It's not like the US is the only federal state around - Germany is federal, Mexico is federal, Brazil is federal, ... and none of them have this level of inequality in the Senate with enormous states like California and tiny states that have less population than one district of a city having exactly the same weight. EU is also federal in its nature, and yet there is this qualified majority system where you need a majority of member states representing 60% of the population to pass a directive. Among all the federal systems around the world, the US is the most caricatural in how undemocratic it is.

While Mexico's Senate has several additions it does still functionally work off of each state having just a few people represent it regardless of size or population.

[Michel Meilleur]

I strongly disagree the 5th Republic, especially its current version, is "the best", actually it's among the worst, but let's move it to French politics thread if you want to continue discussion on that.

Indeed let's do that if you know where it is, it's a very interesting topic and one that is seldom discussed. I'm actually interested in hearing what motivate your opinion (and would gladly explain my own) because it's to the antipodes of mine.

It's not like the US is the only federal state around - Germany is federal, Mexico is federal, Brazil is federal, ... and none of them have this level of inequality in the Senate with enormous states like California and tiny states that have less population than one district of a city having exactly the same weight. EU is also federal in its nature, and yet there is this qualified majority system where you need a majority of member states representing 60% of the population to pass a directive. Among all the federal systems around the world, the US is the most caricatural in how undemocratic it is.

Well, Mexico and Brazil have huge swath of their territory ruled by criminal empires, Germany is a special case of "unitary-federalism" imo, and the E.U. is... Well, the E.U. is a special kind of shit-show.
Note that I'm making myself the Devil's advocate because I think culture wall is quite at play here.

[Kowani]

the senate is a terrible institution for many reasons (unrepresentative by design being one of those) but the house also disproportionately benefits rural areas-and that one's arguably worse in the framework of american governance because its not supposed to
the senate is bad by design, the house is bad by dysfunction

Ah, you really don't know civics either. The Senate is only a bad institution if you think less populated states don't deserve any effective representation, and I hope that's not the case, as that would be a hilariously stupid thing to believe.

i mean i don't believe the states should exist at all but a body should definitely be giving disproportionate power to a bunch of arbitrary lines that benjamin harrison and other post-war republicans carved out to try and keep the democrats out of power after reconstruction failed
the problem is not "they don't get representation" the problem is they get representation far disproportionate to their population (and this is compounded by practically every other institution's unrepresentative bias as well)

The House can be "fixed" to be less "beneficial" to rural areas by expanding it - the number of representatives has been fixed since 1911, after all. But if you look at who has representation, it's clear that the "benefit" is marginal; out of 435 Representatives, who gives a damn about what the two from Idaho have to say?

the benefit is marginal to individual states, maybe-it compounds for rural states as a whole as a result of party cohesion returning to normal levels (the post-nixon years are a historical aberration of political partisanship!)

Though do note, that it "benefits" small states, not strictly rural ones; it just happens that the most populated states are predominantly urban, not rural. So I must ask you, what contempt do you have for rural people?

this isn't even accurate
Hawaii, Rhode Island, Utah,-all of these states are extremely urban and yet they're also responsible for the malapportionment
there's definitely others but i just picked states where at least 90% of the population was living in urban areas (and note that data's from 2010 and the malapportionament's only gotten worse since then)

[Kilobugya]

While Mexico's Senate has several additions it does still functionally work off of each state having just a few people represent it regardless of size or population.

It has 3/4th elected that way, yes, but 1/4th elected proportionally to national vote, which is slightly fairer than the US model, if not by much. And there is also the fact that the gap in population between the biggest and smallest state in Mexico is less than half the gap in the US (17M vs 700k instead of 39M vs 600k), making the problem significantly less bad. But sure, Mexico's system for the Senate is still very undemocratic, it's just the one in USA is even worse.

[Omniabstracta]

It's not like the US is the only federal state around - Germany is federal, Mexico is federal, Brazil is federal, ... and none of them have this level of inequality in the Senate with enormous states like California and tiny states that have less population than one district of a city having exactly the same weight. EU is also federal in its nature, and yet there is this qualified majority system where you need a majority of member states representing 60% of the population to pass a directive. Among all the federal systems around the world, the US is the most caricatural in how undemocratic it is.

While Mexico's Senate has several additions it does still functionally work off of each state having just a few people represent it regardless of size or population.

I’d disagree, the senators-at-large break that paradigm in quite a real way. Providing a whole quarter of the chamber to national representation compensates the larger states significantly, and the effect is even more significant with the minority senators serving to even out the composition of the chamber.

The practical difference between its representation and that in the US senate is not negligible.

[Proctopeo]

So your "solution" to a perceived "problem" with the Senate is to make it into a carbon copy of the House? I just... that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

I offered 4 broadly different solutions, only one could be considered "make it into a carbon copy of the House"...

The only one that falls outside of that category is making the Senate into a giant jury of citizens, and even that may be functionally very close depending on how it's done.

The fundamental purpose of the Senate is to prevent big states from fully overshadowing small states; the voice of states like Delaware or South Dakota are basically irrelevant in the House, but they can actually have some meaningful input in the Senate. This only looks like a "problem" if you view it through a blind dogmatic lens of "ONE MAN ONE VOTE" instead of considering how alternatives would lead to an even worse situation.

States have no rights, people do. Cattle and rocks don't matter, people do.

Oh boy, this shit again. You're really hammering home your ignorance of civics, aren't you?

The voice of Delaware and South Dakota don't matter much because... there aren't many people living there. More live in just in the Bronx than in the whole state. Does the voice of the Bronx matter in the House ? Well, not much either In fact each individual citizen in those states already have more say than each individual citizen in NY, Chicago or Miami in the House,

If you focus exclusively on population ratios, sure, but their voices are effectively relevant if you actually look at the House.

and it's 10x worse in the Senate.

Small states having a voice is "worse" apparently.

You didn't even start with giving one reason why someone living in South Dakota should have their opinion matter 20x more than the opinion of someone living in Los Angeles.

If you legitimate answer, it's because their voices matter about zero times as much as someone living in LA when you look at the House, and that overall their voices should matter in some capacity at the highest levels of government.

If you want a meme answer, it's because LA is a shithole and South Dakota is idyllic.

You just keep saying that any alternative, whatever it is, the 4 radically different one I proposed and tens of others which are possible, would all be worse with no reason.

Let's go over them, then.
1) Turn the Senate into the House, House gets nationwide lists
I think I've already actually explained why the first part is a bad idea, but you didn't actually explain what you meant by "proportional vote on nation-wide lists".
If you want a recap, it's because the voices of smaller states will become completely irrelevant, which, believe it or not, does go against your dogmatic belief in "One man, one vote". If a vote exists but nobody cares, did it ever actually happen?
2) Random-sort jury
Out of all your ideas, this is the most off-the-wall but also the least flawed. Though this is mainly because it creates a whole section of government where there can't be any career politicians, as it would still lead to some similar problems as the others.
3) Washington DC: Two Houses
This is the worst, because it's literally just turning the Senate into a second, functionally identical House of Representatives, without any bells and whistles attached.
4) Same, but qualified majority
This is just the House of Representatives but with extra steps.

Now it's my turn to make a proposal. We double the amount of Senators, with each state getting 4. The catch is that every Senator must be from a different county or county-equivalent (with the exception of Delaware, which can double-up due to only having 3 counties). And we turn the House into a random-sort jury. This is the most fair and balanced way to do things, even if it makes hipsters in the Bay Area cry.

[Punished UMN]

More to the point, the filibuster being used to complicate the process of bills you agree with isn't a sign that the filibuster is bad - it's a sign of the current state of the political climate.

That's not what I was saying - what I was saying is that when you say something like "Democrats may lose the two chambers, so they may need the filibuster in the future" you miss a fundamental point which is that the existence of the filibuster, and therefore the roadblock on vortng rights laws, mean that the Democrats are much more likely to lose control of the two chambers.

Finally, this

unfair Senate where small rural states have as many Senators as states with over 10x their population

Demonstrates to me that you have absolutely no knowledge of civics whatsoever, American or otherwise. Do you want me to explain how it would be unfair if we only had one of our legislative houses?

The core idea of representative democracy is one citizen = one vote, and all votes are equal. The US Senate is very, very, very bad at that, worse than most chambers in any other western countries. That's basic civics.

That doesn't necessarily mean there should be only one chamber, there are many other options. You could have the current House become the Senate, and the House being elected with proportional vote on nation-wide lists. You could have the House kept as it is but the Senate being made of randomly sorted citizen, like a giant jury. You could have the House and the Senate both use similar districts, but the House being short-term (as it is now) while the Senate keeps being for longer terms. You could keep them elected as they are but require a qualified majority, like in the EU Council, where you need 50% of Senators representing 60% of the population to pass a bill. There are many other options, all which would be fairer than "40m people California and 600k people Wyoming have exactly the same weight".

The purpose of the Senate is to prevent large states from being able to push through legislation that benefits them at the expense of smaller states. It provides an incentive for smaller states and their populations to remain in the union, as otherwise they would be living under a government in which they have no say in how they are governed.

[Kowani]

The purpose of the Senate is to prevent large states from being able to push through legislation that benefits them at the expense of smaller states. It provides an incentive for smaller states and their populations to remain in the union, as otherwise they would be living under a government in which they have no say in how they are governed.

this is, again, inaccurate (well it may have been the purpose when it was created but those population dynamics no longer apply-for many, many reasons)

[Punished UMN]

The purpose of the Senate is to prevent large states from being able to push through legislation that benefits them at the expense of smaller states. It provides an incentive for smaller states and their populations to remain in the union, as otherwise they would be living under a government in which they have no say in how they are governed.

this is, again, inaccurate (well it may have been the purpose when it was created but those population dynamics no longer apply-for many, many reasons)

It is still the purpose if it was the purpose when it was created, the laws which regulate it have not been changed.

[Proctopeo]

States have no rights, people do. Cattle and rocks don't matter, people do. The voice of Delaware and South Dakota don't matter much because... there aren't many people living there. More live in just in the Bronx than in the whole state. Does the voice of the Bronx matter in the House ? Well, not much either In fact each individual citizen in those states already have more say than each individual citizen in NY, Chicago or Miami in the House, and it's 10x worse in the Senate. You didn't even start with giving one reason why someone living in South Dakota should have their opinion matter 20x more than the opinion of someone living in Los Angeles. You just keep saying that any alternative, whatever it is, the 4 radically different one I proposed and tens of others which are possible, would all be worse with no reason.

The issue is that you're thinking from a Unitary perspective while his own viewpoint is firmly anchored in a Federalist one.

This seems to be the fundamental difference in our viewpoints.

Ah, you really don't know civics either. The Senate is only a bad institution if you think less populated states don't deserve any effective representation, and I hope that's not the case, as that would be a hilariously stupid thing to believe.

i mean i don't believe the states should exist at all

Ideally, I don't think governments should exist at all, but I digress.

but a body should definitely be giving disproportionate power to a bunch of arbitrary lines that benjamin harrison and other post-war republicans carved out to try and keep the democrats out of power after reconstruction failed

You certainly miswrote something here, but more to the point, what do conspiracy theories about a President from nearly 150 years ago have to do with anything?

the problem is not "they don't get representation" the problem is they get representation far disproportionate to their population (and this is compounded by practically every other institution's unrepresentative bias as well)

No, I still think it's my thing. It's better if small states are overrepresented than if they're completely irrelevant, which is the only other realistic option here.

Though do note, that it "benefits" small states, not strictly rural ones; it just happens that the most populated states are predominantly urban, not rural. So I must ask you, what contempt do you have for rural people?

this isn't even accurate
Hawaii, Rhode Island, Utah,-all of these states are extremely urban and yet they're also responsible for the malapportionment
there's definitely others but i just picked states where at least 90% of the population was living in urban areas (and note that data's from 2010 and the malapportionament's only gotten worse since then)

I think you misread; I didn't say that states with small population can't be heavily urban, but that the most populated states generally are. You singled out rural states, even though you acknowledge that there are urban states with small populations. Why is that?

The purpose of the Senate is to prevent large states from being able to push through legislation that benefits them at the expense of smaller states. It provides an incentive for smaller states and their populations to remain in the union, as otherwise they would be living under a government in which they have no say in how they are governed.

Yes, thank you.

The purpose of the Senate is to prevent large states from being able to push through legislation that benefits them at the expense of smaller states. It provides an incentive for smaller states and their populations to remain in the union, as otherwise they would be living under a government in which they have no say in how they are governed.

this is, again, inaccurate (well it may have been the purpose when it was created but those population dynamics no longer apply-for many, many reasons)

You say this so confidently for someone who has no idea what he's talking about.

[Kowani]

this is, again, inaccurate (well it may have been the purpose when it was created but those population dynamics no longer apply-for many, many reasons)

It is still the purpose if it was the purpose when it was created, the laws which regulate it have not been changed.

this isn't relevant-the interests of "small states" and "large states" are not diametrically opposed like the funders believed they would be
but...yeah, the procedures (both constitutional and internal) that regulate the senate have changed dramatically, so much to the point where I would argue our modern senate is largely unlinked from the one that john adams presided over

[Duvniask]

I find it somewhat hard to understand why, beyond a clearly partisan interest in maintaining it, there is much of any reason to defend an institutional setup where a tiny minority conceivably has veto powers over the operations of the national government. It's clearly leading down a path to ruin as evidenced by the potential constitutional crisis that arises every single time the government shuts down over the debt ceiling (to paraphrase an old argument I recall from Trotskylvania). If you want the Senate body to look out for parochial state interests, it clearly should not come at the expense of running the entire country into the ground; it's argument for decoupling the Senate from some of the essential functions of government, more akin to how it is in Germany.

[Punished UMN]

It is still the purpose if it was the purpose when it was created, the laws which regulate it have not been changed.

this isn't relevant-the interests of "small states" and "large states" are not diametrically opposed like the funders believed they would be
but...yeah, the procedures (both constitutional and internal) that regulate the senate have changed dramatically, so much to the point where I would argue our modern senate is largely unlinked from the one that john adams presided over

That just means it's not serving its intended purpose, not that that isn't its intended purpose. That its intended purpose is disjointed from reality.

And I don't mean the procedures, I mean the laws which regulate which states get how much representation, that part hasn't changed.

[Kilobugya]

Oh boy, this shit again. You're really hammering home your ignorance of civics, aren't you?

Ad hominem instead of arguments is quickly tiring...

The voice of Delaware and South Dakota don't matter much because... there aren't many people living there. More live in just in the Bronx than in the whole state. Does the voice of the Bronx matter in the House ? Well, not much either In fact each individual citizen in those states already have more say than each individual citizen in NY, Chicago or Miami in the House,

If you focus exclusively on population ratios, sure, but their voices are effectively relevant if you actually look at the House.

How are they any more relevant? If anything, any part of a big city with around 800k population will likely have less than 3 representatives, meaning they are less significant than South Dakota or Delaware even in the House.

and it's 10x worse in the Senate.

Small states having a voice is "worse" apparently.

Small states having a disproportionately high voice compared to their population is bad yes, especially when it's at this scale. Having 33% of the Justice of the Supreme Court imposing their will against the opinion of the large majority on all topics, from voting rights to eviction bans to LGBT rights to abortion to ... being put there, for life, by a "president" who lost the popular vote and confirmed by Senators representing around 40% of the country is catastrophically bad if "democracy" means anything to you.

If you legitimate answer, it's because their voices matter about zero times as much as someone living in LA when you look at the House, and that overall their voices should matter in some capacity at the highest levels of government.

That's just plain wrong. LA has 10 Represensatives in the House, so LA only weight 3.3x more than South Dakota in it. Since LA has 4.5x the population of South Dakota, in the House a citizen living in South Dakota already matters 1.36x more than one of LA. That's already unfair in favor of citizens of South Dakota, not in favor of citizens of LA. But at a moderate, acceptable level, unlike in the Senate.

1) Turn the Senate into the House, House gets nationwide lists
I think I've already actually explained why the first part is a bad idea,

No, sorry, but you didn't, at all.

but you didn't actually explain what you meant by "proportional vote on nation-wide lists".

It's very simple, what many countries do in a way or another. Have the Democrats, the GOP, the Greens, the Libertarian, the whatever parties propose a list of 470 candidates, citizen of the whole nation cast their vote, and if the Democrats have 30% they get 30%*470 = 141 seats, and so on. You can have a threshold of 3% or 5% to avoid silly parties, you can have a bonus for the list ahead, you can have mechanisms to ensure fair geographical representation of the country, ... there are lots of details to define, but the basic idea is very simple and the most democratic.

If you want a recap, it's because the voices of smaller states will become completely irrelevant, which, believe it or not, does go against your dogmatic belief in "One man, one vote". If a vote exists but nobody cares, did it ever actually happen?

Again, states don't have voices. People do. States are a purely artificial construct, especially in USA where borders where drawn with rulers with no notion of pre-existing cultures or geography. And there is absolutely no justification for "Dakota" to be split into Northern and Southern and get more weight that way, while California is just one. If we split California into South California, Center California and Nothern California, it'll automatically have 3x as say in the Senate, without anything changing in reality. That's just utter, complete madness. And I've yet to see any justification for that. You keep saying "small states should have more voices than their population" but why ? And why wouldn't that apply to a small neighbourhood inside a city ?

2) Random-sort jury
Out of all your ideas, this is the most off-the-wall but also the least flawed. Though this is mainly because it creates a whole section of government where there can't be any career politicians, as it would still lead to some similar problems as the others.

Which are ?

3) Washington DC: Two Houses
This is the worst, because it's literally just turning the Senate into a second, functionally identical House of Representatives, without any bells and whistles attached.

Long-term vs short-term is a significant difference, but yes, that's definitely not my favorite solution - although it would still be much more democratic and fairer than the actual one.

4) Same, but qualified majority
This is just the House of Representatives but with extra steps.

Not all. Requiring both a majority of states and of population prevents effects like which happens often in current Senate where 40% of the population dictates its will on the 60%, which is disastrous, but it also prevents a few "big states" imposing their will on "small states". Requiring both a majority of states and of populations, while it as a risk of leading to deadlock, also protects against abuse of power both ways.

Now it's my turn to make a proposal. We double the amount of Senators, with each state getting 4. The catch is that every Senator must be from a different county or county-equivalent (with the exception of Delaware, which can double-up due to only having 3 counties). And we turn the House into a random-sort jury. This is the most fair and balanced way to do things, even if it makes hipsters in the Bay Area cry.

It's completely and utterly unfair. It doesn't solve at all the deep flaw that 40% of the population can dictate its will on the 60%, that a person living in California matters 30x less than one living in South Dakota. That just artificially changing how lines are drawn (re-unifying Dakota and splitting California in 3, for example) would change the balance of power significantly while not changing at all the reality.

[Kilobugya]

The purpose of the Senate is to prevent large states from being able to push through legislation that benefits them at the expense of smaller states. It provides an incentive for smaller states and their populations to remain in the union, as otherwise they would be living under a government in which they have no say in how they are governed.

If that's what you want, use a qualified majority system (need both a majority of population and states). But the way it is now is not "protect the small states from abuse of power from large states" (which is already very dubious, since states have no rights and are purely artificial constructs) but rather "have 40% of the population impose its will on the 60% remaining".

[Kowani]

Ah, you really don't know civics either. The Senate is only a bad institution if you think less populated states don't deserve any effective representation, and I hope that's not the case, as that would be a hilariously stupid thing to believe.

i mean i don't believe the states should exist at all[/quote]
Ideally, I don't think governments should exist at all, but I digress.[/quote] i mean yes in an ideal world this would be the case

but a body should definitely be giving disproportionate power to a bunch of arbitrary lines that benjamin harrison and other post-war republicans carved out to try and keep the democrats out of power after reconstruction failed

You certainly miswrote something here, but more to the point, what do conspiracy theories about a President from nearly 150 years ago have to do with anything?

are you kidding me
it's very easily demonstrable that a large number of the western states were all added to secure a partisan advantage in the senate
not all of those states stuck together in the same party-but this isn't really controversial among historians

the problem is not "they don't get representation" the problem is they get representation far disproportionate to their population (and this is compounded by practically every other institution's unrepresentative bias as well)

No, I still think it's my thing. It's better if small states are overrepresented than if they're completely irrelevant, which is the only other realistic option here.

i mean no-even if you're anti-democratic (small-d), and wedded to the idea of arbitrary geographical biases rule by minority is worse than rule by majority-but its very much not the only option
it's the only option in our electoral system-but our electoral system sucks!

this isn't even accurate
Hawaii, Rhode Island, Utah,-all of these states are extremely urban and yet they're also responsible for the malapportionment
there's definitely others but i just picked states where at least 90% of the population was living in urban areas (and note that data's from 2010 and the malapportionament's only gotten worse since then)

I think you misread; I didn't say that states with small population can't be heavily urban, but that the most populated states generally are. You singled out rural states, even though you acknowledge that there are urban states with small populations. Why is that?

...because the vast majority of the malapportionment comes from the rural states?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Having random people assigned to the Senate is arguably the worst idea I have ever heard in political discussion. Nearly 20% of American adults are barely even literate, to say these people couldn't form a functioning governmental body is a severe understatement.

[The Alma Mater]

That's not what I was saying - what I was saying is that when you say something like "Democrats may lose the two chambers, so they may need the filibuster in the future" you miss a fundamental point which is that the existence of the filibuster, and therefore the roadblock on vortng rights laws, mean that the Democrats are much more likely to lose control of the two chambers.



The core idea of representative democracy is one citizen = one vote, and all votes are equal. The US Senate is very, very, very bad at that, worse than most chambers in any other western countries. That's basic civics.

That doesn't necessarily mean there should be only one chamber, there are many other options. You could have the current House become the Senate, and the House being elected with proportional vote on nation-wide lists. You could have the House kept as it is but the Senate being made of randomly sorted citizen, like a giant jury. You could have the House and the Senate both use similar districts, but the House being short-term (as it is now) while the Senate keeps being for longer terms. You could keep them elected as they are but require a qualified majority, like in the EU Council, where you need 50% of Senators representing 60% of the population to pass a bill. There are many other options, all which would be fairer than "40m people California and 600k people Wyoming have exactly the same weight".

The purpose of the Senate is to prevent large states from being able to push through legislation that benefits them at the expense of smaller states. It provides an incentive for smaller states and their populations to remain in the union, as otherwise they would be living under a government in which they have no say in how they are governed.

Then make the power of the states depend on how much they contribute.
Your state is a net donor of federal money ? You get more votes.
Your state is a net recipient of federal money ? You get less votes; but you have an obvious incentive to stay.