I’d also require term limits for SCOTUS justices; staggered so that there is gradual turnover via presidential nomination. Justices ending their terms could continue serving in the federal judicial system as openings allow.
I think the question is how many people should House Members represent. If there’s 1000 of them, they each represent 342,000 people. Wyoming would get one and a half Reps. If we set it as a function of the smallest state’s population Wyoming would get one and New York would get 34.
Yes, thank you, Hamilton, it is so stupid that they are acting like this is one of the DSA's CRAZY BUG-EYED things. The Senate is undemocratic garbage and should be repealed and replaced with literally anything else, and anybody who wants to whine about that can fuck off.
Completely agree. This is another manifestation of conservative back-asswards logic that drops its own mic at “It’s always been done that way.” That is the logic of fucking idiots. To help the masses along we need to reframe the argument, stealing a trick from the right-wing propaganda machine that admittedly mops the floor with polite progressive approaches. “Abolish the Senate” sounds radical to the ill-informed, mostly because they’ve been brainwashed to think some 200-year-old nonsense is somehow sacred. Even the framers didn’t believe that (see the concept of constitutional amendments). But if we say: “Should a voter in Wyoming have 66x more Senate representation than a voter in California?”… even the dullest hammer in the shed will have to concede.
Thanks Michael for spelling out what's incorrect about Hamilton's arguments. You went point-by-point and thoroughly dismantled his logic, and I think that's really impressive. Your contribution is valued by all who read the comments.
There are actual concerns with allowing pure democracy when it allows voters to strong arm each other. I've seen it with our Board of Supervisors within our county. Ten of the eleven will gang up on the eleventh and all vote to accept New York garbage for the dump they previously voted to place in the eleventh district's area. Sometimes that district agrees with another nine that a builder who has donated quite a bit of $ should be allowed to build some problematic monstrosity in the then objecting district's area. Land shouldn't get a vote, but regional differences and needs are real and people can be shitty or merely indifferent to others they can gang up on. I suspect that could be minimized if great care were taken to intelligently delimit states' rights versus federal parameters of power in such a way that the federal government, for example, could not "protect" federal land within states and then open that land to toxic industries.
The language of the Constitution seems to rule out complete abolition of the Senate by the established Constitutional amendment process. Given a strong enough public consensus, perhaps the powers of the Senate could be reduced, so that it would function more like the English House of Lords, which can delay but not block legislation supported by the "lower" House. However, that same Constitutional amendment process would allow passage of any amendment to reduce Senate power to be blocked by the 13 least populous states, which account for just 5 percent of the U.S. population. This suggests that any such change will only be possible if and when we have a government with majority support that is willing and able to DISREGARD the language of the current constitution in order to enact democratizing constitutional change. I think it is plausible that this might happen eventually, particularly if continued dysfunctional government under the 1787 constitution further erodes popular and elite reverence for that constitution, but it is unlikely to happen soon---unless genuinely catastrophic events (e.g., a period of full-blown autocracy) effectively wipe the board for such a de novo constitutional change.
i mean i think the strongest argument here is that it was created to trick states into joining the united states when there was some possibility that they would not. i think that possibility today is low.
Also, for better proportional representation, the House should be able to have more representatives. But it's been limited since the Reappointment Act of 1929, in part due to the size of the House Chamber. So we can repurpose that ballroom...
No, we don't abolish the Senate. It's the only legislative body that typically requires some experience and education to attain to. Granted we are seeing some Gen Z wildly elect untried youth in primaries, but that is downstream of the Israel Lobby's perversion of criteria for electability. If we were not burdened by a century of their bribes, threats, and terrorism, our roster of surviving politicians would be much different and would not have been selected for corruptibility. The urgent need to get anyone into office who stands against them wouldn't exist, and we would have a much better selection in general: older, better trained, more experienced.
We have lost many ethical politicians to AIPAC's takedowns. The failures of our present Congress are not due to its design, they are due in large part to that specific lobby.
I respectfully disagree. You ointment out one lobby, when the vast majority of money dictating policy in the Senate comes from domestic corporations and special interests. Yes, the original idea behind the Senate was to ensure education and experience. But just like the House of Lords from which it was modeled, money and influence are the most pertinent factors. Otherwise, we would not be at war with Iran now.
I have been saying this for years, repeal the apportionment act and expand the house to 1000 members.
In addition, expand the SCOTUS to 13 to match the number of federal courts
I’d also require term limits for SCOTUS justices; staggered so that there is gradual turnover via presidential nomination. Justices ending their terms could continue serving in the federal judicial system as openings allow.
I love expanding SCOTUS to 13.
I think the question is how many people should House Members represent. If there’s 1000 of them, they each represent 342,000 people. Wyoming would get one and a half Reps. If we set it as a function of the smallest state’s population Wyoming would get one and New York would get 34.
Start with the easy stuff. Repeal the 1929 Permanent Apportionment Act!
It caps, the size of the House of Representatives creating even more inequality.
Nolan is a on a heater. 🔥
Yes, thank you, Hamilton, it is so stupid that they are acting like this is one of the DSA's CRAZY BUG-EYED things. The Senate is undemocratic garbage and should be repealed and replaced with literally anything else, and anybody who wants to whine about that can fuck off.
I'll do you one better, abolish the presidency. It is the seat of American fascism and imperialism and must go.
In its new SCOTUS ruled form, yes I agree. Too much executive power and also immunity from prosecution even for criminal acts.
Completely agree. This is another manifestation of conservative back-asswards logic that drops its own mic at “It’s always been done that way.” That is the logic of fucking idiots. To help the masses along we need to reframe the argument, stealing a trick from the right-wing propaganda machine that admittedly mops the floor with polite progressive approaches. “Abolish the Senate” sounds radical to the ill-informed, mostly because they’ve been brainwashed to think some 200-year-old nonsense is somehow sacred. Even the framers didn’t believe that (see the concept of constitutional amendments). But if we say: “Should a voter in Wyoming have 66x more Senate representation than a voter in California?”… even the dullest hammer in the shed will have to concede.
What was that line about being a party hack? You’ve swallowed the DSA BS hook, line, and sinker.
Thanks Michael for spelling out what's incorrect about Hamilton's arguments. You went point-by-point and thoroughly dismantled his logic, and I think that's really impressive. Your contribution is valued by all who read the comments.
There are actual concerns with allowing pure democracy when it allows voters to strong arm each other. I've seen it with our Board of Supervisors within our county. Ten of the eleven will gang up on the eleventh and all vote to accept New York garbage for the dump they previously voted to place in the eleventh district's area. Sometimes that district agrees with another nine that a builder who has donated quite a bit of $ should be allowed to build some problematic monstrosity in the then objecting district's area. Land shouldn't get a vote, but regional differences and needs are real and people can be shitty or merely indifferent to others they can gang up on. I suspect that could be minimized if great care were taken to intelligently delimit states' rights versus federal parameters of power in such a way that the federal government, for example, could not "protect" federal land within states and then open that land to toxic industries.
Hey, what if we keep the Senate, but weight the votes of each senator proportionally to the population of their state?
The language of the Constitution seems to rule out complete abolition of the Senate by the established Constitutional amendment process. Given a strong enough public consensus, perhaps the powers of the Senate could be reduced, so that it would function more like the English House of Lords, which can delay but not block legislation supported by the "lower" House. However, that same Constitutional amendment process would allow passage of any amendment to reduce Senate power to be blocked by the 13 least populous states, which account for just 5 percent of the U.S. population. This suggests that any such change will only be possible if and when we have a government with majority support that is willing and able to DISREGARD the language of the current constitution in order to enact democratizing constitutional change. I think it is plausible that this might happen eventually, particularly if continued dysfunctional government under the 1787 constitution further erodes popular and elite reverence for that constitution, but it is unlikely to happen soon---unless genuinely catastrophic events (e.g., a period of full-blown autocracy) effectively wipe the board for such a de novo constitutional change.
i mean i think the strongest argument here is that it was created to trick states into joining the united states when there was some possibility that they would not. i think that possibility today is low.
Also, for better proportional representation, the House should be able to have more representatives. But it's been limited since the Reappointment Act of 1929, in part due to the size of the House Chamber. So we can repurpose that ballroom...
Yes!
Who can doubt it? (Rhetorical question...)
No, we don't abolish the Senate. It's the only legislative body that typically requires some experience and education to attain to. Granted we are seeing some Gen Z wildly elect untried youth in primaries, but that is downstream of the Israel Lobby's perversion of criteria for electability. If we were not burdened by a century of their bribes, threats, and terrorism, our roster of surviving politicians would be much different and would not have been selected for corruptibility. The urgent need to get anyone into office who stands against them wouldn't exist, and we would have a much better selection in general: older, better trained, more experienced.
We have lost many ethical politicians to AIPAC's takedowns. The failures of our present Congress are not due to its design, they are due in large part to that specific lobby.
I respectfully disagree. You ointment out one lobby, when the vast majority of money dictating policy in the Senate comes from domestic corporations and special interests. Yes, the original idea behind the Senate was to ensure education and experience. But just like the House of Lords from which it was modeled, money and influence are the most pertinent factors. Otherwise, we would not be at war with Iran now.