5 ms·

The two main parties in the US are way too happy with the status for any change to happen. If there is one thing they hate more than each other it's another par

The two main parties in the US are way too happy with the status for any change to happen. If there is one thing they hate more than each other it's another party.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> two main parties in the US are way too happy with the status for any change to happen California could make this change by referendum.
- googlryas 1y ago
  Yes but Ds and Rs will come out in force to rally their base against it. That's what happened in Colorado this past election.
- int_19h 1y ago
  Many states could, but why would they if other states retain a system that disproportionally skews sits towards one party?
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > why would they if other states retain a system that disproportionally skews sits towards one party? Because your constituents are better represented. California strikes me as a potent place to do this because I could see a constitutional amendment passing at the ballot box.
    - int_19h 1y ago
      But they aren't better represented unless everyone else does the same. Suppose California were to do it, resulting in a proportional allocation of seats in the House for its delegation. If this causes the House to swing from Democratic majority to Republican majority, the net effect is the opposite of what most Californians wanted. Don't get me wrong, I get the point that it is a more fair and equitable way of doing things, and in principle, I agree. But if you play fair at a table where everybody else cheats, you lose. My state (WA) also has referendums, and if such a proposal would come up, I would absolutely vote against it - unless it was some kind of interstate compact where another similarly-sized red state were to implement the same reform at the same time.
      - Taikonerd 1y ago
        I’ve had this exact thought: that Texas and California should have some sort of compact to do it at the same time. That would be a boon for Texas Democrats (of whom there are many) and California Republicans (ditto).
- dragonwriter 1y ago
  > California could make this change by referendum. No, it could not, because Article I, Section 3 (emphasis added): "The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators." (the last part of that about choosing Senators has its effect eliminated by the 17th Amendment, but that isn't important here.) And Congress has exercised its authority in U.S. Code Title 2, Section 2c (emphasis added): "In each State entitled in the Ninety-first Congress or in any subsequent Congress thereafter to more than one Representative under an apportionment made pursuant to the provisions of section 2a(a) of this title, there shall be established by law a number of districts equal to the number of Representatives to which such State is so entitled, and Representatives shall be elected only from districts so established, no district to elect more than one Representative (except that a State which is entitled to more than one Representative and which has in all previous elections elected its Representatives at Large may elect its Representatives at Large to the Ninety-first Congress)."
whatshisface 1y ago
I don't think that is actually true. It is in part redistricting that lead to the ascendancy of extremism, by putting all of the strategic emphasis on the primaries in uncontested constituencies.
- dragonwriter 1y ago
  "Redistricting" isn't a new recent thing, it is a process done by state legislatures to state and federal legislative district every decade that has been used for both personal and partisan advantage since the founding; the word "gerrymander" was coined in criticism of a particular instance in 1812.
  - whatshisface 1y ago
    I think there is a primary-related problem going on right now that could change historically held positions on the value to financial backers interests of uncontested general elections.
smitty1e 1y ago
1. The original 1787 apportionment would result in a House of Representatives of ~30k members[1]. 2. That's obviously unwieldy, and so we haven't had a bump in seats since ... 1910. 3. 'Factions' were viewed dimly by the Founders. I would argue in favor of two immediate changes: - Term limits for everything, including shorter max civil service careers. Capitol Hill, like any compost heap, benefits from regular turning. - A "bidder bunch" rule, whereby if Congress can't manage its key function--that of producing a budget--then none of these goofs (even the ones I admire) get to run for their seat when next up. There are copious talented alternative people to put on ballots. Do your job or face corporate punishment, say I. [1] https://thirty-thousand.org/ https://thirty-thousand.org/
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > A "bidder bunch" rule, whereby if Congress can't manage its key function--that of producing a budget--then none of these goofs (even the ones I admire) get to run for their seat when next up This creates an obvious and huge perverse incentive to throw a wrench into the works any time you want a do-over.
  - smitty1e 1y ago
    And copious peer pressure not to be That Guy.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > copious peer pressure not to be That Guy How? You don’t think you could find Democrats, today, who wouldn’t roll the dice on a new Congress? The proposal essentially gives a narrow minority the ability to call no confidence.
      - smitty1e 1y ago
        ...and self-immolate. You don't work that hard to get elected and then piss it away.
paul7986 1y ago
We need another one whose motto is "Country Over Party," and is backed by locked down solid ethics that always follows right vs. wrong with right (not politically right or left) guiding everything this entity stands for and is guided by. Present day it's neither party standing for right vs. wrong it's the b.s. Right (politically) vs. Left(politically) or Left vs. Right! Gross, there's neither party today cares about right vs. wrong or integrity just divide the country further!!!
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > locked down solid ethics that always follows right vs. wrong with right (not politically right or left) guiding everything this entity stands for and is guided by As in? People can legitimately disagree about what is right and wrong, or what even falls on a moral continuum. Nailing down a moment’s broad truth is among the most revered roles in any society.
  - paul7986 1y ago
    Can they ... poll a group of people (right and lefties) and ask... If vandalizing a Telsa and vandalizing the US Capitol are both wrong and my focus is only the act of vandalism in asking this question. Overall, both acts are clear cut wrong! Those who refuse to say both are wrong their brains are driven now by political emotional mind control babble where they've thrown out knowing and standing for right over wrong.
    - lostdog 1y ago
      What are your feelings on vandalizing shipments of tea?
      - paul7986 1y ago
        Not driven by feelings or political emotional babble as it's hard to believe anything when it comes to politics. Im all about clear cut right from wrong and clear cut facts, as well that was a wrong act! It was something that led to the revolutionary war, which is a clear cut fact! I guess you showed that your mind is driven/controlled by political emotional babble & narratives made up by the right (tho maybe your left or an independent who leans right) & it's media (right or left .. all make up narratives) you consume. But I don't want to jump to conclusions.

The two main parties in the US are way too happy with the status for any change to happen. If there is one thing they hate more than each other it's another party.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

> two main parties in the US are way too happy with the status for any change to happen California could make this change by referendum.

googlryas 1y ago
Yes but Ds and Rs will come out in force to rally their base against it. That's what happened in Colorado this past election.
int_19h 1y ago
Many states could, but why would they if other states retain a system that disproportionally skews sits towards one party?
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > why would they if other states retain a system that disproportionally skews sits towards one party? Because your constituents are better represented. California strikes me as a potent place to do this because I could see a constitutional amendment passing at the ballot box.
  - int_19h 1y ago
    But they aren't better represented unless everyone else does the same. Suppose California were to do it, resulting in a proportional allocation of seats in the House for its delegation. If this causes the House to swing from Democratic majority to Republican majority, the net effect is the opposite of what most Californians wanted. Don't get me wrong, I get the point that it is a more fair and equitable way of doing things, and in principle, I agree. But if you play fair at a table where everybody else cheats, you lose. My state (WA) also has referendums, and if such a proposal would come up, I would absolutely vote against it - unless it was some kind of interstate compact where another similarly-sized red state were to implement the same reform at the same time.
    - Taikonerd 1y ago
      I’ve had this exact thought: that Texas and California should have some sort of compact to do it at the same time. That would be a boon for Texas Democrats (of whom there are many) and California Republicans (ditto).
dragonwriter 1y ago
> California could make this change by referendum. No, it could not, because Article I, Section 3 (emphasis added): "The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators." (the last part of that about choosing Senators has its effect eliminated by the 17th Amendment, but that isn't important here.) And Congress has exercised its authority in U.S. Code Title 2, Section 2c (emphasis added): "In each State entitled in the Ninety-first Congress or in any subsequent Congress thereafter to more than one Representative under an apportionment made pursuant to the provisions of section 2a(a) of this title, there shall be established by law a number of districts equal to the number of Representatives to which such State is so entitled, and Representatives shall be elected only from districts so established, no district to elect more than one Representative (except that a State which is entitled to more than one Representative and which has in all previous elections elected its Representatives at Large may elect its Representatives at Large to the Ninety-first Congress)."

whatshisface 1y ago

I don't think that is actually true. It is in part redistricting that lead to the ascendancy of extremism, by putting all of the strategic emphasis on the primaries in uncontested constituencies.

dragonwriter 1y ago
"Redistricting" isn't a new recent thing, it is a process done by state legislatures to state and federal legislative district every decade that has been used for both personal and partisan advantage since the founding; the word "gerrymander" was coined in criticism of a particular instance in 1812.
- whatshisface 1y ago
  I think there is a primary-related problem going on right now that could change historically held positions on the value to financial backers interests of uncontested general elections.

smitty1e 1y ago

1. The original 1787 apportionment would result in a House of Representatives of ~30k members[1]. 2. That's obviously unwieldy, and so we haven't had a bump in seats since ... 1910. 3. 'Factions' were viewed dimly by the Founders. I would argue in favor of two immediate changes: - Term limits for everything, including shorter max civil service careers. Capitol Hill, like any compost heap, benefits from regular turning. - A "bidder bunch" rule, whereby if Congress can't manage its key function--that of producing a budget--then none of these goofs (even the ones I admire) get to run for their seat when next up. There are copious talented alternative people to put on ballots. Do your job or face corporate punishment, say I. [1] https://thirty-thousand.org/ https://thirty-thousand.org/

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> A "bidder bunch" rule, whereby if Congress can't manage its key function--that of producing a budget--then none of these goofs (even the ones I admire) get to run for their seat when next up This creates an obvious and huge perverse incentive to throw a wrench into the works any time you want a do-over.
- smitty1e 1y ago
  And copious peer pressure not to be That Guy.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > copious peer pressure not to be That Guy How? You don’t think you could find Democrats, today, who wouldn’t roll the dice on a new Congress? The proposal essentially gives a narrow minority the ability to call no confidence.
    - smitty1e 1y ago
      ...and self-immolate. You don't work that hard to get elected and then piss it away.

paul7986 1y ago

We need another one whose motto is "Country Over Party," and is backed by locked down solid ethics that always follows right vs. wrong with right (not politically right or left) guiding everything this entity stands for and is guided by. Present day it's neither party standing for right vs. wrong it's the b.s. Right (politically) vs. Left(politically) or Left vs. Right! Gross, there's neither party today cares about right vs. wrong or integrity just divide the country further!!!

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> locked down solid ethics that always follows right vs. wrong with right (not politically right or left) guiding everything this entity stands for and is guided by As in? People can legitimately disagree about what is right and wrong, or what even falls on a moral continuum. Nailing down a moment’s broad truth is among the most revered roles in any society.
- paul7986 1y ago
  Can they ... poll a group of people (right and lefties) and ask... If vandalizing a Telsa and vandalizing the US Capitol are both wrong and my focus is only the act of vandalism in asking this question. Overall, both acts are clear cut wrong! Those who refuse to say both are wrong their brains are driven now by political emotional mind control babble where they've thrown out knowing and standing for right over wrong.
  - lostdog 1y ago
    What are your feelings on vandalizing shipments of tea?
    - paul7986 1y ago
      Not driven by feelings or political emotional babble as it's hard to believe anything when it comes to politics. Im all about clear cut right from wrong and clear cut facts, as well that was a wrong act! It was something that led to the revolutionary war, which is a clear cut fact! I guess you showed that your mind is driven/controlled by political emotional babble & narratives made up by the right (tho maybe your left or an independent who leans right) & it's media (right or left .. all make up narratives) you consume. But I don't want to jump to conclusions.