More legislative shenanigans by Al Carlson

[bisonaudit]

Probably to balance out the fact that 16% of the states could band together constitute a majority of the population.

Who can’t get anything done in congress. Thanks for remaking my point.

[HerdBot]

You can keep federalism and the filibuster. For example give each state one senator and 2 reps guaranteed instead of the other way around and keep the sizes of the senate and house the same. 50 senators would then represent about 38% of the population and 40 (filibuster) about 28 percent.

70 percent still may not be able to get the legislation they want. And you’ve still got all the checks and balances between the houses (where membership in the house would be less representative than it is today), branches and the constitution and the bill of rights etc.

If you’re pissed about the two party system (and you should be) then I’d suggest supporting initiatives like ranked choice voting, open primaries, and campaign finance reform.

I love the ranked choice voting. It stops people from voting for the lesser of 2 evils, which is a garbage way to govern. Ross Perot really shook up the system because they changed the rules to get into the debate.

[NDSU92]

Who can’t get anything done in congress. Thanks for remaking my point.

If your point is to try to pass as many laws as possible without regard for the minority, sure. Otherwise it's a feature, not a bug. Why have a senate at all? Legislation is supposed to be difficult to pass. Majority of the population and majority of the states. If you can't get both, sorry homie.

Without the senate, 8 states could gerrymander their districts and then it would be all over in the legislative and executive branches, with the judicial soon to follow.

[bisonaudit]

If your point is to try to pass as many laws as possible without regard for the minority, sure. Otherwise it's a feature, not a bug. Why have a senate at all? Legislation is supposed to be difficult to pass.

Without the senate, 8 states could gerrymander their districts and then it would be all over in the legislative and executive branches, with the judicial soon to follow.

Funny, here in the real world exactly the opposite is actually happening.

Also, did you read what I posted? Still Federalism. Still filibuster in the Senate. Just marginally more representative. Instead of 11 percent of the population blocking the will of 89 percent with the filibuster it would be 28/72. All your features are still there.

[NDSU92]

Funny, here in the real world exactly the opposite is actually happening.

Also, did you read what I posted? Still Federalism. Still filibuster in the Senate. Just marginally more representative. Instead of 11 percent of the population blocking the will of 89 percent with the filibuster it would be 28/72. All your features are still there.

Sure, I just didn't want it being lost that the current system serves a purpose, and I along with many (a minority? ) of others agree. I understand and generally agree with your point.

[Kevin]

Sure, I just didn't want it being lost that the current system serves a purpose, and I along with many (a minority? ) of others agree. I understand and generally agree with your point.

No It'S rAcIsT bRo

[Gully]

Who can’t get anything done in congress. Thanks for remaking my point.

My dad always used to say, "we need someone in there who will do something"....I was like, "who the hell is spending all the money?"

I'd be just fine if they "did" a hell of a lot less in Washington.

[CAS4127]

After much self reflection and soul searching, I’ve had a paradigm shift. I am now agreeing with all the posts about how terrible the U.S. of A is!!

Given that, I’m all in on let’s Make America Great! Let’s fix things that need to be fixed, and focus on America!

Easily within reach, provided we don’t have more than 2000 mules within our borders.

God Bless the USA!

[ndsubison1]

We need the filibuster to prevent politicians from enacting more laws. We need them to do less, not more.

[Trumpster]

My dad always used to say, "we need someone in there who will do something"....I was like, "who the hell is spending all the money?"

I'd be just fine if they "did" a hell of a lot less in Washington.

Funnily enough, about the only thing they can do is spend money because the exception to the filibuster for spending bills. If you don't want to spend money but still do something you're shit out of luck though.

I'm sure politicians love the filibuster because they don't need to vote and show their constituents their actual opinion, they just go "Oh yeah I totally would vote for what you want, it's just that my hands are tied. Guess I'll just fund-raise instead."