US Politics Thread

[Federberg]

So I was thinking about it the other day, what would be needed to set the US democratic system on a healthier pass. I came up with this...

• US President has to win a simple majority of the electorate, scrap anything to do with the electoral college for that.

• The electoral college needs to be population adjusted. You can't have the Dakota's having equal weight with a state like California. Each Senator would represent a fixed number of electoral college votes, which means that over time the number of Senators will vary by state.

• However in order to maintain stability, it should take 4 Senatorial cycles for any adjustments to be made. This should incentivise states to do what they can to attract citizens to move to them.

• While you're at it, limit the Federal Government to a maximum of 25% of GDP. This can be altered by the legislature in times of war or other crises. But in such a way that any changes will have to be voted upon at least once in a House cycle. If the mandate isn't reinstated an automatic return to the default position is enforced.

• Supreme Court Justices can only sit for 4 Senatorial cycles, then they have to stand down. A justice can be put back into place, but they would need to go through the confirmation process again.

Are those suggestions nuts, or do you agree changes like that would be beneficial? Asking as a foreigner who cares..

 

[Federberg]

CNN has been testing the water temperature for a Biden replacement almost from the get go. Their tone is going up slowly but steadly, and this is the latest notch.

This is not strategically stupid because if they stick with Biden, anti Trumpism will momentarily heal all the wounds anyway. Screenshots like these, as hard facts in general, have been proven irrelevant in politics.

the numbers are pretty consistent... 70 - 80% of the electorate think Biden is too old. If it wasn't for Trump I would be hooting and hollering for him to step down. And frankly, I don't think Harris is either qualified or competent enough to represent the American people in that position...

 

[Kieran]

CNN has been testing the water temperature for a Biden replacement almost from the get go. Their tone is going up slowly but steadly, and this is the latest notch.

This is not strategically stupid because if they stick with Biden, anti Trumpism will momentarily heal all the wounds anyway. Screenshots like these, as hard facts in general, have been proven irrelevant in politics.

Are CNN becoming less tribal? I see they got rid of Don Lemon, who always struck me as being a tribal honcho, to put it kindly..

 

[Moxie]

So I was thinking about it the other day, what would be needed to set the US democratic system on a healthier pass. I came up with this...

• US President has to win a simple majority of the electorate, scrap anything to do with the electoral college for that.

This would be great...every vote counts. It would have given Hillary Clinton and Al Gore the presidency. But it would negate the votes of everyone is less-populous states, would it not?

• The electoral college needs to be population adjusted. You can't have the Dakota's having equal weight with a state like California. Each Senator would represent a fixed number of electoral college votes, which means that over time the number of Senators will vary by state.

This contradicts your above, but I see you're working a few ideas. That's good. I do think the electoral college is far from being eliminated, so I agree it should be more population-adjusted. This gives some weight to less-populace states, but not as much. I get your idea that you strip some states of two senators, if they don't have the population merit them, but that's a big leap.

Perhaps a better way would be to weigh more heavily populations beyond a certain number. There are currently 538 electors. You could add more, with bonuses given to populous states. While this would be hard enough to get through Congress, it wouldn't be as hard as an version that strips small states of a Senator, and adds them onto California, Texas and New York, for example. The Senate has a lot of power, and powerful committees. And the Republicans have a lot of constituents in the smaller states.

• However in order to maintain stability, it should take 4 Senatorial cycles for any adjustments to be made. This should incentivise states to do what they can to attract citizens to move to them.

This presumes anyone would go for it, it the current climate. It also assumes that people don't live in North Dakota, but would move there to even out the electoral votes. I don't see this happening.

• While you're at it, limit the Federal Government to a maximum of 25% of GDP. This can be altered by the legislature in times of war or other crises. But in such a way that any changes will have to be voted upon at least once in a House cycle. If the mandate isn't reinstated an automatic return to the default position is enforced.

Why 25%? There is no first-world country that comes even close to that.

• Supreme Court Justices can only sit for 4 Senatorial cycles, then they have to stand down. A justice can be put back into place, but they would need to go through the confirmation process again.

I do think this is one that's coming. SCOTUS has proven that they're not above politics, so that is no longer an argument. They will also likely soon be subjected to the same ethics as other judges. 4 Senatorial cycles is long...24 years. I've heard 18 put out there. That seems long enough. I'm not sure I like the idea of a reaffirmation process, but not wholly against it. We'll get these changes faster than we will adding more justices.

While we're at it, and with much current discussion about the gerontocracy, is it time to term-limit Senators and Congresspeople? You get a powerful Senator or Congressperson, when they've been there a long time, as a voter, it''s hard not to want strong and powerful ones back, when they're on your side. But I am beginning to believe we should favor turnover. 4-5 terms should be enough.

 

[Federberg]

This would be great...every vote counts. It would have given Hillary Clinton and Al Gore the presidency. But it would negate the votes of everyone is less-populous states, would it not?

why though? Every vote will count. At the moment a Republican vote in California is essentially meaningless. How is that better for democracy. I dare say more Republicans in California, or Democrats in Alabama would be incentivised to vote

This contradicts your above, but I see you're working a few ideas. That's good. I do think the electoral college is far from being eliminated, so I agree it should be more population-adjusted. This gives some weight to less-populace states, but not as much. I get your idea that you strip some states of two senators, if they don't have the population merit them, but that's a big leap.

Perhaps a better way would be to weigh more heavily populations beyond a certain number. There are currently 538 electors. You could add more, with bonuses given to populous states. While this would be hard enough to get through Congress, it wouldn't be as hard as an version that strips small states of a Senator, and adds them onto California, Texas and New York, for example. The Senate has a lot of power, and powerful committees. And the Republicans have a lot of constituents in the smaller states.

Yeah I'm not sure what to do about the electoral college thing. If it's only utility is for the Presidential then I guess I would say just ditch it. But I'm assuming it's used for other aspects?

This presumes anyone would go for it, it the current climate. It also assumes that people don't live in North Dakota, but would move there to even out the electoral votes. I don't see this happening.

I'm basically attempting to reinvigorate the system by forcing States to compete to become more attractive to their citizens. Obviously folks generally don't want to move, roots are deep. But it could inspire change and democratic dynamism which would benefit the whole

Why 25%? There is no first-world country that comes even close to that.

very few first world countries identify themselves as Federal Republics in quite the way the US does. There's also an economic/fiscal exigency that exists in the US. And this would force a discipline and rebalance the relationship between the Executive and legislature that seems necessary to me. I get that politicians in the US probably don't want this. I'm just talking about ideals to force necessary changes. I'm sure there are better ideas or even a different percentage that would optimise

I do think this is one that's coming. SCOTUS has proven that they're not above politics, so that is no longer an argument. They will also likely soon be subjected to the same ethics as other judges. 4 Senatorial cycles is long...24 years. I've heard 18 put out there. That seems long enough. I'm not sure I like the idea of a reaffirmation process, but not wholly against it. We'll get these changes faster than we will adding more justices.

While we're at it, and with much current discussion about the gerontocracy, is it time to term-limit Senators and Congresspeople? You get a powerful Senator or Congressperson, when they've been there a long time, as a voter, it''s hard not to want strong and powerful ones back, when they're on your side. But I am beginning to believe we should favor turnover. 4-5 terms should be enough.

I think the reaffirmation process is ultimately more democratic than an outright restriction. It should weed out the ones who folks don't want back in the Court. No doubt the ones who know their positions are no longer tenable will not want to put themselves forward again. It should weed some out. For the same reason I don't think age limits are necessary. Democrats in California should frankly be looking at themselves and asking why they voted Feinstein back in!

Thanks for the response. It's an interesting subject. Obviously most of this will never happen but it's a worthy exercise

 

[Moxie]

why though? Every vote will count. At the moment a Republican vote in California is essentially meaningless. How is that better for democracy. I dare say more Republicans in California, or Democrats in Alabama would be incentivised to vote

You're right, and I totally got that wrong. I'm going to say in my own defense that it's a lifetime of indoctrination. We're told so often that the electoral college is supposed to protect some votes that even when we can remember why, we repeat it anyway. I've come to believe that the EC should be abolished, but I guess sometimes the old propaganda kicks into my reptile brain.

Kieran was saying the other day that HRC didn't campaign in all states, and I told him no one does. Not cost-effective. But one-person-one-vote might change that. I can't remember a time in my life that people haven't said they don't want that, or believe it's most fair.

Yeah I'm not sure what to do about the electoral college thing. If it's only utility is for the Presidential then I guess I would say just ditch it. But I'm assuming it's used for other aspects?

Nope...that's all it's there for. But here's the problem: without it, as I mentioned, Republicans would have lost the White House in 2000, and in 2016. All those Supreme Court justices, too. They won't go for it.

I'm basically attempting to reinvigorate the system by forcing States to compete to become more attractive to their citizens. Obviously folks generally don't want to move, roots are deep. But it could inspire change and democratic dynamism which would benefit the whole


very few first world countries identify themselves as Federal Republics in quite the way the US does. There's also an economic/fiscal exigency that exists in the US. And this would force a discipline and rebalance the relationship between the Executive and legislature that seems necessary to me. I get that politicians in the US probably don't want this. I'm just talking about ideals to force necessary changes. I'm sure there are better ideas or even a different percentage that would optimise

Got it.

I think the reaffirmation process is ultimately more democratic than an outright restriction. It should weed out the ones who folks don't want back in the Court. No doubt the ones who know their positions are no longer tenable will not want to put themselves forward again. It should weed some out. For the same reason I don't think age limits are necessary. Democrats in California should frankly be looking at themselves and asking why they voted Feinstein back in!

Thanks for the response. It's an interesting subject. Obviously most of this will never happen but it's a worthy exercise

I still think the reaffirmation process would be largely political, but you're right that the general population might have a better idea, by then, if they do or don't like that justice, which would affect the politics of reaffirmation votes.

I've always leaned toward no term limits for House and Senate (and locally.) People can vote someone out of office. However, I do see that a long-serving politician has lots of power and connections and great spots on important committees. This is why people vote them back in, including Feinstein. I have begun to waiver on term limits over the past some years. I see both arguments.

You are right...it's interesting stuff. I really am for abolishing the Electoral College, esp. with the shenanigans of the last election and Trump trying to put in his "fake electors." Some Republican states have since even tried making laws whereby the governor could replace panels of electors. The Electoral College has always been sort of insulting to the intelligence of US voters, but now it looks like it could be manipulated specifically to rob us of our vote. It has definitely overridden the will of the popular vote aa few times.

 

[Federberg]

You're right, and I totally got that wrong. I'm going to say in my own defense that it's a lifetime of indoctrination. We're told so often that the electoral college is supposed to protect some votes that even when we can remember why, we repeat it anyway. I've come to believe that the EC should be abolished, but I guess sometimes the old propaganda kicks into my reptile brain.

Kieran was saying the other day that HRC didn't campaign in all states, and I told him no one does. Not cost-effective. But one-person-one-vote might change that. I can't remember a time in my life that people haven't said they don't want that, or believe it's most fair.

Nope...that's all it's there for. But here's the problem: without it, as I mentioned, Republicans would have lost the White House in 2000, and in 2016. All those Supreme Court justices, too. They won't go for it.

Got it.

I still think the reaffirmation process would be largely political, but you're right that the general population might have a better idea, by then, if they do or don't like that justice, which would affect the politics of reaffirmation votes.

I've always leaned toward no term limits for House and Senate (and locally.) People can vote someone out of office. However, I do see that a long-serving politician has lots of power and connections and great spots on important committees. This is why people vote them back in, including Feinstein. I have begun to waiver on term limits over the past some years. I see both arguments.

You are right...it's interesting stuff. I really am for abolishing the Electoral College, esp. with the shenanigans of the last election and Trump trying to put in his "fake electors." Some Republican states have since even tried making laws whereby the governor could replace panels of electors. The Electoral College has always been sort of insulting to the intelligence of US voters, but now it looks like it could be manipulated specifically to rob us of our vote. It has definitely overridden the will of the popular vote aa few times.

The fact that the GOP has barely been able to win the majority of the vote this century, and it basically took a major terrorist event to get them one is damning. But what's worse is that they don't appear to be incentivised to win the debate and gain supporters is frankly terrifying in a democracy. It shouldn't be that way. Is it GOP Senator Mike Lee who always retorts that America isn't a democracy but a republic? Folks should start to take that more seriously and try to change that. Sounds like the conclusion is that the EC has to go. I'm all for it!

 

[Kieran]

Kieran was saying the other day that HRC didn't campaign in all states, and I told him no one does.

Yes, but remember the context of that conversation. It was suggested (with a dash of truth, I suspect) that Trump didn’t care about American people. Hillary dismissed millions of people as “Deplorables” so she’s not much better than him in that regard. But I mentioned her skipping states in the context of also saying she felt she was entitled to win. She skipped states that, if the book Shattered is to be believed even Bubba begged her to go to because it was too close in those states to neglect them. It wasn’t that she didn’t go because she can’t go everywhere…

 

[Moxie]

The fact that the GOP has barely been able to win the majority of the vote this century, and it basically took a major terrorist event to get them one is damning. But what's worse is that they don't appear to be incentivised to win the debate and gain supporters is frankly terrifying in a democracy. It shouldn't be that way. Is it GOP Senator Mike Lee who always retorts that America isn't a democracy but a republic? Folks should start to take that more seriously and try to change that. Sounds like the conclusion is that the EC has to go. I'm all for it!

I agree that the GOP seems to accept that they don't reflect the majority across the US, but rather than win over voters by modulating policy and adopting positions that better-reflect the zeitgeist, (something you have noted in opinions here, in the past, and which I agree with,) they resort to gerrymandering (which both parties do, but I would argue the GOP are the worst,) and supressing the vote amongst those least likely to vote Republican, i.e., young people (especially the college student vote,) and people of color. IMO, making it hard for people to vote verges on the treasonous.

 

[Moxie]

Yes, but remember the context of that conversation. It was suggested (with a dash of truth, I suspect) that Trump didn’t care about American people. Hillary dismissed millions of people as “Deplorables” so she’s not much better than him in that regard. But I mentioned her skipping states in the context of also saying she felt she was entitled to win. She skipped states that, if the book Shattered is to be believed even Bubba begged her to go to because it was too close in those states to neglect them. It wasn’t that she didn’t go because she can’t go everywhere…

I do remember the context. I was mentioning that conversation in the context of this particular issue we're discussing with Federberg here, which is that the Electoral College encourages candidates to ignore certain voters/states in favor of the big ones and the battleground ones. I simply mentioned that we had been discussing it, which we had been.

 

[tented]

So I was thinking about it the other day, what would be needed to set the US democratic system on a healthier pass. I came up with this...

• US President has to win a simple majority of the electorate, scrap anything to do with the electoral college for that.

• The electoral college needs to be population adjusted. You can't have the Dakota's having equal weight with a state like California. Each Senator would represent a fixed number of electoral college votes, which means that over time the number of Senators will vary by state.

• However in order to maintain stability, it should take 4 Senatorial cycles for any adjustments to be made. This should incentivise states to do what they can to attract citizens to move to them.

• While you're at it, limit the Federal Government to a maximum of 25% of GDP. This can be altered by the legislature in times of war or other crises. But in such a way that any changes will have to be voted upon at least once in a House cycle. If the mandate isn't reinstated an automatic return to the default position is enforced.

• Supreme Court Justices can only sit for 4 Senatorial cycles, then they have to stand down. A justice can be put back into place, but they would need to go through the confirmation process again.

Are those suggestions nuts, or do you agree changes like that would be beneficial? Asking as a foreigner who cares..

A lot of great ideas here. The problem is that many would require super majority votes (66%) to enact, because some of this is in the Constitution. Amending that requires super majority approval in the House, the Senate, and then 2/3 of all state legislatures. This is why it’s rarely done. Senators are not going to vote themselves out of office, essentially.

I think the only way to get these changes for term limits would be to get every congressperson and senator to take a vow before being elected to vote for term limits. If any change their minds, have a vote to recall them, and send others. Keep doing this until the changes are put in place.

The Electoral College is an antique which should have been abolished decades ago. It’s a remnant from a much earlier time, when such things were necessary. Now, it’s not. It’s impossible to justify that a person can get more votes, yet lose an election. How is that democracy?

The two senators per state was a compromise when the Constitution was being written, in order to get smaller states to sign off on everything. The main authors knew at the time, though, that it was a bad compromise and assumed it would be handled at some point. Well, that didn’t happen. But you’re right that it’s not representative of the population. How can it make sense that Wyoming, which has a population of approximately 580,000, has as many senators as California (population 39,500,000 million)? The disparity is alarming. I just did the math: the bottom 22 States have a combined population less than California’s. Yet California has 2 senators, and the others have a total of 44.

I love your idea of limiting the Supreme Court Justices as well. That’s desperately needed, so that they don’t sit there with no fear of repercussions since it’s currently a lifetime appointment. The number of Justices is not in the Constitution, so it could be changed to 11 or 13 or even 7.

 

[tented]

Sen. Dianne Feinstein has died. She was 90.

 

[Federberg]

Sen. Dianne Feinstein has died. She was 90.

oh wow! RIP...

Why on earth do these Democrats refuse to step down? It's rather bizarre that Republican's who we all secretly consider to be more selfish, tend to have an eye on the bigger picture and freely act to put their group objectives before personal motivations. It's something that's always confused me. And yes I'm thinking about Ginsburg...

 

[Federberg]

so I guess Newson will select a woman of colour? This is of course not what Pelosi she wanted. She wanted Schiff is that correct? Would have been a great selection... ah well!

 

[tented]

so I guess Newson will select a woman of colour? This is of course not what Pelosi she wanted. She wanted Schiff is that correct? Would have been a great selection... ah well!

It will be an interesting showdown to see who Newsom appoints.

I hope someone pulls Biden aside and says, “Here’s your chance to get rid of Harris — send her back to the Senate, and get someone else to run as your VP.”

 

[tented]

oh wow! RIP...

Why on earth do these Democrats refuse to step down? It's rather bizarre that Republican's who we all secretly consider to be more selfish, tend to have an eye on the bigger picture and freely act to put their group objectives before personal motivations. It's something that's always confused me. And yes I'm thinking about Ginsburg...

Yes, Ginsburg should have resigned while Obama was still in office. Yet there’s also Mitch McConnell who’s in such bad shape he’s having what can only be described as mini-strokes in front of the camera.

The truth is there are a ton of old politicians in Washington, DC, especially the Senate. I pulled up a list of current Senators and was a little taken aback myself how old so many are. 33/100 are 70 or older. Here’s a sampling:

 

[Federberg]

It will be an interesting showdown to see who Newsom appoints.

I hope someone pulls Biden aside and says, “Here’s your chance to get rid of Harris — send her back to the Senate, and get someone else to run as your VP.”

that was the first thought that entered my mind!

 

[Federberg]

Yes, Ginsburg should have resigned while Obama was still in office. Yet there’s also Mitch McConnell who’s in such bad shape he’s having what can only be described as mini-strokes in front of the camera.

The truth is there are a ton of old politicians in Washington, DC, especially the Senate. I pulled up a list of current Senators and was a little taken aback myself how old so many are. 33/100 are 70 or older. Here’s a sampling:


View attachment 8830View attachment 8831View attachment 8832View attachment 8833View attachment 8834

sadly I get why McConnell is reluctant. In that I think he's serving the greater good, and democracy. Not sure I would trust any of the fellas most likely to replace him to do the same. That's the state of things unfortunately....

 

[tented]

that was the first thought that entered my mind!

 

[Fiero425]

oh wow! RIP...

Why on earth do these Democrats refuse to step down? It's rather bizarre that Republican's who we all secretly consider to be more selfish, tend to have an eye on the bigger picture and freely act to put their group objectives before personal motivations. It's something that's always confused me. And yes I'm thinking about Ginsburg...

People just don't know how DC works! Senators are like Feudal Kings that are handed a ton of power, $money$, & responsibility! As long as they hold office, even if they do nothing, oversee quite a few offices & staff members; thousands of them! The people Feinstein hired will probably now have to go looking for another job! It's like that and more which I try not to aggravate myself by knowing! It's criminal these old farts hanging on so long they're being wheeled around the Capitol, propped up, & told what to say! That McConnell thing the most egregious as he stroked out twice while his brethren just escorted him out as if nothing happened! A-#oles!