1. Hi there, Guest

    Only registered users can really experience what DLP has to offer. Many forums are only accessible if you have an account. Why don't you register?
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Hey DLP authors, there's a bit less than a month left to wow us with your story about Daphne or Azkaban.

    The Author applies the words to the paper or it gets the hose. Write or die! The more the merrier.

    Click here for more information!
    Dismiss Notice

The Trumperium 2: Caesar by the Pussy

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Jon, Jun 15, 2017.

  1. Chengar Qordath

    Chengar Qordath The Final Pony ~ Prestige ~

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,195
    High Score:
    1,802
    Pretty much this. Anyone who tries to play the "adult in the room" to the Trump Admin might manage to briefly talk Trump out of doing something stupid, but once they do so their days in the administration are numbered. John Kelly basically said that's how he lost his job.
     
  2. Invictus

    Invictus Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2013
    Messages:
    3,777
    Location:
    Cidade Maravilhosa
    Something that has been popping up nonstop by Progressive groups since the midterms, which allied with the 2016 results, is a reform in both Senate representation and of the electoral college. Setting aside the electoral college one, which has been discussed here extensively, but what do people think about giving proportional representation in the Senate according to population? "One person, one vote" principle. Each state would get a minimum of one senator and the rest was proportional to the population.

    Abstaining from saying my opinion right now, want to hear yours first.
     
  3. Agayek

    Agayek Totally Sirius DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    3,263
    It seems rather hilariously stupid, as we already have that. It's called the House of Representatives. The entire point of the Senate is for each State to have equal weight. It's the House that's meant to represent the people within those states.

    If anything, the discussion should be about overturning the Permanent Apportionment Act and getting the Reps to actually mirror the population spread.
     
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2019
  4. Chengar Qordath

    Chengar Qordath The Final Pony ~ Prestige ~

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,195
    High Score:
    1,802
    It does undercut a lot of the point of the Senate if it's just a smaller House of Representatives. If the Senate's not different than the House, why should it even exist? I'm not completely opposed to changing it away from the two votes per state system, but it would need to be something different enough from the current status quo and how the House does things to feel like a good change.

    Not to mention that we're getting into constitutional amendment territory with changing the senate that much. Even if you got it past the 2/3 majority in both houses, good luck convincing 3/4 of the states to approve a change to the constitution that will hurt the political power a lot of them wield. The likes of Wyoming, South Dakota, Vermont, Delaware, and all the other low population states are not going to be easily sold on giving up their political relevance.

    It'd also make the urban/rural divide even sharper. To folks in rural areas, getting rid of the Senate as it is would send a message of "Hi, we'd like to remove the last bit of political relevance you have so we can ignore you completely and only care about big cities. Sucks to be you, sheep-fucking redneck untermensch."

    Perhaps, but we would presumably still need to set some kind of upper limit on how many representatives we have (Not to mention we'd probably need to expand the Capitol building). Increasing the size of the House enough to make a significant impact could also make it a bit unwieldy and would reduce the power of individual reps.
     
  5. Agayek

    Agayek Totally Sirius DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    3,263
    My preferred solution would be to eliminate the Permanent Apportionment Act, then change the scaling so that each State gets 1 rep per 300,000 voters instead of 30,000, with a minimum of 1. Not sure that's possible without an Amendment though, so I wouldn't hold my breath on it happening.
     
  6. Chengar Qordath

    Chengar Qordath The Final Pony ~ Prestige ~

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,195
    High Score:
    1,802
    There shouldn't be any need for an amendment just to replace the Permanent Apportionment Act with some new act. Though I suspect the practical problems with increasing the House by that much would still be an issue. After all, one rep per 300,000 people would give us an House of well over a thousand representatives.
     
  7. Lindsey

    Lindsey Headmaster DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,098
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    You would need to change the scaling as without it the house of representatives would be greater than 10,000.

    My way would be to take the least populated state, assign that to 1 rep, and base the others off it. This would be Wyoming at about 600,000. This would mean about 535 representatives altogether.

    Or, you can give Wyoming 2 representatives, which will give you your one rep per 300,000. Yes, this would be over a thousand representatives but compared Britain's House of Commons contains 650 members... in a much smaller and less populated country... (and thus, one person per 100,000 in the Uk).

    Personally, I believe having a thousand representatives isn't that unthinkable. The biggest problem would be actual physical space.
     
  8. Agayek

    Agayek Totally Sirius DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    3,263
    I like that idea Lindsey, definitely makes a lot of sense to me.

    As for physical space, that's really not that big a deal, especially nowadays with the tech we've got. You really don't need a big gymnasium packed to the gills with people. That's a relic of the past that only still exists out of momentum. We have the technology to do it just as well in other ways.

    Simplest idea I've got is to build/buy out a series of office building things and install computers/tablets/whatever with a webcam hookup for each Rep, attach them all together through a closed network (for security reasons), and have all the work of the House done through that.
     
  9. Chengar Qordath

    Chengar Qordath The Final Pony ~ Prestige ~

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,195
    High Score:
    1,802
    Yeah, a big part of why the current limit is 435 was that fitting much more than that into the current facilities wouldn't work. Compared to everything else remodeling and expanding the Capitol building isn't the biggest hurdle.

    There are a lot of advantages in terms of networking to having people be physically present in the same space. Webcam conferences are very useful, but they're still a poor substitute for actually being there. Not to mention that combining a huge expansion in congress with doing most of the work electronically is just asking for security leaks to become even more of an issue. And once you handle congress business over the web instead of physically, why even be in Washington at all?

    Granted, I don't think any of those issues are dealbreakers. Just things that need to be considered.
     
  10. Agayek

    Agayek Totally Sirius DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    3,263
    The security is why you be in Washington. It's not doing government work over the internet, that's a security nightmare that nobody wants. It's doing government work over a closed network that's isolated to just the building.

    In my head, the whole setup is the House filing into a series of office buildings where they can connect to the internal network, which is how the speeches to the whole House and all that are handled, and then all the committee tasks and the like are handled the same as they are now. It's just the Reps will have to walk over to whatever the appropriate building is and find the meeting room, much like they do now.
     
  11. Spanks

    Spanks Minister of Magic

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2007
    Messages:
    1,389
    Location:
    New Jersey
    Changing representation in the Senate has a slight problem in that it’s probably impossible.

    Even if you repeal the 17th Amendment, which says each state gets 2 Senators, you still have to deal with Articles 1 and 5.

    I mean I’m not a constitutional scholar or lawyer, but the language when it comes to the Senate representation is rather definitive and set. So I have doubts that the Amendment process would override the Articles. And if attempted I’m afraid it would lead to people just saying the constitution doesn’t matter anymore.
     
  12. Chengar Qordath

    Chengar Qordath The Final Pony ~ Prestige ~

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,195
    High Score:
    1,802
    The entire point of the amendment process is to change the constitution, which can and has included the original text. This is why blacks no longer count as only three fifths of a person for representation (Article 1, section 2, Clause 3 vs 14th amendment) and why the Vice President get elected along with the President instead of being the first runner-up in the election (Article 2 Section 1 Clause 3 vs 12th Amendment).

    Granted, as outlined above the likelihood of passing an amendment to restructure the government on such a fundamental level is close to zero. 2/3 of both houses and 3/4 of the state legislatures is a huge hurdle to cross, especially when the amendment would be taking away power from the states that would have to pass it.
     
  13. Darth_Revan

    Darth_Revan Secret Squirrel ~ Prestige ~ DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    1,393
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Connecticut
    High Score:
    2810
    I think the biggest improvement we could make is move from Single Member Districts to State-base Proportional Representation, thereby permanently eliminating the Redistricting problem.
     
  14. Wizard Giller

    Wizard Giller Seventh Year

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    Messages:
    207
    Location:
    california
    There isn't what I would call a perfect solution to the redistricting problem. The problem with doing as you suggest is that it makes it harder for people that live in a certain district to make their concerns matter to the body at large. Take California for an example. Most of the Republicans in California don't actually live in areas where they actually win districts. If they win 1/3 of the vote then the people of Shasta probably aren't getting as much attention to their concerns as they would under the current system. A Shasta republican (or democrat for that matter) is much different than an Orange County one. I suppose it boils down to how you choose the members of your candidate representative pools. I rather think on the whole it would be harder to tweak the pool where you wouldn't weaken rural areas political power even more in the house where it's already not very strong on account of being so outnumbered.
     
  15. Chengar Qordath

    Chengar Qordath The Final Pony ~ Prestige ~

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,195
    High Score:
    1,802
    I think it would be hard to find a way of reforming the House that wouldn't hurt representation of rural areas. After all, the entire reason there's this push for reform is that rural areas have more representation than they should by strict population numbers.
     
  16. Darth_Revan

    Darth_Revan Secret Squirrel ~ Prestige ~ DLP Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    1,393
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Connecticut
    High Score:
    2810
    If we're going to pick on California Republicans, they might appreciate having any representatives at all, considering how many seats they just lost.
     
  17. Oment

    Oment The Betrayer

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    2,531
    Could always go for some form of mixed-member proportional for the House, but that only works when your areas have more than, well, a handful of seats to contest. Wouldn't work for anything under - probably - six or so Representatives. Which invalidates 24 states without also nuking the law mentioned earlier to up the amount of Representatives. And it keeps the redistricting issue on the table as well, albeit blunted.
     
  18. Giovanni

    Giovanni God of Scotch

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2005
    Messages:
    8,624
    Location:
    Gilligan's Island
    Senate wasn't formed to represent people, it was formed to represent states. Switching it to proportional representation fundamentally changes the nature of the institution in ways which are very appealing to the coastal cosmopolitan progressives who fap to YouTube videos about the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone, but which would be anathema to most (if not all) of the interior west/great plains.

    Not ruling it out, but if those states vote as a bloc (extremely likely) it finishes a few states short of the total required for passage before you start tallying by Party.
     
  19. Chengar Qordath

    Chengar Qordath The Final Pony ~ Prestige ~

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,195
    High Score:
    1,802
    Pretty sure most of the coastal cosmopolitans regard the fact that it would reduce the voting power of the great plains to practically nonexistant as not a bug, but a feature.
     
  20. Giovanni

    Giovanni God of Scotch

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2005
    Messages:
    8,624
    Location:
    Gilligan's Island
    That's pretty much what I said. Thing is, they need at least 3 of those states to vote for it.
     
Loading...
Similar Threads
  1. fire
    Replies:
    2,071
    Views:
    255,543