John Dingall - Democrat, wants to abolish the entire Senate

[Augustus]

I think the senate should be chosen by sortition, with people chosen at random from among the general population who meet some fairly low level requirement.

Everybody hates politicians, yet promote a system in which you are guaranteed to be ruled by politicians grovelling at the feet of special interests and addicted to the need to generate votes by fair means or foul.

People tend to like candidates who come across as 'normal' people who shun special interests. There's a very easy way to make pretty much all office holders like this. People can also move past the idiotic and divisive playground discourse that passes for party politics.

Also, no more need for discussions about 'white privilege', 'patriarchy', etc in politics as they would be highly representative over time.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

When people suggest such things, ask them to imagine a
powerful centralized government with Trump at the helm.
The Senate serves a useful damping function.
(That's "dampening" to you Limeys.)

<Shudder>

Or Hillary...

The founders--and I think wisely--tried to put barriers in the way of those who would want political power concentrated of a single party or a single individual. The fear of "factions," so well described in the Federalist #10 was and still is well-founded...unfortunately, they could never imagine a future in which wealth, technology, and power could overcome the natural tendency for people to join factions based on their more local interests...

Perhaps the solution laid out in Article I is dated. If so, we should carefully consider a range of options before trying to select something else to try.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Yeah, it does. And it's great.

Wish you provided an example.

 

[columbus]

When people suggest such things, ask them to imagine a
powerful centralized government with Trump at the helm.

"If everybody in this country had an equal vote, how likely would a president like Trump be?" is another question one might ask.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

"If everybody in this country had an equal vote, how likely would a president like Trump be?" is another question one might ask.
Tom

There's no way that election would've turned out well.
But without the EC, perhaps Trump would've chosen
his campaign venues differently. After all, he strove
to win the presidency, not the popular vote.
His competitor chose the popularity contest.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Better yet, eliminate all districts.

Too controversial. You may as well dump it in quicksand.

 

[Revoltingest]

Too controversial. You may as well dump it in quicksand.

Of course it's controversial....it would gut the Big Two's monopoly on representatives.

 

[columbus]

There's no way that election would've turned out well.

The stage for that election was set by 200 years of systemic voter disenfranchisement.
If everybody's vote counted I think we would have a much more engaged and informed electorate.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

The stage for that election was set by 200 years of systemic voter disenfranchisement.
If everybody's vote counted I think we would have a much more engaged and informed electorate.
Tom

More of the same people engaged with the system would be better?
Only the losers feel disenfranchised.
And this isn't kiddie soccer where everyone wins.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Of course it's controversial....it would gut the Big Two's monopoly on representatives.

Baby steps! I think we could get random redistricting passed but not abolition of districts. If computers are too scary we can use ping pong balls in a cage to pick district lines positions from west to east, and then use population to determine how tall to draw the resulting districts. It won't require as large of a change in the law and might eventually result in your desired outcome of no districts. You should agree.

 

[Revoltingest]

You should agree.

And ruin the show?
No way, poopie head!

 

[Woberts]

Wish you provided an example.

Well, there's England before the royal family became a figurehead, the USSR, and ancient Egypt*, to name a few.
*Practically all ancient civilizations, now that I think about it.

 

[columbus]

More of the same people engaged with the system would be better?

I notice you skipped over the "informed" part.
I think people would put more effort into becoming better informed and engaged if their votes weren't ignored.

Only the losers feel disenfranchised.

No, disenfranchisement is a good deal more objective than that. Republican voters in New York can confidently assume that all of their Electoral College representatives will vote for a Democratic candidate. Doesn't matter if they vote or not, it's the "system" .
Tom

 

[Brickjectivity]

And ruin the show?
No way, poopie head!

Just think of what the lottery did for France. The show is just beginning.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

At the local level (as well as for state senate and house), where I live, if I vote Democratic, my vote does not count--if there is even a Dem candidate on the ballot...most of the time there isn't.

But if I vote Republican, I'm always voting for the winning candidate. That pretty much applies to US House as well.

For statewide races (governor, sec of state, etc.), and for President, how I vote might actually a difference...MIGHT, I say, because Illannoying is overall a Blue state, and USUALLY elects Dems...not always, but usually, over the past couple of decades...so if I usually vote Democratic in those elections, I'm usually on the winning side...not so much if I usually vote GOP...a wise gambling person would not wager on their vote making a difference in this state...

 

[Revoltingest]

I notice you skipped over the "informed" part.
I think people would put more effort into becoming better informed and engaged if their votes weren't ignored.

Being informed is useful. But there are great limitations.
- Which information does the voter consume....misleading, cromulent, irrelevant?
- How does the voter weigh the information?
You have more faith that people will vote as you think they should.
Instead, they just might vote as I do.

And the losers' votes are always ignored.
You cannot change that.

No, disenfranchisement is a good deal more objective than that. Republican voters in New York can confidently assume that all of their Electoral College representatives will vote for a Democratic candidate. Doesn't matter if they vote or not, it's the "system" .
Tom

It would be fine with me if we eliminated voting districts & the EC.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Like the house of lords in the UK which serves a similar function, people are always wanting to disband it.
However it actually adds to the checks and balances, and improves very many bills and legislation.
Both are full of very experienced people who can spot faults and stupidities before they get on the statute books.
However as the senate is elected and highly paid, you tend to only get political animals and the power hungry standing for it.
If it were mostly appointed like the Lords. and only paid an attendance fee, they would get more altruistic and highly experienced and successful people attending.

 

[columbus]

And the losers' votes are always ignored.
You cannot change that.

Yes, actually we can.
Imagine a federal government where the Clintonistas, the Deplorables, the BernieBros, and the Kasich GOPe, had to share power and develop policies that had enough support to get approved.
It's called parliamentary government and I am hugely in favor of that. Among other things, it would break the hammer lock the Demopublican Party has on campaign donations.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, actually we can.
Imagine a federal government where the Clintonistas, the Deplorables, the BernieBros, and the Kasich GOPe, had to share power and develop policies that had enough support to get approved.
It's called parliamentary government and I am hugely in favor of that. Among other things, it would break the hammer lock the Demopublican Party has on campaign donations.
Tom

Do all Brits get what they want with a parliamentary system?
Nah.

 

[columbus]

However as the senate is elected and highly paid,

The Senate isn't highly paid, by USA standards. Most of their income comes from bribes and campaign donations and honorariums after they have done the bidding of the superrich.
It's a big problem here, IMNSHO.
Tom