politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
"Let's keep all the existing problems slightly repackaged and create new ones." -VP at a Think Tank
No wonder we're in so much trouble. With friends like this who needs enemies. Better solution:
No more geographic attachment for the House. Proportional representation time. In 1776, local concerns were much more distinct. Now, Anywhere USA is everywhere. Plus, Senators are still bound to states for people who worry about that. Instead, parties win seats based on a percentage of the vote they receive and can assign members (which they do already, just with more steps) as they see fit. Gerrymandering solved, also we just broke the terrible de facto 2 party system.
Having a district cross a state border will be a problem when a Rep has to navigate two separate state governmental systems when trying to access help for their constituents.
That's OK-ish sounding but I'm going to give the example of NY. NYC is a very different animal from the northern part of the state and local issues matter a great deal depending on which portion you live in. I imagine it's like that in other very large states and major cities in general.
I think perhaps there should be some accounting for population centers. Major cities simply have different concerns from rural areas, and it seems reasonable to have each be represented. But we may be getting into a "where does it stop" thing here.
I'm not sure how to skin that cat or if it's worth skinning. I generally agree with your proposal - the way it's currently done is absurd.
We have local and state governments. Focusing on these minor differences at the federal level made less and less sense with the industrial revolution, rail, telegraph, highway system, internet. I'm not sure where exactly we crossed over from valid governance to outdated system to absurd, but we're definitely there.
Also, these differences tend to be overblown which is why people, politicians speak about them in the vaguest of terms. Yes, when comparing a large city to hill people there might be some differences (though again, far less than historically). However, we're at the federal level and big city to big city and hill people to hill people it's all more or less Anywhere, USA.
Nope. If people only get one vote (vs, say, ranked choice) then they have to be tactical about their one selection. This forces "Abilene effect" voting.
Nope. There are many proportional government systems in the world that work just fine. Ranked choice makes zero sense in this context. Assuming everyone will be tactical is cute. The considerable leap in logic to the Abilene effect is... where to begin? First, we already have coalitions they just form before the election, but the voters are NOT deciding the power balance at the DNC/RNC. Second, nothing is forced and Abilene Effect is not a state of being. Third, as Larry David said “A good compromise is when both parties are dissatisfied”.