[touchofevil]

I completely support this idea. Additionally, I think the USA needs to move away from anything that doesn't reflect majority rule. For example, abolish the Senate, end the electoral college, end gerrymandering, and reform campaign financing.

The USA could be a lot more democratic than it is at present and until that is fixed, you will keep seeing a minority of the population control policies that affect the whole nation.

[frgtpsswrdlame]

>For example, abolish the Senate, end the electoral college, end gerrymandering, and reform campaign financing.

I can get behind a lot of those but the Senate? What's your problem with it? Seems like the founders had very good reason to create it.

[touchofevil]

The Senate doesn't reflect majority rule based on population. California has 38.3 million residents, Wyoming has 600K residents [1] but both states have 2 senate votes. Due to this, Wyoming residents have much greater voting power in the Senate than residents of CA.

Edit: And since bills must be passed by both the House and the Senate, Wyoming residents have much more power over what becomes law than CA residents do. [1] http://www.enchantedlearning.com/usa/states/population.shtml

[frgtpsswrdlame]

Hmm, well perhaps (I'm venturing into the unknown here) the problem isn't really protecting the majority from the minority (or vice versa) but protecting the weak from the powerful. When I see proposals like:

>end gerrymandering, and reform campaign financing

I think those are good because they weaken the powerful (the current majority party and the rich) to enable the weak. But I also believe that without the senate the political power of Wyomingers (Wyomans?) is going to be a lot weaker than the political power of Californians so I see the senate as overall good.

Why should we focus so much on the majority and not the relative power of those that compose the majority (or minority?)

[touchofevil]

Well, the real question to me is do we think of people who live in Wyoming as "Wyomingers" and those in CA as Californians? I don't think so. We just think of everyone in the USA as Americans. So why should it be that some Americans (those who live in Wyoming) having outsized voting power over national laws? A minority of Americans is controlling the country via the methods I mentioned. It doesn't seem to be working out very well. We need to make sure that the majority of Americans have veto power over things like electing Donald Trump, the current tax bill, the attempts to end Obamacare.

[frgtpsswrdlame]

>Well, the real question to me is do we think of people who live in Wyoming as "Wyomingers" and those in CA as Californians?

I think we talk about it that way all the time, both where I live (which is a lot closer to Wyoming than California) and in places which are closer to California that Wyoming. The common issues of the day are all ones of class division and I think that geographical division really plays into it. When we really split into Wyomingers and Californians though is when we start talking about any common political issue.

>We just think of everyone in the USA as Americans.

Oh lord, how I wish this were true. Do you think Californians treat me like a Californian? Or do you think that maybe they treat me a little bit different? And do you think when a Californian transplants here they get treated like a Wyoman? Or do you think they get treated a bit different? There's a divide there, the hundreds or thousands of miles between the coasts and the middle is more than a physical divide, it's also a cultural and political one.

>It doesn't seem to be working out very well. We need to make sure that the majority of Americans have veto power over things like electing Donald Trump, the current tax bill, the attempts to end Obamacare.

Let's be real here though, the above is completely partisan thinking. Look I'm basically as far left as they come and I live in deep red country - your impulse is totally wrong. Take a look at this map: http://i0.wp.com/metrocosm.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/el...

You want to take that map and give even more power to the blue spots? I don't see the fairness. The senate exists because the coastal elites who founded this country were smart enough to realize that coastal city elites would run the whole thing if it weren't for some mechanism to help rural areas balance the scale.

>So why should it be that some Americans (those who live in Wyoming) having outsized voting power over national laws? A minority of Americans is controlling the country via the methods I mentioned.

Because it makes sure they're heard, it's protecting a weak minority from a powerful majority. I can agree with you on all the other things like gerrymandering but the senate exists for a good reason - it forces you to care about all the people who exist in rural areas or "flyover country" instead of writing them off like you'd really like to.

[touchofevil]

This whole idea of "coastal elites" and "flyover states" is just a tool that those with real power (corporations and special interests) are using to divide Americans so that they are easier to control. If you were the NRA looking to make sure that "bump stocks" don't get banned after a gunman shoots hundreds of people in Vegas using them, where would you focus your resources? On the Senate, of course! Because the House can't do anything without the Senate's approval and influencing 41 Senators is a lot easier than trying to influence hundreds of members of the House.

It's the same with the presidential election. If you're the NRA, what's easier for you to influence? A popular vote or our current electoral college system where only a few swing states matter?

If you're saying that the electoral college and the Senate are a means of protecting those in the "flyover states", then I would just you how that's working out? Do you think "Wyomingers" are the ones who are going to benefit from repealing the estate tax? The House, Senate, and Executive branch are all controlled by Republicans who should, in theory, be advocating for "Wyomingers" and yet they seem to only be working on behalf of the interests of the wealthy, special interests, and corporations.

Just abolish the states all together as far as I'm concerned and let's have one unified America, which would be much harder for special interests and corporations to influence.

[leifaffles]

There are existing answers to these questions. It's not a grand mystery.

Instead of merely repeating the questions, you should explain why the answers to those questions are wrong.

I think you're overly consumed with the political dramas of the present and haven't really thought through questions about what a good system of governance looks like.

[touchofevil]

Here's my proposal for tweaking the USA's current government so that it better represents the will of a majority of Americans: 1) abolish the Senate 2) end the electoral college 3) end gerrymandering 4) reform campaign financing.

[24gttghh]

You are ignoring the fact that Wyoming only has 1 representative in the house, which is where the balancing piece comes in.

[touchofevil]

Yes, and this would be fine if the senate did not exist. But the senate can kill anything that the house proposes. So Wyoming has undue influence over what the (correctly balanced) house tries to make law.

[24gttghh]

And the house can not vote for something the senate passes too...I'm not sure how you think the House is even remotely "correctly balanced" Both parties Gerrymander like it's their only job to keep their own little fiefdoms intact.

[svachalek]

It's not a balancing piece, it's a balanced piece. Abolishing the Senate would leave only the House, the balanced piece.

[24gttghh]

The house is not the balanced piece when it comes from the perspective of the states themselves. The smaller states then would have very little say in how the country at large operates.

[leifaffles]

Why is pure democracy a good thing in and of itself?

[touchofevil]

Because it's harder to corrupt a "pure" democracy. If you have a policy that is bad for the population at large, but good for your own interests, in a "pure" democracy then you will have to convince a majority of the voters to vote against their own interests.

[jpetso]

It appears relatively easy to get a majority to vote against their best interest. Case in point: Trump getting elected. If all that's needed to win a vote is populism and ad money, then you can be damn sure that people will vote not just against unalienable rights of minorities but will also against sell out their best long-term interests to short-term ones or to "principles" that sound good because they've been constantly repeated on Fox News or CNN.

Even without demographics taken into account, a country that's not accountable to a base set of unchangeable rules is a scary thing.

[leifaffles]

I honestly don't really think you've thought this out.

You might want to understand the existing structure of government before you propose replacing it on a whim.

Here are some questions to get you started:

* Why is there a Constitution?

* Why are there 3 co-equal branches of government? What are they all there for?

* Why is there an electoral college?

* Why are Senators allocated by state while House members are allocated by population?

* Why do House members have 2 year terms and Senators have 6 year terms?

* Why do the courts exist?

* Why does the executive branch exist?

[touchofevil]

I'm proposing that the concept of states is obsolete now and we need to move to what I'd call a "unified America" policy, where we get as close as possible to a majority rule system of democracy. The best way I can think of to achieve that is to abolish the Senate and the electoral college.

If you think our current system of governance is working well, then please say so. If you think our system isn't working well, then please let me know how you propose to fix it.