[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.

[frgtpsswrdlame]

>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.

No, it's a well defined cultural and political divide. Maybe the powerful exploit it but it exists independently of them.

>If you're saying that the electoral college and the Senate are a means of protecting those in the "flyover states",

I am.

>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.

Sure because you picked a terrible example. But Wyomingers sure are glad there's a senate when gun control comes up. And they're glad there's a senate when Abortion comes up. And they're glad there's a senate when basically any political issue comes up which divides mostly along geographic boundaries.

You'll sit here and decry the influence corporations have on our country but at the same time want to ignore huge swaths of america.

Middle America exists, it votes and maybe instead of trying to reduce its political power you should try to convince the people in those states.

>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!

This is the most shit example I can imagine you using. (1) The NRA doesn't care if bump stocks get banned. (2) A bump stock ban is totally meaningless feel-good legislation. Go to youtube and search "rubberband bump fire." A bump stock is just a "cooler" way of doing the same thing you can do with any rubberband or even a shoestring. (3) A bump stock ban is the perfect example of city people with no understanding of an issue trying to legislate it. Maybe next time you should come ask us in flyover land. (;

[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.