[collingreen]

If we can't figure out how to get a Congress that most people believe in then I worry that is the beginning of the end for this government.

Hopefully we get to try from scratch a third time if that happens but I worry that collapse will be too tempting for Russia or China to not step in.

Maybe we can be lucky and get conquered by Canada first in that case? What a weird thing to think...

[dylan604]

From fiction, we have Clancy's sudden loss of the majority of federal elected officials which allowed for a fresh start. However, that's subject to having governors submitting senators while having elections for congress. Starting from a clean slate would be the only fix. As it is now, it's who is willing to kowtow to the biggest backers to get them over the line and stay in office. On top of the gerrymandering that all but ensures the party in control stays in control, I see no change to the status quo in my life time without an uprising.

[JauntTrooper]

Gerrymandering is at the heart of the rot.

[nullocator]

The Senate is not subject to garrymandering and if we fixed the issues with the House (literally via any mechanism) the Senate would immediately go back to being the vehicle used to prevent the will of the people (see the Senate under Mitch McConnell any time the House was under Democrat control)

Until the Dem party fixes their brand and wins back some of the Senate seats they used to control in the 90s and early 2000s there will be no positive progress.

[JauntTrooper]

The Senate is in a permanent state of gerrymandering.

There were only 13 states when the Constitution was ratified. It was never envisioned to be as disproportionate as it is today, with California's two Senators representing 40 million people vs. Wyoming's 0.6 million.

[koolba]

In 1776, the population of Virgin was about 500K, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts were about 270K, and Delaware and Georgia were about 50K each.

The founders knew exactly what they were agreeing to when they gave each State two Senators. It’s supposed to be a separate check on the Federal power to force a wide swathe of consensus.

[spankalee]

California currently has of 60x the population of Wyoming, which means that Wyoming voters have over 60x the voting power in the Senate as California voters.

Whether the founders intended that or not it's a shitty, unfair, and undemocratic system that doesn't act as a check, it just enables permanent minority rule.

[johnnyanmac]

It was semi intentional. It wasn't as extreme but the Senate was still a compromise for smaller states to have leverage in government and get them to sign on.

Meanwhile, the house is about 10 times smaller than what the founders envisioned. Maybe that's overkill but we probably should at least expand the house quite a bit. And Probably expand the supreme court as well.

[mlrtime]

That is the point of the Senate! These are united STATES, and always have been.

There is no way to prove this but who is your Representative without googling the naming, do you know them? Ever talked to them before?

[teiferer]

And now ask the 3.2 million Puertoricans how they feel about that.

[jalapenos]

Could just as soon argue it's shitty and unfair that populous states like Russia get to impose their will in less populous ones like Ukraine.

Something being more democratic doesn't make it better by default. Hence why there's a bill of rights.

[judahmeek]

I doubt the founders considered the possibility that political realignment would result in nearly all low population states being on one side of the spectrum.

[cherrycherry98]

Counting the two Independents as Democrats, who they caucus with:

Top 25 states: 2 Democrats - 52% 2 Republicans - 40% Split - 8%

Bottom 25 states: 2 Democrats - 36% 2 Republicans - 60% Split - 4%

Top quintile: 2 Democrats - 50% 2 Republicans - 40% Split - 10%

2nd quintile: 2 Democrats - 60% 2 Republicans - 30% Split - 10%

Middle quintile: 2 Democrats - 40% 2 Republicans - 60%

4th quintile: 2 Democrats - 30% 2 Republicans - 70%

Bottom quintile: 2 Democrats - 40% 2 Republicans - 50% Split - 10%

The very top and very bottom are a 55% to 45% split in either direction. It's not a heavy skew, a single party flip in the quintile from the majority to the minority would make it 50/50 even. Those quintiles cancel each other out when voting on party/caucus lines. It's actually the 2nd and 4th quintiles that have the biggest skews. Democrats take the 2nd quintile while Republicans take the 3rd and 4th.

[codenaught]

The existence of the Virginia Plan (the Large State Plan) and the New Jersey Plan (the Small State Plan) indicates that balancing the differing interests of high- and low- population states was a prominent concern of the founders. I think they would expect states to often align by population size since that very thing occurring at the convention led to the compromise written into the Constitution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Plan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_Plan

[Loughla]

No, I like the way the Senate runs in theory. Equal representation for the states regardless of size. Only if it's alongside the house with proportionate representation.

That seems like a good theory that would keep itself in check.

In execution it's an absolute shit show, I'll give you. But I do believe the theory is sound. With the house and the Senate we get the best of both worlds.

In theory.

[lotsofpulp]

Why is the theory sound? It’s an arbitrary number of regions delineated by arbitrary lines given a disproportionate amount of power that run completely counter to the goal of a democracy.

[johnnyanmac]

>Why is the theory sound?

Because tyranny of the majority is still a thing. Elections would just switch from swing states to appealing to California and Texas if we did everything with purely popular votes. So the house is there as a large power and senate can check it.

Of course, in practice the house is way under represented so its almost like we have a senate and a mini-senate. That's where things fall apart.

[Loughla]

Arbitrary or not, States are sovereign things. They set their own laws.

Having 1 chamber that allows equal representation

And

Having 1 chamber that allows proportionate

Is a good system in theory. Otherwise, States (which are again separate entities) with high populations just steamroll those that have low populations.

The system now allows states with high populations to be appropriately represented in the house, which sends bills to the Senate.

I feel like it's a good system, in theory. You get your population representation and checks and balances for rural areas as well.

[echelon]

States are sovereign entities with their own laws. They can even, in theory, secede from the union.

The Senate is a good system, it's just that most states are Republican.

Some of the larger states might consider splitting themselves into separate states to better represent their populations. Though that may not be constitutionally possible.

If we ever add additional states to the Union (Puerto Rico, D.C., etc.), they'll want to enjoy having an equal say with every other state in the Union. It's a compelling feature of our system.

The House, as a proportional system, actually needs to be re-normalized. There are not enough representatives to have an actually proportional vote.

[moron4hire]

Gerrymandering is particular powerful because Congress has refused to reapportion representatives for over a century. They just decided to stop following that part of the Constitution back in 1929. We still have the same number of representatives as we did when we were less than a third our current population. Each representative now covers 20 times more people than when the Constitution was ratified.

[specialist]

Yes and: our first-past-the-post form of elections begets gerrymandering.

My future perfect world:

  proportional representation for assemblies (eg US House), 

  some arbitrarily low number of reps per citizens (200k - 400k?),

  no upper assembly (eg US Senate),

  approval voting for executive positions (eg Mayor, Sheriff, President),

  only public financing of campaigns,

  limit campaign season to maybe 6 weeks.

Friendly amendments to my wishlist cheerfully accepted.

There's so many reasonable, impactful reforms which could be done. And my wishlist is based on my (imperfect) understanding of best available (political) science. And I'm all ears about SCOTUS reforms. And I doubt any reforms will stick, so long as our gini coefficient is so out of whack (wealth vs democracy, the timeless struggle).

[otikik]

Money is. Politicians are for sale.

[SaltyBackendGuy]

This is my take as well. Nothing will improve until we roll back Citizens United.

[spankalee]

Citizens United is impossible to roll back with the structural problem of the Senate.

[stonogo]

Approval ratings for Congress, barring a post-9/11 spike, have been under 30% for most of my life. By this standard I'd say we're in the middle of the end.

[amanaplanacanal]

For the most part, folks like their own Congress people though. They just don't like the others.

[dragonwriter]

> If we can't figure out how to get a Congress that most people believe in then I worry that is the beginning of the end for this government.

We know, from comparative study of existing representative democracies, how to do that better (have an electoral system for the legislative branch that provides results that are substnantially more proportional than under the current system); what we don’t have is a practical way to get from where we are to where we need to be given the construction of the electoral systems in the states and nationally and the politicians and interests that has entrenched and the Constitutional amendment process.