[kelnos]

Unfortunately, eliminating the Senate (or more precisely, each state's equal representation in the Senate) is the one and only thing that the constitution forbids an amendment from doing (see Article V, Section 5):

> Provided that no Amendment [...] no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

(Awkward ellipsizing, but the elided text is another thing that's not allowed, which expired in 1808, and is otherwise thankfully no longer relevant.)

Better voting systems can be implemented, but since the states run federal elections, each state would have to pass legislation requiring a different voting system. Of course I expect all 50 would not agree on which alternative system is the best, which may or may not matter. And I doubt red states would want to change, as voting systems that better reflect the will of the electorate tend to disadvantage the GOP.

Eliminating gerrymandering is difficult, because it's hard to objectively define what is and isn't a gerrymandered map. There have been some attempts to do so, and I would say they've even been somewhat successful, but people can reasonably disagree with the methodology and thresholds used.

The Citizens United SCOTUS ruling and precedent absolutely needs to be reversed; agreed. Corporations are not people and should not get first amendment protections. Or any kind of protections outside any that are defined in regular law.

Another thing we need to do away with is the Electoral College. Presidents should be elected based on the national popular vote, not by per-state winner-take-all proxies, with vote apportionment that wildly advantages some states over others. The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact would effectively do away with the EC if states "owning" at least 270 electoral votes were to all sign it, but that's unlikely to ever happen. (Then again, it's more likely that the Compact would achieve that threshold than the passing of a constitutional amendment to abolish the EC.)

[Terr_]

> Article V, Section 5

We should amend it [0] so that any state may subdivide within its own borders without the consent of the Senate, provided that no subdivision is smaller (less-populous) than the smallest current state.

In other words, small states don't have to give up their disproportionate representation in the Senate... but they cannot use that power to monopolize being small either. Any state above a certain size (>2x the smallest) may decide that its constituents are best-served by fission.

This adheres to Article V, Section 5, since no state is being deprived of "equal suffrage": Each state has 2 senators, just like always.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admission_to_the_Union

[kaelwd]

California would have to split into 68 separate states to have the same representation as Wyoming.

[Terr_]

Correct, although I can't them every actually going N=67. There are diminishing returns, budgetary costs, difficulty drawing lines, and plenty of residents might simply be against it.

However, that still ought to be California's decision to make, as opposed to minority Wyoming-gang's to veto. Even if a big state doesn't actually do it, having the latent option is itself a subtle influence on interstate politics.

[mlrtime]

This is all regurgitated speech from a voter in a urban area. 99% chance you live in one of the major metro regions and vote mostly like your neighbors.

For the other half the country, we really don't want to Federal laws to be decided by people in other states that don't share the same values. This is why state rights exist and will not be removed (at least in our lifetime).

[unethical_ban]

This is all speech from a voter in a rural area, happy they get to tell the rest of the country how to behave despite being a minority of the vote.

Allow me to be "aggressive" as well:

For the other 60% of the country, we don't want Federal laws held up by people in arbitrarily drawn political districts and don't share our values regarding human rights and dignity. This is why, while states do retain broad rights to administer their internal affairs, spending and education, federal laws should be altered with a majority, excepting certain fundamental laws like the Constitution.

[teiferer]

> For the other half the country, we really don't want to Federal laws to be decided by people in other states that don't share the same values.

Do you reject majority votes in general or do you merely propose explicit minority protections for non-urban communities?

[belorn]

Looking from a EU perspective, majority votes based on population is quite bad and would result in the european union to not be a union since the low population countries would leave. Germany and France would gain even more power than they have now, so giving smaller countries a small boost in relative power is part of what encourage them to be there.

[lenkite]

> Do you reject majority votes in general or do you merely propose explicit minority protections for non-urban communities?

Does your system of voting include anyone who just comes in or is restricted to only citizens with verified ID ? If the latter, then majority voting is completely fine.

[teiferer]

What does a verified ID have to do with values?

The context was: "decided by people in other states that don't share the same values."

[lenkite]

And as long as they are verified citizens, I personally don't mind if they don't share the same values. No stuffing of the ballot box with non-citizens.

[mlrtime]

That is way to general of a question, I'm speaking of the system of government in America, a republic democracy, United States.

If whatever city/state you live in wants to have majority-vote for all issues, please go do it.

[teiferer]

Sure. I was asking about you personally, in your particular situation. Whether you don't agree with majority votes overall, or whether your are fine with them but want a minority protection for this specific case.

[unethical_ban]

Well, your defense of the status quo states that rural voters inherently deserve more voting power than urban voters for all decisions.

[cool_man_bob]

> For the other half the country, we really don't want to Federal laws to be decided by people in other states that don't share the same values.

Funny people can look at Arabs or Indians and identify “these people have a diametrically opposed culture and cannot peacefully coexist with me”, but can’t extended that to people that look like them and are also diametrically opposed.

It’s delusional to try and maintain a country that’s developed such opposed cultures. You can try to force peace for a while, but it always bubbles back up.

[hollerith]

>It’s delusional to try and maintain a country that’s developed such opposed cultures.

Have the subcultures of the US diverged over time or does it just seem that way because it is easier to publish non-moderate opinions because of the internet?

[unethical_ban]

The Internet and cable probably helped spur this movement of bubbles, where economically and socially insecure people can be told their problems aren't caused by the wealthy or the corrupt, but by non-Christians and immigrants.

I think a lot of people, particularly on the right, cannot define what they actually want this country to look like in 20-30 years or how it needs to get there.

[Imustaskforhelp]

I want to share this comment that some nice gentleman had written on one of my comments in some different thread.

Helped me understand a lot about modern america, but tldr, no it feels like its always been this way

source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45376949

[tguvot]

clarifying/limiting presidential power and ending lifetime appointments for federal/supreme court judges could be useful