[SlightlyLeftPad]

Nobody wants to say it.

Yes, the original dream of the U.S. is very clearly a failed experiment with both the legislative and judicial branches essentially extensions of the executive branch. The checks and balances that used to exist have almost completely disappeared. Whatever’s left of those branches are essentially extra entry points for lobbyists and billionaires to fully drive the knife deeper.

It wasn’t actually designed that way but it has slowly manipulated and shaped into that way over a hundred years of stacked up law bloat built with the sole intention to make challenging it impossible for anyone who’s not crazy wealthy.

[johnnyanmac]

Well yes. It's easy to manipulate when you freeze the House for 100 years. That's the biggest reason we keep swinging so much. The House became a mini-senate, and the Senate structure is already something under contention (designed from the beginning to compromise with smaller population states). Now we have a Senate that can change every 2 years. 2 years is simply a bad golf swing for billionaires when they "lose". 2 years of suffering feels eternal for the working class

The Legislature has the most power and the House freeze made it easy to co-opt. you make the house compliant or essentially useless, and you can't impeach anything in the executive nor judicial branches. Freeze the house and you can't really start any legislature to have laws catch up with rampant greed. Or make it easier to lobby into more greed.

We desperately need to expand the house again. I remember saying we should have over 1000 reps with current growth. Maybe starting at 700-800 would be a good start.

[specialist]

Yes and:

The US House campaigns have steadily became more nationalized. Your proposal would reverse that.

I believe, but cannot prove, localism would lead to parliamentary style coalitions (caucus).