How would you tweak your country's government?

[mobvok]

Granted unlimited power, what constitutional/legal alterations would you make? I've complained a fair bit about the American filibuster, so I think I should step up a bit. This is not simply about laws that should be passed, but about the structural nature of a country/ for me the United States.

1) Fewer States / Up Yours, North Dakota, aka Nebraska, Hero Of Our Times

If you MUST Have a bicameral system there's no need for slavish imitation on the state level. What benefit does a bicameral system provide for states? The original Great Compromise was a charity handout to the smaller states in order to convince them to ratify the Constitution. That should not be an issue with....what, counties? Why do states have Senates and Houses other than pure imitation?

Furthermore scuttlebutt (no source, sorry) says the reason we have a North and South Dakota is that Republicans in Congress arbitrarily split up Great Plains states in order to accure Senate advantage in the late 1800s. Is this true? If not, I won't be so giddy over the idea that North Dakota is actually not a state.

I would prefer there be fewer sparsely populated Great Plains states. Pretend that you're an Independent Frontier Cowboy all you want, understand that the Senate guarantees a substantial subsidy for rural living that wouldn't exist under strictly proportional representation.

I also want to headdesk when I hear the US Senate used as an example for reform of the House of Lords. No! No! Avoid!

2) Toodles, Electoral College

California is the most recent state to embrace the National Popular Vote movement. Once states representing 270 total electoral votes (enough to determine the winner of the Presidency) ratify this bill, every state that has ratified gives all its votes to the winner of the national popular vote, rather than the vote within its borders. Behold! An actual reason for Democrats to campaign in Texas! Republicans to campaign in California!

3) Seriously, Iowa and New Hampshire?

You both stink. Boo! Booooooo! A national, rotating regional primary! Alternate Eastern and then Western states to kick off primary season every 4 years.

Also, primaries/caucuses start in...I don't know, May. There's no need for this prolonged mayhem!

4) Abolish Congressional age/residency restrictions from the Constitution

If I'm a moron and want to vote for a 10 year old Congressman born in Austria I should be able to. If their opponent is unable to make the case they'd be better in Congress that's their, and the voting population's fault.

5) National Right to Vote

Over the last century the United States has made progress in negative restrictions on the right to vote such as the prohibition of a poll tax, yet there lacks an affirmative statement of the fundamental right to vote

Section 1. All citizens of the United States who are eighteen years of age or older shall have the right to vote in any public election held in the jurisdiction in which the citizen resides. The right to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, any State, or any other public or private person or entity, except that the United States or any State may establish regulations narrowly tailored to produce efficient and honest elections.
Section 2. Each State shall administer public elections in the State in accordance with election performance standards established by the Congress. The Congress shall reconsider such election performance standards at least once every four years to determine if higher standards should be established to reflect improvements in methods and practices regarding the administration of elections.
Section 3. Each State shall provide any eligible voter the opportunity to register and vote on the day of any public election.
Section 4. The Congress shall have power to enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation.

The right to vote is the foundation of any democracy. Yet most Americans do not realize that we do not have a constitutionally protected right to vote. While there are amendments to the U.S. Constitution that prohibit discrimination based on race (15th), sex (19th) and age (26th), no affirmative right to vote exists.

The 2000 Presidential Election was the first time many Americans realized the necessity of a constitutional right to vote. The majority of the U.S. Supreme Court, in Bush v. Gore (2000), wrote, "The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States." The U.S. is one of only 11 other democracies in the world with no affirmative right to vote enshrined in its constitution.

Because there is no right to vote in the U.S. Constitution, individual states set their own electoral policies and procedures. This leads to confusing and sometimes contradictory policies regarding ballot design, polling hours, voting equipment, voter registration requirements, and ex-felon voting rights. As a result, our electoral system is divided into 50 states, more than 3,000 counties and approximately 13,000 voting districts, all separate and unequal.

The addition of a Right to Vote Amendment to the U.S Constitution would:

Guarantee the right of every citizen 18 and over to vote
Empower Congress to set national minimum electoral standards for all states to follow
Provide protection against attempts to disenfranchise individual voters
Ensure that every vote cast is counted correctly

Many reforms are needed to solve the electoral problems we continue to experience every election cycle. The first is providing a solid foundation upon which these reforms can be made. This solid foundation is an amendment that clearly protects an affirmative right to vote for every U.S. citizen.

Also: felons should have the right to vote.

6) A separate national election for Attorney General of the United States

The system has worked reasonably well thus far (Saturday Night Massacre notwithstanding) but there's a fundamental conflict of interest in an Attorney General appointed by the President that is responsible for investigating the President that should be unwound.

7) Quicker turnover between Election Day and Inauguration Day

We have jets! No one is traveling by wagon train across America. The 20th Amendment already changed the date from March 4th to January 20th, it's fair time people looked at Parliamentary systems. It's my understanding that Great Britain changes power in a matter of hours once the governing alliance is set. This means that the tomfoolery about Secretary of State or Secretary of Housing and Urban Development would start much sooner, but I find it hard to believe that knowing the potential President's team prior to enactment is a bad thing. There's no reason for lame duckery!

8) Abolish the filibuster

It should not be utilized as an arbitrary 60 vote requirement. The Constitution delinates the circumstances such higher vote requirements are necessary (overriding a veto, passing a treaty). If Rick Perry wins the Presidency, and Republicans win the Senate and House they can go hog wild. They've earned it. If Democrats can't make the downside case of voting for them then they don't deserve to preserve Social Security or Medicare. Additionally, unless a President nominates a drunk or a louse they should have the right to pass whatever dumb fools they want to the judiciary or cabinet.

9) 18 Year Supreme Court Justice tenure

Ugh, lifetime appointments. Have the existing Justices draw straws/stagger it so that nominations come up during the 1st and 3rd years of each President's term. Fewer senile appointees hanging on for dear life (Douglas, Rehnquist).

10) Make the District of Columbia a state!

It's the simplest solution. D.C has a larger population than Wyoming. This may be too practical for my dream scenario, however, so I think the optimal solution would be to narrowly restrict "D.C" to the Capital Building/Blair House/The White House and move the actual inhabitants into Maryland.

11) (Officially) Abolish the "Debt Ceiling"

This is not a question about further spending, it's about paying the bills that have already been appropriated for. This is a senseless rule. If you want to take a stand against government spending, there's a time and place for it: the annual budget! Reduce it! Whatever. I don't care. Don't risk causing a default on our prior obligations.

Those are my thoughts. Remember, when the Founding Patrons set about establishing our rules they had few working examples to base a republic off of. We now have well over 200 years' experience to refine and perfect what a Constitutional Republic looks like, and so we have far more experience then they did. Ideally we would have a parliamentary system (notice that the US tends to establish parliamentary systems in postwar overseas countries), and this:

After the S&P downgrade of the United States, no country with a presidential system has a triple-A rating from all three major ratings agencies. Only countries with parliamentary systems have that honor (with the possible exception of France, which has a parliament and prime minister as well as an empowered president).

Juan Linz, professor of social science at Yale, argued that parliamentary systems are superior to presidential systems for reasons of stability. In a parliamentary system, he contended, the legislature and the executive are fused so there is no contest for national legitimacy.

Think of David Cameron in England. He is head of the coalition that won the election, head of the bloc that has a majority in parliament and head of the executive branch as Prime Minister.

In the American presidential system, in contrast, you have the presidency and the legislature, both of which claim to speak for the people. As a result, you always have a contest over basic legitimacy. Who is actually speaking for and representing the people?

In America today, we take this struggle to an extreme. We have one party in one house of the legislature claiming to speak for the people because theirs was the most recent electoral victory. And you have the president who claims a broader mandate as the only person elected by all the people. These irresolvable claims invite struggle.

These reforms would make Congress more representative to the people, and allow our government to function more efficiently. I grow frustrated when people casually deride the state of politics today and assume that all we need to do is stop electing "bad guys". It's the system! We need a system that ensures the chuckleheads who will always get elected end up doing good for the population, not Wall Street.

So that's what I'd do with the United States. It doesn't quite address the thornier issue of money in politics, but I'm still thinking about that. I'm honestly interested in what other countries think their issues are with creating a More Perfect Union.

 

[Jive Turkey]

 

[Pearl]

I'd get rid of career politicians and set only one term for both the President and members of Congress. All will have one shot with a six year term and that's it. Yes, some people may like their Congress man or woman, but if you keep electing them and they stay in office for decades, you create an aristocracy - a ruling class. That doesn't sound very democratic to me. As for the President, most spend their first term focusing on getting re-elected and not on taking care of the country. So, six years for them to work on America and move on.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Elimination of the two party system.

Oh wait, that was never in the constitution to begin with.


One term limit... so politicians can focus more on doing their job and not on getting reelected.

eliminate campaign fund raising. Every candidate gets an equal piece of the pie. Get yourself elected on merit, not on your cash flow.

Leprechauns riding unicorns for everyone

 

[INDY500]

Except for a rotating primary system and returning to the original filibuster rules I'd first reverse everything mobvok just did.

Then I'd;
Reform immigration
a harsh penalties for employers
b must have a sponsor (school, US citizen or employer) that will insure immigrate will not be a burden on taxpayer

Pass a workable balanced budget amendment

Cap federal spending at 20% of GDP

Redo federal tax system, flat rate including cap gains

Change tax date from april 15th to the first Tuesday in November.

Eliminate the Depts of Agriculture, Labor, Housing, Transportation, Energy, Education, Veterans and Homeland Sec. Let Congress go back to making laws and regulations--not the unelected bureaucratic leviathan.

Finally, start using every energy source available. Dig & drill everywhere, build more coal and nuc plants. Tipper's right, Al Gore sux.

 

[mobvok]

I'd get rid of career politicians and set only one term for both the President and members of Congress. All will have one shot with a six year term and that's it. Yes, some people may like their Congress man or woman, but if you keep electing them and they stay in office for decades, you create an aristocracy - a ruling class. That doesn't sound very democratic to me. As for the President, most spend their first term focusing on getting re-elected and not on taking care of the country. So, six years for them to work on America and move on.

This is my concern about term limits, however:

“Term limits, in other words, have converted the state legislature into a ‘farm team’ of potential candidates for other public offices,” the study says. “Most termed-out legislators do not beat their political spears into plowshares and return to the civilian sector. Instead, they simply seek other positions in the political arena … a form of political musical chairs for governmental office.”

More troubling, for those who want term limits to oppose special interests, the impact has been the opposite: “to increase lobbyist influence over the policy process.”

“Inexperienced new legislators rely on lobbyists for policy information when they are unable to obtain information from other members or their staffs,” the CGS found, citing a National Conference of State Legislatures study with similar conclusions: “Term limits have increased the power of lobbyists over the California Legislature.”

Change tax date from april 15th to the first Tuesday in November.

Hmm I wonder where you're going with that..... Actually, I also think that national voting should be done on either a national holiday or on the weekend.

 

[Globo14]

Hmm, I would like to say on the behalf of my home state that North Dakota is a state. What would you do if it wasn't a state anymore, make us merge with South Dakota?

 

[INDY500]

Hmm, I would like to say on the behalf of my home state that North Dakota is a state. What would you do if it wasn't a state anymore, make us merge with South Dakota?

Your other option is to become a 100% reliable solid-Blue state. (see #10 Make the District of Columbia a state!)

 

[mobvok]

This is a concerning graph:

Maybe split California in two or three. But the Senate is deeply tilted in favor of conservative states. Two conservative states have a seemingly arbitrary split that gives them twice as many votes in the Senate as California.

Note that I also said retrocession of the District's population into Maryland would be a good solution.

 

[kramwest1]

Hmm, I would like to say on the behalf of my home state that North Dakota is a state. What would you do if it wasn't a state anymore, make us merge with South Dakota?

On behalf of Minnesota, we'll take you (and your budget surplus ).

 

[kramwest1]

I agree with Mobvok.
Only changing:
Fewer states to more representatives--not back to the original 1 per 30,000. I'd be happy with 1 rep per 300,000 people.

Keep the age/residency requirements.

Add:
Publicly financed campaigns.


And:
Hell yes!!! --on the Supremes' term limit.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

i'll just second everything mobvok said, except for #1, as well as the comment that california should be split into two or three states. too much of the population in the country isn't fairly represented as a result of california being a ginormous super state.

i would also have universal health care for everyone. i believe it's a right, not a privilege.

america would have mixed member proportional representation. it allows (hell, it begs for) more parties so it would help eliminate this silly unofficial two party system. the tea party could actually fully be its own party, and just to show i'm not picking on them, the more leftist democrats could form their own party too. and they'd all get more votes than the pathetic 1% or less third parties usually get in presidential elections.

more limitations on gas guzzlers. older cars would have to be grandfathered in of course, but these gigantic suvs that get awful mileage would be done away with. you want a car that seats eight? get a freaking minivan or something, then.

better incentives to go green. no, no one would be forced to add solar panels or anything so if you were fine depending solely on electricity and natural gas, so be it. though there would be a (small) carbon tax; the proceeds from that would go to offer the tax cuts/other incentives for people to go green and also help lower income families to make the change.

stronger central government. 'nuff said.

more regulations on corporations. none of this bullshit that allows huge corporations like ge to pay no income tax in a year. and very strict limits on them contributing to politicians' campaigns.

reduce sales tax, increase payroll tax. a higher sales tax favours the rich who can invest more of their money than the poor; payroll taxes are fairer.

 

[PhilsFan]

Amendment 28: Religious views have no impact, bearing or influence on the law of the United States of America.

 

[Vlad n U 2]

america would have mixed member proportional representation. it allows (hell, it begs for) more parties so it would help eliminate this silly unofficial two party system. the tea party could actually fully be its own party, and just to show i'm not picking on them, the more leftist democrats could form their own party too. and they'd all get more votes than the pathetic 1% or less third parties usually get in presidential elections.

I've heard the CPUSA are like that, more left than the Democrats but still supportive of them.

 

[Axver]

Both Australia and New Zealand need to become republics. Immediately. I cannot actually fathom how any intelligent, thinking individual can disagree, it's such an absolute no-brainer.

New Zealand should adopt the Single Transferable Vote (as used by Australia's Senate) in lieu of Mixed Member Proportional representation, or at least incorporate Instant Run-off Voting into the local member aspect of MMP. I mean, MMP is good, but it's frustrating whenever I go to vote in New Zealand and can't rank the candidates in order of preference like I can when I vote in Australia. I'll fucking despair if we vote for a return to First Past The Post in this year's referendum though.

As for the Australian House of Representatives, I keep tossing and turning on whether to allow voters under IRV to only preference as far as they want to rather than rank ALL candidates (as is already done in some states). I can see the argument both ways.

And the Australian Senate? I'd like to assume the population is intelligent and informed enough that we can abolish above the line voting and make everybody vote below the line, but I suspect that assumption is too misplaced to make it workable, especially with compulsory voting.

Speaking of compulsory voting, although New Zealand's high voluntary turn-out sometimes approaches Australia's compulsory turn-out, I would nonetheless make voting compulsory in New Zealand like it is in Australia.

 

[INDY500]

Amendment 28: Religious views have no impact, bearing or influence on the law of the United States of America.

This is a win-win.

The new Bureau Of Religious Views And Thoughts Compliance along with the building of the jails, reeducation camps and gulags needed to enforce this constitutional gosateizm equates to jobs, jobs, jobs.

And global warming goes away as an issue.

 

[mobvok]

I want to jump in and clarify my #1, which is actually two ideas crammed into one post. There's the retrocession of states issue, but the more practical objection is that we have a bicameral system in the US states, which seems mostly just imitation.

The new Bureau Of Religious Views And Thoughts Compliance along with the building of the jails, reeducation camps and gulags needed to enforce this constitutional gosateizm equates to jobs, jobs, jobs.

I am not sure that's in the text of the amendment, but I guess I can go back and read it again:

Amendment 28: Religious views have no impact, bearing or influence on the law of the United States of America.

Must be subtext.

Thanks for the post, Axver.

 

[PhilsFan]

Amendment 28 just makes separation of church and state official.

 

[mobvok]

Amendment 28 just makes separation of church and state official.

I think a practical objection to that, however, is it's difficult to untangle the values one brings to the table with the religion that influences it.

Let's say someone decides to mandate that liquor stores be closed one day of the week. I'm pretty sure that would fall under normal legislative discretion through licensing and regulation, and it's a choice an atheistic person might reach as well. But what if that day ends up being on Sunday? That's a roundabout way of creating a Blue Law. The enforcement of this Amendment would require a Court to ajudicate the beliefs of the people passing the law rather then the content of the law itself.

 

[BVS]

This is a win-win.

The new Bureau Of Religious Views And Thoughts Compliance along with the building of the jails, reeducation camps and gulags needed to enforce this constitutional gosateizm equates to jobs, jobs, jobs.

And global warming goes away as an issue.

95% of the tea party's platform would be obsolete!

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Get some sanity into it. That would be a good start.

 

[Axver]

Thanks for the post, Axver.

Heh, you're welcome, but it wasn't a very good post, marred to no small degree by the fact that I was on the road to inebriation after Essendon were knocked out of the Aussie Rules finals. I was honestly kind of hoping somebody else would have already written an Australia-related post that I could bounce off - Earnie? Kieran? Would love to hear your ideas for how to improve what is, I think, a rather good democracy already; certainly, in a structural sense, I prefer the Australian system over the Kiwi one, even if I find the current Australian political climate much more aggravating than that in New Zealand.

I would like to expand upon one point I made. I'm going to get very tl;dr here:

As for the Australian House of Representatives, I keep tossing and turning on whether to allow voters under IRV to only preference as far as they want to rather than rank ALL candidates (as is already done in some states). I can see the argument both ways.

I think, fundamentally, I am in support of the status quo of compulsory full preferential voting (CPV) to optional preferential voting (OPV) - although I have an alternative option I prefer to either optional or compulsory preferencing, which I will get to at the end. I suppose my elaboration is going to need some context for international folk though.

Australia at federation used First Past The Post voting to elect the House of Representatives from single member constituencies. By the 1910s, this quickly turned into a problem for the right wing of politics, when the Country Party (today's National Party) and the Nationalist Party (precursor to today's Liberal Party) split the right wing vote and Labour Party candidates would win seats even if they only secured 35% of the vote compared to a combined 65% for the Country and Nationalist candidates. Hence, Instant Run-off Voting was introduced in 1919, where voters are required to rank all candidates in order of preference. If no single candidate achieves 50% of first preferences, second and subsequent preferences are distributed until one candidate achieves a majority. Basically, this amounts to multiple "elections" in one rather than asking voters to return for multiple elections as candidates are eliminated.

Over time, this has worked in favour of both sides of politics - generally due to various splits in the two major parties (the anti-communist Democratic Labour Party splitting from Labour in the 1950s, Don Chipp and the small-l liberals leaving the Libs to form the Democrats in the 1970s, the disenchanted Labour left wing drifting to the Greens today). Federally and for most states' lower houses of parliament, CPV remains in use, but in the nineties, both New South Wales and Queensland switched to using OPV for lower house state elections.

Now, when I'm in the polling booth, part of me starts to wish for optional preferencing - that I could only mark preferences for the parties I like, and leave blank all those who I don't like and don't think deserve even the potential of receiving a preference from me. For instance, we have a bunch of serial cranks called the Citizens Electoral Council, LaRouche-aligned conspiracy theorists, and trying to choose between them and the religious nutjobs of Family First feels like an exercise in futility. In that sense, OPV appeals. It does come across as more fair, in that voters are only required to make as much of the vote as they want and don't have to cast undesirable preferences.

That said, OPV in our current two-party situation would lead to consolidation of that at the expense of minor parties. The robust third party climate in Australia is something I think we need to protect. That alone is enough to make me want to stick with CPV. Moreover, OPV basically allows some people to opt out of some or all subsequent "elections" after their first preference, meaning that the final Two Party Preferred result after preferences is not as representative as the first preferences tally, and it goes against the spirit of compulsory voting. Some Australian political scientists have suggested that OPV would work much better if Australia were a multi-party country - which may just happen if the Greens survive the departure of Bob Brown and continue to gain in strength on the left wing, and if Labour continue to bleed their left wing to the Greens and become a purely centrist party.

I'm honestly dissatisfied with either option though. Although CPV and to a lesser extent OPV avoid many of the flaws of FPTP, both still serve to re-inforce a two party system. The composition of the House of Representatives under CPV only represents about 80% of the vote (I'll reveal my own hand enough to say that I have a vested interest here, being part of the unrepresented 20%). I thus lean at least somewhat towards making the lower house like the upper - comprised of proportionally elected representatives from multi-member constituencies. Thus we could avoid having two electoral systems at a federal level and elect both houses via Single Transferable Vote. It would, however, be a huge upheaval of the Australian political landscape.

PS Before anybody pulls me up on it, I know how the Australian Labour Party chooses to spell "Labour". I don't care for it.

 

[Irvine511]

Your other option is to become a 100% reliable solid-Blue state. (see #10 Make the District of Columbia a state!)

you realize there's more democracy in Kirkuk than in D.C.

but the difference is that DC is (still) a majority black city, so the GOP will do it's damnedest to prevent them from voting.

 

[PhilsFan]

I think a practical objection to that, however, is it's difficult to untangle the values one brings to the table with the religion that influences it.

Let's say someone decides to mandate that liquor stores be closed one day of the week. I'm pretty sure that would fall under normal legislative discretion through licensing and regulation, and it's a choice an atheistic person might reach as well. But what if that day ends up being on Sunday? That's a roundabout way of creating a Blue Law. The enforcement of this Amendment would require a Court to ajudicate the beliefs of the people passing the law rather then the content of the law itself.

Why would you close liquor stores on Sundays for any other reason? Why are liquor stores being mandated to be closed one day a week? It makes no business sense.

You're not allowed to walk into Congress and say, "I don't want gays to get married because my religion disagrees with it." You don't get to walk into Congress and say "I don't want abortion to be legal because my Catholic Church says I shouldn't." You don't get to abuse your position in Congress by forcing your religious beliefs into law. Period. End of story. I want smaller social government: we don't tell people they have to be straight to get married. We don't tell people they have to prove their medically unfit to give birth or were raped before they get an abortion. That's my law. I don't care how it's phrased or how it gets done. I'm so fucking sick of election cycles being bogged down in stupid debates over issues that are obvious. I want to hear solutions on the economy. I don't want to hear why DOMA is good, because you're full of shit if you say it is. I don't want to hear why Roe v. Wade needs to be repealed, because you're also full of shit. I want my politicians to come up with solutions on issues that actually have debatable sides, and aren't, at the end of the day, a debate between people who are correct, and people who are reading scribbled bullet points on the back of a Bible they wrote down from their priest's sermon last Sunday.

More specifically, here's how government changes if I'm in control:
- Gay marriage is legal in the United States. Minority rights are not a state issue.
- Capital punishment is no longer used in the United States.
- Major campaign reform. Marcellus Shale is no longer the governor of Pennsylvania.
- We tax Americans as we did during the 1990s. Warren Buffett has this one right.
- One term for every position in government. No one gives a fuck about re-election, they just want to get things done.

 

[INDY500]

you realize there's more democracy in Kirkuk than in D.C.

You praising the Bush Doctrine, didn't see that coming.

but the difference is that DC is (still) a majority black city, so the GOP will do it's damnedest to prevent them from voting.

Oh the race card! that is most predictable.

There are constitutional reasons on which to object as well as political.
I'm sure if the panhandle of Oklahoma wanted to secede from the rest of Oklahoma to form their own state and send 2 conservative senators to D.C. Democrats would have no qualms, right?

 

[INDY500]

Amendment 28 just makes separation of church and state official.

So you wish to discard this portion of the First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

As well as the No Religious Test Clause:

..."no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Which completely secular government are you wishing us to emulate? I mean, who has this whole "self-governance" figured out so much better than us?

And by which measure do you assume an opinion informed by religion to be less valid than say that of a 20 year-old raised on video games and MTV?

 

[Irvine511]

I'm sure if the panhandle of Oklahoma wanted to secede from the rest of Oklahoma to form their own state and send 2 conservative senators to D.C. Democrats would have no qualms, right?

do the people in the panhandle of Oklahoma presently have NO senatorial representation? they do. they continuously vote paranoid fanatics into the Senate.

it really is all about politics for the right wing, isn't it?

right now, there are 650,000 people in DC who have NO senatorial representation, and a non-voting member of the House.

and the only reason is that they're mostly a mix of young urban do-gooder kids, gays, Salvadoreans, Ethiopians, and poor blacks. who vote 90% Democratic.

where is their voice? why do the 500,000 white people in Wyoming deserve to have TWO Senators? the 700,000 people in Alaska? the 650,000 in North Dakota?

it's a crime. as are the various random threats by GOP fantatics to destroy legally married gay couples in DC or impose Arizona-style gun laws in a city that already suffers from the lax regulation across the river in Virginia where the mentally ill can easily purchase a semi-automatic firearm and shoot up a college campus.

 

[Irvine511]

And by which measure do you assume an opinion informed by religion to be less valid than say that of a 20 year-old raised on video games and MTV?

if you want to argue for religious viewpoint, go ahead.

just back them up with something other than, "this is what my invisible sky friend wants us to do."

 

[INDY500]

do the people in the panhandle of Oklahoma presently have NO senatorial representation? they do. they continuously vote paranoid fanatics into the Senate.

it really is all about politics for the right wing, isn't it?

right now, there are 650,000 people in DC who have NO senatorial representation, and a non-voting member of the House.

and the only reason is that they're mostly a mix of young urban do-gooder kids, gays, Salvadoreans, Ethiopians, and poor blacks. who vote 90% Democratic.

where is their voice? why do the 500,000 white people in Wyoming deserve to have TWO Senators? the 700,000 people in Alaska? the 650,000 in North Dakota?

it's a crime. as are the various random threats by GOP fantatics to destroy legally married gay couples in DC or impose Arizona-style gun laws in a city that already suffers from the lax regulation across the river in Virginia where the mentally ill can easily purchase a semi-automatic firearm and shoot up a college campus.

That's a valid view about not being represented. Unfortunately I forgot part of my post which was to ask why not just allow Maryland to retake all but the Capitol itself? Voilà, full representation.

Well we know why, because that's were politics comes in on the other side.

 

[Irvine511]

That's a valid view about not being represented. Unfortunately I forgot part of my post which was to ask why not just allow Maryland to retake all but the Capitol itself? Voilà, full representation.

Well we know why, because that's were politics comes in on the other side.

the MD solution is a plausible one, but why does it have to be paired with increasing Utah's representation at the same time?

it's quite an interesting thing, as i spend my day going through three entirely different ... areas, for lack of a better word. i live in VA, work in MD, spend most of my free time in DC, take the metro and buses through all of it. it's quite a unique area, and it's a miracle that it works as well as it does (and it doesn't work all that well).