Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[Edge-]

He's not DeVos but he did exactly that... https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...harter-groups/

And this isn't even the first time he's been throwing money behind charters while taking issues with public schools

This is a real roundabout argument given that it started from you complaining that Gates very rightfully pointed out that he's better equipped to accomplish his goals as a private citizen leveraging his wealth. I mean, I've been clear I'm hardly a fan of everything he pushes for, but he's unarguably also done some absolutely incredible work when it comes to fighting diseases and was long one of the louder voices warning governments about the inevitability of global pandemics.

Like yeah, fuck his push for charter schools, especially as voters continually reject them. But that doesn't mean he's more powerful than a president, he's objectively not more powerful overall (he doesn't have a shiny nuke button, for example), but has a greater chance of accomplishing his specific goals while not president. This is fairly basic stuff.

It is a stretch to connect private merchants who have sway over parliament to today's corporate interests having sway over our politics?

I'm vaguely aware of some of that, but would need more historical context from you to make the connection as you state it.

[PhaelixWW]

Technically it would be possible to change how their own votes are counted in their own chamber - i.e. the Senate, if I understand you correctly. It would be a very radical change, of course, but it might fall within the Rules Committee of the Senate. I think they could vote to change how their votes are counted, so to speak.

I mean, it's pretty explicitly stated in the Constitution:

US Constitution, Article I, Section 3: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.

[Edge-]

But would it be possible for them to change how their votes are counted so that their votes are no longer equal to one but instead are equal to the number of people they represent? It would help effectively put the Senate as being MUCH more representative of the people given we have it where 1 voter has 66+ times more power than another voter just due to this stuff.

The equality of votes for Senators, and the inequality in the number of people each represents, is a feature, not a bug. The Senate is equal representation, regardless of size/population, by design, the House is where proportional representation is supposed to occur, but the stupid caps on the number of House members have gutted its ability to actually represent people proportionately. Tough it'd be kinda crazy having like, 1,000 House members or something.

[DarkTZeratul]

The equality of votes for Senators, and the inequality in the number of people each represents, is a feature, not a bug. The Senate is equal representation, regardless of size/population, by design, the House is where proportional representation is supposed to occur, but the stupid caps on the number of House members have gutted its ability to actually represent people proportionately. Tough it'd be kinda crazy having like, 1,000 House members or something.

Not necessarily. Going by the Wyoming Rule and the 2010 census numbers it'd only increase it from 435 to 547.

[PhaelixWW]

The equality of votes for Senators, and the inequality in the number of people each represents, is a feature, not a bug. The Senate is equal representation, regardless of size/population, by design, the House is where proportional representation is supposed to occur, but the stupid caps on the number of House members have gutted its ability to actually represent people proportionately. Tough it'd be kinda crazy having like, 1,000 House members or something.

UK House of Commons has 650 seats... I'm sure we could figure something out.

Still is unlikely to happen, because you'd have to get the Representatives to vote to approve a decrease of their individual power.

[Edge-]

UK House of Commons has 650 seats... I'm sure we could figure something out.

We could, sure. But given Congress...I have my doubts : P

Also, if we moved to a more parliamentary system in terms of operation (i.e. chamber sits through arguments and cajoles each other etc.) I'd be way more into CSPAN. Watching some dude with some oversized prints on an easel speak to an empty room doesn't have the same panache, yaknow?

Still is unlikely to happen, because you'd have to get the Representatives to vote to approve a decrease of their individual power.

Yep, plus the shift largely favoring the more populous liberal states so Republicans would object. Even if it would stand to give them quite a few seats in the more conservative areas of CA etc. It'd hardly be a Democratic sweep, but they'd likely have the edge, and Republicans won't stand for any Democracy enhancements that don't favor the Republican party first and foremost.

- - - Updated - - -

You’d need to go with some kinda super rep where people have 3+ votes from some states. Otherwise every vote would take 3 hours.

I mean, they could overhaul roll call voting like they do now. You have 10 minutes to vote on the little box in front of you, with all votes recorded digitally with a physical backup so that there's no question over how someone voted. It'd make debate potentially more difficult with more people wanting to get their arguments in so it would either rush some people or extend debate time.

I'm here for a modern analysis of our system of government and proposals for ways to improve/streamline things.

[PhaelixWW]

Yep, plus the shift largely favoring the more populous liberal states so Republicans would object.

Uh, no. The House is already proportional; increasing its size doesn't change that. The move wouldn't favor one party over the other.

[Edge-]

Uh, no. The House is already proportional; increasing its size doesn't change that. The move wouldn't favor one party over the other.

It would, because the House isn't remotely proportional right now due to the cap. Like, it "is", but not "actually", hence why Reps in say, CA represent FAR more people than in WY, so you get pretty grossly unequal power in terms of real proportional representation. Expanding the House so that each Rep. actually represented the same number of people would more than likely add more Democratic seats than Republican seats unless there's some insane gerrymandering ratfuckery going on.

[PhaelixWW]

It would, because the House isn't remotely proportional right now due to the cap. Like, it "is", but not "actually", hence why Reps in say, CA represent FAR more people than in WY, so you get pretty grossly unequal power in terms of real proportional representation. Expanding the House so that each Rep. actually represented the same number of people would more than likely add more Democratic seats than Republican seats unless there's some insane gerrymandering ratfuckery going on.

Good grief, not this again...

EDIT: Look, let me repost some stuff...

Because no matter the rule, it's always proportional to population. The rate of proportion (population per seat) may change, but the actual proportionality of the states doesn't, because the populations of the states isn't changing. The disparities that you see are basically just rounding errors, but rounding errors also go both ways, so attempting to push the rate one way or the other will not have consistent results, except for eventually narrowing in on the absolute proportion of the overall population of the states for either side.

No, I mean, mathematically that's just wrong. That's the whole point. You're not changing the proportionality because the House of Representatives will always be directly proportional to the population. All you're doing is shifting around the cutoff for where the rounding errors occur, but that process has almost a zero net change overall. Some states will be more "representative", some states will be less, but the end result is a wash. And which states are more and which states are less will fluctuate as populations fluctuate. Whether a state benefits or suffers from the change has nothing to do with whether the state is a low- or high-population state.

This is a mathematical certainty, because the whole is always equal to the sum of its parts.

The effects can be represented by a logarithmic curve, but even the current level of House membership is close enough to the asymptote that pushing even further forward will have very limited effect.

Right now, there are 435 Representatives for ~308m people (2010 census numbers, excluding DC, Puerto Rico, etc.), which means that each Representative nominally represents ~708k people. Wyoming is 537k people. So still 76% of the nominal amount.

Rhode Island and Montana are actually the two most lopsided states. Rhode Island has 2 Reps for 1,053k people, meaning 526k people per Rep. Montana has 1 Rep for 989k people, so 989k people per 1 Rep. The larger the state gets, of course, the closer they tend to get towards the mean of 708k.

[cubby]

I mean, it's pretty explicitly stated in the Constitution:

US Constitution, Article I, Section 3: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.

Yeah, that's pretty clear. Really can't shake that up.
@Fugus - doesn't look like it would really even be theoretically possible.

[Fugus]

The equality of votes for Senators, and the inequality in the number of people each represents, is a feature, not a bug. The Senate is equal representation, regardless of size/population, by design, the House is where proportional representation is supposed to occur, but the stupid caps on the number of House members have gutted its ability to actually represent people proportionately. Tough it'd be kinda crazy having like, 1,000 House members or something.

True enough, but as others have said, the Wyoming Option addresses the number of seats. Which would be a minor shift alone but major if combined with banning winner take all and make seats awarded proportional to the actual states votes which is something they can definitely do at the federal level, same as HR1 as they are federal seats.

And I understand the intent of the Senate and if it actually could perform that function without being exploited for political gain from a single party it wouldn’t be an issue. But them being able to hold an entire nation hostage against their collective will, something has to break somewhere

Edit: sorry, mentioning fixes for congress when talking about the senate issues.

Better fix for the senate appears to be admitting PR and DC along with allowing bigger states to split after a certain population size if done by a nonpartisan group who keeps the state’s population size equal between states and keeps communities together.

Something like any state who’s population makes up more than 8% (pulling this number out my butt as an example) of the nations total population can opt to choose to.

[cubby]

Yes, it won’t change right now. Is it impossible to change? Nope. Just gonna take more Dems moving to the middle of red country to telecommute from low cost housing.

We were actually discussing the idea of changing how Senators votes are tabulated.

But I agree with you - the only change to the Senate is going to come from what you said. People moving from CA to TX will be interesting. Also all the attacks on voting by the GOP - that might actually end up setting us back several years.

[Fugus]

Yes, you can amend the constitution to change how they’re tabulated. That’s not feasible currently with the slim majority Dems ostensibly hold.

Hate to say it but true, by the time it can make it to an amendment it will largely be a near non issue to begin with at a federal level.

[Nurasu]

Better fix for the senate appears to be admitting PR and DC along with allowing bigger states to split after a certain population size if done by a nonpartisan group who keeps the state’s population size equal between states and keeps communities together.

Something like any state who’s population makes up more than 8% (pulling this number out my butt as an example) of the nations total population can opt to choose to.

This isn't even feasible though, unless you plan to make LA and Portland, for example, their own states. There's no way to balance population figures inherently centered around major population centers. Wait, actually this could work - city states and rural fiefdoms with no senators.

[Themius]

This is a real roundabout argument given that it started from you complaining that Gates very rightfully pointed out that he's better equipped to accomplish his goals as a private citizen leveraging his wealth. I mean, I've been clear I'm hardly a fan of everything he pushes for, but he's unarguably also done some absolutely incredible work when it comes to fighting diseases and was long one of the louder voices warning governments about the inevitability of global pandemics.

Like yeah, fuck his push for charter schools, especially as voters continually reject them. But that doesn't mean he's more powerful than a president, he's objectively not more powerful overall (he doesn't have a shiny nuke button, for example), but has a greater chance of accomplishing his specific goals while not president. This is fairly basic stuff.



I'm vaguely aware of some of that, but would need more historical context from you to make the connection as you state it.

You started with relatively positive things of Gates and I continued with something that I found negative, just to remind anyone reading... Gates has some issues. He isn't the saint some people think he is. Gates is open to "doing good things" but he's just laundering his image.

Some context (which also makes it a super modern issue that we see today) would be at the time in Great Britain the landed gentry did not want the colonies to supplant their power in parliament. At the time they were also very very anti-private agents who the colonist themselves felt gave them representation in the parliament. When the colonist saw this they then began to ramp up their attacks and pressure local assemblies.

The reason I mention taxes are such a minuscule issue here is the fact that the taxes were minuscule... they were much lower compared to what those across the ocean spent. The Crown spent more money on the colonies than they ever got back in taxes, and the subsequent illegal military action by Washington and the governor of Virginia who had no authority to go about and start pushing and attacking the French sparked that war after l'affaire Jumonville which just plummeted the crown even further into debt.

This coupled with the fact the quality of life and the income of people in the colonies far exceeded those of people in the mainland to me makes the issue of taxes a background one. The taxes that came after were also progressive so maybe it'd be a single cent for a page or stamp, or 10 pounds for a law license (actually i think it was 12 can't remember).

Anyway to get more to the point of context it's like a two tier lobbying effort. American groups would both try to encourage local assemblies (which outraged many...) and lobby other groups which held a lot of political sway. After Washington's Jumonville failure though.. they then began to tighten their control over the colonies because you know... being plunged into a war for colonies who then turn and say "we don't wanna pay for what we caused" despite the colonies being very wealthy... is kinda ridiculous.

So with the new less American friendly government, things began to shift, the groups that used to be lobbied by America who gave America that feeling of representation backed away from them. Their interest moved. Sugar act is an example where the interest of the west indian colonies was more important to the crown than the interest of the Americans so... then they realllllly started to go down the line of rebelling against the Crown.

Hell... when the King issued a decree that American should no longer expand west because it is causing war and issues with the indians...and that what should happen is an indian state should be set up... Washington said essentially he can't police us we're over here... also helps that Washington made his money via land prospecting and had a direct reason to disregard an order to not expand west, how could he prospect then?

In some instances like the Boston tea party... those that worked with them were nothing but terrorists.

[cubby]

True enough, but as others have said, the Wyoming Option addresses the number of seats. Which would be a minor shift alone but major if combined with banning winner take all and make seats awarded proportional to the actual states votes which is something they can definitely do at the federal level, same as HR1 as they are federal seats.

Are you suggesting in the above idea that for Members of Congress each state would vote along party lines and then the state would allocate Members according to the percentages in that state wide vote?

On a side note, contrary to popular belief, the Wyoming option doesn't change the make up of Congress that much, despite the dramatically increased number of House Members.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, you can amend the constitution to change how they’re tabulated. That’s not feasible currently with the slim majority Dems ostensibly hold.

Theoretically you could, but I'm not sure any one would be agreeable to that; much less 3/4 of the states and 2/3 of both houses of Congress. I'm not even sure I'd be for it.

[DarkTZeratul]

Yep, plus the shift largely favoring the more populous liberal states so Republicans would object. Even if it would stand to give them quite a few seats in the more conservative areas of CA etc.

Not ENTIRELY, though. I haven't done the math, but (again, based on the 2010 census numbers) while the Wyoming Rule would give 13 more seats to California, it would also give 9 more seats to Texas.

True enough, but as others have said, the Wyoming Option addresses the number of seats. Which would be a minor shift alone but major if combined with banning winner take all and make seats awarded proportional to the actual states votes which is something they can definitely do at the federal level, same as HR1 as they are federal seats.

You're talking about the Electoral College. That's not how Representatives are elected, and it couldn't work that way unless you want them explicitly elected by party fiat instead of voting for specific people, which would be really bad.

[Themius]

Good grief, not this again...

EDIT: Look, let me repost some stuff...

There's an easy fix...

Rollback to the first proposed first amendment which was to have each representative represent a certain number of people (50k at the time iirc)

Make it 100k, or 200k. Then expand the house.

Or we could just expand it anyway...

EDIT:

30k apparently.

Isn't this cap just more of a rule for congress?

The constitution itself basically just caps the congress to 1/30k the size of the country.

[DarkTZeratul]

There's an easy fix...

Rollback to the first proposed first amendment which was to have each representative represent a certain number of people (50k at the time iirc)

Make it 100k, or 200k. Then expand the house.

Or we could just expand it anyway...

EDIT:

30k apparently.

Isn't this cap just more of a rule for congress?

The constitution itself basically just caps the congress to 1/30k the size of the country.

Yes, the current cap on the size of Congress is just a 90-year-old Congressional mandate and could easily be changed by a simple majority vote of both chambers. What the Constitution specifies isn't a cap on members, but the minimum number of people a Representative can, well, represent.

[Themius]

Yes, the current cap on the size of Congress is just a 90-year-old Congressional mandate and could easily be changed by a simple majority vote of both chambers. What the Constitution specifies isn't a cap on members, but the minimum number of people a Representative can, well, represent.

Yeah I was mixing the proposed with the actual state of things lol.