|
Oh dear me posted:What problem do you see with Mantis42's suggestion of temporarily splitting California into umpteen states? Would that need Senate approval? It would need a Constitutional Amendment.
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 23:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 07:18 |
|
|
qkkl posted:It would need a Constitutional Amendment. Oh. That's that then. It seems like just ignoring the senate or setting up rival institutions is the only way forward.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 23:52
|
|
|
I feel like the existence of the Presidency is also a huge problem that centrist/liberal proposals like ranked-choice don't seem to want to address. The presidency is a big driver of two-party system even if you had non-FPTP voting for Congress. And it's absolutely toxic for the health of the administrative state to have the chief executive as a directly elected position, because whenever Republicans control the office they just do as much as they can to tear down and destroy that state and Democrats just can't reverse the damage fast enough. At this rate there won't be a federal government left to implement any progressive programs even if they can get through Congress
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2018 23:52
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:What problem do you see with Mantis42's suggestion of temporarily splitting California into umpteen states? Would that need Senate approval? We've actually had a legislative review of the requirements to do this, thanks to those lunatics who proposed the three-california project. https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Initiative/2017-018 posted:Process for Splitting States Long story short, you'd need CA to agree to split itself, followed by the House and Senate agreeing to it, followed by no veto by the president (or 2/3 majority if he does veto), followed by a likely supreme court challenge to it. On top of that, it's not even clear whether it'd make it out of CA because SCOCA already ruled that voter initiatives do not satisfy "legislative approval" for things requiring state legislative approval (aka, conventions, amendments, etc). Sundae fucked around with this message at 00:14 on Nov 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 00:12
|
|
|
I think the courts are supposed to stop any "I have one weird trick" lawmaking. And if they aren't going to they probably won't stop you if you just openly do it either.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 00:16
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Germany basically has the political system that mid-20th Century centrist American liberals thought ideal, but they failed to sustain such a system in their own country in this timeline and in 2018 the path to return to it looks as hopeless as ever then you literally cannot pass -any- legislation at the federal level, which means poo poo like the really broken obamacare system is going to last for the next 20-30 years lol
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 06:36
|
|
|
Typo posted:then you literally cannot pass -any- legislation at the federal level, which means poo poo like the really broken obamacare system is going to last for the next 20-30 years lol Or appoint judges, supreme and federal, or heads of basically every department and office. The list of things the Democrats can do without any access to the Senate whatsoever is very short. EDIT: Or pass a budget, y'know. Ratoslov fucked around with this message at 07:01 on Nov 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 06:56
|
|
|
Dems don't have -no access to the senate whatsoever-, they have limited access. They've had control in our lifetimes! In my dogs lifetime! It's just more difficult than it should be given the insane apportionment of senators. This is something where I think our current polarized climate presents an opportunity acutally. We all know that one of the main facts of current american politics is asymmetric polarization, but dems are starting to catch up to the GOP, especially younger dems. I think 'the senate is bullshit' should be made into a partisan issue. Everyone talking about how smaller states are never going to get rid of theri power has forgotten how incredibly strong a force partisanship can be. Modern congresses effectively abandon large parts of their institutional power when their team controls the whitehouse anyway. There are things that dems with unified control of the house/senate could do that would go a ways towards neutering the senate. I mean yeah, it would be hugely difficult, but it's not the fantasy people seem to think it is. Just requires playing constitutional hardball.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 08:23
|
|
|
Typo posted:then you literally cannot pass -any- legislation at the federal level, which means poo poo like the really broken obamacare system is going to last for the next 20-30 years lol You can't pass legislation constitutionally. But if blue states plus a Dem congress and president decide to act as though a law was passed, who would actually be able and willing to stop them?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 08:50
|
|
|
Shiki Dan posted:No, it was made to prevent "tyranny of the majority". To protect rural peoples from being overwhelmed by urban and small states from being bullied completely by larger. Other than the fact that it would've been the other way round originally, "but nobody will care about the five leftover hicks comprising the entire rural population of Iowa anymore" sounds like a feature, not a bug. Shiki Dan posted:It's not supposed to be democratic or fair to majority population. I'd love to see some regressive landlocked shithole state declare independence and fail at being a country. States have not meaningfully been independent nations united as a loose confederation for a long time, and it's uhhhhhhhh doubtful that going back to that state of affairs will ever make sense again barring major upheaval where the rulebook ceases to apply anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 13:47
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
suck my woke dick posted:I'd love to see some regressive landlocked shithole state declare independence and fail at being a country. States have not meaningfully been independent nations united as a loose confederation for a long time, and it's uhhhhhhhh doubtful that going back to that state of affairs will ever make sense again barring major upheaval where the rulebook ceases to apply anyway. Probably the only way I could see this changing is if high-population states issued an ultimatum of "change it or we'll leave" (and actually meant it), which is, of course, incredibly unlikely.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 13:58
|
|
|
Also note that whenever someone says "well it's to protect the minority and prevent tyranny of the majority", if you bring up "oh okay, so then I guess we should give extra voting power to black people and Asians, or Jews and Muslims, right?" suddenly they shut up real fast.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 14:01
|
|
|
I mean, if I were a billionaire, I'd be seriously tempted to build a settlement in some underpopulated red shithole but make sure it's entirely set up to attract out-of-state progressives instead of being a third-rate company town like the state legislature intended.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 14:06
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:You can't pass legislation constitutionally. But if blue states plus a Dem congress and president decide to act as though a law was passed, who would actually be able and willing to stop them? The courts and if you ignore that prob an actualy civil war with nukes on both sides
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 15:24
|
|
|
suck my woke dick posted:I mean, if I were a billionaire, I'd be seriously tempted to build a settlement in some underpopulated red shithole but make sure it's entirely set up to attract out-of-state progressives instead of being a third-rate company town like the state legislature intended. Minus the billionaure part its basically what happened with Colorado
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 15:52
|
|
|
Typo posted:The courts and if you ignore that prob an actualy civil war with nukes on both sides That's what I'm doubting. Would red states really fight to force blue states (and only blue states) not to ignore the senate and their puppet court? They have less money and much smaller population. I know chuds are chuds, but if the Dems had both congress and the presidency they could surely see their odds.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 15:52
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:That's what I'm doubting. Would red states really fight to force blue states (and only blue states) not to ignore the senate and their puppet court? They have less money and much smaller population. I know chuds are chuds, but if the Dems had both congress and the presidency they could surely see their odds. I will let General Sherman answer this one. William Tecumseh Sherman posted:"You, you the people of the South, believe there can be such a thing as peaceable secession. You don't know what you are doing. I know there can be no such thing. ... If you will have it, the North must fight you for its own preservation. Yes, South Carolina has by this act precipitated war. ... This country will be drenched in blood. God only knows how it will end. Perhaps the liberties of the whole country, of every section and every man will be destroyed, and yet you know that within the Union no man's liberty or property in all the South is endangered. ... Oh, it is all folly, madness, a crime against civilization. ... You people speak so lightly of war. You don't know what you're talking about. War is a terrible thing. I know you are a brave, fighting people, but for every day of actual fighting, there are months of marching, exposure and suffering. More men die in war from sickness than are killed in battle. At best war is a frightful loss of life and property, and worse still is the demoralization of the people. ... They haven't learned jack poo poo since the Civil War and now they're everywhere not just in the South. They think liberals are ineffectual weak pansies who will not fight and that since they have all the guns and support the troops more that means they'll win.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 16:53
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:That's what I'm doubting. Would red states really fight to force blue states (and only blue states) not to ignore the senate and their puppet court? They have less money and much smaller population. I know chuds are chuds, but if the Dems had both congress and the presidency they could surely see their odds. even a lot of people in blue states would not be comfortable with outright ignoring the constitution
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 18:08
|
|
|
So a state can’t unilaterally secede, but can they be unilaterally kicked out? Can we just kick out ND, SD, WY, MT, and ID, and tell them they can only come back if they’re grouped together as one state?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 19:29
|
|
|
A GIANT PARSNIP posted:So a state can’t unilaterally secede, but can they be unilaterally kicked out? There are no provisions in the Constitution to do so. Congress is given the power to admit new states; it is not given any power to expel states. So I think that Congress lacks that power. If you wanted to do it by amendment, I'd argue that the clause prohibiting amendments from stripping equal representation in the Senate without a state's consent is broadly enough worded to prohibit expelling a state entirely without its consent.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 19:34
|
|
|
Why couldn't California just cede some of its territory to new states? California would still be the same state admitted to the union in 1850, it would just be shrinking over time
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 20:10
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Why couldn't California just cede some of its territory to new states? California would still be the same state admitted to the union in 1850, it would just be shrinking over time The Constitution specifically contemplates allowing a state to split, it just requires the consent of Congress and that state. Maine got its independence from Massachusetts in that way, and for the same reason (two extra senators for the good guys).
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 20:12
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Why couldn't California just cede some of its territory to new states? California would still be the same state admitted to the union in 1850, it would just be shrinking over time Because the creation of that new state still requires both houses of congress to approve, plus no veto (or an override), plus approval of the state legislature (not the population, the legislature), and the presumably for the SC to not say "gently caress you" the moment Wyoming catches scent of where it's going and challenges. Edit: Meanwhile, CA loses power in the House of Representatives as it divides its population into idiotic smaller states, each of which now has to have enough left-leaning population to ensure that it remains firmly in control of its new reps and senators until the whole process of Electoral Reform is pulled off. Gerrymandering takes on a whole new level as states suddenly divide left and right, trying to minimize each other's impacts on the Senate.  The United States adds 43 new stars to the flag as they welcome "Eastern West Virginia" and "Southest Dakota" to the nation. Puerto Rico, meanwhile, still sits in colonial squalor.
Sundae fucked around with this message at 00:03 on Nov 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 23:59
|
|
|
Well obviously you do this after capturing control of the Federal Government so the red states can't follow suite (they wouldn't have congressional power to approve it). And if you lose power after you pull it off, well, how could they possibly do what you did? The Constitution said they'd need approval of both houses of Congress to make new states out of old and you just stripped the Senate of its voting power.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 00:09
|
|
|
Mantis42 posted:Well obviously you do this after capturing control of the Federal Government so the red states can't follow suite (they wouldn't have congressional power to approve it). And if you lose power after you pull it off, well, how could they possibly do what you did? The Constitution said they'd need approval of both houses of Congress to make new states out of old and you just stripped the Senate of its voting power. If I've captured control of the Senate to the point where I have enough congressional power to pull it off, why do I need this scheme in the first place?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 00:10
|
|
|
It's possible that the Dems achieve a simple majority of the Senate in the near future but it will only grow harder and harder over time. They can enact my perfect, brilliant plan with only 50 Senators + VP tiebreaker vote simply by nuking the filibuster (you won't need it afterwards, obviously). Please stop trying to poke holes in this, the 40 California Plan is indefatigable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 00:15
|
|
|
Sundae posted:If I've captured control of the Senate to the point where I have enough congressional power to pull it off, why do I need this scheme in the first place? To pass amendments. Edit: I'm totally on board with Manyfornia.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 00:17
|
|
|
Sundae posted:If I've captured control of the Senate to the point where I have enough congressional power to pull it off, why do I need this scheme in the first place? Because that majority includes red state dems whose days are numbered and demographic changes means things will only get worse. Strike while the iron is hot, basically.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 00:54
|
|
|
Mantis42 posted:They can enact my perfect, brilliant plan with only 50 Senators + VP tiebreaker vote simply by nuking the filibuster (you won't need it afterwards, obviously). But if it needs a constitutional amendment to create new states doesn't that mean two thirds of the senate or something? (Sorry my US constitutional knowledge is poor.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 01:12
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:But if it needs a constitutional amendment to create new states doesn't that mean two thirds of the senate or something? (Sorry my US constitutional knowledge is poor.) You don’t need a constitutional amendment for new states.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 01:27
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:You don’t need a constitutional amendment for new states. Oh, thank you. I am all aboard the 40 Californias train then, but it needs to move fast after 2020.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 08:51
|
|
|
New US States: Puerto Rico DC California West California East California (the reds) South California North California California California (drat splitters)
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 12:28
|
|
|
it seems to me the problem is less the 2 senators per state rule, and more the coexistence of the 2 senators per state rule AND the legislative filibuster that inevitably leads to the 60 vote threshold. they're fundamentally incompatible, and that leads to the insanity we have now. i think the latter would be the easiest to change. and while we obviously wouldn't want that in this day and age, it is theoretically fairer and compatible with the structure of the government itself. abelwingnut fucked around with this message at 13:13 on Nov 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 13:08
|
|
|
Abel Wingnut posted:it seems to me the problem is less the 2 senators per state rule, and more the coexistence of the 2 senators per state rule AND the legislative filibuster that inevitably leads to the 60 vote threshold. they're fundamentally incompatible, and that leads to the insanity we have now. The 2 senators rule weights the senate and therefore the courts towards a republican majority, which is a terrible problem, and effectively means your constitution cannot be amended without ridiculous mechanisms like temporarily fragmenting California.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 14:24
|
|
|
Sundae posted:If I've captured control of the Senate to the point where I have enough congressional power to pull it off, why do I need this scheme in the first place? evilweasel posted:Because that majority includes red state dems whose days are numbered and demographic changes means things will only get worse. Strike while the iron is hot, basically. With GOP outright denying minorities right to vote, rigging machines (see Texas's machines mysteriously swapping to Cruz et. al), gerrymandering, that stuff in the long term can be wittled away at the edges but in the short term makes it extremely hard when you have +60% votes and gain 30% of the power. What isn't going to be stopped in the present and long-term is the demographic changes. Pretty much everyone under 35 is fleeing to CA/OR/NV/CO/WA/MA/NY. There might be some gains in AZ where Phoenix is getting people priced out of CA, and GA where Atlanta is seeing massive pop booms but GA has some of the largest suppression and rights denial going on so that's going to be an uphill battle. Texas as well but it's still heavily rigged and unlikely for the future. In places that used to be more union strongholds, WI, OH, MI, IA, MO, IN, that may be easily been something that could go to Democrats in the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, is no longer the case for obvious reasons. WI is still kind of tight but only barely. They're draining fast and the only people going to be remaining is insane senile racists which are easy to control. And of course the south and rest are not changing with the slight exception of GA, with again, just outright deleting and denying minority voter registrations is going to make it insanely hard. This is also going to get worse for even red states that barely have or once had blue senators (even lovely bluedogs), they aren't going to come back. Tester is probably not going to win again. Doug Jones is going to be a goner next cycle (assuming hes not up against a pedo rapist again and even then...) It's possible still see to a slight D majority in senate in the next X years, but getting increasingly less likely every election, and we will never see a supermajority again in our lifetime. It's an increasingly hopeless future because it's going to require a supermajority to fix anything, which is not going to happen, and only get worse as even a majority becomes slimmer and slimmer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 17:08
|
|
|
Xaris posted:In places that used to be more union strongholds, WI, OH, MI, IA, MO, IN, that may be easily been something that could go to Democrats in the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, is no longer the case for obvious reasons. WI is still kind of tight but only barely. They're draining fast and the only people going to be remaining is insane senile racists which are easy to control. If one has family in any of those states it becomes very clear. All the competent good kids move away. Now in some cities they are moving back, but less than move away from the whole state (at least that's what i remember the from last time I saw figures. )
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 17:53
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:If one has family in any of those states it becomes very clear. All the competent good kids move away. Now in some cities they are moving back, but less than move away from the whole state (at least that's what i remember the from last time I saw figures. ) This, by and large. Thanksgiving I think the furthest person comes from Germany, lots from the East Coast, closest big city is Chicago. All the boomer era relatives still live there tho so if you want the kids to see granny and granpa its caravan through lovely weather/over bad roads to Michigan we go. I have exactly one millennial cousin who moved to Detroit she's a big ol' hipster. There are some younger cousins still there (20s) but they were all the get drunk and skip school types who are all working a min wage job or three while sporadically taking community college courses (and subsequently retweeting complaints about MO min wage hike making 'good paying jobs' 'minimum wage jobs' because now the pay is min wage level). Not the sharpest tools in the shed, one might say. The ones who are in college in state don't plan on staying either.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 19:06
|
|
|
This gets a little beyond election reform but running up the score with millennials, peeling off more college educated white women, and expanding minority access to the polls can alleviate some of the senate woes. It’s still a fundamentally undemocratic institution but you need to figure out how to gain enough votes to start enacting changes. We talk about millennials leaving the rust belt states but there’s tons of millennials and white educated women in those states. Scott Walker barely lost in WI but Tammy Baldwin won by 10%. Who was voting Walker/Baldwin and why?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 19:25
|
|
|
Oracle posted:This, by and large. Thanksgiving I think the furthest person comes from Germany, lots from the East Coast, closest big city is Chicago. All the boomer era relatives still live there tho so if you want the kids to see granny and granpa its caravan through lovely weather/over bad roads to Michigan we go. I have exactly one millennial cousin who moved to Detroit she's a big ol' hipster. There are some younger cousins still there (20s) but they were all the get drunk and skip school types who are all working a min wage job or three while sporadically taking community college courses (and subsequently retweeting complaints about MO min wage hike making 'good paying jobs' 'minimum wage jobs' because now the pay is min wage level). Not the sharpest tools in the shed, one might say. The ones who are in college in state don't plan on staying either. Yep, literally the only reason anyone is stuck in a bad state or a lovely job is that they’re a dumb idiot who didn’t just go to college. What buffoons! Some of them are even addicts! Why would they become that instead of moving to New York or Germany?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 19:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 07:18 |
|
|
suck my woke dick posted:I mean, if I were a billionaire, I'd be seriously tempted to build a settlement in some underpopulated red shithole but make sure it's entirely set up to attract out-of-state progressives instead of being a third-rate company town like the state legislature intended. Can't wait for the breaking news story on Breitbart that Soros is sending paid protestors to live in red states to flip the Senate blue. Anyway, a lot of good ideas here. I think the fastest way to get to a more fair alternative is the admitting new states option, which seems like a horrible bandaid but it works.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2018 20:25
|
|
