9mo ago

Does this plan make sense? v3

You're viewing a single thread.

413 comments

Mostly good stuff. I don't think I'd merge house and Senate. Some of them need more constraint, like I'd legalize prostitution, but only if it's regulated like restaurants (health inspectors, workers rights, etc.).
- What is your solution the massively disproportionate representation in the senate then? There are currently around 66.7 Californians for every Wyomingite. Do you think Wyomingites deserve 66.7 times the representation in the Senate? And yes, legalization would occur with reasonable regulations which would make sure the industry is safer for all those involved. I tried to keep the list as concise as possible for each issue reformed.
  
  Do you think wyoming deserves to be a state? Every state gets the same representation in the Senate and I think that's fair. I don't think it's fair that the proportional side of the legislature isn't proportional anymore, though, and fixing that goes a very long way.
  
  States don't deserve equal representation. American citizens deserve equal representation, they are the ones who create value.
  
  Then what you’re really saying is abolish the concept of states and have a single federal state.
  
  No, states still would elect a number of representatives based on their population. Just no 2 senators per state.
  
  Why even have states? Good way to get rid of jerrymandering would be to get rid of imaginary borders. No states, no senate necessary.
  
  Something something…. Redraw state lines every 10 years…
  
  Because state legislatures should continue to exist. If less populated conservative states want to go down a rabbit hole of far right shit then let them. Just don't give them 2 senators per state to gridlock the states that continue to produce and provide for their population.
  
  Then there is no point in having states.
  
  That is what is referred to as a false dilemma fallacy. You can have states and state legislatures without the senate.
  
  First time I’m hearing about that fallacy, but it seems to imply deceptive intent which I have none. You can also have machine screws in your peanut butter sandwich but it doesn’t mean it makes sense.
  
  Why do you think the states govts should continue to exist if they do not have a direct voice at the Federal level?
  
  Because states would still get a voice at the Federal level with the House, not directly and disproportionately, but rather through their population who are the ones who create value.
  
  The house is representation of the people. The senate is the voice of the states. E.g. senate ratifies treaties.
  
  The Senate isn't intended to be a representative body, it's just two per state. They aren't doing things like setting funding/budgets. Congress (the house of representatives) is designed to do that, though that needs some tweaking.
  
  The Senate isn’t intended to be a representative body
  Both the house and senate vote to pass bills. The disproportionate population increases have led to less representation of citizens in more populated states.
  
  But the original states didn't have balanced populations, the founders knew that, but they still set it to be two senators per state. The house is scaled by population.
  
  They did that for as part of a negotiation though. The less populous states refused to join the union without something like the Senate.
  To me it's an outdated concept because states are much less independent now than they were back then. And we have a national identity that didn't exist during the revolution.
  
  There's no solution needed, since there isn't a problem to begin with. Individuals (should) have proportional representation in the House, and states have proportional representation in the Senate, which is how it should be.
  Do you think Wyomingites deserve 66.7 times the representation in the Senate?
  Yes.
  
  There’s no solution needed, since there isn’t a problem to begin with.
  This is funny, it's like an self soothing mantra. I'll try to repeat this to myself as things get worse.
  
  To be fair, Congress wouldn't be so inept if it weren't for the filibuster, which was never intended to be abused the way it is now. I'd be somewhat ok with the Senate if filibusters only required a simple majority to break again.
  
  Beyond what you've stated about the disproportionate nature of the Senate, what exact legislative problems are you attributing to the existence of the Senate, and its disproportionate nature? And why do you think a purely proportional body will solve said issues? I'm also curious what you believe the purpose of the Senate, or a bicameral legislature in general, is.
  I'm not trying to be accusatory in my probing, I'm simply curious what your exact rationale is ☺️.
  
  The senate exists to maintain an artificial balance and make sure that only the approved things are actually voted on. That is why popular things like marijuana legalization are never voted on.
  
  The senate exists to maintain an artificial balance
  What do you mean by "artifical balance"?
  and make sure that only the approved things are actually voted on
  What do you mean, exactly? Bills are debated as they are presented [See 7.6 and 8.1 of the Senate Manual].
  That is why popular things like marijuana legalization are never voted on.
  I don't understand this point. If you want a senator to introduce a bill regarding the legalization of marijuana, then vote in a senator that will present such a bill.
  
  I don’t understand this point.
  Yup, you don't.
  then vote in a senator that will present such a bill.
  🤡
  
  Yup, you don’t.
  Okay, well, would you mind providing clarification/context/sources for your claim?
  🤡
  ? Do you disagree with that statement? If so, then why?
- It is federally legal to prostitution. Just every single state outlaws except nevada.
  
  Interesting, I never really thought about it, but of course that must be true for it to be legal anywhere.

413 comments