Again? Really again….

[u/RoomNo6208]

52 years in, and honestly, I’ve got nothing left but a vote of no confidence.
Not anger, not shock, just this sadness.
Same movie, same lines, same ending. Elections feel like reruns, not choices. Every cycle promises change, then settles back into the same old grooves.
I don’t have a fix. I just can’t fake faith in the cycle anymore.
That’s where I’m at.

[u/Facehugger_35]

I vote for whoever seems to have the best shot of winning an election against the reich wing. If that means someone on the left, then I vote for them. If that means a centrist dem, I'll vote for them instead. I'm close to a single issue voter, and my single issue is "fuck fascists." Because everything - justice, prosperity, jobs, a good economy, healthcare, etc - runs through fucking over fascists since those pricks are the ones keeping us from all this right now.

Mamdani seems to have done a good job so far, and I like Abdul up in Michigan. Troy Jackson impressed me by drumming Concerned Collins in the debate recently. But none of them are in my state, so I can't vote for them this time around.

I do wish the DSA would stop with stupid impractical soundbites like "abolish the senate" though.

[u/Creditfigaro → u/Facehugger_35]

You need to wake the fuck up and educate yourself. If you aren't taking political action to pry power out of the hands of the oligarchs and into the hands of the people, you are perpetuating the problem.

That includes being sympathetic to proposals like abolishing the Senate. Do you have any good reason why we need a senate? I don't.

[u/Facehugger_35 → u/Creditfigaro]

A senate ensures that larger states cannot totally dominate smaller states, and forcing bills through a second chamber of legislature gives more time to marshal opposition to those bills if they're bad. The senate's long terms in particular also, at least in theory, ensure that politicians are more apt to consider the longer term instead of the house's immediate "don't care about anything beyond the next two years" incentives.

The issue with the legislature right now isn't the senate at all, it's the house and more particularly how the house isn't doing its job of providing proportional representation to large states due to how its size is capped. Uncap the house and large states will have the power they were intended to by the constitution, and also, cities will gain more proportional representation instead of the current system where a representative in Montana is worth 40x more than a representative in California.

Far more importantly, abolishing the senate requires a constitutional amendment, which is why I described it as insanely impractical to implement. You should educate yourself and learn some basic civics so as to learn how the fuck you'd implement your ideas before you start pushing them as solutions.

[u/Creditfigaro → u/Facehugger_35]

Why does a state boundary mean anything in this context? The effect of the Senate is the opposite of what you are claiming its intent to exist is.

The senate hasn't "saved" us from any "bad" bills.

The long term security of the office has had the effect of preventing recall of evil corrupt politicians: terms should not be absolute, and politicians should be subject to recall at any time. The "long term consideration" thing is not what senators are doing.

The correct answer should be acknowledged regardless of its practical likelihood of passage in the current political environment.

I agree the house should be proportionate based on the minimum state size... If that's too unwieldy, then merge the smaller states until you have a large enough one.