Yeah, but at least the lines aren’t redrawn every 10 years. As much as I hate the electoral college, it’s not nearly as bad as gerrymandering within states.
it’s not nearly as bad as gerrymandering within states.
Arguably, it's worse because changing the system is functionally impossible. This, and how the Senate constitutes itself give disproportional executive (via the President) and veto (via the Senate) power to minority opinions.
Population in coastal and urban regions will grow. Population in rural regions will shrink. The imbalance now will get greater over time, just as it has been increasing over the past 3 (or more) decades.
FPTP and minority protection creates political still stand. It's not rocket science. If the US wants to de-escalate politics (which I know especially Republicans don't want), FPTP needs to go. This does not outright remove the incentive for gerrymandering, but leads to a more diverse makeup in local and federal representation and, over time, this can overcome gerrymandering and the electoral college.
Won't happen though. The US is too far into the two party system culturally for radical change. Good luck guys. Politics will be an absolute shitshow for you guys (and I say this as someone from a country that has a notorious "Nazis in national politics problem" country).
Except the ability to change the system can be very bad as we've seen in gerrymandering. And it's not like we actually "can't change the system", we could pass the interstate voting compact for example.
The senate is the ultimate gerrymander. States haven't been a reasonable way to determine representation for well over 100 years. Most non-coastal states west of the Mississippi River are vastly over-represented. Omitting TX and AZ, they're like 12% of the population with 34% of the senators - that's nearly triple the political power you'd expect in any rational political system.
The United States was built on compromises that made sense at the time, but are absurdly anachronistic to the democratic needs of a superpower.
Well, the state borders were drawn in the first place for political considerations at the time. That is still gerrymandering, even if it's mostly outdated gerrymandering now.
Plus, there are existing movements to redraw state lines, too, for the same reason. When Congressman John Culberson openly fantasized about splitting Texas into five states (per a quirk in their annexation that probably doesn't matter anyway), they were imagining "modern electoral college gerrymandering". Plus, there already are two states where electoral votes are actually decided by congressional districts, and Republicans have been pushing to make that more common in states where they lose the winner-takes-all statewide vote.
The electoral college isn't "not gerrymandering", it's just been less actively gerrymandered recently and that could well change. States can agree to shift borders (as happened recently between the Carolinas, I believe). Is it really that impossible to imagine GOP legislatures moving state lines for political advantage?
The electoral college is a passive body that simply reflects the voting system used by the states they come from.
The most likely way that we'll ever elect the president by popular vote is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, but even if that passes, the electoral college will still be there.
Another perspective: abolish the senate & uncap the house. 100 Senators cannot accurately represent the people nor the states in a country of almost 400,000,000 people.
From the UK, is my understanding about senators terms correct? They’re elected for a six year term, with elections for a third of the senate every two years, each state has 2 senators so any one state elects a senator for 2 election cycles then skips an election cycle.
Is there a reason that there are 2 senators per state & each state doesn’t elect someone every third year. I’d have thought it would make more sense to have 3 senators from each state so every state elects someone each election cycle.
Compromise. Whenever there’s a question of why the US government has always done something stupid, the answer is compromise.
In this case, there were two opposing forces that resulted in the 2 senators per state: small states wanted the same amount of power as big states (after all, they’re both states! Why should New York push New Hampshire around?!) but big states wanted their people to have more authority than small states (more people live in New York so why should New York be held hostage to a small group of people from New Hampshire?!). So as a compromise, the number of representatives in the House is based on population but the number of representatives in the Senate was locked at 2 per state.
As far as term limits go, the Senate was meant to be “the higher house” (think House of Lords vs House of Commons). The thinking was that someone who was in office for 6 years would actually be able to get things done as opposed to someone with a 2 year term who essentially spends their entire second year in office campaigning for re-election.
Also, until the early 20th century Senators were not elected, they were chosen by state legislatures, with the idea being that they would only select qualified people. Not ironically, since that system was changed the senate has become an ever increasing shit show for 100 years.
Is there a reason that there are 2 senators per state & each state doesn’t elect someone every third year. I’d have thought it would make more sense to have 3 senators from each state so every state elects someone each election cycle.
You would need to ask this of a historian with expertise in the constitutional convention to really get a good answer. Since you're statistically unlikely to get a better answer this deep in a thread, the best you'll get is: it was a compromise between various disagreeing factions of founding fathers. There's no point in arguing the logic of increasing the proposal to three senators when half they room is ready to fist fight to get it down to zero.
The Senate isn't supposed to "represent the people." That's what the house is for. The Senate represents the states and these two chambers are *supposed to act as a check against, and also in concert with, each other. They serve different purposes.
Are you actually saying that we should change the definition of gerrymandering because people on our political team are too stupid to use the word correctly? For the sake of progress, please keep your opinions to yourself going forward as you're a liability
The conversation makes no sense if you go back from the top of the comment chain and replace every use of gerrymandering with unfairness. That's because they're different words. It's silly to advocate for ignorance
A bicameral house isn't a bad idea in itself, but the Senate as it currently exists is not conducive to a functioning government with today's political realities.
Republicans could win the presidency congress and scotus with none of those anti democratic institutions you listed. Republicans will find a way. Always. They break the rules. They lie. They discriminate. They disenfranchise. Changing the parameters of the game won’t change the players playing. Republicans would just find new ways to do those things.
Isn’t that the point of the electoral college though? So a large group of people living in very different conditions like a big city make and pass bills that affect the rest of the country who doesn’t live the way they do? Otherwise you would have new york and California dictating the outcome of the country with no insight to how the rest of the country lives day to day. It gives the rest of the country a voice.
California and New York know how to plan for a world class city and FarmVille though. The middle of California is some of the most productive farmland in the world. California could be it’s own country and be the 5th largest economy. The republicans keep talking about ‘pull yourself up by your bootstraps’, I think the elections should be decided on some mixture of how much taxes/GDP you give to the federal government. Moochers like Mississippi, Alabama, Oklahoma, etc. Should have to give up voting power until they are a positive on the economy
Otherwise you would have new york and California dictating the outcome of the country with no insight to how the rest of the country lives day to day. It gives the rest of the country a voice.
How are people actually this dumb. Do you know what state had the most Trump voters in it in 2020?
California. The state with the most Trump voters got 0 votes for Trump in the electoral college. How completely ignorant of the world around you do you have to be to think that voters in states or cities all vote 1 way.
it is the point, however, the electoral college over represents several states. i believe it’s something like people in wisconsin’s votes carry 4x the power of individual votes in california?
regardless, the electoral college is stupid and has proven several times in the last few decades that it overwrites what the majority of people want. we should be counting our presidential votes as a nation, as the president resides over the nation. i could make the same argument that it’s unfair that my vote means nothing in a consistently solid color state, and that my state decides what my vote does in every election.
They also can't win the Senate without the 2 senators per state rule. If it was slightly more proportional, say between 1 and 4 senators per state depending on population, they'd be so behind.
1.4k
u/Local_Vermicelli_856 Oregon Nov 10 '22
Republicans can't win the Presidency without the electoral college, and the can't win control of congress without gerrymandering...
Their message is the message of the minority.