Is Revolution The Only Viable Solution?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

7 minutes ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

Or a constitutional amendment.

Changing the apportioment of the Senate requires more than an amendment it requires unanimous consent.

[Robin Of House Hill]

How about the elimination of the Senate?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

13 minutes ago, Nasty LongRider said:

As much as I despise Trump, I feel it was the system of the EC that really screwed us this time.  It might have been devised to deter a populist election, and that may of worked in1877, but now it distorts our way of electioneering and election results.  A person who was behind 3 million votes should not have won the election.  We also shouldn't have 'fly over' states nor have candidates concentrate their time and money on the states that would 'get them to 270', it's ludicrous. 

The HoR and Senate might use some changes, the EC needs to changed first and the sooner the better.

Once again all we have to do is increase the size of the HoR.  It was capped at 434 in 1900 when the average number of constituents per Rep was around 20,000.  Today it is at 700,000.  If the HoR is made larger most of the disproportionate power of the small States evaporates.  

And, as the size of the HoR was capped with a Federal statute it can be uncapped with the same.  No amendment supermajority needed.  No ratification fight.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

7 minutes ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

How about the elimination of the Senate?

Same issue.  That would require unanimous consent US Const. Art. V:

and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate

[Robin Of House Hill]

That moment you realize it has to be replaced, but those in power, today would do so much worse.

[LongRider]

7 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Once again all we have to do is increase the size of the HoR.  It was capped at 434 in 1900 when the average number of constituents per Rep was around 20,000.  Today it is at 700,000.  If the HoR is made larger most of the disproportionate power of the small States evaporates.  

And, as the size of the HoR was capped with a Federal statute it can be uncapped with the same.  No amendment supermajority needed.  No ratification fight.

What are you talking about?  How would this change the EC?  I'm not following you, at all.

[Rippounet]

8 minutes ago, Nasty LongRider said:

What are you talking about?  How would this change the EC?  I'm not following you, at all.

You don't know that the number of electors in the EC is equal to the number of Congress members? That's what Scot is talking about. Basically, getting rid of the cap would immediately give more EC votes to large states like California.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

16 minutes ago, Nasty LongRider said:

What are you talking about?  How would this change the EC?  I'm not following you, at all.

Thank you.  Precisely.

[LongRider]

3 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

You don't know that the number of electors in the EC is equal to the number of Congress members? That's what Scot is talking about. Basically, getting rid of the cap would immediately give more EC votes to large states like California.

Thanks, Rip, no I didn't know that.  Still, having candidates play to the EC states with biggest numbers leaves voters out in the cold.  California is a good example, very blue last year, not viable for a red presidential candidate, so candidate visits and money spent not at the same intensity as Florida or Nevada, say.  I myself feel all 50 states should be important to the candidates and the voters, and with an EC, even with an expanded HoR, I still don't see how that happens.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

51 minutes ago, Nasty LongRider said:

Thanks, Rip, no I didn't know that.  Still, having candidates play to the EC states with biggest numbers leaves voters out in the cold.  California is a good example, very blue last year, not viable for a red presidential candidate, so candidate visits and money spent not at the same intensity as Florida or Nevada, say.  I myself feel all 50 states should be important to the candidates and the voters, and with an EC, even with an expanded HoR, I still don't see how that happens.

Understood.  It's not perfect.  Eliminating the EC requires a supermajority in the House and Senate then a supermajority of States ratifying the elimination.

None of that is needed to uncap the limit on the size of the HoR.

[LongRider]

3 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Understood.  It's not perfect.  Eliminating the EC requires a supermajority in the House and Senate then a supermajority of States ratifying the elimination.

None of that is needed to uncap the limit on the size of the HoR.

So see if I understand your argument; increase the members of the HoR, which would increase the size of the members of the EC, so that the vote of the EC should mirror the majority of vote of the citizenry?  Is that what you're arguing for? hmmmmm, I'd have to chew on that for awhile.  Making the HoR have more reps is an interesting idea, but would that really make the EC vote the way of the majority?  Because it sure would have been a good thing if that had happened in 2016.

[Altherion]

16 hours ago, Iskaral Pust said:

In the short term, that's certainly true.  In the long term, we don't know yet.  We've discussed before the potential effects of the robot revolution and there are positive and negative scenarios.  I would not want to commit to a "lump of labor" fallacy too early.   Even if robots can produce most goods and services, human-provided (unnecessary) goods or services could become luxury goods that would create sustainable employment.  We'd basically be like a troop of chimps grooming each other all day amidst an environment of effortless food and shelter.  Ennui could become the major social problem instead.  In fact, for those of us in the educated socioeconomic elite (I mean the top 5%, not just the ultra wealthy 0.01%), it possibly already is. 

The long term is unpredictable so maybe you are right (although I doubt it), but I guess the question of this thread is how we get from here to there (whatever "there" might be). Right now, the jobs lost to automation and globalization are not replaced by anything and there is no economic incentive for those in power to change that.

4 hours ago, MercurialCannibal said:

sorry. but no. hatred is not worth protecting. you cannot debate fascists. they need to be forced back into their hovels. 

Surely you can see the obvious problem with this idea? Maybe you are talking about the utterly tiny number of WWII-style fascists (in which case this is not worth discussing as they have no power at all and time spent on them is better spent on practically anything else), but if you are complaining about the people who actually do have a measure of power, what are you going to do if they fight back?

The scary thing is that the people being called names in this thread think of themselves as oppressed and call the kind of people found in this thread a different set of names. The people who denigrate them also disparage this point of view and believe that their antagonists are wrong and they themselves are right... but historically, a whole lot of other people have thought so about completely different issues and it didn't work out for them. All things considered, I'd give an edge to the group that has more guns.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

38 minutes ago, Nasty LongRider said:

So see if I understand your argument; increase the members of the HoR, which would increase the size of the members of the EC, so that the vote of the EC should mirror the majority of vote of the citizenry?  Is that what you're arguing for? hmmmmm, I'd have to chew on that for awhile.  Making the HoR have more reps is an interesting idea, but would that really make the EC vote the way of the majority?  Because it sure would have been a good thing if that had happened in 2016.

It means place like California get more electors to dilute the power of places like Wyoming and South Dakota.

[DMC]

49 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Understood.  It's not perfect.  Eliminating the EC requires a supermajority in the House and Senate then a supermajority of States ratifying the elimination.

None of that is needed to uncap the limit on the size of the HoR.

I know we've had this argument before, but reforming the EC through an interstate pact to ensure the PV winner clears 270 is a far more plausible and easier to understand solution than raising the members of the House to the levels necessary in order for it to have an effect on the EC.  Moreover, it is viewed as normatively desirable more universally - I and many colleagues have reservations about a thousand-plus member legislature.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, dmc515 said:

I know we've had this argument before, but reforming the EC through an interstate pact to ensure the PV winner clears 270 is a far more plausible and easier to understand solution than raising the members of the House to the levels necessary in order for it to have an effect on the EC.  Moreover, it is viewed as normatively desirable more universally - I and many colleagues have reservations about a thousand-plus member legislature.

You need unanimous consent for this to work as well.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

You need unanimous consent for this to work as well.

No, you wouldn't at all.  States have the right to allocate EC votes however the like - see Maine and Nebraska.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

6 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

No, you wouldn't at all.  States have the right to allocate EC votes however the like - see Maine and Nebraska.

It would create problems and doesn't deal with "faithless electors".

[DMC]

Faithless electors are only in states that still legally allow them.  30 states and DC require electors to vote for the pledged - and this would be part and parcel of the interstate pact.  What other problems would it create?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

12 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Faithless electors are only in states that still legally allow them.  30 states and DC require electors to vote for the pledged - and this would be part and parcel of the interstate pact.  What other problems would it create?

No.  Faithless electors have never been tested by the SCOTUS.  State laws against faithless electors may not be Constitutional.

[DMC]

6 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

No.  Faithless electors have never been tested by the SCOTUS.  State laws against faithless electors may not be Constitutional.

State pledge laws have been ruled constitutional by SCOTUS, enforcing penalties has not.  The question is moot though.  Faithless electors have never had an effect on the result a presidential contest with the arguable exception of 1876 which basically a tie.  This is because electors are a reward for state party officials and the overwhelming majority of the time they will vote with the candidate of their party.  Trump was a rather unique case because he upset the basic tenets of even Republicans and there were still only, what, 7 faithless electors?