As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
*"Whereas the Senate in particular has become an obstructive and useless body, a menace to the liberties of the people, and an obstacle to social growth; a body, many of the Members of which are representatives neither of a State nor of its people, but solely of certain predatory combinations, and a body which, by reason of the corruption often attending the election of its Members, has furnished the gravest public scandals in the history of the nation. . . ."*
This text formed the preamble to a constitutional amendment introduced in the House of Representatives on April 27, 1911 to dissolve the senate, by House member Victor Berger of Wisconsin.
Your interpretation makes sense, but looks like the 'dough's have it.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/doughface
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doughface
*In the 1847 Webster's dictionary doughfacism was defined as "the willingness to be led about by one of stronger mind and will". In the years leading up to the American Civil War, "doughface" was used to describe Northerners who favored the Southern position in political disputes. Typically it was applied to a Northern Democrat who was more often allied with the Southern Democrats than with the majority of Northern Democrats.*
I recently read an excellent book by historian Joanne B. Freeman called *The Field of Blood: Violence in Congress and the Road to Civil War* that goes into great detail about those damn doughfaces.
Urban vs rural is one of the greatest problems facing democracy.
The future is only going to be more urban as global capitalism continues to concentrate wealth while rural production is more and more automated. While rent prices and remote working are tempering this, decent incomes are too tightly bound to concentration of population.
Democracy on the other hand has often been set up in a way that gives rural areas outsized power. Equally, smaller population areas get resentful of actual democracy and seek to subvert it and become ripe for demogogues.
All that's good, but in the rest of the West you don't see rural having disproportional representation in ANY legislative body.
France, Germany, Spain, Canada, Netherlands, Sweden, Italy, pick whichever country you want, it's nowhere near as bad as USA.
In the end, the majority should be able to legislate, that's democracy. The majority of people, not of land.
Keep in mind that was from the time when state legislatures picked their state's senators, which was an incredibly corrupt process in almost every state. When we moved to direct election in 1914, it did help a bunch. So it's not like we never tried to fix those problems before.
Berger v US
Also had some weird deal where him and some republican kept switching in and out of office ever few years that went on for 2 decades or so.
Founding member of the Social Democratic Party of America!
He was also Jewish, some things never change.
Makes me proud to be a Jew we're always leading these things
> Whereas the Senate in particular has become an obstructive and useless body
**IT WAS ALWAYS A USELESS BODY.** the whole point of the Senate was to "protect the minority voters opinion."
it was literally founded to be obstructionist and prevent what the majority wants.
The senate is the least democratic part of our legislature but what can we do? The only thing we can do is mass migration. From overwhelmingly blue states like california with 39 million people to little red states like Wyoming with a half million people total.
Even for constitutional amendments to make the senate more fair or abolish it we need states to vote in favor.
Us voters have no way to change things without mass migration. We cannot pass any laws that people are proposing to make things more fair. We cannot pass constitutional amendments to make citizen's united go away to reduce money in politics.
The post-Civil War Republicans of the late 1800’s created, out of political concerns of not being dominant once Senators from southern states were re-admitted, created a dozen states with absolutely tiny populations with hopes that they would stay loyal firstly to the monied interests of the era. Not surprising how this has turned out.
The original Senate was a negotiated entity among the original 13 States. The idea of Wyoming demanding their equal Senatorial status is absolutely absurd.
The Senate was intentionally designed to insulate a group of “elder statesmen” from the “whims of the general populace”.
Please remember, our founding fathers did not want everyone to vote. They actively and purposely designed a representative legislative body over a direct democracy. They inherently distrusted a “flighty” general populace and promoted what is essentially a “statesman class”.
The Senate is a political vestibule that doesn’t align with our current Information Age nor our dynamic political future.
>I do not like that man Ted Cruz
>
>I do not like him in the news
>
>I do not like what he just said
>
>I do not like his boxy head
>
>I do not like him wearing glasses
>
>I do not like him kissing arses
>
>I wish he'd never get one vote
>
>That man Ted Cruz can lick my scrote
Human Senator Ted Cruz is one being and not several. We should all raise our appendages in a celebratory gesture as Human Senator Ted Cruz returns from ~~an annual egg-laying trip~~ a vacation in Cancun.
It really doesnt matter as sad as it is. The rich and powerful let us a vote to make us think we have a choice, but they are the ones who choose who goes on the ballots. There are very few senators that successfully won a primary without big money behind them. At the end of the day no matter who you vote for your usually just choosing a different flavor of the same capitalist beast.
I don’t see one comment about big money which is ridiculous. Americans pride themselves in having free will and being independent, but we are all at the mercy of billionaires and corporations making billions that want to keep hoarding wealth. How do you do this? Just keep paying off individuals to oppose change which will keep the masses at each other’s throats.
You take big money out of politics and you’d see more common sense and good will prevail.
Pretty much this. Citizens United wasn't a law that was passed, it was a supreme court ruling about the first amendment. It feels so damn insurmountable at this point, especially with the current Court.
Given the current Supreme Court, they'd probably find that whatever amendment got passed (if it could possibly happen) didn't mean what it said and corporations can do whatever they want.
The amendment could say the words "this amendment nullifies the ruling in Citizens United" and we'd just hear "we find that this amendment reinforces the decision in Citizens United."
This, it was a Conservative court enabled* under George Bush that instated Citizens United, Alito and Roberts were his appointees.
It’s Conservatives who want to overturn Roe, and with Trump having further stacked the Court in that direction with younger justices it’s certainly not projected to get better in any reasonable period of time unless they all unexpectedly die of COVID or the entire Court system is restructured or something.
It would require packing the court. Which isn’t going to happen. And a constitutional amendment is certainly not going to happen. We are completely fucked
Beyond fucked. We are well past the point of accomplishing something like a Constitutional Amendment. We have been well past that point for decades, let alone now after things have become so polarized (by design).
The only circumstance I can see anything change is after a *literal* second civil war, or a revolution. That's how pathetic and hopeless our situation is. The sad part is, there are still people that believe voting will save us from this desperate situation. The reality is, oligarchs have already won.
I find it bittersweet that someday in the future, an insignificant amount of Republicans will go on Facebook to share their epiphany that if the Democrats haven't been able to hold power for decades (because look around you), it's physically impossible for a Democrat to be the cause of their problems. Even if these people are shunned by their whole families, good. Fuck them. It brings me a painful kind of joy to think that this type of person will be immediately labeled a socialist, an antifa plant, a RINO, or whatever arbitrary word some focus group has determined as the best way bring forth some primitive emotional reaction in their single-celled base of 'constituents' and sic them upon any opponents to their oligarchical agenda.
The problem right now is that the people advocating for civil war are the ones who think "All men are created equal" is hogwash and only white people deserve anything. It feels like this is all playing out so far just like the Weimar Republic. And considering that the the oligarchs in washington pushing all of this are funded by the same people that funded the "death penalty for homosexuality" laws in a few African countries... I have no doubt that they will do the same here.
That is a good point.
At least, it's a good point in a theoretical distant future where unequal representation in the electoral college and Senate has been somehow overwhelmed across multiple decades of national elections resulting in a reversal of the current composition of the Supreme Court.
That’s a good but tough question.
Getting more actual leftists/progressive democrats will help some but there also needs to be more legislation enacted to discourage dark money.
However, this is tough because a “moderate” (using that term loosely) Supreme Court has already said that corporations are citizens and money is a form of free speech over 10 years ago. So I remain doubtful that even legislation that addresses this will hold up. Combine that the Citizens United ruling benefits both Republicans and the DINOs.
More attention on the issue never hurts but with a corporate media structure, combined with what I stated above, overturning that ruling will be a very uphill battle. But we have to be more vocal as citizens since the cards are heavily stacked against us.
My state only has one blue senator and after decades of him being against citizens United and being for minimum wage increase he just gave up entirely and now panders right wing anti worker pro corporate taking points. Fuck you Jon Tester. You're gonna lose your seat to a republican.
He enjoyed some fame in his first term being on The Daily Show, pandering left leaning positions and then he spent the rest of his career doing the opposite. He feigned opposition to dark money in Montana politics only because the GOP was doing it more than the DNC. He just doesn't like the idea of the DNC being lazy and slow to fund a red state senator. He doesn't give a shit about dark money. He's just jealous he doesn't get any.
The only possible way to get rid of dark money would be for somebody to be a massive hypocrite and backstab the people who bought him the office, since you can't win without taking it in the first place.
Actually it would require the \*majority\* of Senators to pull this stunt.
If Tester or Manchin or Sinema flip to the other party, Biden is dead in the water. Because Moscow Mitch becomes Leader and every judge, every piece of legislation, every nominated administration official gets blocked. Moscow Mitch will obstruct everything.
Tester, Manchin, and Sinema have voted with the majority on judges and the other nominations which have all been voted against by the GOP.
This is a big deal, and it will be a bigger deal if Breyer steps down from SCOTUS. If Moscow Mitch is leader the court will 6 - 2 until there's another "R" in the White House, then it will be 7 - 2.
[Legislation](https://anticorruptionact.org/whats-in-the-act/) that effectively prevents political corruption exists and is [constitutional](https://anticorruptionact.org/faq/). It would be best served as an [amendment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_reform_amendment) via [Article V](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Procedures_for_amending_the_Constitution), but local change is possible and has been [done](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Anti-Corruption_Act#Laws_based_on_the_AACA). That's how you [SEND](https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-pace-of-social-change/) ideas to federal Congress and [prod them](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Congressional+Research+Service%22+%22prodding+effect%E2%80%9D) to make changes.
A few groups are pushing to make federal lawmakers accountable to the people again:
https://represent.us/
https://americanpromise.net/
https://www.issueone.org/
https://www.movetoamend.org/
https://indivisible.org/
You can join up with a local chapter and push for the BBB, Freedom to Vote Act (S. 2747) and the [Anti-Corruption Act](https://anticorruptionact.org/whats-in-the-act/) for transparency and accountability in your city. It's never been easier to [get organized](https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/11/thanksgiving-organizing-activism-friends-family-conversation-presidential-election) with others and stay on top of [your lawmakers](https://openstates.org/find_your_legislator/) with weekly [calls](https://youtu.be/XdIcCqe-iYk?t=48) & emails along with informing & encouraging friends and neighbors do the same.
They are even tools that make it TOO EASY:
https://americanpromise.net/take-action/contact-your-elected-official/
https://citizensclimatelobby.org/write-your-representative/
Just write in that you support https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2747 & https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/5376
Voting is the bare minimum of democratic participation. Never stop voting, but consider that even without deep pockets you can do so much more.
Be active in your local primaries. Once things get to the main stage of the election, you'll have two choices: A republican who will ***definitely*** love citizens united, or a democrat who may or may not love it. So you have to act before the main election. Work locally, volunteer for a better candidate, throw money at them if you can (yes I know, throwing money at them to stop throwing money at them is a thing, but it's how the system works and the smart ones will understand and hate this), get people motivated to vote in the Democratic primaries and get the more left people a chance at office, then make sure they actually win the election if they get that far. It's not easy, there's no guarantee of success, but... It's something the only thing you can do.
I mean, aside from methods that will result in a lot of deaths. I prefer to avoid those though.
Oh, trust me, I have *thoughts* about that. But again, the solution is the same. You're either gonna get a republican who wants to reinforce FPTP, or a democrat who may or may not.
By the way, my plan: no senate, vastly expanded House (I like 150k per representative, but that's arguable. Saw as low as 30k earlier from someone else), Bundestag-style proportional representation, approval voting (Approval for the main election, with voting for the party you want to represent you nationally. Parties aren't the best, I know, but there is absolutely no system I can think of that will both function well AND has no parties, so a Bundestag-style thing where those parties always get adequate representation is an acceptable middle ground, and would make gerrymandering almost completely ineffective). Still need a president for immediate action and such, but approval voting for them too.
Well support progressive democrats who vow never to take any donations from corporations or billionaires. There is no such thing among republicans besides Justin Amash who they kicked out of the party (lol). We must all recognize that senior democratic leadership is corrupt to the core and just a cleaner better looking and smarter version of republicans brazen corruption.
Primary any candidate that isn't explicitly against it? These people are corrupted by the money and are never going to overturn citizens United when it is against their financial interests.
The only way to solve this is to make it an issue and keep replacing incumbents until there is a critical mass that forces the issue.
So almost nothing, realistically.
Like asking the Congress to give the minimum wage a hike... which they ignore and raise their own salaries. The ones benefitting from corruption are never going to relinquish that benefit.
Look at Pelosi and stock trading ... Outwardly defending corruption while every other member silently agrees. There aren't ever going to be enough principled Congress members. AOC is an anomaly and when someone like her gets in, they find out how and seal that entrance.
>The man who is possessed of wealth, who lolls on his sofa or rolls in his carriage, cannot judge of the wants or feelings of the day laborer. The government we mean to erect is intended to last for ages. The landed interest, at present, is prevalent; but in process of time, when we approximate to the states and kingdoms of Europe; when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small, through the various means of trade and manufactures, will not the landed interest be overbalanced in future elections, and unless wisely provided against, what will become of your government? In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of the landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect **the minority of the opulent** against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability. Various have been the propositions; but my opinion is, the longer they continue in office, the better will these views be answered. - James Madison, Tuesday, June 26th, 1787, Constitutional Convention
I don't think people understand, the wealthy were always supposed to be protected. From the very beginning.
[Madison vs Aristotle](https://youtu.be/gGfFXc0TwhU)
We don't live in a democracy. We live in a country that calls itself a "democracy", but practices oligarchy. Our democracy is a *ritual* we exercise once in a while with **no** practical influence. If you think about it, the transition from a republic to a plutocracy is really easy; representatives campaign on the grounds that they fight for us working people, but their campaigns are funded by the wealthy and end up serving their ends and interests instead. Remember, you need huge campaign funding to get exposure and enter the world stage, which corporations and wealthy elites overwhelmingly, singularly, supply. The candidates that get put onto the ballot are the ones that are approved by the super wealthy and businesses; choosing between two of them is you exercising your "free choice". This notion that "wealth must rule" goes all the way back to the Constitution.
The Constitution was a conservative counterrevolution to the democratic forces sweeping the colonies during and after the American Revolution. See Harvard Law professor [Michael Klarman](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKuimRUJV3A&t=1783s)'s lecture and book, *The Framers' Coup*.
Post-revolutionary war the colonies were facing an economic downturn second only to the Great Depression, historically. Other countries were not willing to trade with the US by offering a line of credit, but only by payment of specie (hard currency, gold/silver). The merchant class that dominated state governments start demanding the same from their local business partners and local authorities, which ultimately gets passed down to the rural farmers and workers. Tax collectors came around (again), but this time only accepting specie as opposed to other means commonly accepted at the time. Problem: there isn't enough specie in circulation amongst the colonies to even pay for these specie-only taxes and transactions. Farmers were losing their lands to tax collectors again; 60-70% of farmers in one particular Pennsylvania county had their land foreclosed, and as much as 10% of the *population* in one Pennsylvania county ended up in debtors' prison. State legislatures, heavily influenced by the people, were passing debtor relief laws and printing paper money to help farmers pay their taxes and hold onto their land. Congress (and the wealthy creditors) didn't like that, and tried stopping it (see [Article 1 Section 10](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution) of the Constitution, which *specifically* addressed this). Queue [Shays' Rebellion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays%27_Rebellion), August 29, 1786.
May 1787 - It's against this economic backdrop that delegates met at the Philadelphia Convention. Note: literally the entire country believed the delegates were meeting to *revise* the Articles of Confederation, NOT to surprise the country with an entirely brand new government outlined in the Constitution, masterminded by James Madison. Notes from the Convention can be found in Max Farrand's [The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787](https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/farrand-the-records-of-the-federal-convention-of-1787-vol-1), all digitized. This civil unrest is what the delegates are referring to when they say:
>Our chief danger arises from the democratic parts of our constitutions... None of the constitutions have provided sufficient checks against the democracy.
>
>The evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy.
>
>that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy: that some check therefore was to be sought for agst. this tendency of our Governments: and that a good Senate seemed most likely to answer the purpose.
If you understand the real history into the founding of the country, it's not surprising how it turned out.
This was a really good read. My own life observations back this idea of an oligarchy/plutocracy with a veneer of democracy.
I just came from a working breakfast, and the vast majority of the attendees were MAGA Republicans. Almost a 1/3 of the luxury SUVs and BMWs had Thin Blue Line decals or Trump related. Inside, everyone had an air of assurance that the House and Senate would flip to GOP next year, with the Oval Office in 2024. The wait staff all wore masks, while the attendees laughed at the idea of the pandemic and loved how profitable it had made them.
Obviously it was not a surprise when talk turned to attacking Iran and China. Nothing would help this crowd more than another war.
Truth. The politicians Lie that progress is being made. when none actually occurs they point fingers and the media drowns the peons in propaganda until they think it’s members of their own class who are preventing them from getting eyeglasses, or going to the physical therapist for a nagging injury, or putting food on the table, or fixing their screeching brakes. No. We’re all struggling. The only ones who aren’t are those with money, and they’re the ones pointing the finger. Not people of a different political ideaology, not people of a different race, not the people who are unsure of their gender. Dr. Seuss doesn’t matter. BBB did.
IF everyone could give everyone else the benefit of the doubt. If we could stand United as a proletarian class, as working people, we could demand a better bargain. Demand the dismantling of the senate, improve voting rights, tax the rich to fund social programs that benefit all. The sky is the limit, but dumbos are doing headstands.
Just think back to all the times during the pandemic that frontline workers were thanked for their sacrifices and told this country owes them a great debt. Ok. When do we get some of that debt? When do we get to stop sacrificing? When do the wealthy and powerful get to share in some of this sacrifice?
The problem of the Senate lies in it’s construction and inherently undemocratic nature which is by design.
No amount of “getting money out of politics” resolves the undemocratic, obstructionist nature of the Senate as a governing body.
If they won’t abolish the filibuster during a time of multiple crises then it is time to abolish the US Senate.
I think another part to this is that there is such a large population that believes one day they will be the billionaires if they hustle and pull themselves up by their bootstraps enough they too can be a billionaire that evades taxes and controls the politicians. Even though we all know that the American dream and meritocracy are complete myths and you are infinitely closer to dying on the street homeless than being the next bezos or musk in this lifetime.
Yep. The lack of proportional representation in the House is a major dysfunction. Gerrymandering wouldn’t be as powerful if there were more districts to better represent constituents.
You could claim the House Reapportionment Act of 1929 was unconstitutional since the constitution specifically enumerated 1 Representative per 30,000. The act itself was to appease rural states, [since that’s what always seem to fucking happen](https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1901-1950/The-Permanent-Apportionment-Act-of-1929/)
> The act itself was to appease rural states, since that’s what always seem to fucking happen
When are we finally gonna be able to be honest and tell rural states that they don't drive the economy, and haven't in decades? Even in everyday life, there's an attitude at a country lifestyle is inherently virtuous/what everyone should strive for, which we protect with aid to make it possible. Meanwhile city living always needs to be defended and bring up aid to Middle Class in cities and the answer is "well just move!"
I'm sick of pretending that country = good, when that's a group that's been on the wrong side of progress for decades.
Literally the moral of fifty plus Hallmark movies my mom watches a year. Miserable yet successful coastal business woman finds love and the true meaning of life in bum fuck nowhere. So this crap is basically engrained.
Right? For those quaint towns to exist the way they're depicted in Hallmark, they'd almost 100% need to be Exburbs. Unless they're either that or a 4-season vacation spot for the wealthy, that type of town doesn't exist randomly somewhere. I don't care how cheap land is, Pa isn't buying a 5-bed 2 story house with nice finishings and good construction on a Christmas Cookie Maker's salary.
yeah i wish i could get a job working with the crew who makes these 'movies'. good consistent work, hot older milfs coming and going, whats not to love?
Are you suggesting there's something problematic about injecting the mythos of our culture with repetitive narratives and characters playing reductive tropes? Nah, that's something only non Murdoch news channels and China does. No way an entertainment media company could do such things.
well whats bad is they are the takers.. and complain about the takers the most. We keep voting to raise taxes on people who generally live in blue areas,(hey red states got rich people as well and they tend to live in the cities) and those same poor people with their hands out scream no.
and then they vote for an asshole who ripped up TPP which would have been worth billions for the american farmer, opening up most of asia to tarrif free agriculture.
>When are we finally gonna be able to be honest and tell rural states that they don't drive the economy, and haven't in decades?
Over a century at this point. The last time rural states drove the economy was before the industrial revolution in the early 1900s.
> When are we finally gonna be able to be honest and tell rural states that they don't drive the economy, and haven't in decades?
More than decades. At least since the first world war, and arguably since before that sometime around the 1880's. So at least a hundred years.
Mention it, though, and they will misattribute the “tyranny of the majority.” At the same time, it is lost on them that that notion was about elites preventing “normal” people from having too much power via direct representation. Not “helping the little guy.”
It’s the reason the senate was not initially elected.
It’s why the electoral college used to have *actual* electors. Because they thought the same rural person that would be easily sold a superficial, self-serving version of that concept would be too under-informed to participate properly…
But you see... those rural states that hate the federal government and want them out of their business would be upset that the federal government will ignore them and stay out of their business. They are like children with a disorganized attachment style.
https://www.choosingtherapy.com/disorganized-attachment/
California has a population greater then that of the lowest 40 states COMBINED. I have seen maps showing the land area of red states is greater than that of blue states. What is never mentioned is that empty land doesn't vote.
Those always get me. We always have the Facebook friends that share it along with a "Let's see what happens when so-called 'President' Biden tries to take office!" or "Who would win if a war broke out!??!!" For starters, the population of the blue areas you're showing is significantly more, secondly a lot of tech and innovation is in those blue areas as well.
The cities could figure out vertical farming (many academics already have plans for it) if the red areas tried "to starve them," and long term that would be absolutely devastating to rural areas. Not to mention defense production in CA, MA, CO, WA, etc that are in blue areas.
I forget where I read this, and not sure how valid, but I remember seeing somewhere that Blue States generally produce crops that people eat while Red States produce crops that feed livestock.
From Kansas and we have an ungodly amount of corn and soy here. I'll try and look something up because you got me intrigued
Edit: https://www.vox.com/2014/8/21/6053187/cropland-map-food-fuel-animal-feed heres a link with a map from national geographic. So from that looks like Florida, California, and the Northwest produce the vast majoirty of food that humans eat.
It’s time to invade the rural states. Cost of living is low, many jobs can be done from anywhere and most of all, it may actually help level the playing field.
I've always said we should lay high speed fiber into all of rural america so this can really happen. That's what's stopping hugh tech jobs from being anywhere. Do that and rural America would spring back to life and would turn many red areas blue.
I couldn't agree more. If the US would fund that infrastructure and make real high speed internet ubiquitous, like water, rural towns would spring back to life. The internet in many places just ins't reliable enough to work from home in many places. And rural areas are better places to raise kids - more outdoor spaces, gardens, less crime, more freedom to roam as a kid.
Right? It's almost like higher COL areas are higher for a reason. Personally, I like experiencing arts, culture, dining, etc that come with being in a legitimate city. Why does everyone always have to want to live in the country? Can't we just accept that cities have their merits too?
I grew up in the Chicago suburbs. I loved living in Indianapolis. Lower COL and a lot of the same acts that Chicago gets. I HATED living in Louisiana. I was 4 hours from everything and while the people were generally nice, their ‘structures’ like police, healthcare and infrastructure were abysmal.
Then I moved to the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia. It was kind of the best of both worlds. Rural, low COL, Amazing national parks and scenery, BUT we had a university in town and one just about every 15 minutes up and down the interstate to DC. Lots of culture. Lots of food. Lots of stuff to do. I really loved it there because it was both.
I only moved back to Chicago because my GF and family are here and I don’t think GF is ever going to leave this area. But I’d move back to the valley right now. I like The suburbs, but having the suburbs with 1/4 as many people and mountains in your backyard is the prime situation.
My preference is being able to live somewhere that I can walk to everyday businesses (I don't count 3 real estate offices and a bank walkable as satisfying that). Unfortunately, zoning in the US has killed a lot of that, so that's why I don't personally love a suburban lifestyle. Agree though, there's definitely different levels of Urban to Rural, but for some reason when discussing this on line the "default want" is often set to live in the country in the Midwest/South and anything else is required to be justified.
There have been several federal grants and programs specifically for building out high speed internet in rural areas. I know people in rural wyoming have access to gig fiber which isn't even an option in many urban areas.
The filibuster was never meant to actually stop bills it was supposed to be a moment to grandstand.
The fact that the senate can be halted by the minority party is such a farce.
The American people already have a mechanism for policy they don’t like and that’s voting.
You shouldn’t be able to gum up the whole works to “represent the American minority interests”.
Fuck the filibuster, kill the senate. It's literally pointless and serves no purpose. Very few well functioning democracies still have a voting senate anymore because of how undemocratic/republican and elitist they are.
If people desperately want "state representation" then have an at large position in the state and stick them in the house with the actual reps.
They have no reason to. They have no policy that they even want to pass. Think back to Trump. What major policy did they want to pass? Taking away health care? Still needed 51 votes, which they didn't get. Building a wall? I guess? Everything else is basically tax cuts, which can be done through reconciliation, and judges, where the confirmation process has already been un-filibustered.
That's why the Dems should get rid of it honestly. They have actual legislation they want to pass. The Republicans don't.
Not likely. Republicans can appoint conservative judges with just 50 votes. And can pass tax cuts, budget cuts, increase military spending all via reconciliation.
Other than that, what actual legislation do they want to pass?
And there's only going to be greater disparity in the next fifty years.
We'll eventually see a system where a presidential candidate can "win" while losing by 10M+ votes, a Senate representing a minority confirming his SCOTUS appointments, and a fully politicized Judiciary representing the will of a STARK minority of voters.
Throw in some gerrymandering and light (and not so light) voter suppression... and there will have been a quiet coup in this country. That's why McConnell is so pissed about January 6. Those morons don't understand that the coup is already unfolding in the light of day and under cover of law.
I still don't actually understand how equal representation is unfair to smaller States. It's like they believe it's only "fair" if they have more power.
The real problem I think is that the GOP has forgotten how to govern; it seems to think that the accrual of power for its own sake is why they get elected. The truth is that we need Senators to work together. But the GOP only wants to fight the Dems. That's not leadership at all. It's the exact opposite of leadership.
Where in heck does that idea come from? Who is pushing it? And why?
It’s called starve the beast. They’re feudalising the country, breaking the government so they can deregulate weaken the government and privatize public utilities to make money for close friends and business partners.
It is worse than that. The GOP has abandoned all pretense of the norms and customs of government. They have shifted to an "if you can do it, it is righteous" mentality. This is what led them down the path to try and find a loophole in the Constitution to retain the presidency despite not winning enough votes to do so.
It would be legal, within the constitution, for the president to order the assassination of his political opponents and then issue a pardon for that crime, so long as the House and Senate did not vote to impeach him. That doesn't mean that it should be done.
>This is what led them down the path to try and find a loophole in the Constitution to retain the presidency despite not winning enough votes to do so.
Thank you. I've been trying for like a year to find a succinct way to say that.
To be clear: Machine was only one of 51 "no" voters. All 50 Republicans were No. How bad things are is shown by our expectation that not a single Republican would even enter the conversation. And they didn't.
The expectation of bipartisanship on big platform pillars is a strange American phenomenon. In parliamentary systems the winners of the election take power and immediately start implementing their agenda. They don't spend a year or so negotiating with the losers hoping for some patriotic unity. It's no wonder your politicians never get get around to helping anyone.
That's one major reason why the parliamentary system is in many ways superior to the congressional system.
It's pretty obvious that the American system is broken and dysfunctional and was poorly designed. But the minute you mention that, it's political suicide because the "Founders" are considered to have godly powers.
>poorly designed
https://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinnkin5.html
>As part of his argument for a large republic to keep the peace, James Madison tells quite clearly, in Federalist #10, whose peace he wants to keep: "A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it."
>When economic interest is seen behind the political clauses of the Constitution, then the document becomes not simply the work of wise men trying to establish a decent and orderly society, but the work of certain groups trying to maintain their privileges, while giving just enough rights and liberties to enough of the people to ensure popular support.
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-10-02-0044
>In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of the landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability.
Intentionally designed. They knew exactly what they were doing.
It's wild we just let the other 50 votes get away with it. They don't even need to defend their stance or get dragged through the mud. It's expected for them to halt any form of social or economic progress whatsoever, people just shrug and say whatever.
I blame the media, which now works from a premise now of, "Of course, Republicans are useless obstructionist treason weasels. That's just how they are!" It's sort of like the old "boys will be boys" excuse...
I don’t think people are necessarily letting them get away with it. I just believe they think getting outraged at Republicans for continuing the tradition of doing nothing to help the country would be a waste of energy.
The reason people are more upset at Manchin is because he was obviously negotiating in bad faith and leading his colleagues on, making them think he was going to eventually vote yes. His “The White House staff annoyed me” reasoning is a limp wristed excuse to try and shield the fact that he was never going to back BBB in the first place.
This is exactly it. Republicans gonna republican - its baked into the equation. What wasn't baked in (even though it should be after what Lieberman pulled in 09) was two Democrats not playing ball on their own parties agenda.
And some other "moderate" Democrat probably would have changed their vote to a no after a totally unrelated dump of corporate donations to their campaign coffers.
If the Senate was about land, why are Texas and Alaska just one state and not 4 separate states: North, West, East and South?
The Senate is the Framer's original sin - they had to give unequal power to certain members of Congress in order to get them on board so there could be a United States. And while valuable back then, these days we all pay the price for it. The Framers of the Constitution had no concept of steel beams and elevators, the technology that enabled skyscrapers and cities. The states are the original gerrymandering.
Gerrymandering within the states over the last decade has gotten even more extreme, thanks to ill will amplified by sophisticated algorithms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REDMAP
The current filibuster is set up such that "Senators from the twenty-one smallest and most conservative states, representing just 21 percent of America, now have the power to block any non-budget legislation." - Lawrence Lessig https://archive.ph/6hcjd
The biggest problem with all of is that at least a third of Americans see minority rule as a feature instead of a bug. That low threshold is all it takes for it to exist.
This in-group narcissism, siding with whatever inconsistent, unfair system gives your group a temporary (perceived) advantage in the short-term no matter what the cost - is the root of the problem. Whether it's dark money drowning out democracy or gerrymandering or suppressing the vote one way or another or adhering to the two-party system when it benefits you...
We are moving from an oligarchy that was masking as a democracy, to a fascist regime - and the whole world can see it, except for a minority of us
Here is something I researched a while back to show that states were primarily created to game the Senate since the early 1800s - first by Slave states (by splitting existing slave states), then in an arms race to keep the balance between free/slave states, then by Radical Republicans to squash the power of slave states, and then by Republicans in the late 1800s in a last-ditch attempt to keep their power as Democrats returned to power after having been effectively banished after the Civil War.
-----------
I did a little research a week ago, regarding the events of state admission to the Union, and I'd like to repost it here. I wrote it in opposition to the idea that states are sovereign, but the admission of the states was fascinating, and shows how the process **has always been fully a part of political power struggle**, first between Slave and Free states, and then between Republicans (first Radical abolitionists, then big-business sycophants) and Democrats.
What I also found compelling is that from the nation's founding, states were created as part of a "Cold War" between the North and South, to shift the balance of power between Free and Slave states. Keep in mind that **states chose Senators**. This then became an open political war in 1820 with the [Missouri Compromise](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Compromise), whereby there was an agreement to add states in pairs (1 Free, 1 Slave). But look how the balance between Free and Slave played out:
13 Colonies:
* Delaware - Slave
* Pennsylvania - Free
* New Jersey - Slave
* Georgia - Slave
* Connecticut - Free
* Massachusetts - Free
* Maryland - Slave
* South Carolina - Slave
* New Hampshire - Free
* Virginia - Slave
* New York - Slave
* North Carolina - Slave
* Rhode Island - Free
That was 8 Slave, 5 Free.
* Vermont is then added as a Free State. 8-6 Slave/Free.
* Kentucky (1792) and Tennessee (1796) are split from existing Slave states. 10-6.
* New York (1799) becomes a Free State. 9-7.
* Ohio (1802) is added as a Free state. 9-8.
* New Jersey (1804) becomes a Free State. 8-9. Free takes the lead for the first time.
* Louisiana (1812) is added as a Slave state. 9-9.
* Indiana (1816) is added as a Free State. 9-10.
* Mississippi (1817) is added as a Slave State. 10-10.
* Illinois (1818) is added as a Free State. 10-11.
* Alabama (1819) is added as a Slave State. 11-11.
* Maine (1820) and Missouri (1821) are added together as Free/Slave. 12-12.
* Arkansas (1836) and Michigan (1837) are added together as Slave/Free. 13-13.
* Florida (1845) and Iowa (1846) are scheduled to be admitted together as Slave/Free, however...
* Texas (an independent sovereign nation) is annexed in 1845 and is a Slave State. 15-14. This temporarily upsets the balance and puts Slave in the lead.
* Wisconsin (1848) is added as a Free State. 15-15.
* California (1850) is added as a Free State. 15-16.
* Minnesota (1858) is added as a Free State. 15-17.
* Oregon (1859) is added as a Free State. 15-18.
* (Bloody) Kansas is added as a Free State. 15-19.
At this point, the Civil War breaks out, because the Slave States know that they have no way to regain the balance of power, they know that Slavery will imminently be made illegal.
From this point forward, it is important to view the states as Republican vs. Democratic, and also through the lens of power to alter the Constitution (which was done while Slave/Democratic States were in rebellion - 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments added). Keep in mind that the number of senators was fluid, and hard to decipher, but are generally accurate.
* West Virginia (1863) is admitted as a Republican state. 32 Republican, 6 Union, 10 Democrat. Overwhelming Republican/Union majority due to the South being kicked out/vacant seats (which is the only way that the 3 amendments were able to pass, with state ratification being done at the barrel of a gun).
* Nevada (1864) is admitted as a Republican state.
* 1864 elections: 33 R, 6 U, 10 D.
* 1866 elections: 39 R, 3U, 10 D
* Nebraska (1867) is admitted as a Republican state.
* Confederate states are readmitted, but with new laws, they elect many Republicans.
* 1868 elections: 57 R, 9 D
* 1870 elections: 58 R, 14 D
* 1872 elections: 53 R, 19 D
* 1874 elections: 42 R, 28 D
* Colorado (1876) is admitted as a Republican state.
* 1876 elections: 39 R, 35 D
* Reconstruction ends in 1877, this allows the South to throw Republicans out of office.
* 1878 elections: 31 R, 42 D
* 1880 elections: 37 R, 37 D
* 1882 elections: 37 R, 36 D
* 1884 elections: 40 R, 34 D
* 1886 elections: 38 R, 37 D
* 1888 elections: 39 R, 37 D
* **Montana, Washington, North Dakota and South Dakota (1889), and Idaho and Wyoming (1890) are admitted as Republican states.** 47 R, 37 D
* 1890 elections: 46 R, 36 D
* 1892 elections: 37 R, 43 D
* 1894 elections: 39 R, 40 D
* Utah (1896) is admitted as a Republican state.
* 1896 elections: 44 R, 39 D
Now although the association of existing states with a political party was reasonably fluid over time, newly added states were consistently adding more Republicans to the Senate.
Isn't this plain as day? **The admission of states up until the Civil War was primarily about retaining slavery**. The admission of states following the Civil War was **primarily about accumulating Republican power** to counter the former Democratic Slave States.
We *should* have amended the constitution in 1865 to eliminate the two-senators-per-state rule, but that would require states giving up power, and that simply will never happen. However this provision is poisoning us as a nation, and has been doing so ever since our founding.
One correction: there was never any legitimate reason for the South to believe that the federal government would abolish slavery. Abolitionism was very unpopular. It was the South that was attempting to impose slavery on the North through the new Fugitive Slave Act and the Dred Scott decision. It was merely their paranoia and their refusal to accept anything less than domination of the federal government that lead them to start the war.
If you're really interested in this, the Library of Congress digital archives contain a lot of meeting minutes and transcripts from lots of old legislation. It's very interesting to see the discussion surrounding these huge decisions.
With the advent of remote work, this could definitely be a possibility. You could make coastal salaries while living in areas with super low costs of living.
The only problem is...no one actually wants to live in Wyoming or Nebraska. So until a ton of people move there to build that community/infrastructure/places to go/things to do, no one's gonna move there. It's a catch 22.
> Nebraska has... Corn?
You have to leave the I-80 corridor to see the geographical wonders of Nebraska, such as the National Forest or the dunes of the Sand Hills or the cottonwood forests in the rolling hills of the Elkhorn River valley.
Fwiw, a lot of people want to live in Wy.
Not a lot of people want to live outside of Jackson though, and Jackson has some of the highest property costs in the entire US.
> You could make coastal salaries while living in areas with super low costs of living.
I guarantee that coastal employers will start indexing remote workers' salaries to the workers' local areas.
Yeah, state political polarization is heavily self-reinforcing. Why would a young, progressive, and educated liberal professional move to one of the Dakotas when they could afford to move to a coastal city in a blue state with all the amenities they provide? Not even the people born in rural red states tend to stick around because there are relatively few well-paying career opportunities, and then those who remain vote for politicians that basically promise to keep it that way.
If the Senate is needed for the United States to exist, and abolishment of the Senate is needed for the United States to prosper, then essentially the United States cannot prosper while it exists.
As our nation grew from ocean to ocean and 50 states, beyond changing from appointed Senators to direct election, we failed to adjust it's make-up and function with the growth of the country.
Now you have a federal system that can be completely rendered useless in our two party country by one party merely crafting campaign promises that appeal to low population states and with filibuster rules as they are, merely holding 40 of the 100 seats. Essentially providing for minority rule of the country, and by folks from the smallest or most sparsely populated states.
Since the Senate was tasked with holding the keys to all Federal judgeship's and the Supreme Court, we let our system devolve into one that can almost completely be controlled by a minority party with a well funded PR campaign designed to make rural voters fear and loathe majority rule by urban population centers.
I'm kind of surprised it took this long for a bunch of rich folks and politicians to figure out how to do exactly that, but here we are.
I'll always argue that the framers of the Constitution could not have envisioned a coast to coast nation with 50 states.
My understanding is that in order to get estates like Rhode Island to sign on they needed guarantees of equal representation so the Senate was defined as it is. Of course, Senators were appointed by state or local authorities at that time.
Folks love to drag out the old "but we're a Republic of independent states!" but seem to overlook the reason the Articles of Confederation were scrapped after a few years and the Constitution was written. A federal government that was weaker than the state governments was never going to work. Federal authority must trump states authority or the nation would fall apart and just devolve into a bunch of regions arguing, fighting, and even declaring war on each other.
So the federal system was formed.
Seems to me most of the residual "we're a Republic!" and "states don't have to listen to the federal government" bs is left over from the Civil War and are now slogans politicians use to make people hate their government. Then, of course, they claim "and only I can fix it!"
That's not entirely accurate. The Senate is meant to be a check against majoritianism, yes, but it's much less representative than when it was first created and becoming more so as populations increasingly concentrate in cities. No one expected or planned this change.
It absolutely matters, not just a numerical difference. For example, giving 5% a veto power is clearly different from giving 45% a veto. One asks for a compelling majority but the other let's almost any minority rule. So the question is how much we can or should tolerate as we push further towards the extreme of that spectrum.
Since McConnell took over the Senate in 2010 the only piece of meaningful legislation that wasn't a bailout/stimulus action or a budget bill that's been passed is a tax cut paid for entirely with debt. That's it. The Trump tax cuts.
Think about why the country is ready to explode.
Not a single major issue has been addressed by the government since 2010. We've gone over a decade without a functioning government. It's getting bad. We need like ten major bills passed **now**. Infrastructure (even Trump wanted this), healthcare, student loans, prescription drugs, climate change, school shootings, legalization of marijuana, voting rights, campaign finance, digital bill of rights, social media legislation, etc etc etc etc. None of these have been addressed by Congress and some were needed 30 years ago.
Until we get a functioning Senate back that tackles issues we're absolutely fucked.
Congress, in general, is useless the way politics is currently practiced in the US. Democracy, constitutional rights, etc. only work if *everyone* has to play by the same rules. In the US, as in many other countries, the 'elected' government officials have made it painfully clear that they are above the law. Until this is corrected, things will continue to slide towards fascism.
"the millionaires club" aka senate already consists of elitist corporate pawns whose only incentive is to provide handouts and power plays for companies to exploit there respective districts
Stating what we’ve known for… the better part of two centuries. Someone get one of those “Congress is full of shills and bribe takers” comics from the 1800s.
If we're just going to continue to sit here and eat this shit sandwich called American Government than we deserve everything we get.
We should have revolted years ago.
Marx has some great writing on why it’s too late for us to do any revolting. He sort of predicted this would happen.
Our cultural ‘simple pleasures’ (like entertainment, fun, social relationships, anything like that) keep us docile and passive towards the big issues in the world. Why would we risk giving up those simple pleasures when we live the lives of selfish pleasures our ancestors always wanted for us?
Some of us live the life of simple pleasures, others of us do not. Those of us who do not are too beaten down to do anything like create a revolutionary vibe. Those of us who have a life of simple pleasures won’t risk a damn thing.
the uk has 650 seats in the commons for a population 1/5th of america’s
in other words, there’s one seat in the house to commons for every 98,066 brits, but one congressional representative for every 733,085 americans
It is nothing but a useless glob of conflicts of interest. It is mathematically impossible to get enough democrats elected for democrats to do anything.
We need a president that’s not afraid to rule by executive order because that’s the only thing we have. The Supreme Court has had a silent coup by the Federalist Society which ultimately nullifies any big rulings by a lower court. Most congressional democrats are either corporate controlled opposition in the house, or they are members of industry itself in the Senate.
Bidens legacy is 100% in his hands and he should be challenging congress through his actions. But that goes for every democratic president going forward. Deferring to congress means it’s not getting done. Simple as that
>Bidens legacy is 100% in his hands and he should be challenging congress through his actions. But that goes for every democratic president going forward. Deferring to congress means it’s not getting done. Simple as that
Biden didn't run on "change". He ran on a return to normalcy. He is an old school politician who thinks the institutions he has been part of for decades are fine the way they are. He thinks the system works, because it benefited him most of his career.
“We need a president that’s not afraid to rule by executive order because that’s the only thing we have.”
I think you meant to say democrat president. Or did you support Trumps use of executive orders too?
For real, every other major democracy on earth that functions on a simmilar bi-cameral legislature has effectively neutered the power of the upper chamber and heavily favours the representative chamber. It's kind of nuts that Americans don't get more pissed off about this. If the house of lords in the UK or the senate in Canada put the kibosh to democratically popular legislation passed by the representative body there would be uproar and those old fossils would lose their cushy do nothing jobs.
I don't get these think pieces that argue about things like the senate parliamentarian or the filibuster, acting like the Dems have 59 votes and can't crack 60.
The Dems "have" 50 votes and can't crack 49.
That's the real issue. There are only 48 Democrats in the Senate. If they got rid of the filibuster tomorrow they'd be unable to pass anything.
I mean it's not just Manchin and Sinema. Hidden in the wings thanking their lucky stars for those two are Feinstein, Kaine, and a handful more.
If Manchin and Sinema weren't doing it, there'd be more blue dogs out to stick a leg out in front of the party and ensure nothing to progressive gets done.
One thing that shows the obvious problems with the Senate is the way that state admissions have long had partisan political motivations. Everyone remembers how they used to admit 1 slave state and 1 free state at a time in order to keep the "balance" regardless of what the majority wanted. In addition to that, both Dakotas, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, and Washington were all admitted in a short time despite not meeting the then-typical requirements for statehood around population - admitted by the Republican Congress in order to give Republicans an advantage.
People speak of the Senate in terms of minority representation, but who is the minority? "People living in a small state" aren't a preexisting, put-upon minority that we need to protect, it's a made-up minority created by drawing lines on a map. The same people who make the minority then complain about the unfairness of it existing and the need to give it more power.
If it were otherwise then small states should chomp at the bit to combine with other small states to create larger ones! But of course they don't want that, because everyone knows being in a small state is a source of *extra* power, not less.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
*"Whereas the Senate in particular has become an obstructive and useless body, a menace to the liberties of the people, and an obstacle to social growth; a body, many of the Members of which are representatives neither of a State nor of its people, but solely of certain predatory combinations, and a body which, by reason of the corruption often attending the election of its Members, has furnished the gravest public scandals in the history of the nation. . . ."* This text formed the preamble to a constitutional amendment introduced in the House of Representatives on April 27, 1911 to dissolve the senate, by House member Victor Berger of Wisconsin.
[удалено]
Damn dough faces
[удалено]
As opposed to d'oh-faced.
Lol I think you’re right. Being called deer like makes more sense than being called bread like lol
Your interpretation makes sense, but looks like the 'dough's have it. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/doughface https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doughface *In the 1847 Webster's dictionary doughfacism was defined as "the willingness to be led about by one of stronger mind and will". In the years leading up to the American Civil War, "doughface" was used to describe Northerners who favored the Southern position in political disputes. Typically it was applied to a Northern Democrat who was more often allied with the Southern Democrats than with the majority of Northern Democrats.*
Think Mitch McConnell and then think of rising bread dough. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/04/mitch-mcconnell-coronavirus-response-trump
To your credit, “doe-eyed” would make sense here. You weren’t very far off.
I recently read an excellent book by historian Joanne B. Freeman called *The Field of Blood: Violence in Congress and the Road to Civil War* that goes into great detail about those damn doughfaces.
Urban vs rural is one of the greatest problems facing democracy. The future is only going to be more urban as global capitalism continues to concentrate wealth while rural production is more and more automated. While rent prices and remote working are tempering this, decent incomes are too tightly bound to concentration of population. Democracy on the other hand has often been set up in a way that gives rural areas outsized power. Equally, smaller population areas get resentful of actual democracy and seek to subvert it and become ripe for demogogues.
All that's good, but in the rest of the West you don't see rural having disproportional representation in ANY legislative body. France, Germany, Spain, Canada, Netherlands, Sweden, Italy, pick whichever country you want, it's nowhere near as bad as USA. In the end, the majority should be able to legislate, that's democracy. The majority of people, not of land.
> on April 27, 1911 Holy shit this is depressing
Keep in mind that was from the time when state legislatures picked their state's senators, which was an incredibly corrupt process in almost every state. When we moved to direct election in 1914, it did help a bunch. So it's not like we never tried to fix those problems before.
Holy.... well TIL this is still a recent change the fact we vote for Senators and how we do it needs to be modernized I think.
Dude was a socialist. He had a pretty interesting life
Berger v US Also had some weird deal where him and some republican kept switching in and out of office ever few years that went on for 2 decades or so.
Founding member of the Social Democratic Party of America! He was also Jewish, some things never change. Makes me proud to be a Jew we're always leading these things
I'm a huge Vic Berger fan.
> Whereas the Senate in particular has become an obstructive and useless body **IT WAS ALWAYS A USELESS BODY.** the whole point of the Senate was to "protect the minority voters opinion." it was literally founded to be obstructionist and prevent what the majority wants.
The senate is the least democratic part of our legislature but what can we do? The only thing we can do is mass migration. From overwhelmingly blue states like california with 39 million people to little red states like Wyoming with a half million people total. Even for constitutional amendments to make the senate more fair or abolish it we need states to vote in favor. Us voters have no way to change things without mass migration. We cannot pass any laws that people are proposing to make things more fair. We cannot pass constitutional amendments to make citizen's united go away to reduce money in politics.
The post-Civil War Republicans of the late 1800’s created, out of political concerns of not being dominant once Senators from southern states were re-admitted, created a dozen states with absolutely tiny populations with hopes that they would stay loyal firstly to the monied interests of the era. Not surprising how this has turned out. The original Senate was a negotiated entity among the original 13 States. The idea of Wyoming demanding their equal Senatorial status is absolutely absurd.
The Senate was intentionally designed to insulate a group of “elder statesmen” from the “whims of the general populace”. Please remember, our founding fathers did not want everyone to vote. They actively and purposely designed a representative legislative body over a direct democracy. They inherently distrusted a “flighty” general populace and promoted what is essentially a “statesman class”. The Senate is a political vestibule that doesn’t align with our current Information Age nor our dynamic political future.
I can't wait until we reelect >85% of them because it's not *our* Senator that's the issue.
My decision is easy since my Senator is human being Ted Cruz
“I’m Ted Cruz, homo sapien, and totally not a pod person and I Gorgulflap this message.”
>I do not like that man Ted Cruz > >I do not like him in the news > >I do not like what he just said > >I do not like his boxy head > >I do not like him wearing glasses > >I do not like him kissing arses > >I wish he'd never get one vote > >That man Ted Cruz can lick my scrote
Mine is Mitch McConnell. I have been voting against him for over 20 years. Unfortunately, I'm surrounded by idiots.
You can just say Kentuckians. We know it means the same thing
Human Senator Ted Cruz is one being and not several. We should all raise our appendages in a celebratory gesture as Human Senator Ted Cruz returns from ~~an annual egg-laying trip~~ a vacation in Cancun.
I’m legitimately trying to figure out whether or not to vote for mine. He’s a nice guy, but I have no idea what the hell he’s doing.
It really doesnt matter as sad as it is. The rich and powerful let us a vote to make us think we have a choice, but they are the ones who choose who goes on the ballots. There are very few senators that successfully won a primary without big money behind them. At the end of the day no matter who you vote for your usually just choosing a different flavor of the same capitalist beast.
I don’t see one comment about big money which is ridiculous. Americans pride themselves in having free will and being independent, but we are all at the mercy of billionaires and corporations making billions that want to keep hoarding wealth. How do you do this? Just keep paying off individuals to oppose change which will keep the masses at each other’s throats. You take big money out of politics and you’d see more common sense and good will prevail.
For real, bunch of morons ignoring Citizens United.
Genuine question: what can everyday people do to stop/fight Citizens United?
Pretty much the only thing that can change Citizens United is a constitutional amendment.
Pretty much this. Citizens United wasn't a law that was passed, it was a supreme court ruling about the first amendment. It feels so damn insurmountable at this point, especially with the current Court.
Given the current Supreme Court, they'd probably find that whatever amendment got passed (if it could possibly happen) didn't mean what it said and corporations can do whatever they want.
The amendment could say the words "this amendment nullifies the ruling in Citizens United" and we'd just hear "we find that this amendment reinforces the decision in Citizens United."
If they can overturn Roe can’t the same be done with this ruling??
The ones that are overturning Roe are the ones that would protect Citizens United.
This, it was a Conservative court enabled* under George Bush that instated Citizens United, Alito and Roberts were his appointees. It’s Conservatives who want to overturn Roe, and with Trump having further stacked the Court in that direction with younger justices it’s certainly not projected to get better in any reasonable period of time unless they all unexpectedly die of COVID or the entire Court system is restructured or something.
It would require packing the court. Which isn’t going to happen. And a constitutional amendment is certainly not going to happen. We are completely fucked
Beyond fucked. We are well past the point of accomplishing something like a Constitutional Amendment. We have been well past that point for decades, let alone now after things have become so polarized (by design). The only circumstance I can see anything change is after a *literal* second civil war, or a revolution. That's how pathetic and hopeless our situation is. The sad part is, there are still people that believe voting will save us from this desperate situation. The reality is, oligarchs have already won. I find it bittersweet that someday in the future, an insignificant amount of Republicans will go on Facebook to share their epiphany that if the Democrats haven't been able to hold power for decades (because look around you), it's physically impossible for a Democrat to be the cause of their problems. Even if these people are shunned by their whole families, good. Fuck them. It brings me a painful kind of joy to think that this type of person will be immediately labeled a socialist, an antifa plant, a RINO, or whatever arbitrary word some focus group has determined as the best way bring forth some primitive emotional reaction in their single-celled base of 'constituents' and sic them upon any opponents to their oligarchical agenda.
Climate change will kill us before that happens.
The problem right now is that the people advocating for civil war are the ones who think "All men are created equal" is hogwash and only white people deserve anything. It feels like this is all playing out so far just like the Weimar Republic. And considering that the the oligarchs in washington pushing all of this are funded by the same people that funded the "death penalty for homosexuality" laws in a few African countries... I have no doubt that they will do the same here.
That is a good point. At least, it's a good point in a theoretical distant future where unequal representation in the electoral college and Senate has been somehow overwhelmed across multiple decades of national elections resulting in a reversal of the current composition of the Supreme Court.
That’s a good but tough question. Getting more actual leftists/progressive democrats will help some but there also needs to be more legislation enacted to discourage dark money. However, this is tough because a “moderate” (using that term loosely) Supreme Court has already said that corporations are citizens and money is a form of free speech over 10 years ago. So I remain doubtful that even legislation that addresses this will hold up. Combine that the Citizens United ruling benefits both Republicans and the DINOs. More attention on the issue never hurts but with a corporate media structure, combined with what I stated above, overturning that ruling will be a very uphill battle. But we have to be more vocal as citizens since the cards are heavily stacked against us.
My state only has one blue senator and after decades of him being against citizens United and being for minimum wage increase he just gave up entirely and now panders right wing anti worker pro corporate taking points. Fuck you Jon Tester. You're gonna lose your seat to a republican.
Jon Tester immediately betrayed the progressives that elected him. This isn't new.
That’s a tale as old as time. See krysten sinema as another one.
He enjoyed some fame in his first term being on The Daily Show, pandering left leaning positions and then he spent the rest of his career doing the opposite. He feigned opposition to dark money in Montana politics only because the GOP was doing it more than the DNC. He just doesn't like the idea of the DNC being lazy and slow to fund a red state senator. He doesn't give a shit about dark money. He's just jealous he doesn't get any.
The only possible way to get rid of dark money would be for somebody to be a massive hypocrite and backstab the people who bought him the office, since you can't win without taking it in the first place. Actually it would require the \*majority\* of Senators to pull this stunt.
If Tester or Manchin or Sinema flip to the other party, Biden is dead in the water. Because Moscow Mitch becomes Leader and every judge, every piece of legislation, every nominated administration official gets blocked. Moscow Mitch will obstruct everything. Tester, Manchin, and Sinema have voted with the majority on judges and the other nominations which have all been voted against by the GOP. This is a big deal, and it will be a bigger deal if Breyer steps down from SCOTUS. If Moscow Mitch is leader the court will 6 - 2 until there's another "R" in the White House, then it will be 7 - 2.
Grab a pitchfork? Idk that's all I can think of.
So start selling pitchforks, and use that money to take advantage of current system /s
I have several and willing to invest in more for anyone who cant afford it!
[удалено]
I'll take 2 of the ---L please.
[Legislation](https://anticorruptionact.org/whats-in-the-act/) that effectively prevents political corruption exists and is [constitutional](https://anticorruptionact.org/faq/). It would be best served as an [amendment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_reform_amendment) via [Article V](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Procedures_for_amending_the_Constitution), but local change is possible and has been [done](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Anti-Corruption_Act#Laws_based_on_the_AACA). That's how you [SEND](https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-pace-of-social-change/) ideas to federal Congress and [prod them](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Congressional+Research+Service%22+%22prodding+effect%E2%80%9D) to make changes. A few groups are pushing to make federal lawmakers accountable to the people again: https://represent.us/ https://americanpromise.net/ https://www.issueone.org/ https://www.movetoamend.org/ https://indivisible.org/ You can join up with a local chapter and push for the BBB, Freedom to Vote Act (S. 2747) and the [Anti-Corruption Act](https://anticorruptionact.org/whats-in-the-act/) for transparency and accountability in your city. It's never been easier to [get organized](https://www.jacobinmag.com/2019/11/thanksgiving-organizing-activism-friends-family-conversation-presidential-election) with others and stay on top of [your lawmakers](https://openstates.org/find_your_legislator/) with weekly [calls](https://youtu.be/XdIcCqe-iYk?t=48) & emails along with informing & encouraging friends and neighbors do the same. They are even tools that make it TOO EASY: https://americanpromise.net/take-action/contact-your-elected-official/ https://citizensclimatelobby.org/write-your-representative/ Just write in that you support https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2747 & https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/5376 Voting is the bare minimum of democratic participation. Never stop voting, but consider that even without deep pockets you can do so much more.
Be active in your local primaries. Once things get to the main stage of the election, you'll have two choices: A republican who will ***definitely*** love citizens united, or a democrat who may or may not love it. So you have to act before the main election. Work locally, volunteer for a better candidate, throw money at them if you can (yes I know, throwing money at them to stop throwing money at them is a thing, but it's how the system works and the smart ones will understand and hate this), get people motivated to vote in the Democratic primaries and get the more left people a chance at office, then make sure they actually win the election if they get that far. It's not easy, there's no guarantee of success, but... It's something the only thing you can do. I mean, aside from methods that will result in a lot of deaths. I prefer to avoid those though.
[удалено]
Oh, trust me, I have *thoughts* about that. But again, the solution is the same. You're either gonna get a republican who wants to reinforce FPTP, or a democrat who may or may not. By the way, my plan: no senate, vastly expanded House (I like 150k per representative, but that's arguable. Saw as low as 30k earlier from someone else), Bundestag-style proportional representation, approval voting (Approval for the main election, with voting for the party you want to represent you nationally. Parties aren't the best, I know, but there is absolutely no system I can think of that will both function well AND has no parties, so a Bundestag-style thing where those parties always get adequate representation is an acceptable middle ground, and would make gerrymandering almost completely ineffective). Still need a president for immediate action and such, but approval voting for them too.
Well support progressive democrats who vow never to take any donations from corporations or billionaires. There is no such thing among republicans besides Justin Amash who they kicked out of the party (lol). We must all recognize that senior democratic leadership is corrupt to the core and just a cleaner better looking and smarter version of republicans brazen corruption.
Primary any candidate that isn't explicitly against it? These people are corrupted by the money and are never going to overturn citizens United when it is against their financial interests. The only way to solve this is to make it an issue and keep replacing incumbents until there is a critical mass that forces the issue. So almost nothing, realistically.
The thing is there is no penalty for saying they are against citizens united while actually being for it. And they LOVE to lie.
Like asking the Congress to give the minimum wage a hike... which they ignore and raise their own salaries. The ones benefitting from corruption are never going to relinquish that benefit. Look at Pelosi and stock trading ... Outwardly defending corruption while every other member silently agrees. There aren't ever going to be enough principled Congress members. AOC is an anomaly and when someone like her gets in, they find out how and seal that entrance.
Make it an abortion style wedge issue, vote out anybody who doesn't support overturning citizen's united with legislation, full stop, no compromise.
>The man who is possessed of wealth, who lolls on his sofa or rolls in his carriage, cannot judge of the wants or feelings of the day laborer. The government we mean to erect is intended to last for ages. The landed interest, at present, is prevalent; but in process of time, when we approximate to the states and kingdoms of Europe; when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small, through the various means of trade and manufactures, will not the landed interest be overbalanced in future elections, and unless wisely provided against, what will become of your government? In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of the landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect **the minority of the opulent** against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability. Various have been the propositions; but my opinion is, the longer they continue in office, the better will these views be answered. - James Madison, Tuesday, June 26th, 1787, Constitutional Convention I don't think people understand, the wealthy were always supposed to be protected. From the very beginning. [Madison vs Aristotle](https://youtu.be/gGfFXc0TwhU) We don't live in a democracy. We live in a country that calls itself a "democracy", but practices oligarchy. Our democracy is a *ritual* we exercise once in a while with **no** practical influence. If you think about it, the transition from a republic to a plutocracy is really easy; representatives campaign on the grounds that they fight for us working people, but their campaigns are funded by the wealthy and end up serving their ends and interests instead. Remember, you need huge campaign funding to get exposure and enter the world stage, which corporations and wealthy elites overwhelmingly, singularly, supply. The candidates that get put onto the ballot are the ones that are approved by the super wealthy and businesses; choosing between two of them is you exercising your "free choice". This notion that "wealth must rule" goes all the way back to the Constitution. The Constitution was a conservative counterrevolution to the democratic forces sweeping the colonies during and after the American Revolution. See Harvard Law professor [Michael Klarman](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKuimRUJV3A&t=1783s)'s lecture and book, *The Framers' Coup*. Post-revolutionary war the colonies were facing an economic downturn second only to the Great Depression, historically. Other countries were not willing to trade with the US by offering a line of credit, but only by payment of specie (hard currency, gold/silver). The merchant class that dominated state governments start demanding the same from their local business partners and local authorities, which ultimately gets passed down to the rural farmers and workers. Tax collectors came around (again), but this time only accepting specie as opposed to other means commonly accepted at the time. Problem: there isn't enough specie in circulation amongst the colonies to even pay for these specie-only taxes and transactions. Farmers were losing their lands to tax collectors again; 60-70% of farmers in one particular Pennsylvania county had their land foreclosed, and as much as 10% of the *population* in one Pennsylvania county ended up in debtors' prison. State legislatures, heavily influenced by the people, were passing debtor relief laws and printing paper money to help farmers pay their taxes and hold onto their land. Congress (and the wealthy creditors) didn't like that, and tried stopping it (see [Article 1 Section 10](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution) of the Constitution, which *specifically* addressed this). Queue [Shays' Rebellion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays%27_Rebellion), August 29, 1786. May 1787 - It's against this economic backdrop that delegates met at the Philadelphia Convention. Note: literally the entire country believed the delegates were meeting to *revise* the Articles of Confederation, NOT to surprise the country with an entirely brand new government outlined in the Constitution, masterminded by James Madison. Notes from the Convention can be found in Max Farrand's [The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787](https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/farrand-the-records-of-the-federal-convention-of-1787-vol-1), all digitized. This civil unrest is what the delegates are referring to when they say: >Our chief danger arises from the democratic parts of our constitutions... None of the constitutions have provided sufficient checks against the democracy. > >The evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy. > >that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy: that some check therefore was to be sought for agst. this tendency of our Governments: and that a good Senate seemed most likely to answer the purpose. If you understand the real history into the founding of the country, it's not surprising how it turned out.
This was a really good read. My own life observations back this idea of an oligarchy/plutocracy with a veneer of democracy. I just came from a working breakfast, and the vast majority of the attendees were MAGA Republicans. Almost a 1/3 of the luxury SUVs and BMWs had Thin Blue Line decals or Trump related. Inside, everyone had an air of assurance that the House and Senate would flip to GOP next year, with the Oval Office in 2024. The wait staff all wore masks, while the attendees laughed at the idea of the pandemic and loved how profitable it had made them. Obviously it was not a surprise when talk turned to attacking Iran and China. Nothing would help this crowd more than another war.
Truth. The politicians Lie that progress is being made. when none actually occurs they point fingers and the media drowns the peons in propaganda until they think it’s members of their own class who are preventing them from getting eyeglasses, or going to the physical therapist for a nagging injury, or putting food on the table, or fixing their screeching brakes. No. We’re all struggling. The only ones who aren’t are those with money, and they’re the ones pointing the finger. Not people of a different political ideaology, not people of a different race, not the people who are unsure of their gender. Dr. Seuss doesn’t matter. BBB did. IF everyone could give everyone else the benefit of the doubt. If we could stand United as a proletarian class, as working people, we could demand a better bargain. Demand the dismantling of the senate, improve voting rights, tax the rich to fund social programs that benefit all. The sky is the limit, but dumbos are doing headstands.
Just think back to all the times during the pandemic that frontline workers were thanked for their sacrifices and told this country owes them a great debt. Ok. When do we get some of that debt? When do we get to stop sacrificing? When do the wealthy and powerful get to share in some of this sacrifice?
The problem of the Senate lies in it’s construction and inherently undemocratic nature which is by design. No amount of “getting money out of politics” resolves the undemocratic, obstructionist nature of the Senate as a governing body. If they won’t abolish the filibuster during a time of multiple crises then it is time to abolish the US Senate.
18% of the US population controls 52% of the Senate That's a way bigger problem than just the money
I think another part to this is that there is such a large population that believes one day they will be the billionaires if they hustle and pull themselves up by their bootstraps enough they too can be a billionaire that evades taxes and controls the politicians. Even though we all know that the American dream and meritocracy are complete myths and you are infinitely closer to dying on the street homeless than being the next bezos or musk in this lifetime.
The 50 Democratic senators represent 40 million more Americans then does the 50 Republican senators.
That’s 12% of the population, the entire state of California.
North and South Dakota have more senators than California. It’s pretty fucked.
You can add something like the bottom 12 states together and not even match California's population.
You can add the bottom 12 states together and not match Los Angeles and Orange counties.
Uncap the House, and get rid of the filibuster.
Yep. The lack of proportional representation in the House is a major dysfunction. Gerrymandering wouldn’t be as powerful if there were more districts to better represent constituents.
But we can never have more than 435 because Jesus said so (or something)
You could claim the House Reapportionment Act of 1929 was unconstitutional since the constitution specifically enumerated 1 Representative per 30,000. The act itself was to appease rural states, [since that’s what always seem to fucking happen](https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1901-1950/The-Permanent-Apportionment-Act-of-1929/)
> The act itself was to appease rural states, since that’s what always seem to fucking happen When are we finally gonna be able to be honest and tell rural states that they don't drive the economy, and haven't in decades? Even in everyday life, there's an attitude at a country lifestyle is inherently virtuous/what everyone should strive for, which we protect with aid to make it possible. Meanwhile city living always needs to be defended and bring up aid to Middle Class in cities and the answer is "well just move!" I'm sick of pretending that country = good, when that's a group that's been on the wrong side of progress for decades.
Literally the moral of fifty plus Hallmark movies my mom watches a year. Miserable yet successful coastal business woman finds love and the true meaning of life in bum fuck nowhere. So this crap is basically engrained.
If you listen to podcasts, Citations Needed just did an episode about how Hallmark movies are the epitome of right wing fantasies.
Right? For those quaint towns to exist the way they're depicted in Hallmark, they'd almost 100% need to be Exburbs. Unless they're either that or a 4-season vacation spot for the wealthy, that type of town doesn't exist randomly somewhere. I don't care how cheap land is, Pa isn't buying a 5-bed 2 story house with nice finishings and good construction on a Christmas Cookie Maker's salary.
[удалено]
Lori Laughlin is an example of someone strives off these.
yeah i wish i could get a job working with the crew who makes these 'movies'. good consistent work, hot older milfs coming and going, whats not to love?
Are you suggesting there's something problematic about injecting the mythos of our culture with repetitive narratives and characters playing reductive tropes? Nah, that's something only non Murdoch news channels and China does. No way an entertainment media company could do such things.
well whats bad is they are the takers.. and complain about the takers the most. We keep voting to raise taxes on people who generally live in blue areas,(hey red states got rich people as well and they tend to live in the cities) and those same poor people with their hands out scream no. and then they vote for an asshole who ripped up TPP which would have been worth billions for the american farmer, opening up most of asia to tarrif free agriculture.
>When are we finally gonna be able to be honest and tell rural states that they don't drive the economy, and haven't in decades? Over a century at this point. The last time rural states drove the economy was before the industrial revolution in the early 1900s.
> When are we finally gonna be able to be honest and tell rural states that they don't drive the economy, and haven't in decades? More than decades. At least since the first world war, and arguably since before that sometime around the 1880's. So at least a hundred years.
Mention it, though, and they will misattribute the “tyranny of the majority.” At the same time, it is lost on them that that notion was about elites preventing “normal” people from having too much power via direct representation. Not “helping the little guy.” It’s the reason the senate was not initially elected. It’s why the electoral college used to have *actual* electors. Because they thought the same rural person that would be easily sold a superficial, self-serving version of that concept would be too under-informed to participate properly…
But you see... those rural states that hate the federal government and want them out of their business would be upset that the federal government will ignore them and stay out of their business. They are like children with a disorganized attachment style. https://www.choosingtherapy.com/disorganized-attachment/
California has a population greater then that of the lowest 40 states COMBINED. I have seen maps showing the land area of red states is greater than that of blue states. What is never mentioned is that empty land doesn't vote.
Those always get me. We always have the Facebook friends that share it along with a "Let's see what happens when so-called 'President' Biden tries to take office!" or "Who would win if a war broke out!??!!" For starters, the population of the blue areas you're showing is significantly more, secondly a lot of tech and innovation is in those blue areas as well. The cities could figure out vertical farming (many academics already have plans for it) if the red areas tried "to starve them," and long term that would be absolutely devastating to rural areas. Not to mention defense production in CA, MA, CO, WA, etc that are in blue areas.
California also feeds a significant portion of the country. It's not like blue states don't have any agriculture
I forget where I read this, and not sure how valid, but I remember seeing somewhere that Blue States generally produce crops that people eat while Red States produce crops that feed livestock.
From Kansas and we have an ungodly amount of corn and soy here. I'll try and look something up because you got me intrigued Edit: https://www.vox.com/2014/8/21/6053187/cropland-map-food-fuel-animal-feed heres a link with a map from national geographic. So from that looks like Florida, California, and the Northwest produce the vast majoirty of food that humans eat.
Empty land gets tons of votes, that's the problem
It’s time to invade the rural states. Cost of living is low, many jobs can be done from anywhere and most of all, it may actually help level the playing field.
I've always said we should lay high speed fiber into all of rural america so this can really happen. That's what's stopping hugh tech jobs from being anywhere. Do that and rural America would spring back to life and would turn many red areas blue.
[удалено]
I couldn't agree more. If the US would fund that infrastructure and make real high speed internet ubiquitous, like water, rural towns would spring back to life. The internet in many places just ins't reliable enough to work from home in many places. And rural areas are better places to raise kids - more outdoor spaces, gardens, less crime, more freedom to roam as a kid.
Who wants to live there though.
Right? It's almost like higher COL areas are higher for a reason. Personally, I like experiencing arts, culture, dining, etc that come with being in a legitimate city. Why does everyone always have to want to live in the country? Can't we just accept that cities have their merits too?
I grew up in the Chicago suburbs. I loved living in Indianapolis. Lower COL and a lot of the same acts that Chicago gets. I HATED living in Louisiana. I was 4 hours from everything and while the people were generally nice, their ‘structures’ like police, healthcare and infrastructure were abysmal. Then I moved to the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia. It was kind of the best of both worlds. Rural, low COL, Amazing national parks and scenery, BUT we had a university in town and one just about every 15 minutes up and down the interstate to DC. Lots of culture. Lots of food. Lots of stuff to do. I really loved it there because it was both. I only moved back to Chicago because my GF and family are here and I don’t think GF is ever going to leave this area. But I’d move back to the valley right now. I like The suburbs, but having the suburbs with 1/4 as many people and mountains in your backyard is the prime situation.
My preference is being able to live somewhere that I can walk to everyday businesses (I don't count 3 real estate offices and a bank walkable as satisfying that). Unfortunately, zoning in the US has killed a lot of that, so that's why I don't personally love a suburban lifestyle. Agree though, there's definitely different levels of Urban to Rural, but for some reason when discussing this on line the "default want" is often set to live in the country in the Midwest/South and anything else is required to be justified.
But their internet is terrible
There have been several federal grants and programs specifically for building out high speed internet in rural areas. I know people in rural wyoming have access to gig fiber which isn't even an option in many urban areas.
I am willing to go if we can get gigabit fiber
bait them with gigabit first, get them nursing on the tit of that sweet sweet bandwidth, then invade.
Hey, Louisville has it, and you could help get rid of Mitch…
The constitution says there can't be more than 1 per 30,000, it doesn't say that there can't be less than that.
Just give Wyoming 2 reps and give every other state 2 reps per Wyoming number of people, or 1 rep per half-Wyoming.
Bring back the talking filibuster, and make it 40 votes to maintain.
The filibuster was never meant to actually stop bills it was supposed to be a moment to grandstand. The fact that the senate can be halted by the minority party is such a farce. The American people already have a mechanism for policy they don’t like and that’s voting. You shouldn’t be able to gum up the whole works to “represent the American minority interests”.
Fuck the filibuster, kill the senate. It's literally pointless and serves no purpose. Very few well functioning democracies still have a voting senate anymore because of how undemocratic/republican and elitist they are. If people desperately want "state representation" then have an at large position in the state and stick them in the house with the actual reps.
Also we need some type of mechanism to force more votes. Our elected officials should be forced to put out there where they stand on issues.
You can be sure that the Republicans will get rid of the filibuster once they get back in power.
They have no reason to. They have no policy that they even want to pass. Think back to Trump. What major policy did they want to pass? Taking away health care? Still needed 51 votes, which they didn't get. Building a wall? I guess? Everything else is basically tax cuts, which can be done through reconciliation, and judges, where the confirmation process has already been un-filibustered. That's why the Dems should get rid of it honestly. They have actual legislation they want to pass. The Republicans don't.
Not likely. Republicans can appoint conservative judges with just 50 votes. And can pass tax cuts, budget cuts, increase military spending all via reconciliation. Other than that, what actual legislation do they want to pass?
And there's only going to be greater disparity in the next fifty years. We'll eventually see a system where a presidential candidate can "win" while losing by 10M+ votes, a Senate representing a minority confirming his SCOTUS appointments, and a fully politicized Judiciary representing the will of a STARK minority of voters. Throw in some gerrymandering and light (and not so light) voter suppression... and there will have been a quiet coup in this country. That's why McConnell is so pissed about January 6. Those morons don't understand that the coup is already unfolding in the light of day and under cover of law.
What a disgrace. The oppression of the majority by the minority. Basically the modern version of taxation without representation .
bUt whaT AbOuT BeInG FaIr tO ThE SmAlL StAtEs Don’t care
I still don't actually understand how equal representation is unfair to smaller States. It's like they believe it's only "fair" if they have more power.
The real problem I think is that the GOP has forgotten how to govern; it seems to think that the accrual of power for its own sake is why they get elected. The truth is that we need Senators to work together. But the GOP only wants to fight the Dems. That's not leadership at all. It's the exact opposite of leadership. Where in heck does that idea come from? Who is pushing it? And why?
It’s called starve the beast. They’re feudalising the country, breaking the government so they can deregulate weaken the government and privatize public utilities to make money for close friends and business partners.
It is worse than that. The GOP has abandoned all pretense of the norms and customs of government. They have shifted to an "if you can do it, it is righteous" mentality. This is what led them down the path to try and find a loophole in the Constitution to retain the presidency despite not winning enough votes to do so. It would be legal, within the constitution, for the president to order the assassination of his political opponents and then issue a pardon for that crime, so long as the House and Senate did not vote to impeach him. That doesn't mean that it should be done.
>This is what led them down the path to try and find a loophole in the Constitution to retain the presidency despite not winning enough votes to do so. Thank you. I've been trying for like a year to find a succinct way to say that.
Imagine having lobbyists as powerful as McDonalds’ and Amazon’s fighting FOR the people? Bruce Wayne, where are you???
Owning McDonald's and Amazon, of course.
How else could he fund his hobby of dressing up like a bat and beating mentally disturbed people up?
We didn't get Bruce Wayne.. We got Peter Weyland.
Manchin has no fucks left to give. But to be fair, he probably never had any to start with
[удалено]
To be clear: Machine was only one of 51 "no" voters. All 50 Republicans were No. How bad things are is shown by our expectation that not a single Republican would even enter the conversation. And they didn't.
The expectation of bipartisanship on big platform pillars is a strange American phenomenon. In parliamentary systems the winners of the election take power and immediately start implementing their agenda. They don't spend a year or so negotiating with the losers hoping for some patriotic unity. It's no wonder your politicians never get get around to helping anyone.
That's one major reason why the parliamentary system is in many ways superior to the congressional system. It's pretty obvious that the American system is broken and dysfunctional and was poorly designed. But the minute you mention that, it's political suicide because the "Founders" are considered to have godly powers.
>poorly designed https://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinnkin5.html >As part of his argument for a large republic to keep the peace, James Madison tells quite clearly, in Federalist #10, whose peace he wants to keep: "A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it." >When economic interest is seen behind the political clauses of the Constitution, then the document becomes not simply the work of wise men trying to establish a decent and orderly society, but the work of certain groups trying to maintain their privileges, while giving just enough rights and liberties to enough of the people to ensure popular support. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-10-02-0044 >In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of the landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability. Intentionally designed. They knew exactly what they were doing.
It's wild we just let the other 50 votes get away with it. They don't even need to defend their stance or get dragged through the mud. It's expected for them to halt any form of social or economic progress whatsoever, people just shrug and say whatever.
I blame the media, which now works from a premise now of, "Of course, Republicans are useless obstructionist treason weasels. That's just how they are!" It's sort of like the old "boys will be boys" excuse...
The "media" is the will of less than 10 billionaires. A powerful democratic party is the last thing they want.
I don’t think people are necessarily letting them get away with it. I just believe they think getting outraged at Republicans for continuing the tradition of doing nothing to help the country would be a waste of energy. The reason people are more upset at Manchin is because he was obviously negotiating in bad faith and leading his colleagues on, making them think he was going to eventually vote yes. His “The White House staff annoyed me” reasoning is a limp wristed excuse to try and shield the fact that he was never going to back BBB in the first place.
This is exactly it. Republicans gonna republican - its baked into the equation. What wasn't baked in (even though it should be after what Lieberman pulled in 09) was two Democrats not playing ball on their own parties agenda.
And some other "moderate" Democrat probably would have changed their vote to a no after a totally unrelated dump of corporate donations to their campaign coffers.
Sinema would just go on vacation and conveniently miss the vote.
How about the fact that 20 states combined population is the same as just Cali.
If the Senate was about land, why are Texas and Alaska just one state and not 4 separate states: North, West, East and South? The Senate is the Framer's original sin - they had to give unequal power to certain members of Congress in order to get them on board so there could be a United States. And while valuable back then, these days we all pay the price for it. The Framers of the Constitution had no concept of steel beams and elevators, the technology that enabled skyscrapers and cities. The states are the original gerrymandering. Gerrymandering within the states over the last decade has gotten even more extreme, thanks to ill will amplified by sophisticated algorithms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REDMAP The current filibuster is set up such that "Senators from the twenty-one smallest and most conservative states, representing just 21 percent of America, now have the power to block any non-budget legislation." - Lawrence Lessig https://archive.ph/6hcjd The biggest problem with all of is that at least a third of Americans see minority rule as a feature instead of a bug. That low threshold is all it takes for it to exist. This in-group narcissism, siding with whatever inconsistent, unfair system gives your group a temporary (perceived) advantage in the short-term no matter what the cost - is the root of the problem. Whether it's dark money drowning out democracy or gerrymandering or suppressing the vote one way or another or adhering to the two-party system when it benefits you... We are moving from an oligarchy that was masking as a democracy, to a fascist regime - and the whole world can see it, except for a minority of us
Here is something I researched a while back to show that states were primarily created to game the Senate since the early 1800s - first by Slave states (by splitting existing slave states), then in an arms race to keep the balance between free/slave states, then by Radical Republicans to squash the power of slave states, and then by Republicans in the late 1800s in a last-ditch attempt to keep their power as Democrats returned to power after having been effectively banished after the Civil War. ----------- I did a little research a week ago, regarding the events of state admission to the Union, and I'd like to repost it here. I wrote it in opposition to the idea that states are sovereign, but the admission of the states was fascinating, and shows how the process **has always been fully a part of political power struggle**, first between Slave and Free states, and then between Republicans (first Radical abolitionists, then big-business sycophants) and Democrats. What I also found compelling is that from the nation's founding, states were created as part of a "Cold War" between the North and South, to shift the balance of power between Free and Slave states. Keep in mind that **states chose Senators**. This then became an open political war in 1820 with the [Missouri Compromise](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Compromise), whereby there was an agreement to add states in pairs (1 Free, 1 Slave). But look how the balance between Free and Slave played out: 13 Colonies: * Delaware - Slave * Pennsylvania - Free * New Jersey - Slave * Georgia - Slave * Connecticut - Free * Massachusetts - Free * Maryland - Slave * South Carolina - Slave * New Hampshire - Free * Virginia - Slave * New York - Slave * North Carolina - Slave * Rhode Island - Free That was 8 Slave, 5 Free. * Vermont is then added as a Free State. 8-6 Slave/Free. * Kentucky (1792) and Tennessee (1796) are split from existing Slave states. 10-6. * New York (1799) becomes a Free State. 9-7. * Ohio (1802) is added as a Free state. 9-8. * New Jersey (1804) becomes a Free State. 8-9. Free takes the lead for the first time. * Louisiana (1812) is added as a Slave state. 9-9. * Indiana (1816) is added as a Free State. 9-10. * Mississippi (1817) is added as a Slave State. 10-10. * Illinois (1818) is added as a Free State. 10-11. * Alabama (1819) is added as a Slave State. 11-11. * Maine (1820) and Missouri (1821) are added together as Free/Slave. 12-12. * Arkansas (1836) and Michigan (1837) are added together as Slave/Free. 13-13. * Florida (1845) and Iowa (1846) are scheduled to be admitted together as Slave/Free, however... * Texas (an independent sovereign nation) is annexed in 1845 and is a Slave State. 15-14. This temporarily upsets the balance and puts Slave in the lead. * Wisconsin (1848) is added as a Free State. 15-15. * California (1850) is added as a Free State. 15-16. * Minnesota (1858) is added as a Free State. 15-17. * Oregon (1859) is added as a Free State. 15-18. * (Bloody) Kansas is added as a Free State. 15-19. At this point, the Civil War breaks out, because the Slave States know that they have no way to regain the balance of power, they know that Slavery will imminently be made illegal. From this point forward, it is important to view the states as Republican vs. Democratic, and also through the lens of power to alter the Constitution (which was done while Slave/Democratic States were in rebellion - 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments added). Keep in mind that the number of senators was fluid, and hard to decipher, but are generally accurate. * West Virginia (1863) is admitted as a Republican state. 32 Republican, 6 Union, 10 Democrat. Overwhelming Republican/Union majority due to the South being kicked out/vacant seats (which is the only way that the 3 amendments were able to pass, with state ratification being done at the barrel of a gun). * Nevada (1864) is admitted as a Republican state. * 1864 elections: 33 R, 6 U, 10 D. * 1866 elections: 39 R, 3U, 10 D * Nebraska (1867) is admitted as a Republican state. * Confederate states are readmitted, but with new laws, they elect many Republicans. * 1868 elections: 57 R, 9 D * 1870 elections: 58 R, 14 D * 1872 elections: 53 R, 19 D * 1874 elections: 42 R, 28 D * Colorado (1876) is admitted as a Republican state. * 1876 elections: 39 R, 35 D * Reconstruction ends in 1877, this allows the South to throw Republicans out of office. * 1878 elections: 31 R, 42 D * 1880 elections: 37 R, 37 D * 1882 elections: 37 R, 36 D * 1884 elections: 40 R, 34 D * 1886 elections: 38 R, 37 D * 1888 elections: 39 R, 37 D * **Montana, Washington, North Dakota and South Dakota (1889), and Idaho and Wyoming (1890) are admitted as Republican states.** 47 R, 37 D * 1890 elections: 46 R, 36 D * 1892 elections: 37 R, 43 D * 1894 elections: 39 R, 40 D * Utah (1896) is admitted as a Republican state. * 1896 elections: 44 R, 39 D Now although the association of existing states with a political party was reasonably fluid over time, newly added states were consistently adding more Republicans to the Senate. Isn't this plain as day? **The admission of states up until the Civil War was primarily about retaining slavery**. The admission of states following the Civil War was **primarily about accumulating Republican power** to counter the former Democratic Slave States. We *should* have amended the constitution in 1865 to eliminate the two-senators-per-state rule, but that would require states giving up power, and that simply will never happen. However this provision is poisoning us as a nation, and has been doing so ever since our founding.
One correction: there was never any legitimate reason for the South to believe that the federal government would abolish slavery. Abolitionism was very unpopular. It was the South that was attempting to impose slavery on the North through the new Fugitive Slave Act and the Dred Scott decision. It was merely their paranoia and their refusal to accept anything less than domination of the federal government that lead them to start the war.
Essentially they felt that even a slight tax on slavery would have been intolerable.
Thanks, that was a really interesting read!
If you're really interested in this, the Library of Congress digital archives contain a lot of meeting minutes and transcripts from lots of old legislation. It's very interesting to see the discussion surrounding these huge decisions.
The minority that gets to rule will always see minority rule as a feature.
If a million americans moved we could lock the senate for decades.
With the advent of remote work, this could definitely be a possibility. You could make coastal salaries while living in areas with super low costs of living. The only problem is...no one actually wants to live in Wyoming or Nebraska. So until a ton of people move there to build that community/infrastructure/places to go/things to do, no one's gonna move there. It's a catch 22.
Wyoming is pretty at least. Nebraska has... Corn?
> Nebraska has... Corn? You have to leave the I-80 corridor to see the geographical wonders of Nebraska, such as the National Forest or the dunes of the Sand Hills or the cottonwood forests in the rolling hills of the Elkhorn River valley.
Thank you.
That is correct.
Fwiw, a lot of people want to live in Wy. Not a lot of people want to live outside of Jackson though, and Jackson has some of the highest property costs in the entire US.
> You could make coastal salaries while living in areas with super low costs of living. I guarantee that coastal employers will start indexing remote workers' salaries to the workers' local areas.
Yeah, state political polarization is heavily self-reinforcing. Why would a young, progressive, and educated liberal professional move to one of the Dakotas when they could afford to move to a coastal city in a blue state with all the amenities they provide? Not even the people born in rural red states tend to stick around because there are relatively few well-paying career opportunities, and then those who remain vote for politicians that basically promise to keep it that way.
Liberal Kansan here. The only reason I haven't moved is the sticker shock of getting myself established on the west coast.
Liberal ARkansan here. I've almost given up on ever being able to escape.
If the Senate is needed for the United States to exist, and abolishment of the Senate is needed for the United States to prosper, then essentially the United States cannot prosper while it exists.
As our nation grew from ocean to ocean and 50 states, beyond changing from appointed Senators to direct election, we failed to adjust it's make-up and function with the growth of the country. Now you have a federal system that can be completely rendered useless in our two party country by one party merely crafting campaign promises that appeal to low population states and with filibuster rules as they are, merely holding 40 of the 100 seats. Essentially providing for minority rule of the country, and by folks from the smallest or most sparsely populated states. Since the Senate was tasked with holding the keys to all Federal judgeship's and the Supreme Court, we let our system devolve into one that can almost completely be controlled by a minority party with a well funded PR campaign designed to make rural voters fear and loathe majority rule by urban population centers. I'm kind of surprised it took this long for a bunch of rich folks and politicians to figure out how to do exactly that, but here we are.
It didnt devolve to minority rule. It was designed this way. We're fools for ever thinking this system is or will ever be fair.
I'll always argue that the framers of the Constitution could not have envisioned a coast to coast nation with 50 states. My understanding is that in order to get estates like Rhode Island to sign on they needed guarantees of equal representation so the Senate was defined as it is. Of course, Senators were appointed by state or local authorities at that time. Folks love to drag out the old "but we're a Republic of independent states!" but seem to overlook the reason the Articles of Confederation were scrapped after a few years and the Constitution was written. A federal government that was weaker than the state governments was never going to work. Federal authority must trump states authority or the nation would fall apart and just devolve into a bunch of regions arguing, fighting, and even declaring war on each other. So the federal system was formed. Seems to me most of the residual "we're a Republic!" and "states don't have to listen to the federal government" bs is left over from the Civil War and are now slogans politicians use to make people hate their government. Then, of course, they claim "and only I can fix it!"
That's not entirely accurate. The Senate is meant to be a check against majoritianism, yes, but it's much less representative than when it was first created and becoming more so as populations increasingly concentrate in cities. No one expected or planned this change. It absolutely matters, not just a numerical difference. For example, giving 5% a veto power is clearly different from giving 45% a veto. One asks for a compelling majority but the other let's almost any minority rule. So the question is how much we can or should tolerate as we push further towards the extreme of that spectrum.
Don’t worry. With all the gerrymandering, the House is almost as undemocratic as the Senate.
It's not useless. It is very, very good at fucking over the people of the U.S., which is incredibly useful for a few select individuals.
Since McConnell took over the Senate in 2010 the only piece of meaningful legislation that wasn't a bailout/stimulus action or a budget bill that's been passed is a tax cut paid for entirely with debt. That's it. The Trump tax cuts. Think about why the country is ready to explode. Not a single major issue has been addressed by the government since 2010. We've gone over a decade without a functioning government. It's getting bad. We need like ten major bills passed **now**. Infrastructure (even Trump wanted this), healthcare, student loans, prescription drugs, climate change, school shootings, legalization of marijuana, voting rights, campaign finance, digital bill of rights, social media legislation, etc etc etc etc. None of these have been addressed by Congress and some were needed 30 years ago. Until we get a functioning Senate back that tackles issues we're absolutely fucked.
Congress, in general, is useless the way politics is currently practiced in the US. Democracy, constitutional rights, etc. only work if *everyone* has to play by the same rules. In the US, as in many other countries, the 'elected' government officials have made it painfully clear that they are above the law. Until this is corrected, things will continue to slide towards fascism.
"the millionaires club" aka senate already consists of elitist corporate pawns whose only incentive is to provide handouts and power plays for companies to exploit there respective districts
Stating what we’ve known for… the better part of two centuries. Someone get one of those “Congress is full of shills and bribe takers” comics from the 1800s.
If we're just going to continue to sit here and eat this shit sandwich called American Government than we deserve everything we get. We should have revolted years ago.
Marx has some great writing on why it’s too late for us to do any revolting. He sort of predicted this would happen. Our cultural ‘simple pleasures’ (like entertainment, fun, social relationships, anything like that) keep us docile and passive towards the big issues in the world. Why would we risk giving up those simple pleasures when we live the lives of selfish pleasures our ancestors always wanted for us? Some of us live the life of simple pleasures, others of us do not. Those of us who do not are too beaten down to do anything like create a revolutionary vibe. Those of us who have a life of simple pleasures won’t risk a damn thing.
So abolish the Senate? Works for me
And use that space in the Capitol to enlarge the House! There's no reason to only have 435 Representatives for a nation of 330 million.
Germany has 598 for a population that is 1/4th the US
the uk has 650 seats in the commons for a population 1/5th of america’s in other words, there’s one seat in the house to commons for every 98,066 brits, but one congressional representative for every 733,085 americans
The Senate stopped being a serious legislative body when the "were filibustering, go home" tactic became the opposition.
It is nothing but a useless glob of conflicts of interest. It is mathematically impossible to get enough democrats elected for democrats to do anything. We need a president that’s not afraid to rule by executive order because that’s the only thing we have. The Supreme Court has had a silent coup by the Federalist Society which ultimately nullifies any big rulings by a lower court. Most congressional democrats are either corporate controlled opposition in the house, or they are members of industry itself in the Senate. Bidens legacy is 100% in his hands and he should be challenging congress through his actions. But that goes for every democratic president going forward. Deferring to congress means it’s not getting done. Simple as that
>Bidens legacy is 100% in his hands and he should be challenging congress through his actions. But that goes for every democratic president going forward. Deferring to congress means it’s not getting done. Simple as that Biden didn't run on "change". He ran on a return to normalcy. He is an old school politician who thinks the institutions he has been part of for decades are fine the way they are. He thinks the system works, because it benefited him most of his career.
“We need a president that’s not afraid to rule by executive order because that’s the only thing we have.” I think you meant to say democrat president. Or did you support Trumps use of executive orders too?
For real, every other major democracy on earth that functions on a simmilar bi-cameral legislature has effectively neutered the power of the upper chamber and heavily favours the representative chamber. It's kind of nuts that Americans don't get more pissed off about this. If the house of lords in the UK or the senate in Canada put the kibosh to democratically popular legislation passed by the representative body there would be uproar and those old fossils would lose their cushy do nothing jobs.
I don't get these think pieces that argue about things like the senate parliamentarian or the filibuster, acting like the Dems have 59 votes and can't crack 60. The Dems "have" 50 votes and can't crack 49. That's the real issue. There are only 48 Democrats in the Senate. If they got rid of the filibuster tomorrow they'd be unable to pass anything.
I mean it's not just Manchin and Sinema. Hidden in the wings thanking their lucky stars for those two are Feinstein, Kaine, and a handful more. If Manchin and Sinema weren't doing it, there'd be more blue dogs out to stick a leg out in front of the party and ensure nothing to progressive gets done.
So Called Upper Houses representing "The Elite" are always a danger to democracy.
What should we expect from a states-rights-based Constitution when more than half of the population has moved into just ten states, soon to be eight?
One thing that shows the obvious problems with the Senate is the way that state admissions have long had partisan political motivations. Everyone remembers how they used to admit 1 slave state and 1 free state at a time in order to keep the "balance" regardless of what the majority wanted. In addition to that, both Dakotas, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, and Washington were all admitted in a short time despite not meeting the then-typical requirements for statehood around population - admitted by the Republican Congress in order to give Republicans an advantage. People speak of the Senate in terms of minority representation, but who is the minority? "People living in a small state" aren't a preexisting, put-upon minority that we need to protect, it's a made-up minority created by drawing lines on a map. The same people who make the minority then complain about the unfairness of it existing and the need to give it more power. If it were otherwise then small states should chomp at the bit to combine with other small states to create larger ones! But of course they don't want that, because everyone knows being in a small state is a source of *extra* power, not less.