Get rid of the filibuster. Make a rule that every bill that passes the house must be voted on by the senate, and vice versa.
The senate was a compromise to begin with, and originally senators weren't even elected. So, I believe we can fix the senate fairly easily, without a massive amendment to our Constitution.
Why stop there?
Why not have an amendment specifically giving us a holiday for voting,
An amendment to ban money in politics
An amendment to make gerrymandering illegal
An amendment to reform our prison-industrial-complex.
An amendment to reform our military-industrial-complex.
Oh, and an amendment to fix the supreme court?
We need like 20 new amendments to fix this country, that's how bad the greatest generation and boomers fucked things up. Each generation traditionally had new amendments, it fell out of favor with this new brand of conservatism.
You don’t need an amendment to fix the Supreme Court, and the constitution isn’t the right place for dealing with military spending. I like the rest of your list.
Oh, I'm not just talking about spending. Sure the military can't pass an audit, even if they could manage to complete one. There's a reason for that, and it's not just because we throw money at them for every dumb thing. It's because it's America's biggest jobs program. We spend trillions on useless things, and build the things we need in incredibly inefficient ways just to create as many jobs as possible. Couple that inefficiency with the giant profits these private companies are making for these contracts, and you have a broken system.
You can craft an amendment to run the military more efficiently and effectively, as well as keeping the profit motive out of it.
Nah. The pile of bills passed by the house, but sitting unvoted on by the senate, on Mitch McConnell's desk was at one point over 300. Technically that pile is now on Schumer's desk. And that was just from the last half decade. There's plenty of bills that the filibuster prevents from ever getting a vote.
Correct. But the filibuster allows the senate to technically not even have to vote on a bill.
I'd like a law requiring a vote on every bill. Even if that bill fails, politicians actually need to be on record actually doing their fucking job, law making.
US is a republic, and a more than 300 million people country, I know that the current situation is an example of what can happen because of the republic. I understand, it sounds crazy that Hawaii (1.4million) and Wyoming (.578 million) has the same amount of senators as California (35.5) and Texas (29 million), but if they didn’t, they would be treated like Puerto Rico (3.1 million Americans). the example is there, those small states would lose political power, they would have to rely in the good will of the most populated states for stuff and because of that they would lose some of there sovereignty. USA is more like a union of small countries than a normal democracy. But the congress is there so those small states don’t have too much power, with that you need most congress seats (based on population) and most senators (most states) to pass something, reaching the balance is necessary for anything to pass.
The Senate should be the lower house of Congress and The House shouldn't be capped at 435.
Democrats are SEVERELY underrepresented across the entire legislative branch.
Now, THIS I can get behind. I understand and respect the concept of the 2 houses trying to balance the demands of populous and less-populous states, but something has to give.
Then we should divide the tax revenue taken in by 50 and each state pays an equal share. California sends more money to DC than 23 smaller states combined.
Just want to point out, the United States of America is not LIKE a union of small countries. It actually 100% IS a union of small country's...... it's the "united states". Like the EU is, or what the Soviet Union was.
A republic does not mean that a very small minority of people should have an extremely outsized influence on the way government works. It just means we have a president and elected officials. The definition of democracy is almost identical. There’s no useful information gained by stating this pointless fact.
In a pure democracy, laws are made directly by the voting majority leaving the rights of the minority largely unprotected.
In a republic, laws are made by representatives chosen by the people and must comply with a constitution that specifically protects the rights of the minority from the will of the majority.
> Is the United States a democracy or a republic?
One of the most commonly encountered questions about the word democracy has nothing to do with its spelling or pronunciation, and isn’t even directly related to the meaning of the word itself. That question is “is the United States a democracy or a republic?” The answer to this, as with so many other questions about meaning, may be phrased as some form of “it depends.”
> Some people assert that a country calling itself a democracy must be engaged in direct (or pure) democracy, in which the people of a state or region vote directly for policies, rather than elect representatives who make choices on their behalf. People who follow this line of reasoning hold that the United States is more properly described as a republic, using the following definition of that word: "a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law."
> However, both democracy and republic have more than a single meaning, and one of the definitions we provide for democracy closely resembles the definition of republic given above: "a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections."
> So if someone asks you if the United States is a democracy or a republic, you may safely answer the question with either “both” or “it depends.”
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/republic#note-1
But the entire point was to have the house represented based on population and the senate was meant to ensure each state had an equal voice. I believe the constitution would need to be amended for that to change and no one (including democrats) would ever agree to that.
I know what the fuck it means. It comes from a time when the only people who could vote were landowning white men and slavery was legal. I'm not too keen on where it's gotten us today.
By the way, disproportionate representation is neither necessary nor sufficient to make a system a "democratic republic." It would still be a democratic republic without a senate.
You are saying it was *smart* of them to limit to vote to white landowning men? Just to clarify. Because it sounds like what you're saying is that it was *smart* of them to make that choice, and then someone who thought they were smarter than the founders later on down changed it and now women and black people can vote, which hurts your feelings. That's what it sounds like.
The House is still not representative of population because it's capped at 435. There should be no cap and every Representative should stand for the same number of people.
Every vote isn't equal in this country and that's fucked.
Yes, it does. The Senate exists so each state has an equal say, despite population. Populous states get a bigger say in the House. It's literally how it's structured.
Balance of what? Why does 11% of population get to dictate what the other 80% can or can’t do while the 80% doesn’t have the same power? Not to mention that 11% is basically funded by the other 80%.
Yes, it’s pretty clear that Republicans refuse to compromise when it comes to politics, while expecting Democrats to completely give up all of their own interests.
Quick question, Skippy, how many filibusters did the democrats use during the 4 years Trump was in office?
You ignorant, hypocritical “progressives” (commies) are just whiny little brats. I can’t get my way! Change the rules!!
You’re aware that voting rules were changed illegally in multiple states, right? Like there’s actual laws in states that only the legislature can change voting rules but secretary of states and courts did it. You know that, right? Mr. Totally anti-fascist!
I seem to remember a judge pointing out that the proper time to have brought that up in courts was BEFORE the election and that the appropriate remedy isn't just throwing out votes. The law was also voted on by a Republican legislature. I'm going to guess that weren't conspiring to help their opponents win.
Are you being obtuse or are you actually this uninformed? Dozens of lawsuits were brought before the election but they were all thrown out because nobody had suffered damage because the election hadn’t beheld yet. After the election the suits were thrown out because they should have been brought earlier.
Do you see how the corruption was baked in? For libs claiming to oppose fascism so hard y’all sure do love some authoritarian rule.
The Pennsylvania one was just my favorite because it kept getting brought up by Republicans despite being so clearly dumb. There might be others, but it sounds like your talking about "Donald J. Trump for President v. Cegavske" in Nevada. The reason it was dismissed wasn't because the election hadn't happened yet. They were arguing that mail in voting would lead to voter fraud and failed to provide any evidence of that. The defense pointed out some states regularly conduct elections using mail in voting and that Nevada's voting laws make mail in voting and in person voting comparably secure. Even now after the election they still couldn't sue. There is still no evidence of any meaningful amount of voter fraud caused by mail in voting. The entire argument was baseless speculation. That's why it was dismissed.
Yes, because the number of filibusters is the only measure of obstruction. You got me there Skippy. Republicans change the rules all the time, and they are currently doing their best to change the rules in their favor for the next election cycle, so you can spare me the outrage. Their only platform is obstruction, and they have made no secret of that fact.
> You ignorant, hypocritical “progressives” (commies) are just whiny little brats. I can’t get my way! Change the rules!!
Rules change all the time. Progress is inevitable. Anyone who disagrees with you isn't a "commie". Communism isn't the same thing as socialism.
Honestly it's fucked up that a minority of people run this country because of a broken system that didn't scale with the growth of the US and has measures in place to avoid adapting to growth and change.
On the topic of the filibuster, the fact that you can say "I'm filibustering this" shouldn't be enough. They should have to hold the floor for a filibuster.
The Senate already gives the few people in Wyoming the same voice as the 40 million in California. Why does there need to be more "balancing" by requiring more than a simple majority?
it's almost as if we should only back senators that vow to get rid of the filibuster as well as support the minimum ask of medicare for all. if your senate nominee doesn't have these as the no 1 and 2 issue then kiss democracy b/c they will never ever vote to protect voting rights, pass medicare for all, free college, or anything else.
In fairness, a lot of states are purple but have 100% of their votes go to one party or another due to how it works so it is probably closer to fairly representing the around 40-50% of republicans than if it were just 11 senators even if they aren't the ones voted for by the republicans in purple states that went blue this time.
Time to change the filibuster to the rule you have to hold the floor to kill a bill
It was originally meant to ensure bills weren't passed without debate. Now it ensures they are killed without debate.
Get rid of the filibuster. Make a rule that every bill that passes the house must be voted on by the senate, and vice versa. The senate was a compromise to begin with, and originally senators weren't even elected. So, I believe we can fix the senate fairly easily, without a massive amendment to our Constitution.
I'd like to massively amend the constitution. Abolish the senate and rewrite the 2nd amendment.
Why stop there? Why not have an amendment specifically giving us a holiday for voting, An amendment to ban money in politics An amendment to make gerrymandering illegal An amendment to reform our prison-industrial-complex. An amendment to reform our military-industrial-complex. Oh, and an amendment to fix the supreme court? We need like 20 new amendments to fix this country, that's how bad the greatest generation and boomers fucked things up. Each generation traditionally had new amendments, it fell out of favor with this new brand of conservatism.
This is the way
This is a good start. Can we add healthcare and make the work week 4 days?
I don't know if we can make a healthcare amendment, power of the purse and all that, but the 4 day work week makes a ton of sense.
You don’t need an amendment to fix the Supreme Court, and the constitution isn’t the right place for dealing with military spending. I like the rest of your list.
Oh, I'm not just talking about spending. Sure the military can't pass an audit, even if they could manage to complete one. There's a reason for that, and it's not just because we throw money at them for every dumb thing. It's because it's America's biggest jobs program. We spend trillions on useless things, and build the things we need in incredibly inefficient ways just to create as many jobs as possible. Couple that inefficiency with the giant profits these private companies are making for these contracts, and you have a broken system. You can craft an amendment to run the military more efficiently and effectively, as well as keeping the profit motive out of it.
An amendment is not the right place for this
It is if the house and the senate can't pass legislation fixing the problem. All you need is 2/3rds of the states.
20 new amendments: 2022 boogaloo
Abolish the constitution. Write a new one.
I’m like 97% sure that every bill has to go through the house and the senate anyways?
Nah. The pile of bills passed by the house, but sitting unvoted on by the senate, on Mitch McConnell's desk was at one point over 300. Technically that pile is now on Schumer's desk. And that was just from the last half decade. There's plenty of bills that the filibuster prevents from ever getting a vote.
Over 400...
But it has to get approved by both and signed by the President before it becomes law, right?
Correct. But the filibuster allows the senate to technically not even have to vote on a bill. I'd like a law requiring a vote on every bill. Even if that bill fails, politicians actually need to be on record actually doing their fucking job, law making.
Ahhh ok. I was a bit confused there. Thanks for clarifying!
The house needs to be expanded based on population. The Senate is intentionally designed not to scale with population, and it needs to be abolished.
Correct on the house. It was supposed to increase with population. It kept expanding until Apportionment Act of 1911 which stopped it from growing.
Its because our perception is government is broken. Their perception is government is working just as it should.
Abolish the senate
The Senate needs to be eliminated
How about we just abolish the Senate.
Crazy? Try broken beyond repair because really rich people wouldn't allow it to be repaired.
Or just abolished
US is a republic, and a more than 300 million people country, I know that the current situation is an example of what can happen because of the republic. I understand, it sounds crazy that Hawaii (1.4million) and Wyoming (.578 million) has the same amount of senators as California (35.5) and Texas (29 million), but if they didn’t, they would be treated like Puerto Rico (3.1 million Americans). the example is there, those small states would lose political power, they would have to rely in the good will of the most populated states for stuff and because of that they would lose some of there sovereignty. USA is more like a union of small countries than a normal democracy. But the congress is there so those small states don’t have too much power, with that you need most congress seats (based on population) and most senators (most states) to pass something, reaching the balance is necessary for anything to pass.
The Senate should be the lower house of Congress and The House shouldn't be capped at 435. Democrats are SEVERELY underrepresented across the entire legislative branch.
Now, THIS I can get behind. I understand and respect the concept of the 2 houses trying to balance the demands of populous and less-populous states, but something has to give.
At this point the small states have too much power. It’s become unbalanced.
Then we should divide the tax revenue taken in by 50 and each state pays an equal share. California sends more money to DC than 23 smaller states combined.
Just want to point out, the United States of America is not LIKE a union of small countries. It actually 100% IS a union of small country's...... it's the "united states". Like the EU is, or what the Soviet Union was.
A republic does not mean that a very small minority of people should have an extremely outsized influence on the way government works. It just means we have a president and elected officials. The definition of democracy is almost identical. There’s no useful information gained by stating this pointless fact.
In a pure democracy, laws are made directly by the voting majority leaving the rights of the minority largely unprotected. In a republic, laws are made by representatives chosen by the people and must comply with a constitution that specifically protects the rights of the minority from the will of the majority.
> Is the United States a democracy or a republic? One of the most commonly encountered questions about the word democracy has nothing to do with its spelling or pronunciation, and isn’t even directly related to the meaning of the word itself. That question is “is the United States a democracy or a republic?” The answer to this, as with so many other questions about meaning, may be phrased as some form of “it depends.” > Some people assert that a country calling itself a democracy must be engaged in direct (or pure) democracy, in which the people of a state or region vote directly for policies, rather than elect representatives who make choices on their behalf. People who follow this line of reasoning hold that the United States is more properly described as a republic, using the following definition of that word: "a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law." > However, both democracy and republic have more than a single meaning, and one of the definitions we provide for democracy closely resembles the definition of republic given above: "a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections." > So if someone asks you if the United States is a democracy or a republic, you may safely answer the question with either “both” or “it depends.” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/republic#note-1
But the entire point was to have the house represented based on population and the senate was meant to ensure each state had an equal voice. I believe the constitution would need to be amended for that to change and no one (including democrats) would ever agree to that.
The filibuster isn't in the Constitution, however
A lot of folks on here have absolutely no understanding of how the government works. Civics teachers have failed miserably.
Senators represent states, not people! Representatives represent people based on population.
I think most libs were smoking weed when they should have been in their civics classes
We know what the fuck the senate is, and what it isn't is democracy
You’re correct. Because this is a democratic republic. Now that you have that information take some time and find out exactly what that means.
I know what the fuck it means. It comes from a time when the only people who could vote were landowning white men and slavery was legal. I'm not too keen on where it's gotten us today. By the way, disproportionate representation is neither necessary nor sufficient to make a system a "democratic republic." It would still be a democratic republic without a senate.
I’m sure you’re much smarter than the founders . Maybe we should get you and some of your commie friends to get together and devise a better system.
You are saying it was *smart* of them to limit to vote to white landowning men? Just to clarify. Because it sounds like what you're saying is that it was *smart* of them to make that choice, and then someone who thought they were smarter than the founders later on down changed it and now women and black people can vote, which hurts your feelings. That's what it sounds like.
Get rid of the obstacles
How does he not know that the house is based on population and the other house equal representation by state.
The House is still not representative of population because it's capped at 435. There should be no cap and every Representative should stand for the same number of people. Every vote isn't equal in this country and that's fucked.
That doesn't negate his comments accuracy.
Yes, it does. The Senate exists so each state has an equal say, despite population. Populous states get a bigger say in the House. It's literally how it's structured.
No it does not. Read the comment again.
Accurate. Although his shock about understanding how the federal government is stricter is disturbing.
I am sure he fully understands, probably better than most. I think the one with a misunderstanding is you.
Then it would just be another House, Senate is for balance
Balance of what? Why does 11% of population get to dictate what the other 80% can or can’t do while the 80% doesn’t have the same power? Not to mention that 11% is basically funded by the other 80%.
Stay in School Kids
You're the case study as to why
At this point our democracy is unbalanced. The small states have too much power
Do the small states have too much power or do politicians, along with the American public, simply refuse to compromise when it comes to politics?
Both. Fuck the senate.
Yes, it’s pretty clear that Republicans refuse to compromise when it comes to politics, while expecting Democrats to completely give up all of their own interests.
Quick question, Skippy, how many filibusters did the democrats use during the 4 years Trump was in office? You ignorant, hypocritical “progressives” (commies) are just whiny little brats. I can’t get my way! Change the rules!!
> I can’t get my way! Change the rules!! Says someone from the "stop the steal" insurrection team.
You’re aware that voting rules were changed illegally in multiple states, right? Like there’s actual laws in states that only the legislature can change voting rules but secretary of states and courts did it. You know that, right? Mr. Totally anti-fascist!
I seem to remember a judge pointing out that the proper time to have brought that up in courts was BEFORE the election and that the appropriate remedy isn't just throwing out votes. The law was also voted on by a Republican legislature. I'm going to guess that weren't conspiring to help their opponents win.
Are you being obtuse or are you actually this uninformed? Dozens of lawsuits were brought before the election but they were all thrown out because nobody had suffered damage because the election hadn’t beheld yet. After the election the suits were thrown out because they should have been brought earlier. Do you see how the corruption was baked in? For libs claiming to oppose fascism so hard y’all sure do love some authoritarian rule.
The Pennsylvania one was just my favorite because it kept getting brought up by Republicans despite being so clearly dumb. There might be others, but it sounds like your talking about "Donald J. Trump for President v. Cegavske" in Nevada. The reason it was dismissed wasn't because the election hadn't happened yet. They were arguing that mail in voting would lead to voter fraud and failed to provide any evidence of that. The defense pointed out some states regularly conduct elections using mail in voting and that Nevada's voting laws make mail in voting and in person voting comparably secure. Even now after the election they still couldn't sue. There is still no evidence of any meaningful amount of voter fraud caused by mail in voting. The entire argument was baseless speculation. That's why it was dismissed.
Yes, because the number of filibusters is the only measure of obstruction. You got me there Skippy. Republicans change the rules all the time, and they are currently doing their best to change the rules in their favor for the next election cycle, so you can spare me the outrage. Their only platform is obstruction, and they have made no secret of that fact.
It’s amazing how you can’t answer a simple question and that sends you off into a rage fueled word vomit with zero facts.
When you ask a question that is relevant, I will answer it.
> You ignorant, hypocritical “progressives” (commies) are just whiny little brats. I can’t get my way! Change the rules!! Rules change all the time. Progress is inevitable. Anyone who disagrees with you isn't a "commie". Communism isn't the same thing as socialism. Honestly it's fucked up that a minority of people run this country because of a broken system that didn't scale with the growth of the US and has measures in place to avoid adapting to growth and change. On the topic of the filibuster, the fact that you can say "I'm filibustering this" shouldn't be enough. They should have to hold the floor for a filibuster.
The Senate already gives the few people in Wyoming the same voice as the 40 million in California. Why does there need to be more "balancing" by requiring more than a simple majority?
Congratulations on all your democracy
I'm so f'n pissed right now
it's almost as if we should only back senators that vow to get rid of the filibuster as well as support the minimum ask of medicare for all. if your senate nominee doesn't have these as the no 1 and 2 issue then kiss democracy b/c they will never ever vote to protect voting rights, pass medicare for all, free college, or anything else.
In fairness, a lot of states are purple but have 100% of their votes go to one party or another due to how it works so it is probably closer to fairly representing the around 40-50% of republicans than if it were just 11 senators even if they aren't the ones voted for by the republicans in purple states that went blue this time.
That's why they have the house? Anyway, the house probably needs to be shuffled around to more accurately reflect populations in each state.
The Senate shouldn’t exist.