I agree that it’s ridiculous that that is what it seems like to you.
You can’t hold Clarence responsible for Ginni’s nuttiness any more than Ricky Ricardo should account for Lucy’s craziness. Thomas had no way to assure anyone that he could get the majority of the Supreme Court to go along with a coup. I believe Thomas would vote however DJT told him to, but I don’t think he holds that much sway on the others. Still, catching him on tape promising to support the coup would normally be enough for impeachment and conviction, but we have one party that cares not one whit about morals or propriety.
Much as I think Thomas is compromised af, I’m not seeing anything remotely concrete enough to justify an impeachment at this point either. Until such a tape or substantive witness testimony exists, I’m just going to continue to shake my fist at him.
Mind you, there’s plenty to be investigating Ginny for. Gotta start somewhere.
Well, you were the one who said…
I don’t think being married is a crime, yes he has an interracial marriage but that is legal now.
I am so sick of the Disinterested Citizen. They are the reason the country is in the bad shape it’s in today, because they don’t care enough to get involved with the process. If all the intelligent eligible voters had participated in the process in 2016, the only way Donald Trump would have ever seen the inside of the White House. AFAIC, if the traitors and insurrectionists get booted out of the country, the Disinterested Citizen can slink away along with them. So they can stick their “point of view” right up where you can only see it with a colonoscopy.
Ricky Ricardo as a Supreme Court Justice. Now that’s the Golden Age of Television:
“Loooossyyy, you caahhhn’t prezent da clozin’ arkument!!”
“…WWAAAAGGHH!!”
I hear you. Yet they turned out in record numbers in 2020 to elect Biden – or, more accurately, to reject Trump. We’ll soon see if enough of them stayed interested this year to help keep Trump’s party out of power. Projections aren’t great. But like it or not, keeping them on our side is the only way we save democracy.
Huh, I’m not sure how I feel about the fate of democracy being left in the hands of voters.
I know! Screw them, amirite! 
And more voted for Trump in 2020 than in 2016 despite four years of evidence that was right in front of them. I don’t know bout you but I pretty much lost faith in the “typical American voter” on learning that.
Yeah, but at what point does the electorate get it so wrong that you have to take democracy into your own hands?
Before it even starts.
We had the electoral college and a restriction on only allowing land owners to vote, when we kicked everything off. The Framers were trying to avoid the worst aspects of democracy, based on their experience with local election systems.
There are reasons that we modified/abandoned what they set up - don’t get me wrong. But rather than fixing the issues we just tried to replace everything with a stronger democratic system and a weaker republican system (no relation to the political parties). We should have strengthened the structure of converting the democratic results into a rigorous republic, as we enfranchised more people. Instead, we just threw the republic part into the trash and advertised that we were always meant to be a direct democracy, with every voice deserving equal consideration, regardless of all logic and evidence.
But the goal was always to reduce the power of the majorities and the ignorant. We should never have forgotten it.
In what way did it effect his popularity and/or power? In fact, it is seen as a badge of honor among many of his Trumpettes, proof that he screwed with the political enemy. Anything short of massive monetary loss and/or physical confinement is just words to him.
And who should have made that decision for us?
Since when? I wasn’t aware that I had a vote on legislative bills in congress. I’ve not really heard anyone say that we were meant to be a direct democracy. Do you have a cite for that?
So, whose voice do you think should be ignored?
Yes, the idea of majority rule is so feared that it was replaced with minority rule. While I agree that there are problems associated with the former, I don’t really see that latter as being better.
So, literacy tests, then? Who determines who is ignorant and who is worthy of being represented in government?
No, we get reminded often enough that there are forces out there that want to replace democracy with tyranny. You aren’t the first to think of it. No reminder needed.
Part of the problem we see now came with the Apportionment Act of 1929 when the number of Representatives was fixed at 435, regardless of population. With growing population, something needed to be done, but the chamber was originally designed to give “the people” a voice comparable to that of the State (which is represented by Senators). Unfortunately, it has had the result of strengthening the power of the State over the people, since it gives states with a lower population a stronger relative voice than those with a higher population. This “feature” did not exist in the Constitution, as-written.
The best solution I have heard is what is called the “Wyoming Solution” as it bases the number of representatives to be the state’s population divided by the population of the least populous state (Wyoming, for the present). So, Wyoming would get one representative. States with a population between twice that of Wyoming and three times that of Wyoming would get two, and so on…
Of course, this would not only affect the make-up of the House of Representatives, but would affect the Electoral College as well, allowing both institutions to be more responsive to the people. I realize this will never happen as it would make it harder for the two-parties to maintain a stranglehold on the populace*. With both parties being against it, it has no chance of ever happening.
*Do you think it is only happenstance that the country appears to be evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans? It’s all about maximizing profit. Political contributions, to both parties, increase dramatically when they are even. The RNC and DNC both lose money if Republicans become significantly more numerous than the Democrats, and vice versa. The two-party system in the US is not good for America.
Our elected representatives.
The philosophical idea is that you chose someone who you trust to understand the needs of the people in your region and to diligently do the work of learning anything they need to know, talking to everyone that they need to talk to, and making good choices that will balance all the interests of everyone involved.
The philosophical idea is NOT that I want something and this guy is going to do it for me.
But, if you sell the people on the second idea then it’s a lot easier to get votes and you’ll bury anyone who’s competing on the first style.
The first step is to use the first amendment to convince people that they got duped by crooks and that those crooks advertised “democracy” for two hundred years, to get into and stay in power. The second step is that we vote in enough good people for just two elections that they’ll make some tweaks like stopping gerrymandering, increasing sortition, opening the primaries, etc.
In general, if you think that you can trust the average politician then I’m wrong and we’re on path 1 - the path that the Framers intended. If you can’t trust the average politician further than you can throw them then I’m right and you should stop electing people on the basis of what they’re promising to do for you and instead on whether they’re good, hardworking folk with a curious mind and unwilling to change for money or power.
If you don’t trust the average politician, the popular theory of what we’re voting for is wrong.
Hence it is that democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general have been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths … A republic, by which I mean a government in which a scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are seeking. — James Madison
Its actually not really that large an effect, and increasing the congressional caucus by 33% to give Wyoming a full congressman won’t solve it. It will just shift around the discrepancy. The real problem is with the Senate. I had a long back and forth about this with Little_Nemo in the thread linked below.
Increasing the number of Representatives won’t change the two-party system as long as the basic mechanics (election by district, first past the post, single-selection voting) remain in place. Changing those variables (e.g. ranked preference voting to enable a third party candidate to credibly attract support without becoming a “spoiler” and tipping the election to the more objectionable of the two major party candidates) is the way to go if you want to weaken the duopoly.
It would somewhat dilute the Electoral College advantage of the states that get one vote each for people, cows, and tumbleweeds, since the +2 per state has less impact if the new benchmarks are somewhere around 700 EV total, 350 to win.
It’s not the size of the effect, it’s the pressure the effect puts on the system. As it is now, an increasing population in country increases the political power of the few and decreases the political power of the populace. This is not self-correcting. The population will continue to increase. If not, there will be much bigger problems then whether a former President wanted to make himself King. This effect will make it easier for the next one to succeed.
No, the Apportionment Act is not THE problem with our system, but it is a problem.
OK, I think I misunderstood your concern. Most of the place where I see the Wyoming rule cited is as a correction to the mistaken idea that the small size of the house structurally advantages voters in small states (using Wyoming’s rounding up as an example), so I mistakenly thought you were in that camp. if your gripe is that ratio between the number of voters to representatives is too large, then any increase is a good thing, and the Wyoming rule is a 36% (the 33% I reported earlier was misremembered) step in the right direction.
What’s the specific mechanism by which slightly-smaller House districts would “make it harder for the two-parties to maintain a stranglehold on the populace”? Something like 98 of the 99 state legislative bodies have smaller districts than the US House, and yet they are all two-party systems as well.
A member of the lower house of the New Hampshire legislature represents something like 1/200 of a US House seat. 399 of 400 are Republicans or Democrats (and the one exception was apparently elected as a Democrat).