We’re a two-party government because of single member districts and first past the post voting.
The Wyoming Rule is good. The cube root of the population rule is also a pretty good way to determine the size of Congress. But both only partially solve our representation problems; to really fix it we need multi-member districting and proportional representation, or the FRA.
Friday is the deadline for former-President Donald Trump to turn over documents as part of a subpoena issued by the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. The documents in question refers to assorted electronic messages, call logs, photos and videos — even hand-written notes — from as far back as September 2020.
It’s unclear whether Trump will abide by the committee’s subpoena, issued on Oct. 21 after its most recent hearing, but Committee Vice Chair Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., said they have been speaking with Trump’s lawyers. During a televised forum at Cleveland State University Tuesday, Cheney told PBS journalist Judy Woodruff that the former president is obligated to comply.
…That being said, there is a strong chance the former president will not produce the documents by the end of the day.
…
I’d rephrase that as: “There’s not an ice cube’s chance in hell that the former president will produce the documents by the end of the day. Or even in two weeks.”
…
It’s unclear, at least for now, whether the committee will make a criminal referral to the Justice Department should Trump choose not to cooperate. When asked about what action the panel would likely take, Cheney said she didn’t want to put the cart before the horse.
…
No need to tip hands, Thelma. Imho, of course.
The idea is not “mistaken” at all with regard to the Electoral College, as I noted above. The larger the total size of the House (and thus the larger the number of electoral votes each state has based on population), the less significant the flat +2 electoral votes for every state becomes. The net effect is to dilute the disproportionate power of small states for which the +2 is a relatively large share of their overall electoral vote.
Like I said:
Former President Donald Trump blew off a Friday morning subpoena deadline to produce documents demanded by the House Jan. 6 Committee — so the panel granted him a week’s extension.
…“We have informed Trump’s counsel that he must begin producing records no later than next week,” the statement continued.
…
To which I say, “Or what?”
He needs 2 weeks.
They’ll give him another week, but that will definitely be it. Or else.
They don’t have many weeks left. At the risk of sounding ultimately naive, I hope they know what they’re doing.
What can they do, legally speaking? It’s so infuriating to have this spoiled toddler just dodge accountability like this because of a weakness in the system.
What would happen to John/Jane Q. Ordinary Citizen if they ignored a deadline to turn over documents? Serious question.
Send the gazpacho police after him.
For comparison, there was an FBI agent who took home documents.
What I think is hard for people to get their heads around is that it’s not so much a failure of the system itself as a failure of the people who are currently gaming the system. They are powerful and hold influential positions in government. They are daring the current government to hold them to account.
You have to ask yourself why the system worked well for so many years. I mean, powerful Democrats were summoned by subpoena and they complied without question (one instance I can think of excepted).
Trump is gambling that Kevin McCarthy and the Republicans will save him from the January 6th Committee subpoenas by prevailing in the mid-terms. And he may be right with respect to those congressional subpoenas. But they can’t save him from the DOJ and their subpoenas. Even Trump knows this.
The weakness in the system to which @Love_Rhombus refers is a total repudiation by one party in the system of accountability to that system. I don’t know who can do anything about that except the DOJ. And Congress, should Democrats prevail in 3 days’ time. I still believe they might.
I hope it’s enough.
To which I say “So what”. People that should know the law should be held to the highest standards of the law.
The past few years have really exposed how much of government was based on the custom people acting professionally and respectfully. When enough actors decide, “To hell with that,” it became apparent how hard it is to build in enough safeguards against that.
No argument from me. But as @Dinsdale points out, this depends on the quality of people holding the office, and their willingness to adhere to norms. Which we no longer have. And those non-quality people now holding those high offices I spoke of are the ones who are perverting the system beyond recognition – and beyond a functioning democracy.
You can say, “So what?” all you like, but it was people like McCarthy and his cohorts who failed to remove Trump from office twice in the most obvious, righteous impeachments in our history. It was those powerful people like Bill Barr who interfered with lawful prosecutions of folks like Roger Stone and Michael Flynn. Here’s just one example of how one powerful person in office prevented true justice from taking place in the Trump years (and continuing):
You don’t even have to read the entries. Just take a stroll down Memory Lane with the headings.
And today, you’re fighting nearly every Republican in Congress.
I understand what should be happening. But I’m speaking about what is actually happening.
I applaud your optimism, but don’t share it.
I think when the Republicans take over the House, Senate and many state positions, they’ll follow through with their promise to ensure that no Democrat wins any election ever again. They almost caught the brass ring on Jan 6, and they’ve seen that this is their big chance coming up. They’re going to go all-in next time.
I expect that by the 2030 elections, we’ll be seeing a single-party system in the US, and membership in the Democratic Party will be outlawed at the state and federal level. Many folks will applaud that, and many more will be saying “what the hell just happened? I didn’t mean for that to happen.”
It was like an honor system, and then along comes CFSG.
Well, the operative word in what you quoted was, “might.”
I can just as easily reach the same conclusions as you have. But if that’s the case, it was too late long ago, and these next couple of days may be the last ones about which I can muster any optimism at all. Please leave me in peace with my illusions if you are right. They won’t last much longer. 
Reminds me of a scene from a Father Brown episode. A cricket ground has been shared by two friendly-rival communities. An outside interloper intends to break the system with a legal loophole in the original agreement and use the land for a highway.
Local person: “We’ve shared this ground for centuries. It’s a gentleman’s agreement.”
Interloper (with a snarky grin): “Well, then I’m glad I’m not a gentleman.”
This is the crux of the matter. And it’s not just government. A functioning society depends on civility and respect for law. The legislators and members of government themselves have thrown those out the window. The statement at the McCarthy Hearings, “Have you no sense of decency?” wouldn’t cause a tremor or a blush in this group today.