this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2024
1038 points (98.9% liked)

politics

19043 readers
3850 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MiDaBa@lemmy.ml 26 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I think a bigger component in making this happen is instituting ranked choice voting. Political parties are private institutions that have amassed entirely too much power over our country. Sure, we can vote but electoral college or popular voting and we still are stuck with a candidate selected by one of two private institutions. These private entities are able to control elected officials who stray too far from the party line. As long as large political parties control the candidates our vote holds less power.

[–] orrk@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

ranked choice isn't going to fix shit, proportional or go home

[–] MouseKeyboard@ttrpg.network 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Ranked choice for presidency, proportional for congress (and the senate if that's worth having exist at all).

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

I think having a bicameral house is a very good thing.

And I know it gets a lot of hate in these parts, but the Senate was never meant to be proportionate. We are a federation of states, it makes sense to have one house be "the people's house" with proportionate representation, and a second house that is divided by state. It's kind of the entire point of having a union of states.

Bring on the hate, but I don't think the Senate is the problem. The corruption in the Senate is a symptom of the problem, but there is nothing fundamentally wrong with it as a concept.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

The problem is that they haven't expanded the house since ~~1920(?)~~ 1929 the current house should have at least 659 representatives, and personally I think it should be double that, because at 659 each representative is still representing 500,000 people.

Edit: thanks to AbidanYre

[–] MouseKeyboard@ttrpg.network 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

States are fairly arbitrary divisions of land and I don't think they need representation separate from the representation their people have.

[–] Narauko@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

Everything is an arbitrary division when we get down to it. Doing away with states would require a complete rewrite of the constitution, and a fundamental shift to the country as a whole. I personally like the Republic concept and ability for states to experiment with things that might not be popular or a priority for the entire country. This will have good and bad outcomes on these experiments, but it's how we have things like decriminalization, universal healthcare attempts, etc. Without the "all other things not innumerated belong to the states" this isn't possible, and removing state representation removes that.

[–] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 2 weeks ago

Approval voting, not ranked choice. Easier to explain, solves the same problems at least as well and most voting machines already support it.

Combine it with every state assigning their electors in the same fashion as Maine and you're most of the way to what people want without needing to get 38 states and 2/3 of Congress to agree to an amendment. Just simple majorities in individual state legislatures that can be done piecemeal.