Anonymous #2 2w

Bro this isn’t the electoral college

-3

Anonymous OP 2w

Electoral college is based on senators + reps tho for number of electors But yes I don’t disagree with the bicameral congress idea

15

Anonymous #2 2w

That’s a stretch. Sure they’re related the topic here was mainly bicameral related 👍

-2

Anonymous OP 2w

Ok anyways I guess I disagree with the post because it’s balanced out by the house

11

Anonymous #2 2w

I disagree. Say you have a drinking cup, and it’s filled half with pineapple juice (or your drink of choice) and half with diarrhea. The pineapple juice doesn’t “balance out” the diarrhea, the diarrhea just makes everything worse

2

Anonymous #5 2w

So those states should have less senators than major states?

1

Anonymous #3 2w

State governments shouldn’t get representation, people should get representation. No matter how you slice it, the senate is unfair

3

Anonymous #5 2w

THATS LITERALLY WHAT THE SENATE IS. They’re elected state representatives who serve in the senate to represent their constituents from their state.

0

Anonymous #4 2w

They have less reps than major states so … yes that’s how a unicameral congress would work Another alternative would be to just make the house way more powerful. For example, House of Commons (proportionately elected) is infinitely more powerful than the House of Lords .

1

Anonymous #2 2w

That’s not how our government works, they’re there to balance each other out not be more powerful than the other.

1

Anonymous #4 2w

Well yes, OP is criticizing how the government currently works. So we’re just talking about possible alternatives … In the US for example the senate is generally considered more powerful, since they have exclusive power over confirming appointments (Supreme Court judges, cabinet), ratifying treaties, and trying impeachment cases.

1

Anonymous #2 2w

So you’re floating the idea of making the house more powerful. But why is that better than the current system?

1

Anonymous #4 2w

I mean, theoretically that makes the people have more of a say, since as OP said , California has the same amount of people as 23 states Is there any empirical evidence that this will produce more democratic, liberal results? Not really

1

Anonymous #2 2w

I mean what evidence would I even offer, I’m just saying that other countries do that. (Only a few have a “true” bicameral government in that both sides are roughly the same in terms of power, most are unicameral or are like GB in that one is clearly superior than the other)

1

Anonymous #2 2w

It doesn’t though, it gives major states a majority of the power leaving smaller states with less reps to just deal with it.

1

Anonymous #4 2w

Right but … the idea (as OP said) for that change would be so that the government serves the people primarily, not the states .. I can see the argument for “mob rule” or something though, but yes it would be a fundamental change in who the government is supposed to serve, making it more democratic

1

Anonymous #2 2w

How does it make it more democratic when you can see an argument for mob rule? Everyone will have two senators still, but you’re talking about giving states like California and Texas the most power while leaving states like Wyoming or “fly over states” with one or two reps out to dry.

1

Anonymous #2 2w

My purpose was to see who was civilly literate enough to know that this was a misleading graphic.

5

Anonymous OP 2w

Oh word😭

1

Anonymous #4 2w

Ideally, there wouldn’t be a senate at all. Even more ideally, no law would be able to pass without a vote of approval by the public. Alas, this is the shitty system we’re stuck with for now

0

Anonymous #4 2w

I can see the argument. I just think it’s silly because there are many many countries that use a unicameral legislature without being “mob rule” it’s still a government not anarchy 😭 And the reason why California has more power is because that’s where people live and that’s kinda the purpose of government to help people

1

Anonymous #5 2w

Trust me bro you do not want a mob vote

1

Anonymous #2 2w

But to be clear, I do agree with you. I just don’t think it will be civilization collapse if we gave more power to the house

1

Anonymous #6 2w

Currently, no matter the approval rating of a policy among the public, it has about a 30% chance of passing. 0% approval? 30% chance to pass. 100% approval? 30% chance to pass. So long as measures are in place to make sure nobody’s human rights are infringed (which they are in many areas), having a veto option by the public is perfectly acceptable

0

Anonymous #5 2w

And how long would it take to vote the laws? Would we as a public vote on every law? If not, who decides which laws we get to vote for? And if someone is deciding which laws we can and can’t vote for, how do we make sure that they let us vote for laws we care about?

1

Anonymous #6 2w

Bro is civilly literate ❤️

6

Anonymous #7 2w

Bro is civilly literate ❤️I was seeing if someone would notice that the graphic is kinda bad

1

Anonymous #4 2w

Separation of people by state in terms of representation is a horrid system. You end up with things like this where some people are given more representation than others. Plus, the whole “different states have different cultures and needs” thing is also troubling. Faraway counties in the same state have different populations. Likewise, close by counties across state borders probably have similar populations.

1

Anonymous OP 2w

It likely wouldn’t be necessary to vote on every law, but having a veto option by supermajority of the public (something like 70% or 80%) would be beneficial. Likewise, there are policies that 80% of the public supports, but are not in place (things like banning politicians from insider trading, preventing corporations from buying single family homes, etc.). Having a mechanism to force a favorable vote on these issues would also be not bad

1

Anonymous #5 2w

who decides what issues are voted on? Besides, tallying up votes for a presidential race already takes a decent amount of time. Imagine if we had to do that more than once a year. And just picture the number of new people you’d have to hire and all the calls of voter fraud every time a big decision gets made. This idea would make our current bloated bureaucracy look skinny and our turtle paced government look fast. No offense, but this is frankly a really inefficient and overall bad idea.

1

Anonymous #5 2w

https://www.bu.edu/bridge/archive/2005/02-04/athenian.html. Take a look at this source if you’re curious. The author primarily argues that the nondemocratic elements of our system insulate our government from the volatile, emotional driven moods of the public who lack proper expertise to make important decisions.

1