Does the US need to be fundamentally transformed?

[grumbler]

Which strikes me as a bit silly given that we've states whose total population would be about the size of a city in most other states.  Irresponsible granting of statehood.

It strikes me as a bit silly to complain about something that isn't a real problem, and which couldn't be changed anyway because the small states muster enough numbers to block an amendment to strip them of their powers.

The focus should be on problems that are real and which can be fixed.  The electoral college problem, for instance, could be solved without a constitutional amendment simply by having states distrubute EC votes according to the popular vote in the state.  The filibuster problem could be solved by requiring an actual filibuster, rather than a mere statement of intent.

[Neil]

Except it's not odd, because that's the entire point of the Senate.  The states are supposed to stand equal in the Senate, while the people stand equal in the House.

Which strikes me as a bit silly given that we've states whose total population would be about the size of a city in most other states.  Irresponsible granting of statehood.

Not especially.  The states had to be sized such that they could be conveniently governed.  Population wasn't the only factor in granting statehood, nor should it have been.  Also, most of the micro-states came in at the creation of the country, so there wasn't much that could be done.

[Tonitrus]

  The electoral college problem, for instance, could be solved without a constitutional amendment simply by having states distrubute EC votes according to the popular vote in the state.

If EC votes just mirror the popular vote, why bother with the EC at all then?

[Ed Anger]

A benign dictatorship under yours truly would work wonders.

Tim at the airport:

Tim: Finally back in America!
Airport Security: Sir, please follow us.
Tim: okay! *skips off with them*
Tim: Disintegration booth?
Airport Security: DEATH TO DWEEBS! HAIL ED!
*zap*

[grumbler]

  The electoral college problem, for instance, could be solved without a constitutional amendment simply by having states distrubute EC votes according to the popular vote in the state.

If EC votes just mirror the popular vote, why bother with the EC at all then?

There's this thing called the United States Constitution.  The rules have to follow it.  The EC is in that constitution.

[CountDeMoney]

That's what amendments are for.

And Acts of Congress.

[Tonitrus]

  The electoral college problem, for instance, could be solved without a constitutional amendment simply by having states distrubute EC votes according to the popular vote in the state.

If EC votes just mirror the popular vote, why bother with the EC at all then?

There's this thing called the United States Constitution.  The rules have to follow it.  The EC is in that constitution.

At risk of creating a strawman, I would argue that the likelihood of all the states changing their laws to do such a thing is comparable to the odds of a successful Constitutional amendment that eliminates the EC. 

[grumbler]

At risk of creating a strawman, I would argue that the likelihood of all the states changing their laws to do such a thing is comparable to the odds of a successful Constitutional amendment that eliminates the EC. 

You actually wouldn't need to get every state to do it.    Some states have already done it, and it could easily be be encouraged in others by offering a carrot, or even by just portraying it as the honest reform that it is.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Technically you can't fundamentally alter the Senate. There is a prohibition on certain amendments, and Senate apportionment is one of the prohibitions:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

I have no idea how that would work in application, I mean I guess a State could consent to lose its equal Suffrage...but again, it's one of those issues that is such a non-starter in this country that it's never realistically been addressed.

[Tonitrus]

Perhaps I am just skeptical of it as a useful reform, if it is just parroting the direct election.

If there is a major flaw in comparing how the direct election/EC balance works, compared to the Senate/House balance works...it is that the EC wins over the direct election every time (unlike the Senate).

One might argue that the most "democratic" way to reform the EC would to have the names of actual state electors on the ballots along with the Presidential candidates, make them justify themselves to the electorate like any other politician, and let them cast their votes freely. 

Of course, that would inflate the craziness level of Presidential elections to an unacceptable level. 

[Tonitrus]

I would wonder about a State that consents to downgrade its level of Senate suffrage.

Maybe they were thinking in terms of a condition of admission for new states?

[MadImmortalMan]

I think the point is that after over 200 years of the union, perhaps it's about time to get rid of the federalism.

You of all people should be in favor not making it easier for the majority to steamroll the minority.

[MadImmortalMan]

Otto's long post

Why on Earth would you want to cut down on gridlock? You'd have those morons actually up there doing things to us if you did that.

[OttoVonBismarck]

The manner in which you quoted my post has made us mortal enemies. My only goal in life is now to see yours ruined.

[garbon]

The focus should be on problems that are real and which can be fixed. 

Why? As if our banter here on Languish will actually lead to anything.