Idea: 10 biggest states get 3 senators
Non Swing Voter:
Too complicated. If you have multiple retirements you could end up with 3 senate seats up for grabs in one state in one year, maybe 3 runoffs. It's just too much.
The better solution, which has been done in the past, would be to just break up a few of the larger states. California being the most obvious because it's so skewed to one party and so enormous that it really screws the Democratic party's representation in the senate.
LAKISYLVANIA:
Not a fan. It also means that the minority of a large state is never represented. (So like 45% of Florida doesn't matter electorally and so do 6 million republicans in California) I'm not a fan of the winner takes it all systems in such countries. It benefits some states, and other states have no influence or sh**t. I don't even understand how one state can even tolerate this sh**t. Californians should always be in favour of independence. They have no voting power and their state doesn't matter politically. They're being taken hostages by the average America that is not in line with their views, and what matters in California might not matter elsewhere.
I believe in proportional elections. D'hondt method. Maybe proportional by state (so some states would still have at large elections, the states that are too small). That could be done for the house.
Senate system need an entire overhaul, because you cannot defend this system. Perhaps abolition of the senate is the only solution, and putting more weight on the house.
No more district nonsense, no more district bullsh**t, no more gerrymandering, no more spending of 3 billion euros on one obscure district with 100.000 voters, if done right equal voting power and representation by party, demographic and even giving third parties a shot (and if not, allocate some guaranteed seats to minorities, like they do in Chile).
You'all need to realize that the political system in the US doesn't work, maybe it did work centuries ago, but it doesn't work today and especially with increased polarization this is becoming painfully clear with two parties desperate to hold power.
Death of a Salesman:
California 2020: Democratic
Texas 2016: Republican
Florida 2020: Republican
New York 2020: Democratic
Pennsylvania 2020: Tossup (probably a Republican incumbent, so I’d guess Tilt R)
Illinois 2018: Democratic
Ohio 2020: Republican
Georgia 2018: Republican (Republicans swept 2018 GA statewide races)
North Carolina 2018: Tossup (probably a Democratic incumbent, so Tilt D, but Bill Nelson went down in FL)
Michigan 2016: Republican (Republicans probably win it in 2010, and a Republican incumbent would likely win with Trump on the ticket in 2016).
Democrats would certainly have three, but I think four is more likely than 5, so this probably results in a 56-44 Republican Senate (let’s say the GOP holds PA 2020, GA 2018, and MI 2016, while losing NC 2018).
Person Man:
The senate stays at 100. The smallest 10 states get 1 senator.
Pericles:
Quote from: Person Man on February 23, 2022, 09:39:15 AM
The senate stays at 100. The smallest 10 states get 1 senator.
The problem for Democrats is the Reoublicans have more smaller than average states, the very small states are a mixed bag for both parties at the moment.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page