• MouseKeyboard@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      16 hours ago

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

      • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        13 hours ago

        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.

        • MouseKeyboard@ttrpg.network
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 hours ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            16 minutes 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.

        • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          9 hours ago

          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