Californians are welcome to try to split into multiple states if they would like more Senators.
Really? Please explain. Like, I get the DEI joke, but the fact all these little states are red isn’t some law of the Universe. They have been blue and can be again.
Unless I’m missing some deeper joke? Apparently I am unless the down votes are just circlejerking.
EDIT: Maybe you all think the Senate should be determined by population? If so, that’s what the House is for. Uncap it.
It’s not that it should be by population. It’s that the idea of the senate itself is outdated.
Now the cities are the source of almost all of America’s wealth, power, education, and population, but they are forced to bend the knee to a tiny portion of the country. The whole system is way out of wack.
Carving up California into more states wouldn’t fix that, as it would still put more power into fewer hands.
I don’t think senators should be by state, I think senators should hold office for 5 years and every year the entire country should elect 20 senators.
Other things we should do:
Abolish political parties.
Uncap the house, algorithmically determine representative districts with something like the shortest split-line method, and assign between 3 and 5 representatives per district.
Break the powers of the president into multiple different offices.
Make the leaders of the house and senate elected offices.
Abolish political parties.
I’m very curious to know how exactly you want to word this law to acheive the effect you’re dreaming of without it being unenforceable, without it being weaponizeable as a mass voter suppression tool, and without creating a freedom of speech or freedom of assembly violation.
A fair voting system allows people to vote for whatever reason they want. Voters want to win. Banding together to focus and force multiply campaign resources increases chances to win. Political parties are an inevitability in a fair system.
I understand the vibe of your sentiment is to not allow political parties to grow to the overcentralizing control they have today. You’re not particularly concerned about, say, a band of guys who meet up at the pub to figure out who they’re gonna organize a collective vote for. At least I hope not, because the alternative sounds wildly dystopian. But like, what’s the line in the sand between the two? How do you define the difference, legally?
The goal is to make it so self-declared private organizations can’t be an official part of the election process. At the moment, the state holds primaries for political parties, and helps them keep track of who’s in which one which helps maintain the duopoly.
I’m sympathetic to the concept, but I think that the advantages that organized parties have in terms of coordination (e.g. people with broadly similar values and policy goals choosing one candidate to represent those goals to avoid splitting the vote and seeing someone antithetical to those shared goals elected) are sufficiently strong that you would just see the current primaries replaced immediately by a primary process run completely independent of government oversight and resources. I can’t imagine that being good from a perspective of electoral legitimacy or reducing the influence of money in politics.
Break the powers of the president into multiple different offices.
As long as we’re talking esoteric political ideas, the big one here is to split head of state from head of government. It might not affect the function of government much, because the head of state is largely ceremonial in modern systems, but it’s I think it’s super-important psychologically.
A lot of (most?) people have trouble thinking about the office of the President as an abstract concept separately from the person of the President. Therefore, the President becomes an avatar of the United States, taken to be the living embodiment of our identity as a nation. That’s why so many people freak out about “the destruction of America” when a member of the other party, with values they don’t share, becomes the President, and it makes elections feel like a polarizing, existential referendum.
By contrast, King Charles is the head of state in the UK, while the head of government (the prime minister) comes and goes, and a stable avatar of the nation, largely above politics. They have their share of major problems over there, to be sure, but at least the nation has a shared identity to rally around when needed.
They don’t love all of it, just 3/5ths.
Ha, no, they love isolating power to claim more for themselves.
This is a pithy retort, but it does raise a disturbing question.
Why do Republicans dominate in smaller and more rural states?
The brightest red state in the Union is Wyoming, a state with virtually no history of slavery.
The second reddest is West Virginia, a state that exists entirely because of its abolitionist popular revolt against the slave owning rich men from Richmond.
You’re not wrong (cherry picking a little though), and I get that there is more nuance and some exceptions to the generalization. But there certainly is a lot of overlap between Slave Owning and Republican States. Enough that one would be justified in at least wondering if there was a correlation.
because rural areas correlate with less educated populations, and people who have less education tend to vote Republican.
rural areas correlate with less educated populations
Huntsville, Alabama is one of the reddest corners of the reddest states in the country. It has the highest per capita populations of rocket scientists in the world.
Huntsville, Alabama is not rural. It’s the most highly populated city in Alabama. I’m not claiming that there are not intelligent people who are full of hate that support Republican policies, nor am I claiming there are no cities which support Republicans. The question was why do rural areas typically vote Republican.
Huntsville imported 1000+ Nazi scientists to work on rockets in the 50’s. That may explain the outlier.
There’s a lot of knowledge drain in republican states. People who go to university and lean left usually move out of the state, for 1. Being closer to like minded people 2. Lots of jobs and opportunities exist purely in cities
Basically people dont usually stay in red states if they lean blue
People who go to university and lean left usually move out of the state
That’s as much a part of the employment prospects as anything. States with large industrial and commercial centers tend to end up with the old “Blueberries in the Tomato Soup” effect. Austin, Houston, and increasingly Dallas in Texas, for instance. Atlanta in Georgia. Tampa and Tallahassee in Florida.
Basically people dont usually stay in red states if they lean blue
Some of the most populous states in the country still tilt red. Florida and Texas most notably, but Pennsylvania and Ohio and Georgia and North Carolina as well.
If the state has a lucrative industry, people move there regardless of the prevailing state ideology. That’s one thing Republicans do tend to get right. Attracting big corporate HQs to your state can make up for a lot of your shitty revanchist social policies.
Texas is gerrymandered to shit, and employs pretty nasty voter suppression tactics in populous (see: blue) counties by having very few polling stations per capita in those areas and making it a crime to give water/food to people waiting in line to vote. Big Texas cities are blue for the most part (maybe a few exceptions in the DFW area)
If you look at pretty much any of the cities within Texas on the latest map, you can see that they consolidate the core of the city into one or two solid blobs, then split the rest out to be diluted by rural areas. See Dallas/Tarrant County, Travis County, Bexar County, and Harris County for the most obvious cases of these.
https://redistricting.capitol.texas.gov/docs/88th_Senate_Tabloid_2024_05_20.pdf
On a population level, Texas is basically a blue state held hostage by a red state administration.
And then nobody wants to move back. At best you’ve got some purple cities like Austin starting to shift blue, but even then. I was in Austin for a few days this spring. I was infatuated. Started looking at home listings. Then I realized I’d be living in Texas. Who the hell wants that?
Urban areas tend towards D, rural tends toward R. Smaller population states have smaller, less populous urban areas, thus the discrepancy.
Why? My theory is that smaller communities can force out opposition, so they tend to have more uniform ideas (trends towards tradition) whereas larger communities have to compromise to make a healthy community, meaning more diversity of ideas and more empathy towards traditionally counter-culture groups.
