>

But when do we realize that this DOES represent them?
While the embedded link is an interesting read, the authors completely ignore the how of how our current political situation happened, completely ignoring gerrymandering, voter caging, voter intimidation, and all the other voter suppression techniques the Republican Party uses with great frequency and usually with great results (for them).  There are more citizens in the US that identify as Democrats or leaning democratic, but due to all the methods Republicans use to squash the will or desire of the voters, conservative voters have more input on elections than their numbers should allow.  Couple that with the fact that a large number of conservative voters are grossly uninformed (fact: people who only watch Fox News know less about political issues than those who don't watch any news at all), and conservative voters allow themselves to be manipulated via emotional tropes and other supposed "issues" that rarely impact their daily lives, and this leads to getting outrageous candidates like MTG, Bobert, Gatez, Gomert and the others of the idiotocracy elected.
For conservative voters, some of them enjoy the dysfunctional approach, not realizing that the candidates they elected would throw those very voters under the bus if they get the chance to cut Social Security, Medicare and other social structures that all Red states rely on, so they honestly believe that what is starting to happen is what is needed to happen.  Personally, I almost wish there was some sort of civics test that voters would be required to pass in order to be able to vote.  But that would also eliminate a lot of Republican candidates ... >

Yes we do, but we're stuck in a cycle where the only way to change the House or any of the system is to overwhelmingly win in the system itself with a huge Dem majority while the GOP has gamed the system via gerrymandering to keep themselves competitive in the House. So we're basically trapped with it as it is. >


So we're basically trapped with it as it is.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:
I am convinced that change is going to have to happen at a genetic level before people will ever be able to sort themselves out on any sort of large scale.
Our species is innately greedy and technology has evolved faster than our brains....
"We could be sending people on rockets to other planets, but instead we overwhelmingly choose to send rockets into people on this planet." >

They’re not the representative body we need right now; but they are the representative body we deserve. So they’ll hunt us, and they’ll try to take away our rights, and destroy the credit of the US, because we can take it, because they’re not heroes, they’re a loud mouthed group of assholes, an unseeing group of reactionaries, the empty dark suits. >

No they do not.  The crazy people are elected just like everyone else.  Start from educating the people first. >

Hard to do when libraries, school boards, police stations, government facilities, Supreme Court, and Congress are infiltrated by fascists. Critical race theory is being removed every day from education. I hate to break it to you but the government in America wants to keep people stupid. >

Oh, and gerrymandering. If the GOP played a fair fight, they'd lose every single time. But they can't play fair and have to lie, cheat and steal their way into power. It's freaking embarrassing. >

Good for Alaska, but there's no way to extrapolate from Alaska to DC. Especially not when Alaska reelected Peltola and Murkowski, providing just a wee bit of evidence that Alaska is not MAGA. Putting that another way, Alaskans may be waiting for Trump to show up there before beginning to entertain enthralling themselves to the Tremendous Orange Vexatious Litigant. >

Id be perfectly happy with one that actually tries to do its job >

No fucking duh they do.....but a large portion of congress doesn't give a fucking rat's ass about representing Americans..... >

This raises an interesting set of questions. Who are we? What do we value? Where do we go from here? >

Uncap it. Develop a secure digital infrastructure so they don't have a room with limited space. Add 100 reps a decade until representation is more in line with the founders' vision, and move toward more equitable representation across the country. >

While the embedded link is an interesting read, the authors completely ignore the how of how our current political situation happened, completely ignoring gerrymandering, voter caging, voter intimidation, and all the other voter suppression techniques the Republican Party uses with great frequency and usually with great results (for them).  There are more citizens in the US that identify as Democrats or leaning democratic, but due to all the methods Republicans use to squash the will or desire of the voters, conservative voters have more input on elections than their numbers should allow.  Couple that with the fact that a large number of conservative voters are grossly uninformed (fact: people who only watch Fox News know less about political issues than those who don't watch any news at all), and conservative voters allow themselves to be manipulated via emotional tropes and other supposed "issues" that rarely impact their daily lives, and this leads to getting outrageous candidates like MTG, Bobert, Gatez, Gomert and the others of the idiotocracy elected.
For conservative voters, some of them enjoy the dysfunctional approach, not realizing that the candidates they elected would throw those very voters under the bus if they get the chance to cut Social Security, Medicare and other social structures that all Red states rely on, so they honestly believe that what is starting to happen is what is needed to happen.  Personally, I almost wish there was some sort of civics test that voters would be required to pass in order to be able to vote.  But that would also eliminate a lot of Republican candidates ... >


not realizing that the candidates they elected would throw those very voters under the bus if they get the chance to cut Social Security, Medicare and other social structures that all Red states rely on

Right-Wingers will always be to convince their drooling base any cuts are the Democrats' fault.  Immigrants, CRT, AOC, "woke-ism".  On & on.  This shit is PUMPED into their veins so hard via Fox et al.

but due to all the methods Republicans use to squash the will or desire of the voters

quash* >

We are taught to be "ruggedly independent" and stand up singlehandedly as a man... against giant corporations with armies of lawyers and lobbyists.
Once you see that this is the core of how the system is rigged, it's not so hard to understand the work of the Council for National Policy (whose members include Ginni Thomas and Leonard Leo). >

Yes we do, but we're stuck in a cycle where the only way to change the House or any of the system is to overwhelmingly win in the system itself with a huge Dem majority while the GOP has gamed the system via gerrymandering to keep themselves competitive in the House. So we're basically trapped with it as it is. >


So we're basically trapped with it as it is.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:
I am convinced that change is going to have to happen at a genetic level before people will ever be able to sort themselves out on any sort of large scale.
Our species is innately greedy and technology has evolved faster than our brains....
"We could be sending people on rockets to other planets, but instead we overwhelmingly choose to send rockets into people on this planet." >

Blaming genetics ignores that the GOP is simply employing the same anti democratic tactics America developed throughout US history the Cold War. 
The Senate, gerrymandering, and filibuster are direct results of white supremacy entrenching itself in power, limiting the expression of representative government.
And conservatives learned from our banana republics, the Jakarta Method, and other Western colonial projects how to subvert democracy to the benefit of a small minority.
There’s nothing “genetic” about this situation, unless you count white supremacists carefully creating legal systems that favor their interests as a phenotype. >

What they need is a government that can't be bought by big money, dark money, and corporations. It is the root of ALL of our political problems. >

In addition to what’s been shared already, the biggest issue for me is that the system really doesn’t seem beneficial to truly representing the people. Hell, you could make an argument that from the beginning of the United States, representing the people was never the total goal. With that said, I think a part of the problem is that the people who could do a better job (on both the left and the right) will NEVER run for public office because of all the shit you have to go through to be a viable candidate. The toll that running for office puts not only on the candidate, but on their family is something many do not want to go through ESPECIALLY when they know the system is rigged AF. Lastly, too many of them in DC see public service as more of a personal career than a service to society. >

I'd say over 200 of them. >

Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve.
George Bernard Shaw >

Unlock the house cap and we would be better represented and dilute the small state power over the house.
Also get rid of the Senate, Because it's pointless >

2nd chambers are useful for reigning in the other chamber.
The problem with the Senate isn't that it serves no purpose, rather that it's so wildly disproportionate to population. The Constitution's Article V's last clause requires that each state have equal representation in the Senate, but 0 each with Senators elected nationwide would be within a strained literal interpretation. Keep it at 100 with 1/3 elected every other year, but if there were 2 Wyomingites in the Senate not up for reelection in year YYYY, no Wyomingite could stand for election in YYYY. Let the whole country elect all senators but require that there be 2 senators from each state. >

You’re missing the point that second, upper chambers are ALWAYS designed to be undemocratic parliaments that protected the interests of aristocracy. 
The American Founders fought hard over how our parliament would look bc the enslaved, planter class knew that their interests would not be served in a truly representative chamber. They would have walked out and started their own separate confederation if the more populous states didn’t concede in limiting their own power with an undemocratic senate.
You really need to ask “WHO finds use in a 2nd chamber”. Hint: it wasn’t the enslaved, women, or poor whites…. >

The house majority represents Russia. Wtf is the CIA doing about this? >

There is not much they can do about this. Citizen’s United made it perfectly legal for foreign nations to buy our politicians. >

Need to flush SCOTUS and start over. >

We earned this government with our cowardice. >

Uncap it. Develop a secure digital infrastructure so they don't have a room with limited space. Add 100 reps a decade until representation is more in line with the founders' vision, and move toward more equitable representation across the country. >

The Founders' views on the appropriate number of constituents per seat were developed at a time when few Americans lived within 2 DAYS travel of 10,000 other people. Yes, the cities of the time had tens of thousands, and they would have had about 1/3 of all seats between them.
That no longer obtains.
Also, legislatures can't functions with thousands of members. The only nation on earth which has such a national legislature is the People's Republic of China, with nearly 3,000 members which meets once every 5 years or so to do EXACTLY WHAT IT'S TOLD TO DO by the Chinese Communist Party. Not really a template for the US. >

I don't think there are any feasible reforms that would make congress more dysfunctional than it already is. I've looked into the different proposals from back in the day: I think Jefferson's plan would have had us at about 1100 today and Washington's about 1700. Obviously China's system is not the democracy we want to achieve, but that's a strawman, and I'll reasonably assume there are many factors other than their large legislative body that influence that. My proposal, which helps make representation more proportional, makes gerrymandering more difficult and less effective, and reduces the inequalities produced by the Electoral College, is also doable without amending the constitution. >

The problem with too many legislators is that they're all personally ambitious. They want a chance at leadership, either for their party in the chamber as a whole, or chairperson/ranking members on committees. Party discipline requires that there be enough plausible odds for most members to believe they have a chance. Over 900 members, and at least half would understand they have no chance. Then party discipline begins to resemble 3 Jan 2023 on the floor of the House of Representatives.
Anyway, times change. What made sense in the Founders time is as relevant to the modern world as sending paper mail by sailing ship today. To be plainer, it'd be rank asininity to try to come close to the level of constituents per district which made sense to the Founders.
As for secure digital infrastructure, from my perspective one of the reasons Congress has become dysfunctional is that they only work Tuesday to Thursday at most 30 weeks out of the year. Most other days they're back in their districts RATHER THAN being obliged to spend more time with each other IN DC. >

Then stop giving the GOP so many votes.
Considering how democracy works, Americans are getting exactly what they deserve. >

eesh. Take your damn upvote. Personally I have never voted for a Brazilian white supremacist, and anti trans drag artist, a pathological liar wholly unqualified to govern, someone who steals from sick dogs, or anyone who uses Jewish names to up their go fund me haul...but clearly someone has. It's the direct result of shitting on public schools for 30 years. An entire nation of dullards who can't count change, think the world is flat, and type "alot." >

I wish that was the case. It's so far gone we will never see that happen. Both sides are just playing us. >

Wrong sub. You gotta say only side is doing it >

They’re not the representative body we need right now; but they are the representative body we deserve. So they’ll hunt us, and they’ll try to take away our rights, and destroy the credit of the US, because we can take it, because they’re not heroes, they’re a loud mouthed group of assholes, an unseeing group of reactionaries, the empty dark suits. >

No they do not.  The crazy people are elected just like everyone else.  Start from educating the people first. >

Hard to do when libraries, school boards, police stations, government facilities, Supreme Court, and Congress are infiltrated by fascists. Critical race theory is being removed every day from education. I hate to break it to you but the government in America wants to keep people stupid. >

Oh, and gerrymandering. If the GOP played a fair fight, they'd lose every single time. But they can't play fair and have to lie, cheat and steal their way into power. It's freaking embarrassing. >

Keep in mind that a lot of people are complicit in electing the guy who appointed enough judges to make sure Gerrymandering remains constitutional. >

Good for Alaska, but there's no way to extrapolate from Alaska to DC. Especially not when Alaska reelected Peltola and Murkowski, providing just a wee bit of evidence that Alaska is not MAGA. Putting that another way, Alaskans may be waiting for Trump to show up there before beginning to entertain enthralling themselves to the Tremendous Orange Vexatious Litigant. >

Id be perfectly happy with one that actually tries to do its job >

This raises an interesting set of questions. Who are we? What do we value? Where do we go from here? >

Then the solution is to pick congress like we pick juries... >

That represents us at all really.