comment: >
  
  There are many possibilities to change systems but everything has flaws that can cause problems/manipulations to some extent.
  However, IMO one of the really big things you can do to help the political problems in the US is by getting the big money out, and especially the dark money.  That will take out a lot of the incentive for the bad political actors in the system right now, including a lot of the fake news and propaganda.  Unfortunately we'd need the people put in place by the system to fundamentally change the system, and that will be really, really hard especially with the increased politicization of the Supreme Court now as part of that corrupted system.
context: The single best example that I have seen of eroding the power of the political poles is Alaska’s top four primary, ranked choice general system. For the state’s house seat, a moderate Democrat was able to defeat a conservative Republican, despite the GOP collecting nearly 60% of the aggregate vote in round one. Over on the Senate side, the Democratic Party basically didn’t stand behind their candidate, for fear of knocking out the moderate Lisa Murkowski before she got to a head to head final round w/her Trump endorsed opponent. Note that both major parties benefited from this moderating process whereby candidates who didn’t go scorched earth on their opposition and did show willingness to compromise defeated extremists who did no such thing. 
  While Washington and California both have top two primary systems which sometimes produce this result (Marie Perez in WA-3, Dan Newhouse in WA-4, David Valadao in CA-21 & Diane Feinstein in CA-SEN) too often they simply end up as traditional Democratic versus Republican contests (Louisiana has this too, and you will notice they are not exactly a bastion of moderate lawmakers at the federal level).
  So there’s my suggestion: a jungle primary w/the top 4–5 vote-getters advancing, regardless of party. Then, a simple 1-2-3(-4) ranked choice vote in the general so that a majority is collected for every office… and the winners will know that in all, but the rarest of cases, they were not the majority of their district’s first choice, so they better act like they still have work to do. >
  
  A good rule for politics is to never use Alaska as a predictor of other places. It is genuinely just too unique to trust. >
  
  I mean, I hear what you’re saying…but Maine has RCV too and I’d argue AK’s works better than ME’s on account of advancing enough candidates to force strategic considerations but few enough that we aren’t waiting for a month to get a definitive answer. Literally any voter can count to 3. This isn’t NYC’s bullshit primary mayor vote where Adams won on the 8th redistribution. >
  
  What was wrong with NYC's RCV election?  I mean how do you limit how many there are in the primary? >
  
  Alaska had a general election where the top 4 vote getters in a jungle primary advanced to the general, which was a lot better than NYC doing only the democratic primary with RCV. The problem with RCV is it doesn’t incentivize loser candidates to drop out, because they don’t have to worry about playing Spoiler. The unintended consequence is they crowd and confuse the field and take up tons of airtime that otherwise should go to actual contenders. >
  
  But that’s not how the primary played out; the establishment front runner who had the lead after the first round, ended up being the candidate that won the last round. There was no lack of airtime for the front runners. >
  
  Well that's the problem, when the field is crowded, it benefits the front runner who has a large unmovable block of support. Garcia and Wiley could have posed a legitimate threat if the field was down to 4 candidates, but instead there were 8. >
  
  Ah, right, Garcia would’ve won if it wasn’t for those meddling leftists. >
  
  Spend less time looking at voting and more time looking at the voting system. 
  As their total numbers shrink, republicans counter the losses by boosting the technical. A favorite technical is gerrymandering. Gerrymandering makes individual districts safer from poaching. But it also makes them safer for extremists. So more gerrymandering at the local level means more extremism at the congressional level. Pass laws to make gerrymandering harder and congress will get less extreme.
  Another favorite technical is voter participation. Reduce voter power and increase apathy and fewer people vote. The lower the overall participation, the easier it is for a smaller group to wield  greater power than should be possible. But the more influence a small group has and the less engaged the entire population, the more extremism you can have at the congressional level. Increase voter participation and congress will get less extreme.
  The system too already had mechanisms built in to encourage extremists. Winner take all (FPTP) voting reduces voter choice and power, both limiting options and reducing participation. Roll out rank choice and other improved voting, coalitions become more organic and apathy shrinks. Congress will get less extreme. >
  
  
  As their total numbers shrink
  
  This is literally a myth >
  
  Do,you have facts to back your statement? Not disagreeing just wondering. >
  
  Party affiliation hasn't gone down over time, party voter registration has gone up, and the party is making gains on key demographics such Hispanics and Asians.
  The idea that the Republicans are "dying" comes from two false assumption. The first is that demographic groups are monoliths and the second is that politics is consistent and static... neither of these ideas are true. People are dynamic and politics is unpredictable. >
  
  But what link can you send that proves it’s not a myth. What research/data. ? Right now I’m just hearing your opinion. >
  
  I can't agree with the premise of this question; most of the conservatives who barely lost their elections were of the most rabid election denying MAGA faction. If they had all won, the congress would still be just as, if not even further to the extremist fringe. The election more or less functioned as intended in this case. The problem is the intention (to throw democracy itself into disrepute so as to facilitate an extreme authoritarian takeover), not the execution in this particular case. >
  
  I disagree. Here are the closest losses by congressional Republican candidates:
  CO-8 (B. Kirkmeyer)
  NM-2 (Y. Herrell)
  CT-5 (G. Logan)
  WA-3 (J. Kent)
  NY-18 (C. Schmitt)
  PA-7 (L. Scheller)
  PA-8 (J. Bognet)
  OR-6 (M. Erickson)
  NC-13 (B. Hines)
  CA-47 (S. Baugh)
  RI-2 (A. Fung)
  NV-3 (A. Becker)
  IL-17 (E. King)
  The WA-3 and NC-13 guys were far-right candidates; everyone else would have probably been standard R's who would have been reliable Speakership votes for McCarthy from the get go >
  
  I think the argument is that despite not winning a strong majority as they originally thought they would, they still shifted more conservative when popular wisdom suggests they shift to the middle. >
  
  But did they actually shift more conservative? It’s just so much easier to unify your party when you are in the minority and when the leader doesn’t have the ability to put things to a full vote or hand out gavels. If hypothetically in 2020 if the Dems would have won the presidency and senate but lost the House I imagine we would have seen similar shenanigans. >
  
  Yes, they shifted more conservative. That's why it took 15 votes for McCarthy to win Speaker. He was not going to moderate by working with Democrats to get votes, he changed the rules and promised committee assignments according to the demands of the far right wing that was holding out. >
  
  I haven't thought super deeply on this so it's probably a flawed idea, but the constitution originally pegged seats by population rather than by trying to work everyone in with 435 available spots. I feel like we should be pegging the number of seats to the state with the lowest census population each decade; i.e. Wyoming gets 1 seat and every other state gets 1 seat for every multiple of Wyoming's population they have in their border. Larger states are outrageously underrepresented in the house and I think this would go a ways towards fixing that. >
  
  Is that because they outright don’t have enough room in Congress? >
  
  I feel like they made room for the 435. Parliament has many more MPs, and they're a much smaller country. If I can fit into an airline seat in coach these days, I feel like they could squeeze a few more reps into the House. >
  
  Vote the gerrymandering officials out of every office at every level.  Every election matters.   Don't just focus on the president.  Elected sheriff's, judges, clerks, and state officials matter more in your day to day life. >
  
  And work to implement Rank Choice Voting >
  
  The moderate Republicans had the chance to make deals with the Democrats to be more middle of the road - 
  They chose to go with the far right. 
  The Republicans have not done any negotiations with Dems for about 10 years. 
  Democracy doesn’t exist without discourse and negotiation. 
  The Republicans are choosing fascism more and more everyday. They keep going further Right. 
  And we are all going to suffer because of them. >
  
  
  The Republicans have not done any negotiations with Dems for about 10 years.
  
  We passed multiple major pieces of legislation this year with Republican votes >
  
  Excactly. When have republicans in power last reached out to democrats? >
  
  No not "Excactly", that's the exact opposite of the point u/sunnydaysahead2022 was trying to make. >
  
  I think they're saying that Democrats will work with Republicans when they're in power but the reverse isn't true. >
  
  We need the assault to stop on our public schools. They are not funded nearly enough, Congress just took away the free lunch program, they are banning books, calling teachers groomers and indoctrinators, banning certain subjects from colleges, and are making it clear higher education is a waste of time and will only put you in debt. >
  
  
  We need the assault to stop on our public schools. They are not funded nearly enough, Congress just took away the free lunch program, they are banning books, calling teachers groomers and indoctrinators, banning certain subjects from colleges, and are making it clear higher education is a waste of time and will only put you in debt.
  
  And this is the reason why democrats will keep on losing the election. Everytime democrats say increase the funding and tax, they lose. People don't want to fund other people's school and single issue voter will vote gop for that. >
  
  Democrats haven't been losing. They have been doing pretty good the past couple election cycles. I think the 'elephant' in the room is how different the parties will look in 15 years. The leaders are so damn old. And they only think of themselves - they can not step aside and let the next generation take the reigns. >
  
  They did so good that they lost
  all 3 branch in 2016
  senate in 2018
  house in 2022
  and tied in senate in 2020.
  And let's not forget on the states level, democrat is losing miserably on many of them. 
  And for the years they won, the distance themselves shit away from AOC and increase taxes. >
  
  They weren't expected to win the Senate in 2020. They weren't expected to keep the Senate in 2022 let alone win another seat. They performed better than expected in the House in 2022. >
  
  Ya, they weren't expected to won in 2020 and did not win until trump fucked it up. They did expect to keep senate in 2022 until gop fake poll messed up the predictions.
  As for the house, yay, as I said, democrat will lose if they keep on say that they need to increase tax. Right now, maybe people will think abortion > tax, but in a long term, democrats will lose because of tax issues >
  
  Then they would never would have won the House…ever. Everyone understands Democrats believe in taxes. >
  
  which is why when a generation gain wealth, they vote GOP. First boomer then gen X, when boomer dies off and millennial gain the wealth, they will vote GOP too. >
  
  If that logic holds then Democrats would still win from zoomer votes, and with millennials holding much less wealth as boomers or Gen X’ers did at the same age, that’s not really a promising pipeline for the GOP. I mean the oldest millennials are in their 40s now, they are at the age where they should be holding wealth from being in the middle of their careers. >
  
  Millennials will only get wealth when boomer dies off, which have not happened yet. Also, just remembered, boomer and gen x was the generation of hippies and labor unions, until they get rich and old. >
  
  Republicans did worse than expected, but they still did better than did in 2020. Thus, they have a majority. >
  
  Yeah, I am slightly confused at the topic. They got roughly the same vote% as number of seats. >
  
  I think the confusion is that with a smaller GOP majority, they're assuming this translates into a more moderate conference, whereas more GOP seats "should" yield a more conservative conference.  The reality is this is actually the opposite, because when you win more seats, you win more marginal/centrist seats.  Similarly, when the Dems nearly lost the House in 2020, most of their losses came from more centrist seats and left their conference more liberal, because the more extreme seats are the ones that survive elections going in the opposite direction. >
  
  Premise 1: republicans did worse than expected
  Premise 2: republicans gained control of the house
  Conclusion: the federal election system is broken
  
  This reads like a “spot the flaw” question on the LSAT. Your conclusion is probably right, but it doesn’t follow from your premises. 
  Enough Republicans beat democrats to win them control of the house. The constitution is silent on whether they also needed to beat pundit expectations.
  We can talk about stuff like gerrymandering (which is fraught with tons of difficult questions) but the thread title makes no mention of them >
  
  There is no such thing as a moderate Republican in Congress. There are only slightly less conservative republicans. 
  Even Liz Cheney champions traditional conservative causes like tax cuts for the rich. And Adam Kinzinger  was as anti abortion as the rest of them. They were just anti Trump.
  As for Murkowski and Collins they’re less conservative than McConnell or Cruz. Again they are just anti Trump conservatives who play moderate in front of the camera. >
  
  If you give extremists an inch they will take a mile. To them a majority of a few votes may as well be hundreds. >
  
  First off, they didn't do worse than expected. It's weird that people are adopting the Republican rhetoric of a "red wave" as factual. What occured alligns well with historical trends based on the previous congressional makeup. I'm amazed by the poor statistical analysis around this subject. First it was by Republicans, and now everyone?
  
  In an ideal system, one would hope that a divided congress results in the center left and center right electing a compromise candidate as speaker. 
  
  Which the Democrats weren't prepared or willing to do. Sure, a more neutral speaker could have been chosen. But it would have been seen as "weakness" for both political parties in our partisan driven government.
  
  So, a bigger Republican win would have resulted in a more moderate congressional leadership. 
  
  Depending on who those Republicans would be. >
  
  It’s McCarthy and the thrust to the right by the GOP. He needed 4 votes and rather than work with sane Democrats, he went for the batshit crazy MAGA assholes of his own party. He embarrassed himself for the better part of a week because we’ve made compromise such a dirty word/action in the political world. Kevin is the reason the House lurched right. In a sane world, he would have told those assholes to shove it and tried to work with Democrats instead. >
  
  What is so magical about "moderate" politicians? One guy wants everyone to drink a full cup of poison Kool-aid. Another thinks everyone should drink pure water. Along comes the Moderate who insists everyone drinks just add water to the poisoned Kool-aid. >
  
  The issue is not with congress or with any single voting system.  It is with the voters.  If you want moderates in power, you have to vote for moderate politicians.  The voters have shown a extreme disapproval of moderate choices in both main parties. >
  
  Give or take af few, there are about 5 not-moderate democrats in congress? >
  
  Republicans think they’re all AOC. It’s a delusion. >
  
  Well TBF I think a lot of Democrats assume their party is a lot closer to AOC’s politics than it actually is. >
  
  They’re not paying much attention then — most dems are very moderate, corporate first, slowwww to govern. Moderate dems are considerably more moderate than the “moderate” republicans on the other side. It’s frustrating. >
  
  Of course they’re not paying much attention >
  
  Truth is most people don’t pay attention until it’s ~2 months before a presidential election, if even. Federal politicians use that to their advantage every day 😔. >
  
  Not only that, but many people don't know anything at the local level for politics. >
  
  That shift to the right in the house is further away from the voters and the general population.  It will result in further losses for the Republicans because even fewer voters will be buying their crap as it gets more and more right wing and ineffective.  So, yes, this is how democracy will work.  The Republicans are in a death spiral and we all know it.  We are all standing back to make sure they don’t kill us all with themselves. >
  
  “The republicans are in a death spiral and we all know it. We are all standing back to make sure they don’t kill us all with themselves”
  Buddy, look who your sitting president is. >
  
  Are you an American, my friend? >
  
  The hell is that supposed to mean? >
  
  Things actually improved.  The republican rebels reduced the power of the speaker. In 2019, Pelosi changed the rules regarding the speaker as her majority was slim.  The rebels switched it back to the way it has been for a long time.
  Another thing they demanded was 72 hours before votes on bills so people could read them.  That existed before but the rules committee could just vote to ignore that.  The rebels demanded spots on that committee to prevent this loophole. 
  Discharge petitions can be used to circumvent the speaker.  If a majority get behind a bill they can force a vote and the speaker can only delay it.  So this avenue is open if enough members can get behind something.
  Change the US house electoral system to ranked voting with multi member districts.  Can be done with a standard bill.  That creates bigger districts and allows voters more choice.  In a big urban district there could be a moderate republican, moderate democrat plus more progressive democrats.  In a rural district there could be a moderate democrat and diff flavs of republicans.  
  That helps with geographical polarization and encourages cross party support for some measures.  In fact it might be essential for anything to pass.  
  It would reduce the power of the party.  Members will be re-elected by voters if they maintain a level of support.  The party can support other members and the voters rank them so voters get to decide between more candidates.
  Ultimately the system could lead to the 2 main parties splitting and creating a multi party system. 
  The US had an informal 4 party system before with far more cross party voting.  Now there is hyper polarization for various reasons.
  This reform tackles one aspect.  But stuff like campaign finance reform is needed.
  The bottleneck might be the US senate. It is 2 per state regardless of population.  2/3 of the population is projected to concentrate into the 16 largest population states.  That means 1/3 of the states could have a senate supermajority.  The 1/3 will mostly be redder.  That will break the system.  
  Most upper chambers are malaportioned.  The US is extreme because of the strict 2 per state rule AND the population disparity between states.  In the UK, the upper chamber blocked popular reforms like redistricting (when the lower house was still using census data that was 4 centuries old from before industrialization).  They were trying to cling on to their aristocratic power.  The upper chamber was appointed and the monarch finally stepped in, telling them to stop blocking or he would flood them with new appointees.  They agreed and the power of the upper chamber was stripped bit by bit.  Now they can only really delay.
  The AUS senate is 12 per state and I think 6 for territories.  They are elected via ranked voting statewide.  There are population disparities but they are nowhere near as big as the US and at least the results are proportional within the state, allowing the minority to win representation.  It has created a multi party system in that chamber.  
  Germany allows states an extra member if they cross 5 million and 6 million population thresholds.  They didn't allow more than that though so the disparity could appear down the line. However, they also have small city states to balance the rural ones.
  The US senate needs unanimity to amend the ratio.  That could be reduced to the normal 2/3 of each chamber of congress and 3/4 of states with a normal amendment to try to amend that provision, assuming even that could be reached.   It would need to get passed the courts too.  There would likely need to be a long period of chaos for them to agree.
  An easier way is for blue states to split into more states to gain more senators.  I suspect eventually the system will break because the senate is too inflexible.  And by the time enough people agree to change it, the system will be too far gone. >
  
  
  The Republicans did worse than expected in the midterms. As a result, the moderate conservatives were required to have the full support of the staunch conservatives. This gave the staunch conservatives greater bargaining power, thus pulling congressional leadership to the right.
  
  You understanding of "Conservative" is completely incorrect. The "Conservatives" were required to give over a large portion of power to the "Far Right" splinter group. >
  
  I think we can now safely call conservatives the splinter group.
  Edit: kinzinger and Cheney were all pushed out by the nut bags, among others. >
  
  The ones you're talking about aren't conservatives >
  
  If liz Cheney isn't a conservative, then MLG is.
  You can't no true Scotsman out of this that way, she was the definition of conservative a decade ago. >
  
  
  If liz Cheney isn't a conservative, then MLG is.
  
  Says who?
  And how did Cheney get into this conversation? You actually think MTG is a Conservative? >
  
  
  
  I think we can now safely call conservatives the splinter group.
  Edit: kinzinger and Cheney were all pushed out by the nut bags, among others.
  
  The ones you're talking about aren't conservatives
  
  This was the thread.
  No, MTG is a grifter, but then again most of the conservative base have moved that way over the years.
  Used to be a midwestern conservative, before southern conservativism destroyed the movement completely. >
  
  I think you can fix it with a constitutional amendment that squashes the Hastert rule. >
  
  
  I think you can fix it with a constitutional amendment that squashes the Hastert rule.
  
  The republican rule named after Dennis Hastert? >
  
  I think the best way to “fix” this is to stop listening to pundits and start understanding that their main goal is to have you continue listening to them. >
  
  Do away with the two party system and, especially, primary voting. End gerrymandering where the seats are so safe there is no competition and the free market of ideas is stifled. >
  
  
  This seems like the opposite of how things should ideally work.   
  
  Only if you’re liberal.  It works out the way it works. In some places you got more conservative delegates. In others they were more liberal. So it goes. Not sure there’s anything to fix. >
  
  Wanna stop it?
  Take money out of politics. The fringe were able to hold the GOP to ransom so comprehensively because the big money is with them. 
  Charlie Kirk was able to come in and lecture Republicans without shame, after all the candidates he supported lost, because the big money is behind him. 
  Despite Trump being on the decline, the cult like atmosphere of 'if your not with me your the enemy' has become reality for Republicans. If they want the support of the big money, like the Koch's, and the propaganda like C.Kirk, Daily wire etc they have to play by the new rules or they get the hose like Cheney.
  You take the influence of big money away, and all of a sudden politicians can make their own choices as long as they can justify them with their own voters. >
  
  I think that's something most people (both sides) can get behind, taking money out of politics, no more lobbying and actually enforcing rules and laws that allow politicians to trade stocks while in office, terms limits. Our government and the system itself is outdated and inefficient and needs heavy reform. >
  
  A total overhaul like that is a big call, but it needs to happen. It's the gradual decline that has brought us here, waiting for things to right themselves just isn't going to happen, people have to make it happen, and take it all the way. What you've outlined should be bare minimum, no compromise. >
  
  It’ll take a civil war to get that. >
  
  It'll take a revolution. "Civil War" is just when the revolutionaries lose. >
  
  Less unified parties would solve this. But the current US landscape is rather the worst my party person than someone from the opposite party. As long as even the more moderate members will hold on to this view stuff like this will keep happening. Not that it's easy to to step out of this as a very popular democrat /s which blocked a certain bill has shown. (manchin).  
  And whilst the republicans did worse than expected a weaker red wave did occur. Just not Strong enough to win. Making Congress becoming more Conservative not unjust. >
  
  The center right and the center left generally refuse to work with each other. The center may come me first in how we talk about them but it comes second in regards to where their loyalties lie >
  
  Joe Biden passed the 
  Bipartisan PACT act
  Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
  Bipartisan Gun Safety Package >
  
  A small number of Republicans voted for those bills and of those that did half or more lost their reelections or were forced to retire.
  The new Congress will be a lot less likely to be bipartisan.  Democrats lost the House because they pushed gun control, Democrats are continuing to push unpopular wedge issues and you will see the country become more polarized as a result.  With Democrats and Republicans alike both pushing issues that make compromise and negotiation impossible. >
  
  The democrats did not lose the house because of gun control. Full stop. >
  
  Yes they did, 'Full Stop.'  New York lost four House seats, they were close elections, because state Democrats pushed an unpopular concealed carry law and doubled down on it in the courts.  Candidates even proposed an assault weapons ban to lower crime rates.  You saw Beto lose Texas over his statements on gun control, confiscation of AR-15s.  You saw Abrams losing Georgia due to her statements on banning all semiautomatic firearms.  Go state by state, election by election...look at why candidates lost....
  From 1994 Democrats have been losing elections due to pushing gun control.  Be in denial about it, doesnt change reality. >
  
  Totally good point here.  So freaking frustrating
  I do think the Dems should have thought about supporting one of the few moderate Republicans becaue this is gonna be a shit show >
  
  Which moderate? McCarthy voted to nullify the 2020 election and disregard 165 million votes. 
  That’s not moderate. >
  
  LOL. That is the issue of course.  Maybe someone from the Main Street Caucus ? 
  I wasnt suggesting McCarthy was the one.  There definitley are some better (even if only a little) 
  That said I am not sure it wouldnt have been better to have throw support to him with soem agreements. The far right got way too much the way this played out. I dont think the Dems gamed it out well >
  
  Nope. To fix something implies it’s broken. The system is working as it was intended. Want change? Make a new constitution without the input of the bourgeoisie. >
  
  Why is a more conservative congress a problem that needs to be “fixed”?  Partisan rhetorical posts are discouraged in this subreddit. >
  
  The problem isn’t that Congress is conservative. The issue is that a weak conservative victory results in it becoming more conservative than it would have if there was a strong conservative victory. This is a counter intuitive result. >
  
  But that’s not a problem.  Unless you consider elections themselves to be a problem. >
  
  To answer the OP, I don’t think there’s anyway “to fix this” because of the way democracy is implemented. The practical alternatives would be to alter the value of votes to favor one group of voters over another. For example, say re-elected members are given more weight than newly elected members.  Or selected senior members older than say sixty years old, wealthier members, or big contributors get more weight. Likely this will never overtly happen.
  A practical example would be owning an apartment in a cooperative apartment building where the value of one’s vote is based on the size of the apartment one owns. I owned a one-bedroom apartment in DC for several years and saw this in action during our yearly election of the activity board. >
  
  First off, there is no such thing as a "perfect system" with respect to systems that people come up with (as far as we are aware).  You can consider the variables that you are aware of, then correct for whatever errors you expect from your known limited model of reality (in this case the political reality).
  If we take a look at the current political structure of most major industrialized nations, we see the dominance of the "two-party" system.  It seems like these are representations of the vestiges of the working-class against the capitalist class (i.e.: those who have capital and use that to make more capital and those who use their time and get paid for it by capitialists).  Ideally, in a proper representative-fashion, you would like to see more representation from the working class in things  like the house and senate for a county comprised of mostly working-class individuals.
  In the USA, in particular, the politicians are bought and paid for by corporations (see the whole "corporate personhood" thing).  In that way, due to the unlimited amount of money that these large organizations can pile into the political system, the working-class will never really have a voice--since "voice", in this sense, relates directly to how much money you have to purchase it.  The current reality we face is that we have a propaganda war by those with the resources to wage it to ensure that the minority (the capital-holding minority) stays comfortably in place with their generational wealth (a new kind of aristocracy).  This cycle keeps repeating, and we then have yet another generation of people in power that come mostly from wealthy families (i.e.: rinse and repeat).
  How do we "fix" it?  It would be awesome if we had some sort of institution, I dunno, maybe some bunch of smart people that were paid to research and propose ways to actually solve this problem.  Maybe, just maybe, we might have something like an "educational institution" that actually researches and debates how we can solve this problem in the 21st century--I know, this is crazy talk, but I think this would be ideal.  How do we get departments in universities to research this important topic, now that is a problem I am not sure how to even suggest solutions for. >
  
  Make all primaries open to all voters in the district, whether they're affiliated with a party or not. Ditch the electoral college. But first and above all else reverse the Citizens United decision, make it illegal for corporations and non-US citizens to make any kind of contributions to candidates and make ALL donations 100% transparent. >
  
  
  make it illegal for corporations and non-US citizens to make any kind of contributions to candidates
  
  That's already currently illegal. 
  Citizens United wasn't about contributions to candidates, it was about the capability to, separate from a candidate, run a political ad. Whether individuals lose the ability to finance an ad professing a political opinion if they pool their money with others as a corporation. >
  
  That's a lot of words to basically say that Republicans have no moral compass, are 100% party over country, and are easily manipulated as long as they achieve the power they crave.
  So, no.  There is no fixing that kind of rot. >
  
  Whenever any problems come up my answer will always be distribution of wealth. 
  The majority of problems are solved with a well paid work force.
  With excess income you can fix a lot of issues. Poverty, mental health, drug addiction, etc. More taxes to fund programs for communities. 
  A well paid populace would lean to be more educated as well. At least ideally. 
  Now to finally answer your question. We're too deep. Anything at this point is to play by the rules of those in power. And realistically protesting and voting is a long process and a difficult one. Change won't be quick and there will be many concessions to the point what you get us a warped version if what you wanted. 
  The only real change and history proves this is through violence and rebellion. I'm not advocating but highlighting. >
  
  Primaries have no legal basis really, stop using public money to pay for primaries and just make political parties choose a candidate, and non affiliated persons run as independents and fundraise/promote/campaign for themselves.
  There is no rule or law (correct me if I'm wrong) that says parties even have to go with the winner of the Primary as their candidate.
  Make parties pay for a Primary or Caucus if they want to poll voters, instead of governments paying for it. >
  
  The system doesn't work because the minority party will always block everything.
  If democrats compromised then the far right wouldn't have power.
  The speaker vote alone is a great example, dems could have put McCarthy in without him having to make any compromises.  Moderate dems could have neutralized the far right
  Just as moderate Republicans can neutralize the far left
  But neither party gives a shit about anything other than retaining power and winning.
  Democrats Gould legalize abortion across the nation today if they limited it to 15 weeks, police reports for rape claims, allowing rapists who result in abortions to face felony murder etc. (Like most of europe) The could get enough on the right to pass this
  But it would be a win for Republicans, so instead they will keep it a topic to campaign on.  Which will help them win elections and keep pretending Republicans hate women.
  Both sides do nothing but obstruct.  That is the problem, that is why the extremes have power >
  
  
  If democrats compromised then the far right wouldn't have power.
  
  Obviously this isn't true, since Democrats have spent thirty years compromising and the far right has only gained more and more power.
  
  The speaker vote alone is a great example, dems could have put McCarthy in without him having to make any compromises. Moderate dems could have neutralized the far right
  
  Why are liberals expected to compromise while conservatives are not? Oh, yes, liberals have the expectation of being the adult in the room, while conservatives are never held responsible.
  
  Just as moderate Republicans can neutralize the far left
  
  What far left? Who are you talking about?
  
  But neither party gives a shit about anything other than retaining power and winning.
  
  Your presumption that all people are like conservatives is telling. 
  No, in fact, we are not all the same. If liberals cared more about retaining power than helping people, we wouldn't be liberals.
  
  Democrats Gould legalize abortion across the nation today if they limited it to 15 weeks, police reports for rape claims, allowing rapists who result in abortions to face felony murder etc. (Like most of europe) The could get enough on the right to pass this
  
  Obviously that isn't true, as abortion is completely illegal with no exceptions whatsoever in twelve states already. Why would Republicans give up their wins there? Also, why should Democrats continue sacrificing the rights of women? >
  
  Please do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion. Low effort content, including memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, and non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion. >
  
  The only way to fix the system is to submit constitutional amendments that change the system.
  But we all know that the Republicans would NEVER allow us to fix the system when it benefits Republicans.
  So there you are. There is no way to fix the system. At least not in any foreseeable future.
  But wait, if in the future, there is a Democratic President who presides over the retirement of 3 Republican Supreme Court Justices and replaces them with Democratic supreme Court justices, then we could make some changes.
  The first change would be to outlaw legalized campaign donation bribery of politicians. Citizens United would have to be overturned first and foremost. Take all campaign money out of politics. Make elections a national holiday with time-off and every campaign is federally funded with mandated equal media treatment on all networks. Other countries do this and it works.
  Election reform is the start to gaining a majority of elected officials who represent the nation as a whole.
  Then add Wash. D.C. and Puerto Rico statehood to gain four more Democratic Senators and tip the scales against the domination of Republican Western States that have really small populations.
  As it stands now, Montana, Wyoming & Alaska with a combined population of 3 million gets 6 Senators while California with a population of 40 million get 2 Senators.
  Once there is a clear Democratic majority of legislators, solidify the gains with constitutional amendments that better distribute Senators by population and enshrine campaign reform into constitutional law. 
  Oh and absolutely constitutional work out the House of Representatives reapportionment process to eliminate Gerrymandering of districts. But this also would take a Constitutional Amendment which favors Republican at present. The Republican Supreme Court declared Gerrymandering perfectly legal, so it must be made illegal. >
  
  
  Then add Wash. D.C. and Puerto Rico statehood to gain four more Democratic Senators and tip the scales against the domination of Republican Western States that have really small populations.
  
  PR has a non voting US house delegate.  She was re-elected in 2020 for 4 years.  She caucuses with republicans.  The 2 PR seats might be slightly lean red and cancel out the DC gains.  
  
  Once there is a clear Democratic majority of legislators, solidify the gains with constitutional amendments that better distribute Senators by population and enshrine campaign reform into constitutional law. 
  
  That isn't viable.  The constitution specifically insulates the senate ratio from the standard amendment threshold.  It entrenches it and requires unanimity and you're not getting that.  
  It would be easier to break up blue states to create more senators but that might lead to an arms race.  That could eventually lead to a senate redesign but the road there would be tumultuous.
  Gerrymandering for the US house can be fixed without an amendment.  Could ban it with a normal bill or enact ranked voting with multi member districts. >
  
  Maybe an effective third party would fix this?  Obviously every attempt for a third party to create any ground ultimately fails.  But maybe things get so bad that the moderate democrats and republicans create a third party.  The Minbari government is a strong believer in the number 3 and how affective it can be when three groups come together to govern. >
  
  
  The Minbari government
  
  I had to look this up. I’m not sure if basing our government on Babylon 5 is the most pragmatic answer >
  
  We should.  Lol. But I threw that in there in case we had any B5 fans and to see how many people were curious enough to go look or just assumed it was some middle eastern place they never heard of. The politics on the show are amazing by the way. >
  
  I try to be pretty aware of geopolitics and when I saw “the Minbari government” I had some huge insecurities like I don’t even know what country this is and how did I miss this? Lol thank you. I may need to watch Babylon 5 now too >
  
  The Senate and executive are able to check them s0 the system is working as well as we can hope for at this point. 
  IDK how you fix a broken two party system, when one party is openly committed to not just breaking that system but keeping it broken, without getting rid of that party and replacing it. >
  
  Get the money out.
  Restore the Voting Rights Act
  Vote every Republican out. >
  
  How about getting rid of all the GOP. They all are crooked! Ron, DeSantis is worried about transgender and gay people in Florida when you should be worried about all the crime. Here's a little story about Trump pardoning someone who schemed a 1.3 billion health care monies. Now he's up for retrial as he was supposed to spend 20 years in jail. This is the kind of s*** that Republicans poll. They think they can get away with stealing money all the time.
  A Florida nursing home owner whose 20-year prison sentence for a $1.3 billion Medicare fraud scheme was commuted by then-President Donald Trump in late 2020 has lost a federal court appeal and now appears headed for retrial on six health-care criminal charges that a jury previously deadlocked on. >
  
  In an ideal world both the house and congress should have equally adversarial processes and splits, but this is reality. I think the best we can hope for right now is a strong democrat senate and a strong Republican house 🤷‍♂️ it sucks but- >
  
  If more Republicans had made it to the house, do you think they would have been far right or center right?
  This is coming from an NPR show I listened to shortly after the election, but they had someone on who said the data showed that when the Republican candidate was run of the mill and not attacking voting rights/abortion rights, they did as well as we would expect in a midterm with a Democrat president.  It's only the far right candidates who attacked voting and abortion rights who did worse than expected.
  Which would suggest that as far right as Congress has gotten, it would have been more conservative if Republicans had done as well as expected. >
  
  This isn't about individual elections. One single radical Republican could have had this same effect with a one-seat majority. The fact there were 20 was overkill
  The actual cause is the way Speakers are elected
  If 20 moderate Democrats had broken off and agreed to caucus with the moderate Republicans, it would have been great. It's the fault of both moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats (not necessarily equal fault) that this didn't happen, and also the fault of voters for not urging them to do this.