The USA could be a lot more democratic than it is at present and until that is fixed, you will keep seeing a minority of the population control policies that affect the whole nation.
I can get behind a lot of those but the Senate? What's your problem with it? Seems like the founders had very good reason to create it.
Edit: And since bills must be passed by both the House and the Senate, Wyoming residents have much more power over what becomes law than CA residents do. [1] http://www.enchantedlearning.com/usa/states/population.shtml
>end gerrymandering, and reform campaign financing
I think those are good because they weaken the powerful (the current majority party and the rich) to enable the weak. But I also believe that without the senate the political power of Wyomingers (Wyomans?) is going to be a lot weaker than the political power of Californians so I see the senate as overall good.
Why should we focus so much on the majority and not the relative power of those that compose the majority (or minority?)
I think we talk about it that way all the time, both where I live (which is a lot closer to Wyoming than California) and in places which are closer to California that Wyoming. The common issues of the day are all ones of class division and I think that geographical division really plays into it. When we really split into Wyomingers and Californians though is when we start talking about any common political issue.
>We just think of everyone in the USA as Americans.
Oh lord, how I wish this were true. Do you think Californians treat me like a Californian? Or do you think that maybe they treat me a little bit different? And do you think when a Californian transplants here they get treated like a Wyoman? Or do you think they get treated a bit different? There's a divide there, the hundreds or thousands of miles between the coasts and the middle is more than a physical divide, it's also a cultural and political one.
>It doesn't seem to be working out very well. We need to make sure that the majority of Americans have veto power over things like electing Donald Trump, the current tax bill, the attempts to end Obamacare.
Let's be real here though, the above is completely partisan thinking. Look I'm basically as far left as they come and I live in deep red country - your impulse is totally wrong. Take a look at this map: http://i0.wp.com/metrocosm.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/el...
You want to take that map and give even more power to the blue spots? I don't see the fairness. The senate exists because the coastal elites who founded this country were smart enough to realize that coastal city elites would run the whole thing if it weren't for some mechanism to help rural areas balance the scale.
>So why should it be that some Americans (those who live in Wyoming) having outsized voting power over national laws? A minority of Americans is controlling the country via the methods I mentioned.
Because it makes sure they're heard, it's protecting a weak minority from a powerful majority. I can agree with you on all the other things like gerrymandering but the senate exists for a good reason - it forces you to care about all the people who exist in rural areas or "flyover country" instead of writing them off like you'd really like to.
It's the same with the presidential election. If you're the NRA, what's easier for you to influence? A popular vote or our current electoral college system where only a few swing states matter?
If you're saying that the electoral college and the Senate are a means of protecting those in the "flyover states", then I would just you how that's working out? Do you think "Wyomingers" are the ones who are going to benefit from repealing the estate tax? The House, Senate, and Executive branch are all controlled by Republicans who should, in theory, be advocating for "Wyomingers" and yet they seem to only be working on behalf of the interests of the wealthy, special interests, and corporations.
Just abolish the states all together as far as I'm concerned and let's have one unified America, which would be much harder for special interests and corporations to influence.
No, it's a well defined cultural and political divide. Maybe the powerful exploit it but it exists independently of them.
>If you're saying that the electoral college and the Senate are a means of protecting those in the "flyover states",
I am.
>then I would just you how that's working out? Do you think "Wyomingers" are the ones who are going to benefit from repealing the estate tax? The House, Senate, and Executive branch are all controlled by Republicans who should, in theory, be advocating for "Wyomingers" and yet they seem to only be working on behalf of the interests of the wealthy, special interests, and corporations.
Sure because you picked a terrible example. But Wyomingers sure are glad there's a senate when gun control comes up. And they're glad there's a senate when Abortion comes up. And they're glad there's a senate when basically any political issue comes up which divides mostly along geographic boundaries.
You'll sit here and decry the influence corporations have on our country but at the same time want to ignore huge swaths of america.
Middle America exists, it votes and maybe instead of trying to reduce its political power you should try to convince the people in those states.
>If you were the NRA looking to make sure that "bump stocks" don't get banned after a gunman shoots hundreds of people in Vegas using them, where would you focus your resources? On the Senate, of course!
This is the most shit example I can imagine you using. (1) The NRA doesn't care if bump stocks get banned. (2) A bump stock ban is totally meaningless feel-good legislation. Go to youtube and search "rubberband bump fire." A bump stock is just a "cooler" way of doing the same thing you can do with any rubberband or even a shoestring. (3) A bump stock ban is the perfect example of city people with no understanding of an issue trying to legislate it. Maybe next time you should come ask us in flyover land. (;
Instead of merely repeating the questions, you should explain why the answers to those questions are wrong.
I think you're overly consumed with the political dramas of the present and haven't really thought through questions about what a good system of governance looks like.
Even without demographics taken into account, a country that's not accountable to a base set of unchangeable rules is a scary thing.
You might want to understand the existing structure of government before you propose replacing it on a whim.
Here are some questions to get you started:
* Why is there a Constitution?
* Why are there 3 co-equal branches of government? What are they all there for?
* Why is there an electoral college?
* Why are Senators allocated by state while House members are allocated by population?
* Why do House members have 2 year terms and Senators have 6 year terms?
* Why do the courts exist?
* Why does the executive branch exist?
If you think our current system of governance is working well, then please say so. If you think our system isn't working well, then please let me know how you propose to fix it.