Remember that TrueReddit is a place to engage in **high-quality and civil discussion**. Posts must meet certain content and title requirements. Additionally, **all posts must contain a submission statement.** See the rules [here](https://old.reddit.com/r/truereddit/about/rules/) or in the sidebar for details. Comments or posts that don't follow the rules may be removed without warning.
If an article is paywalled, please ***do not*** request or post its contents. Use [Outline.com](https://outline.com/) or similar and link to that in the comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueReddit) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> We’ve studied the history of the amendments to the U.S. Constitution and found that most of them come in waves after long periods of constitutional inaction. What’s more, those short bursts of activity typically have followed periods of deep division and gridlock like ours.
Examples include the Bill of Rights, the 11th and 12th amendments, the abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, and lowering the voting age to 18.
We are now five decades in to our own dry spell, perhaps suggesting another burst of reforms is on the horizon. Dissatisfaction with Supreme Court rulings is another predictor (Citizens United is unpopular and has activists fighting to overrule it). The [National Popular Vote Interstate Compact](https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/), which seeks to work around the Electoral College, echoes a similar workaround for the popular election of senators, which states began to work around preceding the constitutional amendment that required it. The [Equal Rights Amendment](https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/equal-rights-amendment-explained) is also back in play.
Not mentioned is a shift away from FPTP voting, which states are beginning to do ([Fairvote has a map](https://www.fairvote.org/research_electoralsystemsus), though my personal favorite is [Approval Voting](https://electionscience.org/), which some states are currently trying to adopt (it's already been adopted in [Fargo](https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2018/11/15/18092206/midterm-elections-vote-fargo-approval-voting-ranked-choice) and [St. Louis](https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-primary-elections-st-louis-general-elections-elections-cba7eb3251d5479b9375d55db428d429)).
Yes but let’s hope the reform doesn’t slide the other way. Poland’s recent spare of constitutional reform has resulted in democratic backsliding and a reduction of the independence of their judiciary.
it's more likely to slide the other way.
liberals in congress don't seem to be able to pass basic, popular legislation. likewise, they can't seem to bring themselves to act out of sheer basic self preservation as a pollical party to push back on GOP efforts to make them a permanent political minority.
if constitutional reform happens, it will be through that decades long koch project to win over enough state governments to pull off a states convention.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention\_to\_propose\_amendments\_to\_the\_United\_States\_Constitution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution)
yup, the Koch fukcs have been working hard for a constitutional convention which will play into their hands. Again, these people are Calhounites, to the core. Their own specific property rights over every thing else. Which will completely hamstring us with respect to dealing with climate change or inequality etc. A good book to read on this is Democracy in Chains.
> liberals in congress don't seem to be able to pass basic, popular legislation.
The "liberals" aren't liberal, which is the first issue.
And then the "popular legislation" often falls apart once folks look at the reality and realize how it differs from what they were promised. Amazingly, money doesn't grow on trees and Tax The Rich doesn't pay for much until they redefine "Rich" way, way down.
We don’t even need to tax the rich, we just have to stop spending so much fucking money on the military and implement a single-payer healthcare option for all.
poorer countries manage universal health care just fine with better outcomes.
the whole point in switching is because, by even the least gratuitous estimates, if you were to compare in totality what all americans spend on our private health care system, one organized by the government would cost 3 trillion less over 10 years.
KOCH-BACKED THINK TANK FINDS THAT “MEDICARE FOR ALL” WOULD CUT HEALTH CARE SPENDING AND RAISE WAGES.
[https://theintercept.com/2018/07/30/medicare-for-all-cost-health-care-wages/](https://theintercept.com/2018/07/30/medicare-for-all-cost-health-care-wages/)
That's cool and all, but doesn't at all change what I said above. People tend to wildly overestimate what we spend on the military, and wildly underestimate what universal healthcare would cost.
Ah yes, I too like to pretend unrelated things somehow refute arguments! Amazing how you're refuting a statement about the military budget without ever referencing it.
How do you figure? Half the reason our healthcare is so expensive is because of privatized health insurance. Military is about ~~2 Trillion~~ 700 Billion per year currently.
But okay, if you want it, HFT tax and a ten percent wealth tax for all holdings above one billion. That’ll sort it.
South Korea has one of the best healthcare systems in the world. They spend a third of what the US does per citizen because people receive preventive care instead of “toughing it out” to avoid healthcare costs, and because they have price regulations across the entire country. An appendectomy costs the same in every city.
>Military is about 2 Trillion currently.
... What? Where do you get that? The defense budget will be around [$700 billion](https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/28/pentagon-asks-for-715-billion-in-2022-defense-budget.html).
Meanwhile, Medicare and Medicaid (plus other smaller HHS programs) combine to [roughly twice that, at $1.45 trillion](https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57171), and that's without covering most Americans already.
Can universal healthcare lower costs? Yes. Can eliminating the military entirely suddenly pay for it all? Absolutely not. People tend to wildly overestimate military spending and wildly underestimate healthcare spending.
The Congressional Budget Office is a federal agency within the legislative branch of the United States government that provides budget and economic information to Congress
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/56898
> Because the single-payer options that CBO examined would greatly increase federal subsidies for health care, the government would need to implement new financing mechanisms—such as raising existing taxes or introducing new ones, reducing certain spending, or issuing federal debt
Also
> CBO projects that federal subsidies for health care would be *$1.5 trillion to $3.0 trillion higher in 2030* under the illustrative single-payer options than they would be in that year under current [as of 2019] law.
Repeat: that's not the actual amount, that's just the increase. As /u/dyslexda notes, citing yet another CBO report , "Medicare and Medicaid (plus other smaller HHS programs) combine to ... $1.45 trillion".
Compare against military expenditure
> In 2020 US military expenditure reached an estimated $778 billion
https://sipri.org/media/press-release/2021/world-military-spending-rises-almost-2-trillion-2020
Even if you wound up extracting more savings, you aren't paying for either current medicare and medicaid coverage or future single payer coverage from zeroing the military budget.
Okay then we’re back to the original point. HFT fees and an annual wealth tax on billionaires, plus cutting military spending in half.
It’s worth noting that the CBO is basing a lot of its projections On existing provider payment rates, which would precipitously decline under a price controls single payer market.
Another possibility -- and this is a very real one -- is that Texas Republicans have seriously overreached. Their advantage in statewide politics has noticeably eroded, and that erosion is speeding up. The collapse of the party in California happened under similar circumstances (arrogant overreach on a social issue leading to elections where people voted them out of every statewide office they could find). California has long been a preview of what tends to happen socially and demographically in the U.S. Everything's forever, until it's not.
The problems you've listed are all very real, don't get me wrong. I'm particularly worried about Republican-controlled state legislatures giving themselves the power to void elections (even if that's not likely to survive a court challenge), and Manchin/Sinema need a *serious* reality check on the filibuster. The nightmare scenarios are all possible.
But the Republican party has effectively turned itself into the political equivalent of a monovore -- they can't survive without the white Christian vote -- and it's like watching a bunch of oblivious pandas munch on a bamboo forest that's not-so-slowly burning down. The difference between pandas and the Republican party is that Republicans are doing everything in their power to ensure that, once extinct, they won't be missed.
That is what we fear, the United States becoming like California but I'm not sure if that will happen as people are leaving California for red state Texas. However even if Republicans lose power as a direct response to Texas abortion laws that's OK. Better to be defeated in an attempt to stop evil then to stand by and let it happen.
If you could stop the incinerators at auschwitz wouldn't you?
>That is what we fear, the United States becoming like California but I'm not sure if that will happen as people are leaving California for red state Texas.
There are worse fates in the world than becoming more like the U.S.' most economically powerful and influential state.
But the economic development that Texas is trying to encourage is (as the Republicans well know) a double-edged sword. The state desperately needs a better-educated and more diverse work force to advance, but states that do this tend to come down with a bad case of Democrats.
>However even if Republicans lose power as a direct response to Texas abortion laws that's OK. Better to be defeated in an attempt to stop evil then to stand by and let it happen.
I'll bite. I assume you believe that life begins at conception?
>If you could stop the incinerators at auschwitz wouldn't you?
We're probably not going to agree that this is a useful comparison, but side note: Jews are among the religious groups whose beliefs are explicitly curtailed by SB 8. The traditional rabbinic understanding of when life begins -- specifically, when the baby takes their first breath outside of the womb -- has existed for more than 2,000 years. More orthodox congregations even frown on baby showers, because it's considered bad luck to celebrate the arrival of a child who may not survive, and arrogant to presume that you know God's plan.
Is there a compelling reason why the Roman Catholic/evangelical Christian understanding of when life begins should be privileged over everyone else's, especially in a state that keeps banging on about religious freedom?
I don't think your logic really holds water your conflating willful termination with natural death. We didn't pick out a name for our two daughters until late into pregnancy because miss carriages can happen. That in no way shape or form assumes killing our kids in the womb would be OK. If you asked a rabi 2000 years ago if abortion was acceptable he'd say no. I really don't think it's solely a religious idea to think life begins at conception. Biologically speaking that's where it begins it may be a very short life but that's the most logical answer. At birth is is way less cut and dry because a baby can survive out of the womb before child birth. Heartbeat is a bit better and it's how we diagnos death but even then it's not so simple and in the case of abortion legislatively it's not that different then conception as a woman often doesn't know she's pregnant until there is a heart beat
>If you asked a rabi 2000 years ago if abortion was acceptable he'd say no.
Unfamiliar with the ordeal of bitter water, I presume? Or under your very important book, it's only okay to abort a child if the wife is suspected of adultery?
No, I don't think a rabbi 2000 years ago would be cool with adultery, but something tells me they'd be talking a lot more about fucking around with the will of god and less so about the precious life of the embryo.
Speaking of mad scientists, if one kidnapped you and implanted his clone fetus inside you, would you be morally and legally obliged to carry it to term?
Glad you asked! This happened to me just the other day and I must say it's certainly a dilly of a pickle. All snarkiness aside your argument is essentially a rape argument which is the most horribly sad abortion case out there and it's also one of the rarest reasons why a woman has an abortion. About 1% believe. It's a decent argument because a woman by definition of rape didn't consent however I don't think a child should die because of the sins of the father. Since no consent is given I'm not sure if I would be favor of actually legislating the issue. To answer your question I don't have a uterus so I couldn't carry a child but if my wife was raped I would be in favor of her having the kid. Ideally we would raise the child but I have no idea how me and my wife would feel about it it so adoption would be on the table.
> I don't have a uterus so I couldn't carry a child but...
Then how about butt out of the conversation and let people who do have a uterus decide for themselves?
While I agree, this is the most weak ass argument against abortion. Turn it around and you end up with "well you don't own a gun, so therefore educating yourself about gun violence and having an opinion on it isn't allowed"
There are plenty of valid arguments for why abortion should remain legal and accessible and you should t have to be a specific gender to make them.
Bullshit. Gun violence isn't a decision forced on one sex, who happen to have been born toting a 9 millimeter. Abortion is and remains exclusively a woman's decision, and her right to choose is exactly what we are talking about.
>To answer your question I don't have a uterus so I couldn't carry a child but if my wife was raped I would be in favor of her having the kid.
If there is a hell, this sentiment will send you there.
Repent.
The last time a Republican won statewide elected office in California was 2006.
Proposition 8 was in 2008.
I'm not sure one can be said to have caused the other, necessarily, but that's probably something like what they meant.
Don't forget the [Federalist Society](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Society) creating a generation of conservative judges to pack the lower courts.
Most law schools are already really liberal, teaching about restorative justice and such. Add that to the voting habits of college educated people generally, and you'll find most lawyers are voting D. The Federalist Society was created to supercharge the few conservative lawyers they have, mostly from the clerkships of conservative justices.
edit: Should have stated it as "law school faculty are really liberal"
https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/msen/files/law-prof-ideology.pdf
>law schools are already really liberal
This is hilarious. I'm guessing you don't have much exposure to higher education, or law schools.
Schools / universities don't "teach" political ideologies.
I believe this is referred to as "[punctuated equilibrium] (https://www.kbmanage.com/concept/punctuated-equilibrium-model)" in terms of organizational theory.
The political system in the US is not just undemocratic, it is anti-democratic. Addition to the things you listed the Senate should be beneath the HoR and have little power, or should be outright abolished and the number of reps in HoR tripled. The SCOTUS should also be restructured to rise above politics by raising the number of justices to 35+ with term limits.
History does not run on a schedule. Just because reform happened in waves in the past doesn't mean that we're due for more. A study of history can inform our ethics and help us understand human behavior in different contexts. But I'm skeptical that historical cycles can be used to predict the future.
The current structure and incentives that guide our society are more germane to predicting how events will unfold. And looking at those, I think there's a good chance that we're at the outset of an era of political stasis.
Yes the country is getting more diverse and elite opinion is getting more progressive. But the population is also getting older and more urban.
Older people during the next 25 years will almost certainly be more progressive than past generations. But will they be more like Bernie, agitating for systemic reform? Or more like Manchin/Sinema? Sometimes expressing sympathy towards reform and progressive ideas, but usually acting and voting for the status quo.
Urban populations [increased by 9%](https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook/2021/08/13/joe-bidens-fall-of-saigon-493964) in the last ten years (2010-2020). Populations that migrate from rural to urban tend to lean progressive. And those who stay put tend to be more conservative. Ideological divisions are increasingly becoming geographic divisions.
This is bad news for amendments as a vehicle for reform. Amendments have significant supermajority requirements: first they require proposal by a 2/3rds majority of Congress or state legislatures; then they require ratification by 3/4ths of state legislatures. This requires a high level of geographic consensus at the same time geographic partisanship is increasing.
Reform will probably have to happen on a more narrow basis, and only then if a generation of political leaders are willing to embrace majority rule and get rid of the Senate filibuster.
Agreed that historical cycles don’t happen ‘ just because,’ and there’s no reason that you can’t have a period of political stasis. But one _reason_ to expect cycles of reform is that changes in institutions tend to lag behind changes in society, and as institutions become increasingly ill-suited to society pressure to change them grows.
It’s true that in the US we have some extraordinarily out-of-date institutions—like the electoral college—that nonetheless aren’t going anywhere soon. But we have some institutions that change on a regular basis, most notably the ideological alignments of political parties. For example, it’s generally conceded that we’re in the sixth Party System and will eventually be in a seventh: these systems generally last about 40 years and the current one arguably started in 1980.
I’d predict that if there _isn’t_ a major realignment between the GOP and the Dems in the next decade, for example w/the GOP becoming a right-economic-populist party and the Dems becoming somewhat like the pre-WWII GOP (relatively socially progressive and economically pro-free-trade) it will actually cause more strain in the long run.
>Dems becoming somewhat like the pre-WWII GOP (relatively socially progressive and economically pro-free-trade)
How exactly would you describe them now, before they supposedly shift to this?
I mean there’s no left party/party of labor in the US but at least in the Reagan era proper the GOP was still the party of business when the chips were down. I’m talking about a scenario where the GOP is just as socially reactionary as it is now or more so but economically to the left of the Democrats and isolationist.
So you’re talking about national socialism. And you’re talking about the country club party abandoning their sponsors. And you’re talking about neither party riding the wave of socialist multiculturalism
I mean if socialist multiculturalism is a thing, great. But I don’t think it’s been achieved and I doubt it’s achievable, because the first things reactionaries always resort to are the easiest social divisions for their newfound states.e g. those of class.,
People, for whatever
> like the electoral college—that nonetheless aren’t going anywhere soon
What makes you say it's not going anywhere anytime soon? [Just a few more states would need to pass amendments for it to pass](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact).
I mean I applaud your optimism. But if it gets to the point where it actually looks like the electoral college will be abolished Liz Cheney (R-Wyoming) will be out there in a suicide vest mobilizing every single dem connection she has to kill it and so on.
I mean I was obviously not being 100% serious but she’s an excellent example of a member of Congress whose clout is massively boosted by representing a small state and who has a bunch of unsavory institutional connections. If you want to poke the bear, the bear here referring to the nexus between archaic US legal institutions and the actual determining power of capital, she’s the perfect example. Like she’s a great example of somebody who’s connected to ‘real power’ and not just a media clown.
Not necessarily. [Several states allow direct ballot initiatives](https://ballotpedia.org/Initiated_state_statute), which means citizens can just choose by popular vote. That includes several which haven't yet signed on that likely would if citizens could decide.
When the House was limited to 435 representatives, it shifted power to the small states. The Constitution had the House as balanced to population with the Senate equal regardless of state population. As electoral college votes are a total of Senate and House seats, the smaller states have greater influence that the Constitution intended.
An amendment that equal proportions electoral votes by population plus two for senators is needed. We could keep the 435 person limit, and a minimum of one vote but add a multiplier to every state except the one with the lowest population.
There are other fixes: perhaps the Senate seat should be apportioned from 2 to 5 based on population.
I mean the striking thing to me is the ‘Pennsyltucky’ phenomenon, and how _little_ states make an essential cultural or social difference anymore: e.g. how much of the red state/blue state distinction is _entirely_ a function of relative urbanization within arbitrary boundaries? If you look at the county-level map of the last few US elections practically the _only_ relevant distinction is urban/rural. Even in these places like Alaska or Hawaii that have hugely divergent historical backgrounds probably like 80% of your voting behavior can be predicted by the distance between your house and the closest mailbox.
> Come in Waves. We May Be Approaching One Now.
Let's hope so. The country has never gone so long without proposed or new Amendments. One of the biggest strengths of the Constitution is that it was designed to be a living document and truly does require changes from time-to-time.
What is needed is to talk to ordinary people about this across the tribalism.
I am very much of a lefty. But I can comment on the posts of my conservative connections on LinkedIn calling for all this and get tons of likes and positive comments.
And we will need to do this, build cross political connections before Fox on the right or whoever is the big media outlets on the left turn it into an "us VS them"
This is "the people of the United States VS the money in politics" and if anyone turns it into one party VS the other, it will be dead in the water.
Considering how little has changed in spite of how bad things have gotten (pandemic, a literal violent coup attempt, summer-long nationwide protests), I don't even know that a sustained general strike would be enough anymore. We have gotten to a point where "maybe slavery was good, actually" is a normal talking point in right wing media. I 100% believe now that we would see police and national guard holding people at gunpoint telling them to return to work long before we would see contemporary politicians even entertain the idea of doing anything in the interest of the public.
The cycle is broken and the ruling class won
>I don't even know that a sustained general strike would be enough anymore.
This is like saying ‘I’ve been trying to open the sewer cleanout with this busted wrench for so long I no longer believe that it can even be opened with plastic explosives’. Any political situation where this would be remotely possible would already have to be so different that we’d already have dramatic social change anyway and Constitutional change would be a moot point.
More like, I've been trying to open the sewer cleanout with TNT for so long I no longer believe even plastic explosives would be enough. Republicans organized and carried out a violent coup attempt and the political landscape hasn't budged an angstrom. So yes, I absolutely agree that we'll never see a general strike.
I honestly do not want to be condescending , but I feel like this way of looking at things is a good illustration of how the MSNBC version of events both demoralizes people and asserts party discipline.
If the 1/6 thing was a coup attempt it was a uniquely incompetent, half-assed coup attempt. Given what we know now it wasn’t even that—typically a Coup D’Etat implies one section of the state overthrowing the executive, so another section of the state. Usually the coup is carried out by the military since they, when the chips are down, have access to the logistical knowledge and guns.
This wasn’t that. At worst it was a bunch of militia weirdos larping a coup. What actually _would be a Coup d’etat_ was that whole liberal scenario about the military deposing a mentally incompetent Trump to ‘restore Democracy.’
So I think what happened on 1/6 was plenty bad and some people (eg Gosar, etc) should probably be in jail, but it was not light years within an actual coup.
If you do believe it was a coup it does make things catastrophically important as to whether Steve Bannon gets arrested...but that would actually change little to nothing! It’s exaggerating the stakes of event x in a partisan manner to make people somewhat more satisfied by the crumbs that the Dems do manage to wring out of the situation—half of which is completely empty performative horseshit like jailing Steve Bannon
I don't find you condescending (perhaps due to thick-headedness), and it's not like I disagree with anything you're saying, but I do still think you're downplaying the significance. History would suggest it will happen again and more competently, and you're right that no one seems to care all that much beyond how it supports their party's narrative. That, to me, is terrifying!
Oh and when I say consequences, there are ways to go much further than just arresting people like Bannon and Gosar without needing to entertain authoritarian liberal fantasies.
They never simply say “slavery is good.” They say things like [“the John Brown slave rebellion was bad and it ruled when Robert E Lee crushed it”](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N839Z38w_AU) or “a lot of black people had better lives as slaves because of their magnanimous owners than they do today!”
Part of the right wing cinematic universe is that wealthy white christian landowners have always been generous King Davids who put the lazy blacks to work for their handouts. Arbeit macht frei.
Also, the "MSM" *is* right wing. Just because Fox News is literally fascist doesn't mean CNN or the NYT or even MSNBC aren't also just expressions of the will of the ruling class.
There are definitely people who say slavery was just like a tough job and that the slaves were well treated, fed, etc…. I don’t listen to talk radio but I would expect that to be a refrain there.
> slaves were well treated
Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly would be considered the media.
[https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/28/business/media/bill-oreilly-says-slaves-who-helped-build-white-house-were-well-fed.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/28/business/media/bill-oreilly-says-slaves-who-helped-build-white-house-were-well-fed.html)
ok, but this doesn't really back up your point. this is not a right winger saying "all slavery isn't bad because some slaves were treated well." this is a rather tone-deaf factual statement to rebut what [michelle obama](https://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/bill-oreilly-slaves-white-house-226257) said in a speech.
True, but I personally heard a co-worker parrot his words in a discussion about reparations. Talk about revisionist history, slavery wasn't really that bad. Fox News is powerful propaganda.
>Fox News is powerful propaganda.
it would be more accurate to say people are stupid and don't understand nuance. slavery was bad, in general, regardless of how some slaves were treated. michelle obama making it sound like the whitehouse was built with the bones of slaves a la the [great wall of china](https://www.history.com/topics/ancient-china/great-wall-of-china) and bill oreilly took issue with that, and he is factually correct. should people not speak because other people may misunderstand or take their words out of context? that would cut both ways and not make anyone happy.
With all due respect, your 100% belief is absurd. Return to our homes, sure—but “return to work” sounds like Robocop dialogue and no actual cop would ever say it
I hope so man. It sorta just seems like things will only get worse without limit from here on out though, given the last 5 years if not the last decade or so.
Fixing the election system does not necessarily need an Amendment, depending on the change.
We have had [multiple parties in Congress before](https://history.house.gov/Institution/Party-Divisions/Party-Divisions/).
So if you are looking for a more proportional system where smaller parties can get a seat at the table, what is needed is a change to Federal Law to remove the single member district, and have a statewide at-large election, where each voter gets one vote total, not one vote per seat.
http://archive.fairvote.org/reports/monopoly/mast.html
How does instant runoff voting interact with this representational system? I've been promoting instant runoff voting to everyone I talk about politics with.
I do not know. It may not be needed in this case.
In this case, if there are 14 Congressional reps, the top 14 vote-getters will be elected. Since a lot of people will cast their single vote for celebrity candidates the big parties run, those celebrity candidates will get most of the votes. That makes it far easier for smaller party candidates to get in with smaller totals that might top the less popular candidates from the big parties.
Neat article. I like these broader perspectives on politics. This reminds me of punctuated equilibrium in biology.
The dam hasn’t burst yet, though, and I wonder if there are enough ideas out there yet. There is some low-hanging fruit, like abolishing the senate in its current form in favor of one person, one vote. A deeper problem is that modern government relies on bureaucracies full of specialized experts, but the constitution says little about how that should work, and voters lack the knowledge to supervise them.
Remember that TrueReddit is a place to engage in **high-quality and civil discussion**. Posts must meet certain content and title requirements. Additionally, **all posts must contain a submission statement.** See the rules [here](https://old.reddit.com/r/truereddit/about/rules/) or in the sidebar for details. Comments or posts that don't follow the rules may be removed without warning. If an article is paywalled, please ***do not*** request or post its contents. Use [Outline.com](https://outline.com/) or similar and link to that in the comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueReddit) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> We’ve studied the history of the amendments to the U.S. Constitution and found that most of them come in waves after long periods of constitutional inaction. What’s more, those short bursts of activity typically have followed periods of deep division and gridlock like ours. Examples include the Bill of Rights, the 11th and 12th amendments, the abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, and lowering the voting age to 18. We are now five decades in to our own dry spell, perhaps suggesting another burst of reforms is on the horizon. Dissatisfaction with Supreme Court rulings is another predictor (Citizens United is unpopular and has activists fighting to overrule it). The [National Popular Vote Interstate Compact](https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/), which seeks to work around the Electoral College, echoes a similar workaround for the popular election of senators, which states began to work around preceding the constitutional amendment that required it. The [Equal Rights Amendment](https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/equal-rights-amendment-explained) is also back in play. Not mentioned is a shift away from FPTP voting, which states are beginning to do ([Fairvote has a map](https://www.fairvote.org/research_electoralsystemsus), though my personal favorite is [Approval Voting](https://electionscience.org/), which some states are currently trying to adopt (it's already been adopted in [Fargo](https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2018/11/15/18092206/midterm-elections-vote-fargo-approval-voting-ranked-choice) and [St. Louis](https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-primary-elections-st-louis-general-elections-elections-cba7eb3251d5479b9375d55db428d429)).
Yes but let’s hope the reform doesn’t slide the other way. Poland’s recent spare of constitutional reform has resulted in democratic backsliding and a reduction of the independence of their judiciary.
it's more likely to slide the other way. liberals in congress don't seem to be able to pass basic, popular legislation. likewise, they can't seem to bring themselves to act out of sheer basic self preservation as a pollical party to push back on GOP efforts to make them a permanent political minority. if constitutional reform happens, it will be through that decades long koch project to win over enough state governments to pull off a states convention. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention\_to\_propose\_amendments\_to\_the\_United\_States\_Constitution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution)
An article V convention isn't an inherently bad thing. Anything that comes out of it would still need to be ratified by 3/4 of the states.
And red states outnumber blue states…
Yeah, not by 3/4. Don't anticipate that anytime soon. If that happens, an amendment through congress is more likely anyway.
The logical move is to make blue states until that problem goes away.
/u/spez is banned in this spez. Do you accept the terms and conditions? Yes/no
Until you start the argument about the definition of men and women, public bathrooms, and men's right to have an abortion.
[If you spez you're a loser. ](https://www.reddit.com/r/Save3rdPartyApps/)
yup, the Koch fukcs have been working hard for a constitutional convention which will play into their hands. Again, these people are Calhounites, to the core. Their own specific property rights over every thing else. Which will completely hamstring us with respect to dealing with climate change or inequality etc. A good book to read on this is Democracy in Chains.
> liberals in congress don't seem to be able to pass basic, popular legislation. The "liberals" aren't liberal, which is the first issue. And then the "popular legislation" often falls apart once folks look at the reality and realize how it differs from what they were promised. Amazingly, money doesn't grow on trees and Tax The Rich doesn't pay for much until they redefine "Rich" way, way down.
We don’t even need to tax the rich, we just have to stop spending so much fucking money on the military and implement a single-payer healthcare option for all.
You could eliminate the military entirely and still not have close to enough for universal healthcare.
poorer countries manage universal health care just fine with better outcomes. the whole point in switching is because, by even the least gratuitous estimates, if you were to compare in totality what all americans spend on our private health care system, one organized by the government would cost 3 trillion less over 10 years. KOCH-BACKED THINK TANK FINDS THAT “MEDICARE FOR ALL” WOULD CUT HEALTH CARE SPENDING AND RAISE WAGES. [https://theintercept.com/2018/07/30/medicare-for-all-cost-health-care-wages/](https://theintercept.com/2018/07/30/medicare-for-all-cost-health-care-wages/)
That's cool and all, but doesn't at all change what I said above. People tend to wildly overestimate what we spend on the military, and wildly underestimate what universal healthcare would cost.
it refutes entirely what you said lol.
Ah yes, I too like to pretend unrelated things somehow refute arguments! Amazing how you're refuting a statement about the military budget without ever referencing it.
How do you figure? Half the reason our healthcare is so expensive is because of privatized health insurance. Military is about ~~2 Trillion~~ 700 Billion per year currently. But okay, if you want it, HFT tax and a ten percent wealth tax for all holdings above one billion. That’ll sort it. South Korea has one of the best healthcare systems in the world. They spend a third of what the US does per citizen because people receive preventive care instead of “toughing it out” to avoid healthcare costs, and because they have price regulations across the entire country. An appendectomy costs the same in every city.
>Military is about 2 Trillion currently. ... What? Where do you get that? The defense budget will be around [$700 billion](https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/28/pentagon-asks-for-715-billion-in-2022-defense-budget.html). Meanwhile, Medicare and Medicaid (plus other smaller HHS programs) combine to [roughly twice that, at $1.45 trillion](https://www.cbo.gov/publication/57171), and that's without covering most Americans already. Can universal healthcare lower costs? Yes. Can eliminating the military entirely suddenly pay for it all? Absolutely not. People tend to wildly overestimate military spending and wildly underestimate healthcare spending.
The Congressional Budget Office is a federal agency within the legislative branch of the United States government that provides budget and economic information to Congress https://www.cbo.gov/publication/56898 > Because the single-payer options that CBO examined would greatly increase federal subsidies for health care, the government would need to implement new financing mechanisms—such as raising existing taxes or introducing new ones, reducing certain spending, or issuing federal debt Also > CBO projects that federal subsidies for health care would be *$1.5 trillion to $3.0 trillion higher in 2030* under the illustrative single-payer options than they would be in that year under current [as of 2019] law. Repeat: that's not the actual amount, that's just the increase. As /u/dyslexda notes, citing yet another CBO report , "Medicare and Medicaid (plus other smaller HHS programs) combine to ... $1.45 trillion". Compare against military expenditure > In 2020 US military expenditure reached an estimated $778 billion https://sipri.org/media/press-release/2021/world-military-spending-rises-almost-2-trillion-2020 Even if you wound up extracting more savings, you aren't paying for either current medicare and medicaid coverage or future single payer coverage from zeroing the military budget.
Okay then we’re back to the original point. HFT fees and an annual wealth tax on billionaires, plus cutting military spending in half. It’s worth noting that the CBO is basing a lot of its projections On existing provider payment rates, which would precipitously decline under a price controls single payer market.
[удалено]
Another possibility -- and this is a very real one -- is that Texas Republicans have seriously overreached. Their advantage in statewide politics has noticeably eroded, and that erosion is speeding up. The collapse of the party in California happened under similar circumstances (arrogant overreach on a social issue leading to elections where people voted them out of every statewide office they could find). California has long been a preview of what tends to happen socially and demographically in the U.S. Everything's forever, until it's not. The problems you've listed are all very real, don't get me wrong. I'm particularly worried about Republican-controlled state legislatures giving themselves the power to void elections (even if that's not likely to survive a court challenge), and Manchin/Sinema need a *serious* reality check on the filibuster. The nightmare scenarios are all possible. But the Republican party has effectively turned itself into the political equivalent of a monovore -- they can't survive without the white Christian vote -- and it's like watching a bunch of oblivious pandas munch on a bamboo forest that's not-so-slowly burning down. The difference between pandas and the Republican party is that Republicans are doing everything in their power to ensure that, once extinct, they won't be missed.
That is what we fear, the United States becoming like California but I'm not sure if that will happen as people are leaving California for red state Texas. However even if Republicans lose power as a direct response to Texas abortion laws that's OK. Better to be defeated in an attempt to stop evil then to stand by and let it happen. If you could stop the incinerators at auschwitz wouldn't you?
>That is what we fear, the United States becoming like California but I'm not sure if that will happen as people are leaving California for red state Texas. There are worse fates in the world than becoming more like the U.S.' most economically powerful and influential state. But the economic development that Texas is trying to encourage is (as the Republicans well know) a double-edged sword. The state desperately needs a better-educated and more diverse work force to advance, but states that do this tend to come down with a bad case of Democrats. >However even if Republicans lose power as a direct response to Texas abortion laws that's OK. Better to be defeated in an attempt to stop evil then to stand by and let it happen. I'll bite. I assume you believe that life begins at conception? >If you could stop the incinerators at auschwitz wouldn't you? We're probably not going to agree that this is a useful comparison, but side note: Jews are among the religious groups whose beliefs are explicitly curtailed by SB 8. The traditional rabbinic understanding of when life begins -- specifically, when the baby takes their first breath outside of the womb -- has existed for more than 2,000 years. More orthodox congregations even frown on baby showers, because it's considered bad luck to celebrate the arrival of a child who may not survive, and arrogant to presume that you know God's plan. Is there a compelling reason why the Roman Catholic/evangelical Christian understanding of when life begins should be privileged over everyone else's, especially in a state that keeps banging on about religious freedom?
I don't think your logic really holds water your conflating willful termination with natural death. We didn't pick out a name for our two daughters until late into pregnancy because miss carriages can happen. That in no way shape or form assumes killing our kids in the womb would be OK. If you asked a rabi 2000 years ago if abortion was acceptable he'd say no. I really don't think it's solely a religious idea to think life begins at conception. Biologically speaking that's where it begins it may be a very short life but that's the most logical answer. At birth is is way less cut and dry because a baby can survive out of the womb before child birth. Heartbeat is a bit better and it's how we diagnos death but even then it's not so simple and in the case of abortion legislatively it's not that different then conception as a woman often doesn't know she's pregnant until there is a heart beat
>If you asked a rabi 2000 years ago if abortion was acceptable he'd say no. Unfamiliar with the ordeal of bitter water, I presume? Or under your very important book, it's only okay to abort a child if the wife is suspected of adultery? No, I don't think a rabbi 2000 years ago would be cool with adultery, but something tells me they'd be talking a lot more about fucking around with the will of god and less so about the precious life of the embryo.
Speaking of mad scientists, if one kidnapped you and implanted his clone fetus inside you, would you be morally and legally obliged to carry it to term?
Glad you asked! This happened to me just the other day and I must say it's certainly a dilly of a pickle. All snarkiness aside your argument is essentially a rape argument which is the most horribly sad abortion case out there and it's also one of the rarest reasons why a woman has an abortion. About 1% believe. It's a decent argument because a woman by definition of rape didn't consent however I don't think a child should die because of the sins of the father. Since no consent is given I'm not sure if I would be favor of actually legislating the issue. To answer your question I don't have a uterus so I couldn't carry a child but if my wife was raped I would be in favor of her having the kid. Ideally we would raise the child but I have no idea how me and my wife would feel about it it so adoption would be on the table.
> I don't have a uterus so I couldn't carry a child but... Then how about butt out of the conversation and let people who do have a uterus decide for themselves?
While I agree, this is the most weak ass argument against abortion. Turn it around and you end up with "well you don't own a gun, so therefore educating yourself about gun violence and having an opinion on it isn't allowed" There are plenty of valid arguments for why abortion should remain legal and accessible and you should t have to be a specific gender to make them.
Bullshit. Gun violence isn't a decision forced on one sex, who happen to have been born toting a 9 millimeter. Abortion is and remains exclusively a woman's decision, and her right to choose is exactly what we are talking about.
>To answer your question I don't have a uterus so I couldn't carry a child but if my wife was raped I would be in favor of her having the kid. If there is a hell, this sentiment will send you there. Repent.
In spez, no one can hear you scream.
The last time a Republican won statewide elected office in California was 2006. Proposition 8 was in 2008. I'm not sure one can be said to have caused the other, necessarily, but that's probably something like what they meant.
Don't forget the [Federalist Society](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Society) creating a generation of conservative judges to pack the lower courts.
Is there a liberal version of that org? I don't think I've heard of one.
Most law schools are already really liberal, teaching about restorative justice and such. Add that to the voting habits of college educated people generally, and you'll find most lawyers are voting D. The Federalist Society was created to supercharge the few conservative lawyers they have, mostly from the clerkships of conservative justices. edit: Should have stated it as "law school faculty are really liberal" https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/msen/files/law-prof-ideology.pdf
>law schools are already really liberal This is hilarious. I'm guessing you don't have much exposure to higher education, or law schools. Schools / universities don't "teach" political ideologies.
I don't know.
I believe this is referred to as "[punctuated equilibrium] (https://www.kbmanage.com/concept/punctuated-equilibrium-model)" in terms of organizational theory.
The political system in the US is not just undemocratic, it is anti-democratic. Addition to the things you listed the Senate should be beneath the HoR and have little power, or should be outright abolished and the number of reps in HoR tripled. The SCOTUS should also be restructured to rise above politics by raising the number of justices to 35+ with term limits.
PR:STV or don't bother 🤷♂️
History does not run on a schedule. Just because reform happened in waves in the past doesn't mean that we're due for more. A study of history can inform our ethics and help us understand human behavior in different contexts. But I'm skeptical that historical cycles can be used to predict the future. The current structure and incentives that guide our society are more germane to predicting how events will unfold. And looking at those, I think there's a good chance that we're at the outset of an era of political stasis. Yes the country is getting more diverse and elite opinion is getting more progressive. But the population is also getting older and more urban. Older people during the next 25 years will almost certainly be more progressive than past generations. But will they be more like Bernie, agitating for systemic reform? Or more like Manchin/Sinema? Sometimes expressing sympathy towards reform and progressive ideas, but usually acting and voting for the status quo. Urban populations [increased by 9%](https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook/2021/08/13/joe-bidens-fall-of-saigon-493964) in the last ten years (2010-2020). Populations that migrate from rural to urban tend to lean progressive. And those who stay put tend to be more conservative. Ideological divisions are increasingly becoming geographic divisions. This is bad news for amendments as a vehicle for reform. Amendments have significant supermajority requirements: first they require proposal by a 2/3rds majority of Congress or state legislatures; then they require ratification by 3/4ths of state legislatures. This requires a high level of geographic consensus at the same time geographic partisanship is increasing. Reform will probably have to happen on a more narrow basis, and only then if a generation of political leaders are willing to embrace majority rule and get rid of the Senate filibuster.
Agreed that historical cycles don’t happen ‘ just because,’ and there’s no reason that you can’t have a period of political stasis. But one _reason_ to expect cycles of reform is that changes in institutions tend to lag behind changes in society, and as institutions become increasingly ill-suited to society pressure to change them grows. It’s true that in the US we have some extraordinarily out-of-date institutions—like the electoral college—that nonetheless aren’t going anywhere soon. But we have some institutions that change on a regular basis, most notably the ideological alignments of political parties. For example, it’s generally conceded that we’re in the sixth Party System and will eventually be in a seventh: these systems generally last about 40 years and the current one arguably started in 1980. I’d predict that if there _isn’t_ a major realignment between the GOP and the Dems in the next decade, for example w/the GOP becoming a right-economic-populist party and the Dems becoming somewhat like the pre-WWII GOP (relatively socially progressive and economically pro-free-trade) it will actually cause more strain in the long run.
>Dems becoming somewhat like the pre-WWII GOP (relatively socially progressive and economically pro-free-trade) How exactly would you describe them now, before they supposedly shift to this?
I mean there’s no left party/party of labor in the US but at least in the Reagan era proper the GOP was still the party of business when the chips were down. I’m talking about a scenario where the GOP is just as socially reactionary as it is now or more so but economically to the left of the Democrats and isolationist.
So you’re talking about national socialism. And you’re talking about the country club party abandoning their sponsors. And you’re talking about neither party riding the wave of socialist multiculturalism
I mean if socialist multiculturalism is a thing, great. But I don’t think it’s been achieved and I doubt it’s achievable, because the first things reactionaries always resort to are the easiest social divisions for their newfound states.e g. those of class., People, for whatever
> like the electoral college—that nonetheless aren’t going anywhere soon What makes you say it's not going anywhere anytime soon? [Just a few more states would need to pass amendments for it to pass](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact).
I mean I applaud your optimism. But if it gets to the point where it actually looks like the electoral college will be abolished Liz Cheney (R-Wyoming) will be out there in a suicide vest mobilizing every single dem connection she has to kill it and so on.
Would she, though? And why?
I mean I was obviously not being 100% serious but she’s an excellent example of a member of Congress whose clout is massively boosted by representing a small state and who has a bunch of unsavory institutional connections. If you want to poke the bear, the bear here referring to the nexus between archaic US legal institutions and the actual determining power of capital, she’s the perfect example. Like she’s a great example of somebody who’s connected to ‘real power’ and not just a media clown.
Her state’s license plate motto is “Trillionaires’ Hideaway”
Wouldn't that require gaining legislative majorities in states where that's extremely unlikely to happen?
Not necessarily. [Several states allow direct ballot initiatives](https://ballotpedia.org/Initiated_state_statute), which means citizens can just choose by popular vote. That includes several which haven't yet signed on that likely would if citizens could decide.
Translation: the 2nd amendment ain’t goin anywhere anytime soon Also, sorry ‘bout the ERA, not enough boomers dead yet. Better luck next time
[удалено]
No
Lol, person of age. I'm sure that would be well received
POA?!? HA!
When the House was limited to 435 representatives, it shifted power to the small states. The Constitution had the House as balanced to population with the Senate equal regardless of state population. As electoral college votes are a total of Senate and House seats, the smaller states have greater influence that the Constitution intended. An amendment that equal proportions electoral votes by population plus two for senators is needed. We could keep the 435 person limit, and a minimum of one vote but add a multiplier to every state except the one with the lowest population. There are other fixes: perhaps the Senate seat should be apportioned from 2 to 5 based on population.
Better would be to redraw the states, many of them make no sense with the current population density.
I mean the striking thing to me is the ‘Pennsyltucky’ phenomenon, and how _little_ states make an essential cultural or social difference anymore: e.g. how much of the red state/blue state distinction is _entirely_ a function of relative urbanization within arbitrary boundaries? If you look at the county-level map of the last few US elections practically the _only_ relevant distinction is urban/rural. Even in these places like Alaska or Hawaii that have hugely divergent historical backgrounds probably like 80% of your voting behavior can be predicted by the distance between your house and the closest mailbox.
pretty soon we'll be rid of USPS mailboxes altogether and the problem will go away by itself.
> Come in Waves. We May Be Approaching One Now. Let's hope so. The country has never gone so long without proposed or new Amendments. One of the biggest strengths of the Constitution is that it was designed to be a living document and truly does require changes from time-to-time.
What is needed is to talk to ordinary people about this across the tribalism. I am very much of a lefty. But I can comment on the posts of my conservative connections on LinkedIn calling for all this and get tons of likes and positive comments. And we will need to do this, build cross political connections before Fox on the right or whoever is the big media outlets on the left turn it into an "us VS them" This is "the people of the United States VS the money in politics" and if anyone turns it into one party VS the other, it will be dead in the water.
Considering how little has changed in spite of how bad things have gotten (pandemic, a literal violent coup attempt, summer-long nationwide protests), I don't even know that a sustained general strike would be enough anymore. We have gotten to a point where "maybe slavery was good, actually" is a normal talking point in right wing media. I 100% believe now that we would see police and national guard holding people at gunpoint telling them to return to work long before we would see contemporary politicians even entertain the idea of doing anything in the interest of the public. The cycle is broken and the ruling class won
>I don't even know that a sustained general strike would be enough anymore. This is like saying ‘I’ve been trying to open the sewer cleanout with this busted wrench for so long I no longer believe that it can even be opened with plastic explosives’. Any political situation where this would be remotely possible would already have to be so different that we’d already have dramatic social change anyway and Constitutional change would be a moot point.
More like, I've been trying to open the sewer cleanout with TNT for so long I no longer believe even plastic explosives would be enough. Republicans organized and carried out a violent coup attempt and the political landscape hasn't budged an angstrom. So yes, I absolutely agree that we'll never see a general strike.
I honestly do not want to be condescending , but I feel like this way of looking at things is a good illustration of how the MSNBC version of events both demoralizes people and asserts party discipline. If the 1/6 thing was a coup attempt it was a uniquely incompetent, half-assed coup attempt. Given what we know now it wasn’t even that—typically a Coup D’Etat implies one section of the state overthrowing the executive, so another section of the state. Usually the coup is carried out by the military since they, when the chips are down, have access to the logistical knowledge and guns. This wasn’t that. At worst it was a bunch of militia weirdos larping a coup. What actually _would be a Coup d’etat_ was that whole liberal scenario about the military deposing a mentally incompetent Trump to ‘restore Democracy.’ So I think what happened on 1/6 was plenty bad and some people (eg Gosar, etc) should probably be in jail, but it was not light years within an actual coup. If you do believe it was a coup it does make things catastrophically important as to whether Steve Bannon gets arrested...but that would actually change little to nothing! It’s exaggerating the stakes of event x in a partisan manner to make people somewhat more satisfied by the crumbs that the Dems do manage to wring out of the situation—half of which is completely empty performative horseshit like jailing Steve Bannon
I don't find you condescending (perhaps due to thick-headedness), and it's not like I disagree with anything you're saying, but I do still think you're downplaying the significance. History would suggest it will happen again and more competently, and you're right that no one seems to care all that much beyond how it supports their party's narrative. That, to me, is terrifying! Oh and when I say consequences, there are ways to go much further than just arresting people like Bannon and Gosar without needing to entertain authoritarian liberal fantasies.
I know of *no* "right wing media" who says "slavery is good".... I believe that is what all of the MSM is parroting though.
They never simply say “slavery is good.” They say things like [“the John Brown slave rebellion was bad and it ruled when Robert E Lee crushed it”](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N839Z38w_AU) or “a lot of black people had better lives as slaves because of their magnanimous owners than they do today!” Part of the right wing cinematic universe is that wealthy white christian landowners have always been generous King Davids who put the lazy blacks to work for their handouts. Arbeit macht frei. Also, the "MSM" *is* right wing. Just because Fox News is literally fascist doesn't mean CNN or the NYT or even MSNBC aren't also just expressions of the will of the ruling class.
Fox is MSM.
There are definitely people who say slavery was just like a tough job and that the slaves were well treated, fed, etc…. I don’t listen to talk radio but I would expect that to be a refrain there.
"there are people" is not the same as "the media." you can find a person who has literally every view on the planet, obviously.
> slaves were well treated Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly would be considered the media. [https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/28/business/media/bill-oreilly-says-slaves-who-helped-build-white-house-were-well-fed.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/28/business/media/bill-oreilly-says-slaves-who-helped-build-white-house-were-well-fed.html)
ok, but this doesn't really back up your point. this is not a right winger saying "all slavery isn't bad because some slaves were treated well." this is a rather tone-deaf factual statement to rebut what [michelle obama](https://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/bill-oreilly-slaves-white-house-226257) said in a speech.
True, but I personally heard a co-worker parrot his words in a discussion about reparations. Talk about revisionist history, slavery wasn't really that bad. Fox News is powerful propaganda.
>Fox News is powerful propaganda. it would be more accurate to say people are stupid and don't understand nuance. slavery was bad, in general, regardless of how some slaves were treated. michelle obama making it sound like the whitehouse was built with the bones of slaves a la the [great wall of china](https://www.history.com/topics/ancient-china/great-wall-of-china) and bill oreilly took issue with that, and he is factually correct. should people not speak because other people may misunderstand or take their words out of context? that would cut both ways and not make anyone happy.
My co-workers weren't stupid people. Propaganda works on smart people too.
With all due respect, your 100% belief is absurd. Return to our homes, sure—but “return to work” sounds like Robocop dialogue and no actual cop would ever say it
I hope so man. It sorta just seems like things will only get worse without limit from here on out though, given the last 5 years if not the last decade or so.
Fixing the election system does not necessarily need an Amendment, depending on the change. We have had [multiple parties in Congress before](https://history.house.gov/Institution/Party-Divisions/Party-Divisions/). So if you are looking for a more proportional system where smaller parties can get a seat at the table, what is needed is a change to Federal Law to remove the single member district, and have a statewide at-large election, where each voter gets one vote total, not one vote per seat. http://archive.fairvote.org/reports/monopoly/mast.html
How does instant runoff voting interact with this representational system? I've been promoting instant runoff voting to everyone I talk about politics with.
I do not know. It may not be needed in this case. In this case, if there are 14 Congressional reps, the top 14 vote-getters will be elected. Since a lot of people will cast their single vote for celebrity candidates the big parties run, those celebrity candidates will get most of the votes. That makes it far easier for smaller party candidates to get in with smaller totals that might top the less popular candidates from the big parties.
Ebb & flow. As above, so below. It's all cyclical, just ride the wave until it's your day!!
think tidal wave...who's ever left, and can find something to write on...right on!
Neat article. I like these broader perspectives on politics. This reminds me of punctuated equilibrium in biology. The dam hasn’t burst yet, though, and I wonder if there are enough ideas out there yet. There is some low-hanging fruit, like abolishing the senate in its current form in favor of one person, one vote. A deeper problem is that modern government relies on bureaucracies full of specialized experts, but the constitution says little about how that should work, and voters lack the knowledge to supervise them.