Fifth Avenue Forum

It's absolutely mind-blowing how out of touch the GOP is with the human race.

Waaa, why can't we grift these people too

so with the Repubs owning the house, the Senate being potentially 50-50 and the presidency being Dem, this guarantees that the strongest branch of the government is the Republican controlled Supreme Court?

So here in Kansas Laura Kelly (D) won re-election as Governor. She won the popular vote. But if you look at the electoral map, it's quite astonishing. She won 8 out of 105 counties. 8.

If this state was run like the US Senate, she would have lost 97-8 (or 194-16 if each county had two votes). The electoral college system is similarly weighted and corrupt. Anachronistic and idiotic. If you look at the Kansas election map, it is a vast sea of red with 8 islands of blue. Yet she won. You all know why: only about 20% of the entire population of the state live in those 97 red counties.

I'm not telling you anything you don't know about how stupid the Senate and the electoral college are, but I have to say that IMO this is what is fatally broken about the US federal system.

I'm wondering if we should reconsider this US Constitution thing. Scrap it and start anew. I'm thinking that maybe a parliamentary system might be better for the federal government. Ditch the executive branch. Ditch the Senate. Go with the House and a check from the judicial branch.

Won't ever happen, obviously, for a thousand reasons, but I'm sick of this ****.

...And I occasionally like to design my own countries.

gerrymandering is a much bigger problem with a much simpler solution, albeit it doesn’t affect the senate

Land don't vote... people do.

*Disclaimer: I know nothing about that source. I just saw it on Reddit yesterday.

gerrymandering is a much bigger problem with a much simpler solution, albeit it doesn’t affect the senate

right. We should just abolish the senate

Land don't vote... people do.

Except in the US Senate.

There's a reason that in the UK the House of Lords doesn't have much power. It's because it's stupid and (most) UK people realize it. The US hasn't come around to that idea.

So essentially the people (there are actual humans) that live in 92% of the state don't matter...

It's why congress is two separate bodies, one that gives everyone a voice balanced with one that is based on where people are concentrated

The problem is the House is a clown show and the senate is essentially of greater importance in practice which undermines that balance.

Pretty wild to see how fast the knives came out for Trump. The next month or two is going to be something to watch.

There are still die-hards hanging on but I am seeing a lot of seething rage from the alt-right types on Twitter directed at Trump.

Minority rule isn't "giving everyone a voice".

So essentially the people (there are actual humans) that live in 92% of the state don't matter...

Are we rule-by-majority or not?

It's not that they don't matter, it's that they apparently matter FAR more.

Pretty wild to see how fast the knives came out for Trump. The next month or two is going to be something to watch.

There are still die-hards hanging on but I am seeing a lot of seething rage from the alt-right types on Twitter directed at Trump.

The knives may come out for him specifically, but everything he believes and endorses still lives on in the heart of the GOP. This election continued to prove that.

We already covered that he gets all the credit for the wins and zero of the blame for the loses

So essentially the people (there are actual humans) that live in 92% of the state don't matter...

It's why congress is two separate bodies, one that gives everyone a voice balanced with one that is based on where people are concentrated

It doesn't matter how much area the state is, in fact the idea that a person who owns large amounts of land should have more say versus one who is just renting an apartment is patently undemocratic. If 20 people live in an apartment complex in Shady Acres, and a family of five owns the rest of the land inside the city limits there should be no mechanism or system that gives the family of five more than 20% of a say in how the city is ran.

From a political science perspective, has the theory of why the founding fathers agreed on the Connecticut Compromise (what led to the House being population driven and the Senate being bicarmel) really changed since 1787?

of course those in the majority will support rule by majority and those in the minority would support equal representation


if conservatives were the majority in the country, would you continue to support that? idk

Pretty wild to see how fast the knives came out for Trump. The next month or two is going to be something to watch.

There are still die-hards hanging on but I am seeing a lot of seething rage from the alt-right types on Twitter directed at Trump.

Yeah, they are also extremely irrelevant compared to Trump.

Not to go full schadenfreude, but I'm not sure how the party thought getting into bed with Trump was ultimately going to go for them.

They definitely thought they were going to you know, get their people in there (like Priebus) and really just get the benefit of his popularity without the, you know, risks of partnering with a con man/hustler.

I mean, lol, his grass roots donor base goes just to him, he doesn't help other candidate financially with that. His PAC is primarily to just charter him around the country, pay for "services" at his properties, pay his legal bills, and employ his family.

He is perpetually forced to run for office because the premise of his role as president keeps the foreign money flowing in (see the Saudis) and of course protection from criminal prosecution.

Desantis is a party man, and the party is going to have to cave and go fully behind Trump in 2024 because Trump's not going to do what's in the best interest of the party here and bow out.

of course those in the majority will support rule by majority and those in the minority would support equal representation

Steve Brule gif

From a political science perspective, has the theory of why the founding fathers agreed on the Connecticut Compromise (what led to the House being population driven and the Senate being bicarmel) really changed since 1787?

of course those in the majority will support rule by majority and those in the minority would support equal representation


if conservatives were the majority in the country, would you continue to support that? idk

mmm, bicarmel

From a political science perspective, has the theory of why the founding fathers agreed on the Connecticut Compromise (what led to the House being population driven and the Senate being bicarmel) really changed since 1787?

That's an interesting question. My answer would be that it certainly has. I really don't see the US as a collection of virtually autonomous states anymore, as they certainly did back then. Except for Hamilton. (@Shyster trigger.)

The US has evolved for better and for worse into being just America. To me, the state divisions are almost entirely for administrative purposes anymore. Is it really about "local control"? Should it be?

I mean, are the interests of Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and Alaska and Kansas really that different anymore? I would argue "no."

Hmm. You've got me thinking about that.

I left out Florida in that statement, 'cause it belongs on Pluto.