[Steve_American]

This can be done by law. No amendment needed.

By law the number of Reps. in the house can be multiplied by about 7 by fixing the population of every district as being around 100,000 people.

What this does is to ---
. . 1] Add about 2,900 more Electors to the electoral College. This gets the US closer to 1 man one vote for President. After this there would be about 3,300 members in the House plus 100 Senators = about 3,400 Electors.
. . 2] Make even the smallest state have enough Reps. to have multi-member districts. Wyoming would get 6 Reps.

Also, increase the size of the Supreme court a lot. Because I'm in favor of fairness I would suggest letting the Repuds choose 2 of 8 new justices, the Progressives choose 3 justices, and the American Bar Association choose 3 justices. Remember the Repuds already got their 3rd one in Gorsuch.

[Steve_American]

I want to expand my proposal.

At the same time the Progressives should propose a Constitutional Amendment.
This amendment would require that which ever candidate who the popular vote would get as a result a number of Electoral College votes equal the total of 2 most populous state's total Electoral College votes. But, not any more votes if the total popular vote of the 2 leaders are within 1% or maybe 0.5% of each other.

Now, the law to expand the House goes into effect soon or 3/4 of the states ratify the Amendment. The nation gets one or the other.

This is a reasonable compromise with the small states. They still get more Electoral College votes, but now the popular vote also matters. This means that every vote counts in some way at least toward who wins the election. Now every voter can know that her/his vote will matter to some extent in the final total the candidates get.

OTOH, maybe we need a more radical change in the presidency. Something like having the Congress in joint session elect her/him by a 50%+1 vote. With a no confidence vote allowed if Congress wants to change Presidents.

Some nationwide office holders would be nice. Maybe a few "at large" nationwide members of both houses with the requirement that they Chair a committee. And/Or, maybe the President must be chosen from this group of people.

[Torus34]

As with a number of reasonable [Ed.: When seen from afar,] propositions, the suggestions above should be tested. The test is this: given the present operational divide between the two major political parties, does either party have both the motive and the votes* to pass the legislation?

* This includes the signing or veto of the legislation by the President.

[Steve_American]

As with a number of reasonable [Ed.: When seen from afar,] propositions, the suggestions above should be tested. The test is this: given the present operational divide between the two major political parties, does either party have both the motive and the votes* to pass the legislation?

* This includes the signing or veto of the legislation by the President.

I understand.
You will, however note, that I specified some time in the future when a Progressive Party [meaning not the Repuds and not the sellout Dems either] controls Congress and the Pres. Then they kill the filibuster and pass the law I proposed.

Then they try to pass the Amendment in Congress. If they can't or 3/4s of the states don't ratify it then the law is what America gets. The Repuds in their remaining seats and legislatures have a choice. One or the other, choose one.

Progressive young people take note, experience shows this is necessary. There is a list of other laws I want them to pass. Then they can make them amendments also.
There is another list of amendments I want them to try to pass, because I now see that laws are too easy to overturn. We fix the problem with a law and 60 years later it is repealed for reasons and then the same shit hits the same fan a few years later. Examples banking rules, that the Gov. WILL provide a healthcare system to every citizen and a less good one for aliens, and it WILL provide a Soc. Sec. system, etc.

[Torus34]

OK. There's the test case. Progressives in charge of Congress and the White House. The amendment proposal passes. The proposal, in effect, reduces the power of conservatives in the smaller, less-populous States. Now, 3/4ths of the States must ratify if the Amendment-to-be isn't to die aborning. That means that less than 1/4 of the State legislatures are in control of conservatives. That, to my way of thinking, is a bit of a stretch. I don't see that happening any time soon. This is especially true if the 'browning' of the United States of America proceeds. The smaller, rural States are predominantly white. They will find solace in the conservative position. This will be reflected in their State legislatures.

Regards.

[Steve_American]

@Torus34,
I totally understand.
In the case you outlined what the final result would be is that the House would be expanded to 3,300 members and the 100 electors from the 100 Senators would be diluted massively by the new 2765 Electors from the 2765 new House members.

[Sivad]

OTOH, maybe we need a more radical change in the presidency. Something like having the Congress in joint session elect her/him by a 50%+1 vote.

I don't see the advantage in taking the presidency away from the people and giving it to congress? No way in hell I would let those corrupt congress critters pick the president.

With a no confidence vote allowed if Congress wants to change Presidents.

Fuck that, I'm in favor of recall elections but not no confidence votes by congress. Maybe congress could trigger a recall but I wouldn't leave it up to them. An impeachment should automatically trigger a recall election.

Some nationwide office holders would be nice.

Secretary of State, Treasury, Defense, EPA, all the cabinet posts. I think public elections for congressional and senate committees would be a good idea too.

[One Degree]

Please no more elections. An election in America is when we pay for the privilege of politicians lying to us. We donate to finance the very propaganda used against us.
Local autonomy. Local elections. Everything else is business deals between the communities. No direct connection between individuals and higher government. Must go through local government.

[Steve_American]

What Steve wrote is in blue: Congress votes in the President.

I don't see the advantage in taking the presidency away from the people and giving it to congress? No way in hell I would let those corrupt congress critters pick the president.

Congress can vote no confidence in the Pres.

Fuck that, I'm in favor of recall elections but not no confidence votes by congress. Maybe congress could trigger a recall but I wouldn't leave it up to them. An impeachment should automatically trigger a recall election.

Have some at large Reps. and Senators, maybe committee chairs are mostly from these groups.

Secretary of State, Treasury, Defense, EPA, all the cabinet posts. I think public elections for congressional and senate committees would be a good idea too.

Well, I did say it MIGHT BE a good idea. Some people might see this as being a way to get less gridlock. Others [libertarians] see gridlock as always a good thing.
I don't see a need to elect the Cabinet, who they will be can be a part of the process of electing the Pres. by Congress.

BTW as a note to everyone --- I made the proposed House huge for shock effect. Adding just 700 to a 1000 more Reps. would be enough I think. Maybe even less.
I have elsewhere suggested that 1 Senator from each state must be a woman. The population will always be about 50-50 so this quota will always be close enough to representing reality.

[Steve_American]

Please no more elections. An election in America is when we pay for the privilege of politicians lying to us. We donate to finance the very propaganda used against us.
Local autonomy. Local elections. Everything else is business deals between the communities. No direct connection between individuals and higher government. Must go through local government.

Well, you have as your tag there, that nations should be 1 deg/ by 1 deg. and therefore tiny. The US split into over 30 X 60 = 1800 separate Citystates. Who controls the nuclear missiles is not specified. How such a group could resist invasion from a larger [more huge] nation isn't dealt with. And what about Alaska?
. . Point being you like local Gov. not national Gov.

[One Degree]

Well, you have as your tag there, that nations should be 1 deg/ by 1 deg. and therefore tiny. The US split into over 30 X 60 = 1800 separate Citystates. Who controls the nuclear missiles is not specified. How such a group could resist invasion from a larger [more huge] nation isn't dealt with. And what about Alaska?
. . Point being you like local Gov. not national Gov.

Actually it is just over a 1,000. (I created my own world maps on spreadsheets) My world doesn’t need nuclear missiles but such programs might be handled by ‘co op towns’. Each city state is allowed equal number of people to administer it. Same with resource extraction in unpopulated areas. Another option is the citystate’s grant a commission to one city state or corporation to oversee the program for a period of time. Weapons can be distributed equally among citystates. All our F35’s aren’t stationed in one location after all.
My preference for areas like Alaska is most of the territory would be ‘protected land’ administered jointly by citystates. The oceans alone make this a necessity. It should apply to at least 90% of the earth. All resources are shared equally
The number of citystates should be between 1,000 and 10,000 worldwide. This leaves at least 54,800 one degree areas as ‘protected lands’.
Half the world’s population already lives in 1009 metro areas. Pick the prime locations for citystates and they can be self sufficient for a lot of people. They are bigger than you imagine.