Prof. David Faris: It's Time To Fight Dirty! Including expand the House and the Supreme Court. - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14964229
Prof. David Faris: It's Time To Fight Dirty!

33.5 min., especially the last 10 min. or so where he talks about multi-member districts in the House with RCV, and expanding both the House and the US SC.
. . . He suggests an amendment to have the 9 members of the current size court serve for 18 years. With them spaced so that one is replaced at the beginning of each new Congress over the summer. That is every 2 years. Then each Pres. would get to appoint 2 SC justices in each 4 year term.
. . . He wants Congress to double or triple the size of the House with a simple law and have Congress also by law require multi-member districts and RCV. He likes 5 or 10 member districts. I think 7 would be better. But, half the states now have less than 8 Reps. in the House. Even doubling its size would mean several to many states would have just 1 district where all its Reps. would compete in that 1 district.


-------------------------------



-------------------------------
I have an additional idea. It is based on my desire or fairness. Assuming an amendment doesn't pass.
I would like to expand the court. Expand it a lot because I want to create a middle of the court. I would want this to be as locked in as possible. So, not just a Senate rule, but with a law.
. . 1] Expand the size of the court to make it big enough so that each party has the same number of justices to start out with.
. . 2] Then add 3 more special justices. These justices are special because they are nominated by the Pres. from a short list created by some outside group like maybe the American Bar Assoc. [if it is and will remain un-corrupted] and these justices must be confirmed by a 2/3 or even higher percentage. These justices are the new middle. To get a 2/3 vote they must be middle of the road judges.
. . 3] I assumed that there is no amendment, so justices still serve for life. The Constitution doesn't say how the Pres. is to choose his nominee. So, giving a short list may be Constitutional.


-------------------
I still like as an alternative, a rule that in the summer of the 1st year of each 4 year presidential term the Pres. can fire the one SC justice who he thinks is the worst of the bunch. And then replace him/her in the normal way. Over time this would get rid of the worst justices on both sides and it would let every Pres. get at least one SC pick.
. . And I would really like for a way to be found to get or add some middle of the road justices.
Last edited by Steve_American on 17 Nov 2018 14:36, edited 1 time in total.
#14964250
Politics, including constitutional amendments, stubbornly remains the art of the possible. That doesn't mean there's no pleasure to be gained from 'What if?' discussions. There is. Ask any baseball fan about the off-season.

We should, though, be mindful of that which can come to pass and that which cannot.

"Unless most of the people really think it's broke and will be comfortable with the remedy, don't try to fix it. The alternatives range from a cushy lobbying job to the unemployment line." A Beginner's Guide To Government, Aloysius Goldpen.
#14964271
Albert wrote:What is the rationale of expanding Congress? What will be the benefits? Similarly why have more court justices?

You didn't watch the video.
Prof. Faris is looking for fixes to problems that don't require amendments.
In this case expanding the House does 2 main things.
1] It also expands the Electoral College. This gives the low pop. states less power in electing the President and this makes electing the Pres. more democratic.
2] It makes it much more practical to have multi-Rep. districts and this makes 3rd parties more practical. He also wants RCV (ranked choice voting).


If you subscribe to the idea that the Repuds stole a SC justice, this is undoing that theft. Or maybe steeling it back. Both would have been done in a Constitutional way.
#14964273
Steve_American wrote:You didn't watch the video.
Prof. Faris is looking for fixes to problems that don't require amendments.
In this case expanding the House does 2 main things.
1] It also expands the Electoral College. This gives the low pop. states less power in electing the President and this makes electing the Pres. more democratic.
2] It makes it much more practical to have multi-Rep. districts and this makes 3rd parties more practical. He also wants RCV (ranked choice voting).


Except your definition of ‘our democracy’ is a distortion of the democracy we established. It gave both geographical equality and popular opinion a say in determining our laws.
#14964274
Finfinder wrote:
Because Democrats can't win at the ballot box . Actually they can't win at anything unless they lie, cheat, and rig the system.

It all depends on which side of the fence you are on.
From your side of the fence it may look that way.

From my side of the fence it looks like you are accusing the Dems of what you have needed to do to win for decades.
The last Repud Pres. who got a majority of the votes was Bush I, 20 years ago, IIRC.
To win in the House gerrymandering has made it so the Dems need to get 7% more votes for House members in order to get a majority.
The Dems will find it hard to get more than a bare majority in the Senate because Repub states have smaller pop. compared to Dem states.
And, Repuds suppress voters.
#14964279
Do those who want the US ran strictly by popular vote also support China having 3 votes in the UN to our 1?
There is more to be considered by Democracy than simply popularity.
#14964284
One Degree wrote:Do those who want the US ran strictly by popular vote also support China having 3 votes in the UN to our 1?
There is more to be considered by Democracy than simply popularity.

China just like the US has a seat on the Security Counsel, with a veto.
The UN is not a democracy. Hell,it is not even a government.
The nations of the world are not equal.
America is supposed to treat all its citizens equally.
#14964289
Steve_American wrote:It all depends on which side of the fence you are on.
From your side of the fence it may look that way.

From my side of the fence it looks like you are accusing the Dems of what you have needed to do to win for decades.
The last Repud Pres. who got a majority of the votes was Bush I, 20 years ago, IIRC.


Sure every time the Democrats lose a presidency they want to change the rules. It's not even valid to bring up the popular vote. I don't even know what you are arguing. Why not just say you want one party (Democrats). In terms of behavior look how appointment votes go under a Democrat verses Republican president. Democrats simply won't support Republican appointments.

Steve_American wrote:
To win in the House gerrymandering has made it so the Dems need to get 7% more votes for House members in order to get a majority.
The Dems will find it hard to get more than a bare majority in the Senate because Repub states have smaller pop. compared to Dem states.
And, Repuds suppress voters.


The Democrats already have plans to gerrymander.. What part are you not understanding here, this is the will of the people and our system. It's why Obama was such a bad president. You need to give him the credit for congressional seat losses all the way down to state and local losses.

BTW whatis happening in Florida is suppressing voters..... who is in charge of that?
Last edited by Finfinder on 17 Nov 2018 15:19, edited 2 times in total.
#14964291
Steve_American wrote:China just like the US has a seat on the Security Counsel, with a veto.
The UN is not a democracy. Hell,it is not even a government.
The nations of the world are not equal.
America is supposed to treat all its citizens equally.


The US started out very similar to the UN. The states were equal.
Treating all your citizens equally does not mean they must always adhere to the majority of the whole. This is why we have different levels of government. It is only recently we decided the national decision should be the only factor. This is actually using a pretense of democracy to install authoritarianism. Especially when you use the courts to do it.
Equality means our differences need respected, not we must all follow the same rules. We are equals and therefore should have our individuality respected as much as possible and still have a functioning society. Without decentralization of society, you can have ‘rule of the majority’, but not real equality.
#14964437
One Degree wrote:
The US started out very similar to the UN. The states were equal.
Treating all your citizens equally does not mean they must always adhere to the majority of the whole. This is why we have different levels of government. It is only recently we decided the national decision should be the only factor. This is actually using a pretense of democracy to install authoritarianism. Especially when you use the courts to do it.
Equality means our differences need respected, not we must all follow the same rules. We are equals and therefore should have our individuality respected as much as possible and still have a functioning society. Without decentralization of society, you can have ‘rule of the majority’, but not real equality.

When under the Articles of Confederation, maybe.
Once the Constitution was adopted, not so much.
The UN can't tax me. It doesn't stop tariffs. It can't maintain an army.
The US can. . . . . . . . The US does. . . . . .. . . The US can and does.
#14964439
Steve_American wrote:When under the Articles of Confederation, maybe.
Once the Constitution was adopted, not so much.
The UN can't tax me. It doesn't stop tariffs. It can't maintain an army.
The US can. . . . . . . . The US does. . . . . .. . . The US can and does.


Your taxes pay for the UN more than any other country in the world. I wonder where UN forces come from if not the UN? Besides, that’s a red herring. My main point is demanding more emphasis on majority rule is a direct contradiction to pursuing greater equality.
#14964450
One Degree wrote:
Your taxes pay for the UN more than any other country in the world. I wonder where UN forces come from if not the UN? Besides, that’s a red herring. My main point is demanding more emphasis on majority rule is a direct contradiction to pursuing greater equality.

1st part, you are wrong. The US makes voluntary contributions and nations loan their troops to the UN.
2nd part, I guess I disagree with your point.
And anyway, the US is about 230 years old and the UN is about 75.
Also, the Constitution is a compromise between free and slave states. It is too bad we can't have another convention [meeting in good faith] and create a more modern one. But, that is impossible. Right after WWII maybe, it's not possible now.
#14964451
Steve_American wrote:1st part, you are wrong. The US makes voluntary contributions and nations loan their troops to the UN.
2nd part, I guess I disagree with your point.
And anyway, the US is about 230 years old and the UN is about 75.
Also, the Constitution is a compromise between free and slave states. It is too bad we can't have another convention [meeting in good faith] and create a more modern one. But, that is impossible. Right after WWII maybe, it's not possible now.


There is a group still working on it. I have not checked on them recently because if I remember they had a more limited view of what it should encompass. Supposedly they were getting closer.

Here is a link to their site if you are interested @Steve_American .
https://conventionofstates.com/
#14964469
The rationale is pretty simple. If you give Puerto Rico (and other territories) and DC statehood and break up California into 4 or 5 states you would have more senators that are likely to be Democrats. Currently the Republicans are winning easy senate races in states (like my own) that barely have any people. If the Democrats were smart they would use the system we have to help themselves electorally like the Republicans do so well.

Stacking the courts is another obvious move. Next time a Dem wins, add 5 or 6 SCOTUS members to dilute the current regime of arch-Catholic vampires. These are things that should be done to weaken the Republican parties over-representation (compared to their raw numbers).
#14964474
The rationale is pretty simple. If you give Puerto Rico (and other territories) and DC statehood and break up California into 4 or 5 states you would have more senators that are likely to be Democrats. Currently the Republicans are winning easy senate races in states (like my own) that barely have any people. If the Democrats were smart they would use the system we have to help themselves electorally like the Republicans do so well.


I have no objections to this. I think they haven’t because Republicans could beat them at this game with the territory they control. Another reason I believe in standardized borders or at least minimums and maximums to avoid the results if one of them starts that race.
#14964478
Torus34 wrote:Politics, including constitutional amendments, stubbornly remains the art of the possible. That doesn't mean there's no pleasure to be gained from 'What if?' discussions. There is. Ask any baseball fan about the off-season.

We should, though, be mindful of that which can come to pass and that which cannot.


The progressives are going nowhere fast as long as they keep voting for corporate democrats. The liberal corporate establishment has them by the short hairs, they can't even get rid of super delegates or open up the primaries to independents. Fucking lames.
#14964509
Sivad wrote:The progressives are going nowhere fast as long as they keep voting for corporate democrats. The liberal corporate establishment has them by the short hairs, they can't even get rid of super delegates or open up the primaries to independents. Fucking lames.

I seem to recall an article, posted here I think, that the Democrats did get rid of superdelegates at their last convention.

This is ridiculous. Articles showing attacks on s[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

It is easy to tell the tunnel was made of pre fab […]

Pretty clear France will be taking a leading role […]

He is even less coherent than Alex Jones. My gu[…]