But Supply Side economics has led to $20 trillion in debt.

I didn’t give my views on the free speech vs. surveillance and intervention debate. I think we need to have that debate as a society, though. I also have a nuanced view on abortion like yourself.

True, experience and data helps one better formulate their theories about structures of government more, and what works best in the real world. In terms of this dichotomy of more government or less government, one needs to know about the limits and effectivness of governments and the limits and effectiveness of no government and the limits and effectiveness of a different combination of those two factors and find what works best. Implement those ideas and see how sociologically they are effective, collect data from results of these structures and improve where one possibly can. — Shushi

I agree.

For example, a woman’s right to choose what she does with her body implies small government, while anti-abortion advocates want government in uteruses. Pro-gun advocates want small government, while people who want restrictions on guns implies bigger government.

My point is that I don’t think you can say that you’re for or against big government without looking at specific issues.

No, I am not daft. The southern plantation states had a lot of slaves which counted as 3/5 of a person each (another bone thrown to the South). Are you ignorant?

For example, the issue of free speech and radicalization on the Internet. Should there be more government or less government when it comes to Neo-Nazis being radicalized on the Internet, buying guns, and killing immigrants, for example.

I think we should discuss what we mean by “big government” and “small government” as well. Both Republicans and Democrats in the US are for big government, even though the Republicans claim not to be.

it was intended to be a check on the popular vote. — tim wood

That’s because the southern plantation states had a smaller population than the more urban northern states. The electoral college was a bone thrown to the southern states so they would ratify the Constitution.

My views on state governments being redundant are not strongly held. I could go either way.

And also maybe a requirement that the President has to win the popular vote in addition to the electoral college. If they win one but not the other, then there's some sort of runoff or it goes to the House for a vote. — Marchesk

Now, Marchesk, Noah, and @StreetlightX (if he were American) need to author new Federalist papers. :grin:

I also think reform to the election process needs to happen. Vote ranked choice would be nice. — Marchesk

Yes, this would inevitably lead to more political parties, I think, and so the party heads would be President. Or, the President need not be the head of the party that gets the most votes. I’m not sure which would be better.

Maybe instead the States could split their electoral votes based on percentages instead of winner take all. — Marchesk

This makes sense to me. Great idea!

This is more of an issue today than near the founding of the country because the Federal government has become more powerful and the state governments less so. — Marchesk

Yes.

Right, the senators are elected by the people, but the Senate is not representative of the state populations. — Marchesk

Exactly. I’m glad we arrived at the same conclusion. The electoral college and gerrymandering practices where politicians pick their voters are also unrepresentative.

@StreetlightX used the term “unrepresentative”, whereas I used the term “undemocratic”. “Unrepresentative” is a better term and more in line with what I intended.

So why not just get rid of representatives and go with straight democracy using the internet? We vote on everything. Majority rules. — Marchesk

I have a personal preference for leadership only because ordinary people don’t have the time to research domestic and foreign policy. Representative government is in a better position to tackle complex issues just because it’s their sole job. However, I do think there should be some national referendums on domestic issues, like marijuana legalization, for example. Also, outlawing gerrymandering that focuses on race and socioeconomic classes. They did this in Michigan.

Good theory acknowledges history in so far as knowing the mistakes of the past.

“We must welcome the future, remembering that soon it will be the past; and we must respect the past, remembering that it was once all that was humanly possible.”

This is certainly true.

My gosh, I think you're serious. I yield! — tim wood

I’m dead serious. I also have my grandfather’s burial flag, a picture of my grandpa when he was a sailor, and a picture of my nephew in his Marines uniform on my mantle.

“Mob mentality” and “angry mob” are terms that the uber wealthy use to denigrate ordinary people like us.

Accordingly, the republicans would benefit by altering the current senate election structure (direct election) were it returned to its original process ( state election.) I’m sorry if you can’t grasp this simple concept. — Reshuffle

No shit. They need 38 state legislatures and 67 Senators. I already said this.

Then it's not much of a philosophical discussion. — Marchesk

Not as it stands now.

So what would be the ideal setup of the US government? Abolish the Senate and the House takes over both roles. Abolish the Electoral College. Get rid of the states ratifying amendments.

Would that work? — Marchesk

A country supposedly founded on inherent freedom for all persons (initially white men) suggests that these free people aren’t truly free if the government isn’t accountable to them. I don’t believe that the Senate is accountable to the majority of the US population.

So the OP seems to be arguing that undemocratic political institutions are bad. That would be more appropriate for a philosophical discussion than arguing over history or politics. — Marchesk

I didn’t want to argue about history. I got sucked into it. This was supposed to be a political philosophy thread.

use the Founders words to settle this. — Marchesk

That’s no good. They talked about protecting minorities from majority rule. They were talking about slave owners. You have to read between the lines.

Weather or not the US is or is not a union of states says nothing to whether the current set-up of state representation is democratically representative.

You may as well argue that because The Soviet Union was a union of Soviets, that it's political organisation was well justified.
now — StreetlightX

You’re absolutely, unequivocally correct. People get bogged down in US history likes it’s beyond reproach. Not only is it a religious stance, but it has nothing to do with the OP. It’s a distraction.

No — frank

Yes

The way I look at it is that if the EU formed a similar union of state countries, then a Senate would be a way for smaller European countries to offset the major influence of countries like Germany, otherwise, Germany and France are dominating policy. — Marchesk

I’m not telling Europe how to run itself. The US states were never countries, though.

So you're saying if there wasn't an institution of slavery, there would have been no Senate? That the founders created the senate solely on behalf of the slave holders? — Marchesk

That’s exactly the reason for the Senate and the electoral college.

It was originally intended to protect small states from the dominance of the big ones. — frank

That was the purported argument. The reality is that it protected slave plantation owners from the more populated cities of the North.

You do realize the States have to ratify the Constitutional amendment to abolish the Senate, assuming a majority of senators from either party would ratify that, removing their political influence. — Marchesk

That’s my point!

Control of the Senate will swing back to the Democratic party in time. — Marchesk

Doesn’t matter because the majority party in the Senate needs 60 votes, something that is very rare in recent history. Given that each state gets two Senators regardless of their populations and gerrymandering and voter suppression, the will of the people isn’t being done.

Are you talking about in theory? — Marchesk

This entire thread is supposed to be about theory. History came up as a confusion of the intent of the thread. People here invoked history as if people didn’t make poor decisions way back when. That’s the religion of America that I was talking about.

I knew you would bring up Lincoln. Lol. That’s when Republicans were more progressive and the Democrats were racist. Check your history.

I’m talking about the CURRENT Republican Party. They have benefited greatly from oppressive policies, whether current or from the history of right wing judges.

Are we playing let's ignore history because we don't like the current party in power? — Marchesk

History of oppression is what favors the Republicans.

If you mean by “current demographics” white people, then you’re right that they’re the majority. You’re wrong however that they all vote for Republicans. Especially not the women who make up more of the demographic than the men. With women and minorities, demographics favor Democrats. Come back when you get your facts straight.

You say the current demographics help Republicans. This is patently false. My point is that the only reason Republicans have the power they have is because of gerrymandering and suppressing the vote of minorities and the poor. If they could, they’d do much more in order to gain more power. If they could go back to legislatures electing them, they would. The Gentry electing the Gentry. That’s the case already with money in politics, something Republicans and right wing justices are responsible for. Hence, the will of the people isn’t being represented.

In any case, what’s gerrymandering have to do with republicans and the near impossibility of their changing the senate structure? — Reshuffle

Go back and read the progression of what I said, and come back when your reading comprehension improves.

Yes. I do. What about it? Unless it’s based on racial or equal protection (5a/14a) type issues, partisan gerrymandering is a mundane political issue condoned by the constitution; congress can use its elections clause if they don’t like its results. — Reshuffle

Gerrymandering as used by Republicans is based on race and socioeconomic class. Gerrymandering as the Republicans use it is only condoned by the Constitution because of right wing judges and justices.

I happen to have a print of “Washington Crossing the Delaware” in my living room.

I’m not a Sanders fan myself. He might have good motives, but his idealistic policies are never going to work. People don’t work that way. Libertarians are just as idealistic but with worse motives. People don’t work the way they think, either.