September 26, 20242 yr 12 hours ago, Bill said: I think what would help to some degree is by increasing the size of the house. It was designed to be a 1 rep:30000 citizen ratio, but with only 435 reps it’s nowhere near that. I think the planned ratio is a bit much, but even if you set the ratio to 1:100000, it kinda evens it out just a smidge. Plus, the more representatives there are, the less power the bozos on either side have. You could up the EC votes to be inline with the original ratios without changing the size of the house, theoretically anyway. What's insane is the house voting in the case of an EC tie.
September 26, 20242 yr 15 hours ago, Procus said: Why don't you tell us where in the constitution abortion is accorded status as a right. The Constitution does not grant us rights, it protects those rights and limits the governments power to take them.
September 26, 20242 yr 10 minutes ago, sameaglesfan said: So then you separate the amendments from the Constitution? The Bill of Rights was not intended to be an all inclusive list of rights. Most founders were against them because they thought they were not needed, and were fearful of your misinterpretation of enumerated rights.
September 26, 20242 yr 15 hours ago, Procus said: Uh huh. Why don't you tell us where in the constitution abortion is accorded status as a right. 🤣 He's a lawyer lmao
September 26, 20242 yr Is procus a DEI attorney hire or has the attorney claim been a multi-year cap?
September 26, 20242 yr I believe Procus was a lawyer adjacent, and only passed a concept of the bar exam.
September 26, 20242 yr 1 hour ago, Tnt4philly said: I believe Procus was a lawyer adjacent, and only passed a concept of the bar exam. Ok Private. Whatever you say
September 26, 20242 yr 10 hours ago, Procus said: Time to put the crack pipe down. Talk about delusional.
September 26, 20242 yr 6 minutes ago, DaEagles4Life said: You can't bottle that kind of enthusiasm, from the crowd or the candidate
September 26, 20242 yr Just now, jsdarkstar said: Time to put the crack pipe down. Talk about delusional. Also, Obama is gonna take everyone's guns. He's just biding his time.
September 26, 20242 yr 10 minutes ago, WentzFan11 said: They should do this too. Good rule of thumb for WentzFan political views
September 26, 20242 yr 17 hours ago, Procus said: Uh huh. Why don't you tell us where in the constitution abortion is accorded status as a right. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. It prohibits sex discrimination. How about them apples.
September 26, 20242 yr 5 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said: You could up the EC votes to be inline with the original ratios without changing the size of the house, theoretically anyway. What's insane is the house voting in the case of an EC tie. Yeah, but a chamber of 435 people representing 330,000,000 people is a little out of whack to me. Plus with so few you get a higher percentage of bozos. The senate at 100 makes sense, because they are not representing 330,000,000 people, but rather 50 states. I ran the math the other day when I made the post, doing a few scenarios. Let's just say then that you capped the ratio at 1:250k, that gives the house 1320 members. A lot more than there are now, but certainly not unmanageable. Also, with 435 reps, Harris needs to get 47% of the EVs in tossup states to be elected, but with 1320, she would need 43%. (42% with 1:100k, 41% with 1:30k, but the house would have 11k members lol). WY would go from 3 to 5 EVs, PA would go from 19 to 54 EVs, and CA would go from 54 to 160 EVs. Plus, with more reps, each district becomes less politically valuable, so you would probably see less gerrymandering.
September 26, 20242 yr 1 minute ago, Bill said: Yeah, but a chamber of 435 people representing 330,000,000 people is a little out of whack to me. Plus with so few you get a higher percentage of bozos. The senate at 100 makes sense, because they are not representing 330,000,000 people, but rather 50 states. I ran the math the other day when I made the post, doing a few scenarios. Let's just say then that you capped the ratio at 1:250k, that gives the house 1320 members. A lot more than there are now, but certainly not unmanageable. Also, with 435 reps, Harris needs to get 47% of the EVs in tossup states to be elected, but with 1320, she would need 43%. (42% with 1:100k, 41% with 1:30k, but the house would have 11k members lol). WY would go from 3 to 5 EVs, PA would go from 19 to 54 EVs, and CA would go from 54 to 160 EVs. Plus, with more reps, each district becomes less politically valuable, so you would probably see less gerrymandering. Broadly I fully agree with you. I do however wonder about what kind of morons we'd get with a sample size of 1320 vs 435, and the effects of tripling the size of the house logistically when I comes to votes (not to mention office space and all that fun crap)
September 26, 20242 yr 3 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: Broadly I fully agree with you. I do however wonder about what kind of morons we'd get with a sample size of 1320 vs 435, and the effects of tripling the size of the house logistically when I comes to votes (not to mention office space and all that fun crap) Well, I mean, for a different office we had a sample size of 1, and a complete and total moron had it for four years.
September 26, 20242 yr 4 minutes ago, Bill said: Well, I mean, for a different office we had a sample size of 1, and a complete and total moron had it for four years. That is true. But seeing as we can't come close to finding 435 competent lawmakers, finding 1200 seems impossible lol.
Create an account or sign in to comment