721–730 of 770 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, I didn't miss the point. I disagree with it entirely. The EC and the Senate function nothing like they were designed in the 18th century when the goal you mention seemed to matter. The filibuster and the 17th amendment and two centuries of societal advancement have something to say about the "state sovereignty" argument for the Senate. The fact that the Electoral college allowed the previous President to take off…
This debate is pretty academic though. Article V is clear that the composition (or existence) of the Senate can't be changed even by amendment without the unanimous consent of the states. Arguably, even a new constitution couldn't (legally) do it. Of all the things we might possibly ever do to improve the function of government, that alone is not one.
But yes, there are other things in my incomplete list which need addressed as well - I think the one most critical thing I would do above all others is switch every Single-Member District election from first-past-the-post to ranked choice voting or approval voting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The EU and the US are at different levels of integration, though the EU does have free trade and travel. I should read the details on the implementation of the EU parliament, but I wonder if this "minority voice" equivalent in the EU is able to block essentially any progress or legislation. I also wonder why the states in the US should have nearly as much say as they have in 2021. We aren't a small band of ragtag cul…
> block essentially any progress or legislation A lot of legislation is blocked in the EU, yes. The modus operandi of the EU is to compromise until every state is satisfied. And the US is far from being blocked out of any progress. The gay rights is more advanced than in Europe, infrastructure bills are passing with bipartisan support, COVID relief bills are passing with flying colors and with a much more consistent…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the contrary, it's worked well in the past and it's also working right now. What's the problem supposed to be?
There has never been a time in all of human history where cities cordoned themselves off politically from the rural areas they rely on that did not end in rebellion, bloodshed, and/or collapse. If you want rural America to rise up in rebellion again, I mean, I guess go for it. But there's a specific reason the vast majority of state capitals are in comparatively rural areas: to prevent exactly the kind of division yo…
Totally incorrect. Berlin and Hamburg are states right now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bay Bridge 260K ppl/day + San Mateo Bridge 93K ppl/day is within spitting distance of BART (411K ppl). If there was another whole bridge across the bay (well, maybe two or three) it would alleviate the Bay Bridge and the traffic around it.
Building an entirely new bridge isn't going to be cheaper than adding more cars to BART. Even assuming it was (which it wasn't), it's not going to help as much as you think it is. Not sure if you've ever commuted on the San Mateo bridge, but it's basically fully backed up from the exits onto 101, because 101 is also grid-locked. So in addition to building an entirely new bridge (which, again, more expensive than addi…
Note that I didn't make my point to say that we should build another bridge, just the pedantic detail that BART traffic isn't that much larger than Bay Bridge + San Mateo Bridge, which is a more apt comparison. I think actually you'd want to add in the Golden Gate Bridge, another 110K. So basically, there are more people commuting into SF driving over bridges than taking BART in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then we should rebrand away from the slaver-drafted constitution to the Free States of America, a fourth founding after the original, post-Civil War and Civil Rights Movement. That would match what we actually have, a multiethnic democracy welcoming global talent. Giving residents of Wyoming 70× the Senate voting power of any Californian is a joke.
Not a joke. It was the intent that populous states should not be able to steamroll less populous states in the Senate.
If California broke up into 200 states, would they need 2 Senators each to protect themselves from being steamrolled? If so, then why don't Californians already need 200 Senators?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My first comment mentioned urban planning. I that involves more than just planning the transit, you have to plan the work places and residential places as well. The USA is too enamored with personal and corporate liberty to let the government plan anything that would actually be effective beyond “let’s just build freeways everywhere and expect everyone to drive.”
You don't get to "plan" the work places and residential places. They are what they are. Your transit plan needs to serve the commercial and residential areas that already exist, not a hypothetical ideal. It isn't easy in Ireland, Germany, or Spain to reorganize an entire metro area by fiat, either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a really good point, but I also want to bring up a (small) counterargument: I live in Denver, CO. Cars basically make it impossible to walk around most of the city, even in the more residential areas. Walking is an essential part of the public transit/non-car transportation experience because essentially everyone has to walk a few blocks from a bus stop, train station, bike rack, etc. to complete their trip o…
Speed limits are far less important than the psychological design of the road - any given section will communicate what hazards are more or less likely, and drivers are very responsive to these cues. As a concrete example, I grew up near Seattle and regularly drove on East Lake Sammamish Parkway. This road was built and designed to efficiently carry traffic between Redmond and Issaquah at a speed of 45 miles per hour…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're legitimately concerned, but I think your concerns are about as well grounded in reality as that of most conspiracy theorists. What proof (not tweets or opinion pieces) do you have to support your claim? "There are a lot of black people therefore any adverse action to the region is because of racism" is not proof. California's demographic makeup isn't predominantly white. Why are they a state?
Indigenous people didn't count when California became a state. 99% of the rest were white.[1] [1] https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/1850/...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People are also stuck on Amtrak in VA https://www.upmatters.com/news/national/snow-stalls-amtrak-i...
Snow covered trees fell across the tracks, delaying Amtrak's northbound Auto Train by 12 hours. https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/northern-virginia/t...