What did Trump & Supporters expect on Jan 6?

[newyorkguy]

Originally Posted by alfaniner

Not one Republican would come on CNN's Sunday morning shows today, the last weekend of Trump's Presidency. Trump himself has never sat for an interview or even a phone call on CNN since he's been in office...

It is scary that one of the two major parties mostly avoids not just CNN but most of the mainstream TV news outlets. Chuck Todd writing on Politico:

Quote:

One of the hallmarks of the Trump era that anyone who works for a mainstream Sunday show knows all too well has been the selective silence of a large chunk of the elected leaders of the Republican Party, particularly in the United States Senate. This week is no different from just about every other Sunday of the Trump era: a large swath of mainstream GOPers choosing silence over being forced to reconcile their role and the party’s role in the Trump era. Politico link

One of the reasons advanced is that the right wing media has fed Republican voters a steady diet of misinformation and that makes it difficult for GOP main-streamers or moderates to speak intelligently without angering the Republican base. I do differ with Chuck Todd on one point. I think this happened well before trump arrived on the scene.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by catsmate

OK, I should have been more precise (and perhaps avoided the use of "semi-logarithmic". Each threefold increment in population over a baseline adds an extra senate seat.

How about a baseline minimum of one Senator per state, then additional Senators based on population thresholds from the most recent census.

e.g. every state gets one Senator as of right. States with a population less than 1% of the national population will remain with one Senator. Each state would gain an additional Senator for every over a multiple of 1% of national population, so, from the 2010 Census

One Senator (Populations below 1% - 22 States, 22 senators)
Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Delaware. Rhode Island, Montana, Maine, New Hampshire, Hawaii, Idaho, West Virginia, Nebraska, New Mexico, Kansas, Mississippi, Arkansas, Iowa, Nevada, Utah, Connecticut

Two Senators (Populations over 1% and less than 2% - 15 states, 30 Senators)
Oklahoma, Oregan, Kentucky, Louisiana, South Carolina, Alabama, Colorado, Wisconsin, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Tennessee, Arizona, Indiana, Massachusetts

Three Senators (Populations over 2% less than 3% - 5 states, 15 Senators)
Washington, Virginia, New Jersey, North Carolina, Georgia

Four Senators (Populations over 3% less than 4% - 4 states, 16 Senators)
Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois

(Populations over 4% less than 5% - none)

Six Senators (Populations over 5% less than 6% - 2 states, 12 senators)
Florida, New York

(Populations over 6% and less than 9% - none)

Ten Senators (Populations over 9% less than 10% - 1 state, 10 senators)
Texas

(Populations over 10% less than 11% - none)

Twelve Senators (Populations over 11% less than 12% - 1 state, 12 senators)
California

Total Senate - 117 seats

Number of Senate seats increases with rise in population.
Any state with a population that moves into the next percentage bracket gets an additional Senator
Census carries out every 8 years instead of 10 to align with the election cycles.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

How about a baseline minimum of one Senator per state, then additional Senators based on population thresholds from the most recent census.

e.g. every state gets one Senator as of right. States with a population less than 1% of the national population will remain with one Senator. Each state would gain an additional Senator for every over a multiple of 1% of national population, so, from the 2010 Census

One Senator (Populations below 1% - 22 States, 22 senators)
Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Delaware. Rhode Island, Montana, Maine, New Hampshire, Hawaii, Idaho, West Virginia, Nebraska, New Mexico, Kansas, Mississippi, Arkansas, Iowa, Nevada, Utah, Connecticut

Two Senators (Populations over 1% and less than 2% - 15 states, 30 Senators)
Oklahoma, Oregan, Kentucky, Louisiana, South Carolina, Alabama, Colorado, Wisconsin, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Tennessee, Arizona, Indiana, Massachusetts

Three Senators (Populations over 2% less than 3% - 5 states, 15 Senators)
Washington, Virginia, New Jersey, North Carolina, Georgia

Four Senators (Populations over 3% less than 4% - 4 states, 16 Senators)
Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois

(Populations over 4% less than 5% - none)

Six Senators (Populations over 5% less than 6% - 2 states, 12 senators)
Florida, New York

(Populations over 6% and less than 9% - none)

Ten Senators (Populations over 9% less than 10% - 1 state, 10 senators)
Texas

(Populations over 10% less than 11% - none)

Twelve Senators (Populations over 11% less than 12% - 1 state, 12 senators)
California

Total Senate - 117 seats

Might I ask: What is the use of a Senate, at all? You have one elected chamber. That should suffice.

Hans

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

Might I ask: What is the use of a Senate, at all? You have one elected chamber. That should suffice.

Hans

You'd have to ask an American that question?

[Matthew Ellard]

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

Might I ask: What is the use of a Senate, at all? You have one elected chamber. That should suffice.

Phew. That's hard question. Even the Roman Republic had two houses with the Roman assemblies initiating new legislation for the Roman senate to debate.

I guess it must be considered if this is simply traditional or if there is an advantage in separating those who create new legislation, from those who debate and pass it.

The UK house of House of Lords and Commons does seem closer to the classical Roman system than the USA, as 90 Lords are hereditary rather than voted in.

[Puddle Duck]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

You'd have to ask an American that question?

I’m not that knowledgeable and I know a lot of people are better than me but I’ll give it a go. This may be somewhat oversimplified.

Unicameral, I think that it was discussed but rejected early in the founder’s discussion. So the philosophy went somewhere along this line.

The House was designed with a short term of office for rapid turnover of members and assigned by population to show what the population was feeling at the time.

The Senate was designed as a counterweight to the fevered humours of the masses, it had a longer term of office to be more stable and dampen the wild short term ideas of the House. Therefore it was not selected by the population, but by the state legislators. The idea was that the upper and educated classes (meaning, the rich) would be more thoughtful and contemplative to make more and better rational decisions. Some time shortly after the Civil War, there was some sort of problem going on so it got changed a little but not anything meaningful. Then around the first world war (1914?), the 17th amendment got passed. It changed from the legislators selecting a Senator to a direct public election that we see today.

And incidentally, at one time we almost did way with the Electoral College. In1970, the House passed a bill for an amendment to do away with it, but was filibustered to death in the Senate.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Puddle Duck

I’m not that knowledgeable and I know a lot of people are better than me but I’ll give it a go. This may be somewhat oversimplified.

Unicameral, I think that it was discussed but rejected early in the founder’s discussion. So the philosophy went somewhere along this line.

The House was designed with a short term of office for rapid turnover of members and assigned by population to show what the population was feeling at the time.

The Senate was designed as a counterweight to the fevered humours of the masses, it had a longer term of office to be more stable and dampen the wild short term ideas of the House. Therefore it was not selected by the population, but by the state legislators. The idea was that the upper and educated classes (meaning, the rich) would be more thoughtful and contemplative to make more and better rational decisions. Some time shortly after the Civil War, there was some sort of problem going on so it got changed a little but not anything meaningful. Then around the first world war (1914?), the 17th amendment got passed. It changed from the legislators selecting a Senator to a direct public election that we see today.

And incidentally, at one time we almost did way with the Electoral College. In1970, the House passed a bill for an amendment to do away with it, but was filibustered to death in the Senate.

Bicameral legialatures are not uncommon - 41%, so almost half the world's legislatures bicameral. Some examples countries other that the US are Australia, Brazil, Canada, Germany, India, the U.K., Ireland, the Netherlands, Russia, Spain, and the Czech Republic.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Bicameral legialatures are not uncommon - 41%, so almost half the world's legislatures bicameral. Some examples countries other that the US are Australia, Brazil, Canada, Germany, India, the U.K., Ireland, the Netherlands, Russia, Spain, and the Czech Republic.

Minor point... I am not disputing that bicameral legislatures are common. But I don't think Canada is a good example. Yes we have a senate, but it is largely powerless.

Sent from my LM-X320 using Tapatalk

[Myriad]

The adoption of the bicameral legislature at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 is named "The Great Compromise." Everyone knew that representation proportional to population would give high-population states more power, and that equal representation would give low-population states more power. So with a single legislative house either way, a significant number of states would refuse to ratify it.

Any proposal to unify the legislature into a single body would resume the identical debate, except with even more states even more widely different in population, and fewer powdered wigs.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by Myriad

The adoption of the bicameral legislature at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 is named "The Great Compromise." Everyone knew that representation proportional to population would give high-population states more power, and that equal representation would give low-population states more power. So with a single legislative house either way, a significant number of states would refuse to ratify it.
s.

But it wasn't even that.

Slave states were way underpowered because the slaves didn't vote. So that made them more of the "low population states." So the Senate was a way to give slave states more power. They needed that because the 3/5 treatment for slaves hurt them in the legislature.

Finally, by using the EC, it let the slave states count 3/5 of their slaves in determining their electoral votes, gave them extras with the senate, and it didn't cost them anything to not let the slaves vote.

Yes, the senate was a Great Compromise, but not between high population and low population states, but with slave states.

That's a legacy that I think we don't need to maintain.

[TellyKNeasuss]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

How about a baseline minimum of one Senator per state, then additional Senators based on population thresholds from the most recent census.

Article 5 of the constitution ends with

Quote:

no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

, so it would essentially require unanimous support of the states to make such a change. A regular constitutional amendment could not implement such a change.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

Might I ask: What is the use of a Senate, at all? You have one elected chamber. That should suffice.

Hans

Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard

Phew. That's hard question. Even the Roman Republic had two houses with the Roman assemblies initiating new legislation for the Roman senate to debate.

I guess it must be considered if this is simply traditional or if there is an advantage in separating those who create new legislation, from those who debate and pass it.

The UK house of House of Lords and Commons does seem closer to the classical Roman system than the USA, as 90 Lords are hereditary rather than voted in.

Ah the Unicameralist option. Relatively uncommon in true representative democracies at a national level, though popular in small states and for sub-national assemblies. Portugal, NZ, Luxembourg, Israel Norway being exceptions.

The US system has the enormous problem of lack of stability within the HoR due to the two year election cycle, exacerbated by the sheer level of politicking needed for re-election; the Senate was, if I remember the Federalist Papers, supposed to provide a longer term view. Likewise the separation of powers and "checks and balances" idea. IIRR most US attempts at unicameralism have been opposed by the rural population who fear loss of influence.

Though of course there's no reason not to have different terms of office and methods of election.
Either way a system that actually links the seats to the votes (i.e. not FPTP) would be an improvement.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

How about a baseline minimum of one Senator per state, then additional Senators based on population thresholds from the most recent census.

e.g. every state gets one Senator as of right. States with a population less than 1% of the national population will remain with one Senator. Each state would gain an additional Senator for every over a multiple of 1% of national population, so, from the 2010 Census

One Senator (Populations below 1% - 22 States, 22 senators)
Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Delaware. Rhode Island, Montana, Maine, New Hampshire, Hawaii, Idaho, West Virginia, Nebraska, New Mexico, Kansas, Mississippi, Arkansas, Iowa, Nevada, Utah, Connecticut

Two Senators (Populations over 1% and less than 2% - 15 states, 30 Senators)
Oklahoma, Oregan, Kentucky, Louisiana, South Carolina, Alabama, Colorado, Wisconsin, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Tennessee, Arizona, Indiana, Massachusetts

Three Senators (Populations over 2% less than 3% - 5 states, 15 Senators)
Washington, Virginia, New Jersey, North Carolina, Georgia

Four Senators (Populations over 3% less than 4% - 4 states, 16 Senators)
Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois

(Populations over 4% less than 5% - none)

Six Senators (Populations over 5% less than 6% - 2 states, 12 senators)
Florida, New York

(Populations over 6% and less than 9% - none)

Ten Senators (Populations over 9% less than 10% - 1 state, 10 senators)
Texas

(Populations over 10% less than 11% - none)

Twelve Senators (Populations over 11% less than 12% - 1 state, 12 senators)
California

Total Senate - 117 seats

Number of Senate seats increases with rise in population.
Any state with a population that moves into the next percentage bracket gets an additional Senator
Census carries out every 8 years instead of 10 to align with the election cycles.

I like it. I envisaged something similar, though I retained a baseline of two senators and added one per doubling of population over a baseline (which I didn't bother to calculate).

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss

Article 5 of the constitution ends with

, so it would essentially require unanimous support of the states to make such a change. A regular constitutional amendment could not implement such a change.

No it wouldn't; if the US constitution were amended (either by vote or convention) to remove the clause it would cease to have any effect.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard

Phew. That's hard question. Even the Roman Republic had two houses with the Roman assemblies initiating new legislation for the Roman senate to debate.

I guess it must be considered if this is simply traditional or if there is an advantage in separating those who create new legislation, from those who debate and pass it.

The UK house of House of Lords and Commons does seem closer to the classical Roman system than the USA, as 90 Lords are hereditary rather than voted in.

AH, well that's as good a reason as any. We all know ancient Rome was a very fine democracy.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Bicameral legialatures are not uncommon - 41%, so almost half the world's legislatures bicameral. Some examples countries other that the US are Australia, Brazil, Canada, Germany, India, the U.K., Ireland, the Netherlands, Russia, Spain, and the Czech Republic.

Yes, yes, I know that. I was asking about the purpose of it.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Minor point... I am not disputing that bicameral legislatures are common. But I don't think Canada is a good example. Yes we have a senate, but it is largely powerless.

Sent from my LM-X320 using Tapatalk

So is the UK House of Lords.

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

But it wasn't even that.

Slave states were way underpowered because the slaves didn't vote. So that made them more of the "low population states." So the Senate was a way to give slave states more power. They needed that because the 3/5 treatment for slaves hurt them in the legislature.

Finally, by using the EC, it let the slave states count 3/5 of their slaves in determining their electoral votes, gave them extras with the senate, and it didn't cost them anything to not let the slaves vote.

Yes, the senate was a Great Compromise, but not between high population and low population states, but with slave states.

That's a legacy that I think we don't need to maintain.

Quite my point. I know it is traditional, and I know there used to be reasons that once seemed to make sense. I'm just wondering what good it does for any modern government?

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by catsmate

Ah the Unicameralist option. Relatively uncommon in true representative democracies at a national level, though popular in small states and for sub-national assemblies. Portugal, NZ, Luxembourg, Israel Norway being exceptions.

Denmark, too.

Quote:

The US system has the enormous problem of lack of stability within the HoR due to the two year election cycle, exacerbated by the sheer level of politicking needed for re-election; the Senate was, if I remember the Federalist Papers, supposed to provide a longer term view. Likewise the separation of powers and "checks and balances" idea. IIRR most US attempts at unicameralism have been opposed by the rural population who fear loss of influence.

Though of course there's no reason not to have different terms of office and methods of election.
Either way a system that actually links the seats to the votes (i.e. not FPTP) would be an improvement.

Obviously, several other changes would be needed. And, a federation will have a somewhat different structure. I'm just observing that the US system seems so do more bad than good (and this in not just in connection with the present situation).

Hans

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

......
Yes, the senate was a Great Compromise, but not between high population and low population states, but with slave states.

That's a legacy that I think we don't need to maintain.

Here's an argument that the Senate is actually a moderating force because to be elected Senators must appeal to everyone, or at least a majority, in their whole states. But Representatives need only win support in their districts, which are likely to lean heavily to one side or another.

Quote:

Congress certainly ought to be such an institution. It was thus shocking to witness 139 House Republicans rely on Trump’s lies to question the 2020 election’s result. These 139 representatives, who came from districts with large Republican majorities, sought to cancel the votes of 81 million people in order to “stop the steal.” How could this happen?

A revealing clue is that only eight senators were similarly inclined. We can assume that senators and members of the House of Representatives are equally partisan, equally ambitious, equally unscrupulous. Why was only 8 percent of the Senate, but nearly one-third of the House, publicly willing to embrace Trump’s poisonous rigged-election fantasy?

The answer comes down to institutional structure. No doubt the difference between a six-year term and a two-year term matters. But also important is the fact that senators are accountable to entire states, whereas representatives are accountable only to relatively small districts. Many of these districts are so politically homogeneous—due either to gerrymandering or to more organic self-sorting—that whoever wins a party primary is guaranteed to win the general election. Party primaries, unlike competitive general elections, notoriously select for the most extreme candidates.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...uary-6/617695/

I am sick to think of what a unicameral legislature controlled by Repubs would be able to get away with.

[Mader Levap]

Originally Posted by Bob001

I am sick to think of what a unicameral legislature controlled by Repubs would be able to get away with.

With unicameral legislature history of USA would be pretty different, including existing political parties (though it would be still only two after all that time, one on some side and other on far-side, since sliding into extreme is inevitable in these circumstances).

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard

Phew. That's hard question. Even the Roman Republic had two houses with the Roman assemblies initiating new legislation for the Roman senate to debate.

Improving the functionality of Congress might be the best change we could get. Eliminating the Senate, or making it more representative of population, will almost certainly not pass for the various reasons discussed above.

But one of the reasons the Senate is a problem is that it is far too easy for the Senate to just do nothing at all, on the say-so of just one person. The last six years of Mitch McConnell should have proven that to anyone, I think.

It would be much easier to pass an amendment that makes the Senate actually do its job. Make it official that all legislation starts in the House, and anything that passes must be given a vote in the Senate, within a certain deadline, or it then passes to the President to be signed into law or vetoed. This is essentially how vetoes already work, so there's no reason we can't expect the Senate to work like this as well.

We can debate the time limits involved, but six months is probably enough. It takes months or years to get through the House to begin with, so when it's clear that a bill is likely to pass, the Senate can get a head start on its work, reviewing the proposed text of the bill and such.

Maybe make the required time frame a range - the vote must be later than three months after passage in the house, but no later than six months.

This prevents one person like Moscow Mitch from gumming up the works so he can give cover to all his party members who don't want the bad publicity of actually voting in accordance with their claimed beliefs. Also requiring a minimum of three months ends the "lame duck" situation we're all complaining about as well.

We could add in a provision for emergency legislation, requiring a super-majority of both the House and Senate to move things through faster. A real emergency should be obvious enough that such a super-majority shouldn't be a problem.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Here's an argument that the Senate is actually a moderating force because to be elected Senators must appeal to everyone, or at least a majority, in their whole states. But Representatives need only win support in their districts, which are likely to lean heavily to one side or another.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...uary-6/617695/

I am sick to think of what a unicameral legislature controlled by Repubs would be able to get away with.

I fully understand this, but that is not how unicameral works. In fact it probably won't work unless you have an election system that support multipartite government. (AND that is PITA in other ways, but still..)

Hans

Hans

[Mongrel]

Originally Posted by Horatius

It would be much easier to pass an amendment that makes the Senate actually do its job. Make it official that all legislation starts in the House, and anything that passes must be given a vote in the Senate, within a certain deadline, or it then passes to the President to be signed into law or vetoed. This is essentially how vetoes already work, so there's no reason we can't expect the Senate to work like this as well.

Could that not be gummed up if opposing parties controlled the House & Senate.
The House could just generate loads of crappy legislation and pass it up to the Senate, either wasting time wading through it all before voting against it or blanket vote against it leaving them open to "You just kneejerk deny everything!" accusations.
I think the problem is that you can't make someone act in good faith

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by Mongrel

Could that not be gummed up if opposing parties controlled the House & Senate.
The House could just generate loads of crappy legislation and pass it up to the Senate, either wasting time wading through it all before voting against it or blanket vote against it leaving them open to "You just kneejerk deny everything!" accusations.
I think the problem is that you can't make someone act in good faith

Yes, that might be a problem, and we should perhaps think of something to address it, but I think this will be less of a problem than the current situation.

Under the scenario you propose, it would require both the House and the Senate to take positive actions - write and pass a bill in the House, and then refuse it in the Senate. And both of those actions would be subject to public scrutiny by the electorate.

If the House passes a whole slew of crappy bills just to force the Senate to reject them, then the Senators could just point out the text that was actually rejected, and appeal to the voters, "Did you really want us to pass the "You can only flush your toilet once a week" bill? Vote those idiots out!"

Conversely, if the Senate rejects good legislation out of hand, then every Senator who voted against it has to answer the question, "Why didn't you support the "You can flush your toilet whenever you want" bill?"

Under the current scheme, Republican Senators have never had to go on record as opposing any bills, no matter how popular they were with the electorate at large, because Mitch never let them come to a vote. This gives the other Republicans plausible deniability whenever they're questioned on the lack of action by the Senate. How many of them did we see pretend to support Trump's call for a $2000 stimulus check, because they knew for certain that Mitch would never let that version of the bill reach the Senate floor?

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by Mongrel

I think the problem is that you can't make someone act in good faith

And on that thought:

We can't make them do their job well, but we can at least make them do their job.

And that at least gives the electorate some basis by which to make actual informed decisions about who to support in the next election. As it stands, there's very little real-world evidence that lets us figure out what any individual Senator actually supports in practice, because they've never had to stand up and actually say yes or no to any real bills. So we're left trying to read the tea leaves of self-serving speeches and tweets.

[newyorkguy]

On Friday Jeffrey Sabol, 51-years-old and a resident of Colorado, was arrested for being part of the mob that dragged a Capitol police officer down the steps of the Capitol, as other rioters tried to get inside. This is a report from the CBS News affiliate in Denver.

Quote:

U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrew Krause said: “What we see is Mr. Sabol, part of a group of people dragging a law enforcement officer down the steps of a building at the Capitol, where that officer has been repeatedly assaulted by a number of people, apparently including Mr. Sabol." The judge said he also saw video footage that showed Sabol going back up the stairs after the first officer was dragged down to possibly look for someone else to bring “down those stairs into the teeth of that mob that was at the Capitol that day.”...Assistant U.S. Attorney Benjamin Gianforti said Sabol had offered investigators “self-serving statements” saying he was trying to protect the officer but had also “admitted to being in a fit of rage that day and that the details of the day were quote, ‘cloudy.'” CBS Denver

Immediately after the riots, fearing he was going to be arrested, Sabol booked a flight to Zurich Switzerland from Logan Airport in Boston, where he hoped to be able to avoid extradition back to the U.S. At some point -- details are hazy -- instead of trying to fly to Switzerland, Sabol attempted suicide. He was taken to the Westchester County (NY) Medical Center where he was arrested by FBI agents yesterday. Sabol is married and the father of three, a contractor who specializes in sophisticated environmental cleanups of Superfund sites.

I do have some sympathy for Sabol -- I think he and others like him were used and then discarded by donald trump -- but the sheer hypocrisy of these self-described patriots and the damage they have caused to this nation is unforgivable. Sorry Jeff. You did the crime, now serve the time.

[dasmiller]

Originally Posted by newyorkguy

I do have some sympathy for Sabol -- I think he and others like him were used and then discarded by donald trump -- but the sheer hypocrisy of these self-described patriots and the damage they have caused to this nation is unforgivable. Sorry Jeff. You did the crime, now serve the time.

Concur. I feel that a lot of Trump supporters - including some of my friends - have been badly misled by some of the media sources and by Trump himself. Ultimately, however, people are responsible for their actions. No amount of time spent voluntarily watching OAN, Fox, nutball YouTube channels, etc, gives you justification for attacking a police officer. Or invading the capitol.

(AFAIK none of my friends were in DC on Jan 6th)