Continual capitulation to the GOP isn't going to solve anything, either. Presidency, Senate, House and SCOTUS are all skewed in their favour by virtue of their control of the process (controlling more states for redistricting, and GOP bias for small states giving them upper hand in Senate and Presidency and thus SC). They are absolutely shameless about warping the system to favour their chances.
I agree capitulation is not the answer.
But I also agree w/Jasmine below that a perpetual game of oneupmanship is equally unhelpful. The notion ought to be, if at all possible, to amend the constitution and/or legislation where applicable to remove political control of electoral districts (and/or require consensus) and to likewise move towards the Canadian model of a non-partisan court.
Yeah but breaking up states to get more senate seats is not going to solve the issue either forever either. Its just making a political football and just escalating the war.
To me these are actual solutions:
Gerrymandering:
As i said the focus should be is stopping Gerrmandering so the congress is more a proper reflection of what people vote for.
This can be done by not doing the same thing as republicans that many democrats have done in response but once for all making it an independent process like it is here in Canada.
Good idea, but requires a Constituional amendment. Currently in the U.S. the power to run elections including for Federal office lies solely with the States. 'Elections America' and 'Independent, Non-Partisan, Redistricting Commissions are absolutely the right way to go; but it would be an uphill slog to pass.
Though notably a couple of U.S. states have seen these pass in ballot initiatives at the state level.
Senate:
Now about the senate, the problem is that is a fundamental aspect of the USA that each state gets 2 votes. Democrats dominated the senate for decades in the past. Now the Gop dominates small states as the democrats have become a mostly urban-based party. That is a political choice the democrats have made then a flaw in the system.
That is no different if the liberals only got votes in cities and never won in a rural place.
We disagree on this one. I believe in majority-rule. I think its important to have some checks on that to protect minorities and counter the risk of tyranny, but I'm not inclined to Wyoming (the smallest state by population) to have it voters have 67x the influence of those in California (the largest state). There isn't anything remotely fair about that.
Personally, I like the idea of a unicameral legislature (no Senate). But additional checks and balances are needed if one does that.
But there are other solutions. Some of which are discussed here:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/heres-how-fix-senate/579172/
Electoral college:
Now about the electoral college, I think awarding the electoral college by the amount of vote in each state vs winner for all is best. A strict popular vote is flawed as pretty much the election would be NYC and California and rural areas would have no say.
Disagree here entirely. Direct election is direct election. Further, California and New York combined (40M and 20M) people respectively represent well less than 20% of the U.S. electorate.
****
As to the Supreme Court..........again, I would broadly prefer a more Canadian-style set up; though perhaps a tad less opaque.
But certainly there is a need to move to a formally non-partisan court.
However, in the U.S. this is made terribly challenging in that appointments to District and State Supreme Courts are also partisan political; while local judges in the U.S. are often elected (gag!)
To move to a justice system that aspires to impartiality would be a momentous change and again, surely a Constitutional one as well.
