There's two ways of looking at constitutions.

One is the way many (continental) European countries do it (I'll use mine as an example): it is a changeable document, with clear procedures (that get applied regularly) to make sure it stays up to date with the current times. That doesn't mean some parts of it don't get outdated, but major changes get incorporated quite quickly.

Our system means you need a 2/3s majority to change the constitution, and the previous legislature needs to have specified which sections it declares "up for amendment" in the next legislature (the idea being that those issues can be part of the debate of the elections). This happens nearly each and every legislature, and usually without too much fuss (except in case of our specific linguistic nightmare which I won't bore you with).

The other system is the "Stone Tablets" approach: you nearly never ever change the document itself, if a change is needed it is a major, civilization-changing event. That means that you need to be realistic about the level of abstraction and interpretation you need to apply to that document (hell, that's a given in any law, as all laws are incomplete, imperfect and out of date the minute they are voted). Just as the ten commandments don't specify in which cases Thou shallt not kill becomes bendable (self-defense, for example), a hallowed two-hundred year old document is useless without practical (and changing with the times) interpretation. Anything less is condemning the country that that document regulates to immobility and deadlock.

I'm seeing the whole gerrymandering discussion, and the absolute nightmare of a program you would have to build to actually build something reasonably representative of most major groups.

And I'm thinking, why is gerrymandering such a problem in the first place? Because first past the post is dumb, and proportional representation (with minimum thresholds to keep the crazification factor out of it) automatically does pretty much all of the things you guys are having to build into your districting program.

Does it lead to a more diverse (and therefore more difficult to "handle") representation? Yes, because the 10% libertarians and the 20% greens (or more leftist than the Dems), as well as possibly the 15% Tea Partyers you have running around would get represented too. Is that bad? In some ways, yes. But it surely is a shitload more democratic than automatically disenfranchising every member of a 45% minority in a district.

So why isn't that being discussed more seriously?

Atomic Ross wrote: »

spacekungfuman wrote: »

Why do you like the EC?

It's not perfect, but I think it works better than just a popular vote. It keeps the electorate from becoming too polarized around any particular geographical region. Right now, the candidates have to campaign all around the nation; if changed, they may just hit up the big population centers.

I would think the people in Ohio would tend to disagree with that assessment, same as the people in the "flyover states".

Harry Dresden wrote: »

AManFromEarth wrote: »

It was the retweet, really.

51% of the American people voted to keep Obamacare and the GOP is gonna keep fucking that chicken.

The chicken asked for it.

True, otherwise its body would have had ways to shut that whole thing down.

I woulda thought he wanted a ninth party, tbh.