The House this year has been mired in chaos, punctuated by a 15-round speakership vote, an eight-person regicide, flirtations with government shutdowns and policy stagnations. Next year’s elections could determine if the Senate follows suit.
The House this year has been mired in chaos, punctuated by a 15-round speakership vote, an eight-person regicide, flirtations with government shutdowns and policy stagnations. Next year’s elections could determine if the Senate follows suit.
Betteridge’s Law of Headlines says the answer is probably “no,” but in this case, it’s not out of the realm of possibility. However, it’s likely much easier to maintain order over 100 people who get elected by statewide popular vote than 435 who have the direct benefit of gerrymandering.
Gerrymandering is, in my opinion, one of the most dangerous long-term problems facing the United States.
For sure. Everyone deserves fair representation in a vote, and gerrymandering is only harmful to that end. TBH, we need Congressional reform and better representation of the population (so specific states don’t get heavier voting power) coupled with more popular votes, rather than representative voting.
Capping the size of the House was a mistake.
If only the ones capable of doing that weren’t the same people that profit off of the way it is currently…
Not saying you’re wrong, I very much agree. I guess I’m just jaded/pessimistic.
It’s partly our own fault. We (as a society) got complacent or apathetic, and the capitalists and theofascists took advantage. Now, we have a long road ahead to correct it, but I think if we can elect enough progressive idealists, that’s not a forgone conclusion.