A Monarch crowned by God 👑 @Eccles 😉

May be better or worse, Doom

@Weez, well, if you examine their economic model, they've embraced varying behaviors consistent with Capitalist nations to survive. Fascism always wore the veneer, combining both Socialism and Capitalism in their economic models.

Nah, the argument that a monarchy is only as good as the monarch is gay cringe. It's only really true of extreme forms of despotic monarchy with little to no formal institutions.

I'm not proposing any replacements, rather reverting back to appointive Senators, @Eccles.

Appointed by whom, Jeremy?

The House.

God, ofc^^

As I said

The State house?

@ETBrooD, I'm saying the reason for the statement is for expedient progression toward some kind of change, the individual making the statement only embracing the heart of their argument when suiting their political objective. I once made that very statement.

No, the House of Representatives. They'd select peers among them to ascend.

That sounds like a terrible idea

Why do you think that's the case?

You would see the likes of California and Washington State and New York trounce over the flyover states?

You would be a failed socilaist state in a heartbeat

Of course not, as that's the case as it were now.

You'll have to read through my post.

Explain how neutering the senate improves the situation

If I were looking to solve Americas political issues, i'd be stripped power away from the federal government, not cementing it

Neutering the Senate? This doesn't neuter the Senate, rather it returns a degree of their sovereignty from the daily whims that should remain at the level of the House. It would, in fact, empowering them to carry out their constitutional duties without regard for popular sentiments, which seems to be something we should aim toward protecting ourselves from, these days.

It gives more room for Palpatine's personal decision making ofc @Eccles

That does strip power away from the Federal government, @Eccles, as it would return power to the district in appointing their Senators. Popular political sentiment sides with expansionary power.

The Senate was never meant to be subject to those sentiments.

That's arse backwards - the representatives are elected essentially proportional to the population

If you then give the power to select senators to those representatives, you're stripping away the protections built into the system for less-populace states

No, the amount of seats available to a State is proportional to that basis.

Yes, and there are precisely 2 senators per states

That's the counterbalance taht you're doing away with

This is what the French do. Their senate is elected by citizens who themselves hold elected positions. The idea is that local officials will naturally outnumber central level officials, thus the senator will need to please local governments over central gov to get reelected. France is a very centralized state thou, by design.

There would continue to be two Senate seats per State, @Eccles.

But you're allowing the represenatitives to pick those two senators, Jeremy

How is that an improvement?

How is it not?

Depending on how you implement it, at best it makes no difference

At worst you're more likely to get senators from the majority vote in the state

Rather than the possibility of a mix

Well, tbh I wouldn't make it representatives alone to vote them in (if I were to try to implement this idea). I'd go with the French option: *all* elected officials, including city councilors and mayors and whatnot.

The goal of a senate like that is not to be representative thou

It's to incentivize distribution of power