This is how you can create a democratic socialist state.

Yep.

 

Well you failed.

 

Not at all.

 

That's up to the audience to decide.

 

No its not.

 

Gerrymandering is politics. Politicians will never give up politics. Quit worrying about it.

 

I'm all for entertainment. I approve of thinking outside the box. I salute new ideas. But bad is bad.

 

So your idea to fix healthcare is to just let hospitals and insurers do whatever they please?

If healthcare costs so much “because of regulations” can you explain how it is drastically cheaper in nations that have government ran healthcare?

 

So, there are only two choices, total control and zero regulations? All, or nothing? No happy medium that actually works?

Healthcare is drastically crappier in those countries, too.

 

Gerrymandering is a subversion of democracy. One that Dems wanted to put an end to by proposing federal legislation requiring state district maps to be drawn by bipartisan committees. A proposal rejected by Repubs.

 

Does congress have the legislative authority to require that of the states?

 

One of the reasons I am fond of responding to your posts is because they are so easily proven to be absolutely wrong.

• Key Findings: The top-performing countries overall are Norway, the Netherlands, and Australia. The United States ranks last overall, despite spending far more of its gross domestic product on health care. The U.S. ranks last on access to care, administrative efficiency, equity, and health care outcomes, but second on measures of care process.
• Conclusion: Four features distinguish top performing countries from the United States: 1) they provide for universal coverage and remove cost barriers; 2) they invest in primary care systems to ensure that high-value services are equitably available in all communities to all people; 3) they reduce administrative burdens that divert time, efforts, and spending from health improvement efforts; and 4) they invest in social services, especially for children and working-age adults.

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/pu...2021/aug/mirror-mirror-2021-reflecting-poorly

 

The internet is at your disposal to find out.

 

I was giving you a chance to answer. Congress does not have the legislative authority to require that of the states.

 

And I was suggesting you do some research rather than relying on me. You didn't so...........

So what is the solution? Congress has the constitutional power to curtail states’ abuses of districting authority, and a history of using that power. For its part, the Court has failed for half a century to reach beyond equipopulation in its enforcement of fair districts. Though it has recognized the harm of partisan gerrymanders for over three decades, it has not provided relief from it. In short: it’s true that Congress can be intransigent and unresponsive, but that must be weighed against the proven intransigence – and indeed the constitutional limitations – of the Court. What is needed is for each branch to play its own role. The Court’s successes in other districting concerns – curbing racial gerrymanders, for instance – relied on legislative action. In fact, they depended on Emanuel Celler’s other big bill: the 1965 Voting Rights Act. It was the joint efforts of Congress and the Court that allowed progress.
https://miurban.uchicago.edu/2019/06/27/gerrymandering-congress/

The Case for Federal Anti-Gerrymandering Legislation
Brian O'Neill University of Michigan Law School
https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1364&context=mjlr

The Elections Clause gives Congress broad powers to set the rules for federal elections.

The ISL theory is based on the Elections Clause of Article I of the U.S. Constitution, which states that “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.” Proponents of the theory point to the use of the word “Legislature” to support their contention that state legislatures have special authority to set election rules free of checks from other parts of the state government or even the state constitution.

But the Elections Clause doesn’t end there. It goes on to state that “the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.” So even if ISL theorists are right that the clause gives state legislatures special power to set federal election rules, the Constitution also gives Congress the ability to modify or preempt those rules at any time. So, if the Supreme Court endorses the ISL theory and allows state legislatures to set election rules free from other state governmental constraints, Congress can take action under the Elections Clause to protect American democracy by passing its own rules for elections.
https://www.democracydocket.com/ana...ower-to-combat-isl-but-does-it-have-the-will/

 

I disagree that the elections clause gives congress the power to control the states establishment of districts, or even whether or not the state decides to have districts at all.

 

You are the one saying they are over regulated but they are not when compared to other wealthy nations.

You keep failing to be able to answer a single question I have asked. Thats indicative of a failure to have a solid policy stance.

Let’s try the next question:
Can you identify how they are “crappier”?
They have higher life expectancies, lower infant mortality, higher medical satisfaction, virtually zero medical bankruptcy.

 

Fine, as long as you understand that is not a persuasive argument compared to the contrary opinions of constitutional scholars.

 

What does china have to do with that. You want happy and content become a Christian. Loads of studies showing that believing are immensely more satisfied with their lives than are non Christians.

 

I didn’t mention China

And of course they are, have you ever heard the saying “ignorance is bliss”?

Someone having to invent they are part of some greater plan and only they will be saved while everyone else is going to be punished is a borderline mental illness.

I wish I was that delusional and arrogant that I could convince myself of that.

 

The Senate gives smaller state a seat at the table. It prevents large states from dominating both houses of Congress permanently.

 

The three countries used to compare are not comparable to the US.

This is an old trick used by communists to try and make the US look bad. How about finding a country of comparable size and population? Well, I guess that wouldn't provide you with the results you find favorable......

 

LOL! Christianity is more in line with reality.

 

Yes, god impregnated a virgin minor so that his son (also himself) could be born so that he could be sacrificed to save humanity from rules that god created and no longer liked.

Not to mention that virtually all of Christianity can be traced back to previous pagan traditions.

And all from a god that allows children to be born with horrible diseases and created evil but his followers think he helps them win football games.

I am not surprised you believe that is “in line with reality” with some of the items you post though. Makes sense.

 

I think I need to explain why its more democratic and more socialist.

It's more democratic because it mirrors the Swiss model on the local level, being split into municipalities that are small in size and population compared to large states in federations or unitary states. It allows for localities to determine how they want to live and run themselves, though proportional local governments. Also they control everything, with the federal government only having supremacy in labor laws.

It's socialist because the proletariat gets direct representation in the national government.