Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-26-2020, 09:23 AM   #5091
johndallman
Night Watchman
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Cambridge, UK
Default Re: New Reality Seeds

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl View Post
the 16th Amendment changed to number of Senators to twice the number of Representatives.
That completely overturns the basis of the structure of Congress, and deprives the small New England states of much of their power in the Senate. Some explanation of how it was done seems necessary.
johndallman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2020, 10:26 AM   #5092
malloyd
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Default Re: New Reality Seeds

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl View Post
While the adoption of the 16th Amendment, the Union effectively stripped the Southern States of their executive and legislative power in future elections. In addition, the two Indian states became firmly Republican states, and their influence was felt throughout subsequent elections. In general though, the result of a more majoritarian Senate (and, therefore, a more majoritarian Electoral College) has been a fairer and more just USA.
Or a much harsher and crueler one. Much of the *point* of the Senate is to curb majoritarian rule. The people writing the Constitution were well aware of the (numerous) classical Greek examples of majorities voting for stuff that turned out to be quite monstrous, and put a lot of thought into mechanisms to curb the risk of the "tyrrany of the majority" (their words). The people who would need to be signing off on this change having decent civics educations in this period, this is unlikely to make it to the proposal stage, let alone pass.

Incidentally you do know that at this point Senators (and some Electors) were appointed by their state legislatures right? This isn't a change that does a lot during *elections*. From 1850 until the 17th Ammendment (1913) there were usually several Senate seats that were unfilled because of deadlocks in the state legislatures, so expecting this to help....
__________________
--
MA Lloyd
malloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2020, 11:35 AM   #5093
Micah Davis
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Default Re: New Reality Seeds

Quote:
Originally Posted by malloyd View Post
Or a much harsher and crueler one. Much of the *point* of the Senate is to curb majoritarian rule. The people writing the Constitution were well aware of the (numerous) classical Greek examples of majorities voting for stuff that turned out to be quite monstrous, and put a lot of thought into mechanisms to curb the risk of the "tyrrany of the majority" (their words). The people who would need to be signing off on this change having decent civics educations in this period, this is unlikely to make it to the proposal stage, let alone pass.
Genuinely curious as to when in the late 19th and early 20th century the Senate actually protected any minority group other than the Dixiecrats.
Micah Davis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2020, 11:45 AM   #5094
AlexanderHowl
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Default Re: New Reality Seeds

The increase in the number of Senators would probably make it less likely for there to be the stalements in the legislature for Senate selection. Since there would be a lot more Senators. In 1911, the number of Representatives were 435, meaning that the number of Senators would be 870, meaning that each Senator would be much less individually important, making their individual selection make less politically fractious. With 1305 electors more evenly distributed by population, it is also highly unlikely that a Presidential election goes against the popular will, so the two major parties would each need to be more progressive.

While Republicans and Democrats would be likely still be identified as 'liberal' and 'conservative', the influence of Southern conservatives after Reconstruction would be much weaker. With the migration of African Americans populations to the Midwest and North after Reconstruction giving Midwestern and Northern states more political power, the South and the West would need to embrace emigration to make up the difference. In addition, the two Indian states would likely end up drawing in the majority of the Native American population of the USA (even those who are half, quarter, and eighth would likely be welcome), and they would prove to be an important wildcard in national politics.

While there would be white supremacists during the 20th century, their political power would have been muted due to the realities of political power after the 16th Amendment. Internal African American migration, and immigration from Asia, Europe, and Latin American, would bring a greater proportion of political power, so laws that attempted to restrict immigration would likely fail to pass Congress. Individual states might have racist policies but, since they could not constitutionally prevent non-Whites from moving, they would end losing out politically in the long run, as the reapportionment of the House of Representatives after the Census would end up reducing their number of Representatives, Senators, and Electors.

Smaller states, like Delaware and Rhode Island, would also likely attempt to evolve into city-states, as large urban areas would bring political power. Providence might grow to challenge Boston for dominance in the Northeast while Dover might grow to act as a counter to Philadelphia. New York City would end up being an electoral jem though, as it would have 9 Representatives, 18 Senators, and 27 Electors.
AlexanderHowl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2020, 12:57 PM   #5095
TGLS
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Default Re: New Reality Seeds

Quote:
Originally Posted by Micah Davis View Post
You picturing this one as, "There are totally unique cultural TL3 cultures" or "Aztecs but TL3"?
I was thinking the former, but if I ran this it would probably end up verging on the latter.

--

I really don't think the revised senate would accomplish what's necessary. The ten most populous states would be sufficient to secure a majority in the senate, house and college. Given that the Senate would still be pseudo-statewide (appointed by legislature) and the presidency would also be statewide, governing with very weak approval would be trivial.
TGLS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2020, 01:11 PM   #5096
Tyneras
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Kentucky, USA
Default Re: New Reality Seeds

The change in nature to the Senate in Hamlin-3 means there is no functional difference between the House and Senate, they can be treated as a single body for all purposes. What you will in all likelihood see is a far more brutal and reactionary US government, and as time goes on a functional oligarchy of the 5 largest cities far worse than what we already experience.

So basically multiple civil wars over the next century that end the USA, either by actually breaking it up or grinding it down into a failed state.
__________________
GURPS Fanzine The Path of Cunning is worth a read.
Tyneras is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2020, 01:39 PM   #5097
Micah Davis
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Default Re: New Reality Seeds

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyneras View Post
The change in nature to the Senate in Hamlin-3 means there is no functional difference between the House and Senate, they can be treated as a single body for all purposes. What you will in all likelihood see is a far more brutal and reactionary US government, and as time goes on a functional oligarchy of the 5 largest cities far worse than what we already experience.

So basically multiple civil wars over the next century that end the USA, either by actually breaking it up or grinding it down into a failed state.
I'm genuinely curious as to why we would expect that the U.S. government would be more reactionary. When were there progressive majorities in the Senate but not in the House? When did the Senate save us from a war or the reduction of minority rights? Where did that happen?
Micah Davis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2020, 02:03 PM   #5098
Tyneras
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Kentucky, USA
Default Re: New Reality Seeds

Quote:
Originally Posted by Micah Davis View Post
I'm genuinely curious as to why we would expect that the U.S. government would be more reactionary. When were there progressive majorities in the Senate but not in the House? When did the Senate save us from a war or the reduction of minority rights? Where did that happen?
Hamlin-3 has already demonstrated it has an extreme government intent on concentrating power in as small an area as possible with it's insane 16th amendment. I would only expect it to continue to treat everything outside its densest population centers as vassals or helots. The USA really only worked because power and wealth were well distributed and this is the exact opposite. I'd expect at least 1 more civil war before the end of the century, followed by general grinding oppression. This USA would probably lose Texas and California to Mexico once they realized the nation was self destructing.
__________________
GURPS Fanzine The Path of Cunning is worth a read.
Tyneras is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2020, 02:17 PM   #5099
AlexanderHowl
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Default Re: New Reality Seeds

New York City has never been the majority of the majority of the population of New York, and, until the 1920s, the rural population of the USA had always outnumber the urban population, so if NYC cannot completely control NY politics, I doubt that any other major city would have much luck. In addition, suburbs are usually fiercely independent of the central cities, so they would act as an important counterweight, especially as previously established populations would move out of the cities as new immigrants came into the cities if they were allowed to do so. You would end up with a much more diverse USA though, as Asian immigration would have likely not been restricted during the first half of the 20th century, and the Southern states would have likely become a Mecca for European immigration after WW I, especially since the USA may have stayed neutral without Wilson.
AlexanderHowl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2020, 02:42 PM   #5100
SimonAce
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Default Re: New Reality Seeds

Quote:
Originally Posted by Micah Davis View Post
I'm genuinely curious as to why we would expect that the U.S. government would be more reactionary. When were there progressive majorities in the Senate but not in the House? When did the Senate save us from a war or the reduction of minority rights? Where did that happen?
There is a broad assumption among some that "more progressives." means a better more stable US. This may not be the case simply because one parties desired changes steps on someone else's rights and or traditions.

Also concentrating power tends to create internal stresses in any nation and turning the Senate onto the House 2.0 woudl essentially tell all smaller states "you don't matter." and when there is the inevitable push back, the larger states will react probably with violence.

This would also apply to getting rid of the electoral college as well.

The easiest way to understand this is to imagine your preferred ideology being locked out of power. This tends to rapidly erode the legitimacy of the State

The reason making the Senate an elected vs appointed body did not as it did not really change the balance of power all that much or at least to a dangerous degree,
SimonAce is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
ideas to share, infinite worlds, infinity unlimited

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.