Congress was supposed to be composed of a bunch of people representing their constituents, not partisan hacks serving the interests of political parties.

I have spoken to my congressman and both of my senators before. It turns out you probably can, too, if you have something worthwhile to say. Political parties have existed forever.

The hostage situation will have diffuse eventually.

The overwhelming majority of people do want a lot of things. Gerrymandering in the House and the fact that the Senate gives Wyoming and Vermont the same power as California and Texas prevents that.

>> Congress was supposed to generally be weak and deadlocked unless an overwhelming majority of people wanted something.

> The overwhelming majority of people do want a lot of things.

While the language is close these aren’t the same. Specifically the parent is saying that people need to want the same thing. Claiming that people want lots of things with no consideration of what they are or even how the things are done falls far short of the goal.

> the fact that the Senate gives Wyoming and Vermont the same power as California and Texas prevents that.

Have you considered that our founding documents/government was structured this way on purpose? It was a major incentive for encouraging small states such as Wyoming to join the union. Without this mechanism for giving smaller states an equal influence relative to other states many would not have joined the union.

> Have you considered that our founding documents/government was structured this way on purpose?

The senate was modeled on the house of lords and the expectation was that the country would be mostly ruled by the representatives in the lower house, with the senate handling special things like impeachment.

The senate disproportionately representing smaller states was a compromise necessary to get smaller states to ratify the constitution. Wyoming and Texas didn't exist. Senate rules that turn it into the place were legislation goes to die (like the filibuster) are rules created by the senate to give itself more power.

The Senate was always supposed to be part of passing laws. I'm not sure where you got the idea that the Senate would only handle special things. That's what the House of Lords does, but the roles are not supposed to be the same.

We might do well to consolidate some of the smaller and sparse states from time to time. Otherwise they may sell their souls for any kind of edge over the more populous ones.

I vote to join Hawaii and Alaska, and Puerto Rico with Montana.

If people in California and Texas want certain things then they still have a great deal of freedom to enact those laws at the state level. The federal government has only preempted state legislation in limited areas. For example, if Texas wanted to implement a single payer healthcare system within their state then they could just do it (at least for residents not covered by federal health plans). There's no need for federal laws covering every issue.

> Congress was supposed to generally be weak and deadlocked unless an overwhelming majority of people wanted something.

It was not. Rules that make congress "weak and deadlocked" are mostly not in the constitution. For instance, the filibuster is part of Senate rules and could be changed at any time.

Party-line votes and deadlock in the house are mostly driven by partisan politics and party discipline.

The constitution specifies a few things that require a super-majority (impeachment conviction, overturning a president's veto, and constitutional amendments). Everything else is supposed to be a majority vote of 535 independent representatives.