you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 7 hours ago (4 children)

I'm going to have to what? Sounds like I didn't need to do shit.

You're going to have to prove eliminating the Senate is more important than fixing Citizens United or gerrymandering.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 hours ago (3 children)

    Equal representation is a foundation of democracy.

    The US doesn’t have that. And has never had it. If the foundation is shit, everything else is going to go to shit.

    That includes citizens united and gerrymandering.

    Which it needs to be said is a false dichotomy and all three things can be done simultaneously. It’s as lazy and fucking disingenuous as saying urban and suburban voters can’t vote responsibly for rural decisions but rural voters can vote responsibly for urban decisions.

    Any argument you can make for rural voters receiving more voting power can be echoed right back at you and it’s all a load of bullshit.

    So yeah. You’re absolutely going to have to defend the argument you fucking made when that argument is ultimately to disenfranchise 80% of American voters.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 hours ago (2 children)

    The Senate is pretty clearly spelled out in the Constitution. Citizens United is a pretty far fetched, liberal interpretation, and gerrymandering isn't in the Constitution at all.

    Eliminating the Senate is more difficult and not on my priority list, and you haven't exactly convinced me to support that. It's a great idea if your goal is to get nothing done.

    I guess we can agree to disagree.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 hours ago (1 child)

    The founders did not have a situation in which we have nearly 40 million people in one state, and 588K in another, and I don't know if they anticipated such a situation, either. I don't know that the Senate should be abolished, but it could use adjusting.

    Maybe you start adding Senators for states above a certain multiple over the lowest state's population. If you are 20x more population than Wyoming (least population), you get a Senator. For every 5x times above 20x, you get one more.

    California has 67 times more people in it than Wyoming. Something like this would give them 1 for the 20x + 9 for the rest (47 / 5), which would bring them to 12 Senators. That'd still be only 6x more Senators, but at least it would not be so wildly out of sync with how many people we are talking about.

    That, or we combine states like Wyoming with several others that hardly have anyone in them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 hours ago

    The founders did not have a situation in which we have nearly 40 million people in one state, and 588K in another

    They did. When Kentucky was admitted to the Union the population was around 73k. The official population of Virginia was 747,610. Virginia had 10x the population of Kentucky when Kentucky was admitted.

  • source
  • parent