642
submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

States don't deserve equal representation. American citizens deserve equal representation, they are the ones who create value.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Then what you’re really saying is abolish the concept of states and have a single federal state.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

No, states still would elect a number of representatives based on their population. Just no 2 senators per state.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Why even have states? Good way to get rid of jerrymandering would be to get rid of imaginary borders. No states, no senate necessary.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Something something…. Redraw state lines every 10 years…

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Because state legislatures should continue to exist. If less populated conservative states want to go down a rabbit hole of far right shit then let them. Just don't give them 2 senators per state to gridlock the states that continue to produce and provide for their population.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Then there is no point in having states.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

That is what is referred to as a false dilemma fallacy. You can have states and state legislatures without the senate.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

First time I’m hearing about that fallacy, but it seems to imply deceptive intent which I have none. You can also have machine screws in your peanut butter sandwich but it doesn’t mean it makes sense.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

imply deceptive intent

Nope, it's simply an instance of an argument which erroneously limits what options are available.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Why do you think the states govts should continue to exist if they do not have a direct voice at the Federal level?

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Because states would still get a voice at the Federal level with the House, not directly and disproportionately, but rather through their population who are the ones who create value.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

The house is representation of the people. The senate is the voice of the states. E.g. senate ratifies treaties.

this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2024
642 points (89.4% liked)

General Discussion

13238 readers
1 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy.World General!

This is a community for general discussion where you can get your bearings in the fediverse. Discuss topics & ask questions that don't seem to fit in any other community, or don't have an active community yet.


🪆 About Lemmy World


🧭 Finding CommunitiesFeel free to ask here or over in: [email protected]!

Also keep an eye on:

For more involved tools to find communities to join: check out Lemmyverse!


💬 Additional Discussion Focused Communities:


Rules and Policies

Remember, Lemmy World rules also apply here.0. See: Rules for Users.

  1. No bigotry: including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
  2. Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
  3. Be thoughtful and helpful: even with ‘silly’ questions. The world won’t be made better by dismissive comments to others on Lemmy.
  4. Link posts should include some context/opinion in the body text when the title is unaltered, or be titled to encourage discussion.
  5. Posts concerning other instances' activity/decisions are better suited to [email protected] or [email protected] communities.
  6. No Ads/Spamming.
  7. No NSFW content.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS