Republicans love DEI
Republicans love DEI
106 comments
-
and I get none
Only if you're not an American or live in DC
(population 780k) gets two. The 4.7M people in Harris County get none. That is a poor design
Again the people in Harris county get 2 senators as their state senators represent them. And, again, senators do not represent based on population as that is the job of the house
Senators are far more powerful than representatives
Entirely irrelevant as they represent different things. Your representatives represent a portion of your population while your senators represent your state as a whole. The entire point of separating the state and population representation is to allow more perspectives when legislating: the house gives a perspective from closer to the people, the senate from a broader view
Again, it seems you fundamentally don't understand the split between house and Senate, why it exists and what it does to our governing system
-
It’s obvious why the Senate exists historically, and it’s also obvious that it’s inherently undemocratic.
-
I mean historically it existed mostly because states had much more autonomy and power, much like a city state or country. Until at least Lincoln that part of the system had a good logic to it. If they only went off of proportional representation they could basically ignore small states needs. In order to get states to agree to join the union, they had to build a country that would give all states a serious seat at the table.
The main reason people on the left hate it so much now is that it currently hurts us, but it's very much an equity vs equality argument. The system was set up to be equitable even if it isn't equal. Something the left typically supports and this meme touches on. I think the higher priority fix is the house, as it no longer even does what it was designed to do.
-
The Permanent Apportionment Act needs to be repealed ASAP, that would solve a surprising number of the flaws in our democracy. The Wyoming Rule is a good start, but half a million constituents each seems a bit spread thin. I say 3 Rep minimum and scale from there instead.
-
-
it’s inherently undemocratic
It's exhausting trying to discuss shit online with people with such a terrible understanding of the topic at hand
Senators are voted for and represent their entire state. They're the representatives of the state's general populace in a representative democracy
-
No shit it's exhausting. I agree with you, but you keep calling anyone who disagrees with you dumb.
They clearly understand and disagree. The part where you said land votes is an oversimplification was the last good comment in your chain.
-
One human = one vote
Anything else is undemocratic and I think it’s morally reprehensible to support a system that values any one person above another for any reason.
-
We're never gone get 1h1v, not exactly, but this dude is literally sitting here defending a system in which a vast portion of voters - not just.voters but people in general - are unrepresented.
-
Representative democracy is better. My reps should have more time to research every topic than I do. Their job is to be more informed.
My job is to spot check on the stuff I understand.
Their votes should be worth more than mine. And we should have a system where sometimes representatives vote against their constituents wishes because the rep has more information available to them, or is just more educated than their constituents on the topic.
-
Representative democracy can still exist with 1 person = 1 vote. You could do a proportional election and weight the delegates’ votes by the number of voters they represent.
-
-
-
-
-
No he gets it, clearly, you are the one who (equally clearly) does not.
The Senate is a broken system. The system you keepdescribing is a good system in theory, but it's not that way in reality. It's literally like a gerrymander.wiz program for a computer - designed to make gerrymandering simple.
He even said he recognized your point about uncapping the house, but still went on to say the Senate, too, is broken - and for some reason you're not understanding that.
-
Their two senators don't represent them at all though. That's the rub. They're punished because they live in a colossal state with a bunch of dumb fucks. If you get 260k votes in North Dakota, you are a Senator in a landslide. You get 260k votes in Texas and congrats you managed to lose to Henry the Porpoise who was a write-in candidate.
North Dakotans have disproportionate political power because the system is inherently biased against large states. The result is tyranny of the minority.
If we can't have some equity in the rules, then we should consolidate the Dakotas, Wyoming,Montana, and Alaska down to one state. The lower 48 of that group especially largely have similar political views. They shouldn't get 5 times the political power of California or Texas when together they don't even have half the population.
-
You are saying that politicians from one party cannot represent constituents from another party, meaning that a percentage of the population in every level doesn't have representation at any given time. If only a person from your particular party affiliation (ideally with perfectly synchronous beliefs about everything) can represent you on the city council, and again as the mayor, governor, etc, then partisanship can only accelerate and dissolution of the union is inevitable.
I would also like to point out that our government was designed for tyranny of the minority and tyranny of the majority acting as counterbalances. You are also conflating North Dakotans with North Dakota. The priorities and mindset of the State are and should be different than the individual, and the Fed is and should be different from both of those. This is supposed to balance disparate needs of all the groups and people, and the reason for all 3 to have their own "representation".
We could just as easily break up the populous states into multiple smaller ones, then they would get the same benefits as the Dakotas or Wyoming. People could also move to those states and get the same benefits, but neither of these are desirable as there are benefits to the population density both for states like California and the people that live there. Rural vs urban needs have been in conflict for thousands of years and probably aren't going to be solved any time soon.
-
-
106 comments