You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
23 points

That’s the point of the Senate: land gets equal votes

The house is for population, but we fucked it by capping the total number of reps you can have there

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

Land doesn’t have rights. It’s just gerrymandering by another name. The problem works both ways. The rural fuckheads in California are also unrepresented. Harris County (where Houston is located) is larger than Rhode Island. Where is their representation? Why do the Dakotas (4 senators for virtually no population) get more political power than California or Texas? Houston, Dallas, Austin, and San Antonio get no representation despite a huge amount of population. Rural Californians get no representation despite outnumbering the Dakotas and Wyoming.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Land doesn’t have rights

I agree, but the point is to have a section of the government where the 50 disparate governments that make up our union have equal say. This tends to get simplified to “land gets 2 votes” because the other part of Congress is population based

Where is their representation

In the house, as I said already. Also, their 2 senators are part of their representation, they’re still part of the state

Why do the Dakotas (4 senators for virtually no population) get more political power than California or Texas?

Because the house has a limit on members. The senate is literally equal by design

Your issue seems to be a lack of understanding of how our legislative branch works because your complaints are all root issues of the House of Representatives and not the senate

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

I agree with your House argument, but I strongly believe that the design of the Senate was a major fuck-up. Senators are far more powerful than representatives, and I get none. A single house member cannot torpedo legislation the way a Senator can. North Dakota (population 780k) gets two. The 4.7M people in Harris County get none. That is a poor design.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

The point of the Senate was to get states to ratify the constitution. That’s it. Smaller states didn’t want to agree to join a union where they gave up power to a federal government dominated by the larger states.

The Senate should really be abolished, and the # of representatives should be doubled to temper the impacts of gerrymandering. If smaller states want more power against larger states, they can work together with other smaller states to form a voting bloc in the house.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

If the senate is abolished, states that joined on the basis of the senate should secede

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points
Removed by mod
permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

It’s not that land gets a votes, it’s that the States get votes. The original notion was that the House represents the People and the Senate represents the States. It’s why Senators were originally appointed by each state, but the House was always elected.

Because the original vision under the Constitution was a much weaker federal government and states being mostly independent, but that ship long ago sailed and bolted on a rocket booster after the civil war.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Political Memes

!politicalmemes@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civil

Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformation

Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memes

Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotion

Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

Community stats

  • 13K

    Monthly active users

  • 3.1K

    Posts

  • 137K

    Comments