California has 39 million people and two senators. Wyoming has a few dozen people and two senators.

[Cyrano]

This is part of the reason that America is so often ruled by a minority.

We can't throw out Wyoming's senators. But we can work toward making Washington DC and Puerto Rico, two additional states. My guess is that will mean four more Democratic senators.

All of America's problems can't be solved in the short term. But making DC and PR states would go a long way to help level the playing field. It would be a good starting point.

[jimfields33]

1. The House of Representatives is where you find politicians representing the people.

California has a ton more people representing them than Wyoming. The senate represents the state. It’s a perfect representation for governing.

[brush]

7. Not perfect at all with the filibuster rule in the Senate.

Far from perfect, it's a Senate rule, not in the Constitution, which serves as a conduit that allows the minority to rule and halts significant legislation that would improve the lives of millions.

[Bettie]

27. And more populous states are

shortchanged there as well.

The number of reps should be increased significantly.

[dpibel]

31. But not proportionally

CA's population is 40 million.

WY's is 580,000.

CA's population is 69 times that of WY.

But CA has only 53 times as many representatives.

Thus, Wyoming has disproportional representation BOTH in the Senate and in the House.

Also, what exactly does "represents the state" mean? There is some interest that an arbitrarily selected chunk of real estate has that is somehow separate from the interests of its inhabitants? How does that work in the real world?

[treestar]

34. Good point - it may have meant something

to the Founding Fathers from smaller would-be states. There was the consideration of getting the South to go along as well. But by now, do we really needs states to be represented as such? It's not like there are difficulties between states at this point.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

46. The Senate was originally set up to represent the states interests

Prior to the 17th Amendment, Senators were chosen by the state legislatures.

[dpibel]

56. I ask again

What are these states' interests that are different from the interests of their inhabitants?

What is this entity called "Wyoming" that needs to be represented?

[Zeitghost]

59. The same way Country's are represented in international organizations like the UN

Last edited Tue Dec 13, 2022, 01:45 AM - Edit history (1)

You have to remember that the original concept of the US, especially under the Articles of Confederation but also under the Constitution, was a union of sovereign States much more akin to the EU than our modern view. The phrasing used to be "These United States" instead of "The United States". The Civil War and the constitutional amendments it lead to changed that in many ways, but not all.

The House was intended to represent the people directly, the Senate represented the States, which is why State Legislatures elected Senators until the passing of the 17th amendment in the early 20th century.

[dpibel]

60. But states are not countries

At best, they have limited sovereignty.

As to your analogy to the U.N., I hope you are not suggesting that the Senate exists in order to keep New Jersey from invading Pennsylvania. But that's where your analogy leads.

As for the original concept of the U.S., well: The Constitution exists because it pretty promptly became apparent that the Articles of Confederation were a rollicking clusterfuck. The Constitution, in fact, came about because the notion of a loose confederation of independent sovereigns wasn't going to work.

I ask you, as I have asked others, when you say "the Senate represented the States," what do you mean? Is there some time where a Senator rises and says, "The residents of my state sure don't want this legislation, but my state does, so let's get after it"?

[Zeitghost]

71. Sorry

I'm not teaching a class on early American History. If you don't grasp the historical context of our bicameral system, I'd suggest reading up on it.

[Mosby]

74. The senate is undemocratic.

Who cares what the historical context is frankly.

[Orangepeel]

52. it would be closer to "perfect" if they lifted the cap on the number of house members.

In the century-plus since the number of House seats first reached its current total of 435 (excluding nonvoting delegates), the representation ratio has more than tripled – from one representative for every 209,447 people in 1910 to one for every 747,184 as of last year.

That ratio, mind you, is for the nation as a whole. The ratios for individual states vary considerably, mainly because of the House’s fixed size and the Constitution’s requirement that each state, no matter its population, have at least one

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/05/31/u-s-population-keeps-growing-but-house-of-representatives-is-same-size-as-in-taft-era/

[Voltaire2]

80. So you support a massively undemocratic institution?

Why?

[jimfields33]

90. Each state is treated equal in the senate whether you have one person or a billion.

I believe in the constitution!!!!! However, you can change it. There are mechanisms in the constitution to change any part of it you don’t like.

[hlthe2b]

2. but WY has 1.27 million cattle (basically 2 cows/person)

[Cyrano]

17. moo

[ruet]

3. It's, Specifically, Designed That Way To Avoid A "Tyranny of the Majority".

It's not perfect but it's not terrible either.

[brush]

9. Tyranny of the majority? What kind of disinformation phrase is that?

The majority rules is what democracy is all about, in case you haven't heard. What we have now in the Senate with it's filibuster rule is tyranny of the minority, which is anti-democratic plain and simple.

[Lucky Luciano]

13. If a majority said blacks and Jews should be gassed, that would...

…be tyranny of the majority.

An extreme example, but a majority approving of something can obviously be unjust.

That said, yes, the republicans are abusing the shot out of the idea of preventing a tyranny of the majority.

[brush]

19. The history of the country shows that that sentiment...

has exhibited itself, and still does, among the minority anti-semites and white racists, so what you're suggesting has not happened and won't happen unless the aforementioned minority somehow become the majority.

That won't happen because more Americans have a sense of justice than are there white racists and anti-semites, or whatever other anti-othered group you can plug into that theory.

[Whiskeytide]

37. But that doesn't HAVE to be the case just because it might be at the moment. In our own ...

… history, majorities have supported institutions like slavery at one time or another. During the depression, a majority of the population might have supported selling off Montana, Wyoming and both Dakotas to the Canadiens for a few shipments of wheat.

The two chamber system - one representing population and one representing each state equally - was designed to give the majority a strong position, and also give sparsely populated states a legitimate, somewhat equal voice. A Democratic Republic is Intended to PREVENT unchecked majority rule, lest the majority become a mob.

Just because the republicans are currently abusing the system doesn’t necessarily mean the system is irretrievable. Personally, I don’t WANT a pure “majority rule” in the US. Тяцмp showed us that far too close to a majority here are clearly blithering idiots. That’s already too close a call for my peace of mind.

[treestar]

36. That's what the bill of rights

and the 14th amendment take care of.

If a majority wanted an Established Religion, they can't have that.

Or if a majority wants to say due process does not go to certain people.

We just have tyranny of the minority. That's not better.

[Lucky Luciano]

38. Mob rule is dangerous and does need to be checked.

As I said, the republicans are disingenuous and are definitely abusing things.

Also, it is indeed disproportionate. The rural people have way the fuck too much power. Power beyond simply being a check on mob rule, so not saying things are fine either.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

14. I take it you have not studied the philosophy of liberalism and the founding principles of

the United States?

Much of the logic of our divided government and our bicameral legislature was designed specifically to prevent a "tyranny of the majority."

It is a term is considerable historicity. You have some studying to do.

[brush]

22. It's historic term all right, but it's misinformation bullshit.

It has not, and will not ever happen. See post 19.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

23. You are deeply misguided on this point.

The risks of ochlocracy and the related impulse of populism in democracies goes back to the ancient Greeks, and for very good cause.

Might be time to study the history of the political science around this issue.

[brush]

24. Cite an example in American history. No bs imagined scenarios...

from essayists. philosophers and historians.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

28. You should do your own homework, however I'd suggest reading Federalist 10 (and if you

are not accustomed to reading material in the style of the period, you might look for a version "in translation" to contemporary English, as the original is challenging for many), John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, and Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America.

Then, you might read Polybius, Histories, and John Stuart Mill, On Liberty.

Look forward to hearing back from you then.

[brush]

30. Is it an example of actual tyranny of the majority in Congress?

Last edited Mon Dec 12, 2022, 06:37 PM - Edit history (1)

[Just A Box Of Rain]

32. I should know better

[brush]

33. Is it?

[dumbcat]

48. You tried

but it didn't catch.

[Genki Hikari]

95. And probably won't

nt

[Whiskeytide]

49. Ok. I'll jump in. For almost 100 years a ...

… majority of those in our government supported the concept of slavery. For 150 years, a majority of those in our government supported the concept that women were not entitled to suffrage. For decades, a majority of those in the US government supported the idea of separate but equal. Our government leaders - a majority of them - at one time bought into the philosophy of manifest destiny as an excuse to remove native Americans from their land. Want something more recent? A significant majority of Americans initially supported the war in Iraq.

A “majority” does not mean they have it right. In fact, it seldom does. It only means that they want it and have the numbers to make it happen.

I think that checking the whims and desires of the majority is perhaps the most crucial function of the Constitution.

[dpibel]

57. And in no case did the Senate protect the minority

Nor did the Constitution, which had to be amended. Interestingly enough, in a democratic process requiring a supermajority.

This thread, at least as I understand it, is about whether the Senate is some sort of bulwark against mob rule.

Just to use one of your examples: The Senate was one of the last great bulwarks supporting separate but equal. See, e.g., Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms.

[ruet]

16. Yeah... Ummmm... No.

Tyranny of the majority

The origin of the term is commonly attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville, who used it in his book Democracy in America. It appears in Part 2 of the book in the title of Chapter 8 "What moderates the tyranny of the majority in the United States absence of administrative centralization" ("De ce qui tempère aux États-Unis la tyrannie de la majorité'') and in the previous chapter in the name of sections such as "The tyranny of the majority" and "Effects of the tyranny of the majority on American national character; the courtier spirit in the united states".

While the specific phrase "tyranny of the majority" is frequently attributed to various Founding Fathers of the United States, only John Adams is known to have used it, arguing against government by a single unicameral elected body. Writing in defense of the Constitution in March 1788, Adams referred to "a single sovereign assembly, each member…only accountable to his constituents; and the majority of members who have been of one party" as a "tyranny of the majority", attempting to highlight the need instead for "a mixed government, consisting of three branches". Constitutional author James Madison presented a similar idea in Federalist 10, citing the destabilizing effect of "the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority" on a government, though the essay as a whole focuses on the Constitution's efforts to mitigate factionalism generally.

Later users include Edmund Burke, who wrote in a 1790 letter that "The tyranny of a multitude is a multiplied tyranny." It was further popularised by John Stuart Mill, influenced by Tocqueville, in On Liberty (1859). Friedrich Nietzsche used the phrase in the first sequel to Human, All Too Human (1879). Ayn Rand wrote that individual rights are not subject to a public vote, and that the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities and "the smallest minority on earth is the individual". In Herbert Marcuse's 1965 essay "Repressive Tolerance", he said "tolerance is extended to policies, conditions, and modes of behavior which should not be tolerated because they are impeding, if not destroying, the chances of creating an existence without fear and misery" and that "this sort of tolerance strengthens the tyranny of the majority against which authentic liberals protested". In 1994, legal scholar Lani Guinier used the phrase as the title for a collection of law review articles.

A term used in Classical and Hellenistic Greece for oppressive popular rule was ochlocracy ("mob rule&quot ; tyranny meant rule by one man—whether undesirable or not.

It requires honest brokers in the Senate and unfortunately we haven't had that in decades. It's why the US Senate was once known as the worlds greatest deliberative body.

[brush]

25. See post 23.

[treestar]

35. agreed, this is how the constitution functions

if a majority wants something improper, it can be found unconstitutional.

[Whiskeytide]

50. The Supreme Court found slavery to be perfectly constitutional, and that ...

… opinion stuck for a lot longer than it should have.

I just love the “it can’t happen here” crowd. Shit, a majority - on that day at least - elected Тяцмp to the most powerful office on the planet. And you want to make it so the majority is regulated by only the courts - which the current majority selects for lifetime appointments?

Be careful what you wish for.

[treestar]

51. Nothing is perfect

But it has worked pretty well in most cases. It's better than minority rule. What's so great about that? What if the minority wanted a law that violated the Constitution? In fact, if anyone does, it is the Trump followers.

[Whiskeytide]

55. But we don't actually have "minority ...

… rule”. We have a minority that won’t play by the rules, won’t honor custom and tradition, refuses to compromise, and is willing to hurt vulnerable Americans in order to acquire power. They lie most of the time, and have a media apparatus backing up their lies.

That sucks immensely. But it’s not the fault of the way the legislative branch was designed. It’s more reflective of the lack of character of the assholes in the repub party. I bet, during the drafting of the Constitution, somebody said “what if a bunch of assholes get elected and try to fuck up everything we’re doing here”? And he was then immediately shouted down as an alarmist.

[dpibel]

58. When did a majority elect Trump?

We're talking here about numbers of people, after all--not numbers of electors.

There's no way to parse it that can say a majority of people elected Trump.

And, yes, I know about the Electoral College and I know that Trump won fair and square under the rules as they exist.

That does not mean he got a majority of the vote either time he ran.

[Whiskeytide]

65. Yes. You're right. I used a bad example. Perhaps a better one ...

… is that a huge majority elected DeSantis. Are you ok with that asshole and his supporters having unrestricted power to make the rules for everyone in FL since they are an overwhelming majority? Wouldn’t it be nice if the blue counties in FL had some obstacles they could throw up in his way?

The problem isn’t the representative characteristics of the bi-cameral legislature. It’s that one side elects asshats who want to blow up the system. Unless the stupids get smarter, that’s not likely to change. And according to the Law of Idiocracy, it’s more likely to get worse.

[dpibel]

67. Interesting question!

And I say that sincerely.

But I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around how it's analogous to talk about the majority of Floridians electing a governor (which is not at all the house or the senate, and I don't know and am too lazy to look up how FL goes about constituting its house and senate) and the fact that the US Senate is antidemocratic to the core.

It seems to me you're saying, "The majority of Floridians are crazy, hence we should celebrate that the US Senate allows minority rule."

I'm not sure I can get behind that.

[Genki Hikari]

94. A majority of voters didn't vote for that...thing

States with enough electoral votes did that.

Big difference.

[Dysfunctional]

72. The United States is not a democracy, it is a Constitutional Democratic Republic.

[brush]

73. Newsflash: A republic is a representative DEMOCRACY.

[hunter]

18. It was explicitly designed that way to appease slave states...

... and religious cults.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

29. Our bicameral system was not there to appease slave states.

Electoral college? Sure. Not two houses in Congress.

[hunter]

62. Oh, please. Our Senate was modeled after the House of Lords...

... because many of these powerful slave owners considered themselves something akin to "Lords" of the New World, not by virtue of their birth, but by virtue of their own inherent superiority as white men who controlled large estates. These were the asses who had to be appeased.

[sarisataka]

63. Are you aware

The idea of the Senate, each state having equal representation, was proposed by that noted slave state New Jersey?

Virginia proposed a bicameral Congress with both Houses based on representation by population.

[hunter]

66. Virginia had the largest population of the 13 colonies.

Of course they wanted representation by population. On the face of it. But they were also keenly aware of the growing abolition movements, and the growing mercantile and industrial economies of the North, for example An Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery, passed by the Fifth Pennsylvania General Assembly on 1 March 1780.

There was a lot going on here below the surface. The fears of those who fancied themselves Lords and Archbishops of the New World got us the Senate, the electoral college, the three-fifths compromise, the tenth amendment, a chaotic banking system... Not to mention a Civil War.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

77. Right, so having a house of Congress based on state representation hurt the slave states.

But, you just carry on with your ill informed arguments.

[sarisataka]

85. Ironically those "Lords" and

"Archbishops" came from the North.

The Electoral College, Senate, 3/5 compromise and 10th Amendment were all proposed or co-sponsored by soon to be non-slave northern states.

Pennsylvania did introduce an act to abolish slavery, yet still had slaves 60 years later.

[hunter]

91. I was thinking people like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.

Those are the sorts of people who had to be satisfied if the Union was to succeed.

The motivations of the industrial and mercantile classes were not pure.

Whereas Thomas Jefferson probably thought of himself as the benevolent provider for all the tenants, slaves, women, and children on his estate, making it a matter of course to him that congressional representation should be based on that entire population, the industrial and mercantile class didn't want to cede political power to slave owners in proportion to the number of slaves they owned. By their reckoning a man who owned one or two slaves was the equal of a man who owned a hundred.

By the three-fifths compromise these secular lords like Thomas Jefferson still got the better deal.

As I've expressed myself elsewhere, the entire foundation of the Union was rotten. It could have turned out that slaves weren't even counted as people, which is what happened to the Indians who were specifically excluded from apportionment, the end result being further genocide and dislocation.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

69. That's an interesting theory. It has no basis in the actual deliberation of the country founding,

but interesting nonetheless. There are a lot of things you can read about why we have a bicameral vs unicameral legislature. Spoilers: unicameral governments are quite often a hot mess.

[hunter]

70. All democracies are a "hot mess."

The alternatives are frequently worse.

You know, of course, that senators weren't popularly elected until the seventeenth amendment which was ratified in 1913. Before that they were selected by state legislators, supposedly on the basis of these senators being superior men... of some sort.

As the Constitution was being debated the "pastoral" slave states really did see the writing on the wall that they would soon be overtaken in population and economic power by the increasingly abolitionist industrial and mercantile states.

In modern times it becomes clear that a sluggish but honest bureaucracy is a better ballast against the excesses of populism than a senate. Career civil servants and specialists counterbalance populism. That's why the fascists want to sweep these bureaucracies away and run government "like a business."

[Cuthbert Allgood]

76. The Senate was that way to put a balance between state and national governments.

It's federalism at it's most basic level. They wanted states to still have power and not have everything just be majority rule of the whole country. The Senate helps ensure that. Madison and Hamilton wrote a whole thing about it. Maybe reading the Federalist Papers would help you understand where you are just wrong on this.

[hunter]

78. You seem to think I respect the "founding fathers." I don't.

U.S. history reeks of slavery and genocide. It's a fucking miracle anything good evolved from it.

I am familiar with the Federalist Papers. Nothing sacred there.

I'm not claiming anyone else's history is better.

It's fun to speculate what might have happened if the American Revolution had failed. Would we all be Canadian?

The U.S. Constitution, as it was written, has some extreme flaws.

One of the things that holds us back from improving on it is the fear we'd be opening the floodgates to something worse.

I fear what the deplorables might do, they fear what I might do.

[Voltaire2]

81. well no it was specifically designed to ensure that the slave states would

not have their humans taken away.

[Imperialism Inc.]

87. That makes precisely zero sense.

If it is a injustice for people living in populous areas to make rules for those living in less populous areas then the opposite is also true. But, if you buy into the idea that it is an injustice, then there is any easy way to see which is the bigger injustice. Which one commits the injustice against more people? In other words, if you actually believe this then you should support equal say for all.

[CloudWatcher]

4. The Senate should go the way of the House of Lords in the UK

The Senate and the Electoral College are anachronisms and should be discarded into the dustbins of elitism.

They are the antithesis of democracy and one-person-one-vote.

The odds of this happening in our lifetimes are microscopic, but the first step is to realize that the original design is flawed.

[Johonny]

82. That is fairly obvious

Although the constitution in no way provides a way to do that easily since the house and senate have separate powers.

I've proposed for the establishment of the senate redefining the state as sweeping out equal areas of population with the division going to a non-partisan method every ten years. In theory this is possible, in practice, this would require the states with everything to lose, giving up power.

Basically, every solution you can think of requires low population states giving up their huge amount of undeserved power, so it's very unlikely.

Still it's clearly jerrymandering built into the constitution, and it's getting silly as the population becomes more and more unbalanced. There is simply no way to explain why California should be so unrepresented in Congress (both in the house and senate). And it's no surprise California receives back less per person back from the federal government than it gives as a result.

[calimary]

5. YES!!! And sooner than later!!!

[Polybius]

6. And there's not a damn thing that can ever be done about it

Sad, but true.

[sarisataka]

8. California is one state and has 2 senators

Wyoming is one state and also has 2 senators

American government 101

[BlueCheeseAgain]

10. Luckily (for now), both Dems and Reps have their own share of small states.

They get Wyoming, the Dakotas, Alaska, Idaho, and Montana. We get Vermont, Delaware, Rhode Island, Hawaii, and New Hampshire. We really should have Maine, too, but they seem to like Susan Collins.

As for large states (where votes are "wasted&quot , right now we have California, but they have Texas and Florida.

[Cyrano]

21. Maine likes Susan Collins because she's always "concerned."

She was "concerned" every time TFG did something totally nuts. She was "concerned" every time the Republican Party tried to take America over a cliff. Yet, she voted with her Party on virtually every piece of craziness they tried to turn into law.

I'm sure that if a giant meteor was headed straight for Earth with the certainty of a collision, Susan would be "concerned."

[Celerity]

26. In terms of Senators & the 20 smallest States, the Rethugs have 23 out of 40 possible, we have 17

Last edited Mon Dec 12, 2022, 05:20 PM - Edit history (1)

and may have as few as 14 or 15 after 2024 (if we lose WV, and/or MT, and/or NV).


Bold is 2 Dems
Italics is split
Plain is 2 Rethugs

Wyoming
Vermont
Alaska
North Dakota
South Dakota
Delaware
Rhode Island
Montana
Maine
New Hampshire
Hawaii
West Virginia
Idaho
Nebraska
New Mexico
Kansas
Mississippi
Arkansas
Nevada
Iowa

[jimfields33]

39. Rhode Island should be bold.

[Celerity]

40. Fixed

[jimfields33]

41. Thanks. You did a great job pointing out the inequity of the senate.

Thank you for that. Sometimes seeing something “on paper” wakes me up to reality.

[Celerity]

43. also it's depressing that soon 70% of the seats will be controlled by only 30% of the population

That 30% is whiter, less educated, more fundie christian, older, more homophobic, more misogynistic, more likely to own firearms, and more RW reactionary than the other 70%, who only will control 30% of the seats.

[intelpug]

68. Inequity of the senate

Actually there really isn't any inequity in the senate , each state still only has, and gets two. Now inequity as far as party affiliation? your darn right it's inequitable however the founders only guaranteed equal representation to the states , they did not anywhere guarantee an equal number of members of one party or another.People make the mistake of thinking the parties are a designated part of the government when in fact they are not, the members they get elected certainly influence government but, that does not make those parties 'THE' government. That is why right now the Democratic party CONTROLS congress and after new year the Republican party will CONTROL congress but neither one actually IS CONGRESS itself.

[Kaleva]

11. Why is Vermont never mentioned in these discussions?

It's population isn't much more then Wyoming's and it also has two senators.

[GreenWave]

12. And the solution is....51 national senators.

No more VP breaking ties. Every two years top 17 make it. We get to vote once each time. Add states like DC, PR, VI... it makes no difference.

[Celerity]

15. Puerto Rico is not at all guaranteed to yield 2 Dem Senators.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenniffer_Gonz%C3%A1lez

Jenniffer Aydin González Colón (born August 5, 1976) is a Puerto Rican politician who serves as the 20th Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico.

González has served in leadership positions in the New Progressive Party of Puerto Rico (PNP) and in the Republican Party of the United States.

These positions included being the chairwoman of the Puerto Rico Republican Party, speaker and minority leader of the House of Representatives of Puerto Rico, and vice-chair of the PNP.

González is the youngest person to be Resident Commissioner and the first woman to hold the role.

[mopinko]

20. those 4 states should go back to being 1 state.

they were split in the 1st place to get 6 more senators.
i find the idea of splitting cali into 3 states more appealing every day.
old joke- new state names-
log, fog and smog.

[Genki Hikari]

96. Another solution would be for blue cities or counties

In red states to become their own states.

Blue Houston by itself has a higher population than 15 of the states. That's not counting Harris County as a whole, or, say, a state combining Harris and Ft Bend counties--the most likely alliance in that area.

The city/county governments of these massive population centers are likewise bigger than anything those smaller states have, so the transition to statehood would be quite easy to pull off.

We'd not only get the Senators we need, but also could smash the gerrymandering the r thugs have done to dilute Democratic votes for Congress, too. Those new blue city-states would get to draw their own maps that could better represent their population, at long last.

Example: Right now, a State of Phoenix would get 2 Congressional reps based on the city population by itself. Go for a State of Maricopa, and they'd get 6-7 reps that they could divvy up how they wanted--not how the AZ legislature wants their representation to look like.

Major cities (or some combo of cities, counties or metro areas) becoming their own states would be all win for the Democrats, because it would return the government to people, rather than power derived from acreage with anachronistic boundaries.

There'd have to be some limits on who could declare statehood--say, the population must be at least as large as Wyoming or whoever the least populated state is at the time, and maybe something about a potential state having a local government budget that isn't impossibly in the red. And of course voter approval.

But other than those ground rules, it could work, and almost always in favor of the Ds.

[Initech]

42. They also only have one Congressional representative.

Who was recently replaced with a hardline MAGA nutcase.

[ripcord]

44. The makeup of the Senate was a check on the power of the more populous state

I would say it is working as intended.

[Cyrano]

45. Yep. Exactly as intended when

the Constitution was cobbled together, with too many compromises for wealthy slave owners, in Philadelphia in the year 1787.

And today, about 235 years later, we're still stuck with some of the racist shit they incorporated into the Constitution. Yet, today's racists choose to ignore the amendments that were added to try to right some of the injustices therein.

[treestar]

53. What power would Californians have

over others in a proportionately representative system? Of their 53 representatives, some are Republican, some are Democrats, and all are individual to their districts, as in every state. If they don't vote as a block, how do they give California power to stomp on small states? The bigger the state, the less likely they will vote as a block, and the more likely the districts have divergent interests.

It's become a system unfair to people in larger states.

[Kaleva]

83. More people in CA voted for TFG then in many smaller states combined

Those people will probably argue that the two D senators don't represent them

[Cyrano]

88. With a population of almost 40 million, of course the

Orange Prick will get millions of votes. Just because California is a "Blue State," doesn't mean they don't don't have their share of those who want to live in a theocracy, and many, many total morons.

[Kaleva]

89. And they probably feel like they don't get representation in the Senate

[treestar]

92. Yes indeed. Especially the Electoral College

In the end, you literally vote for the opposing candidate if your candidate loses the state. Your vote converted to an Electoral vote, with the winner-take-all system, means exactly that.

[KentuckyWoman]

47. Technically speaking

Senators don't work for the people. They work for the State government.
Congress works for the people.

Yes it's all screwed up now, but that was the intent. Now far too many just out for themselves.

[gldstwmn]

54. Shall we talk about the Dakota Territories?

[USALiberal]

61. A few dozen?????

[roamer65]

64. States like CA are stuck in a "constitutional straightjacket".

The Constitution is in desperate need of progressive reform, but opening it up for reform via convention could mean it ends up far worse than it is now.

The RW nutbags would try to stick garbage into it and you can bet they will fight giving large blue states any more power.

[Mosby]

75. Senate should be dissolved, along with the electoral college.

It's an anachronism from another era, that serves no purpose anymore. Letting the political system ossify benefits no one.

[Voltaire2]

79. 538,000. Why distort the real numbers when they are truly horrible?

[Kaleva]

84. We could probably do away with states all together

State services would be taken over by national agencies.

There'd be no districts. People would vote for party and the vote would be proportional. Each party would have a slate of 435 candidates for the House and 100 candidates for the Senate. The party would decide which of their candidates get seated based on the percentage of the vote the party gets.

Elections for the House and Senate would be every two years.

The party with the plurity of seats in each chamber will select the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader respectively.

There'd be no gerrymandering or squabbling about 1 state having more power then another

Another option is to keep the states but select members of the House and Senate the way I described.

[Imperialism Inc.]

86. Good luck getting buy in on that here.

Obviously a system where 40 million people in one location have the same number of Senators as 1 million in a another is indefensible logically and morally but that won't stop people from pretending it makes sense.

[orleans]

93. "wyoming has a few dozen people..."

probably a couple more than that