General Discussion

SickOfTheOnePct

(8,710 posts)

91. You're correct that CA and ND didn't exist when this concept was formed

Sun Aug 5, 2012, 10:10 PM

Aug 2012

But they joined the United States under this concept, i.e., that each individual state would be equal in the eyes of the federal government, due to the makeup of the Senate.

As for larger states dictating to smaller states, no, it wouldn't be on an individual basis, as in your example. But do you believe that it would be right for 9 states to be able to mandate legislation for the other 41? At that point, what is the point of even having states?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

391 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

9 States have 18 Senators and Half the US Population [View all] CreekDog Aug 2012 OP

and 3/4 of the states are required to amend the Constitution banned from Kos Aug 2012 #1

my point is that whether it's impossible or not, it needs to be addressed CreekDog Aug 2012 #7

But how? I don't see anyway to change it. freshwest Aug 2012 #54

educate and advocate, that's where it begins CreekDog Aug 2012 #68

The 25 smallest states would never approve banned from Kos Aug 2012 #73

In time that might change. CreekDog Aug 2012 #75

What you see as a moral wrong SickOfTheOnePct Aug 2012 #77

you see it as a moral right that half the gov't is unfair? CreekDog Aug 2012 #78

I don't see it as unfair - that's where we differ n/t SickOfTheOnePct Aug 2012 #82

It's absolutely fair MNBrewer Aug 2012 #119

what you're saying is that one person one vote is not desirable CreekDog Aug 2012 #120

Every person has one vote... for their Senator MNBrewer Aug 2012 #315

same as with the Electoral College, our votes are not equal CreekDog Aug 2012 #316

They are not equal on purpose. A popular vote would put the Presidency in the hands of about nine SlimJimmy Aug 2012 #330

What? ancianita Aug 2012 #336

This is why. SlimJimmy Aug 2012 #338

in the hands of the people, regardless of their state CreekDog Aug 2012 #345

The House represents the people, the Senate represents the state's interests. SlimJimmy Aug 2012 #347

I'm not 5 years old, I have choices between liking 100% of the constitution and wanting some reform CreekDog Aug 2012 #350

Then try to get your head wrapped around the reason the founders designed the Congress the way SlimJimmy Aug 2012 #353

I understand it, but unlike you, won't defend a decision that called slaves 3/5ths of a person CreekDog Aug 2012 #355

Disingenuous or simply ignorant? FBaggins Aug 2012 #357

I think willfully ignorant. This is at least the second time you've stated that the Virginia plan SlimJimmy Aug 2012 #362

I support the Constitution. A brilliant piece of work, and still is. It's just too bad that you SlimJimmy Aug 2012 #361

It's manifestly unfair and profoundly anti-democratic that a state as sparsely populated as Idaho coalition_unwilling Aug 2012 #231

Try reading about the Constitution and how it was written before you make such statements. hobbit709 Aug 2012 #263

I'm well aware of the rationale for the system of 2 Senators per state and coalition_unwilling Aug 2012 #285

Actually, based on your response, it would be a good place for you to start. SlimJimmy Aug 2012 #337

You say 'mob rule,' I say 'one man, one vote.' The current system of 2 Senators per state makes coalition_unwilling Aug 2012 #360

No it doesn't. That's why we have a House of Representatives. But this has been covered in SlimJimmy Aug 2012 #363

Obviously, math is not your strong suit. So let me spell it out for you with some coalition_unwilling Aug 2012 #364

It isn't a math issue... it's a vocabulary issue. FBaggins Aug 2012 #365

It may not be a math issue where you live, but it sure as coalition_unwilling Aug 2012 #366

I live in reality. You should visit. FBaggins Aug 2012 #367

I live in a reality where the principle of 'one man, one vote' (as coalition_unwilling Aug 2012 #368

Thanks for proving my point. FBaggins Aug 2012 #369

It ALWAYS has. So I suppose we have reached an unbridgeable logocentric coalition_unwilling Aug 2012 #370

Nope... there's no rational disagreement. FBaggins Aug 2012 #371

Point of clarification: what 'term' are you referring to? Is it 'one man, one vote' coalition_unwilling Aug 2012 #372

Yes... and term is correct. FBaggins Aug 2012 #375

I've gotten so bogged down in all this linguistic stuff that I've coalition_unwilling Aug 2012 #376

Re: the "bottom line position" FBaggins Aug 2012 #379

Yeah, I think this may be the crux of our dispute: what 'democratic' means. As I wrote upthread, I coalition_unwilling Aug 2012 #388

Hey... I hope that interview went well! FBaggins Aug 2012 #390

Obviously, understanding why the Constitution was written the way it was is not your strong suit. SlimJimmy Aug 2012 #373

I understand perfectly well why the Constitution was written the way it coalition_unwilling Aug 2012 #374

It completely comports with one man one vote. We elect the Senators in each state to represent our SlimJimmy Aug 2012 #378

The Senate exists mostly because of small northeastern states Art_from_Ark Aug 2012 #290

Useful to point out how times change. FBaggins Aug 2012 #291

I'm clearly going to have to review my American history (or, as we coalition_unwilling Aug 2012 #377

I see two errors with your thinking, although I perceive the justice in it. freshwest Aug 2012 #94

The Senate is the most powerful body Sgent Aug 2012 #211

The HoR controls the strings and has been extorting us since 2010. Newt did too. freshwest Aug 2012 #217

I don`t quite get why you say Flying Squirrel Aug 2012 #212

What the HoR won't pass, they make the Senate reconcile. We are not getting the budgets passed that freshwest Aug 2012 #221

I hope we see one--SOON!! lastlib Aug 2012 #155

No, it doesn't need to be addressed. It's settled cali Aug 2012 #2

Agreed! LiberalFighter Aug 2012 #4

that's right, everything in the constitution is that way forever CreekDog Aug 2012 #6

yes, yes. just like slavery. cali Aug 2012 #9

You said I don't have an argument? My OP has several CreekDog Aug 2012 #63

Until the Constitution is amended, the issue is completely, totally, 100% settled n/t SickOfTheOnePct Aug 2012 #67

It's not settled to me. It is law, but so are many discriminatory things CreekDog Aug 2012 #76

Just because you see it as unfair doesn't mean that it really is unfair SickOfTheOnePct Aug 2012 #83

The Courts agree with my argument about it's unfairness CreekDog Aug 2012 #109

The courts agree with it at the state level SickOfTheOnePct Aug 2012 #127

No, at the Federal level as well CreekDog Aug 2012 #156

Um, apportionment for the House is also in the Constitution n/t SickOfTheOnePct Aug 2012 #158

You don't have to read court cases posted here, but you ignorance doesn't mean they don't exist CreekDog Aug 2012 #161

I did read them SickOfTheOnePct Aug 2012 #164

First thing I would do is start an online petition- snooper2 Aug 2012 #279

Just as valid today when only white, male property owners could vote? CreekDog Aug 2012 #248

senators used to be chosen by the Representatives from each state. iemitsu Aug 2012 #60

Yes, it was a Constitutional amendment SickOfTheOnePct Aug 2012 #71

It's that it's so easy to buy power by snagging small state senators that needs to brewens Aug 2012 #81

Really? I'll wager Vermont has the two most uncorrupt Senators cali Aug 2012 #238

That just means you have two honest and popular senators. I've heard of this problem brewens Aug 2012 #278

But the House is capped so big state still unrepresented in house Johonny Aug 2012 #105

Agree. IOW, the house is the peoples' representative, the Senate the more deliberative body. SlimJimmy Aug 2012 #339

It was intentionally set up this way in the Constitution. Lasher Aug 2012 #3

so was slavery --that it was intentional is not a justification CreekDog Aug 2012 #5

We are not really a democracy. We are a republic. banned from Kos Aug 2012 #14

You do know that's a right-wing blab, right? Scootaloo Aug 2012 #88

Rule by a plutocratic elite is exactly what some people want. white_wolf Aug 2012 #89

Ah yes, the Hamiltonians Scootaloo Aug 2012 #207

It is in no sense a "right-wing" blab. FBaggins Aug 2012 #280

Yes, it very much is Scootaloo Aug 2012 #293

Repeating a falsehood doesn't make it any less false. FBaggins Aug 2012 #298

Oh good lord Scootaloo Aug 2012 #300

I guess US Govt wasn't the only course you failed? FBaggins Aug 2012 #301

Libertarians are very much on the right. white_wolf Aug 2012 #348

Some are... and some are on the left. FBaggins Aug 2012 #351

On economic issues American Libertarians are on the right. white_wolf Aug 2012 #352

The structure of a democracy is a social issue... FBaggins Aug 2012 #356

To preserve slavery. LeftyMom Aug 2012 #29

Actually, no. Bucky Aug 2012 #101

thank you CreekDog Aug 2012 #174

Look at the further Amendments, when they were adopted, and what they do. Egalitarian Thug Aug 2012 #230

right. CreekDog Aug 2012 #246

It's an alpha release. It's the foundation that's just stable enough to fill most of Egalitarian Thug Aug 2012 #277

"Because constitution" isn't a valid argument Scootaloo Aug 2012 #84

You're correct that CA and ND didn't exist when this concept was formed SickOfTheOnePct Aug 2012 #91

"What's the point of having states" Scootaloo Aug 2012 #99

Well, I appluad you for actually stating what I've been wondering about SickOfTheOnePct Aug 2012 #106

Well, is there a reason for having 'em? Scootaloo Aug 2012 #206

Because blankians don't want to live like otherblankians. CBGLuthier Aug 2012 #328

So you have no logical reasoning for the existence of our system of states Scootaloo Aug 2012 #335

You not understanding/accepting a reason is not the same thing as a lack of same. FBaggins Aug 2012 #343

Because Constitution? Eksess Aug 2012 #309

OUTRAGE! FIST-SHAKING! FLAG-WAVING! Scootaloo Aug 2012 #310

At the risk of a really bad pun, you are whitewashing history, as the issue that coalition_unwilling Aug 2012 #233

It is literally impossible to address dsc Aug 2012 #8

we could add senators CreekDog Aug 2012 #10

But, bad ideas aren't pintobean Aug 2012 #12

the current Senate composition is the bad idea here, wanting to make it fairer is the good idea CreekDog Aug 2012 #225

Really? pintobean Aug 2012 #267

does that mean I shouldn't try? CreekDog Aug 2012 #268

I don't equate the two. pintobean Aug 2012 #275

this one sucks. cali Aug 2012 #15

what other country allocates things this way? CreekDog Aug 2012 #20

Canada n/t SickOfTheOnePct Aug 2012 #137

It isn't either or SickOfTheOnePct Aug 2012 #25

People are the source of power, not the states they reside in CreekDog Aug 2012 #27

They didn't say so for the Senate SickOfTheOnePct Aug 2012 #36

So? Did the constitution permit slavery? Did it permit people to be counted 3/5ths? CreekDog Aug 2012 #41

Of course that didn't make them right SickOfTheOnePct Aug 2012 #47

then why aren't states allowed to do this to protect rural counties? CreekDog Aug 2012 #53

Because the U.S Constitution doesn't tell them that they can? SickOfTheOnePct Aug 2012 #58

I want a citizen in a small state to have the same power as other citizens CreekDog Aug 2012 #80

Then what you are advocating is the elimination of the states n/t SickOfTheOnePct Aug 2012 #86

No. Democratic countries have states and provinces and districts. CreekDog Aug 2012 #125

What is the point of having states if they are not seen as or treated equally at the federal level? SickOfTheOnePct Aug 2012 #135

no, my reform would put the people in charge CreekDog Aug 2012 #163

Then your goal is to abolish the federalist model n/t SickOfTheOnePct Aug 2012 #165

No, federalism exists in Canada, for example CreekDog Aug 2012 #168

You should take a few minutes to learn about Canada's Senate SickOfTheOnePct Aug 2012 #173

if our Senate was the same as Canada's it would not be the problem that it is here CreekDog Aug 2012 #249

Now hold on a second... FBaggins Aug 2012 #344

My OP and thinking is that the unequal, undemocratic representation needs reform CreekDog Aug 2012 #346

The problem with that... FBaggins Aug 2012 #354

Correct, and I have no interest in nine or ten states deciding who the President will be SlimJimmy Aug 2012 #341

Not at all, and you're back to misleading people to try to win this argument CreekDog Aug 2012 #321

Where do you get this idea that Art_from_Ark Aug 2012 #319

so answer this DonCoquixote Aug 2012 #103

the constitution wouldn't allow laws that give money only to states with bigger populations CreekDog Aug 2012 #107

er DonCoquixote Aug 2012 #117

What is happening already? Small states get more funding than large ones. CreekDog Aug 2012 #122

You can't add senators without addiing states. Angleae Aug 2012 #96

i didn't say they could be added legislatively, please try to keep up CreekDog Aug 2012 #222

Actually... you did. FBaggins Aug 2012 #253

no i didn't CreekDog Aug 2012 #254

How ironic FBaggins Aug 2012 #259

sorry I was wrong dsc Aug 2012 #123

Think about what we take for granted today, which was seen as impossible when it was first dreamed CreekDog Aug 2012 #224

Which would give a second House of Representatives. Damn this is getting tiresome. SlimJimmy Aug 2012 #381

No, it would not, the Senate has staggered terms and longer terms CreekDog Aug 2012 #384

I think I will. We've been around the block on this enough. Brick wall and all that. SlimJimmy Aug 2012 #387

I disagree, it needs to stay the way it is SickOfTheOnePct Aug 2012 #11

Absolutely, the founding fathers never envisioned a system where the states (at large) would not be SlimJimmy Aug 2012 #382

And those 9 states have proportional representation in the House cali Aug 2012 #13

because states are not people CreekDog Aug 2012 #16

what is Democratic DonCoquixote Aug 2012 #112

So, you just tell a citizen in Los Angeles that their vote has to count less? CreekDog Aug 2012 #118

No DonCoquixote Aug 2012 #166

yeah but in the Senate you want that citizen of LA to count less than a citizen of Wyoming CreekDog Aug 2012 #180

I'll own it SickOfTheOnePct Aug 2012 #183

and the senate DonCoquixote Aug 2012 #210

right some voters are great than others CreekDog Aug 2012 #214

so does wyoming DonCoquixote Aug 2012 #232

if they had 37 million people they would have the same number of House members CreekDog Aug 2012 #242

so you are saying having more house members DonCoquixote Aug 2012 #304

I never said it meant nothing, the least you could do is argue with my positions CreekDog Aug 2012 #305

Your actual position is DonCoquixote Aug 2012 #307

and since I hear the goalpost moving DonCoquixote Aug 2012 #308

The goalpost didn't move, in my OP I asked for "reform" to address this imbalance CreekDog Aug 2012 #313

This is NOT the "United People of America" ...... oldhippie Aug 2012 #133

if you think states are more important than people, then that's your priority CreekDog Aug 2012 #134

thank you for correcting Abraham Lincoln CreekDog Aug 2012 #287

Politicians say a lot of dumb things .... oldhippie Aug 2012 #288

he was supposed to like the part that allowed slavery? CreekDog Aug 2012 #289

You're really confused there. FBaggins Aug 2012 #292

I would suggest reading 'The Oxford Guide to the United States Government' LanternWaste Aug 2012 #281

You have a good starting point, but are missing the bigger picture imo whopis01 Aug 2012 #283

one person in one state should have the same say as one in another state CreekDog Aug 2012 #18

why? RobertEarl Aug 2012 #21

exactly. it is not right. CreekDog Aug 2012 #28

You mean like my state of Vermont? cali Aug 2012 #30

Right. It doesn't work. RobertEarl Aug 2012 #50

I've said it elswhere in this thread, and I'll repeat it. The founders were absolutely brilliant SlimJimmy Aug 2012 #349

I'd be in favor of getting rid of the Senate period, or making it basically powerless Hippo_Tron Aug 2012 #17

i agree. CreekDog Aug 2012 #19

Right RobertEarl Aug 2012 #23

A House of Representatives with 10,000 members? SickOfTheOnePct Aug 2012 #26

maybe not 10,000 reps, but more than 435 CreekDog Aug 2012 #38

No, I am not unaware of that fact SickOfTheOnePct Aug 2012 #43

I did not say 30000 citizens, please. Keep track of whom you are arguing. CreekDog Aug 2012 #45

Sorry, it was a different poster SickOfTheOnePct Aug 2012 #49

Yeah 30,000 per rep RobertEarl Aug 2012 #55

I have something against a 10,000 member House of Representatives SickOfTheOnePct Aug 2012 #61

No it isn't. See, two can play that game. RobertEarl Aug 2012 #70

Sure he did SickOfTheOnePct Aug 2012 #74

It is not ridiculous RobertEarl Aug 2012 #85

You're not going to win the argument that it ought to be proportional Hippo_Tron Aug 2012 #145

i agree with both your points, but my feeling is that education is better if I aim directly at it CreekDog Aug 2012 #154

Georgia is the 9th largest? hfojvt Aug 2012 #22

the Senate would be different from the House, with its longer terms and staggered seating CreekDog Aug 2012 #24

It's a sily pipe dream. It'll never happen. dream on. cali Aug 2012 #31

If your idea is right, then why can't individual states do it? CreekDog Aug 2012 #33

No, I don't know why. I don't know that they can't. cali Aug 2012 #40

You're lecturing me and you don't know why??? Wow. The courts said it is unfair. CreekDog Aug 2012 #42

No, I'm more excoriating your idea and ridiculing your pipe dream cali Aug 2012 #57

If Romney is elected you will be thankful that the Senate can impede banned from Kos Aug 2012 #32

a fairer senate could still perform that function CreekDog Aug 2012 #35

Largest state east of the Mississippi river and the Atlanta metro area has over 5 million people.. Fumesucker Aug 2012 #52

CA has 53 representatives. Vermont and Wyoming have 1 each cali Aug 2012 #252

it's not even proportional there though hfojvt Aug 2012 #282

I'll be interested/concerned in this after we address the electoral college jp11 Aug 2012 #34

Fully agree with that one. CreekDog Aug 2012 #37

That's why we have the House. elleng Aug 2012 #39

Founders wrestled with slavery and that's how we got that. CreekDog Aug 2012 #44

That comparison is so poor. cali Aug 2012 #46

if it is so democratic, then why can't states do it within the states? CreekDog Aug 2012 #48

My point, of course, is that they recognized the problems elleng Aug 2012 #51

the Senate was created to deal with that situation CreekDog Aug 2012 #59

Of course the situation still exists today SickOfTheOnePct Aug 2012 #65

You act like this concept is unheard of...are you aware that we are the oddball among democracies? CreekDog Aug 2012 #131

Yep, I am all for it SickOfTheOnePct Aug 2012 #140

why not? i'm a Californian who votes in the interest of Alaskans and Wyomans all the time CreekDog Aug 2012 #178

So in other words SickOfTheOnePct Aug 2012 #182

Since you can't argue without putting words into my mouth, you're done with me CreekDog Aug 2012 #216

because you know nothing about local issues there or in my state of Vermont cali Aug 2012 #239

i want equal power with you, we are both citizens but i have less share of congress CreekDog Aug 2012 #241

waaah. poor people have far less representation than rich people cali Aug 2012 #270

I support your idea limpyhobbler Aug 2012 #56

You have a point. But educating others on the issue is useful... CreekDog Aug 2012 #72

And I remember reading somewhere that 20 states with approximately 10% of the total US libinnyandia Aug 2012 #62

Any reason why you're completely omitting the House Of Representatives?? thelordofhell Aug 2012 #64

because it doesn't have this inherent unfairness CreekDog Aug 2012 #66

There's nothing unfair about the Senate.......it has a very specific function thelordofhell Aug 2012 #79

No, because those smaller states would have half the Senate CreekDog Aug 2012 #87

Right up until they bribed one or two small states to go along with them SickOfTheOnePct Aug 2012 #95

why hasn't that happened in Canada? CreekDog Aug 2012 #104

Everyone in the U.S. does have equal voting power SickOfTheOnePct Aug 2012 #108

equal voting power in half the government? that's half, not all. CreekDog Aug 2012 #113

Doesn't work like that with single-member districts Hippo_Tron Aug 2012 #153

Half fair : Half not-fair, but do legislative processes give equal power to both halves? patrice Aug 2012 #90

We need a new constitution. deaniac21 Aug 2012 #69

I agree fully. white_wolf Aug 2012 #93

Paine, btw, was a light to Howard Dean and was also part of what many Deanocrats were patrice Aug 2012 #100

Why don't you like John Adams? Nye Bevan Aug 2012 #148

I'm a whiskey drinker. deaniac21 Aug 2012 #314

Those "douchebags" gave us the Bill of Rights Art_from_Ark Aug 2012 #320

The Senate kurt_cagle Aug 2012 #92

You should reread your American history Art_from_Ark Aug 2012 #286

I accept these criticisms of the Constitution & our government, but wouldn't what to do about the patrice Aug 2012 #97

If you want a truly futile discussion, try to get four people to agree on a solution. Bucky Aug 2012 #98

When they made up the laws marlakay Aug 2012 #102

If they're both going to be equal representation SickOfTheOnePct Aug 2012 #110

you don't understand the purpose of the Senate. Warpy Aug 2012 #111

+50 Adsos Letter Aug 2012 #121

Why don't I understand it? CreekDog Aug 2012 #128

Yet you ignore all the points the poster made, lol. morningfog Aug 2012 #132

Your knowledge of government clearly doesn't go beyond the United States of America CreekDog Aug 2012 #136

You still aren't addressing the points made. morningfog Aug 2012 #139

ALL of the legislature should be based on equal representation, not half CreekDog Aug 2012 #141

So, abolish the Senate? morningfog Aug 2012 #143

Did not say that, but then you want to win the argument by putting words into my mouth CreekDog Aug 2012 #146

I've asked what your reform proposal is. morningfog Aug 2012 #149

Then why not come out and answer this question? SickOfTheOnePct Aug 2012 #150

Those 9 states sabbat hunter Aug 2012 #114

I could go along with a reasonable increase in the number of Reps SickOfTheOnePct Aug 2012 #144

So, only the most populated states should have any say in government? Bettie Aug 2012 #115

Despite an increase in population from 1980, Michigan has lost several Congressional seats Kaleva Aug 2012 #116

Sure, because other states have gained more than Michigan has n/t SickOfTheOnePct Aug 2012 #142

So states like Michigan have less representation in the House then before. Kaleva Aug 2012 #201

Yes, because the size of the House is capped at 435 n/t SickOfTheOnePct Aug 2012 #204

2 houses. It is addressed in the House of Representatives. And in the Electoral College. morningfog Aug 2012 #124

your example of fairness is the Electoral College? CreekDog Aug 2012 #126

My example was of proportional representation. I said nothing of fairness. morningfog Aug 2012 #130

you said the Electoral College was fair? CreekDog Aug 2012 #172

I said nothing on fairness. I said your complaint is unfounded. morningfog Aug 2012 #175

the EC is not proportional to population, what are you talking about? CreekDog Aug 2012 #176

LOL. Your inability to move on is cute. The EC is, in part, propotional. Not entirely. morningfog Aug 2012 #179

50.9% percent of presidential voters get 46.6% of EC votes. CreekDog Aug 2012 #185

Do you have a reform proposal? morningfog Aug 2012 #186

I've given up asking that question n/t SickOfTheOnePct Aug 2012 #188

proportional representation in the Senate and popular vote elections for President CreekDog Aug 2012 #190

What is the point of two houses with proportional representation? SickOfTheOnePct Aug 2012 #192

you asked me for my idea and i gave it to you CreekDog Aug 2012 #194

It's well within the power of the states to change this SickOfTheOnePct Aug 2012 #187

The electoral college part of their RACKET. nt valerief Aug 2012 #129

Yup, it sure is! CreekDog Aug 2012 #170

The "Wyoming" types states will never give up that power. Constitutional amendment? Never happpen demosincebirth Aug 2012 #138

Nope SickOfTheOnePct Aug 2012 #147

Appointed Senators voted to be elected by popular vote, that was a ceding of power CreekDog Aug 2012 #159

The point you seem to be missing SickOfTheOnePct Aug 2012 #162

That's right. We won't. cali Aug 2012 #237

You have to understand "representation".......... mrmpa Aug 2012 #151

Might I suggest you take a brief moment to review our House of Representatives? Lone_Star_Dem Aug 2012 #152

You think the Senate is the only check and balance in the US Government? Laughable CreekDog Aug 2012 #157

Still waiting to hear what your plan would be SickOfTheOnePct Aug 2012 #160

Oh! Aren't you simply charming this evening. Lone_Star_Dem Aug 2012 #167

you lectured me first CreekDog Aug 2012 #169

No, you simply ignored what I said in favor of what you wanted to hear. Lone_Star_Dem Aug 2012 #181

you said no checks and balances if the Senate was not allocated the way it is, which is wrong CreekDog Aug 2012 #202

You're dancing around my point. Poorly. Lone_Star_Dem Aug 2012 #208

Unlike you, I am not wedded to what Founders trying to compromise with slaveowners had to do CreekDog Aug 2012 #215

Seriously? That's your defense of your premise? Lone_Star_Dem Aug 2012 #219

i have posted more substance on this issue than you have here CreekDog Aug 2012 #220

Not in reply to me you've not. Lone_Star_Dem Aug 2012 #223

well pardon me, i didn't realize that i had to write everything especially for you CreekDog Aug 2012 #247

It just dawned on me. You do realize Texas, the state you just bashed Lone_Star_Dem Aug 2012 #226

only the power that their number of citizens rightfully should be granted CreekDog Aug 2012 #227

Again. Their people are represented by the House of Reps Lone_Star_Dem Aug 2012 #229

I came to the same conclusion. SlimJimmy Aug 2012 #380

California is 60x bigger than Wyoming - completely and totally unfair representation taught_me_patience Aug 2012 #171

it does piss me off. rufus dog Aug 2012 #177

Wyoming's 558,000 people have 2 senators CreekDog Aug 2012 #193

Look at it this way: Your state has something like 56 reps cali Aug 2012 #240

your vote counts more than mine CreekDog Aug 2012 #251

exactly rufus dog Aug 2012 #311

This would be divine. Lone_Star_Dem Aug 2012 #184

yes, a California voter should count as much as a voter in Wyoming CreekDog Aug 2012 #199

How bought we meet in the middle. crimson77 Aug 2012 #235

your figures are wrong. California loses more revenue than it gets in return CreekDog Aug 2012 #250

Cali actually gets $.77 return n/t taught_me_patience Aug 2012 #295

The link I read. crimson77 Aug 2012 #297

This is why we have a House of Representatives. Blue_In_AK Aug 2012 #189

but the Senate makes some voters less powerful than others CreekDog Aug 2012 #191

You're ignoring the House of Representatives again. Lone_Star_Dem Aug 2012 #195

The individual states don't need representation SickOfTheOnePct Aug 2012 #196

That seems to be the suggestion. Blue_In_AK Aug 2012 #294

what is the justification for half the elected government not representing the people equally? CreekDog Aug 2012 #197

And those of us that disagree with you SickOfTheOnePct Aug 2012 #198

And DC gets no senators and no voting representatives in Congress, what of that? CreekDog Aug 2012 #200

No, I don't like it SickOfTheOnePct Aug 2012 #203

A state is not a person. This country should be government of, by and for people. ancianita Aug 2012 #340

No, you've explained nothing. Lone_Star_Dem Aug 2012 #205

most of the Founding Fathers didn't want a senate like you defend CreekDog Aug 2012 #245

Doesn't matter. Because they DID want a country. FBaggins Aug 2012 #256

so it should remain? slavery was allowed, would you have opposed its abolition too... CreekDog Aug 2012 #257

Yes it should remain. FBaggins Aug 2012 #260

the bill of rights is the defender against mob rule CreekDog Aug 2012 #264

Sorry. Wrong yet again. FBaggins Aug 2012 #276

Regional representation is an established and important form of representation mathematic Aug 2012 #209

the courts invalidated all these forms except for the US Senate CreekDog Aug 2012 #228

US courts invalidated CAN, AUS, and EU governments? Quite a bold claim. mathematic Aug 2012 #274

This will NEVER change Sgent Aug 2012 #213

State legislatures approved an amendment that took away their power to elect the senate CreekDog Aug 2012 #218

Not in your lifetime. Not even if you're 18 and live to be 100. cali Aug 2012 #255

I realize that. You realize the effect of this is to weaken the votes of minority voters... CreekDog Aug 2012 #258

No it really doesnt, it is fine the way it is. crimson77 Aug 2012 #234

What the senate was able to do to the Civil Rights Act was FINE? CreekDog Aug 2012 #243

I am sorry you don't like the system crimson77 Aug 2012 #284

The senate should be functionally abolished. David__77 Aug 2012 #236

I don't think that's necessary, but a unicameral legislature would be fairer CreekDog Aug 2012 #244

Slightly off-topic JonLP24 Aug 2012 #261

The House has more power than the Senate. cali Aug 2012 #262

as an individual i want to have the same vote as you do, but i don't have that CreekDog Aug 2012 #265

this has been explained to you ad nauseum so let me just finish our cali Aug 2012 #269

Hear, hear, Cali. Blue_In_AK Aug 2012 #296

The Senate JonLP24 Aug 2012 #266

I also disagree with you in terms of the fairness davidpdx Aug 2012 #271

"of the people, by the people, for the people" v. "states are people, my friend" muriel_volestrangler Aug 2012 #272

I would not support amending the constitution for proportional representation. Skidmore Aug 2012 #273

So we in the more populous states should be pleased to pay for your rural state? jeff47 Aug 2012 #302

You in the more populous states are more than adequately represented in the House, where spending Skidmore Aug 2012 #306

That's a lovely theory. The problem is reality. jeff47 Aug 2012 #312

The big states subsidize the small ones? hughee99 Aug 2012 #323

Go through the list at the bottom of the graphic jeff47 Aug 2012 #325

Only 18 states don't get back more than they pay in. hughee99 Aug 2012 #331

When your goal is to prove small states are forgotten jeff47 Aug 2012 #358

I'm not trying to prove small states are being forgotten, hughee99 Aug 2012 #359

I would get rid of the electoral college Rosa Luxemburg Aug 2012 #299

How about starting with a change in the Senate filibuster rules? alstephenson Aug 2012 #303

This is a bogus argument. alarimer Aug 2012 #317

I'm not conceding to someone who doesn't know the definition of "bogus" CreekDog Aug 2012 #318

The word was used correctly. FBaggins Aug 2012 #327

The structure of the US Government was designed to *PROTECT SLAVEHOLDING STATES*. nt Romulox Aug 2012 #322

This message was self-deleted by its author FBaggins Aug 2012 #329

I live in Connecticut and don't want Texas, Florida, etc. to control everything Jennicut Aug 2012 #324

Yes, according to the OP. SlimJimmy Aug 2012 #342

I still cannot believe Rhode island is a state. What, their entire population ChairmanAgnostic Aug 2012 #326

The population of RI is larger than the population of VT, WY, ND, SD, AK, DE or MT cali Aug 2012 #332

I know, I was just joshin. ChairmanAgnostic Aug 2012 #334

Seven states, including our Biden's home state, hughee99 Aug 2012 #333

By design... discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2012 #383

By design, slavery was legal as was counting slaves as 3/5ths of a person CreekDog Aug 2012 #385

the federal government... discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2012 #386

So what? It doesn't anymore. What is the veneration for the compromises of a 200 year old idea? CreekDog Aug 2012 #389

beyond article V... discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2012 #391