General Discussion

CreekDog

(46,192 posts)

241. i want equal power with you, we are both citizens but i have less share of congress

Reply to cali (Reply #239)

Mon Aug 6, 2012, 05:00 AM

Aug 2012

but you want more power for you individually than i have.

because you think this unfair setup is fair.

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