General Discussion

DENVERPOPS

(13,003 posts)

42. Thanks for your explanation.

Mon Jan 24, 2022, 03:46 PM

Jan 2022

I am looking at your facts & trying to understand them and see why it works the way it does.......

My first question would be:

"By apportioning equal representation in the Senate to each State, the interests of the citizens of less populous states are protected from simply being dictated by the more populous states".

But can't the opposite be true, as we are seeing now, that a relatively small group of people are controlling a much larger segment of the population in the U.S. ???????????

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

73 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Maybe they got it wrong in the 1700"s???? - [View all] packman Jan 2022 OP

That's why they invented constitutional amendments up to us now can't go on blaming the founders Walleye Jan 2022 #1

Which requires 2/3 of those states (including the red ones) to agree to them relayerbob Jan 2022 #2

A system designed to deny the majority their rights. paleotn Jan 2022 #11

That would be wrong, MarineCombatEngineer Jan 2022 #51

Thanks MCE DENVERPOPS Jan 2022 #55

Always a pleasure DENVERPOPS. MarineCombatEngineer Jan 2022 #60

Changing equal representation in the Senate requires *all* states to agree. sir pball Jan 2022 #70

Yes, that is absolutely correct, MarineCombatEngineer Jan 2022 #72

I don't think Madison and the other framers of the Constitution ever believed it would Poiuyt Jan 2022 #3

Sorry, but compared to the rest of the democratic West, they fucked up. paleotn Jan 2022 #10

It's still up to us to correct it somehow nobody else is gonna do it Walleye Jan 2022 #12

That deck is loaded too. paleotn Jan 2022 #15

We know that. I like to say my mom was born in a country where women didn't have the right to vote Walleye Jan 2022 #16

Jeffrsons greatest intellectual failure is that he did not conceive the industrial revolution that Volaris Jan 2022 #4

But was it conceivable to them then? treestar Jan 2022 #9

Massachusetts was already beginning to 'industrialize'...so in that sense, the ''northern states' Volaris Jan 2022 #13

We were shipping all our raw materials to England Voltaire2 Jan 2022 #18

They were not all slave owners treestar Jan 2022 #5

10 of the first 12 presidents were Voltaire2 Jan 2022 #20

The first 12 presidents did not treestar Jan 2022 #21

Oh quite a few years them did both. Voltaire2 Jan 2022 #24

My understanding is that it was 8 of the first 12 onenote Jan 2022 #23

You're missing two. Voltaire2 Jan 2022 #25

I stand corrected. onenote Jan 2022 #27

Reading that, though, shows that things are not treestar Jan 2022 #28

Owning another human is just wrong. Voltaire2 Jan 2022 #36

There would be "no excuses" today but then treestar Jan 2022 #38

No it was wrong then and there were many Voltaire2 Jan 2022 #39

Which I am not doing. treestar Jan 2022 #41

I've always thought that the Senate, as a concept, was a bad idea. Haggard Celine Jan 2022 #6

So you want a unicameral system? Cuthbert Allgood Jan 2022 #43

What I'd really rather have is a parliamentary system. Haggard Celine Jan 2022 #46

It's flawed... Zeitghost Jan 2022 #56

That's all true. Haggard Celine Jan 2022 #58

I live in the second smallest state in the Union.... paleotn Jan 2022 #7

This message was self-deleted by its author LudwigPastorius Jan 2022 #29

The point being that both population and states are involved in legislation. Cuthbert Allgood Jan 2022 #44

I think the bigger blunder was when they voted to cap the House at 435 Poiuyt Jan 2022 #8

1929 permanent reapportionment act. Voltaire2 Jan 2022 #22

That is a law, even if it has the word "permanent" in the title. Bettie Jan 2022 #66

Yup. Not only just a law, a really bad law. Voltaire2 Jan 2022 #69

Because it would dilute their individual power Bettie Jan 2022 #71

Amen LudwigPastorius Jan 2022 #30

Wish it was simple I_UndergroundPanther Jan 2022 #31

I'd like to see the SCOTUS expanded based on population. One Justice per X number of citizens. nt Progressive Jones Jan 2022 #48

At very least Bettie Jan 2022 #65

Great points. nt Progressive Jones Jan 2022 #67

I thought the concept was WhiteTara Jan 2022 #14

Smaller states thought they would be dominated treestar Jan 2022 #17

Unicameral systems have their own problems. Cuthbert Allgood Jan 2022 #45

Which are ? treestar Jan 2022 #61

Perhaps, but we are stuck with it now, it can't be changed. DetroitLegalBeagle Jan 2022 #19

We can't get rid of the Senate but maybe there's a way to limit its power FakeNoose Jan 2022 #26

More dramatically illustrated DENVERPOPS Jan 2022 #32

... Crepuscular Jan 2022 #40

Thanks for your explanation. DENVERPOPS Jan 2022 #42

... Crepuscular Jan 2022 #47

Okay DENVERPOPS Jan 2022 #49

... Crepuscular Jan 2022 #52

Thanks DENVERPOPS Jan 2022 #54

This message was self-deleted by its author Crepuscular Jan 2022 #53

It's not as though the Founding Fathers PoindexterOglethorpe Jan 2022 #33

Most of the other British colonies turned out pretty well IronLionZion Jan 2022 #34

As a thought experiment ymetca Jan 2022 #35

I agree. Voltaire2 Jan 2022 #37

But there is already enough for everyone, everywhere. Lurker Deluxe Jan 2022 #59

Good question! ymetca Jan 2022 #73

4/5 of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention did not own slaves Jose Garcia Jan 2022 #50

But the majority of states that passed & ratified the Const'n did allow it Bucky Jan 2022 #64

I can certainly see the reasons for a bicameral legislature ... Straw Man Jan 2022 #57

It was a clever solution for 1787. Bucky Jan 2022 #62

I don't know about the 1700s sarisataka Jan 2022 #63

No, they intended this result, to protect slaveholders. lagomorph777 Jan 2022 #68