General Discussion

DanTex

(20,709 posts)

140. Well, you are certainly making a very conservative argument.

Mon Apr 21, 2014, 02:56 PM

Apr 2014

Anti-urbanism is a very conservative idea (e.g. Sarah Palin claiming that "real Americans" live in small towns), and you are taking it to an extreme by stating that urban people actually deserve less per capita representation in government as rural people. I have no idea whether you are actually conservative or whether you have some progressive views on some issues also, but the argument you are making is heard from conservatives.

I'm not calling you a racist, let's be clear. I'm saying that you would rather not have race be part of the conversation, because you don't want to be reminded that the system of unequal representation that you are in favor of results in minorities getting less representation. For example, right now there are a grand total of two African American senators -- and for a while recently there were zero. And more generally, entrenched inequality like what you are defending has a long history in this country, and race is certainly a part of that history.

No, I don't think you are racist, but I do think you would rather ignore the race aspects of this discussion because it makes it much more uncomfortable for you to defend entrenched inequality and political privilege for certain groups of mainly white people.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

376 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

How can we have democracy when half the population holds 20% of the Senate? [View all] CreekDog Apr 2014 OP

We can't-- we have a republic... TreasonousBastard Apr 2014 #1

then why have any democracy? CreekDog Apr 2014 #5

Remember we had that? King George ring a bell oneofthe99 Apr 2014 #8

That was Plato's answer. TreasonousBastard Apr 2014 #11

how did the constitution protect slaves? CreekDog Apr 2014 #36

It didn't... TreasonousBastard Apr 2014 #48

so if you're explaining how the Senate was created to put slaves down CreekDog Apr 2014 #50

Huh? The Senate was to stop big states like Pennsylvania... TreasonousBastard Apr 2014 #58

Yet what we have now is small red states like Wyoming thucythucy Apr 2014 #116

If CA knows better than WY ManiacJoe Apr 2014 #154

Let me see if I have this right. thucythucy Apr 2014 #169

Our country is called the United States for a reason. Jenoch Apr 2014 #176

Of course it was "an intentional thing." thucythucy Apr 2014 #182

So you would prefer that the U.S. Senate be abolished? Jenoch Apr 2014 #184

It won't happen in our lifetimes, certainly. thucythucy Apr 2014 #185

In Minnesota we have a law in which an employer Jenoch Apr 2014 #191

That is a very enlightened law you have in Minnesota. thucythucy Apr 2014 #247

38 million Californians need to have more of a say than 600,000 Wyomingans CreekDog Apr 2014 #220

The 38 million CA residents do have more say. ManiacJoe Apr 2014 #230

The current structure of the senate didn't stop thucythucy Apr 2014 #256

I am willing to take the good with the bad. ManiacJoe Apr 2014 #262

Well California would support protecting gays from discrimination, Wyoming does not CreekDog Apr 2014 #300

I appologize for your misunderstanding. ManiacJoe Apr 2014 #305

Interesting take Savannahmann Apr 2014 #168

Republicans run the federal House because Democrats stayed home in 2010, thucythucy Apr 2014 #172

Actually, Wyoming is also over-represented in the house. DanTex Apr 2014 #207

More powerful than 53 California representatives! Art_from_Ark Apr 2014 #222

Per capita, yes. States are not people, you know. DanTex Apr 2014 #224

Each state has equal rights under the laws of the US, Art_from_Ark Apr 2014 #228

Of course, the good ol' "that's just the way it is" defense. DanTex Apr 2014 #233

Actually, more like the "that's the way it should be" defense. badtoworse Apr 2014 #235

Except for the lack of any rationale for the "should" part... DanTex Apr 2014 #239

There's planty of rationale. It just doesn't suit your agenda. badtoworse Apr 2014 #303

Nonsense Art_from_Ark Apr 2014 #236

Big states also have more people. One person, one vote. That's equality. DanTex Apr 2014 #242

But it's NOT one person, one vote in Presidential elections Art_from_Ark Apr 2014 #249

Yes, the electoral college is also dumb. DanTex Apr 2014 #253

The majority can always run over the one elitist they put in charge Jack Rabbit Apr 2014 #16

We are a republic based on democratic principals pipoman Apr 2014 #21

so you're saying that our system is based on 18th century models, and shouldn't be changed CreekDog Apr 2014 #200

You will find BlindTiresias Apr 2014 #212

what defense would YOU put in place DonCoquixote Apr 2014 #287

What would the benefit be of one person in charge pnwmom Apr 2014 #310

Depends on the person, but... TreasonousBastard Apr 2014 #371

"Depends on the person." And that makes it entirely not worth the risk. pnwmom Apr 2014 #372

And what reward is there without risk? TreasonousBastard Apr 2014 #373

There's always some risk. But I prefer reasonable risk to insane risk.n/t pnwmom Apr 2014 #374

Except the House no longer represents the population. MohRokTah Apr 2014 #28

For now. TreasonousBastard Apr 2014 #33

Gerrymandering goes both ways in many instances. Jenoch Apr 2014 #118

There is a twenty year cycle for redistricting Gothmog Apr 2014 #203

Texas and Tom DeLay threw that cycle overboard. MohRokTah Apr 2014 #215

apportionment is the bigger deal joshcryer Apr 2014 #282

How does giving some people more influence than others reduce tyranny of the majority? DanTex Apr 2014 #52

So, find a better way... TreasonousBastard Apr 2014 #64

A better way? OK, how about changing the senate so that each voter has equal influence. DanTex Apr 2014 #67

Interesting thought... TreasonousBastard Apr 2014 #70

No, it won't happen. DanTex Apr 2014 #72

Not to mention, the people of the District of Columbia, thucythucy Apr 2014 #179

Take a hint... Hip_Flask Apr 2014 #199

not true. when i lived in Arizona and Utah, I had no problem with CA having more power CreekDog Apr 2014 #221

You don't seem concerned... Hip_Flask Apr 2014 #240

I don't think the evidence supports your claim. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Apr 2014 #327

The two are unrelated... Hip_Flask Apr 2014 #330

Which is why rural electrification and the TVA Erich Bloodaxe BSN Apr 2014 #332

No, you take a hint CreekDog Apr 2014 #365

Copa Cabana!!! NYC_SKP Apr 2014 #366

I'm tired of people who seem to think that "republic" and "democracy" are mutually exclusive terms. Spider Jerusalem Apr 2014 #121

The reason for the "imbalance of power" in the Senate Art_from_Ark Apr 2014 #299

We have a democratic republic. This nation has always operated as a hybrid. blm Apr 2014 #153

A republic is a type of a democracy. phleshdef Apr 2014 #193

I'm somewhat off topic, but MI voters' banning affirmative action at UM is a case of the majority AlinPA Apr 2014 #370

It was never intended to be a democracy oneofthe99 Apr 2014 #2

so you're saying democracies don't work, therefore, it's good to do things CreekDog Apr 2014 #7

good reading oneofthe99 Apr 2014 #9

Philosophy guy here BlindTiresias Apr 2014 #15

I'm just throwing it out there for the OP to read , she could also read the Republic by Plato oneofthe99 Apr 2014 #17

The history of republics BlindTiresias Apr 2014 #18

My argument is for present time oneofthe99 Apr 2014 #19

Ideologies look towards the future BlindTiresias Apr 2014 #20

The history of every form of government stinks AngryAmish Apr 2014 #27

Will you give your definition of a 'republic', please? muriel_volestrangler Apr 2014 #23

Don't run away from what you posted CreekDog Apr 2014 #223

My statement was clear oneofthe99 Apr 2014 #243

you ran away from it, you were quoting it and then when questioned you said... CreekDog Apr 2014 #255

I didn't run away , It's not my definition of what a republic or oneofthe99 Apr 2014 #261

Supposedly the Republic is the best system in the World yeoman6987 Apr 2014 #26

That doesn't make it right. DanTex Apr 2014 #45

Ten states have 20 senators - 20% . . . Journeyman Apr 2014 #3

thanks, too many numbers running in my head! CreekDog Apr 2014 #6

I think the 2 senators per state is outdated myself. cui bono Apr 2014 #4

It was actually by design. The House is proportional represention. joshcryer Apr 2014 #10

Keep in mind that even though Wyoming may have the same number of Senators as... Shandris Apr 2014 #12

But the boundaries of states have been set up pretty arbitrarily muriel_volestrangler Apr 2014 #24

NYC and upstate NY MIGHT be one of the few areas where that is true... Shandris Apr 2014 #375

But it goes more with accidents of history than type of place muriel_volestrangler Apr 2014 #376

Are you saying that the understandings/beliefs/concerns of the people in, say, Staten Island DanTex Apr 2014 #69

I think the last thing we want is to pay attention to the beliefs or concerns of Staten Island theboss Apr 2014 #146

well the Senate is such that it would be akin to Staten Island getting 2 senators... CreekDog Apr 2014 #226

that's ridiculous. i lived in 3 different states and i am the same person CreekDog Apr 2014 #225

The Senate represents the states not the poeple. ManiacJoe Apr 2014 #13

how does that work out by party? hfojvt Apr 2014 #14

the question wasn't asking to rerun the 2012 election under the scenario you cited CreekDog Apr 2014 #227

It's always surprising how many pipoman Apr 2014 #22

That's not it. DanTex Apr 2014 #39

Of course by "more equitable" pipoman Apr 2014 #165

Of course, I don't expect the privileged class to simply give up their privileges. DanTex Apr 2014 #195

The Senate represents states. The House is based on population. NutmegYankee Apr 2014 #25

But minority rights are not defined by the votes in the Senate muriel_volestrangler Apr 2014 #29

What are you responding to? NutmegYankee Apr 2014 #30

I was responding to your invocation of minority rights muriel_volestrangler Apr 2014 #296

Minority Rights are part of what seperates a republic apart from a pure democracy. NutmegYankee Apr 2014 #306

That doesn't make it right. DanTex Apr 2014 #65

Not fundamental at all - in fact, it doesn't exist any more NutmegYankee Apr 2014 #73

Yes, it was fundamental, at the time. DanTex Apr 2014 #74

No, 3/5th was never of of central importance. NutmegYankee Apr 2014 #75

3/5ths was of central importance to black men in this country CreekDog Apr 2014 #78

Isn't that nice. Shame the topic was the Constitution and Constitutional Convention. NutmegYankee Apr 2014 #80

you're shaming me for brining up slavery in a discussion of minority rights CreekDog Apr 2014 #82

I and DanTex were discussing the Senate. NutmegYankee Apr 2014 #98

well DanTex isn't defending you CreekDog Apr 2014 #101

Defend me from what? NutmegYankee Apr 2014 #105

I think race is probably a touchy subject for people arguing in favor of entrenched inequality. DanTex Apr 2014 #99

If you wish to make such an accusation - NutmegYankee Apr 2014 #133

OK. People arguing in favor of entrenched inequality (i.e. you) DanTex Apr 2014 #136

That word salad is your accusation? NutmegYankee Apr 2014 #139

Well, you are certainly making a very conservative argument. DanTex Apr 2014 #140

Whatever NutmegYankee Apr 2014 #141

It's silly to argue that the house "offsets" the Senate. DanTex Apr 2014 #142

You just keep missing the point. NutmegYankee Apr 2014 #143

you won't accept a middle position CreekDog Apr 2014 #232

How was it important to the slaves in the south?? eom yawnmaster Apr 2014 #353

It empowered slave states over non-slave states, helping keep slaves from freedom CreekDog Apr 2014 #355

those against slavery wanted it to be 0/5! Counting a slave as anything over 0 gave... yawnmaster Apr 2014 #356

the slaves were human beings. they wanted to be counted fully and have full rights. CreekDog Apr 2014 #357

You're not paying attention FBaggins Apr 2014 #358

QUOTE me where i said that what the slaves wanted was considered in the debate CreekDog Apr 2014 #359

Easy FBaggins Apr 2014 #364

Do you really think they, the slaves, had much, if any, knowledge about how the constitution... yawnmaster Apr 2014 #360

do you think they needed any special knowledge to want to be thought of as human beings? CreekDog Apr 2014 #361

what are you arguing?? what does this have to do with the 3/5 count??? yawnmaster Apr 2014 #362

you don't think every detail of a slave's position in this country would be of interest to them? CreekDog Apr 2014 #363

That is right, I don't think many even knew there was a debate going on. Do you realize that... yawnmaster Apr 2014 #369

Again, a bicameral legislature doesn't have to be grossly unequal. DanTex Apr 2014 #81

Then, why have two houses? joeglow3 Apr 2014 #86

For checks and balances. DanTex Apr 2014 #88

Then why not have 10 houses? joeglow3 Apr 2014 #128

I don't know why. Maybe two isn't the magic number. DanTex Apr 2014 #130

it is a REGIONAL checks and balance, ftmp. That is why it is not based on population. eom yawnmaster Apr 2014 #354

There is no reason for two houses if they are both by apportionment. NutmegYankee Apr 2014 #87

Sure there is, for checks and balances. DanTex Apr 2014 #95

Why spend any money in a state like Wyoming in a pure apportioned legislative body? NutmegYankee Apr 2014 #102

For the same reason that we spend money in Staten Island. DanTex Apr 2014 #108

You need to sit back and think about this some more. NutmegYankee Apr 2014 #113

States are not people, any more than corporations are. DanTex Apr 2014 #120

Sigh NutmegYankee Apr 2014 #122

Really? That's your answer? DanTex Apr 2014 #123

the argument may be pointless CreekDog Apr 2014 #216

No it doesn't and James Madison agreed with you Progressive dog Apr 2014 #183

you do realize that those supporting slavery wanted the 3/5 to be 5/5 a full representation... yawnmaster Apr 2014 #352

Our system is designed to protect minority rights hack89 Apr 2014 #31

so was slavery CreekDog Apr 2014 #34

Insulting people like that pintobean Apr 2014 #37

that's not your decision to make CreekDog Apr 2014 #42

No shit, nor yours. pintobean Apr 2014 #46

now you're swearing? CreekDog Apr 2014 #49

You're so cute pintobean Apr 2014 #56

sounds like your post against insults wasn't sincere CreekDog Apr 2014 #62

The use of profanity not directed at a person isn't an insult. nt NutmegYankee Apr 2014 #76

are you answering for him? CreekDog Apr 2014 #77

Just correcting you. NutmegYankee Apr 2014 #79

Your corrections in this thread included "shaming" me for mentioning slavery in this thread CreekDog Apr 2014 #91

What? NutmegYankee Apr 2014 #110

Obviously, more so than you pintobean Apr 2014 #90

LOL....ffs pipoman Apr 2014 #166

you disapprove? good. CreekDog Apr 2014 #234

Not disapproval. ..disbelief pipoman Apr 2014 #315

Nothing man made is perfect hack89 Apr 2014 #38

This has nothing to do with protecting minority rights. DanTex Apr 2014 #41

Sure is it hack89 Apr 2014 #44

But giving some people more power than others arbitrarily doesn't make things better. DanTex Apr 2014 #47

True democracy would destroy America hack89 Apr 2014 #51

you mean like if the presidency were decided by 51% of the popular vote? CreekDog Apr 2014 #53

No - there are serious checks to an imperial presidency hack89 Apr 2014 #61

you can already see that in states Niceguy1 Apr 2014 #111

The Bay Area has been voting to give you more support CreekDog Apr 2014 #237

politics should effect basic services Niceguy1 Apr 2014 #244

Equal representation doesn't require "true Democracy". DanTex Apr 2014 #55

I am loathe to change anything hack89 Apr 2014 #59

That's the very reason things won't change -- the people with power don't want to give it up. DanTex Apr 2014 #63

But they won't give it up if it will harm them hack89 Apr 2014 #66

Exactly. People with privilege don't want to give up that privilege. DanTex Apr 2014 #68

This is where your argument fails Lonusca Apr 2014 #83

In that case, the question is, why doesn't Staten Island get two senators to defend itself? DanTex Apr 2014 #85

Because it's not a state. Lonusca Apr 2014 #106

States aren't people, and state lines don't justify gross inequality of representation. DanTex Apr 2014 #112

I agree with you there. Lonusca Apr 2014 #131

The thing is, there are little guys that don't live in little states. DanTex Apr 2014 #132

"and yet they don't get two senators of their own to protect them from the bullies." EX500rider Apr 2014 #268

No, they don't. They have to share 2 senators with 20 million other people. DanTex Apr 2014 #270

They have 2 Senators like every other American does. EX500rider Apr 2014 #271

Not so good with math, huh. I guess division and proportionality are kind of advanced concepts. DanTex Apr 2014 #274

No, its quite true, EVERY American has 2 Senators. (not counting DC) EX500rider Apr 2014 #276

But the amount of representation per capita, which is what matters, is grossly unequal. DanTex Apr 2014 #279

Which is what matter to you you mean, I like the current system. EX500rider Apr 2014 #284

It's what matters in terms of equal representation. DanTex Apr 2014 #289

The people HAVE equal representation in the House and the States have equal representation.. EX500rider Apr 2014 #316

Yes, the senate was designed as an unequal, undemocratic body. This is a bad thing. DanTex Apr 2014 #320

The "problem" is that you can't differentiate between an objective and a side effect badtoworse Apr 2014 #321

Of course I can. But the objective doesn't justify the inequality of representation. DanTex Apr 2014 #322

We'll just have to disagree about whether the structure of the Senate is good or bad. badtoworse Apr 2014 #323

Would you change the electoral college? Or give representation to DC in the house/senate? DanTex Apr 2014 #333

DC representation, No. Electoral College, maybe - I need to think about it. badtoworse Apr 2014 #334

How do you justify DC not even having one representative in the house? DanTex Apr 2014 #335

"That seems like a pretty straightforward case of taxation without representation" badtoworse Apr 2014 #337

Inequality would be the states with large populations Jenoch Apr 2014 #328

States are not people. They don't need to be equally representated. DanTex Apr 2014 #331

Unequal in your mind, making the States have some equal rights in my mind. EX500rider Apr 2014 #341

no they don't and in DC they have no representation in the Senate, do you like that? CreekDog Apr 2014 #325

Yes they DO have equal in the House and DC was set up like that for a reason. EX500rider Apr 2014 #340

Half right FBaggins Apr 2014 #342

No, they don't, stop posting nonsense CreekDog Apr 2014 #343

Wasn't talking about DC and i even said "except DC" in a previous post. EX500rider Apr 2014 #344

you were being an apologist for the 2nd class status of DC citizens CreekDog Apr 2014 #345

I am sure MUSt know what I meant more then me, huh? LOL EX500rider Apr 2014 #346

"than" CreekDog Apr 2014 #347

And who doesn't love a grammar nazi? EX500rider Apr 2014 #348

Is your caps lock key broken? pintobean Apr 2014 #349

no, but sometimes that finger is busy CreekDog Apr 2014 #350

That's no surprise. pintobean Apr 2014 #351

no, they share their senators with 20 million other people CreekDog Apr 2014 #324

The make up (statewide election, 6 year terms, and separation of powers) would still be the purpose TheKentuckian Apr 2014 #231

Point taken. nt Lonusca Apr 2014 #308

Yes, people are selfish. DanTex Apr 2014 #196

RI has many urban minorities hack89 Apr 2014 #202

Not really. RI is whiter than the nation as a whole. DanTex Apr 2014 #204

Who knows? hack89 Apr 2014 #206

Rhode Island's interests are a lot more like New York's and California's than Wyoming CreekDog Apr 2014 #241

No. They just like having two Senators hack89 Apr 2014 #254

Rhode Islanders opinion on war, mass transit, global warming are ignored CreekDog Apr 2014 #257

Several huge assumptions there hack89 Apr 2014 #286

Maybe because most people don't believe pipoman Apr 2014 #171

California has stronger laws protecting its rural environment than Wyoming does CreekDog Apr 2014 #245

"Rural environment", not so much the people who live there... pipoman Apr 2014 #294

California has stronger laws to protect people than Wyoming (saw you try to move the goalposts btw) CreekDog Apr 2014 #295

The real problem edhopper Apr 2014 #32

because there aren't enough House seats CreekDog Apr 2014 #35

That's a good point. TDale313 Apr 2014 #285

Because of the collusion between the two parties during redistricting alarimer Apr 2014 #205

Leaving aside all the arguments below, is the problem with America right now the Senate? hughee99 Apr 2014 #40

I'm surprised that people are actually defending this grossly undemocratic practice. DanTex Apr 2014 #43

i'm guessing based on some of the responses that we'd end up with more gun control CreekDog Apr 2014 #54

That sounds about right! DanTex Apr 2014 #57

Now it makes sense why you would advocate for this. nt hack89 Apr 2014 #92

so that's the minority you were concerned about CreekDog Apr 2014 #93

Minority has other meanings besides race hack89 Apr 2014 #103

you used the word "racist" not me CreekDog Apr 2014 #107

Because you think you are subtle hack89 Apr 2014 #109

The US Constitution was a compromise designed to protect the "rights" of slave-owners. Romulox Apr 2014 #60

Not with the district system, no. NuclearDem Apr 2014 #71

The system was designed so that Senators represented the states, not the people. badtoworse Apr 2014 #84

did it work beautifully to pass the Civil Rights Act? Answer: No CreekDog Apr 2014 #89

We still have a country functioning under the same constitution more than 200 years later. badtoworse Apr 2014 #94

which sort of made sense when there were 13 independent former colonies Warren Stupidity Apr 2014 #187

We still have great differences between the states badtoworse Apr 2014 #213

this is on every issue CreekDog Apr 2014 #246

States really are independent functioning political units with interests driven by local issues badtoworse Apr 2014 #307

We can't, we don't, we won't, and ..... oldhippie Apr 2014 #96

We can't get the red out Apr 2014 #97

Let's cut the crap. MicaelS Apr 2014 #100

Obviously - nt badtoworse Apr 2014 #104

+1 n/t X_Digger Apr 2014 #117

democratic representation, proportional to the population is not "crap" CreekDog Apr 2014 #126

Umm, no. Actually what the OP is calling for is equality. DanTex Apr 2014 #127

let's cut the crap Warren Stupidity Apr 2014 #188

Unfortunately there is nothing that will be done about it. hrmjustin Apr 2014 #114

One must understand the problems with a pure democracy and why we have a republic... yawnmaster Apr 2014 #115

Having a republic doesn't require grossly unequal representation. DanTex Apr 2014 #125

A democracy would not work for the U.S. Jenoch Apr 2014 #119

That doesn't justify unequal representation. DanTex Apr 2014 #124

The U.S. Federal system of representation of The People Jenoch Apr 2014 #134

It was a useful compromise for the 18th century, I'll give you that. DanTex Apr 2014 #135

"Changing to a more equal system wouldn't result in large population states having all the power..." Jenoch Apr 2014 #137

I think each person should have equal representation. Pretty simple. DanTex Apr 2014 #138

You're breaking it down to individuals. Jenoch Apr 2014 #152

I know how the government was set up. That doesn't make it just. DanTex Apr 2014 #198

Where do you live? Jenoch Apr 2014 #265

Right now I live in NYC. DanTex Apr 2014 #266

You are still confused. Jenoch Apr 2014 #267

I don't care about what was intended. I care about equality. DanTex Apr 2014 #269

Slavery was abolished 149 years ago. Jenoch Apr 2014 #275

They wouldn't have zero say. They would have the same amount of say per capita DanTex Apr 2014 #278

I'm not in favor of mob rule. Jenoch Apr 2014 #283

Me neither. But I am in favor of equal representation. DanTex Apr 2014 #288

Staten Island does not get its own senator because Jenoch Apr 2014 #290

Again, I absolutely understand why the senate was set up the way it was. DanTex Apr 2014 #291

The people of Staten Island get equal representation in the house.. Jenoch Apr 2014 #292

Right, but not in the senate. Which means that overall they are underrepresented. DanTex Apr 2014 #293

it's working as the founding fathers intended? you mean half slave half free nation? CreekDog Apr 2014 #248

Yes it is working as it was intebded. Jenoch Apr 2014 #272

they intended we'd fight a civil war and lose hundreds of thousands of lives? CreekDog Apr 2014 #298

Fascinating that support for unequal representation and for the NRA are almost 100% correlated here. DanTex Apr 2014 #129

Fascinating that support for these guys is here at all. lumberjack_jeff Apr 2014 #147

no, and i'm getting tired of correcting you CreekDog Apr 2014 #251

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results lumberjack_jeff Apr 2014 #273

was it "great" for black people? CreekDog Apr 2014 #297

'Mob rule'? Erich Bloodaxe BSN Apr 2014 #329

The elephant in the room is RKBA badtoworse Apr 2014 #180

And it's pink pintobean Apr 2014 #189

Well, that's one of the elephants. Race is another one. DanTex Apr 2014 #197

What privilege? badtoworse Apr 2014 #208

The privilege of over-representation in the Senate. DanTex Apr 2014 #211

That is not a privilege. Representation in the Senate was never intended to be based on population. badtoworse Apr 2014 #217

Of course it's a privilege. DanTex Apr 2014 #219

I'm not justifying anything - there is no need to. badtoworse Apr 2014 #229

Of course you are. You are justifying inequality of representation. DanTex Apr 2014 #238

How can we have a Republic in which 20% of the states have 51% of the Representatives? n/t lumberjack_jeff Apr 2014 #144

Oh that's completely fair because the op lives in one of the 20%.. pipoman Apr 2014 #319

because democracies are based on the principle of one person one vote CreekDog Apr 2014 #326

The House is more evenly distributed by population KamaAina Apr 2014 #145

you're asking about party affiliation CreekDog Apr 2014 #150

No, I meant small-d democratic KamaAina Apr 2014 #151

well then what is your solution? CreekDog Apr 2014 #156

Fair, nonpartisan redistricting like we now have in California KamaAina Apr 2014 #157

and for the Senate? CreekDog Apr 2014 #158

Don't have a solution there KamaAina Apr 2014 #159

if you don't have a "solution" then you do think the Senate is a problem CreekDog Apr 2014 #161

Maybe that's why I don't have a solution KamaAina Apr 2014 #163

It's the United STATES of America. MineralMan Apr 2014 #148

did i ask you how difficult it would be? no. CreekDog Apr 2014 #155

Your question deserves to be disregarded pintobean Apr 2014 #160

are you in charge of what questions get asked around here? CreekDog Apr 2014 #164

No one needs to be in charge pintobean Apr 2014 #167

so you're saying James Madison floated a turd when he opposed the non-proportional Senate? CreekDog Apr 2014 #170

It sounds like you pintobean Apr 2014 #175

..."it sounds like you don't want us posting things you disagree with" badtoworse Apr 2014 #177

i didn't ask you not to post unless it violates the TOS or community standards CreekDog Apr 2014 #181

You didn't ask me any thing at all. MineralMan Apr 2014 #173

yes i did ask you a question CreekDog Apr 2014 #174

I think you misunderstand how DU works. MineralMan Apr 2014 #178

wrong. CreekDog Apr 2014 #192

If I have violated a DU rule, please alert on my post. MineralMan Apr 2014 #209

you were just wrong CreekDog Apr 2014 #210

Actually, anyone can post anything. MineralMan Apr 2014 #218

I don't think posters here really have any idea what "pure democracy" in the US would look like theboss Apr 2014 #149

nobody proposed a pure democracy. Warren Stupidity Apr 2014 #190

The Senate was never intended to be democratic, but as a check on the "mob rule" of the House... Humanist_Activist Apr 2014 #162

Nailed it. DemocraticWing Apr 2014 #281

I am in favor of bicameral legislatures. Democracyinkind Apr 2014 #186

Most of the western world has abolished bicameralism as we know it Hippo_Tron Apr 2014 #250

Regarding the overrepresentation of less populous states, it is still the norm in Western Europe ... Democracyinkind Apr 2014 #309

It is really quite simple if you think about it The Straight Story Apr 2014 #194

We are a Representative Republic, not a Democracy. Agnosticsherbet Apr 2014 #201

Our Senate was a compromise. Laelth Apr 2014 #214

which founders and which states supported that compromise? CreekDog Apr 2014 #258

I am not following you. Laelth Apr 2014 #259

you're saying the vote was unanimous? CreekDog Apr 2014 #263

It was unanimous - all 13 states ratified the constitution. badtoworse Apr 2014 #301

don't play games CreekDog Apr 2014 #302

Who's playing games? Rhode Island was the 13th state to ratify the constitution... badtoworse Apr 2014 #304

Count me among those who cannot follow you joeglow3 Apr 2014 #367

that the Senate was not proposed only as an equal proportioned body CreekDog Apr 2014 #368

Why the hostility? Laelth Apr 2014 #313

Not to nitpick, but you skipped about a decade of history there... Hippo_Tron Apr 2014 #264

Quite true. Laelth Apr 2014 #312

Message auto-removed Name removed Apr 2014 #252

I agree with you 100%, the Senate was a bad idea then and it's a bad idea now Hippo_Tron Apr 2014 #260

That's how the Romans did it. Laelth Apr 2014 #314

The Romans also had slavery and a whole lot of other things... Hippo_Tron Apr 2014 #318

The Senate is not there to respond to the demands of the people Warpy Apr 2014 #277

For states' power concerns, can I suggest the Penrose method of square root voting power? muriel_volestrangler Apr 2014 #311

You forgot one important thing Warpy Apr 2014 #339

It's also similar in role to the upper houses of some other bicameral legislatures. Gormy Cuss Apr 2014 #336

Thanks for getting the point. Warpy Apr 2014 #338

This is why Gerrymandering is such a vicous crime. bullimiami Apr 2014 #280

This is why we have the worst society for the common person in the developed world. Romulox Apr 2014 #317