The Senate gives rural conservatives too much power

[hardcoreliberal]

Why should North Dakota and Utah get equal representation?

No wonder nothing ever gets done in America. You guys have a system of government designed to keep the status quo going for as long as possible: It takes literally generations to get some real progress. The old people have to die and the young people have to elect new Senators before anything substantial can ever get accomplished.

I don't see gay marriage happening federally for another 20 years at the pace you guys are going. Forget about ever abolishing the death penalty. Gun control is not going to happen. Health care? HA. It's a miracle Obama has been able to get it this far. And the bill, already a watered down mess that doesn't really create a single payer system, is only going to be ripped to shreds and neutered in the Senate, if it even passes at all.

Rural conservatives fear change. It's just a worldwide fundamental truth. It doesn't matter which country you look at. In Canada, we have our rural conservatives just like you, just like Europe, just like Asia, just like anywhere. The difference is up here they don't have power. The parliamentary system is set up so that they can't override the will of the majority.

Not so for your system. Every single one of those red states gets two Senators, regardless of population. It's unfair and it's been the sole source of the slow as molasses progress of your social change. It took the supreme court to allow black kids to go to white schools. It wouldn't have happened then were it not for that. But even there, the supreme court is packed with life time appointed judges, and if they're conservative, you're fucked for generations. Which is the case right now, unfortunately, all thanks to one neo conservative president elected over 27 years ago. (And the one who stole the election about 9 years ago)

It's your system of government that's the biggest problem. Not to mention the corporately financed elections.

I don't know what the solution is.

[Captain Hilts]

1. It's the reason agricultural 'subsidies' are not seen as 'welfare', etc. nt

[1]

2. i agree. the citizens of new york city alone should just get to decide everything. they know best...

right?

[vadawg]

3. +10000 sometimes i can see the genius of the founding fathers in the way they set stuff up....

[hardcoreliberal]

5. The "genius" of the founding fathers is why you don't have a health care system in 2009

And it's why the one you're about to get is still pathetic.

[vadawg]

7. lol okay, if thats what you believe then knock yourself out mate

but i would rather have this style of government even with its faults than any other...

[paulsby]

19. it also means that ANY individual state

can and does recognize much greater rights than the feds do under the constitution. mine does. we have a explicit right to privacy in our constitution, and thus people in our state have greater protection against searches, seizures, etc. than do those under the federal standard and in many states.

the system is genius in this way, because each state is a laboratory of democracy in this respect. other states can look to states that expand rights or make innovative legislation and follow suit. and many states offer strong citizen initiatives, where a form of direct democracy is used statewide.

[Fumesucker]

37. That "direct democracy" stuff has worked out sooooo well for California..

:eyes:

I'm not a great fan of direct democracy, of course I'm not a great fan of any form of government that I'm aware of either, they basically all seem to suck to a great extent.

I think someone once said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.

Democracy assumes that a million people are smarter than one person, in my experience a committee is the only known form of life with multiple heads, mouths, stomachs and assholes but no fucking brain.

The major malfunction with every form of government I've ever had the misfortune to understand is that basically those who most desperately want power are those who get it. They are almost invariably the last people who should have power.

[paulsby]

48. the problem with california's version

is it allows the state CONSTITUTION to be amended by a mere majority of citizens. that's unique (and imo) stupid. but direct democracy for citizen initiatives is (imo) an excellent idea. according to our state constitution, citizen initiatives are actually a higher form of law than laws passed by legislature. THAT's called power to the people.

[cark]

50. Direct Democracy is a terrible idea

It is mob rule where 49.999% of a group can be made to live under the rules of 50.001% even though they are diameterically opposed to them. Do some study of constitutional history and learn about what the founding fathers thought about democracy and why. Laws should protect the rights of everyone and strive to allow everyone to live as freely as they can without needless tyranny from others that think they know best.

[paulsby]

52. i have done plenty of study of constitutional history, thx

and also used to live in a small new england town where direct democracy was exemplified by semi-annual raucous town meetings.

direct democracy is a nice ADJUNCT to representative democracy, and at the local level, it is quite effective.

people here wank all the time about how our representatives don't represent us, then would probably be the same ones whinging that direct democracy is bad too.

whatEver.

i am well aware of numerous pithy and insightful commentaries about direct democracy, the tyranny of the majority, bla bla.

i believe in The People (tm). you may not. i like our democratic republic, where states are laboratories of democracy, where people have a direct voice (in many cases) in their localities and state govt, etc.

[cark]

56. I agree

Keep government as local as possible.

[Fumesucker]

59. Like I said, I'm not enamored of any particular form of government.

And my experience with local politics has definitely soured me on local governance.

I'm guessing that if I were to get involved in politics at any higher level things would be at least as bad and probably worse.

In politics it's not the cream that rises to the top, it's the scum.

[Naturyl]

51. You'd rather have John Q. Redneck ruling you eternally?

I think the OP raises good points.

[alarimer]

42. No, it's because of corporate campaign contributions.

I am not sure if corporations existed back in the day, but the founding fathers certainly had no idea of the money that would go into buying politicians. Mark my words, 95% of our representatives in Congress are bought and paid for by corporations. Our presidential candidates are as well. Obama is no different than any other.

THIS is why we do not have universal health care. Money.

Public financing of campaign and no donations from citizens and especially none from corporations. We will not solve anything major until we get rid of corporate influence in politics.

[hardcoreliberal]

4. They deserve to have more than 2 Senators, that's for sure

What sense does it make for a state like Utah to have the same amount of representation as California?

[1]

6. ummm... that's the role of the house, cupcake...

[hardcoreliberal]

8. Yeah, and the Senate shuts it down

I'm talking about the Senate, not the House.

[1]

12. and the president gets to veto and the house and senate get to override...

apparently they haven't covered "checks and balances" in your emerging education yet.

don't worry, many schools wait until high school to get to that now.

all of your questions will be answered soon, cupcake.

hang in there...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

14. They don't. California has far more Representatives than Utah.

[amandabeech]

23. The sense is that we wouldn't have made it to the nation stage if the compromise hadn't been made

in our founding documents.

Things would have been unstable here for quite a bit of time, IMHO, and I don't think that Canada would have been quite happy with that.

I don't even think that the British would've liked it.

Our system can be unwieldy, but the small states will not give up their voice, and they can prevent amending our founding documents, as well.

I suggest that you concern yourself with something that may be changed in your lifetime. The composition of the Senate isn't one of them.

[kenny blankenship]

9. More than equal representation, you mean

Yes it's a creaky wheezing 18th century pile of scrap, but it's all we know and it's all we've got.

It's not a question of whether we can fix it. We've proven that we can't. The race is now on as to whether it blows up first, or becomes a completely redundant appendage to the Corporate State, and just gets pensioned off with a pink slip from Goldman Sachs and a faux gold watch.

[OHdem10]

10. Absolutely. Look who actually wrote the Health Bill--Gang of Six

[liberalpragmatist]

11. I agree with you

As do many political scientists, in fact. Even many of the Founders hated the Senate - Madison hated it, for example, and thought it's creation an enormous mistake.

Part of the problem was that the Founders never realized how big the country was going to get, and they didn't realize the level of inequality they were building into the system. At the time, Delaware was about 1/10 the size of Virginia, the largest state. Now, California is over 80 times the size of Wyoming.

The Founders also didn't anticipate partisanship, and so they assumed the Senate would basically defer to the House for the most part and be an amending chamber.

As a practical matter, however, there really isn't any easy way to change the way the Senate is structured. It's the one part of the Constitution that cannot be amended (although I suppose you could amend that provision, then amend the equal-representation provision.)

Two steps that would be a lot more practical, however, would be to:

(1) Abolish the filibuster - The Senate should be a majoritarian, 50-vote body.

(2) The Committee System and the seniority system should be significantly weakened.

Also, I think that...

(3) Infrastructure spending should be largely the preserve of an independent, national infrastructure bank. That would remove parochial concerns from many budget allocations. Perhaps a similar model could be developed for things like agricultural subsidies, etc. Basically, taking certain things out of the hands of legislators and into the hands of the executive departments.

[Alcibiades]

13. We should absolutely abolish the fillibuster

The rules of the Senate are not part of the Constitution itself, and the filibuster as we know it today was not really a common part of the workings of the Senate until the 1830s. When you combine the strange debate rules in the Senate with the overrepresentation of certain states, you get a remarkably undemocratic system.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

15. Never going to happen.

[Alcibiades]

18. Probably not

I'm sure Senators like the rules the way they are. Nonetheless, it would be good for America.

[amandabeech]

25. The founders knew partisanship very well.

That's why they spent so much time railing about it, and most of that time was spent railing about the other side.

They weren't gods, but they were some of the best politicians that we've ever had.

We'd be very lucky to have them back.

[stevedeshazer]

16. Don't worry. The US and Canada will Balkanize when the Wars For Water begin.

Less than 100 years from now, we'll see the nation of Cascadia.





The Northeast and Atlantic states can merge; the South shall rise again, Texas can just go to hell. SoCal can dry up with Arizona and Nevada.

We're keeping our water. 54' 40" or fight!

[leftstreet]

34. Cool flag

Sign this Washingtonian up for Cascadia!

[anonymous171]

70. FUCK YEAH! nt

[cherokeeprogressive]

17. Why stop with Wyoming and Utah?

Doesn't it matter that in the bottom 10 states ranked by population you have:

New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Delaware
Vermont?

Why do you even INCLUDE Utah in your post when it's ranked above all the states I listed? Do you consider the above four states to be red states? Or rural?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

24. Obviously only NY, NJ, CA, PA, MD, and MA should have representation in the Senate.

The rest of the country can just fuck off.

[Warren DeMontague]

27. You don't see the numerical unfairness in 34 Million Californians controlling the same 1/50th of the

Senate that 400,000 Wyoming Residents do?

I'm not expecting anything be done about it; I recognize that's the way it is. But- really- what that leads directly to is certain citizens wielding far more power than their numbers warrant, while others are effectively less-enfranchised. And it is directly responsible for the conservative tilt of our government, compared to where most of the people sit on the political spectrum.

Come on. If California -which has 1/10th of the US population- controlled 1/10th of the US Senate, do you think things like the drug war or the war on choice would have nearly as much traction? I don't.

[vadawg]

28. problem then is, why would the smaller states that have a totally different view than say NY, CA etc

stay in the union, they would be walked over all the time every time,

[Warren DeMontague]

32. I understand the logic used by the framers, and I like I said I don't even expect anything be done

about it.

Nevertheless, it could be acknowledged that the real world impact tends to be a skewing (at least right now; it wouldn't necessarily always be this way) of the US government towards a more socially conservative position than where the views of a majority of the citizens are.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

30. You really don't understand the structure of the US government at all, do you? n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

31. What, precisely, "don't I understand"?

No. Really. Explain to me what I don't understand, especially in the context of what I've actually written here.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

35. .

[Warren DeMontague]

36. That's not an answer. You made a charge, I think you should back it up.

You said, and I quote: "You really don't understand the structure of the US government at all, do you?"

Okay. So tell me what I don't understand. About the "structure of the US government".

Are you saying that California- which has 34 Million people, around 1/10th of the US Population - does NOT control 1/50th of the United States Senate? 2 Senators, from California, remember. Out of 100 total. 2/100=1/50. And Wyoming, which has approximately 400,000 people, at least last time I checked? 2 Senators. Out of 100 total. 2/100=1/50.

So, again, I ask you: WHAT THE FUCK DON'T I "UNDERSTAND ABOUT THE STRUCTURE OF THE US GOVERNMENT"???


Seriously. You made the statement, now back it up. I think that's fair. You want to tell me off, tell me I'm clueless, I don't know what I'm talking about, fine. So back it up.

I run into this all the time; people toss out these off-the-cuff bullshit charges like "you know nothing about what you're talking about, do you, har har" And then, when challenged to provide factual evidence about whatever the fuck they're saying, they run away or evade or get cute.

Don't do that. Back up your statement. Tell me where my facts are wrong.

Tell me what I don't understand about the structure of the US government.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

38. No. I am not your ninth grade civics teacher.

If you don't understand the purpose a bicameral legislature serves in the United States, I suggest you read some books. Books with words. In fact, I'm pretty sure this subject was covered on Schoolhouse Rock, so maybe you could start there.

[Warren DeMontague]

41. No, that's not what you said. You said I "don't understand the structure"

not the purpose.

9th Grade civics? Try 4th grade English, if you don't know the difference between the words "purpose" and "structure".

I said upthread that I understand why the Framers did it that way, and furthermore, I don't expect that anything can or even should be done about it. Nevertheless, at this point in time it leads to a skewing of the US government more towards the socially conservative side of the spectrum, compared to how large numbers of the populace- who live in dense urban areas, many of them in high population states- may feel about things.

But none of that really has to do with your dumb-ass charge, that I 'dont understand the structure of the US Government.' You made the charge, you know you were off base, you know you can't fucking back it up, and now you're doing exactly what I said you would- getting cute, evading, trying to change the subject.

Look, Jack, it's 3 very easy words- and I myself have been known to say them: "I Was Wrong".

That's what you say, because you talked out of your butt, and YOU WERE WRONG. Simple as that.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

60. Well fine then, you don't understand the purpose of the structure.

Nevertheless, at this point in time it leads to a skewing of the US government more towards the socially conservative side of the spectrum

No it doesn't.

[Warren DeMontague]

62. I guess that's as close as you're going to come to an acknowledgement that you were wrong.

Beyond that, I do believe it does skew the US gov't in a certain direction, and I think we're witnessing the results as we speak.

[anigbrowl]

43. It's kind of offset by our much larger representation in the house

You realise the house and senate are meant to serve different purposes, I hope.

[Warren DeMontague]

44. Yes. Like I said, I know why it was done that way, and I don't expect it to change.

But I think it's worth remembering when people float this crap about the US being a "center right nation" or the "all-powerful values voter". And right now you have conservative senators from lower population states who are positioned to be the one and only bottleneck on Health Insurance Reform.

So the discussion is timely, IMHO.

[anigbrowl]

45. well, you can't please all of the people all of the time

I live in an urban coastal area, so for sure I have different values and political goals from someone in the rural midwest. But then you could equally argue that we wouldn't have healthcare on the table at all if it wasn't for the greater urban representation in the house.

[Warren DeMontague]

47. I guess I'm old fashioned. You know, one person, one vote.

It's not about "pleasing all of the people all of the time"-- my point is, where do the majority of the citizens sit on the issues, vs. where does the government that obstensibly represents them sit?

Yes, the house probably comes closer to representing, numerically, the views of the population (although it's never going to be perfectly representational, of course)... but it's not an 'equal argument' to say we should be grateful just to have proportional representation in the HOTR, any more than it's an 'equal argument' to say "well, if this were a dictatorship, we'd all have to say we like eating dirt".

I mean, it's a discussion. I don't expect it to change, but we get treated to all sorts of broad proclamations about the conservative nature of the US populace... I don't think they hold water under analysis.

[cark]

54. The Reason This No Longer Works.

Is because this country wasn't designed to work this way. The federal constitution reserved the vast majority of the powers to the states. The actually role of the federal government was to be pretty limited. Small states originally couldn't have stopped something like HC because it wasn't supposed to be a power of the federal government. If progressive states wanted HC then they are free (and continue to be) to install their own program and if dinky states that don't want it would be free to forgo it. The original system small federal government while leaving states to experiment however their citizens wished was brilliant. Giving people choices instead of one group deciding one set of rules for everyone with no real escape seems like a great compromise.

[madville]

20. Have to be careful what you wish for, it'll bite you when power swings back the other way

The filibuster was a great tool for the Democrats when there were 55 Republicans in the Senate just a few short years ago, even though they didn't use it enough, they had the option.

Do you think the Democrats will be the majority party forever, from this point forward?

And just to comment on one of your points, many Democrats oppose further gun control in this country. I myself am a gun owner, collector, hunter, and concealed weapons license holder. A few things could be tweaked in the background check system but there shouldn't be any further restrictions placed on law abiding citizens with clean backgrounds, I could even think of a few restrictions which should be abolished or weakened.

[Kitsune]

55. "The filibuster was a great tool for the Democrats when there were 55 Republicans in the Senate"

.... are you from some strange alternate reality where elected Democrats have spines?

[Tumbulu]

21. And this is why the wrong wing nut radio and tv guys

have so much power. The people in rural areas have mostly these radio stations and they drive around much more listening to this hate mongering day in and out.

California needs to split itself into 4 states to get more senate seats, other large states should do this as well.

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. That is because your Constitution was written

after John Stuart Mill came with that wonderful creation called Proportional Representation.

The US Constitution precedes that by about 70 years, and the fear of faction (party) that they had, but did not find a solution to, haunted the founding fathers.

I suspect Mill looked at us and went... hmmm the theory is solid, but it needs a few improvements. Alas the US would need a few constitutional changes, and I don't see them coming anytime soon.

Oh and welcome to DU...

[Lyric]

26. From a former poli-sci major:

This is a simplified explanation, but it should convey the basics. The Senate was not originally meant to represent "the people." That's what the House was for. The Senate was meant to represent "the states" as entities, vaguely akin to the idea of a United Nations-like body in which all states large and small have two equal votes. That's why Senators were originally appointed by state leaders, not popularly elected. In order to get the Constitution ratified, the smaller states like Delaware and Rhode Island insisted upon being treated equally in the Senate to the larger states like New York. Their reasoning was that while New York might have more people, all states as sovereign entities deserved equal representation somewhere in the federal government. Thus, the bicameral system in which the House was for the people and the Senate for the states.

Of course, one could argue that when the Constitution was amended to make Senators elected by the people instead of appointed by the states, the inherent purpose and function of the Senate was also changed. With that argument, there's a very strong case for reforming the Senate's structure to be more proportional to the population of the states. I don't think it would go over well, though. The smaller states would never go for it (no matter what their political leaning) because they'd lose power. We can't amend the Constitution unless some of the smaller states go along with the idea. Since that's not likely to ever happen, it's really just an academic exercise.

[Bill McBlueState]

64. People who argue against the Senate typically know this stuff.

We *understand* how the Senate came to be. And we think it's bad for democracy.

[cark]

65. Then you also know we don't live in a democracy n/t

nt

[Bill McBlueState]

71. Is this the "republic, not a democracy" talking point? n/t

[Lyric]

66. Well some people here obviously didn't know this stuff.

And I don't completely disagree with you (although I think the issue has more complexity than your statement does justice to), but it's a moot argument in the end. There are far more small states than big ones, and because we need 3/4's of the state legislatures to ratify any Constitutional amendment, the small states can effectively kill it. And they would, without a doubt. There's just no way they're going to voluntarily give up the biggest advantage they have in the federal government, and it's also intensely unlikely that the state citizenry is going to force them to. They'd tell their constituents that many of the Founding Fathers themselves argued against population-based representation in the Senate. They'd tell their constituents that if such an amendment passed, political power that currently resides in *their* state would be re-distributed to California, Texas, Florida, and New York. They'd say that if the amendment passed, the people of Rhode Island/Delaware/Wyoming/North Dakota/Vermont/Alaska/West Virginia/whatever would no longer have a meaningful voice in the federal government. The end result would be citizens too scared of becoming irrelevant to care much about what's fair, and that would be the end of it.

That doesn't even address the reality that because there's no way it could be ratified by 75% of the states, neither the House nor the Senate would be willing to support it. Who wants to spend political capital on a controversial amendment that's a guaranteed loser?

Seems kinda pointless to get all worked up over something that has less chance of happening than having the ERA *AND* federally-mandated marriage equality pass into law on the same day.

[rucky]

69. I certainly didn't.

And appreciate the explanation.

:thumbsup:

[Joe the Liberal]

29. k&r. n/t

[krispos42]

33. I did the math recently

The 40 Republican senators represent 35% of the US population. It's not perfect, but it's closer than I thought.

[cali]

39. VT has too much power in the Senate.

We're a rural state with a tiny population.

[CTLawGuy]

40. There are a few reasons

1. The Constitution was created during a time when people were more loyal to their states than to "America" or political parties as a whole. As a result, state issues and state concerns dominated over "national" concerns. People did not want large states to always get their way over small states, so they created the senate to balance power. Also the constitution did not contemplate political parties, certainly not those as strong as today's.

Today, there is a national culture - people are more tied culturally to America than to their states. Also there are powerful political parties. Also, as you'll see in #2, there are more "national" concerns as well.

2. The federal government was originally conceived to be a body with very limited power, basically to defend the country, negotiate with foreign powers, create money and regulate interstate commerce. Everything else was handled by the states. So what the federal government did had a much more muted effect on individuals than what the states did. So in short there was much less reason to care about this issue.

Today, as communication technology has improved and America has gained a national culture and identity, the federal government has become more powerful and more important. Social Security, health care, department of education, food and drug regulation, etc., the federal government does more than the founders could have conceived.

3. The senate was designed not to represent the people but to represent states in their corporate form - the House was "the people's body". Senators, until the passage of the 17th amendment, were chosen by state legislatures. When thought of this way, equal representation in the senate is consistent with one person one vote. But the practice was changed, and senators directly elected, after accusations of corruption in election of senators and the long term failure of some divided legislatures to actually elect any senators.

Again today, the senate is seen as another body that is representative of the people and not the states in their corporate form, as national concerns trump state concerns. With this idea, equal representation seems hideously unfair.


-------------------------------

So that's some context.

As to the filibuster, we should be careful of what we wish for. We won't be in the majority forever and we should be scared of a bare majority in congress might be otherwise allowed to do.

[Romulox]

46. Bottom line: US is one of the LEAST democratic countries in the Western world

and yet we run around, demanding people adopt our unique form of kleptocracy on threat of cluster bombing... :eyes:

[dusmcj]

49. the Senate is there to balance the majority, which in turn is not reflected in the House - our fault

it hasn't escaped my notice that the House's failure to reflect the American majority in favor of sexual freedom including both contraception and abortion is in turn a reflection of the House's membership not reflecting those voter demographics.

In other words, the House majority (and this is just another reflection of the fact that party membership matters for naught, and thus parties matter for naught) does not reflect majority views of the American public.

Whose fault is that ? Ours. For nattering about being 'inclusive' and wondering if we're really sure whether we really want individual liberties to be supreme in all instances, and failing to eject closet reactionaries from contention for political office under the mantle of OUR party.

This is a representative democracy folks, and it only works if our public servants represent us. Which requires electing people who don't say that they're not going to represent us from the get-go. As some of our 'conservative' Democrats have done in so many words.

The Senate by contrast was explicitly constructed to form a counterbalance to simple majorities in the House, to avoid the threat of majoritarian tyranny the Founders rightly identified, and provide a force within government to implement policy for the public good even if the public is too benighted to identify it as such.

So in fact, what should be happening is that the House produces a bill which includes both an unequivocal public option, strict regulation including for monopoly conditions, of the insurance industry, and required coverage for both contraception and abortion, and the Senate be the entity that's vetting that but ultimately in this case producing coinciding legislation, because it's the best thing for the public.

The fact that the system doesn't work is not a fault of the system but of the people populating it, and they got there because of us, who own the place whether we know and care or not. Keep putting "fight" in those email subject lines, DNC.

[anonymous171]

68. EXACTLY. A democracy cannot function when only 30% of the population regularly participates in it

We don't need more institutional changes. We just need to get involved and STOP VOTING FOR THE POLITICIANS THAT KEEP ON FUCKING US OVER.

[cark]

74. Term Limits

I wish they weren't needed, but it is apparent they are.

Electing the same types of politicians and expecting different results is the definition of insanity. We have no one to blame buy ourselves.

[Kaleva]

53. Michigan has lost 4 representatives

The 1st Congressional District of Michigan has a population of over 600,000 and is the 2nd largest district east of the Mississippi in area.

[newportdadde]

57. Personally I'd just like to see term limits in place.

[onenote]

58. by population, the smallest states have more Democratic senators

By population, 1/2 of the United States is located in ten states: CA, TX, NY, FL, IL, PA, OH, MI, GA. Currently, the 20 Senators from those states are 11 Democrats, 7 Republicans and 1 former Repub who is an Independent now caucusing with the Democrats (Specter). In other words, 40 percent of the Senators from the top ten largest states are repubs -- the same percentage as in the Senate as a whole.

The ten smallest states in the country, collectively representing less than 3 percent of the population, are: WY, VT, ND, AK, SD, DE, MT, RI, HI, and NH. Between them, these states have 14 Democratic Senators, 5 repubs, and one independent (socialist) who caucuses with the Democrats.

So remind me again ...why do you think stripping the small states of their say in the Senate would be a good thing?

[LWolf]

61. What about rural leftists?

Do we deserve equal representation?

[kenny blankenship]

63. Why is MORE than equal representation your idea of equal representation?

Besides, if the bicoastal liberal majority is allowed to act like a majority it WILL be good for you. Believe me, man/lady/whatever I live in Georgia. Gjuh-horhorhor-gjuh the spiritual home of all mean rednecks the country over. Lookout Mountain Georgia. The Georgia with the Confederate fucking flag as its state banner. And I'd like nothing better than for MY Senatorial delegation to lose every fucking vote from now til Jesus brings the cows home.

[LWolf]

73. I don't have more than equal representation.

This is an old debate. It resulted in the house and the senate.

My senators are dems. My house rep is a republican. We've been eroding his support, a little at a time.

[anonymous171]

67. So you want to replace Bernie Sanders with a bunch of Dianne Feinsteins?

No thanks.

[Bill McBlueState]

72. so you think the fairest government is the one that puts specific people in power?

No thanks.

[beyond cynical]

75. This problem was created by the 17th Amendment to the Constitution.

Prior to that, Senators were appointed by the state legislatures. when the Framers wrote the Constitution, the Senate was created to represent the states and the House was to represent the people.

After the 17th Amendment was passed, states forever lost their voice in the Congress.