Thread 512494636

Wtf South Dakota has only one congressman? But two senators, Americans are you ok with this stupidity ?

>>512494636 (OP)
Why is that stupid in your opinion?

>>512495368
Because it means they provide 2% of all the senators—the more important body—but less than 0.25% of all the congressmen, the less important body. It allocated a disproportionate influence to cow pastures. I realize this is the way the system was designed, but I think it’s a bad design.

>>512494636 (OP)
In other news, Rhode Island is actually considered a state and illegals and even women and niggers have been voting in federal elections. It has all gone to hell. If only we had some good commie WEF faggots in our government like canada has. That would fix everything.

>>512495713
The Republic is a partnership of equals. Hence the equal representation in the upper house.

>>512494636 (OP)
The senate is part of the deal to get states to join the union in the first place. It was never meant to reflect population numbers. Without the senate, the colonies never would have agreed to join a common framework in the first place.

>>512495713
>think it’s a bad design.
Why?

>>512494636 (OP)
Name somebody who lives there?

You can't!

No, whoever was in charge of Gateway's other headquarters doesn't count.

>>512494636 (OP)
>doesn't understand the political system
>proceeds to call everyone else stupid

Clearly syrup induced delirium.

>>512495800
>>512495800
A confederation is a partnership of equals, and the US was only a confederation in the 1780s. I think real equality—real democracy—would be one that had equal representation, not on a state basis, but on a per capita basis. The basis of a democracy is one man, one vote; each congressmen can vote once, and each voter casts one ballot. I don’t see why that principle can’t be applied across the board.
>>512495847
Because it’s not democratic. Senate seats should be distributed according to population just as congressional districts are. I understand the argument about safeguarding against the “tyranny of the majority,” I.e., the populous states, but it seems to me that the system as is provides for the tyranny of a minority (of cow).

>>512495713
each state had one elector. the elector of brandenburg was fredrick iii hohenzollern, and his protection made lutheranism possible. the electoral college was intended to resemble the electoral college of the hre, but in practice states pick electors based on party slates and plebiscites

>>512496079
>I understand the argument about safeguarding against
Do you?
Then why frame something as stupid or badly designed merely because it's not democratic?
In a sense the Constitution itself isn't democratic. It prevents a simple majority from passing laws against freedom of religion, for instance. Do you think that's also badly designed?

>>512495827
I realize there is an historical context behind this decision but that doesn’t mean it can’t be changed nor does it mean you have to necessarily agree with it in the present. Are you happy with this arrangement?

>>512495713
Yea. That’s the point retarded leaf faggot. No wonder your country is dead

>>512496249
The US is a union of states, not a unitary federal state.

>>512496079
>it’s not democratic
its federal. in the federation, each state is equally represented. you dont like it because you think theyre provinces of abe lincolns empire instead of states in a federation

>>512496379
*federation of states, not a unitary state

>>512496403
>>512496379
We are talking past the larger issue. Are you happy with this arrangement?

>>512496478
Yes. If the senate is changed, smaller states should withdraw from the US in protest.

>>512496079
>real democracy
why the fuck would I want real democracy? Real democracy means that a single mother with 5 kids by 5 baby daddies gets the same vote as a veteran who served his nation and is a net-taxpaying contributor to the treasury. Real democracy means a woman who will never be drafted gets the same vote as a man who can be drafted. Democracy is built on a fallacious understanding of humanity, which is why sooner or later, it always fails. Why the fuck would I want that?

The Founding Fathers didn't create a "democracy", they created a republic where to the extent that anyone had the franchise, it was white men, over 21, who were rooted and invested in the system personally by owning property. They did not intend women, sub-80 IQ africans, or welfare dependents to have the right to determine the course of the nation, because the Founding Fathers weren't fucking retards and they knew how that would end.

Rope yourself, Patel.

>>512496478
Yeah, I’m glad California doesn’t get to elect 100 senators.

>>512496712
I don't appreciate you casting aspersions on me by accusing me of being an Indian. That is very low, sir. Good day.

>>512497084
Just put the fries in the bag

>>512495713
The population of an area doesn't mean shit for senators because the size of an area has its own values. If a massive part of an industry like say, logging, got zero representation because they only have logging workers counting towards the census then you end up with a situation where the entire logging industry is nearly unrepresented in Congress leading to logging to be forgotten in decision making leading to logging failing and suddenly you're losing a vital resource for the nation because you didn't allocate the land as much representation as it deserved.

A nation is much more than its inhabitants. It's resources are almost MORE important than it's population.

This graduate level big brained public policy lesson is brought to you by - random Internet guy, random Internet guy "more intelligent than a college professor!"

>>512495713
You don't have the full context for understanding the senate.
In the original formulation, state governors appointed their senators. So senators were generally represented by the strongest voices in state politics who understood civics/government well. The idea was twofold

1. ensure we have a stable/mature body vs the raucousness of the house
2. ensure that smaller states had a little extra power to defend their interests vs more populous states

the issue now is

1. the house has been gerrymandered very hard in most states creating very stable seats. this has gotten worse with big data.
2. house representatives at independence represented ~30,000 people each. Today they represent ~750,000
3. senators are elected by direct vote so instead of mature/levelheaded people enmeshed in the political system a lot of them are literal whos like Randlet and Barack Obama who can run good media campaigns. I'm not saying this because I necessarily hate either of them, but people like them were not supposed to be senators, except after time spent becoming more refined in the house or in state government.

I think the best solution is doubling the size of the house and simultaneously implementing term limits for the house (I think 4 terms is about right, to ensure some continuity within a presidential admin). We can't really deal with the direct election of senators but I also don't think it's as big of an issue as stagnation in the house has been. Term limits in and of themselves would help the gerrymandering issue because part of that is also an incumbency issue.

>>512494636 (OP)
idk