Divide States to Democratize the Senate

i like that when republicans lose elections they try different things even if its to totally obstruct obama to get the voters to choose them next time.

when the democrats lose elections (like they did in the senate in the midterms) its the systems fault and it must be changed.

lol?
 
anatta said:
they get more seats.
per capita doesn't matter in that the the House represents the population , the Senate represents the states.

It's also the same formula for the electoral college - both the states and the people are accounted for
Click to expand...

Yeah...they get more seats.

But the people of low population states (like Wyoming) get MORE REPRESENTATION.

The state of New Jersey is an urban area. We have 9,000,000...and have 12 representatives in the House...or 1 Representative for every 750.000.

Wyoming has 580,000 people and 1 Representative.

If New Jersey has 1 Representative for ever 580,000 we'd have 15 or 16 Representatives.

The low population states get extra voting power...no matter what.

By the way...THE PEOPLE are what count. "The states" are nothing but areas of land.
 
Frank Apisa said:
There is no other way...without a constitutional amendment.

Larger population states HAVE GOT TO SPLIT...or smaller population states must be amalgamated.

Here in New Jersey...the North and South are like different states already. We even root for different sports teams.

New Jersey could easily divide into THREE states...North Jersey, Middle Jersey and South Jersey...each with about 3,000,000 people.

The costs would be enormous. The idea of three state legislatures sucks.

But if several of the large states declare intentions of doing so...it might bring the others to consciousness. Maybe it could set the stage for a Constitutional amendment getting the Senate into greater population parity.

Making the Electoral College more equitable is a much easier thing to do.
Click to expand...

You're being extremely comfortable with the feds telling states what they must do. Damn, shit did really go downhill after the War of Northern Aggression.
 
Anarchon said:
You're being extremely comfortable with the feds telling states what they must do.
Click to expand...

Get your head out of your ass. Where did I say anything in that quoted material about feds telling states what they must do???

Damn, shit did really go downhill after the War of Northern Aggression.
Click to expand...

Do you mean the war where the Union beat the shit out of the traitorous southern states?

Is that what it is called down there?
 
Frank Apisa said:
Yeah...they get more seats.

But the people of low population states (like Wyoming) get MORE REPRESENTATION.

The state of New Jersey is an urban area. We have 9,000,000...and have 12 representatives in the House...or 1 Representative for every 750.000.

Wyoming has 580,000 people and 1 Representative.

If New Jersey has 1 Representative for ever 580,000 we'd have 15 or 16 Representatives.

The low population states get extra voting power...no matter what.

By the way...THE PEOPLE are what count. "The states" are nothing but areas of land.
Click to expand...
incorrect. Both the states themselves as sovereign entities and the people are represented in both Congress and the EC.
Wyoming is an outlier - a minimum representation -you cant do less then 1.

"3 New Jerseys" is absolutely terrifying
 
archives said:
Splitting up States wouldn't make that much difference, the population disparity is between metropolitan centers and rural areas, some time in the near future over seventy percent of nation will reside in urban areas

Real solution is to reduce either the powers of the Senate or its' processes, given that it has become just another majority based body its original purpose of protecting the minority voice has been diminished.

Personally, I'd go to a Parliamentary form of Gov't, making the Senate as relevant as the House of Lords in Britain, but that ain't ever happening
Click to expand...

Libs can't stand losing. If dems had taken the senate, you and your ilk wouldn't be talking about "reducing the powers of the Senate". Why can't libs just lose gracefully? Even when you win, it's not enough. You then seek to punish. You fuckers are evil.
 
anatta said:
incorrect. Both the states themselves as sovereign entities and the people are represented in both Congress and the EC.
Click to expand...

Yeah. That is what I have been saying. But people are the important thing in a democracy.

Saying the states should have representation...is like saying grass or hills or fucking lakes should have.

It was a concept needed to start the Union. Without it, the Union would never have happened.

It day is done.

Wyoming is an outlier - a minimum representation -you cant do less then 1.
Click to expand...

Wyoming is NOT an outlier. Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Vermont ALL have just l Representative.

Collectively, those seven states have a total population of just less than 5,570,000 people. They are represented by 14 Senators.

The state of California has 40,000,000 people...and those 40,000,000 are represented by 2 senators.

If you cannot see how unfair that is...it makes no sense talking with you.

"3 New Jerseys" is absolutely terrifying
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree. But they would not all be called New Jersey. There would be a New Jersey...and a North Jersey and a South Jersey.
 
countryboy said:
Libs can't stand losing. If dems had taken the senate, you and your ilk wouldn't be talking about "reducing the powers of the Senate". Why can't libs just lose gracefully? Even when you win, it's not enough. You then seek to punish. You fuckers are evil.
Click to expand...

Listening to an American conservative lecturing on "being graceful" is like listening to Rush Limbaugh lecturing on being slim!
 
Frank Apisa said:
Yeah. That is what I have been saying. But people are the important thing in a democracy.

Saying the states should have representation...is like saying grass or hills or fucking lakes should have.

It was a concept needed to start the Union. Without it, the Union would never have happened.

It day is done.



Wyoming is NOT an outlier. Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Vermont ALL have just l Representative.

Collectively, those seven states have a total population of just less than 5,570,000 people. They are represented by 14 Senators.

The state of California has 40,000,000 people...and those 40,000,000 are represented by 2 senators.

If you cannot see how unfair that is...it makes no sense talking with you.



Yeah, I agree. But they would not all be called New Jersey. There would be a New Jersey...and a North Jersey and a South Jersey.
Click to expand...
way too many Jerseys!

Saying the states should have representation...is like saying grass or hills or fucking lakes should have.

It was a concept needed to start the Union. Without it, the Union would never have happened.
Click to expand...
I said the state are sovereign entities, they are not "hills or grass" - Congress is set up specifically to provide a voice from the states and the people.

Thanks for the info on reps. would more reps make Congress do anything? *no*
 
Here’s an idea:

Instead of tinkering with the Senate and splitting up states, why don’t democrats just amend their message so they can win under the current set-up instead of changing the rules?
 
anatta said:
way too many Jerseys!
Click to expand...

It even scares me, Anatta.

I said the state are sovereign entities, they are not "hills or grass" - Congress is set up specifically to provide a voice from the states and the people.
Click to expand...

I understand that. I get that it was set up that way by the founding fathers...and remains that way. I get that any change in that set-up is highly unlikely.

BUT IT IS INHERENTLY UNFAIR TO THE HUMANS INVOLVED.

Jesus H. Christ...how many different ways do I have to say that in order for it to penetrate?


Thanks for the info on reps. would more reps make Congress do anything? *no*
Click to expand...

Government on this scale is not easy. Having a dictator would make everything much easier...and quicker.

But that is not where we want to go.

Even if the Congress would not be any more efficient if the Senate were made fairer...it would more reflective of the HUMAN POPULATION. And that is more important NOW than it was in the days of the founders.
 
Darth Beto Omar said:
Here’s an idea:

Instead of tinkering with the Senate and splitting up states, why don’t democrats just amend their message so they can win under the current set-up instead of changing the rules?
Click to expand...

That is not an idea...that is shoveling horse shit into the conversation.

But...you are the right person for that job, I'll give you that.
 
Frank Apisa said:
It even scares me, Anatta.



I understand that. I get that it was set up that way by the founding fathers...and remains that way. I get that any change in that set-up is highly unlikely.

BUT IT IS INHERENTLY UNFAIR TO THE HUMANS INVOLVED.

Jesus H. Christ...how many different ways do I have to say that in order for it to penetrate?




Government on this scale is not easy. Having a dictator would make everything much easier...and quicker.

But that is not where we want to go.

Even if the Congress would not be any more efficient if the Senate were made fairer...it would more reflective of the HUMAN POPULATION. And that is more important NOW than it was in the days of the founders.
Click to expand...
You miss the point that the problem is a do nothing Congress,not how it's represented.

would more representatives mean legislation gets done? no.


And I'm not going to reiterate the fact anymore that as sovereign entities, the states get a voice as well
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top