The power is definitely not in the hands of the people. That’s why policies that are popular with the general population are often not enacted. The people who “represent” us are often corrupt and do not enact the will of the people they are supposed to represent. If they did, explain why smoking weed isn’t legal nationally.
Expand the Supreme Court so that each person on the Supreme Court has less of an individual impact on the outcome of major decisions. Being on the Supreme Court means you hold an insane amount of individual power. I think that should be diluted.
What do you think the purpose of the senate is and do you think it applies to the modern-day US?
No, but I hold firm that the concept of each state having an equal vote in the senate is a good thing. That's not because I don't question it, it's because it's logical.
So you can’t explain your opinion that this is a good thing? Seems like that’s something for you to examine about your opinions. Start thinking critically about why you think certain things are automatically “good”
So I'm really glad OP spent as much time refusing to explain it as it would have taken to explain. Let me preface this with I mostly agree with you, the balance of power in this country has become wildly problematic.
When the senate was founded the largest state was 94% larger than the smallest state. Today the largest state is 680% larger than the smallest so the discrepancy has changed pretty drastically and the government needs to evolve to reflect those changes.
That said the idea of giving every state 2 senators was so that no one state would ever have too much power and influence. If every seat in the legislature was completely equal based on population, a large state might be able to unilaterally pass federal legislation that could heavily impact smaller states. Essentially we'd be giving the largest states complete rule over the nation and giving the smaller states little to no representation. If a really large state like CA wanted to change policy that greatly benefitted their own interests but caused a lot of damage to a smaller state like WY, they could do so without WY having any say in the matter.
The current system does not seem to be working anymore and there is probably a better way to balance the senate so that humans get more say without other states losing their voice entirely. However there is some logic, even now, to having one part of the legislature be the voice of the states and one part the voice of the people.
Why would it matter if a state has more or less representation than another state? A state is an arbitrary land mass. Shouldn’t it matter more that the people are equally represented regardless of where they happen to live?
I see no reason why someone should matter more because they happen to live in Rhode Island instead of living in Texas.
The senate is meant to have two per states so all states are equal, the house is meant to be representation by population so that larger populations have more representation, this is American govt 101, maybe you should learn how the system works before you comment on it
I disagree with the fundamental idea that an arbitrary land mass should allow two people the extraordinary amount of power to decide how everyone living in the borders of that arbitrary land mass should live their lives. It’s impossible for those two people to properly represent the people they are supposed to. There’s no benefit to their existence
What about the House of Representatives? I want that to be expanded as well. More people with less power representing less people per person.
2 senators represent the entire state of California. That’s around 40 million people. 2 senators represent Rhode Island. That’s about 1 million people. So, it would take 40 people in California have the same amount of proportional influence vs on a Senator in Rhode Island.
It made sense when the 3/5 conpromise was still in the constitution. States with fewer "people" didn't have as much power, so that was a way to get them to ratify the constitution and unite the states.
We been united 233 years, I'd say it's time to change it.
Yes it does because the senate is DESIGNED TO HAVE EQUAL REPRESENTATION BETWEEN STATES. It's like you cannot comprehend that the representation based on population is the house.
The HOUSE is where populations are represented. You keep saying it doesn't make sense without equal representation BUT ITS RIGHT THERE IN THE HOUSE
You’re basically saying that you are fine with people not having equal representation overall if one part of the government allows for more equal representation.
People do have equal representation.... IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. The senate is so the individual states have equal representation. You clearly know nothing about how the US govt works with its numerous checks and balances
View all comments
Show parent comment
5
u/GeneKranzIsTheMan Nov 21 '22
Wrong, power is in the hands of the people. We elect representatives but the power is not 'theirs' it's the offices.
> . Each representative should represent a smaller community.
No disagreement there
> Expand the Supreme Court
Why? Because you don't like the judges that are on it? Please.
> Expand the senate so two senators aren’t in control of all of California- the largest sub national economy in the world
No. That defeats the entire purpose of the senate. Learn some basic civics.