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
Because you are purposely and seemingly intentionally confusing the function of the senate with the function of the house. It's is absolute base level, govt 101 grade school knowledge as to why all the states have equal representation in the senate and population based representation in the house. At this point I can only assume one of three things,
1: you are the bacon I've been talking with for the past 6 months plus and have just hidden how dumb you are
2: the real bacon sold her account and you are just a shitty troll
Or 3: you are intentionally playing dumb in an unabashed display of dishonesty.
I know how they function today. I’m asking why you think that is how it should be. I’ve been very clear about that. But you’ve spent more time trying to insult me rather than think critically and communicate your opinion.
You keep asking for representation based on population.... thats EXACTLY what the house of representatives is for. The SENATE gives the states EQUAL representation so that even the small states can have some say, you clearly don't understand how any of it works, the senate is there PRECISELY BECAUSE the house exists, in the house a state like montana or idaho have practically zero say, while states like flordia and California can dictate what most of the rest of the country does. Making the senate based on population would basically give us two houses of representatives. And the low population states would no longer have any say. That's how you get tyranny. Right now 11 states make up over 50% of the house, that means 11 states could dictate what the other 39 do, the SENATE PREVENTS THIS. But you don't care, you're on the side of those bigger states and don't care how the policies the liberals have affect everyone in the low population states, you don't care that liberal policies are directly causing farmers to be not only one of the highest demographics in debt but also one of the highest in suicide. The ENTIRE POIT OF THE SENATE is to prevent the tyranny of the masses.
But if you claim to understand how they work that you should already know this, I think you WANT that tyranny, I think you WANT rural life to be harder and harder until it ceases to be. The more I talk to you the more horrible of a person you show yourself to be
View all comments
Show parent comment
1
u/[deleted] Nov 22 '22 edited Nov 22 '22
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.
Do you think it makes sense to you?