3 ms·
Because that was literally the only way they could convince the smaller states to join, and not have the whole thing collapse at the very beginning.
by dmoy 6y ago
Because that was literally the only way they could convince the smaller states to join, and not have the whole thing collapse at the very beginning.
- krapp 6y agoOk. That was over 200 years ago, and it seems unlikely that smaller states are going to opt out of the union at this point. Why do they still deserve more voting power than populous states?
- willcipriano 6y agoThey aren't allowed to opt out, well except for Texas.
- krapp 6y agoTexas really isn't allowed to opt out either, they just like to pretend they are.
- Simulacra 6y agoBecause Hillary Clinton lost ?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- dmoy 6y agoBecause constitutional amendments are hard to pass, by design. You need a supermajority in both the senate and house of reps, and then you also need effectively a majority vote in 75% of the states (so 38 states now). There is a sufficiently large number of smaller states that it is no longer possible to change this. There are some courses that cover the basics of US constitutional history, which might be instructive: https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-history/road-to-revolution#creating-a-nation https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-history/road-to-re...
- marmada 6y agoYou are conflating is/ought. Constitutional amendments are hard to pass. That doesn't mean they ought to be. I/the poster is claiming small states should be allowed to be "bullied" by larger states since smaller states have less people, and thus, are less important.