3 ms·
> It is a net increase in the people's representation and this has only become moreso in the era of popularly elected senators. It's a net zero increase in the
by danans 6y ago
> It is a net increase in the people's representation and this has only become moreso in the era of popularly elected senators.
It's a net zero increase in the people's representation. It is a redistribution of representation toward smaller states, which has accelerated as state populations have diverged.
- 1123581321 6y agoA multi-cameral legislature is a net increase in representation because it forces national considerations to be examined multiple ways. The increased attention and varied perspective represents the beliefs and desires of more people than just a majority as measured one way (e.g., by political party.) By contrast, a single-house legislature fulfills the desires of a national majority population the most quickly, which is what you are advocating for. This is at the expense of more careful consideration. In other words, we do not agree on the definition of representation as you see it as maximizing activity and I see it as maximizing consideration.
- danans 6y ago> In other words, we do not agree on the definition of representation as you see it as maximizing activity and I see it as maximizing consideration The only thing it maximizes today is the continuation of hereditary and tribal concentrations of political power. It's a hostage situation, as the secessionists honestly will tell you.
- 1123581321 6y agoWhile I appreciate your zeal, I suspect we will not proceed to real discussion. Setting aside that countries with histories different than that of the United States use bicameral legislature, consider how multi-cameral legislature might benefit a country even when one, relatively uniform, political party controls all houses.