3 ms·

The senate does not give people equal representation - regardless of the motivation for having it, this is objectively true. You can say that you like a system

The senate does not give people equal representation - regardless of the motivation for having it, this is objectively true. You can say that you like a system that has this feature for states or it has certain other benefits and so on, but you can't say that it is equal representation because it is not.

giantg2 4y ago
As I said, the house gives people equal representation. A bill will not become law without passing the with through representation of the house. The only limit is that some things the house wants won't pass because the states don't agree. If you truly want equal representation, then we have to go the direct democracy route since you will not have equal numbers of people under each representative. You also need to get rid of appointments by the executive (including rule making agencies), closed primaries, and provide universal voting including for felons and non-citizens. So what is this argument for equal representation across the board? I don't see any benefit other than if you want populist movements to succeed based on the whims of the day and potentially at the expense of the minority rights (even more so than today). The main point here is that state representation was necessary in order to create the country, and is likely necessary for the country to continue. I don't see any argument that supercedes this so far.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
  I understand how it works, and you agree that the senate does not provide equal representation for people, only the states. I'm not suggesting that the numbers for each representative be exactly the same because that's not achievable in practice. What I am saying is that the current system is much less democratic than it could be if either there was no senate or it had proportional representation. You may think that would lead to chaos, but I disagree.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    It wouldn't lead to chaos. It could lead to states leaving the union if the senate were dissolved. It's happened in the past when states didn't want to be trampled and the divide seems large today. But what is the objective benefit to removing the senate? The argument I'm hearing is just that it could be more democratic, but there are many changes that could make things more democratic. Some things are about fairness, like gerrymandering. But I don't see any benefit to removing the senate.
    - Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
      Laws like something that could curtail the worst of gerrymandering will never be passed because of the senate. The people that benefit from unequal and unfair representation will never vote to change them. Those people largely sit in the senate unequally representing the people that want positive change.
      - giantg2 4y ago
        "Those people largely sit in the senate unequally representing the people that want positive change." I thought we already covered that they represent states, not people. By the way, what bill would they pass that would fix gerrymandering? I thought the states had the authority to draw their districts and it can be contentious as to what a good fix is. And of course we have the same logic on the other side - that a party in power will do what they can to add to their power. We see that with laws about non-citizens voting (struck down), restoring/giving voring rights to groups that would disproportionately support them, and such.
        Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
        > I thought we already covered that they represent states, not people. We did, and that's the point. > what bill would they pass that would fix gerrymandering? I thought the states had the authority to draw their districts and it can be contentious as to what a good fix is. There is no bill, also my point. Also, it's only contentious to those who are deliberately attempting to gerrymander. > that a party in power will do what they can to add to their power. I agree with this part, its also my point; that is, undemocratic processes are self-perpetuating and self-strengthening. > We see that with laws about non-citizens voting (struck down), restoring/giving voting rights to groups that would disproportionately support them, and such. Interesting that that all your counter examples here are about giving people rights to vote. People having the right to vote is fundamental to democracy. Seems your view on democracy is of the 'only the right sort of people should be allowed to vote' variety, pun intended.

giantg2 4y ago

As I said, the house gives people equal representation. A bill will not become law without passing the with through representation of the house. The only limit is that some things the house wants won't pass because the states don't agree. If you truly want equal representation, then we have to go the direct democracy route since you will not have equal numbers of people under each representative. You also need to get rid of appointments by the executive (including rule making agencies), closed primaries, and provide universal voting including for felons and non-citizens. So what is this argument for equal representation across the board? I don't see any benefit other than if you want populist movements to succeed based on the whims of the day and potentially at the expense of the minority rights (even more so than today). The main point here is that state representation was necessary in order to create the country, and is likely necessary for the country to continue. I don't see any argument that supercedes this so far.

Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
I understand how it works, and you agree that the senate does not provide equal representation for people, only the states. I'm not suggesting that the numbers for each representative be exactly the same because that's not achievable in practice. What I am saying is that the current system is much less democratic than it could be if either there was no senate or it had proportional representation. You may think that would lead to chaos, but I disagree.
- giantg2 4y ago
  It wouldn't lead to chaos. It could lead to states leaving the union if the senate were dissolved. It's happened in the past when states didn't want to be trampled and the divide seems large today. But what is the objective benefit to removing the senate? The argument I'm hearing is just that it could be more democratic, but there are many changes that could make things more democratic. Some things are about fairness, like gerrymandering. But I don't see any benefit to removing the senate.
  - Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
    Laws like something that could curtail the worst of gerrymandering will never be passed because of the senate. The people that benefit from unequal and unfair representation will never vote to change them. Those people largely sit in the senate unequally representing the people that want positive change.
    - giantg2 4y ago
      "Those people largely sit in the senate unequally representing the people that want positive change." I thought we already covered that they represent states, not people. By the way, what bill would they pass that would fix gerrymandering? I thought the states had the authority to draw their districts and it can be contentious as to what a good fix is. And of course we have the same logic on the other side - that a party in power will do what they can to add to their power. We see that with laws about non-citizens voting (struck down), restoring/giving voring rights to groups that would disproportionately support them, and such.
      - Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
        > I thought we already covered that they represent states, not people. We did, and that's the point. > what bill would they pass that would fix gerrymandering? I thought the states had the authority to draw their districts and it can be contentious as to what a good fix is. There is no bill, also my point. Also, it's only contentious to those who are deliberately attempting to gerrymander. > that a party in power will do what they can to add to their power. I agree with this part, its also my point; that is, undemocratic processes are self-perpetuating and self-strengthening. > We see that with laws about non-citizens voting (struck down), restoring/giving voting rights to groups that would disproportionately support them, and such. Interesting that that all your counter examples here are about giving people rights to vote. People having the right to vote is fundamental to democracy. Seems your view on democracy is of the 'only the right sort of people should be allowed to vote' variety, pun intended.