4 ms·

> There are 50 states in the US. Each state gets 2 senators. States with low populations (think, Wyoming) tend to lean republican while the few states with high

> There are 50 states in the US. Each state gets 2 senators. States with low populations (think, Wyoming) tend to lean republican while the few states with high populations tend to lean democrat. The end result is these rural states end up with a disproportionate level of voting power in the senate where the fillibuster exists. > Were the US population evenly distributed then this wouldn't be as much as a problem. Isn't that pretty much what I said? Even if >50% want a national abortion law, <50% want to do the necessary ground-work of "cutting Wyoming down to 0.2 senators". If people do not want it, then how can it happen? Cutting the filibuster only makes sense if you control the Senate, which is about 50/50 for both parties.

cogman10 4y ago
> <50% want to do the necessary ground-work of "cutting Wyoming down to 0.2 senators". No, that's not the case. I'd dare say >50% of the population wants to cut Wyoming down to 0.2 senators. But how do they accomplish that? The only viable route is a constitutional amendment. For that to pass, you need 2/3s of the senate to agree AND you need 3/4s of the states to ratify. By saying "oh, well the majority can just insist on the change" ignores the fact that the current system gives the minority power to say no. The only hard work the majority could actually do is move from these high population states into low population states to re-balance the voting power. The US is not a democracy. 50% of the population wanting something means nothing. And without an actual civil war and new constitution, that won't change.
- rascul 4y ago
  > The US is not a democracy. It's a representative democracy, not a direct democracy.
- heartbeats 4y ago
  Grant this, but at some point, there's still a lack of majority support somewhere. >50% might support cutting Wyoming down to size, but <50% support removing the supermajority requirement for constitutional amendment.
  - cogman10 4y ago
    What does that matter? Even if I granted that, the only way to change the supermajority requirement IS a constitutional amendment, requiring a supermajority. There is no state where you can blame the government not working based on the simple majority not trying hard enough (Barring a revolution).

cogman10 4y ago

> <50% want to do the necessary ground-work of "cutting Wyoming down to 0.2 senators". No, that's not the case. I'd dare say >50% of the population wants to cut Wyoming down to 0.2 senators. But how do they accomplish that? The only viable route is a constitutional amendment. For that to pass, you need 2/3s of the senate to agree AND you need 3/4s of the states to ratify. By saying "oh, well the majority can just insist on the change" ignores the fact that the current system gives the minority power to say no. The only hard work the majority could actually do is move from these high population states into low population states to re-balance the voting power. The US is not a democracy. 50% of the population wanting something means nothing. And without an actual civil war and new constitution, that won't change.

rascul 4y ago
> The US is not a democracy. It's a representative democracy, not a direct democracy.
heartbeats 4y ago
Grant this, but at some point, there's still a lack of majority support somewhere. >50% might support cutting Wyoming down to size, but <50% support removing the supermajority requirement for constitutional amendment.
- cogman10 4y ago
  What does that matter? Even if I granted that, the only way to change the supermajority requirement IS a constitutional amendment, requiring a supermajority. There is no state where you can blame the government not working based on the simple majority not trying hard enough (Barring a revolution).