4 ms·
The biggest issue, IMHO, is the fact the senate holds all this power, yet Vermont and Texas have the same level of representation in it. The House, for all it'
by mywittyname 4y ago
The biggest issue, IMHO, is the fact the senate holds all this power, yet Vermont and Texas have the same level of representation in it.
The House, for all it's flaws in being capped so low, at least has the advantage of being more representative of the population, having a clearer majority, and being large enough to support factions within the parties.
- School-Cotton 4y agoI agree with you: that's another extremely serious flaw in the US political system that I didn't even mention because I spent so much space ranting about the filibuster.
- Ekaros 4y agoIf that isn't wanted, why even bother with having separate states in first place? Just place everything directly under federal government. You could even get rid of all other levels.
- colinmhayes 4y agoThe 10th amendment gives states power to regulate tons of things. Different states can have different laws without the senate.
- School-Cotton 4y agoGood question. It’s not clear why the US being a federation is important or valuable — it seems to be true for purely legacy reasons: that the states were already pseudo-independent colonies prior to 1776.
- jonnycomputer 4y agoI think it is an important question: what are states for. I don't mean the historical sequence of circumstances that led us to have the system we do, but why we might or might not want them. Why not just designated administrative districts of a federal government. One thing that Trump's presidency has taught me however, is that, despite the shenangigans of some of the election apparatus in individual states, it was much much harder for Trump to subvert the election process than it would have been had everyone worked for him.
- Ekaros 4y agoOn other hand the election fraud that lead to election of Biden might not have been possible with stronger central government. Just think of same rules through the country. No postal voting. Mandator IDs from central database, updated live based on movement of citizenry.
- School-Cotton 4y ago> administrative districts of a federal government FWIW it wouldn’t be called the federal government in that case, since the country wouldn’t be a federation. It’d just be “the government”.
- giardini 4y agoHow would Vermont have any say in political affairs if their political power was limited purely by their population?! Its clear why there is a Senate and a House: it was a good idea then and it remains a good idea for the USA. And here's a big "Howdy!" from Texas to all of you in the great state of Vermont!
- colinmhayes 4y agoCitizens of Vermont would have just as much power as every other citizen… I understand that the founding fathers we’re forced into a system that empowers small states to the detriment of large wrongs. It was wrong then, just as it’s wrong now.
- School-Cotton 4y agoWhy is it intrinsically a good idea that "Vermont" be an entity that has some say in political affairs? "Vermont" isn't a person, nor is it even a collection of people with a similar culture or ideology (by far the biggest divide is rural vs. suburban vs. urban; the second biggest is race/ethnicity; any state-by-state divide is much less significant than those two).
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- nverno 4y agoBecause we are a union of states. States should have more power, not less. Each state has very different problems, and local politicians care far more about local people than DC politicians. It's more interesting anyway, the more freedom states have to do what they want.