2 ms·

You're not wrong about Federal overreach, in my opinion, but the representation issue is real as well. If the Senate didn't exist, or if it wasn't setup with eq

You're not wrong about Federal overreach, in my opinion, but the representation issue is real as well. If the Senate didn't exist, or if it wasn't setup with equal representation, then less populous states would almost never have the votes to affect Federal policy. With both House and Senate required to pass legislation, it helps to ensure that the more populous states can't pass legislation at will.

yardstick 4y ago
Doesn’t the under representation swing both ways? Seems like not such a good idea to treat large numbers of people within a small area as essentially the same from a voting perspective. Quickly checking Wikipedia, the Californian governor had a ~62% share of the vote, and the NY governor ~67%. That roughly translates to at least 30% of each of those States populations dissenting from the majority view. Shouldn’t their voices be heard, same as the Kansas voters?
- t-3 4y ago
  The difference is that the internal representation in any state is a state issue, and it's up to the states to make sure those people do/do not have representation at the state level. I get the impression that most state legislatures do somewhat mirror the federal system with a popularly elected governor, but I haven't ever looked into it deeply.