this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2024
515 points (89.0% liked)

General Discussion

12071 readers
1 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy.World General!

This is a community for general discussion where you can get your bearings in the fediverse. Discuss topics & ask questions that don't seem to fit in any other community, or don't have an active community yet.


🪆 About Lemmy World


🧭 Finding CommunitiesFeel free to ask here or over in: !lemmy411@lemmy.ca!

Also keep an eye on:

For more involved tools to find communities to join: check out Lemmyverse!


💬 Additional Discussion Focused Communities:


Rules

Remember, Lemmy World rules also apply here.0. See: Rules for Users.

  1. No bigotry: including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
  2. Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
  3. Be thoughtful and helpful: even with ‘silly’ questions. The world won’t be made better by dismissive comments to others on Lemmy.
  4. Link posts should include some context/opinion in the body text when the title is unaltered, or be titled to encourage discussion.
  5. Posts concerning other instances' activity/decisions are better suited to !fediverse@lemmy.world or !lemmydrama@lemmy.world communities.
  6. No Ads/Spamming.
  7. No NSFW content.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3volver@lemmy.world 7 points 8 months ago (4 children)

What is your solution the massively disproportionate representation in the senate then? There are currently around 66.7 Californians for every Wyomingite. Do you think Wyomingites deserve 66.7 times the representation in the Senate? And yes, legalization would occur with reasonable regulations which would make sure the industry is safer for all those involved. I tried to keep the list as concise as possible for each issue reformed.

[–] stevestevesteve@lemmy.world 22 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Do you think wyoming deserves to be a state? Every state gets the same representation in the Senate and I think that's fair. I don't think it's fair that the proportional side of the legislature isn't proportional anymore, though, and fixing that goes a very long way.

[–] 3volver@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

States don't deserve equal representation. American citizens deserve equal representation, they are the ones who create value.

[–] notfromhere@lemmy.ml 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Then what you’re really saying is abolish the concept of states and have a single federal state.

[–] 3volver@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

No, states still would elect a number of representatives based on their population. Just no 2 senators per state.

[–] notfromhere@lemmy.ml 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Why even have states? Good way to get rid of jerrymandering would be to get rid of imaginary borders. No states, no senate necessary.

[–] 3volver@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Because state legislatures should continue to exist. If less populated conservative states want to go down a rabbit hole of far right shit then let them. Just don't give them 2 senators per state to gridlock the states that continue to produce and provide for their population.

[–] notfromhere@lemmy.ml 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Then there is no point in having states.

[–] 3volver@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

That is what is referred to as a false dilemma fallacy. You can have states and state legislatures without the senate.

[–] AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The Senate isn't intended to be a representative body, it's just two per state. They aren't doing things like setting funding/budgets. Congress (the house of representatives) is designed to do that, though that needs some tweaking.

[–] 3volver@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The Senate isn’t intended to be a representative body

Both the house and senate vote to pass bills. The disproportionate population increases have led to less representation of citizens in more populated states.

[–] AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

But the original states didn't have balanced populations, the founders knew that, but they still set it to be two senators per state. The house is scaled by population.

[–] ZombieMantis@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

There are other proposals to solve the Senate's disproportionate nature, such as apportioning Senate seats by state population. Most proposals I've seen for that would leave the Senate with a little more than a hundred seats (with a minimum of 1 seat per state), which would (mostly) solve the problem and make it closer to the house in terms of proportionality. Of course, it all depends on the exact implementation.

[–] 3volver@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago (2 children)

What's the purpose of the senate at that point? Seems redundant, like having two house of representatives.

[–] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 2 points 8 months ago

That is in fact the point. It's about checks and balances to stop bad actors from completely changing all of the rules the moment their party is in power. Of course, that's completely pointless in a 2 Party system anyways and we should really reform campaign finance and election laws surrounding how to get on the ballot.

[–] ZombieMantis@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

The point of the Senate is that it's a more deliberative body, representing larger numbers of people, which serves to moderate the power of the House. Mind you, Congress as a whole was more powerful when the nation was founded; they've handed off power to the executive over the years, for better or worse (really, a bit of both). The House was also intended to grow with the population, and if we'd followed the general guidelines for growth the Founders suggested, we'd have a House with more than 600 members. The number of seats was capped ~90 years ago, because Congress didn't want to fund another renovation of the capitol building to fit more people. Also keep in mind that the States had a more uniform population distribution when the country was founded. You didn't have California and Nebraska sitting with orders of magnitude of difference between them, so the difference in representation in the Senate was not nearly as significant as it is today.

Wether we need a secondary deliberative body in the legislature or not is a matter of debate and opinion. I can see why you'd want one, but I can also understand why people would think it's not useful anymore.

[–] hakase@lemm.ee -1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

There's no solution needed, since there isn't a problem to begin with. Individuals (should) have proportional representation in the House, and states have proportional representation in the Senate, which is how it should be.

Do you think Wyomingites deserve 66.7 times the representation in the Senate?

Yes.

[–] 3volver@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

There’s no solution needed, since there isn’t a problem to begin with.

This is funny, it's like an self soothing mantra. I'll try to repeat this to myself as things get worse.