General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIt's ridiculous that each state gets two Senators, regardless of population...
Just another way - along with superdelegates, early primary states, gerrymandering, Electoral College, no statehood for DC, for-profit voting machine companies, etc., etc., etc. - to keep Americans from having a true democracy.
OnDoutside
(19,962 posts)polichick
(37,152 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)2 senators from each state. So first would come a constitutional amendment.
polichick
(37,152 posts)to brainwash the voters and pillage the country on behalf of their wealthy and corporate donors.
ooky
(8,924 posts)than it does now. This is a needed amendment that needs to be pushed to the front of the line, whenever the opportunity comes.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)the individual from oppression by majorities in other states. Before we can change that, we need to come up with -- and be able to institute -- new protections as replacement or replacements.
So, what do you suggest instead? First, do no harm. You don't fix a clogged drain by ripping out and throwing away the plumbing.
This isn't a new topic. We could read for the rest of our lives and never take in all that's written about how, if, why to make government more representative. But none of the possible, workable answers involve just "plucking out the parts that offend us and casting them away."
Btw, many among the Republican electorate also have a great answer for the problem of "unrepresentative" senators: return to having them elected by elites in the state legislatures. That answer to the problem of "fixing broken" government" has a lot of clueless, destructive support as a way to eliminate liberalism from government. They actually think they want that.
Interesting topic in a time when we're at real risk of the right overthrowing our democracy and turning the senate into a rubber stamp for a dictator. Disagree on the focus, though.
Right now our job is to VOTE, VOTE, VOTE TO PROTECT THE SENATE, or major changes will be made, but not by us.
ooky
(8,924 posts)address unrepresentative government.
Of course we should protect the Senate, but the representation problem is a mathematical one, which can be corrected by using multipliers, based on population, for each senator's vote. Nothing else about how many senators or how they are chosen needs to change. Each Senator's vote would just need to be proportional to one half of that Senator's state's population in relation to the national total population.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)misdirected into increased power to the fascistic right. Anyone miss how the Sanders left was USED disastrously to turn the nation over to the Republicans, including Trump? Couldn't have happened without their clueless assistance, actually idealistically imagining they were pulling the other direction.
The powers behind the Republicans are VERY good at using well meaning people against themselves. Political jiu jitsu. They have to be because they no longer have enough RW votes to win.
So, first we have to remove them from power.
ooky
(8,924 posts)That's why I qualified that we should do it when we have the opportunity.
royable
(1,264 posts)each with population of 500K? ...500K being the population of Wyoming.
But don't divide up the blue state's red areas; just combine them with an adjoining blue area that has two or three times the total red population so that no repub senatorial candidates would have a chance at election.
Just think--Los Angeles county alone could provide us with forty democratic senators!
I suppose you could label this gerrymandering, but I feel in my heart of hearts that this would be good for the nation as a whole, so it's all OK.
(some small amount of )
33taw
(2,444 posts)The state of Northern Colorado would have had two republican senators. However, the amendment failed when northern Colorado was impacted by the flood and all of the sudden the money from Denver, Boulder and the ski towns was needed.
rainy
(6,092 posts)and voted on within a limited amount of time. Each Senator must vote publicly. Get rid of electoral college. Give more power to the house.
treestar
(82,383 posts)They are undemocratic as is, and then requiring a super-majority of them to change anything makes it even more so.
Lessen their power to stop change. Maybe make it so they have no say to stop legislation if it passed the House by a super-majority.
Generally, make them more like the House of Lords. I'm not sure how it works, but it appears they cannot stop progress.
dem4decades
(11,297 posts)polichick
(37,152 posts)spin
(17,493 posts)The Founding Fathers Never Intended To Create A Direct Democracy
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-founding-fathers-never-meant-to-create_b_13051196
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)people with their own ideas and needs (not that most have any real understanding of what those are) all have genuinely equal representation, write it up and go to work. Until real brilliance, far beyond anything Jefferson and Madison had to offer, fixes it, this is a pretty good version of democracy.
Just while on the subject, it's ironic that this Democratic forum has a people who join these discussions out of frustration that they can't have their way because majorities of voters always want something else, so they look for ways to fix their personal problem with democracy. They're always kicking at democracy looking for weak places to break that'll lessen the power of others and increase their own. A bunch of them even supported an attempt to steal the 2016 primary nomination from the choice of the majority of Democrats by manipulating and misusing rules meant to protect democracy from manipulators. Pretty funny when you think of it. Dark humor, of course.
spin
(17,493 posts)
The Constitution contains 4,543 words, including the signatures and has four sheets, 28-3/4 inches by 23-5/8 inches each. It contains 7,591 words including the 27 amendments.
https://www.constitutionfacts.com/us-constitution-amendments/fascinating-facts/
I wonder how many pages and words a new Constitution will contain if and when we have to replace it.
jimfields33
(15,830 posts)The budget alone are volumes. We have become a country that loves words.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Only white men with property could vote as it was.
They knew future people might need to change it, but didn't realize just how tough it would be to make a needed change to go along with modern life.
treestar
(82,383 posts)did devise a better system, even with an aristocracy in place. Other countries that separated from Britain peacefully copied the parliamentary system. They now have modern governments.
The Founders thought we needed something different, and had to deal with getting all the southern states to sign on, so they did the best they could. But now we lag behind, because of the concern for separate states as states and this led to the civil war, which cut back on state powers somewhat. But we are still stuck with states as such. There is more and more mobility between states, so maybe that would cut back on it. Do we really care if our state is in a minority position on some issue? We might be living in another one, or have contacts in another one. It's not the 18th century.
18th century people might be shocked at how much the federal government does, and how it pushed states around with the purse strings or the Supremacy Clause. And that's without a Democratic system, since the Electoral College and the Senate give the state more power the smaller it is. They thought the big states would push the small ones around. It turns out the opposite.
spin
(17,493 posts)hard to change. Plus calling it hard to change might be an understatement.
treestar
(82,383 posts)I believe Jefferson thought it should be easier to change.
The Founders had no way of predicting the industrial revolution and that the population would become so urban. I doubt they intended the rural population to dominate the way it can.
FBaggins
(26,748 posts)Boris Johnson would probably agree with you... but he just won overwhelming control with barely 43% of the vote.
treestar
(82,383 posts)and how it would allow him to do that. He would have to join with some other party to form a government, is my understanding.
FBaggins
(26,748 posts)No need for him to form a coalition. You can get an absolute majority in parliament without anything close to a majority of votes.
In fact, its entirely possible to win control without even getting a plurality of voters if your voters are distributed in just the right way.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Since you are so knowledgeable, I am sure you would like to explain.
What parts of the country become more powerful, as the EC does? How do rural voters rule over urban voters in a parliamentary system? We should at least figure out which one does that to a greater extent.
FBaggins
(26,748 posts)And they all have different geographic strengths and weaknesses. You can easily win a seat in parliament with 25% of the vote in that constituency if five other parties split whats left (even if all of them lean right and you alone lean left). Win enough such seats and you control Parliament (and thus also the executive... who is not directly elected).
treestar
(82,383 posts)PM was the head of the party that got the most votes. If that includes someone who got 25% of the vote, then the rest of the parliament will not always go along with what they want. If Labor gets 51% of the vote, then the PM is Labor's head and the Parliament, the majority of his/her party, will want the same things. If the PM can be Labor's head where Labor gets 25% of the vote, then they won't be able to do much as they won't always be sure of a 51% vote.
I thought they need coalitions to get anything through, where they have so many parties. And they had a referendum of some kind for Brexit, so a majority would have voted for it - means the majority wants it.
I was in Oz when they had an election and when Gillard did not get a majority, she was not going to get to form a government until she got some independents to join her to make a majority. It gave the few independents a ton of attention in the media.
FBaggins
(26,748 posts)The PM is selected by a majority of MPs... not individual voters. A coalition might be necessary to achieve that... or one party might have a majority of MPs on their own... neither of which requires a majority of voters to achieve.
Yes... if Labour received 51% of the vote they would almost certainly win a majority of the parliament (they received about 32%)... but there are more than two parties... sometimes controlling one area and not showing at all in another.
edhopper
(33,590 posts)to get the Constitution done. Not ideal.
polichick
(37,152 posts)But you would never get the 2/3 States to ratify.
that's 2/3rds of the Congress and 3/4ths of the States to ratify a change to the Constitution.
So definitely no way
treestar
(82,383 posts)dware
(12,413 posts)and 3/4 of the States to approve a change like that to the Constitution.
Remember, it would only take 13 States to deep six any change to the Constitution.
elleng
(130,975 posts)'what is sometimes called the Connecticut, or Great, Compromise, proposed a bicameral legislature with proportional representation in the lower house and equal representation of the states in the upper house.'>>>
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Connecticut-Compromise
polichick
(37,152 posts)Steelrolled
(2,022 posts)coti
(4,612 posts)of our Constitution at this point.
polichick
(37,152 posts)and it is only going to get worse. The population of the rural areas is shrinking while the population of the cities is going up. The few in the rural areas will rule the majority in the cities.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)into the legislative mud without even bothering to notice?
polichick
(37,152 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)and those fat cats live there and other residents vote people who serve them into power. Because, for bizarre reasons related to the actual practice of democracy, that's what they want. Just like many trying to elect an incompetent but favorite candidate POTUS. Democracy in action.
But that doesn't answer my question, which was addressed to everyone who feels a need to get rid of 2 senators for every state nonsense to make the senate more "representative." How do we do that without making the nation far less representative at the same time? On a big, big scale too. No way to fix the oppression and growing poverty and injustice of small states except to move to a big, powerful state.
polichick
(37,152 posts)So the actual practice of democracy ends up with people unwittingly voting against themselves, their children, and the planet.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)in the middle of the country. You know what Churchill said about democracy, though, and he had no suggestions for how to fix people to make us do our part better. Imagine trying to run big, diverse countries like ours (over 300 million!) by bringing together people who think everyone else is stupid to work out solutions they can somehow all live with.
polichick
(37,152 posts)Disinformation campaigns did not start with Putin - read Whats The Matter With Kansas (2004) to see what a head start RepubliCONs and their corporate donors have had in the heartland.
I once interviewed the minister of a mega-church in Kansas, asking how they chose the location. Very honestly, he said they looked for the most vulnerable populations - those left behind by socio-cultural change - because they are the most open to their message. This is predatory behavior, very calculated - they serve up the Jesus loves you message, followed up by the its not your fault; its their fault scapegoating message, the us vs them message, the lies about whos trying to take your healthcare and social security message, followed by the big RepubliCON savior message.
This is how good people unwittingly vote against themselves - Democrats need to understand how we got to this place
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Informed people know how we got here. We don't know how to make better citizens of people who are not wired to make the decisions necessary to democracy. Or perhaps we should say that we've learned a lot about how, but how to do that without violating their rights to make their own choices and without brainwashing is a long list of questions without answers.
This isn't all going on on the right either. Right now too many on the left have also been seriously considering voting for people who are clearly unsuited to power or responsibility in a democracy. It's not that the information isn't available, it's that the judgement is lacking.
This may be a form of societal suicide. It ma be that evolution built a need into the human race, stronger in some than others, to burn down the village and move on to find a new valley now and then. And it's still in us. Easy to see how extended comfort and population growth leading to stasis and increased demand for food can be a danger to survival.
Looking around at what's happening now, that theory makes sense to me. How else to explain the eagerness in too many on both sides to burn down what has worked well in the past, to dismantle the stability our lives literally depend on, not just our wellbeing, without knowing we can replace it with something even halfway adequate, much less better?
The destabilization and destruction we are seeing is a clear result of eagerness in some to kick over the bucket and a willingness to destroy. And in this troubled era, it's become dangerously strong in too many, including the bad leaders who rise in response.
maxsolomon
(33,345 posts)split CA into 20 states?
Response to Hortensis (Reply #14)
Codeine This message was self-deleted by its author.
genxlib
(5,528 posts)The small states are walking all over the big states now. Making them more equal is not oppressive. It is fair. Oppressors always feel outrage when their disproportionate power is threatened. It is a form of privilege.
Whenever I hear somebody fret about the urban areas overwhelming the rural areas, my immediate response is "oh you mean, where the voters are?"
treestar
(82,383 posts)the majority in the big states. That's the problem, not the opposite. And it is getting worse - there is an article posted on DU awhile back about it.
States still have state powers, the police powers, and that is where a little state can have the rules it wants. But on the federal level, it is unfair to the vast majority for them to control the rules for the rest of the country.
Remington
(6 posts)Why should California and New York have more representation than Tennessee or Oregon because they are a larger state? That type of representation is reserved for the House of Representatives which is based on population. The system isnt perfect but its the best thing going.
Skittles
(153,169 posts)it served a purpose back in the day but needs to be updated
Polybius
(15,437 posts)Not now, but we have had very solid Democratic majorities in the Senate. We has as high as 68 seats in the 60's, and 57 just a decade ago.
Edit: Wow, the highest ever was 75 seats for us after the 1936 elections, and we had fewer states then too. Republicans had just 17 seats. We could have changed the entire Constitution and no one could have stopped us.
yonder
(9,667 posts)Agreed. Perhaps some fine tuning to prevent abuse, but yes.
treestar
(82,383 posts)They have health plans in Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand.
Our big problem is we separated un-peacefully from the mother country. And had slavery. Those things hold our country back.
treestar
(82,383 posts)get to stop up anything the majority wants and have as much power as such a large group as lives in NY?
They didn't mean it to be that undemocratic. As more of the population becomes urban, the rural white states will practically be an aristocracy.
MichMan
(11,939 posts)and pipe all the water to California because they had way more people and votes than Michigan and needed it ?
coti
(4,612 posts)didn't matter anymore?
treestar
(82,383 posts)Nationally, they don't have a majority all by themselves. This is the underlying of most of these arguments and it is just not so. If every CA voter voted alike, they still would not have enough votes.
In 2016. California had 11,954,317 voters and 7,362,480 voted for Hillary.
NY had 7.046,175 voters of which 4.143,874 voted for Hillary.
Math results: 11,506,354 CA and NY voters who voted for Hillary.
The total number of voters nationwide was 123,724, 157.
The CA and NY Hillary voters were 9.3% of the total voters.
9.3% cannot have their way all alone.
The next two most populous states are TX and FL. Even if they joined in, they don't have enough votes to win nationally.
The EC is not "fair" to the small states. It is unfair to the big states.
moose65
(3,167 posts)Heres an extreme example - what if the population of Wyoming declined because of some natural disaster, until only about 20,000 people lived there. Or 10,000. Or 1,000. At some point it would become absurd to still give them 1 rep and 2 Senators.
coti
(4,612 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)a greater say than others.
noun: republic; plural noun: republics
a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.
ARCHAIC
a group with a certain equality between its members.
"the community of scholars and the republic of learning"
It does not say the elected representatives have to be uneven in some way.
Steelrolled
(2,022 posts)In fact, it is compared to the US system, where smaller countries get better representation. It is determined by treaties as countries are admitted.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)It's hard to change, so we're stuck with it. But it's horribly undemocratic.
radius777
(3,635 posts)The Founders could never have envisioned the wide-ranging national and structural power the Senate and SCOTUS (which the Senate confirms) would have.
We have little-ass empty white states dictating how most of us should live, and that's neither democratic nor representative nor logical in any way.
There are congressional districts in populous states like CA, NY, TX etc with more people in them than some of these little states.
Notice how all metro areas (including in red states) trend blue ... TX will soon be blue for this reason.
Only the backwards people/areas trend red.
Basically the red states are sponging off of the blue states - robbing us blind, keeping us in the past, trampling all over the rights of PoC, gays, women, etc.
maxrandb
(15,334 posts)It only works for Retrumplicans when only 30-40% of eligible voters bother to vote.
When people vote, Democrats and progressive policy wins, even in places like AL, MS and WY.
Another thing that can help... and I'll get in trouble for this...but, when Dems have majorities in the House, Senate and control the White House, the red States need to be punished.
Seriously, they should face consequences for sending racist dipshits like McConnell, Graham, Perdue and Cornyn to elected office.
MerryBlooms
(11,770 posts)(We are also a vote by mail state.)
New evidence shows how automatic voter registration increased not only voter participation but also voter diversity.
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/how-oregon-increased-voter-turnout-more-than-any-other-state/
jmg257
(11,996 posts)What the House is for.
Senators represent the States interest. They were appointed by State legislators.
Great plan, until we let the federal govt get too strong.
polichick
(37,152 posts)who bought them - or, in many cases, chose them for their corrupt reputations and installed them to begin with.
So RepubliCONs dont need to consider what 75% plus of the voters want - in addition to zero witnesses, hundreds of bills meant to help Americans stack up on McCONnells desk.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)but ironically it is to "protect" small states and now it turns out it gives small states the disproportionate power. The House can be dominated by people from large states (though they won't all be the same, not every California house member is a liberal Democrat and there can be a liberal from urban areas of a red state). But the Senate advantages small population states over large, which is not really a big improvement.
Theorizing about a solution, it might involve not letting the Senate block legislation by not voting on it, not using the filibuster, and not being able to block an overwhelming House vote.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)intended?
Maybe then Senators would not be so obligated to protecting & obeying the Executive?
treestar
(82,383 posts)want the Dotard to get away with anything, which is scary. Yet those are the people with the most power.
Polybius
(15,437 posts)If the 17th Amendment never passed, we'd have a Democratic Congress right now.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)But as I am sure you know - we were called the United States for a reason. And had State Militias for a reason. And feared a strong central govt for a reason.
Ah well.
treestar
(82,383 posts)I thought Rs had that.
And that Rs often get fewer votes but still have a state majority.
There was an article on DU a few years ago that this is all going to get worse as the population is still moving from rural to urban. How are we going to put up with the minority holding us back at every turn?
phylny
(8,380 posts)like to be a state?
Cognitive_Resonance
(1,546 posts)long dreamed of opening a new constitutional convention to "fix" all of the things standing in their way of utopia.
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)The Senate is a compromise. A great number of things in our Constitution are compromises. That's because there is no perfect way to govern as diverse a nation as the United States.
Be careful what you wish for. The Senate was designed to represent the states equally, regardless of their populations. The House was designed to represent the people as individuals.
The country is the United STATES of America. That's why the individual states are treated equally through the establishment of the Senate. Sometimes that doesn't work as well as it was intended, but a legislature that is 100% population-based would not work as well, either, in every situation.
Making foundational changes in response to temporal issues can come at a high cost.
Yeehah
(4,588 posts)A compromise 250+ years ago to arbitrarily give each state two senators might just need an update. Just look at a map of the USA and the state boundaries. Many state boundaries are based on land grants from English nobility. Yeah, that seems rational, give each one of those artificial entities two senators not based on population. LOL
Maybe you should present your civics lecture to a troop of boy scouts in your local area.
You were okay until the insult.
That's enough.
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)long consideration and a consensus of the governed.
I'll ignore your insult.
treestar
(82,383 posts)convincing each colony to participate was essential. If the South wouldn't go along, the non-slave states alone might well not have been able to win the Revolution.
Modern times have changed things so much. States are of varying sizes, and the fear the big ones would dominate is less rational now, we see, than the fear the small ones might. Big states will still have red voters. Small states may have blue voters, but they won't be as numerous.
Now we took the vote for Senators from State legislatures and gave it to the People. That showed some move towards greater participation. Now women and African Americans can vote. As we make this progress, we can see that the Senate is becoming obsolete.
The Founders gave us an Amendment process that still favors the status quo, requiring super majorities in order to change anything. Maybe it will take a civil war. The millions in urban areas are someday going to erupt and object to being ruled by a rural minority. Forecasts are that it is going to get worse. Americans aren't used to bowing down to an aristocracy and they won't let a rural white one arise.
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)The requirement for super majorities to amend the Constitution, though, was also brilliant. The founders made it a very difficult process. Such changes should only be undertaken after long consideration and discussion and be enacted only by a preponderance of parties.
Foundational documents should, I think, be difficult to change.
treestar
(82,383 posts)We are way behind the countries with Parliamentary systems. They can make changes when a majority wants it. The US way favors conservatives.
That's why it can seem the farthest left candidates for the Democrats seem so unreasonable. They aren't recognizing that the Senate won't let them have single payer, even if Britain had it in 1948. The filibuster makes the Senate even more of a blocker.
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)I'm not sure they're doing so well with a parliamentary system, really. And then there is Italy.
treestar
(82,383 posts)And so do most of the European countries with parliamentary systems.
When the majority wants progress, they get it.
How does the UK not do well because of its system? Whatever problems it has arise out of something else.
Rollo
(2,559 posts)A reasonable compromise would be to elect the president by popular vote, but keep the Senate as is.
In any case, amending the Constitution is such a bitch that nothing regarding representation is going to change. It would probably take a civil war.
dware
(12,413 posts)People don't seem to understand that convening a Constitutional Convention opens the doors to all kinds of changes, which the Repigs have been salivating for for decades.
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)Bettie
(16,110 posts)The House doesn't really represent the people very well, because of the cap on number of representatives put in place (with a law, which can be revisited) in 1911.
Raising the number of house members would also make the EC function better, as it would end with more Electoral votes for places with larger population.
If we set the number of people in a congressional district at even the number of people in the smallest population state, it would be a very large number of reps, but that's not an insurmountable problem.
Yeehah
(4,588 posts)Only people should decide elections.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)That make decisions on our behalf and put everything to a vote. In a true democracy, if more than 50% of the people think gay people shouldnt be allowed to marry, then that is the law.
treestar
(82,383 posts)where the population votes on specific questions.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)On everything that the legislature normally handles, and majority can pass whatever rules they want.
So you're suggesting mob rule?
treestar
(82,383 posts)In your opinion?
marlakay
(11,477 posts)Dont offer a lot of jobs forcing most of the population into ones that do.
Polybius
(15,437 posts)It's never going to change. The time for stopping it was taking it up with George Washington.
sandensea
(21,639 posts)Or Wyoming! That should be east Idaho.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)Each state gets the larger either one Senator for every six Representatives, or two Senators.
The perpetual problem is how to make this happen.
But DC should not be a state. It's too small and huge chunks of it are owned by the Federal government. It should have a voting member of the House, though.
moose65
(3,167 posts)DC has more people than Wyoming or Vermont, and yet those 2 states have 2 Senators each while DC has NO representation in the Senate (or the House).
krispos42
(49,445 posts)It's only about 68 square miles, and a large chunk of that is Federally-owned land... the monuments, the museums, the National Mall, the government offices.
It's one-eighth the land area of New York City and one-twentieth the size of Rhode Island, the smallest state.
You might as well just say that Brooklyn should be it's own state. Or Manhattan.
It would make more sense to re-incorporate DC back into Maryland. DC would become "District of Columbia County" of the State of Maryland and be represented in the House and the Senate with voting members. The Federal government's administrative system has been expanding out into Virginia and Maryland for decades anyway.
My personal belief is that we have a lot of states that are too big and that it would be beneficial to break them up into more manageable areas, but a state needs to be more than just a city with suburbs. That's a metro area, not a state. States need to have rural areas and natural resources in addition to urban areas with human resources.
Hell, the county that I live in, Fairfield County, CT, has 907k people and 837 square miles. 28% more people and 1,100% more land area than DC, yet if I was advocating that Fairfield County should be it's own state you'd think I was at nuts.
Odoreida
(1,549 posts)ck4829
(35,077 posts)FBaggins
(26,748 posts)Thats what it would take. 2/3 of the states would have to ratify a constitutional amendment giving it away (after 2/3 of the senators - many of whom only have seats because of the imbalance - vote the same way).
IOW... it aint happening.
treestar
(82,383 posts)there are small states joining the National Vote compact.
Or we could just have a Civil War. Urban people are going to become even more disfranchised as cities are still growing while rural areas are becoming less populated. The Founders had no way of knowing that would happen. They lived well before the Industrial Revolution. But they didn't want aristocracy and this system is letting rural voters be an equivalent of that.
FBaggins
(26,748 posts)Electoral college impact is tiny compared to the Senate. One vs. three electoral votes out of hundreds is essentially negligible. But two Senators vs. essentially zero is a huge shift when they already have little influence in the House.
As for Civil War nonsense... good luck doesnt go far enough.
treestar
(82,383 posts)a small minority. End of story. Something will happen when the blue city voters realize this.
Polybius
(15,437 posts)They're never going to do anything about it, it's too hard to change.
treestar
(82,383 posts)it will become a problem. People are starting to realize it now.
FBaggins
(26,748 posts)The Senate cant do anything on their own and the tiny states have a tiny impact on the White House.
We are in no sense ruled by a small minority.