Should the states continue to receive equal representation in the Senate?

[Edu]

Is there any other federal republic with a system similar to the american one?

Depends what you consider similiar.

Germany has a seperate upper house for state representation called the Bundesrat. Although the votes given to each state are at least somewhat based on the number of residents in each state.

Yeah, by similar I meant where every state has equal representanion, regardless of the population.

In Argentina we have 3 elected senators per province, which is hilarious considering that 12 guys represent 3 states (and the city of Buenos Aires) that have 25.000.000 people and then we have 60 guys that represent 20 states and just 15.000.000 people.

Of course our method of electing senators is different. Each party presents 2 candidates for senator with the first guy listed being the most important or the "face" of the campaign. The party that wins gets those 2 senators in office and the party that comes second gets their number 1 guy in the list elected.

[Vepres]

Absolutely not. I am sick of having some low population Senator use my tax dollars to bring home the pork while California gets screwed.

Well, you know, you're not important, because you live in a big state. You're already crowding out people who live in smallers tates.

Because those 53 representatives, one of which is the speaker of the house, are so irrelevant

You mean 3. I have three people representing me in Congress.

True, but your state, or even your metropolitan area have more representatives than Colorado.

Think about it this way. The state government has FAR more influence over your daily life than the federal government, and for good reason because it's more local. Thus independent political cultures develop in each state, so they deserve representation as independent entities.

[Joe Biden 2020]

Yes, otherwise states such as Wyoming and North Dakota would have barely a whisper against the roars of California and Texas.  To some that may seem to give the small states an unfair advantage, which may be true to an extent, but in reality the main thing it does is give them a voice, which any normal person would agree that everybody needs a voice despite the political leanings of the state and its Congressional delegation.

[Franzl]

Yes, otherwise states such as Wyoming and North Dakota would have barely a whisper against the roars of California and Texas.  To some that may seem to give the small states an unfair advantage, which may be true to an extent, but in reality the main thing it does is give them a voice, which any normal person would agree that everybody needs a voice despite the political leanings of the state and its Congressional delegation.

Why does the state of Wyoming or North Dakota need a voice?
 
States are artificial boundaries. You can just as easily make similar arguments within a state.

Let's take my native Illinois for example. Chicago controls the state mostly. Do you think every county should also be entitled to an equal number of senators? Doesn't Farmer Butch in Effingham need to have his voice heard?

The reality is simply that every person should be entitled to equal representation, and the current system does not do that. What it does is give people in small states unfair influence on the American political process.

[Vepres]

Yes, otherwise states such as Wyoming and North Dakota would have barely a whisper against the roars of California and Texas.  To some that may seem to give the small states an unfair advantage, which may be true to an extent, but in reality the main thing it does is give them a voice, which any normal person would agree that everybody needs a voice despite the political leanings of the state and its Congressional delegation.

Why does the state of Wyoming or North Dakota need a voice?
 
States are artificial boundaries. You can just as easily make similar arguments within a state.

Let's take my native Illinois for example. Chicago controls the state mostly. Do you think every county should also be entitled to an equal number of senators? Doesn't Farmer Butch in Effingham need to have his voice heard?

The reality is simply that every person should be entitled to equal representation, and the current system does not do that. What it does is give people in small states unfair influence on the American political process.

State boundaries are not arbitrary actually. Each state government has great legal sway due to its constitutional rights. The laws it creates drive certain people away and attract others. Not only people, but businesses as well. So over time each state develops its own unique culture, political leanings, and economy. I frequently drive through the other three four corner states, and the difference you see between a city on one end of the border and one on the other is stark (for me at least). A rural city in southern Colorado has a culture and economy that is distinct from a rural city in northern New Mexico.

I don't know about out east, but people all across the political spectrum do not like the federal government and just want  it to leave the state alone. Of course, Midwesterners and North Easterners don't usually share that view.

[Хahar 🤔]

Absolutely not. I am sick of having some low population Senator use my tax dollars to bring home the pork while California gets screwed.

Well, you know, you're not important, because you live in a big state. You're already crowding out people who live in smallers tates.

Because those 53 representatives, one of which is the speaker of the house, are so irrelevant

You mean 3. I have three people representing me in Congress.

True, but your state, or even your metropolitan area have more representatives than Colorado.

Think about it this way. The state government has FAR more influence over your daily life than the federal government, and for good reason because it's more local. Thus independent political cultures develop in each state, so they deserve representation as independent entities.

That is because my metropolitan area has more people than Colorado.

As for your argument, that's fine. States can have independent representation. You haven't said why they should have equal representation.

[Хahar 🤔]

State boundaries are not arbitrary actually. Each state government has great legal sway due to its constitutional rights. The laws it creates drive certain people away and attract others. Not only people, but businesses as well. So over time each state develops its own unique culture, political leanings, and economy. I frequently drive through the other three four corner states, and the difference you see between a city on one end of the border and one on the other is stark (for me at least). A rural city in southern Colorado has a culture and economy that is distinct from a rural city in northern New Mexico.

They are entirely arbitrary. The only thing that differs between one side of Lake Tahoe and the other is the gambling laws. There is no difference between far northern California and far southern Oregon. None.

[Vepres]

State boundaries are not arbitrary actually. Each state government has great legal sway due to its constitutional rights. The laws it creates drive certain people away and attract others. Not only people, but businesses as well. So over time each state develops its own unique culture, political leanings, and economy. I frequently drive through the other three four corner states, and the difference you see between a city on one end of the border and one on the other is stark (for me at least). A rural city in southern Colorado has a culture and economy that is distinct from a rural city in northern New Mexico.

They are entirely arbitrary. The only thing that differs between one side of Lake Tahoe and the other is the gambling laws. There is no difference between far northern California and far southern Oregon. None.

I'm saying that they may have been arbitrary, but as people and business began to congregate in various states, they have evolved.

[Vepres]

Absolutely not. I am sick of having some low population Senator use my tax dollars to bring home the pork while California gets screwed.

Well, you know, you're not important, because you live in a big state. You're already crowding out people who live in smallers tates.

Because those 53 representatives, one of which is the speaker of the house, are so irrelevant

You mean 3. I have three people representing me in Congress.

True, but your state, or even your metropolitan area have more representatives than Colorado.

Think about it this way. The state government has FAR more influence over your daily life than the federal government, and for good reason because it's more local. Thus independent political cultures develop in each state, so they deserve representation as independent entities.

That is because my metropolitan area has more people than Colorado.

As for your argument, that's fine. States can have independent representation. You haven't said why they should have equal representation.

They should have equal representation because legally they are identical, and as you said States can have independent representation.

I think you're just bitter over the healthcare debate. You probably didn't complain when Democrats blocked social security reform.

Interesting that you never see anybody outside of the liberal quadrant opposing equal state representation.

[JohnFKennedy]

Interesting that you never see anybody outside of the liberal quadrant opposing equal state representation.

Read the second reply to the thread.

[Vepres]

Absolutely not. I am sick of having some low population Senator use my tax dollars to bring home the pork while California gets screwed.

I'm sick of an extreme House of Representatives proposing legislation that infringes on my state's rights. Without the Senate, Colorado, the 2nd freest state, would become a bureaucratic nightmare like California or New York.

[War on Want]

Absolutely not. I am sick of having some low population Senator use my tax dollars to bring home the pork while California gets screwed.

I'm sick of an extreme House of Representatives proposing legislation that infringes on my state's rights. Without the Senate, Colorado, the 2nd freest state, would become a bureaucratic nightmare like California or New York.

So if the rural, less populous areas of the country used their disproportinate influence in the senate to "infringe on state's rights", you'd support the Senate being abolished?

[nclib]

States are artificial boundaries. You can just as easily make similar arguments within a state.

Let's take my native Illinois for example. Chicago controls the state mostly. Do you think every county should also be entitled to an equal number of senators? Doesn't Farmer Butch in Effingham need to have his voice heard?

The reality is simply that every person should be entitled to equal representation, and the current system does not do that. What it does is give people in small states unfair influence on the American political process.

Agreed. The concept of states' rights is deceptive. States only have the rights that the people in them have.

State boundaries are not arbitrary actually. Each state government has great legal sway due to its constitutional rights. The laws it creates drive certain people away and attract others. Not only people, but businesses as well. So over time each state develops its own unique culture, political leanings, and economy. I frequently drive through the other three four corner states, and the difference you see between a city on one end of the border and one on the other is stark (for me at least). A rural city in southern Colorado has a culture and economy that is distinct from a rural city in northern New Mexico.

Maybe to a certain degree. But places usually reflect moreso the culture of nearby places over state boundaries, than those further away in the same state. For example, the Panhandle of Florida has far more in common with Alabama than with Key West.

[Хahar 🤔]

State boundaries are not arbitrary actually. Each state government has great legal sway due to its constitutional rights. The laws it creates drive certain people away and attract others. Not only people, but businesses as well. So over time each state develops its own unique culture, political leanings, and economy. I frequently drive through the other three four corner states, and the difference you see between a city on one end of the border and one on the other is stark (for me at least). A rural city in southern Colorado has a culture and economy that is distinct from a rural city in northern New Mexico.

They are entirely arbitrary. The only thing that differs between one side of Lake Tahoe and the other is the gambling laws. There is no difference between far northern California and far southern Oregon. None.

I'm saying that they may have been arbitrary, but as people and business began to congregate in various states, they have evolved.

So? I am of a different race than you. We have different interests. are you to say that there should be equal Asian and White representatives in a house of Congress?

Absolutely not. I am sick of having some low population Senator use my tax dollars to bring home the pork while California gets screwed.

Well, you know, you're not important, because you live in a big state. You're already crowding out people who live in smallers tates.

Because those 53 representatives, one of which is the speaker of the house, are so irrelevant

You mean 3. I have three people representing me in Congress.

True, but your state, or even your metropolitan area have more representatives than Colorado.

Think about it this way. The state government has FAR more influence over your daily life than the federal government, and for good reason because it's more local. Thus independent political cultures develop in each state, so they deserve representation as independent entities.

That is because my metropolitan area has more people than Colorado.

As for your argument, that's fine. States can have independent representation. You haven't said why they should have equal representation.

They should have equal representation because legally they are identical, and as you said States can have independent representation.

I think you're just bitter over the healthcare debate. You probably didn't complain when Democrats blocked social security reform.

Interesting that you never see anybody outside of the liberal quadrant opposing equal state representation.

"Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests. As long as ours is a representative form of government, and our legislatures are those instruments of government elected directly by and directly representative of the people, the right to elect legislators in a free and unimpaired fashion is a bedrock of our political system. It could hardly be gainsaid that a constitutional claim had been asserted by an allegation that certain otherwise qualified voters had been entirely prohibited from voting for members of their state legislature. And, if a State should provide that the votes of citizens in one part of the State should be given two times, or five times, or 10 times the weight of votes of citizens in another part of the State, it could hardly be contended that the right to vote of those residing in the disfavored areas had not been effectively diluted. It would appear extraordinary to suggest that a State could be constitutionally permitted to enact a law providing that certain of the State's voters could vote two, five, or 10 times for their legislative representatives, while voters living elsewhere could vote only once."

Read this. As it stands, the apportionment of seats means that your Senate vote means more than 7 times as much as mine. Would it be acceptable if you were to be granted seven votes to my one?

Why would I be bitter? I'm not the one who brought up the subject. I've advocated this for years. Look at this.

Absolutely not. I am sick of having some low population Senator use my tax dollars to bring home the pork while California gets screwed.

I'm sick of an extreme House of Representatives proposing legislation that infringes on my state's rights. Without the Senate, Colorado, the 2nd freest state, would become a bureaucratic nightmare like California or New York.

It seems that you're the one bringing up political reasons for this.

That post was logically fallacious on more levels than any post I've ever seen by a non-troll other than J. J.

[Zarn]

Yes, they should.

Sane and understands the system.

Anyone that believes in majority rule... or any rule of a person or group of people... has a screw loose.

[Хahar 🤔]

Yes, they should.

Sane and understands the system.

Anyone that believes in majority rule... or any rule of a person or group of people... has a screw loose.

As opposed to minority rule?

[Sbane]

Absolutely not. I am sick of having some low population Senator use my tax dollars to bring home the pork while California gets screwed.

I'm sick of an extreme House of Representatives proposing legislation that infringes on my state's rights. Without the Senate, Colorado, the 2nd freest state, would become a bureaucratic nightmare like California or New York.

And the senate is not capable of this? I think you are the one who is defending the senate due to your loyalties in the current health care debate.

The current health care debate be damned, my vote in the senate is much less relevant than yours. I have less of a voice at the federal level than you do. How the hell is that fair? And please don't get caught up with the issues of today. This system will continue to be unfair regardless of whether it favors conservatives or liberals in the decades to come.

[Vepres]

Absolutely not. I am sick of having some low population Senator use my tax dollars to bring home the pork while California gets screwed.

I'm sick of an extreme House of Representatives proposing legislation that infringes on my state's rights. Without the Senate, Colorado, the 2nd freest state, would become a bureaucratic nightmare like California or New York.

And the senate is not capable of this? I think you are the one who is defending the senate due to your loyalties in the current health care debate.

The current health care debate be damned, my vote in the senate is much less relevant than yours. I have less of a voice at the federal level than you do. How the hell is that fair? And please don't get caught up with the issues of today. This system will continue to be unfair regardless of whether it favors conservatives or liberals in the decades to come.

I think the Democrat's filibuster of some conservative programs is perfectly justified.

Here's why I support the Senate in a nutshell: The Senate protects the minority (those who live in small states) from the majority (those who live in large states). As I said, for legal and economic reasons, state boundaries are not arbitrary.

Besides if you believe in majority rule, I would wager that the majority supports the Senate.

[Zarn]

Yes, they should.

Sane and understands the system.

Anyone that believes in majority rule... or any rule of a person or group of people... has a screw loose.

As opposed to minority rule?

"... or any rule of a person or group of people... "

Come on. It's not that hard.

[Sbane]

Absolutely not. I am sick of having some low population Senator use my tax dollars to bring home the pork while California gets screwed.

I'm sick of an extreme House of Representatives proposing legislation that infringes on my state's rights. Without the Senate, Colorado, the 2nd freest state, would become a bureaucratic nightmare like California or New York.

And the senate is not capable of this? I think you are the one who is defending the senate due to your loyalties in the current health care debate.

The current health care debate be damned, my vote in the senate is much less relevant than yours. I have less of a voice at the federal level than you do. How the hell is that fair? And please don't get caught up with the issues of today. This system will continue to be unfair regardless of whether it favors conservatives or liberals in the decades to come.

Here's why I support the Senate in a nutshell: The Senate protects the minority (those who live in small states) from the majority (those who live in large states). As I said, for legal and economic reasons, state boundaries are not arbitrary.

I am all for protecting minority opinions, but why protect the opinions of smaller states above the opinion of other minorities such as racial minorities or gays or any number of other minority groups?

Besides if you believe in majority rule, I would wager that the majority supports the Senate.

Talking about health care? Depends on how you frame the question. The public supports a "public option that competes with private insurance plans" but is ambivalent towards a "government run" insurance program. To me it seems like the country is 50-50 with a good portion of the population not having a clue. I would have to say the public is slightly more favorable towards the democratic point of view than the republican point of view of "no". Most polls back me up (I am aware some don't but question wording is the key here).

[Deldem]

Honestly, how do you give small states a voice at all without the Senate?

While they may have a larger influence than they should, they would be almost totally unable to help those in their states if not for the Senate. Sure, it's not perfect, small states may have a bit too much, but small states wouldn't have squat without the Senate.

[Vepres]

Absolutely not. I am sick of having some low population Senator use my tax dollars to bring home the pork while California gets screwed.

I'm sick of an extreme House of Representatives proposing legislation that infringes on my state's rights. Without the Senate, Colorado, the 2nd freest state, would become a bureaucratic nightmare like California or New York.

And the senate is not capable of this? I think you are the one who is defending the senate due to your loyalties in the current health care debate.

The current health care debate be damned, my vote in the senate is much less relevant than yours. I have less of a voice at the federal level than you do. How the hell is that fair? And please don't get caught up with the issues of today. This system will continue to be unfair regardless of whether it favors conservatives or liberals in the decades to come.

Here's why I support the Senate in a nutshell: The Senate protects the minority (those who live in small states) from the majority (those who live in large states). As I said, for legal and economic reasons, state boundaries are not arbitrary.

I am all for protecting minority opinions, but why protect the opinions of smaller states above the opinion of other minorities such as racial minorities or gays or any number of other minority groups?

Besides if you believe in majority rule, I would wager that the majority supports the Senate.

Talking about health care?

No, I mean a majority support equal representation among the states.

[Sbane]

Absolutely not. I am sick of having some low population Senator use my tax dollars to bring home the pork while California gets screwed.

I'm sick of an extreme House of Representatives proposing legislation that infringes on my state's rights. Without the Senate, Colorado, the 2nd freest state, would become a bureaucratic nightmare like California or New York.

And the senate is not capable of this? I think you are the one who is defending the senate due to your loyalties in the current health care debate.

The current health care debate be damned, my vote in the senate is much less relevant than yours. I have less of a voice at the federal level than you do. How the hell is that fair? And please don't get caught up with the issues of today. This system will continue to be unfair regardless of whether it favors conservatives or liberals in the decades to come.

Here's why I support the Senate in a nutshell: The Senate protects the minority (those who live in small states) from the majority (those who live in large states). As I said, for legal and economic reasons, state boundaries are not arbitrary.

I am all for protecting minority opinions, but why protect the opinions of smaller states above the opinion of other minorities such as racial minorities or gays or any number of other minority groups?

Besides if you believe in majority rule, I would wager that the majority supports the Senate.

Talking about health care?

No, I mean a majority support equal representation among the states.

Undoubtedly. I think a compromise may be possible. Instead of 2, maybe all states can get 1 seat in the senate. The rest are then distributed proportionally. Regardless, nothing of the sort will happen since there is no will for it, even in the larger states.

[Joe Biden 2020]

Honestly, how do you give small states a voice at all without the Senate?

While they may have a larger influence than they should, they would be almost totally unable to help those in their states if not for the Senate. Sure, it's not perfect, small states may have a bit too much, but small states wouldn't have squat without the Senate.

I totally agree with this statement.

It may be "unfair" to give the smaller states a bigger influence in the Senate, but I would argue that some elitists in the bigger states think any voice given to the small states is too much.  I'm not saying that is representative of the big states, but there are undoubtedly some with that opinion.

[Vepres]

Absolutely not. I am sick of having some low population Senator use my tax dollars to bring home the pork while California gets screwed.

I'm sick of an extreme House of Representatives proposing legislation that infringes on my state's rights. Without the Senate, Colorado, the 2nd freest state, would become a bureaucratic nightmare like California or New York.

And the senate is not capable of this? I think you are the one who is defending the senate due to your loyalties in the current health care debate.

The current health care debate be damned, my vote in the senate is much less relevant than yours. I have less of a voice at the federal level than you do. How the hell is that fair? And please don't get caught up with the issues of today. This system will continue to be unfair regardless of whether it favors conservatives or liberals in the decades to come.

Here's why I support the Senate in a nutshell: The Senate protects the minority (those who live in small states) from the majority (those who live in large states). As I said, for legal and economic reasons, state boundaries are not arbitrary.

I am all for protecting minority opinions, but why protect the opinions of smaller states above the opinion of other minorities such as racial minorities or gays or any number of other minority groups?

Besides if you believe in majority rule, I would wager that the majority supports the Senate.

Talking about health care?

No, I mean a majority support equal representation among the states.

Undoubtedly. I think a compromise may be possible. Instead of 2, maybe all states can get 1 seat in the senate. The rest are then distributed proportionally. Regardless, nothing of the sort will happen since there is no will for it, even in the larger states.

Exactly. If the majority support equal representation among the states, then to argue otherwise contradicts all the arguments for no equal representation.