GuyLuomo
90103
3274
212
Jan 24, 2021 9:52 PM
GuyLuomo
90103
3274
212
HanoverPhist
It's getting harder and harder to get people to vote against their own interests
ColClone54
Anybody read that part in the US Constitution that talks about two Senators for each state? Not based on population. 17th Ammendment.
ColClone54
This isn't gerrymandering like for the House of Representatives. It's simple constitutional law and the demographics of the states. Sorry to
ColClone54
state what should be obvious but this is part of the checks & balances of power. Can't blame anyone but whoever chose to vote for whom.
FinnAndJakesTreeHouse
But... that makes sense... like I disagree with who some people voted for, but yes.
TheCuratorLive
I think they are also forgetting that those 50 seats for each party wasn’t won in 1 election as only 1/3 of the senate was up for election
aChungusAmongUs
Well that is something I didn’t know before reading this. Neato
iamthelawl
Senators were not always chosen by popular vote. The house represents the people. The senate represents the state. Not anymore though.
LizardEnterprises
Remind me again, what are states?
DreamingOfDistantShores
Then the 1929 cap on house member totals needs to go too, because it has become unlinked from its original proportionate-pop weighting.
SIGMA920
That's more than fair.
pshine12
It's like that on purpose the Senate is intended to equally represent state governments. They used to pick the senators not voters.
ThunderChief00
Some tech giants need to open up shop in low pop republican states and hire a bunch of young open minded workers.
whitey211
This is the way it's supposed to be. Senate and House. This way small states can still have some say.
DreamingOfDistantShores
Then the 1929 cap on house member totals needs to go too, because it has become unlinked from its original proportionate-pop weighting.
DreamingOfDistantShores
Right now both parts of congress and the executive branch (through the EC) favor rural states. That's the imbalance.
Mcknizzle
Dude doesn’t seem to get what the senate is and why it exists. The senators don’t represent people. They represent states. The house
Mcknizzle
represents people. Now if you want to get into gerrymandering, have at it! But maybe read up on what the senate is before bashing it.
theman4240
The US is not a democracy. It is a democratic republic, there's a difference and a reason why
AbhainnFuil
Every state is equally represented. America is a Republic not a democracy, in a pure democracy small states would not have a voice.
SlNowPl
This is to make sure that cities don't control the government only, but that smaller pop states which produce most food can get support
ACMech
As much as I would love to agree with you, CA makes a bunch of food, just their population centers are overcrowded.
Scield
I always wonder about the ca food production I always find it in dollars and never tonnes, I can is famous for a lot of cash crops.
ImFrank
But that’s literally the fucking point of the Senate.
Ginoawesomesauce
The problem is many of these states shouldn't even be states. Why does Montana get two senate votes when the pop is less than LA?
poultice
Well, the senate is designed to favor low pop states. That doesn't mean it was designed to favor a particular party.
poultice
It also doesn't mean the design is good. At some point (surely) you would agree that this would break down.
poultice
That part is a matter of opinion. I take it you think 125% more power is acceptable, but somewhere between that and 1000000% you might care.
ImFrank
I didn’t type a word about how I actually feel. Just pointing out that the thing the guy is complaining about, representation irrespective
ImFrank
Of population was entirely the point of the Senate. Now, if you want to debate the validity of that design. Sure go ahead.
poultice
I know you didn't. It's a guess, but you seemed annoyed and just like you the tweet is just numbers. It doesn't explicitly endorse anything.
Sowhat101
The House is population based, what are those numbers?
WeeblesWobble
It’s almost as if things have changed a bit in 246 years...
DreamingOfDistantShores
Broken. The 1929 cap on house member totals needs to go too, because it has become unlinked from its original proportionate-pop weighting.
theMonkeyTrap
House is also gameable by gerrymandering.
AspieGamer
They do call America the Great Experiment for a reason. It really does feel like a country in early access.
WigglyWeasel
Still in early beta.
cptyarderho
I think OP’s point is that America is not 50/50.
SIGMA920
And the senate isn't population based by design. Hell, even if you include OP's numbers that's damn near equal anyway only by 40 million in
SIGMA920
a country of 330 million.
enjin
Look man, every state gets two. That's what the house is for.
MrCheez333
To be fair this is also based on the amount of people that voted. Things have gotten worse, so more people voted
TravisEllis
Equally valid "what about the millions of us not represented by *either* party?
LizardEnterprises
They should lobby one of the larger parties to adopt an alternate voting system, and then join that party until they get it.
TravisEllis
Tried that with the R party. Didn't work
Chereazi
There's independents. They just don't really get votes, with a few exceptions
TheHourGrowsLate
Because I'm always interested to know about independents: what are your views, that you believe neither party represents you?
LizardEnterprises
Statistically, about 1/3 of independents reliably vote (D), about 1/3 reliably vote (R). Some of the rest reliably throw away their votes
LizardEnterprises
on third party candidates, only a few are actually wildcards.
Buttlickerourpriceshaveneverbeenlower
Part of the issue is that there’s a lot of variation Witt independents. It’s not a party, so it’s not a unified group of people. For me(1/?)
Buttlickerourpriceshaveneverbeenlower
*with
Buttlickerourpriceshaveneverbeenlower
Both parties have been expanding the role government, spend out of control, continually increase executive power, have self-interested (2/?)
Buttlickerourpriceshaveneverbeenlower
and corrupt politicians, that often legislate based on their own out-of-touch interests. Their constant need to one-up the other party (3/?)
Buttlickerourpriceshaveneverbeenlower
widens the gap between their constituents and creates radicals. Compromise becomes impossible. They still get paid. We still get stuck (4/?)
geekslikeus
I know I'm not who you asked, but my top priorities at the moment, roughly in order, are: COVID response (special case); campaign finance \
geekslikeus
reform, protecting data encryption from attacks like the LAED Act, reducing gun control legislation, Medicare for All, and slowing \
geekslikeus
the increase in federal legislation in general in most other respects.
TheHourGrowsLate
I don't understand how you can support Medicare for All, but dislike federal legislation.
ImFrank
Looks like they’re upset that the Senate *checks notes* represents the states equally, which is the point of the Senate.
DreamingOfDistantShores
Then the 1929 cap on house member totals needs to go too, because it has become unlinked from its original proportionate-pop weighting.
TheHourGrowsLate
The system wasn't designed for 50 states, with the largest having 80 times the population of the smallest.
ImFrank
Debates on the legitimacy of the system are different than complaining that the system is working the way that it was designed.
stink3rbelle
yeah, not when the system's always been unjust.
TheHourGrowsLate
What does that mean? The complaint is that a system meant to prevent the tyranny of the majority now allows the tyranny of the minority,
TheHourGrowsLate
because the components of the system have changed so their creation.
ImFrank
The argument of the post is framed in such a way that it argues the system is broken, which is disingenuous. The system is working as 1/2
FaecalJacksonPollock
USA: putting the "mock" in "democracy" since 1776.
Cananybodyreallyreadlikethis
It was never truly a democracy before.
sqabbit
US has always made their system so smaller populations have more proportional power so they dont get railroaded by the majority all the time
milskiCatDiver
So we get the majority being railroaded by the minority virtually all the time.
Mickp81
It’s gotten much worse since they changed how the filibuster works.
sqabbit
Literally just its system working. Unfortunately most us citizens have no idea how their system works let alone why it works that way
QuiteADapperAsshole
I get that. But the system still gets abused sometimes. There are holes that could be patched.
sqabbit
Oh of course, that is an understatement. We need less gerrymandering, open primaries, money out of races, etc
hotroddadbod
It’s almost like there weren’t supposed to be parties
Lefthandofgod
This is by design specifically to prevent large cities and overpopulated States from monopolizing politics.
CheesecakePi
... because the Senate was specifically designed to serve as a check on the elected power of states with large populations. So every /1
LizardEnterprises
Yeah, and that was a shitty idea. It lead directly to the civil war, and itl lead to another if we don't abolish it.
CheesecakePi
... you realize that for a fair bit of US history, the large states that had their power limited by the Senate was the slaveholding south.
CheesecakePi
smaller, rural state gets the same number of senators as larger, more populous states. What we should be talking about is how the House /2
CheesecakePi
has been at a fixed number of elected officials and further limited the power of larger states (and why the EC has grown more and more /3
CheesecakePi
disassociated from the popular vote nationally as a result). 4/4
DreamingOfDistantShores
Yeah, the cap on the house and the way the Electoral College function ensure that they, like the senate, give more weight to rural votes.
INeverWaitForIt
The problem is, of course, based on population. The US has territories that are more populous than several states combined. What's to stop
INeverWaitForIt
R's from, if they ever win Congress and Presidency again, disincorporating Wyoming into 80 separate, GOP dominated states to retain a
comedicrelief
In that case, the Wyoming constitution, only Texas has the ability to dissolve into multiple and that’s being 5.
INeverWaitForIt
supermajority in the Senate for decades?On top of that, Senate representation ALSO gives EC votes, so those 80 states confer 3 EC votes each
CheesecakePi
Aside from it being absurd and contrary to how we've seen it actually function over the last 200+ years? It's against the law.
anotherdickat
The have ALSO proven that they do not give a flying fig for the "norms" and "traditions" that used to keep the government running.
anotherdickat
Do I need to link you to all the lawbreaking that republicans have done over the last 4 years?
imgurimgurimgur1
It's well defined by a document called the Constitution. Less populous states have more clout in the Senate intentionally. Learn about it.
DreamingOfDistantShores
Then the 1929 cap on house member totals needs to go too, because it has become unlinked from its original proportionate-pop weighting.
anotherdickat
empty land should have no clout/vote and rural individuals should not have more clout/vote than urban individuals do
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Mcknizzle
That’s what the house is for. To give larger populations a voice. The senate is built to ensure that massive states can’t steamroll smaller
Mcknizzle
ones. It’s built specifically to protect the minority. Now you can have a field day with how poorly the house succeeds at accurately
Mcknizzle
representing populations and you can be my guest, but the senate is essential with regards to maintaining the union.
TravisEllis
Because the Senate works differently than the house on purpose?
QuiteADapperAsshole
I think the point is that the GOP senators cannot say their "constituents are not being heard" by not letting them control everything.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Tarmaccian
No, that was the 3/5ths Compromise, which gave slave states more power in the House. The Senate was meant to be equal, for administration.
Christophermahlon
Yes, and it’s still had that it works that way? We can admit we made a mistake and change it?
TravisEllis
Except i haven't seen a relevant argument that it was designed poorly
GenStrike
Then open your eyes.
Glockenspieler
Yes, hmmm... what purpose could that be.?.?
LizardEnterprises
Just because something was designed deliberately does not mean it was a good idea.
TravisEllis
Just because it doesn't work the way you want, doesn't mean it was designed poorly
LizardEnterprises
1/2 No, the fact that it doesn't deliver anything worth having means it was designed poorly. People living in populous states are equally
LizardEnterprises
2/2 valid people to people living in rural states, but their votes do not count equally. That is an indefensible miscarriage of justice.
WigglyWeasel
No shit, Sherlock.
TravisEllis
Yep. No shit
andwings2go
Yes. The state’s rights edge is in the Senate. Electoral College is redundant and needs to go.
finshake
You are saying this because our Congress functions flawlessly?
andwings2go
You mean the House? Gerrymandering needs to go too. One battle at a time.
ImgurMadeMeChangeMyNameCauseItsDumb
Still dealing with the shit put in government to keep the southern slave owning class happy
CoBr2
I mean, Rhode Island was one of first states to ban slavery and they wouldn't have joined union without electoral college/senate
thatonewhosaid
How is the electoral college redundant?
bluemagister
it isn't giving them the results they want so they want to get rid of it.
ShroomGrowth
Honestly I doubt that the founders would agree that the system is working today the way they intended. Would they have really anticipated /2
ShroomGrowth
two Dakotas? If Congressional duties were consistent across the House and Senate then it wouldn't be such a problem. But too many special /3
ShroomGrowth
responsibilities rest in the Senate. If they'd just stick with the 60 vote rule and work towards comprise it'd make all the difference /4
ShroomGrowth
Fuck Mitch McConnell
Seventytonsofmettle
Slavery. When the US lost slavery they had to control from minority rule somehow.
TravisEllis
Inaccurate.
kaarbaakimgr
The House of Representatives represents the people. The Senate represents the state.
TravisEllis
Supposed to be that way. Not how it works anymore
lilmookieesquire
sMaLl sTaTeS nEeD eQuaL rEpResEnTatIOn. Ri AnD nY sHOUlD bE SaMe
TravisEllis
I get the reference. Not sure what you're trying to say
lilmookieesquire
It disenfranchises millions of people politically and the states west of the Mississippi are absolutely underrepresented. It lets GOP thrive
finallylookedattheusername
I think the issue is that it's still deeply flawed. The two house system was and still is full of holes and is deeply undemocratic
GasBandit
In its conception, senators were supposed to be appointed by state governments, not direct popular vote, anyway.
grimwalker
That became a cesspool of corruption very quickly as state party machines selected pliant puppets; other states had legislative deadlocks.
tolgabrotha
Senate is the House of Lords. It's entire purpose is to block any progress that might challenge the entrenched interests of the already pow
tolgabrotha
Erful and wealthy who are the true masters of this society. Senate should be abolished or at the very least should be assigned to an adviso
tolgabrotha
Ry role. Perhaps they could be the lower camara and do what comittees do in the HoR. It is an absolutely anti-democratic institution.
TravisEllis
A better response, but not entirely accurate. The house were designed to protect the masses, Senate to protect the gentry.
TravisEllis
That's why all taxes/ funding have to start in the house
PuzzledCompletely
The purpose, then and now, was to protect white people. Maybe time for a change?
TravisEllis
Inaccurate. It was to ensure states with smaller populations got the same level of representation
PuzzledCompletely
The same way the civil war was about state's rights.
redsoxpwn
Deliberate does not mean good.
TravisEllis
Doesn't mean bad either
Callynd
Not inherently bad. But the Senate is Bad Civilization to the Nth degree.
redsoxpwn
Deliberate is entirely separate from good and bad. Just happens it’s real shitty in this particular case.
thewhereiankelly
wait till you hear about the house and gerrymandering.... in 2022 the dems will get more votes but still might lose the house... it's crazy
grimwalker
The senate is undemocratic plain and simple.
bborgypsi
The U.S.A. is not a democracy. It's a republic.
TravisEllis
Was never designed to be democratic
grimwalker
That’s a bad thing.
TravisEllis
Checks and balances aren't a bad thing
grimwalker
In principle, no, but when the practical result is minority rule you bet your ass it’s a bad thing.
hardytardigrade
It works so states have same representation despite size. That doesn't require a split along party lines. Has it always been urban vs rural?
DreamingOfDistantShores
Blatantly for the senate and presidency (electoral college), and in the House due to the 1929 cap on members, all 3 favor rural influence.
DreamingOfDistantShores
(Essentially by ensuring that a rural vote has more weight than an urban one)
ambiencenever
States are dirt with lines around them. States aren't people.
hardytardigrade
That is true. I'm not following what it has to do with my comment.
DreamingOfDistantShores
And the House permanently capped its members in 1929, while population has obviously continued to grow rapidly and in new areas, which
mRfLiCkMaN8
Damn, I was just wondering this fact. That’s stupid..
TravisEllis
Maybe they made sense once. With modern technology we could return to the original design
DreamingOfDistantShores
dramatically undermines its proposed functionality as the part of congress where proportionate population matters, worsening every year.
DreamingOfDistantShores
https://www.amacad.org/ourcommonpurpose/recommendation-1-1 One of many resources on why this is a problem, for the curious.
iamaninternetbearok
Sure, but this has nothing to do with proportionality of representation
DreamingOfDistantShores
It is literally the second major section on that linked page.
wizard07ksu9000
(US pop)/(total seats) = ~people per district. This gets recalculated every census so states can gain/loose seats. Exactly as intended.
InkyBlinkyPinkyAndClyde
But the cap means the most populous states don't get as many as they're supposed to.
coffeeismyfriend
Population and DEMOGRAPHICS changed.
Atomic2
yes but so did the distribution of house appointees. And continues to change. Thats what the census is for. Trump actually tried to fuck >>
Atomic2
it up though, arguably did. So thats not great. But otherwise, thats how the system is supposed to work. //
InkyBlinkyPinkyAndClyde
He didn't manage to fuck it up. SCOTUS rules that he was allowed to, but he dropped the ball and never put in the necessary changes, lol.
ModernVoodooApostasy
If you look at the states they represent, your math is WAY off. N&S DAK, WY, & ALASKA combined have a smaller pop. than the Baltimore metro.
friggenjeebus
United States, not united people. The ststes should govern people, the fed governs states
LizardEnterprises
And that was neat idea back when the population of the country was 3 guys a horse and some slaves, but it doesn't work anymore.
ModernVoodooApostasy
But they should be states, not territories. We made states out of territories during the Missouri Compromise years.
Questionablysensible
Didn't that play a large role in starting the Civil War?
ModernVoodooApostasy
it did -- +1 for paying attention in high school
backrideup9
Still off base. 50 Dem Senators represent 325 million ppl. 50 Rep Senators represent 325 million ppl. At least, it should b that way.
gurlsnuggler
That’s fair. The idea of political parties was an affront to the people who framed the constitution.
DoorbyTheHouseShelf
That makes absolutely zero sense. So each senator is supposed to represent all citizens? We don't all share the same views. That's the whole
DoorbyTheHouseShelf
Entire point of having 100 of them in the first place. They each represent a specific area of the US. How could there be a 50-50 split of
DoorbyTheHouseShelf
Dem. and Rep. When all senators represent the collective voice of all Americans. What would that voice even be? We can't agree on ANYTHING.
HootSloot
Senators are still representatives of their state and should serve the interests of their constituents within their role.
WardSharlow
That's literally the opposite of how it should work. Each member of the House and Senate is chosen to represent a local constituency.
innagaddavidababy
Huh? Explain.
rhylla
Add up the population of those states and compare to the metro area of Baltimore. A good number of cities have more people than whole states
WardSharlow
Yep. The city of Los Angeles has 7 times the population of Wyoming..
ModernVoodooApostasy
2 senators per state, no matter how few people live there. The GOP has all the states where almost no one lives.
kaleighgurl87
Yeah but all 4 Senators from TX & FL are GOP; They represent more than 40 million ppl in those 2 states alone...
IndyBelle
As a Houstonian, I did not vote for the people currently in office for TX. Same for many people I know.
kaleighgurl87
Of course - just to the orig. post there’s a difference btwn who you vote for and who “represents” you in Congress, even if you hate them.
ModernVoodooApostasy
literally the only 2 high-population states you Trump seditionists have. Good cherry picking, little buddy!
kaleighgurl87
Of the 20 Senators from the 10 highest pop states, 8 are GOP; why would you think I support Trump?
ModernVoodooApostasy
You can create a Senatorial *majority* that represents 12% of Americans. And the house is gerrymandered.
Chereazi
The really crazy part here? That there's 63 million people voting against their own interests
kamkor1
40 years of fox news will do that to someone
TheInfiniteUnknown
And they are happy to do it. Got to stick it to the libs!
GreenGaeasSon
I'll vote my principles over my interests every day of the week. That's what it means to have principles.
Jokerthehulk
To be fair they did tell us that you guys would try to take my guns. How else was I supposed to vote? /s
94theBest
i see 146 mill voting against their own interests, but sure LOTE for me
Lefthandofgod
Against which interests? To have their guns confiscated? Their cities flooded with non-Americans? Their right to self defense neutered?
MammaryCalamity
They're coming for ur guns! Lol with you people. They will never come for your guns
Lefthandofgod
They have been coming for our guns since the 1800s. Your lies are transparent and built on weak foundations. Check Biden's own website.
MammaryCalamity
Never once have i feared my 2 gun safes being emptied. You can cry all you want, but the boogeyman isn't coming
klojvert
What I find even crazier is having to choose between two -very- far right parties instead of a balanced political spectrum
leodavinci1
That doesn't exist.
TheGracefulDead
Eh, the 1% are probably voting in their self interest (based on pop. 3 Million approx)
Aaronb1138
Plenty of small business owners of little skill or merit in the upper 10% hoping to make it a bit higher where taxes are their single issue.
ImPerfectlyHappyWithTheDroolingDolts
Richest 10% vote MAGA, 33M. The most racist 10% vote MAGA, 33M. That leaves 7M unfathomably stupid ppl that think Trump is a stable genius.
theMonkeyTrap
there is probably some overlap between those venn diagrams.
MothMonsterMan
That isn't entirely accurate. Their interest include racism and white supremacy, and that's what they vote for.
thegringointhenorth
Please, for god's sake, go out and speak to a few working-class people. They're generally not Nazis; who knows, you might like some of them.
MothMonsterMan
The point being if Nazis stand on your side then you are on the wrong side. It's that simple.
thegringointhenorth
Richard Spencer, the neo-nazi alt-right fuckboy poster-child, supported Biden in this election, as did many other ethnonationalists, on 1/2
thegringointhenorth
account of Trump drastically improving ties with Israel, helping to facilitate Arab-Israeli peace deals, moving the embassy to Jerusalem etc
Purrmageddon
Or only party lines because that's what their parents voted for, regardless of what's is offered. Yay.. our education system.
Syk0tik0ne
I work with a guy who votes Republican solely on abortion. Nothing else matters as long as the "baby killers" don't win.
nommon
There are SO MANY single-issue Republican voters. I’m sure there are plenty of Democrats but all of the ones I’ve met were Republican.
RichardPicture
Single-issue voters. Guns, abortion, environment, taxes... pick your poison. Lots of people stick to one thing and vote solely on it.
KansasComrade
I like to think I’m a one issue voter for the environment, but if I’m honest, I’ll never vote 3rd party without a shot. So I’m a lesser of 2
[deleted]
[deleted]
charlietrundlethegreat
Yeah baby killers. How dare women have any rights? Whats next? Women drivers?
[deleted]
[deleted]
ThisIsYourLifeNow
I am sure the same guy has 50 adopted rejected kids and loves to take more in. Otherwise he should shut up and stay at home on election day
Syk0tik0ne
He's actually in his 40s and married with no kids. They refuse to adopt because he "doesn't want someone else's mistake".
ThisIsYourLifeNow
lol no kids. fucking banana republican. Probably his wife got a abortion. That would fit this hypocrates bullshit
BuckyBawllz
Women are free to choose to do it, but it is killing a baby. why is it equated w/ driving/other rights it doesn't compare I love that I can
BuckyBawllz
Decided things like, drive, not to vote or get married but none of that is abortion level no matter what side you're on it makes something
BuckyBawllz
That is strong enough to stand on its own merritt feel weaker not stronger
Randomoxide
That isn't entirely accurate. I know people who just didn't like Biden, and that's what they voted for. A bit rude to assume otherwise.
MothMonsterMan
It may be rude, but when your party stages an insurrection then you forfeit the right to be treated with respect.
Randomoxide
I can agree, but just hold the people responsible. Not the party. Just gotta do some house cleaning, thats all.
myotherusernameismyotherusername
So they don't support white supremacists, they just enable and tolerate them? I fail to see how that's better in terms of results.
Randomoxide
I feel as though most are against white supremacy. But even insects find a way into your home every once in a while. Gotta clean the house.
myotherusernameismyotherusername
But you do understand why saying "I'm against this" but then voting for it is not a valid defense?
StartingtoFeelOldandSlow
I hope they voted 3rd party because there is NO reason to vote Trump over Biden. Anything bad Biden has done, Trump has also done.
StartingtoFeelOldandSlow
Also, voting isn't supposed to be a popularity contest. It's supposed to be about who has your best interests in mind.
Randomoxide
I whole heartedly agree, but its definitely easy to trick most into believing that they are cared for.
lurkerlurkinginthedark
Interests are babies and guns, so they ignore taxes, health insurance, and better wages.
Velisity
“I don’t want to pay for other people’s shit.” - Republican voters.
whatpassesforclever
*gleefully pays for health, life, car insurances, corporate welfare, unnecessary wars, profits for shareholders in stock they down own* -R’s
WakeMeUpB4UpostPost
But what people don’t understand is. On either party there are various interest, lobbying for their interest. Within the Our country, & out
WakeMeUpB4UpostPost
The last relief bill majority that money went to other countries, & military spending, etc., While Americans got $600.
ColdestOne
I think it’s pretty clear which party wanted to give more than $600 and which one wanted to give nothing to the people.
ColdestOne
The Dems aren't angels but when the other side is the devil you have to take what you can get.
WakeMeUpB4UpostPost
I don’t disagree, but they’re still sucking the corporate tit, which they have invested interest, that maintaining their wealth too