• @Monstrosity@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    2
    edit-2
    12 hours ago

    I just disagree.

    The Senate is where the States have equal representation regardless of size, that’s the point of it. The House is meant to be where California’s population makes the difference, but the cap needs to be removed, imo.

    Without a Senate, the most populous states drag everyone else around by sheer weight. That’s not sustainable.

    Also, as someone who has experienced life in both rural and urban America, city people have lots of misunderstandings about how people in small communities live and make bad decisions based on those misunderstandings as well. It’s not like country folk have a monopoly on that shit.

    EDIT: Just want to acknowledge the point I think you’re trying to make about minority (often religiously motivated) groups passing laws that affect huge populations in cities where we have to live with each other. I totally get it, just to be clear.

    • @Redfugee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      27 hours ago

      Conversely, with a Senate the least populous states drag everyone else around by having a disproportionate amount of voting power in the Senate, just because of the state they happen to be in.

      • @Monstrosity@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1
        edit-2
        47 minutes ago

        No? I think I see what you mean, but the States all have equal power in the Senate so its more like tug-of-war and coalition building.

        Again, imo, the House is really where California’s 500 pound Gorilla status should come into play but the cap means tiny States hold disproportionately waaaaaaay too much sway. The Reds should not currently control the House, not even close.