why should each state keep 2 senate seats
 

Saw this the other night Wyoming

Rhode Island’s largest county has more people than Wyoming. RI
1.06 million ‎ 2 seats


Wyoming. sentor only has like 200,000 in his district total population
579,315 1 seat


•South Dakota
869,666 1 seat
#^&
•North Dakota
755,393 1 seat

•Delaware 1 seat
961,939


Should these states even get a seat ? or is this everyone gets a participation trophy .. or just another example of a rigged system like gerrymandering

Top 10 Most Gerrymandered States

1. North Carolina 2. Maryland 3. Pennsylvania 4. West Virginia 5: kentucky 6. Louisiana 7. Utah 8. Texas 9. Arkansas 10. Ohio

substantial effects of gerrymandering. In North Carolina, the GOP won 53 percent of the votes and 77 percent of the seats (10 out of 13). In Pennsylvania, they won 53 percent of the votes and 72 percent of the seats (13 out of 18). In Ohio, they won 56 percent of the vote and 75 percent of seats.

North carolina Last year, Democrats won nearly 50% of the vote, yet they hold only 38% of the seats in the state House and 30% of the seats in the state Senate.

And some here think Dems play dirty ?

Lets change the rules here!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's the only thing that keeps rural america from disappearing
This is a graphic from 2013 but it has not changed much
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nyti...advantage.html
At that time it ranged from California with 19 million per senator to Wyoming with 310,000.
They don't need to screw with that, remember almost all of us are residents of small states.
Term limits and campaign contribution limits are what we need, take the profit out of politics

OK Wayne, 5th grade civics lesson.

And Rhode Island is on the cusp of losing one of its Representatives due to slight decrease in population and increase in population in other places. So like Wyoming, Vermont, and Montana they would have only one. See, Representatives, ahem, REPRESENTATIVES, represent states by the population. The more population, the more reps. This is fair to the states (and by extension cities) with large populations, particularly expanding populations.

The Senate on the other hand equally represents each state so that California cannot swamp Rhode Island.

This balance is both beautiful and well thought out. It is fair to all.

Did you really mean that? Seriously?


Pete - back to Gulag for not parroting party line !!

Don't worry, I'm very independent.
But, I will gladly admit to despising Don the Con and posting things to stir the pot.

no one that continually posts as much stuff that didn't come out of their own brain as you do can claim to be independent in any way :bl:

Another brilliant contribution, thanks for your deep insight into the subject as usual:hs:

no problem....short and sweet :eek:

; )

GOP has been doing this for decades


This balance is both beautiful and well thought out. It is fair to all.


I agree thren gerrymandering became what it is today ... and there went fairness


may not be illegal but it's far from ethical

You do know that Senate Seats aren't assigned by population, right?

Or is this the SB version of "The Onion"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

BTW - we are in agreement on Gerrymandering - should be removed - though that would surely crush Dems in cities ; ) - Unless the Dems continue to split areas based on cities.

You picked out the Republican Gerrymandering - now do the Dems :rude:

well....we just learned that supreme court justices write laws sooooo....there's so much to learn here

This thread got funny. Homework assignment
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"You picked out the Republican Gerrymandering"

I listed the top 10 gerrymandering States Sorry if the majority were red?

no kidding... but seems the bigger picture is lost on some


In the last few decades, Democrats have expanded their advantages in California and New York — states with huge urban centers But those two states elect only 4 percent of the Senate. Meanwhile, Republicans have made huge advances in small rural states — think Arkansas, North and South Dakota, Iowa, Louisiana, Montana and West Virginia — that wield disproportionate power in the upper chamber compared to their populations.

aaaand...that's because the number of senators per state is not based on population...see how this works? I think it's in the Constitution:smash:

I guess the simple picture is lost on some.... :hee:

Wow
Just wow
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But what you are unwilling or incapable of understanding is that it is a practice done by both sides, yet you will only call out the sworn enemy of the proletariat.

Go by this map and the least Gerrymandered states are Republican (there is a reason for that ; ) ). Point is that it is easy to cherry pick your supporting facts if you can discard others.

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-ap...rry.png&w=1484

Yet they wield shockingly small power in the lower chamber that represents by population and are constanly under the thumb of California and New York. Something, something, balance, something.

Are you missing something? Or do you simply want to eliminate the Constitution and do something else?

Here is a possible solution by what I perceive as a relatively non partisan organization.
Both sides are guilty, but republicans currently control more state legislatures and therefore have more opportunity, numbers somewheres around 32-14 with the rest being split legislatures.
https://www.ced.org/reports/solving-...gerrymandering

Your digital way of thinking is really sad. It just sort of proves that there are some who focus on the small details and can not see the big picture.. kind of like that bitter gun lover who will only support the politician who will let him keep his guns but will screw him over sideways in every other way he can. Of course the Supreme Court doesn’t write laws, but my point was they are the final say in how they are enforced. New laws will be written knowing that the supreme courts balance had now changed. I’m not saying this is 100% bad but I’m ready to start seeing regression happening. I guess you can have I guess you can only have so much progressive intellect in the system before the other side needs their turn.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

ScottW - Nebe is right, you gotta smoke more dope to understand the big picture. This obviates the need to determine to follow the law and instead clarifies what laws you can ignore and which ones are absolute.

Nebe - what is this Big Picture you speak of?

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the phrase "Progressive Intellect"

tantrum... :hihi:

I did a quick double take there but passed that low hanging fruit. :musc::hee::lama:

I thought about it, but then I wouldn't have been true to myself :hihi:

Love the both sides do it argument ... that justifies everything in a conservatives mind

That’s right Wayne, only one side should be allowed to stoop that low and you were there first.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

seems fixing an issue and excusing an issue are somehow the same thing. in your view

you mean "Fixing" a Non-Issue, right?

:tooth:

No Wayne. The ability to inspect and look at an issue or a law / regulation, to then to see where and if the spirit or fact of law is broken, whom the offending persons are - regardless of party - should be an American mindset.

Is seeking justice against Repub infractions under every rock but condoning wrong doings by Dems a Progressive Mindset?

Here's why we should keep two senators in every state, whether it be CA or ND. Because that was the deal we made with the small states, in order to get them to buy into the creation of the republic. They saw, even back then, that in a pure democracy, rural areas would be dominated by urban areas whose interests were different. So to get the small states (colonies I guess) to agree to sign the constitution, they were offered a disproportionate voice in the senate and in the electoral college.

The reasons for that (preventing rural areas from being dominated by urban areas) are probably more prevalent today than they were back then. A deal is a deal, that was the deal that was made.

It wasn't that long ago the both senators from many small states were democrats. So instead of abolishing the electoral college, a better path for the democrats might be to either convince people in those small states that liberalism is superior to conservatism, or to come up with an agenda that's more acceptable to rural areas. Telling those people that they're all racist bitter clingers and deplorable, might not be the best way to win them over.

Liberals are in a mindset of "here's my ideology, and if it doesn't win the election, I'm going to destroy the system, because if I lose, it can only mean that the system is rigged, it cannot be that San Francisco liberalism just isn't what's best for everybody".

Obviously, yes.

WDMSO, we'd just like a little consistency in the application of rules and standards, that's all.

You obviously don't have the "Reading Comprehension Skills", and/or the ability to apply the "Progressive Intellect",needed to put into "Context" the information that is the cornerstone of their arguments.

you can't expect consistency in the application of rules and standards when your side has no consistency in the application of rules and standards ... :btu:

Not looking under rock its all in the open

i don’t have those skills, all right.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device