-
-
You’re a good man to have the energy to point out the obvious. The needed, but obvious.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
The House has not been based on population for nearly a century. They put a cap on members in 1929 and haven't adjusted since.
-
That does mean it's not based on population. South Dakota has one house rep because of their small population. California has 53 because of population. If South Dakota gets more people it get more reps. If California loses people they lose reps.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
People know this... the point is that maybe, just maybe, the part of Congress that isn't based on number of people, you know, the less democratic part of Congress, shouldn't be the more powerful part that holds most of the country hostage. Obviously.
-
It's meant as a balance, so that the more populous states don't hold away over the least populous. It gives the Midwest a chance to be part of the Republic. America is a liberal democracy, not a straight-up democracy. Minority voters are also represented.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Glad to see you agree with Rob that the US Senate is an undemocratic institution.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Explaining the existence of something doesnt justify its existence
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
have you thought that maybe we know this, but that the concept of “representing a state” is dumb as shit and should hold significantly less, if any power?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.