We should have a man and a woman representing each district and state to guarantee 50/50 representation.
-
-
People keep saying it's not in the Constitution. That's why we have amendments. The Constitution can change. The founding fathers weren't divine.
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Well, that is the entire point of the Senate and was the reason it was designed that way. But I agree with your point here.
-
The founding fathers aren't divine. They fucked up on this one, among other things
-
100%. Things like the Senate are stark reminders that the nation was designed by elite white men for elite white men, and every movement since founding has been an effort to fix that.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Read the Constitution. The House is where the larger states are supposed to dominate and the Senate is where equal representation protects the rights of the smaller states.
-
I'm saying the Constitution is wrong on this point. I know what it says. I know that it's completely ridiculous in the real world too
-
I agree. In the Senate, a person from North Dakota mattets 50 times more than I, a CA resident, do.
-
No, a person in ND matters exactly equal as a person in CA; HoR. The STATE of ND matters exactly equal to the state of CA, as a whole, thanks to the design of the Senate. Basic Civics class in middle school.
-
They don't think of the US as a collection of sovereign states.
-
Think you may be right. Without the Senate protecting equality of the individual States; we’d be a continent of any number of nations—so basically Europe.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
So you want the Senate to be.....the House of Representatives???
-
@dyodes21 you under simplify. The founding fathers, who set up the Senate, didn’t foresee CA population being 72 times that of WY. Plus gerrymandering has destroyed representation of women and minorities in the House. -
The implied solution sounds to me like “let’s give more representation to areas that vote blue.” Isn’t *that* gerrymandering?
-
the solution is equal representation... Just because highly concentrated populations vote blue does not mean individuals within that population should not have an equal voice in senate.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Love ya, John, but the whole point of the Senate is that each state gets equal power in that branch.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I live in North Dakota and I agree. 600,000 vs 30 million doesn't match up.
-
And that is why you have 1 member in the House vs. CA’s 53 members
-
Actually there's this other important thing called the Senate, to which I was referring.
-
I am fully aware of what the U.S. Senate is; they’re my former employer.
-
I’m saying that California’s large population is accounted for by the number of Reps. they have in the House.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.