• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What's wrong with this picture? Wyoming, one house rep, two senators.

B

bongsaway

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 16, 2019
Messages
61,236
Reaction score
50,990
Location
Flori-duh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Wyoming, Montana and the Dakotas, four states that can basically control the Senate with the four of them together having less population than NYC. Total population for those four states, just over three million people. Wyoming has one house rep. who also consistently votes with trump's agenda.
 
We are not a strict Democracy, we are a Constitutional Republic for good reasons.

Are you passively asking us to turn the Senate into the House and assign seats by State or district population?
 
OrphanSlug said:
We are not a strict Democracy, we are a Constitutional Republic for good reasons.

Are you passively asking us to turn the Senate into the House and assign seats by State or district population?
Click to expand...

That would still be a Republic.
 
bongsaway said:
Wyoming, Montana and the Dakotas, four states that can basically control the Senate with the four of them together having less population than NYC. Total population for those four states, just over three million people. Wyoming has one house rep. who also consistently votes with trump's agenda.
Click to expand...

The issue is the arbitrary cap on the size of the House of Reps.

That cap needs to be eliminated, the Rep to citizen ratio from when the cap was instituted restored, and then the size of the House increasing with every census.

Wyoming will keep its one Rep, while California would increase to close to 200 Reps, and an equal number of Electoral College votes.
 
Questerr said:
The issue is the arbitrary cap on the size of the House of Reps.

That cap needs to be eliminated, the Rep to citizen ratio from when the cap was instituted restored, and then the size of the House increasing with every census.

Wyoming will keep its one Rep, while California would increase to close to 200 Reps, and an equal number of Electoral College votes.
Click to expand...

Bingo, that’s a primary source of the distortion today.
 
Questerr said:
The issue is the arbitrary cap on the size of the House of Reps.

That cap needs to be eliminated, the Rep to citizen ratio from when the cap was instituted restored, and then the size of the House increasing with every census.

Wyoming will keep its one Rep, while California would increase to close to 200 Reps, and an equal number of Electoral College votes.
Click to expand...
That would still not increase the number of reps in states with low populations but it does give those states power in the Senate regardless of population. Should a state with one rep because of its population have the same number of senators with say a state with fifty million population versus a state with three hundred k population? Our constitution is not perfect, far from it.
 
Greenbeard said:
That would still be a Republic.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but it further erodes the intention of the Senate vs the intention of the House Constitutionally speaking.

The 17th Amendment moving this from State legislators to the public vote arguably altered the intention from the framing of the Constitution. But going a step further and framing the Senate to be elected and distributed in a manner similar to the House goes a step further in suggesting some states simply do not matter. Democracy speaking.

This is a very similar conversation to the EC. vs. popular vote determination of a President.
 
bongsaway said:
That would still not increase the number of reps in states with low populations but it does give those states power in the Senate regardless of population. Should a state with one rep because of its population have the same number of senators with say a state with fifty million population versus a state with three hundred k population? Our constitution is not perfect, far from it.
Click to expand...

Yes. Thats the point in having two different legislatures.

The House represents number of people, the Senate represents the number of States. The idea is that states are supposed to be equal members of the Union.

If the Senate was to be changed to be based on population, it would just be another House. Just abolish it entirely at that point as redundant.
 
Questerr said:
If the Senate was to be changed to be based on population, it would just be another House. Just abolish it entirely at that point as redundant.
Click to expand...

We could always get creative and gerrymander the states. Do they really need to have the same lines for two centuries?
 
Greenbeard said:
We could always get creative and gerrymander the states. Do they really need to have the same lines for two centuries?
Click to expand...

Changing state borders and gerrymandering aren’t quite the same thing.

Also historical precedent says state border changes requires federal and state authorization.
 
Helix said:
Make DC a state.
Click to expand...
Just return it to Maryland.
If made a State, find an unpopulated area somewhere about mid U.S.A. and move the entire Federal government there, allowing no permanent residences within that area.
 
Individual said:
Just return it to Maryland.
If made a State, find an unpopulated area somewhere about mid U.S.A. and move the entire Federal government there, allowing no permanent residences within that area.
Click to expand...

How does a city function with no permanent residences?

This isn’t 1804, where the entire Executive Branch can fit inside the White House.
 
Questerr said:
Yes. Thats the point in having two different legislatures.

The House represents number of people, the Senate represents the number of States. The idea is that states are supposed to be equal members of the Union.

If the Senate was to be changed to be based on population, it would just be another House. Just abolish it entirely at that point as redundant.
Click to expand...
It also give excessive power to states with hardly any population. Like I said, our constitution isn't perfect. Let's be honest the four states mentioned all voted for Trump.

One vote, one person ends all the middleman stuff and electors along with the electoral college which in my opinion are all steps along the way that can nullify your vote. Winner takes all states, abolish that shit for a stepped system. That alone basically takes away forty percent of every states voters. If I vote for candidate A, I don't want candidate B to get my vote.
 
bongsaway said:
Wyoming, Montana and the Dakotas, four states that can basically control the Senate with the four of them together having less population than NYC. Total population for those four states, just over three million people. Wyoming has one house rep. who also consistently votes with trump's agenda.
Click to expand...
Could repeal the 17th amendment and require each State to select 1 Republican and 1 Democrat to serve as Senator for each State. No party would then ever have a majority in the Senate, and might make the Vice President more active in government to break ties in the Senate.
 
Individual said:
Could repeal the 17th amendment and require each State to select 1 Republican and 1 Democrat to serve as Senator for each State. No party would then ever have a majority in the Senate, and might make the Vice President more active in government to break ties in the Senate.
Click to expand...
Think of the money it would save the taxpayers.
 
bongsaway said:
Think of the money it would save the taxpayers.
Click to expand...
As I was taught, about 77 years ago, that was what the Senate was supposed to do prior to passage of the 16th and 17th amendments.
 
If anything, the House needs to grow in size due to the increase in population since whatever exact year in the early 1900’s the current number was set.

The electoral college would then also grow in size by the same #.

Unlikely to happen, but might be something to consider.
 
bongsaway said:
It also give excessive power to states with hardly any population. Like I said, our constitution isn't perfect. Let's be honest the four states mentioned all voted for Trump.

One vote, one person ends all the middleman stuff and electors along with the electoral college which in my opinion are all steps along the way that can nullify your vote. Winner takes all states, abolish that shit for a stepped system. That alone basically takes away forty percent of every states voters. If I vote for candidate A, I don't want candidate B to get my vote.
Click to expand...

Do you want there to be a tiered system for states? Some states should be more American than others?

One person one vote is for the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

Fixing the problems with the EC has more to do with the current unequal representation that is caused by the artificial arbitrary cap on the size of the House.

Do you know why the House only has 435 members?
 
Last edited:
BirdinHand said:
If anything, the House needs to grow in size due to the increase in population since whatever exact year in the early 1900’s the current number was set.

The electoral college would then also grow in size by the same #.

Unlikely to happen, but might be something to consider.
Click to expand...

It absolutely could happen. The cap was created by a simple act of Congress. It could be lifted by a simple act of Congress.
 
bongsaway said:
Wyoming, Montana and the Dakotas, four states that can basically control the Senate with the four of them together having less population than NYC. Total population for those four states, just over three million people. Wyoming has one house rep. who also consistently votes with trump's agenda.
Click to expand...
They support an anti-American criminal regime. That can't even be debated since the Chief Executive is a convicted financial fraud with several trials still pending for his traitorous criminal acts.
 
Individual said:
Just return it to Maryland.
If made a State, find an unpopulated area somewhere about mid U.S.A. and move the entire Federal government there, allowing no permanent residences within that area.
Click to expand...
Nope. If Wyoming gets to be a state, then DC should, too. Push it through when there's eventually a national backlash against fascism.
 
OrphanSlug said:
We are not a strict Democracy, we are a Constitutional Republic for good reasons.
Click to expand...
Do you think a Republic can't be a democracy?
'Republic' almost by definition means democracy. It means not ruled by monarchy or aristocracy.
OrphanSlug said:
Are you passively asking us to turn the Senate into the House and assign seats by State or district population?
Click to expand...
 
Grand Mal said:
Do you think a Republic can't be a democracy?
'Republic' almost by definition means democracy. It means not ruled by monarchy or aristocracy.
Click to expand...

A non-aristocracy dictatorship is also a republic. So no, it’s doesn’t mean democracy.
 
Helix said:
Nope. If Wyoming gets to be a state, then DC should, too. Push it through when there's eventually a national backlash against fascism.
Click to expand...
Could lead to creating hundreds, if not thousands of States.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom