🦫💧🐸 🌻🌹
Jennifer Rubin "However, Democrats can change Senate rules and customs that are entirely outside the constitutional order and pile one minority-rule gimmick on top of another (e.g., a filibuster to block a vote in the Senate, which already favors sparsely populated, overwhelmingly White states)" #uspolitics #senate
The Senate has equal representation for all states. It doesn't favor any since they all get exactly the same two votes.
It *fails* to favor more populous states with different racial makeups, and that lack of favoritism is the whole point.
But no, Senate rules are explicitly recognized within the Constitutional order as each chamber can set its own rules.
You're stating that the states have equal representation.
You're layout out exactly what I'm pointing out.
Every state has exactly the same two representatives.
@volkris yes. This is how the Constitution was written. At the time it made sense. Now it works against representational government because very small populations in states like Wyoming or North Dakota have disproportional reprsentation in the Senate. The house is based on population. The tryrany of the minority is a thing.
@kwheaton you're still missing how it was designed AND how it works today.
The House represents population, representing the majority of people. The Senate represents states, representing the majority of states.
BOTH work to counter the tyranny of the minority, as without the Senate the House would have minorities of states able to take control while without the House the Senate would have minorities of populations taking control.
Both chambers were set up **and continue to operate today** as checks against tyranny of minority.
But like you yourself highlighted, the point is that no, the Senate doesn't favor any states. It has equal representation of all states, exactly as it's supposed to in order to avoid tyranny of the minority of states.
Makes perfect sense today as ever.
@volkris i get what it wad intended to do and I understand what you are saying I just think it lets a state like Delaware have more representation per capita than a state like Texas and that may have made sense in 1776 but I am not sure it does now. We just agred to disagree.
@kwheaton again, just factually, mathematically it doesn't.
Both Delaware and Texas have two representatives. They have equal representation.
I really don't think there is room to disagree on this simple fact that two equals two.
@volkris actually 2 senators per state over represents states with less population. 2 senators from Wyoming have the same 2 votes as states like NY TX and CA.