• Pennomi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    It’s obvious why the Senate exists historically, and it’s also obvious that it’s inherently undemocratic.

    • MonkRome@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      I mean historically it existed mostly because states had much more autonomy and power, much like a city state or country. Until at least Lincoln that part of the system had a good logic to it. If they only went off of proportional representation they could basically ignore small states needs. In order to get states to agree to join the union, they had to build a country that would give all states a serious seat at the table.

      The main reason people on the left hate it so much now is that it currently hurts us, but it’s very much an equity vs equality argument. The system was set up to be equitable even if it isn’t equal. Something the left typically supports and this meme touches on. I think the higher priority fix is the house, as it no longer even does what it was designed to do.

      • agamemnonymous
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        The Permanent Apportionment Act needs to be repealed ASAP, that would solve a surprising number of the flaws in our democracy. The Wyoming Rule is a good start, but half a million constituents each seems a bit spread thin. I say 3 Rep minimum and scale from there instead.

    • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      it’s inherently undemocratic

      It’s exhausting trying to discuss shit online with people with such a terrible understanding of the topic at hand

      Senators are voted for and represent their entire state. They’re the representatives of the state’s general populace in a representative democracy

      • Serinus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        No shit it’s exhausting. I agree with you, but you keep calling anyone who disagrees with you dumb.

        They clearly understand and disagree. The part where you said land votes is an oversimplification was the last good comment in your chain.

      • Pennomi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        One human = one vote

        Anything else is undemocratic and I think it’s morally reprehensible to support a system that values any one person above another for any reason.

        • Disgracefulone@discuss.online
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          We’re never gone get 1h1v, not exactly, but this dude is literally sitting here defending a system in which a vast portion of voters - not just.voters but people in general - are unrepresented.

        • Serinus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Representative democracy is better. My reps should have more time to research every topic than I do. Their job is to be more informed.

          My job is to spot check on the stuff I understand.

          Their votes should be worth more than mine. And we should have a system where sometimes representatives vote against their constituents wishes because the rep has more information available to them, or is just more educated than their constituents on the topic.

          • Pennomi@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            Representative democracy can still exist with 1 person = 1 vote. You could do a proportional election and weight the delegates’ votes by the number of voters they represent.