Nobody won a Senate race with a minority of votes. The majority vote winner won every race.
The issue seems to be that the left doesn't like it that the elections in individual states matter. It is good for the representation of people as a whole. People who represent your particular state are a lot likely to have your interests in mind, and know what particular issues are impacting you and how you feel about them, then someone looking out for supposedly the whole population and has to keep all of that in mind at once.
I agree with your points in general @WarChiefZeke and don't think there's anything wrong in principle with the system used for Senators. However, I think there is a legitimate question to ask about what should constitute a state and whether that should stay the same for ever irrespective of any changes in conditions. To illustrate that I've had a look at these population statistics for states. That shows that, by population (which I agree is only one measure), there was a disparity of 12 times between smallest and largest state in 1790 (8 times if you don't count slaves). In 2010 the disparity was 66 times and it's continued to grow since then. The size of that change makes it difficult to argue that the historical agreement about senators still reflects the current situation.
Perhaps it might help to do a thought experiment. There's been quite a bit of discussion about splitting California into more than one state. What if it were proposed that it should be split into, say, 8 states - to broadly bring it back into the sort of balance historically expected between large and small states (splits could be done with a number of other large states as well). All the same arguments you apply above about representing people's interests would still apply (in fact probably be enhanced). Would you be happy for that to happen - providing of course that the residents of those states agreed?
Nobody won a Senate race with a minority of votes. The majority vote winner won every race.
The issue seems to be that the left doesn't like it that the elections in individual states matter. It is good for the representation of people as a whole. People who represent your particular state are a lot likely to have your interests in mind, and know what particular issues are impacting you and how you feel about them, then someone looking out for supposedly the whole population and has to keep all of that in mind at once.
I agree with your points in general @WarChiefZeke and don't think there's anything wrong in principle with the system used for Senators. However, I think there is a legitimate question to ask about what should constitute a state and whether that should stay the same for ever irrespective of any changes in conditions. To illustrate that I've had a look at these population statistics for states. That shows that, by population (which I agree is only one measure), there was a disparity of 12 times between smallest and largest state in 1790 (8 times if you don't count slaves). In 2010 the disparity was 66 times and it's continued to grow since then. The size of that change makes it difficult to argue that the historical agreement about senators still reflects the current situation.
Perhaps it might help to do a thought experiment. There's been quite a bit of discussion about splitting California into more than one state. What if it were proposed that it should be split into, say, 8 states - to broadly bring it back into the sort of balance historically expected between large and small states (splits could be done with a number of other large states as well). All the same arguments you apply above about representing people's interests would still apply (in fact probably be enhanced). Would you be happy for that to happen - providing of course that the residents of those states agreed?
They won't agree in this political climate so it's almost pointless to speculate. Any major change needs to be ratified by the existing states. The theoretical states won't be able to vote on it. Thems the rules.
No red state is just going to sit back and allow this any more than a blue state would allow anything similar if the roles were reversed. You might as well scrap the whole kit & kaboodle, rewrite the constitition and allow states to opt in or out.
I really don't see what's unfair with a set of mostly self-governing states where each state is represented and the people in each state are represented. Other than the fact that democrats lose.
Democrats are supposed to run everything because they're 52% as opposed to 48% or whatever. It's funny how every majority is akin to tyranny to them except when they're the majority.
The system is working as intended...
That's a pretty hilarious statement to make, considering the HUGE majority Republicans have been enjoying for some time now.
Trump appears to have fired Sessions. The new acting AG is Matthew Whitaker, who is on the record as wanting to shut down the Mueller investigation. Reporting is indicating Trump believes Don Jr. may be facing indictment. Here we go. A day after the election. Trump is scared shitless of what could be revealed. Cover up is happening in broad daylight.
I really don't see what's unfair with a set of mostly self-governing states where each state is represented and the people in each state are represented. Other than the fact that democrats lose.
Democrats are supposed to run everything because they're 52% as opposed to 48% or whatever. It's funny how every majority is akin to tyranny to them except when they're the majority.
The system is working as intended...
That's a pretty hilarious statement to make, considering the HUGE majority Republicans have been enjoying for some time now.
The reason the system doesn't get changed is that the powers that be like it the way it is. Period.
These assholes laugh at us behind closed doors I guarantee it. Gridlock is exactly what they want. Oh and us bitching at each other and not blaming them...
I think splitting up California would be a good thing. It's probably the least representative state there is. 4 million Californians voted Trump in 2016. Their Senate race was Democrat vs. Democrat. A Republican was not on the ballot. You could divide California up into 3 red and 5 blue or 2 red and 6 blue and it would be more representative in general, and a net gain for the democrats.
But the real reason I would support it is because California should have a right to do it if they want, as should any state. State's rights should be maximized, because in my opinion that's how you can have a real effect on politics; the more localized things are, more influence you tend to have and the further your vote goes.
As for the fact that population disparity has grown: this is true, but as the population grows in bigger states they gain more House seats to offset what disparity exists in the Senate. The system accounts for this. But that doesn't mean splitting up huge states is necessarily a bad idea, it has its merits.
I think splitting up California would be a good thing. It's probably the least representative state there is. 4 million Californians voted Trump in 2016. Their Senate race was Democrat vs. Democrat. A Republican was not on the ballot. You could divide California up into 3 red and 5 blue or 2 red and 6 blue and it would be more representative in general, and a net gain for the democrats.
But the real reason I would support it is because California should have a right to do it if they want, as should any state. State's rights should be maximized, because in my opinion that's how you can have a real effect on politics; the more localized things are, more influence you tend to have and the further your vote goes.
As for the fact that population disparity has grown: this is true, but as the population grows in bigger states they gain more House seats to offset what disparity exists in the Senate. The system accounts for this. But that doesn't mean splitting up huge states is necessarily a bad idea, it has its merits.
Didn't California already vote to not split up? Or did that proposal not make it to the people?
Now that I think about it, it would be entirely possible to split up even smaller states simply to gain an electoral advantage. Wyoming has the power to split into two states if it wants to, and Wyomingites would gain an extra 2 senators as well as more power in presidential elections. All it would take is a partisan consensus on exploiting the system.
As nonsensical as our state borders are, splitting up big states could actually set a bad precedent. One party could all but guarantee control of the White House and the Senate if they were willing to abuse the system, and the other party wasn't.
That seems a little far-fetched and too obvious of an exploit (it would be comparable to FDR's court packing scheme), but we've seen some breakdowns in democratic norms lately. It's not completely out of the range of possibility.
It appears Rosenstein is also no longer in charge of the investigation. It's happening, as was ALWAYS predicted. Trump is trying to shut down the Mueller probe in the lame duck before Congressional oversight kicks on. If we allow this to happen we are no better than a banana republic. This isn't a drill, it's happening as we speak.
It appears Rosenstein is also no longer in charge of the investigation. It's happening, as was ALWAYS predicted. Trump is trying to shut down the Mueller probe in the lame duck before Congressional oversight kicks on. If we allow this to happen we are no better than a banana republic. This isn't a drill, it's happening as we speak.
Now that I think about it, it would be entirely possible to split up even smaller states simply to gain an electoral advantage. Wyoming has the power to split into two states if it wants to, and Wyomingites would gain an extra 2 senators as well as more power in presidential elections. All it would take is a partisan consensus on exploiting the system.
As nonsensical as our state borders are, splitting up big states could actually set a bad precedent. One party could all but guarantee control of the White House and the Senate if they were willing to abuse the system, and the other party wasn't.
That seems a little far-fetched and too obvious of an exploit (it would be comparable to FDR's court packing scheme), but we've seen some breakdowns in democratic norms lately. It's not completely out of the range of possibility.
Exactly what I was trying to explain! Back when they were still adding states one slave state had to be added for each free state added to keep the status quo. Politics was polarized back then and it's still polarized now. Nothing much has changed in some ways. People will not willingly give up power for 'fairness'.
Anyway, I have a solution to the Senate misappropriation. Any American city that has more than 70,000 people also gets a Senator. That's the population of Wyoming according to 2010 census. But that'd include places like Vacaville, California. So how about you just do the top 50 cities, or you can give cities a 500,000 pop. sentate cut off (that'd be 35 with Sacramento being the cut off).
Those would include:
New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, Philly, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, San Jose, Austin, Jacksonville, San Francisco, Columbus (Ohio), For Worth, Indianapolis, Charlotte, Seattle, Denver, Washington, Boston, El Paso, Detroit, Nashville, Memphis, Portland, Oklahoma City, Las Vegas, Louisville, Baltimore, Milwaukee, Albuquerque, Tucson, Fresno, Sacramento, Mesa, Kanas City, Atlanta, Long Beach, Omaha, Raleigh, Colorado Springs, Miami, Virginia Beach, Oakland, Minneapolis, Tulsa, Arlington, New Orleans and Wichita.
The above cities seem to have a nice swath of Red and Blue representation with it slightly leaning blue and remove some of the rural/urban divide without completely eliminating it.
Or how about just joining the Dakotas. There is no need for 2 of them.
It appears Rosenstein is also no longer in charge of the investigation. It's happening, as was ALWAYS predicted. Trump is trying to shut down the Mueller probe in the lame duck before Congressional oversight kicks on. If we allow this to happen we are no better than a banana republic. This isn't a drill, it's happening as we speak.
Ok. How do you propose we stop it? Harsh language? Should I tweet The Donald and tell him to cut it out? Write my congressman? At least Banana Republics usually have armed resistance movements running around in the jungle voting with action. What should we do? Oh that's right, I'm supposed to vote for people I don't agree with so we can together harmoniously deal with Trump and then leave those people safely in power when we're done. Yeah, im all over that!
It appears Rosenstein is also no longer in charge of the investigation. It's happening, as was ALWAYS predicted. Trump is trying to shut down the Mueller probe in the lame duck before Congressional oversight kicks on. If we allow this to happen we are no better than a banana republic. This isn't a drill, it's happening as we speak.
Ok. How do you propose we stop it? Harsh language? Should I tweet The Donald and tell him to cut it out? Write my congressman? At least Banana Republics usually have armed resistance movements running around in the jungle voting with action. What should we do? Oh that's right, I'm supposed to vote for people I don't agree with so we can together harmoniously deal with Trump and then leave those people safely in power when we're done. Yeah, im all over that!
It appears Rosenstein is also no longer in charge of the investigation. It's happening, as was ALWAYS predicted. Trump is trying to shut down the Mueller probe in the lame duck before Congressional oversight kicks on. If we allow this to happen we are no better than a banana republic. This isn't a drill, it's happening as we speak.
Ok. How do you propose we stop it? Harsh language? Should I tweet The Donald and tell him to cut it out? Write my congressman? At least Banana Republics usually have armed resistance movements running around in the jungle voting with action. What should we do? Oh that's right, I'm supposed to vote for people I don't agree with so we can together harmoniously deal with Trump and then leave those people safely in power when we're done. Yeah, im all over that!
So what do you suggest?
You can always let it happen, then reopen it with the next administration.
Then, he can’t hide behind the sentate and impeachment procedures.
It appears Rosenstein is also no longer in charge of the investigation. It's happening, as was ALWAYS predicted. Trump is trying to shut down the Mueller probe in the lame duck before Congressional oversight kicks on. If we allow this to happen we are no better than a banana republic. This isn't a drill, it's happening as we speak.
Ok. How do you propose we stop it? Harsh language? Should I tweet The Donald and tell him to cut it out? Write my congressman? At least Banana Republics usually have armed resistance movements running around in the jungle voting with action. What should we do? Oh that's right, I'm supposed to vote for people I don't agree with so we can together harmoniously deal with Trump and then leave those people safely in power when we're done. Yeah, im all over that!
You are clearly being sarcastic, but that's still better than doing nothing. When it comes to the Trump administration, the "both sides" argument is a load of bull. No other administration has been so rampantly corrupt.
It appears Rosenstein is also no longer in charge of the investigation. It's happening, as was ALWAYS predicted. Trump is trying to shut down the Mueller probe in the lame duck before Congressional oversight kicks on. If we allow this to happen we are no better than a banana republic. This isn't a drill, it's happening as we speak.
Ok. How do you propose we stop it? Harsh language? Should I tweet The Donald and tell him to cut it out? Write my congressman? At least Banana Republics usually have armed resistance movements running around in the jungle voting with action. What should we do? Oh that's right, I'm supposed to vote for people I don't agree with so we can together harmoniously deal with Trump and then leave those people safely in power when we're done. Yeah, im all over that!
So what do you suggest?
You can always let it happen, then reopen it with the next administration.
Then, he can’t hide behind the sentate and impeachment procedures.
So let Trump continue to pack the courts, obstruct justice, personally enrich himself, and consolidate power more and do nothing? There might not be another election.
Obama let the financial criminals now staffing Trump's administration off the hook after the 2008 financial crisis. How well did that work out?
Ok. How do you propose we stop it? Harsh language? Should I tweet The Donald and tell him to cut it out? Write my congressman? At least Banana Republics usually have armed resistance movements running around in the jungle voting with action. What should we do? Oh that's right, I'm supposed to vote for people I don't agree with so we can together harmoniously deal with Trump and then leave those people safely in power when we're done. Yeah, im all over that!
Protest. Worked for Civil Rights. Worked for Vietnam. Watergate. Worked for a million different causes. Just because we like to only remember the last step in the process before fixing something doesnt mean that's how it all happened.
The Civil Rights act was not responsible for making People of color (somewhat) more than 2nd class citizens, civil rights activists did.
Re: the Senate debate
It was clearly designed as a conservative stop-gap by the founding fathers in an attempt to avoid damaging slavery as a founding institution of the nation. As soon as slavery was abolished, the Senate (in its current form) became somewhat obsolete.
Should we get rid of it? No. Should we find a way that it becomes a better representation of the country? Obviously.
I read somewhere that making DC a state is quite a bit harder than I had originally understood. Apparently we'd need to repeal (or at least, reword) the 23rd amendment, which gives DC a representative in the House.
Ok. How do you propose we stop it? Harsh language? Should I tweet The Donald and tell him to cut it out? Write my congressman? At least Banana Republics usually have armed resistance movements running around in the jungle voting with action. What should we do? Oh that's right, I'm supposed to vote for people I don't agree with so we can together harmoniously deal with Trump and then leave those people safely in power when we're done. Yeah, im all over that!
Protest. Worked for Civil Rights. Worked for Vietnam. Watergate. Worked for a million different causes. Just because we like to only remember the last step in the process before fixing something doesnt mean that's how it all happened.
The Civil Rights act was not responsible for making People of color (somewhat) more than 2nd class citizens, civil rights activists did.
Re: the Senate debate
It was clearly designed as a conservative stop-gap by the founding fathers in an attempt to avoid damaging slavery as a founding institution of the nation. As soon as slavery was abolished, the Senate (in its current form) became somewhat obsolete.
Should we get rid of it? No. Should we find a way that it becomes a better representation of the country? Obviously.
I read somewhere that making DC a state is quite a bit harder than I had originally understood. Apparently we'd need to repeal (or at least, reword) the 23rd amendment, which gives DC a representative in the House.
That'll never happen in the current climate.
The Senate has nothing to do with preserving slavery. The founders had a few reasons for the construction of a Senate, one being they thought a mixture of porportional and equal representation was best, one being to fight corruption, one being better representation, and some others. To quote the Federalist papers:
" The people can never wilfully betray their own interests; but they may possibly be betrayed by the representatives of the people; and the danger will be evidently greater where the whole legislative trust is lodged in the hands of one body of men, than where the concurrence of separate and dissimilar bodies is required in every public act."
"The equality of representation in the Senate is another point, which, being evidently the result of compromise between the opposite pretensions of the large and the small States, does not call for much discussion. . . .
In this spirit it may be remarked, that the equal vote allowed to each state, is at once a constitutional recognition of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual states, and an instrument for preserving that residuary sovereignty. . . .
Another advantage accruing from this ingredient in the constitution of the senate is, the additional impediment it must prove against improper acts of legislation. No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then, of a majority of the states."
There were also some other ones, like they believed Senates made represantative republics more stable by a few historical examples, and that it would provide more accountability over policy since they had longer term limits, and some bad ones, but I don't want to overload with text walls.
Ok. How do you propose we stop it? Harsh language? Should I tweet The Donald and tell him to cut it out? Write my congressman? At least Banana Republics usually have armed resistance movements running around in the jungle voting with action. What should we do? Oh that's right, I'm supposed to vote for people I don't agree with so we can together harmoniously deal with Trump and then leave those people safely in power when we're done. Yeah, im all over that!
Protest. Worked for Civil Rights. Worked for Vietnam. Watergate. Worked for a million different causes. Just because we like to only remember the last step in the process before fixing something doesnt mean that's how it all happened.
The Civil Rights act was not responsible for making People of color (somewhat) more than 2nd class citizens, civil rights activists did.
You honestly think protests work anymore? Even if you think that they do (I'm not convinced myself) do you think Trump gives a crap about them?
Ok. How do you propose we stop it? Harsh language? Should I tweet The Donald and tell him to cut it out? Write my congressman? At least Banana Republics usually have armed resistance movements running around in the jungle voting with action. What should we do? Oh that's right, I'm supposed to vote for people I don't agree with so we can together harmoniously deal with Trump and then leave those people safely in power when we're done. Yeah, im all over that!
Protest. Worked for Civil Rights. Worked for Vietnam. Watergate. Worked for a million different causes. Just because we like to only remember the last step in the process before fixing something doesnt mean that's how it all happened.
The Civil Rights act was not responsible for making People of color (somewhat) more than 2nd class citizens, civil rights activists did.
You honestly think protests work anymore? Even if you think that they do (I'm not convinced myself) do you think Trump gives a crap about them?
He may not care, but others in government might. And if the protests cause others to do something, he'd care about that.
Comments
The size of that change makes it difficult to argue that the historical agreement about senators still reflects the current situation.
Perhaps it might help to do a thought experiment. There's been quite a bit of discussion about splitting California into more than one state. What if it were proposed that it should be split into, say, 8 states - to broadly bring it back into the sort of balance historically expected between large and small states (splits could be done with a number of other large states as well). All the same arguments you apply above about representing people's interests would still apply (in fact probably be enhanced). Would you be happy for that to happen - providing of course that the residents of those states agreed?
No red state is just going to sit back and allow this any more than a blue state would allow anything similar if the roles were reversed. You might as well scrap the whole kit & kaboodle, rewrite the constitition and allow states to opt in or out.
These assholes laugh at us behind closed doors I guarantee it. Gridlock is exactly what they want. Oh and us bitching at each other and not blaming them...
After Loss of House, Trump Makes Overture to Democrats, Coupled With Threats
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/07/us/politics/trump-midterms-house-senate.htmlSwastikas Appear On The Upper West Side After NYPD Warns Of 'Troublesome' Increase In Anti-Semitic Incidents
http://gothamist.com/2018/11/01/swastikas_nyc_uws_nazis.php?fbclid=IwAR3uXZdZXzudB1-P6_lKc00DN5F7384qhUpl1QQR-2kBQzldv5qZUhPBy4cIf the midterms were a test of the country’s character, Americans failed
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-if-the-midterms-were-a-referendum-on-the-countrys-character/?fbclid=IwAR2Lv4BT17vmgy8P9F34T5sQGiBlPLSkbuNK_iXEpd--oAlM_ozZv2yvd8oJeff Sessions out as Donald Trump’s attorney general day after U.S. midterm elections
https://globalnews.ca/news/4640733/donald-trump-jeff-sessions-replaced/?utm_source=notification/I think EVERYONE saw this coming...
ICE Detention Center Says It’s Not Responsible for Staff's Sexual Abuse of Detainees
https://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrants-rights/immigrants-rights-and-detention/ice-detention-center-says-its-not-responsible?fbclid=IwAR3AhS_1X4rv9p1j3VGUUc5btZ9tJ8zSF_q8ox21BT5uX_Ck0dt02PZ0DcE&redirect=blog/womens-rights/women-and-criminal-justice/ice-detention-center-says-its-not-responsible-staffsTony Evers elected the next governor of Wisconsin over incumbent Scott Walker
https://www.tmj4.com/news/the-vote/tony-evers-elected-the-next-governor-of-wisconsin-over-incumbent-scott-walker?fbclid=IwAR2Mqulc3ot7ExgcffV9QrKG6zOeFTOrqD1Yvli-LdFnbLGxSAm5ioTooUADonald Trump Welcomes In the Age of “Usable” Nuclear Weapons
https://truthout.org/articles/donald-trump-welcomes-in-the-age-of-usable-nuclear-weapons/?fbclid=IwAR292bXDfUzrMWQ8oPq8cNq7HrWd6qw22iURB1-O8DaO6R30affseF8SO2MDems to flex muscle with new House majority: Subpoenas, investigations, even possible impeachment talks loom
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dems-to-flex-muscle-with-new-house-majority-subpoenas-investigations-even-possible-impeachment-talks-loom?fbclid=IwAR2guZsPTmw1_BGYj83kFU_a2BSEGMWmi4ciCuYfyvg4bVdfIo9yPjnfuusWhat happens now that Democrats will retake the House
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/11/trump-just-gave-weapons-grade-crazy-press-conference-6-unhinged-moments/amp/?__twitter_impression=true&fbclid=IwAR3gIwjLLe2x3tLMBv3J1_eraFx-JSnDuedIwzocHDLHGUyxMBJsENGeQechttps://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/what-happens-now-democrats-will-retake-house-n930556?fbclid=IwAR2VU6mo3h3l0WraaIZkA-wZ849mSI_kd8mFUTN-e7Rjih80LNe_my3uIK0
Trump just gave a weapons-grade crazy press conference — here are the 6 most unhinged moments
Senate Veteran Marty Golden Not Conceding Despite Trailing Democrat Gounardes
https://citylimits.org/2018/11/07/senate-veteran-marty-golden-not-conceding-despite-trailing-democrat-gounardes/?fbclid=IwAR19TLjzAVJOVcqUOxaIxD7KvG8AXhEqqMYh5XiOMWnPdx-_qqWw8SSYDpsNazi white supremacists are infiltrating campuses across the U.S.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/11/4/1808174/-Nazi-white-supremacists-are-infiltrating-campuses-across-the-U-SAll the Good News From the Midterm Elections
https://www.thecut.com/amp/2018/11/midterm-elections-2018-biggest-wins-for-democrats.html?__twitter_impression=true&fbclid=IwAR3RVvaFhqTgyivzEYxpArSoKBEgBuZGxQ5A5r9ABFA8oZgMxb97qX-Gf64A night of firsts: the candidates who made history in the 2018 midterms
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/06/midterms-2018-first-history-making-election-wins?fbclid=IwAR3f5FrSJxUqLPDGBl8kNAk-DIWiYywtyuHan54bIjNuFDlFRDmbnymSaVMAnd for @deltago because, Canada:
Tony Clement no longer a member of Conservative caucus as sexting scandal escalates
https://globalnews.ca/news/4639484/tony-clement-sexting-scandal-national-security/?utm_source=notification/Sorry, man.
And now, for something completely different:
World's Loudest Animals—Bug With "Singing" Penis, More
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/07/pictures/110711-loudest-animals-water-boatman-singing-genitals/?fbclid=IwAR1XrEj20zGU6CUfJuv11El_RM_zrydfJnUAl9Yfe2nUskURyiQvSBv-tNw
Jeff Sessions Out As Attorney General After Steady Drumbeat Of Criticism From Trump
https://www.npr.org/2018/11/07/539109386/jeff-sessions-out-as-attorney-general-after-steady-drumbeat-of-criticism-from-tr?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=202907&fbclid=IwAR1t2W34b7ZnHQ-afPXIIx1hdfJylmLTpz9rWXaxlLfeGl56pnGlSpF-bYYBut the real reason I would support it is because California should have a right to do it if they want, as should any state. State's rights should be maximized, because in my opinion that's how you can have a real effect on politics; the more localized things are, more influence you tend to have and the further your vote goes.
As for the fact that population disparity has grown: this is true, but as the population grows in bigger states they gain more House seats to offset what disparity exists in the Senate. The system accounts for this. But that doesn't mean splitting up huge states is necessarily a bad idea, it has its merits.
As nonsensical as our state borders are, splitting up big states could actually set a bad precedent. One party could all but guarantee control of the White House and the Senate if they were willing to abuse the system, and the other party wasn't.
That seems a little far-fetched and too obvious of an exploit (it would be comparable to FDR's court packing scheme), but we've seen some breakdowns in democratic norms lately. It's not completely out of the range of possibility.
Anyway, I have a solution to the Senate misappropriation. Any American city that has more than 70,000 people also gets a Senator. That's the population of Wyoming according to 2010 census. But that'd include places like Vacaville, California. So how about you just do the top 50 cities, or you can give cities a 500,000 pop. sentate cut off (that'd be 35 with Sacramento being the cut off).
Those would include:
New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, Philly, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, San Jose, Austin, Jacksonville, San Francisco, Columbus (Ohio), For Worth, Indianapolis, Charlotte, Seattle, Denver, Washington, Boston, El Paso, Detroit, Nashville, Memphis, Portland, Oklahoma City, Las Vegas, Louisville, Baltimore, Milwaukee, Albuquerque, Tucson, Fresno, Sacramento, Mesa, Kanas City, Atlanta, Long Beach, Omaha, Raleigh, Colorado Springs, Miami, Virginia Beach, Oakland, Minneapolis, Tulsa, Arlington, New Orleans and Wichita.
The above cities seem to have a nice swath of Red and Blue representation with it slightly leaning blue and remove some of the rural/urban divide without completely eliminating it.
Or how about just joining the Dakotas. There is no need for 2 of them.
Last surviving prosecutor at Nuremberg trials says Trump's family separation policy is ‘crime against humanity’
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/trump-border-crisis-nazis-nuremberg-trial-ben-ferencz-family-separation-migrants-un-a8485606.html?fbclid=IwAR2DAFI35fjIGR7NemXAFBxR0-RmpR0cCj0dS2MqHEVTuzhB8_w5He_7-14Stop Saying ‘Migrant Caravan’: They’re Asylum Seekers Escaping a Conflict That the US Created
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/stop-saying-migrant-caravan-asylum-162246350.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=fb&fbclid=IwAR3pwI6eIIXhSY-z7eb9zcI7b-bLrqyfxck4ta7gC1fELsFMH8V8_NaiIBYFFRF contacts IRS over Florida church’s electioneering
https://ffrf.org/news/news-releases/item/33458-ffrf-contacts-irs-over-florida-church-s-electioneering?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=FacebookParkland survivor sends 'thoughts and prayers' to defeated NRA-backed candidates
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/11/07/elections-2018-parkland-survivor-rips-failed-nra-backed-candidates/1917537002/?fbclid=IwAR3o66-ShlPdfLPB9FWLM46l86g5oEzqaAYrh_aaK8GAfK9zDJo46QzHrWAThen, he can’t hide behind the sentate and impeachment procedures.
Obama let the financial criminals now staffing Trump's administration off the hook after the 2008 financial crisis. How well did that work out?
Scott Walker was narrowly ousted in Wisconsin, and a law he put in place means he can't ask for a recount
https://www.businessinsider.com/wisconsin-governor-scott-walker-loses-to-democrat-tony-evers-2018-11?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=referral&utm_content=topbar&utm_term=desktop&referrer=facebook&fbclid=IwAR0h6w28ty2AAdrgUTDw8mebUbSqi6WiQxbNKPGUY-Um4i5fr5UftAHF-Ts'Holy Hell To Pay': Graham Warns Trump on Firing Sessions
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/holy-hell-pay-graham-warns-trump-firing-sessions-n787086Jim Jordan, still accused of covering up sexual assaults, to run for Republican minority leader
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/11/7/1810887/-Jim-Jordan-still-accused-of-covering-up-sexual-assaults-to-run-for-Republican-minority-leader?detail=emaildkreUPDATE: AP calls it -- Tester moves into lead; NYT predicts Tester victory
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/11/7/1810864/-Tester-moves-into-lead-NYT-predicts-Tester-victory?detail=emaildkreHarris County, Texas shocks!!!
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/11/7/1810794/-Harris-County-Texas-shocks?detail=emaildkreGood morning! Donald Trump Jr. expects to be indicted!
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/11/7/1810880/-Good-morning-Donald-Trump-Jr-expects-to-be-indicted?detail=emaildkreHouse Democrats pledge Trump is 'going to learn he's not above the law'
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/11/7/1810801/-House-Democrats-pledge-Trump-is-going-to-learn-he-s-not-above-the-law?detail=emaildkreDemocratic victory in the House means they can shut down Trump on his biggest night of the year
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/11/7/1810879/-Democratic-victory-in-the-House-means-they-can-shut-down-Trump-on-his-biggest-night-of-the-year?detail=emaildkreVote to divide Georgia town along racial lines FAILS: Stockbridge remains one community
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/11/7/1810833/-Vote-to-divide-Georgia-town-along-racial-lines-FAILS-Stockbridge-remains-one-community?detail=emaildkreThe Civil Rights act was not responsible for making People of color (somewhat) more than 2nd class citizens, civil rights activists did.
Re: the Senate debate
It was clearly designed as a conservative stop-gap by the founding fathers in an attempt to avoid damaging slavery as a founding institution of the nation. As soon as slavery was abolished, the Senate (in its current form) became somewhat obsolete.
Should we get rid of it? No. Should we find a way that it becomes a better representation of the country? Obviously.
I read somewhere that making DC a state is quite a bit harder than I had originally understood. Apparently we'd need to repeal (or at least, reword) the 23rd amendment, which gives DC a representative in the House.
That'll never happen in the current climate.
Firing Sessions to obstruct Mueller was a red line.
I guess we'll see if this actually website thing happens:
NOBODY IS ABOVE THE LAW—MUELLER FIRING RAPID RESPONSE
https://act.moveon.org/event/mueller-firing-rapid-response-events/search/
" The people can never wilfully betray their own interests; but they may possibly be betrayed by the representatives of the people; and the danger will be evidently greater where the whole legislative trust is lodged in the hands of one body of men, than where the concurrence of separate and dissimilar bodies is required in every public act."
"The equality of representation in the Senate is another point, which, being evidently the result of compromise between the opposite pretensions of the large and the small States, does not call for much discussion. . . .
In this spirit it may be remarked, that the equal vote allowed to each state, is at once a constitutional recognition of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual states, and an instrument for preserving that residuary sovereignty. . . .
Another advantage accruing from this ingredient in the constitution of the senate is, the additional impediment it must prove against improper acts of legislation. No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then, of a majority of the states."
There were also some other ones, like they believed Senates made represantative republics more stable by a few historical examples, and that it would provide more accountability over policy since they had longer term limits, and some bad ones, but I don't want to overload with text walls.