Yes, someone explain to me how senators are supposed to represent people, yet states that are populated with many less people and large swathes of empty land still get 2 senators. Are senators representing people or vacant land??
It’s accurate by the fascists redefining of DEI as meaning didn’t earn it. But this isn’t at all what DEI actually is and I wish we would stop validating right wing propaganda by using their BS definitions of words in an effort to “own the right”.
I have seen so many posts like this over the last few weeks - "no, YOU are the DEI hire" - from ostensibly liberal, and it's quite horrifying and indicative of real rot in the coalition that helps explain why Trump won yet again.
I don’t think this is fair. It’s accurate in that both are attempts to create balance by adding weight/advantage to people who would be ignored in an unweighted system
End of any nation is lack of political and economic relative equality in representation. 100 US Senators is one per 3.4 million American's currently. The US Senate is an aristocratic institution but needs to be enlarged. I suggest an additional US Senator for every 3 million citizens, Largest cities
Actually it’s not. The cartoon is talking about the senate arnt they, not the electoral college. The electoral college is more similar to the House of Representatives.
The liberal is a most unprincipled creature. It will criticize the rhetoric of the conservative, then use that very same rhetoric on them as soon as it benefits themz
It's neither "DEI" nor "affirmative action." I wish liberals would stop saying that. Neither of those programs was EVER about giving some group of people an unfair advantage over others. They were always about undoing and eliminating unfair advantages.
I am not shocked that you’re a “retired attorney” bc, you frankly don’t know history-WHICH LITERALLY IS THE BASIS FOR OUR LEGAL SYSTEM. What a ridiculous statement.
Do you think a state like South Dakota--a red state where there are more traffic signs than people--should honestly get the same amount of weight politically of New York or California? Or benefit from Blue State income, but never vice versa?
Tbf when it was created for literally slaveowners “farmers” it was definitely not about diversity equity or inclusion. And we didn’t have a 2-party system set in stone like now. But now, it’s the only source of political influence the GOP has. It’s y Congress no longer works. No reason 2 try.
Like I said, slaveowners. They were “diverse”. Hilariously sad that a TrAnS rIGhTs and CiViL rIgHtS lAwYeR doesn’t understand laws or history or anything.
No they shouldn't, but it's NOT DEI. There's nothing in that about diversity, about equity, or about inclusion. That's why.
Liberals gotta stop using "DEI" as a shortcut for "giving them an unfair advantage." That's the MAGA pretense, and the whole basis for that branch of Project 2025.
I taught 8th grade social studies and showed my students that it takes 11 western states to equal the population of California. Yet, California has 2 senators, and those other states get 22 senators. Sad face
Each state gets two senators because they represent the state, not the people living in the state. All states are equal. (this also gives lie to the opening "we the people" as it shows that the government is separate from the people it governs. State legislatures used to pick senators not voters
For example, the total population of North and South Dakota is 1.6 million people, making the Dakotas the 39th most populated state in the US; not even enough for a good-sized city. They have 2 senators each. California has 39.5 million people, and still only 2 senators. See the disconnect?
No. It's really not. Selecting a president and giving representation to a collection of sovereign states is hardly the same as employing someone for the work force. I am a staunch supporter of DEI policy when implemented correctly. But this is a poor comparison. IMHO
I have seen SO MANY posts like this from ostensibly liberal people over the past few weeks, and it's such a horrifying and, also, revealing thing to behold.
I mean, yes and no. The problem with just a flat majority vote is that the majority always wins and the minority is forgotten. In the case of the minority being bigots, that's cool. But in the case of the minority being black, or LGBTQ+, etc - they would never get a voice. Hard to make a fair system
That problem persists under the current way things are and most of the bigots are supporting or supported by big landowners who are unreasonably empowered by this system
Or at least that’s my two cents
Look at how Switzerland does it. They also have a ‘House’ w/proportional Rep & a ‘senate’ Cantons (like Procinces) get 2 senators each, the smaller Demi Cantons get 1. Now they’re a small country, but we could use population as a threshold. It would give States incentives to treat people decently/1
The Founders had some foreisght, but they never imagined how gigantic the nation would grow to be, how different in relative population states would become, and the extent to which the Industrial Revolution would alter the kinds of economics they understood.
That's why we have a House and Senate, one based on population, one where everyone's representation is equal. Gerrymandering is definitely an issue. How do we set up states so populations are balanced? That's the hard part, balancing city and rural representation
Not exactly though as the House of Representatives limited itself to 435 seats no matter how big populations get. Mississippi’s 4 Representatives have 735,000 constituents each; California’s 52 Representatives have 759,615 constituents each.
So should we work in adding seats? I'd be fine with adding seats after a census, I know states have lost seats, Pennsylvania being one of them, while Texas gained two. But I think that was their solution for keeping a cap limit
Maybe. Could 1000 or 2000 people work together? There isn’t really a reason to have them all in Washington. Maybe have one delegate from each state give the votes for their state. Have all speeches and presentations on C-SPAN. I don’t know how committees would work.
I like the idea of not needing everyone in D.C. outside of security measures for things that are classified, working from home is the way of the future and cuts cost/helps the environment. Taking away work from home options is a step backwards
A bicameral legislature, where one is representative, and the other provides equal senators for all states, is INHERENTLY just an anti-democratic, unrepresentative body. It's not balanced, it's nonsense. The founders were wrong.
For a group that focuses on equality, what would that make a city class that rules over an rural one? Would it be like the Hunger Games, a city elite demanding subservience from an rural one? How would you balance the power in that situation? Popular vote also went for Trump this round?
It was a compromise. Slave states wanted more say in Federal govt so they couldn't be made to give up slavery by Federal Law. That's why we have the House that is representative of population, and the senate, where each state has only two. Slave holders.
Can we have a politician who just screams all the time about red states mooching off blue state tax dollars. Doesn't need to win, but have a large enough following people can't ignore them.
Let's redistribute tax dollars back to the states that pay them instead of subsidizing ungrateful redstates
Also this graphic is not how electoral college works California has 54, while a state like Wyoming only has 3 (Its the number of sentors + house representatives) HoR favors large populated States (Cali, Texas, Florida, NY) but the senate is supposed to be a balancing of power.
The Senate needs Population Equality. That means that each state pop. divided by total U.S. pop. equals the state percentage (weight) of the vote. That way, California would get 11.64% say in Senate matters, versus the current 2%. No Constitutional amendment needed. Just change the voting rules.
@fpwellman.bsky.social at the risk of redundancy, CA has more population than the 21 least populated states combined. Those 21 states have 42 Senators. CA has 2. This is why crockpot nominees like RFK Jr. and Hegseth can get confirmed.
The apportionment scheme of the Senate was by far the most controversial debate of the Constitutional Convention. (Wiki). James Madison admitted openly that equal suffrage in the Senate was a compromise, lesser evil, & not born out of any political theory. 238 years later, it is now a greater evil.
This country has ALWAYS had DEI for white, racist men. The ENTIRE constitution was written as DEI for white enslavers in the south and, later, segregationists and racial terrorists. White racists have ALWAYS gotten a leg up in this country. Voters just gave them a booster rocket.
California contributes more to the federal coffers than any other state. Alabama contributes a pittance. So when a hurricane hits the Gulf of Mexico Alabama is getting assistance from California tax payers
No, neither Alabama nor anyone else is getting any assistance from any "tax payers"; buzz right the hell off with that disgusting and dishonest racist, classist, and ableist "tax payers" nonsense. 🙄
Here’s an idea. Let’s divide cali into like 400 smaller states. Except the red areas they can all be one. Kinda like how the reds gerrymandered districts.
Comments
A Wyoming senator has 26 times more influence per resident than a California senator.
26:1 does not equal fair.
I have seen so many posts like this over the last few weeks - "no, YOU are the DEI hire" - from ostensibly liberal, and it's quite horrifying and indicative of real rot in the coalition that helps explain why Trump won yet again.
How's that NOT DEI for conservatives?
Liberals gotta stop using "DEI" as a shortcut for "giving them an unfair advantage." That's the MAGA pretense, and the whole basis for that branch of Project 2025.
(Or as that would drastically increase the size of it, 1 per 200k or 300k, whatever.)
But regardless of state lines.
I have seen SO MANY posts like this from ostensibly liberal people over the past few weeks, and it's such a horrifying and, also, revealing thing to behold.
Oh, the attempts to deny this were hilarious.
Or at least that’s my two cents
Let's redistribute tax dollars back to the states that pay them instead of subsidizing ungrateful redstates
Convince me that's not DEI.
How would House & Senate respond if California followed Trump's "run forward without asking" approach and sent 200 Senators+Reps & Impeached Trump?
With this, Red States fall apart.
No more 2 Senators bullshit, and the Rep numbers need to change to.
Fair is fair.
This must be the "Fair is Fair" campaign to end minority Republican Fascist rule!