• hakase@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    There’s no solution needed, since there isn’t a problem to begin with. Individuals (should) have proportional representation in the House, and states have proportional representation in the Senate, which is how it should be.

    Do you think Wyomingites deserve 66.7 times the representation in the Senate?

    Yes.

    • 3volver@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      8 months ago

      There’s no solution needed, since there isn’t a problem to begin with.

      This is funny, it’s like an self soothing mantra. I’ll try to repeat this to myself as things get worse.

      • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Beyond what you’ve stated about the disproportionate nature of the Senate, what exact legislative problems are you attributing to the existence of the Senate, and its disproportionate nature? And why do you think a purely proportional body will solve said issues? I’m also curious what you believe the purpose of the Senate, or a bicameral legislature in general, is.

        I’m not trying to be accusatory in my probing, I’m simply curious what your exact rationale is ☺️.

        • 3volver@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          The senate exists to maintain an artificial balance and make sure that only the approved things are actually voted on. That is why popular things like marijuana legalization are never voted on.

          • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            The senate exists to maintain an artificial balance

            What do you mean by “artifical balance”?

            and make sure that only the approved things are actually voted on

            What do you mean, exactly? Bills are debated as they are presented [See 7.6 and 8.1 of the Senate Manual].

            That is why popular things like marijuana legalization are never voted on.

            I don’t understand this point. If you want a senator to introduce a bill regarding the legalization of marijuana, then vote in a senator that will present such a bill.

            • 3volver@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              I don’t understand this point.

              Yup, you don’t.

              then vote in a senator that will present such a bill.

              🤡

              • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                Yup, you don’t.

                Okay, well, would you mind providing clarification/context/sources for your claim?

                🤡

                ? Do you disagree with that statement? If so, then why?

      • metaldream@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        To be fair, Congress wouldn’t be so inept if it weren’t for the filibuster, which was never intended to be abused the way it is now. I’d be somewhat ok with the Senate if filibusters only required a simple majority to break again.