America is held hostage by flyover states

Frank Apisa said:
Whatever makes you happy, Three.

Poor American conservatives. Must be shitting your pants wondering what you are going to be required to accept next. The Russians; Kim being a wonderful guy; the abomination wishing his people would be more like Kim's!

If this were a movie...it would be panned for being too unrealistic!
Click to expand...

I'm finding it amusing as well. Retards are slobbering all over Douchebag Donald, thinking he is a deliverance for conservatism and the rule of law. Meanwhile, he can't even respect the sanctity of marriage.
 
Threedee said:
I'm finding it amusing as well. Retards are slobbering all over Douchebag Donald, thinking he is a deliverance for conservatism and the rule of law. Meanwhile, he can't even respect the sanctity of marriage.
Click to expand...

Still pissed because he has a hot wife?
 
Frank Apisa said:
Okay...we agree. It CAN BE TESTED


No it doesn't.

If the number of senators for each state were determined by population...that would not effect the fact that we are a Republic.


The reason for the 2 senators from each state had much more to do with the institution of slavery...than with imposition of whatever.

FOR THE RECORD: I do not see the senate composition being changed from its present state (2 from each state)...and I think any change might be made by having some of the more populous states break up into other states. North and South New Jersey would be easily imagined...and would get a bit more representation for our 9 million people in the senate and in the EC.

Breaking California into three states would do the same thing.
Click to expand...

I agree it is a moot point. Congress can never get a 2/3 vote or 3/4 of the states to propose and ratify such an amendment.

The reason for the 2 senators was a compromise between those states seeking representation based on population and those states wanting equal representation for each state. The solution was two houses. The small, non-slave states of the North also wanted equal representation.
 
Flash said:
Then why should any constitutional provision bind us?
Click to expand...

Because most still serve a legitimate function...and do not allow each citizen of North Dakota to have 3 1/2 times the voting power of each citizen of California.

And...many of the original provisions HAVE been modified.
 
Frank Apisa said:
Because most still serve a legitimate function...and do not allow each citizen of North Dakota to have 3 1/2 times the voting power of each citizen of California.

And...many of the original provisions HAVE been modified.
Click to expand...

I think it still serves a legitimate function. Otherwise CA would be able to outvote ND on all major issues despite their differences---exactly the reason Madison rejected majority rule rule although giving more weight to majority rule is one of the modifications you mention.
 
Flash said:
I think it still serves a legitimate function. Otherwise CA would be able to outvote ND on all major issues despite their differences---exactly the reason Madison rejected majority rule rule although giving more weight to majority rule is one of the modifications you mention.
Click to expand...

I understand that is what you think.

I disagree.

But if this were being contested like the issue...and you were from North Dakota...and I from California...

...you would win 3 1/2 to 1...with just the two of us voting.

That sucks. It simply is not fair.

But...it seems to be okay with you...and I support your right for it to be so.
 
Flash said:
I think it still serves a legitimate function. Otherwise CA would be able to outvote ND on all major issues despite their differences---exactly the reason Madison rejected majority rule rule although giving more weight to majority rule is one of the modifications you mention.
Click to expand...

So Cali over riding ND is bad. But ND over ruling Cali is good. However Cali has 40 million people. So one man one vote fades. $40 million in the senate have the same representation as 750 thou in SD. So who is getting their power watered down? Who is getting cheated. In the senate a Cali voter has 3/16ths the power of a ND voter. Why is that fair?
 
Nordberg said:
So Cali over riding ND is bad. But ND over ruling Cali is good. However Cali has 40 million people. So one man one vote fades. $40 million in the senate have the same representation as 750 thou in SD. So who is getting their power watered down? Who is getting cheated. In the senate a Cali voter has 3/16ths the power of a ND voter. Why is that fair?
Click to expand...
It is fair because we don't want large urban shitholes dictating the country's agenda.

Sent from my LGL84VL using Tapatalk
 
Nordberg said:
So Cali over riding ND is bad. But ND over ruling Cali is good. However Cali has 40 million people. So one man one vote fades. $40 million in the senate have the same representation as 750 thou in SD. So who is getting their power watered down? Who is getting cheated. In the senate a Cali voter has 3/16ths the power of a ND voter. Why is that fair?
Click to expand...

Why is it so hard for you to understand the Republican Principles that the US was founded on?
 
Nordberg said:
So Cali over riding ND is bad. But ND over ruling Cali is good. However Cali has 40 million people. So one man one vote fades. $40 million in the senate have the same representation as 750 thou in SD. So who is getting their power watered down? Who is getting cheated. In the senate a Cali voter has 3/16ths the power of a ND voter. Why is that fair?
Click to expand...

Obviously ND does not have the power to override CA which would also be bad. You are basing this on the democratic concept of majority rule which the Constitution sought to avoid. You are complaining the system does not work like you want it to rather than the way it was designed to operate. You need to support some new party which wants to amend the current document because neither party is interested in doing so.
 
Flash said:
Obviously ND does not have the power to override CA which would also be bad. You are basing this on the democratic concept of majority rule which the Constitution sought to avoid. You are complaining the system does not work like you want it to rather than the way it was designed to operate. You need to support some new party which wants to amend the current document because neither party is interested in doing so.
Click to expand...

No . The 2 senators per state was agreed upon reluctantly when there were 13 states. The framers did not want it because they knew it was fraught with serious problems. It was not something they fought for. Jefferson called it "the most dangerous blot on our constitution".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top