• JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 hours ago

    More senators gives more power to the smaller states.

    The whole idea is ass-backwards anyway. Assigning representation based on lines that were cooked up centuries ago over reasons that are mostly lost to time. It was a compromise to appease the southern Democratic Republicans who feared proportional representation meant they would get trampled on.

    And maybe they would. But maybe that also just means that they should. They were worried about tyranny of the majority (i.e. democracy), and now we have tyranny of the minority.

    • PhlubbaDubba
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 hours ago

      Just gonna skip right on past that reduced threshold to overturn the Senate veto, the having to act on everything they want to halt, and the qualified majority bits huh? Also how in the hell does more senators automatically make small states more powerful? Giving more voice to minorities within small states would technically undermine state level bigwigs trying to have a partisan lock on their senate delegations.

      Hawaii is a small state, DC would be a small state, Delaware and most of New England are small states. You really want a one off Republican Majority to be able to just smash Hawaiian autonomy and indigenous rights to pieces without any checks or balances?

      This model of the Senate is basically a parliamentary takeover of the role of head of state, only more powerful than the king of england in the sense that it’d be able to invoke the right of veto without instantly causing a constitutional crisis and sparking a revolution.