Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I can accept representation based on population...as in the houseThe make up of the senate actually gives smaller states more representation than they would receive based on population. That's the role of the senate as the smaller, more rural sates wanted some protection from having urban areas call all the shots.
I think it works out fine.
well thats the rhetoric of justification anyway.....actually small non-rural states like New Jersey, Delaware, Rhode Island, Connecticut get power that isnt justified, based mostly on religious differences of 200 years ago. While the large state of Texas, quite rural in most of it, gets robbed as does California.
Small as in physical size? (what difference does that make ????) Some states have more senators than representatives. THOSE are the rural states that get over representation in the Senate. But the Senate is not - and was never designed to be directly proportional - we have the House to suit that need.
government is the regulation of the relationships between people AND the use of natural resources...
it is obvious on its face
I can accept representation based on population...as in the houseThe make up of the senate actually gives smaller states more representation than they would receive based on population. That's the role of the senate as the smaller, more rural sates wanted some protection from having urban areas call all the shots.
I think it works out fine.
well thats the rhetoric of justification anyway.....actually small non-rural states like New Jersey, Delaware, Rhode Island, Connecticut get power that isnt justified, based mostly on religious differences of 200 years ago. While the large state of Texas, quite rural in most of it, gets robbed as does California.
Small as in physical size? (what difference does that make ????) Some states have more senators than representatives. THOSE are the rural states that get over representation in the Senate. But the Senate is not - and was never designed to be directly proportional - we have the House to suit that need.
I can accept representation according to some rational measure of economic potential.....renewable resource base for example.
But our Senate makes no rational sense by any measure. RI =California=Wyoming=Alaska no, that is wrong by any measure
It makes perfect sense in a checks and balances system.
I have no problem with it.
I have a BIG problem allocating representation based on renewable resources.
I can accept representation based on population...as in the houseThe make up of the senate actually gives smaller states more representation than they would receive based on population. That's the role of the senate as the smaller, more rural sates wanted some protection from having urban areas call all the shots.
I think it works out fine.
well thats the rhetoric of justification anyway.....actually small non-rural states like New Jersey, Delaware, Rhode Island, Connecticut get power that isnt justified, based mostly on religious differences of 200 years ago. While the large state of Texas, quite rural in most of it, gets robbed as does California.
Small as in physical size? (what difference does that make ????) Some states have more senators than representatives. THOSE are the rural states that get over representation in the Senate. But the Senate is not - and was never designed to be directly proportional - we have the House to suit that need.
I can accept representation according to some rational measure of economic potential.....renewable resource base for example.
But our Senate makes no rational sense by any measure. RI =California=Wyoming=Alaska no, that is wrong by any measure
It makes perfect sense in a checks and balances system.
I have no problem with it.
I have a BIG problem allocating representation based on renewable resources.
It makes perfect sense in a checks and balances system.
I have no problem with it.
I have a BIG problem allocating representation based on renewable resources.
Especially when "renewable" is such a highly subjective term. Technically, all resources are renewable. Some are just not as renewable as others. Given enough time and/or enough reduction in usage, coal and oil become renewable resources. Meanwhile, we're losing forests and trees at an alarming rate, not adequately compensated for by planting efforts. Electricity is actually renewable because it's something we create and can keep creating it indefinitely. Should building more power plants lead to increased Congressional representation?
I can accept representation based on population...as in the houseThe make up of the senate actually gives smaller states more representation than they would receive based on population. That's the role of the senate as the smaller, more rural sates wanted some protection from having urban areas call all the shots.
I think it works out fine.
well thats the rhetoric of justification anyway.....actually small non-rural states like New Jersey, Delaware, Rhode Island, Connecticut get power that isnt justified, based mostly on religious differences of 200 years ago. While the large state of Texas, quite rural in most of it, gets robbed as does California.
Small as in physical size? (what difference does that make ????) Some states have more senators than representatives. THOSE are the rural states that get over representation in the Senate. But the Senate is not - and was never designed to be directly proportional - we have the House to suit that need.
I can accept representation according to some rational measure of economic potential.....renewable resource base for example.
But our Senate makes no rational sense by any measure. RI =California=Wyoming=Alaska no, that is wrong by any measure
It makes perfect sense in a checks and balances system.
I have no problem with it.
I have a BIG problem allocating representation based on renewable resources.
why do you have a problem with that?....when you have no problem with R Island = California? if you read through entire thread you'd see that the small eastern seaboard states were separate partly because of religious differences ...that makes good sense to you on which to base a Senate in a country presumably with separation of church and state?.....THat makes sense to you...but a rational split based on resource base does not......hmmmm
"Checks and balances" is largely bunk...Patrick Henry ridiculed it at the Virgina ratification convention. I think there is a picture in my Gallery showing his take on it. something like
"specious imaginary checks and contrivances"
I can accept representation based on population...as in the housewell thats the rhetoric of justification anyway.....actually small non-rural states like New Jersey, Delaware, Rhode Island, Connecticut get power that isnt justified, based mostly on religious differences of 200 years ago. While the large state of Texas, quite rural in most of it, gets robbed as does California.
Small as in physical size? (what difference does that make ????) Some states have more senators than representatives. THOSE are the rural states that get over representation in the Senate. But the Senate is not - and was never designed to be directly proportional - we have the House to suit that need.
I can accept representation according to some rational measure of economic potential.....renewable resource base for example.
But our Senate makes no rational sense by any measure. RI =California=Wyoming=Alaska no, that is wrong by any measure
It makes perfect sense in a checks and balances system.
I have no problem with it.
I have a BIG problem allocating representation based on renewable resources.
why do you have a problem with that?....when you have no problem with R Island = California? if you read through entire thread you'd see that the small eastern seaboard states were separate partly because of religious differences ...that makes good sense to you on which to base a Senate in a country presumably with separation of church and state?.....THat makes sense to you...but a rational split based on resource base does not......hmmmm
"Checks and balances" is largely bunk...Patrick Henry ridiculed it at the Virgina ratification convention. I think there is a picture in my Gallery showing his take on it. something like
"specious imaginary checks and contrivances"
I have read through the entire thread. My opposition is not based on a lack of understanding your position - it is based on my disagreeing with it. I find your method of allocating representation even more arbitrary.
Our system of checks and balances have served us well up to now. I see no reason to dicker with this aspect.
why?The voting power of Each Senator, rather than being based
on random lines drawn on a map, should be based on the renewable natural resource production of each
state, using a type of Economic base analysis.
Funniest thing I'll read/hear/see today.
why?The voting power of Each Senator, rather than being based
on random lines drawn on a map, should be based on the renewable natural resource production of each
state, using a type of Economic base analysis.
Funniest thing I'll read/hear/see today.
You do realize that each State gets two Senators, that aren't any "lines" marking their "District".....
why?The voting power of Each Senator, rather than being based
on random lines drawn on a map, should be based on the renewable natural resource production of each
state, using a type of Economic base analysis.
Funniest thing I'll read/hear/see today.
You do realize that each State gets two Senators, that aren't any "lines" marking their "District".....
absolutely,, and it gets at the absurdity of the way the sates were drawn up originally...based in the east largely on religious differences.....which are largely defunct now and shouldnt have an impact anyway.
