The Senate, rather than being based on random lines drawn on a map should be based on

[dcraelin]

alternatively, perhaps all the states being treated unfairly in the Senate should split into smaller states.

The so-called flyover states would have a fairer representation if they all broke up into county sized states like new Hampshire and Delaware. Or less drastically just split in two. the plains states of Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, and the Dakotas would then have 10 more senators making things a little more equitable in the Senate. Texas as I understand it was given the right to split into 5 states on admission to the union...it should do so, adding 8 more Senators.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Any vote in the Senate which passes based on the votes of these states is essentially illegitimate.

This is a lie.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

In other words you failed Government, Civics and US history

ta-riffic

...and we should talk about government with you because why, you have something of values to add?

 

[dcraelin]

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.

In other words you failed Government, Civics and US history

ta-riffic

...and we should talk about government with you because why, you have something of values to add?

is there anyone on this board that can answer with true criticism? NO I did not fail government, civics and US history...I dare say I know more on those subjects than you......

but why dont u use your supposed superior knowledge to refute me...

Why shouldnt the larger states break into smaller ones to have the same outsized influence?

Why shouldnt a more rational split of voting power be given the Senate?

Any vote in the Senate which passes based on the votes of the small eastern states is essentially illegitimate.

 

[Toro]

Fatter states should have fewer votes.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

In other words you failed Government, Civics and US history

ta-riffic

...and we should talk about government with you because why, you have something of values to add?

is there anyone on this board that can answer with true criticism? NO I did not fail government, civics and US history...I dare say I know more on those subjects than you......

but why dont u use your supposed superior knowledge to refute me...

Why shouldnt the larger states break into smaller ones to have the same outsized influence?

Why shouldnt a more rational split of voting power be given the Senate?

Any vote in the Senate which passes based on the votes of the small eastern states is essentially illegitimate.

You recently "Graduated" public school, right?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

In other words you failed Government, Civics and US history

ta-riffic

...and we should talk about government with you because why, you have something of values to add?

is there anyone on this board that can answer with true criticism? NO I did not fail government, civics and US history...I dare say I know more on those subjects than you......

but why dont u use your supposed superior knowledge to refute me...

Why shouldnt the larger states break into smaller ones to have the same outsized influence?

Why shouldnt a more rational split of voting power be given the Senate?

Any vote in the Senate which passes based on the votes of the small eastern states is essentially illegitimate.

You have no idea what a "State" is and even less what the US Senate is.

How can we debate you?

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

In other words you failed Government, Civics and US history

ta-riffic

...and we should talk about government with you because why, you have something of values to add?

is there anyone on this board that can answer with true criticism?

I did. You're lying.

 

[dcraelin]

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.

In other words you failed Government, Civics and US history

ta-riffic

...and we should talk about government with you because why, you have something of values to add?

is there anyone on this board that can answer with true criticism? NO I did not fail government, civics and US history...I dare say I know more on those subjects than you......

but why dont u use your supposed superior knowledge to refute me...

Why shouldnt the larger states break into smaller ones to have the same outsized influence?

Why shouldnt a more rational split of voting power be given the Senate?

Any vote in the Senate which passes based on the votes of the small eastern states is essentially illegitimate.

You have no idea what a "State" is and even less what the US Senate is.

How can we debate you?

you cant debate me, that much is apparent...all you can do is throw around moronic insults.

 

[BlindBoo]

Why shouldnt the larger states break into smaller one

Because that was not a provision of their Statehood, except in Texas. Therefore a specific Constitutional Amendment would be required.

Any vote in the Senate which passes based on the votes of the small eastern states is essentially illegitimate.

That is your opinion, the fact that all votes in the Senate regardless of where the specific Senator are from are legitimate has already been presented to you.

 

[dcraelin]

Why shouldnt the larger states break into smaller one

Because that was not a provision of their Statehood, except in Texas. Therefore a specific Constitutional Amendment would be required.

Any vote in the Senate which passes based on the votes of the small eastern states is essentially illegitimate.

That is your opinion, the fact that all votes in the Senate regardless of where the specific Senator are from are legitimate has already been presented to you.

I dont think your first point is correct. north and south Dakota did split up, tho I think that was before either was a state, I dont think it requires a constitutional amendment

As to your second point, I think we're using the word legitimate differently....it is the way it was set up, I agree there....but it is unfair by any measure...thus I use the term illegitimate to say it doesn't meet the basic requirements for fairness that people deserve.

 

[BlindBoo]

Why shouldnt the larger states break into smaller one

Because that was not a provision of their Statehood, except in Texas. Therefore a specific Constitutional Amendment would be required.

Any vote in the Senate which passes based on the votes of the small eastern states is essentially illegitimate.

That is your opinion, the fact that all votes in the Senate regardless of where the specific Senator are from are legitimate has already been presented to you.

I dont think your first point is correct. north and south Dakota did split up, tho I think that was before either was a state, I dont think it requires a constitutional amendment

As to your second point, I think we're using the word legitimate differently....it is the way it was set up, I agree there....but it is unfair by any measure...thus I use the term illegitimate to say it doesn't meet the basic requirements for fairness that people deserve.

1. I was wrong:

Article Four

Clause 1: New states

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

 

[M14 Shooter]

you cant debate me...

Because you refuse to understand that your entire argument is based on a false premise.

 

[dcraelin]

Why shouldnt the larger states break into smaller one

Because that was not a provision of their Statehood, except in Texas. Therefore a specific Constitutional Amendment would be required.

Any vote in the Senate which passes based on the votes of the small eastern states is essentially illegitimate.

That is your opinion, the fact that all votes in the Senate regardless of where the specific Senator are from are legitimate has already been presented to you.

I dont think your first point is correct. north and south Dakota did split up, tho I think that was before either was a state, I dont think it requires a constitutional amendment

As to your second point, I think we're using the word legitimate differently....it is the way it was set up, I agree there....but it is unfair by any measure...thus I use the term illegitimate to say it doesn't meet the basic requirements for fairness that people deserve.

1. I was wrong:

Article Four

Clause 1: New states

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

well it would be better if it didn't require Congressional approval but it does leave open the possibility of a fairer system.

Nice to see someone on the board admit they were wrong....a rarity no doubt.

 

[nodoginnafight]

The 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.

 

[dcraelin]

The 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.

 

[BlindBoo]

The 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.

Yeah but we get Ted Cruz and that asparagus guy, Ghomert I think.

 

[nodoginnafight]

The 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.

 

[SwimExpert]

its a discussion forum...a suggestion for something that would have to come from amendment yes.....if you dont have constructive comments please just leave.

Under that premise, this threat should have never existed.

 

[SwimExpert]

government is the regulation of the relationships between people AND the use of natural resources...