Since we live in a country where a majority of Americans are in agreement............

[RetiredGySgt]

What you call tyranny is actually majority rule. The concept the country was founded on.

no it wasn't that's why the constitution is written the way it is.

 

[konradv]

That's a start. But it doesn't address the structural inequity.

Nothing will, unless we totally revamp and go parliamentary.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

get cracking on an amendment to change it.

 

[Dekster]

......on issues like abortion, gun control, climate change, immigration, campaign finance reform, etc., why isn't the majority's wishes reflected in public policy?

I would argue it's because of the disproportionate representation of conservatives in the Senate, more gerrymandered districts in Repub controlled states than Dem controlled states, and the comically anachronistic Electoral College. If not for the latter we likely would not have had a Repub prez since Reagan. Hence, we'd have a liberal super majority in the SC. Nor would we have suffered through Mitch McTreason being the majority leader in the Senate if not for WY's 580K residents having equal representation to CA's 39M.

Can this be fixed to prevent the current tyranny of the minority?

America has never been a nation designed to be ruled by the unclean masses. Has nothing to do with "gerrymandering"

 

[berg80]

compromise?

making all states equal in the Senate?

Two senators for each state was a concession to small states made at the founding in order to get them to ratify the Constitution. The Founders arguably never envisioned a situation like the disparate populations of CA and WY.

 

[Auld Phart]

What you call tyranny is actually majority rule. The concept the country was founded on.

What you call tyranny is actually majority rule.

BULLSHIT.

Majority rule works in the House, where the number of seats are decided by population.

The senate is has equal representation by state.

 

[berg80]

America has never been a nation designed to be ruled by the unclean masses. Has nothing to do with "gerrymandering"

The current composition of the House has everything to do with gerrymandering.

 

[whitehall]

Agreement on gun control and climate change? Surely you jest. We can't even agree that man made climate change exists.

 

[berg80]

Majority rule works in the House, where the number of seats are decided by population.

And gerrymandering where representatives get to pick their voters.

 

[MisterBeale]

States are able to set policy for themselves in a number of areas. But can you explain to me why 580K people should have equal influence on federal policy as 39M?

Sure.

Because states like NY and California are HUGE population centers, and industrial manufacturing centers. What cities and industrial centers do, is CONSUME. They take in natural resources, and process them.

But where does the production of raw materials occur? Who farms, grows food, mines ore, drills for energy? These processes in the modern era, take significantly less portion of the population. And pay significantly less. . . especially if you flood the market with illegal labor. . .

On the other hand, this part of the economy has a different political and cultural agenda, that is just as important as the cosmopolitan portion of the economy.

There was a time in our nation, when the interests over tariffs on raw materials was SO not respected, that the north decided to create an excuse to invade the south. The nothern oligarchs pretended to care about slavery, so they elevated the silly little abolitionists cause into a civil war. (Don't fool yourself, the north financial oligarchs never gave a damn about slavery, what they cared about was raw materials. This is why the European aristocracies supported the South.)

And this is what the politics between red and blue states is still about today. Blue States want super cheap raw materials, and Red States are shit tired of being undercut by cheap ass labor. You really have no clue about politics do you?

You are nothing more than a modern day slave apologist. I am sure you have no problem with the cartels smuggling in illegals, right?

 

[berg80]

Agreement on gun control and climate change? Surely you jest. We can't even agree that man made climate change exists.

I'm saying a majority of Americans agree climate change is real and enhanced gun control is necessary.

 

[Auld Phart]

Two senators for each state was a concession to small states made at the founding in order to get them to ratify the Constitution. The Founders arguably never envisioned a situation like the disparate populations of CA and WY.

The Founders arguably never envisioned a situation like the disparate populations of CA and WY.

right, moron.

Because NY and Alabama had similar populations, right?

 

[berg80]

Because states like NY and California are HUGE population centers, and industrial manufacturing centers. What cities and industrial centers do, is CONSUME. They take in natural resources, and process them.

Deflection noted.

 

[konradv]

get cracking on an amendment to change it.

I’ll be satisfied when PR & DC get in, though I do think the House needs to be expanded when they do, necessitating a new amendment.

 

[berg80]

right, moron.

Because NY and Alabama had similar populations, right?

No need for gratuitous insults to make up for an inability to articulate a cogent argument. AL was not part of the original 13 colonies.

 

[MisterBeale]

Deflection noted.

Inability to process the issue like an adult, noted.

 

[Auld Phart]

And gerrymandering where representatives get to pick their voters.

​

 

[Auld Phart]

No need for gratuitous insults to make up for an inability to articulate a cogent argument. AL was not part of the original 13 colonies.

I call them like I see them.

IMO, you're not making a cogent argument.

You want tyranny, not democracy.

 

[berg80]

The senate is has equal representation by state.

Leaving millions of people under represented.

 

[berg80]

I call them like I see them.

How you them is factually inaccurate. AL wasn't a state until 1819.