View Single Post
  #45  
Old 06-02-2019, 05:26 PM
Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 7,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by flurb View Post
I'll stick up for CoastalMaineiac's question. Wyoming, with .17% of the population of the United States should get to elect two U.S. Senators because. . . why exactly? Why should a state with the population of Albuquerque control 1/50 of the voting rights in the Senate? It's even more disproportionate when you consider that individual Senators are particularly powerful compared to House members, due to the hold, the filibuster, the need for unanimous consent to conduct much of the chamber's business, etc.

And I'm simply dumbfounded by anyone who continues to view the Senate as the more "deliberative" body. Slower, sure, but point to a recent example where the high-minded deliberation of the Senate tempered the rash action of the House.
Then the people of California would vote to move millions of their extra people out there. Californians could also vote to remove any other states water rights. The far left of San Fransisco would have no conservative balance.

Ok, maybe not but you get the picture. The senate forces the country as a whole to consider the views of the smaller states.