• ricecake@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    I think it only makes sense if you think that it matters that Wyoming is fairly represented, and not the people in Wyoming.
    I don’t particularly care about the representation of the land, only the people who live on it, where each person should have as much say as any other.

    The Senate is explicitly antidemocratic, and since I’m a fan of fair representation, I’m not a fan of the Senate.

    Well, I suppose you could also make it so states get equal numbers of senators and representatives. That would also be fine, since there’s a slight use for the Senate having a longer election cycle.

    Since this whole thread is basically playing and dreaming, I’ll easily agree that you can’t just drop the Senate without at least giving a look at how that impacts the rest of the government organization.

    • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      it depends on the legislation. If it’s something that the states are involved in, and it isn’t particularly relevant to the people of the state like most legislation probably is. And in that scenario, it would be beneficial for wyoming to not be overshadowed by.

      Also i dont think you understand how senate seats work, they’re literally popular votes. We put them there. That’s at least following the basic principles of democracy. I’m not sure how one would argue against that, unless you have a massive problem with the electoral college, would which would be fair i suppose.

      This isn’t a supreme court situation where they’re appointed magically.