Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

I think there are good arguments for abolishing the Senate and returning the House to proportionality, but at least everyone gets a vote for their Senator that counts. You can't use the disproportionality of the legislature to defend disenfranchisement of Americans on a national scale.



You can't use the disproportionality of the legislature to defend disenfranchisement of Americans on a national scale.

What's the difference really? Take Civil Rights for example. The Senate held this up against popular will for at least a decade, and arguably much longer, but we did thankfully finally get the Voting Rights Act and the Civils Right Act, and I would argue that Slavery and Civil Rights were a special case of growing pains that the country had to go through, and not a reason to change the whole structure of government.

I think it's obvious that the authors of the constitution purposely created our government with with built-in dampers against simple majority rule, and I would be very hesitant to remove them.

-----


The difference is that every state has one Senator (per cycle), and every state resident gets one vote for Senator that counts the same as everyone else's. Representation on a national level is disproportionate, but on a vote-to-vote level the election is fair.

This is not the case in the Presidential election; the President is supposed to represent all Americans, and yet when campaign season comes around we get maps that look like this: http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/11/01/163632378...

-----


> but at least everyone gets a vote for their Senator that counts

Unless you live in DC. We get disenfranchised there, too.

-----




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: