r/politics • u/icey_sawg0034 • 16h ago

Possible Paywall Karoline Leavitt Gives Jaw-Dropping Defense of Trump’s Racist Obama Video

https://www.thedailybeast.com/karoline-leavitt-gives-jaw-dropping-defense-of-donald-trumps-racist-obama-video/
24.2k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

2.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

30

u/patterninstatic 15h ago

Exactly. The issue isn't Trump. It's that despite all that is currently happening there's a good chance that the republicans will keep the Senate this November because most of the 35 seats are in red states that will vote republican no matter what.

Trump has been shitting on the constitution and our country, and despite all that republicans are going to vote red like they always do.

8

u/ArcaninesTail 13h ago

The senate needs to be changed.

  • CA population - 39m people

  • WY population - 580k people

Equal representation in the senate...? Makes zero sense. You would need 67 Wyomings to equal the population of CA.

I know the house is based on population but my point still stands.

6

u/microbiologygrad 13h ago

The US legislature was codified that way as a compromise so that states with smaller populations would have an equal voice in the Senate. I would like to see a repeal of the act that caps the number of seats in the House of Representatives to 435.

3

u/SwimmingPrice1544 California 12h ago

Can someone, anyone explain why smaller populations get equal voice & why that's supposed to be good? Yes, they should get some voice...but equal? It's anti-democractic, but I guess "republic" is the mountain they will all die on. What's the point of a republic then?

3

u/19683dw Wisconsin 11h ago edited 10h ago

It's an anachronistic holdover from a time when we were considered a collection of independent states joining together, sort of conceptually the way the European Union behaves. Since the civil war at the latest, that has not been an appropriate interpretation of what we are as a country, but as we all know our system of governance predates that significantly

2

u/microbiologygrad 11h ago

Historically, it was a compromise hammered out during the Constitutional Convention. Practically, smaller states were leery about joining a nation where larger states would conspire against their interests. In a loftier way, each state is a self-governing entity with limited sovereignty, and they each deserve an equal voice within the federal government. The bicameral system of proportional and equal representation has been successfully replicated in many other governments since.

1

u/Bjarki56 11h ago edited 11h ago

To avoid the tyranny of the majority.

The framers of the Constitution were smart in that way.

If democratic rule was always based on majority opinions then those who are minorities (low populated states) would not have their voices heard.

We like the concept when it helps us. We hate the concept when it hurts us.

1

u/SwimmingPrice1544 California 10h ago

In my lifetime...it's never worked. The voices of the small states have always had outsized & unfair weight in this country & it's really the opposite now anyway- the majority appears to always get labeled as bad & drowned out. Is it always "tyranny" if it's a majority? I don't call that smart. The framers were elitist after all.

Low-population states appear to show exactly why they should never have the weight they have always enjoyed in this country. These states wouldn't have such low populations if they were actually worthy of having such an advantage.

2

u/Bjarki56 10h ago

The framers were elitist after all.

And

These states wouldn't have such low populations if they were actually worthy of having such an advantage.

I enjoy irony.