this post was submitted on 07 Mar 2024
994 points (91.3% liked)

General Discussion

12048 readers
2 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy.World General!

This is a community for general discussion where you can get your bearings in the fediverse. Discuss topics & ask questions that don't seem to fit in any other community, or don't have an active community yet.


πŸͺ† About Lemmy World


🧭 Finding CommunitiesFeel free to ask here or over in: !lemmy411@lemmy.ca!

Also keep an eye on:

For more involved tools to find communities to join: check out Lemmyverse!


πŸ’¬ Additional Discussion Focused Communities:


Rules

Remember, Lemmy World rules also apply here.0. See: Rules for Users.

  1. No bigotry: including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
  2. Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
  3. Be thoughtful and helpful: even with β€˜silly’ questions. The world won’t be made better by dismissive comments to others on Lemmy.
  4. Link posts should include some context/opinion in the body text when the title is unaltered, or be titled to encourage discussion.
  5. Posts concerning other instances' activity/decisions are better suited to !fediverse@lemmy.world or !lemmydrama@lemmy.world communities.
  6. No Ads/Spamming.
  7. No NSFW content.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I know how it got that way but it's not going to change even with the filibuster removed. It needs to go. It was a great idea when we were more decentralized and we knew less about democracy. But we can replace it with a national proportionally representative body and leave the House as the geographical representative.

[–] pjwestin@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Hmm...that's definitely an interesting idea, but it still gives the highly populated states unchecked power over the smaller states. Either way, if the house remains the same, then gerrymandering will still need to end.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

The idea of larger and smaller states is effectively dead. We're a centralized country and the only thing going on right now is the states that have made life too shitty for people to stay are holding the rest of the country hostage.

It was a great idea in 1792. But not in 1992.

[–] pjwestin@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

I don't think that's true at all. I'm not one of those, "states rights," guys that believes that every state should decide who gets basic human rights, but I do think there are tons of ways larger states could use their outsized power against smaller states. The one that comes to mind is nuclear waste storage, which was a huge fight in the 80s that required a lot of negotiation. Imagine if New York, Texas, California, Pennsylvania, and Florida just got together with and decided Montana just had to manage it all.

Also, considering the western states have a much higher percentage of federal land than eastern states, their communities are much more likely to get screwed by the federal government. If I lived in Utah, where the vast majority of the land in my state is under federal control, I would certainly want more than 3 out of 435 Representatives in the federal government.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

You're forgetting that under this proposal we balance the House of Representatives with a national proportional representation legislature. And we can certainly uncap the house of representatives. So the "small" states can easily form a caucus in either chamber.

That said. Nuclear storage is actually a great issue to bring up. We're going to need to store it somewhere and that place needs very specific things. Using the Senate as a NIMBY method so hard it doesn't get stored anywhere is the perfect example of the dysfunction inherent in the Senate.

[–] pjwestin@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

I mean, that's not really how I'd describe the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, and you're not really addressing how this body would lessen the impact of NIMBYism. It seems like, if anything, it would be easier for largest states to caucus together and dictate what they don't want in their backyards. You're also not addressing why it's fair for states who already control less than 50% of the land within their borders to have even less influence over those lands. It's certainly an interesting proposal, but I still think you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to the Senate's check on high density states.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

That's because the baby is dead. Trying to protect the empty states is a noble idea. But they've engaged in such bad faith we cannot continue to allow it. Instead 3/4 of Americans are forced to bow down to their demands. The majority of which have nothing to do with their land. Guns, healthcare, work safety, Unions, education, and the bedroom are all flipped on their head because of a minority.

You're so worried about a tyranny of the majority, you're letting a tyranny of the minority happen.

[–] pjwestin@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Well, I think we're at the point where we have to agree to disagree, but I appreciate you sharing your thoughts. I'd never heard of some of the ideas you'd brought up before, it certainly given me some new things to look into.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Yeah, thanks for engaging honestly.