GOP carried roughly 38% of the vote totals in California. They won 9 of 53 seats. I guess you think they should have 11 more seats then?
That's also after a place like Pennsylvania had to redraw borders to fix their problems. States like Wisconsin and North Carolina are still badly gerrymandered to create an imbalance of power within those states. There's also a sentiment, which will probably never happen, to abolish the Senate, as it's sort of a national system of gerrymandering which has outgrown its use in a country no longer just 13 states and 4 million people.
I'm talking about circumstances where over half the state votes for a party and they hold like a third of the seats. I.e., the minority holds a super majority.
The argument is that it overrepresents smaller states. Maybe gerrymander is not the best word, but I was just using it colloquially anyway.
In other words, screw the Great Compromise, we gotta get more power to the blue states - which is precisely what it is.
You don't see the mechanical difference between a minority being in the minority and a minority having a super majority?
So, you're for the "will of the people" in this sense, but not when it comes to the overrepresentation of votes in the Senate and electoral college, i.e. your shock about my critique of the Great Compromise?
I'm for the "one man, one vote" principle being more relevant than where it is in the country where you make that vote.
IP is the one up in arms over it. I'm a-ok with the current set-up. Again, you want more power to blue states, which comes from the EXACT root cause as gerrymandering, just the other side.
Yes, and? Why is this some sort of affront to humanity? Was this agreement ordained by God or something for which I'm not able to question the concept certain things may be obsolete 200+ years after they were created?
Why's it outdated now? What's the fundamental change between then and now in the argument? Are there still not more populated and less populated states, by large margins? Do different states not have different economies, cultures, etc. that should be represented, as was the case then? (5...4...3...2...1....) Is there a reason the compromise that was good then isn't good now? Why the change?
I honestly think the house needs more representation. The districts are too large. I think one per 30-50,000 would be better.
The Senate is still incredibly valuable, and I have no wish or desire to see it abolished. Debating it is always open and should be questioned as often as possible, but it serves a purpose that not only protects against the Tyranny of the Majority, but also protects against quick governance.
