• Toasteh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Smaller states should have less of a say. I’m not sure how that seems unreasonable. The people should decide. It doesn’t matter what state they live in. It might have made sense 200 years ago but now I can’t believe people seriously support it.

    • Seasoned_Greetings@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Smaller states do have less of a say. The house and senate have to work together. If the majority of people don’t want something, it still doesn’t happen. The purpose of the senate is to prevent the smaller states from getting no say.

      It’s not that hard to understand.

      • Toasteh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It makes it too easy to game the system and create gridlock because you only need influence over a bunch of very small percent of the population.

        • Seasoned_Greetings@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          No political system is immune from gaming. You’re trying to fix a problem every government has on some level by disenfranchising smaller groups in general. That problem would and does still exist in the house alone. I mean, the house is gridlocked right now, and it has nothing to do with the senate.