this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2024

551 points (97.3% liked)

Political Memes

5233 readers

1906 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civil

Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformation

Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memes

Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotion

Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

551

Republicans love DEI (i.ibb.co)

submitted 7 hours ago by [email protected] to c/politicalmemes

60 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

I think the Senate would be fine if it was in charge of a Veto instead of having to also pass the legislation, also if it had a lot more senators to some multiple of 3 at a minimum.

IE doing nothing is just letting everything pass automatically and that cooling pan shit is something senate leaders have to pursue actively with (qualified) majority support.

My ideal procedure. House passes a law, Senate vetoes it with a majority meeting or beating the passing margin of the law in the house, but also representing a majority of all americans, house can override the veto by meeting or beating the population margin the senate's Veto represented.

You may note that there is no president involved in this process. That is because I believe the independent executive is an inherent threat to democracy and that it should be subject to complete erasure and power division to save the republic.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 51 minutes ago

More senators gives more power to the smaller states.

The whole idea is ass-backwards anyway. Assigning representation based on lines that were cooked up centuries ago over reasons that are mostly lost to time. It was a compromise to appease the southern Democratic Republicans who feared proportional representation meant they would get trampled on.

And maybe they would. But maybe that also just means that they should. They were worried about tyranny of the majority (i.e. democracy), and now we have tyranny of the minority.

[–] takeda 93 points 6 hours ago (4 children)

The senator limit would be ok, if not for the hard limit on representatives, which fucks over once again states with high population.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Somebody said states would secede if the coasts decided everything. Anybody ever researched this?

[–] Fedizen 3 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Is Texas a coast state? because they're the second largest state

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 hour ago

They have a coastline but they're mad it's not the Gulf of 'Merica.

[–] BaldManGoomba 8 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

100% agree with this we limited congress to the size of a building for some stupid reason

Second conversation. Why are some states large and others big shouldn't we chop them up more?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 45 minutes ago

Massively agree on the states issue. The original idea was a bunch of little countries that only shared a handful of federal powers. That concept has completely fallen apart and now we're just an extremely poorly organized country with wildly different sized regions.

We either need to break every state into roughly the same size or we need to start merging too small states together until we have a collection of California sized states to manage.

For many people 'their state' has little meaning to them beyond sports teams and food trends. They have extremely low interest or engagement in state politics which is a major problem.

But this is an impossible dream, so we're pretty much stuck with this horrible arrangement.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago

Not enough chairs

[–] [email protected] 18 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

I don't think the Senator limit is okay. For instance, the city of Houston has more population than North and South Dakota combined (4 senators) and gets zero senators (Houston is consistently Democrat and is "represented" by two Republicans that do nothing for them).

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

That's the point of the Senate: land gets equal votes

The house is for population, but we fucked it by capping the total number of reps you can have there

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Land doesn't have rights. It's just gerrymandering by another name. The problem works both ways. The rural fuckheads in California are also unrepresented. Harris County (where Houston is located) is larger than Rhode Island. Where is their representation? Why do the Dakotas (4 senators for virtually no population) get more political power than California or Texas? Houston, Dallas, Austin, and San Antonio get no representation despite a huge amount of population. Rural Californians get no representation despite outnumbering the Dakotas and Wyoming.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Land doesn't have rights

I agree, but the point is to have a section of the government where the 50 disparate governments that make up our union have equal say. This tends to get simplified to "land gets 2 votes" because the other part of Congress is population based

Where is their representation

In the house, as I said already. Also, their 2 senators are part of their representation, they're still part of the state

Why do the Dakotas (4 senators for virtually no population) get more political power than California or Texas?

Because the house has a limit on members. The senate is literally equal by design

Your issue seems to be a lack of understanding of how our legislative branch works because your complaints are all root issues of the House of Representatives and not the senate

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

I agree with your House argument, but I strongly believe that the design of the Senate was a major fuck-up. Senators are far more powerful than representatives, and I get none. A single house member cannot torpedo legislation the way a Senator can. North Dakota (population 780k) gets two. The 4.7M people in Harris County get none. That is a poor design.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

and I get none

Only if you're not an American or live in DC

(population 780k) gets two. The 4.7M people in Harris County get none. That is a poor design

Again the people in Harris county get 2 senators as their state senators represent them. And, again, senators do not represent based on population as that is the job of the house

Senators are far more powerful than representatives

Entirely irrelevant as they represent different things. Your representatives represent a portion of your population while your senators represent your state as a whole. The entire point of separating the state and population representation is to allow more perspectives when legislating: the house gives a perspective from closer to the people, the senate from a broader view

Again, it seems you fundamentally don't understand the split between house and Senate, why it exists and what it does to our governing system

[–] pennomi 2 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

It’s obvious why the Senate exists historically, and it’s also obvious that it’s inherently undemocratic.

[–] MonkRome 2 points 2 hours ago

I mean historically it existed mostly because states had much more autonomy and power, much like a city state or country. Until at least Lincoln that part of the system had a good logic to it. If they only went off of proportional representation they could basically ignore small states needs. In order to get states to agree to join the union, they had to build a country that would give all states a serious seat at the table.

The main reason people on the left hate it so much now is that it currently hurts us, but it's very much an equity vs equality argument. The system was set up to be equitable even if it isn't equal. Something the left typically supports and this meme touches on. I think the higher priority fix is the house, as it no longer even does what it was designed to do.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

it’s inherently undemocratic

It's exhausting trying to discuss shit online with people with such a terrible understanding of the topic at hand

Senators are voted for and represent their entire state. They're the representatives of the state's general populace in a representative democracy

[–] pennomi 0 points 2 hours ago

One human = one vote

Anything else is undemocratic and I think it’s morally reprehensible to support a system that values any one person above another for any reason.

[–] Cort 37 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

Number of people per representative should be set based on the state with the lowest population. CA should have 68 reps as they have 68.5 times the population of Wyoming.

[–] SmoothLiquidation 14 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Honestly we should set it so Wyoming has like 5 reps and then use that as a baseline. Increase the total number of reps 10 times and make each district manageable for one person to campaign in.

This would negate the problems with the electoral college and make gerrymandering much harder to pull off.

[–] Fedizen 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

if we're going to do that why even have districts and just do party list proportional voting to elect a state's reps instead?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Districts are nice in that you have a local representative beholden to you(ish) that you can bring issues to.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

That's with the same total number of representatives, or will Congress need to be upgraded?

[–] chuckleslord 15 points 5 hours ago

Yeah, that would mean getting rid of the Reappointment Act of 1929 and implementing the proposed Wyoming Rule

[–] General_Effort 17 points 5 hours ago

They don't love all of it, just 3/5ths.

[–] mkwt 25 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

Oklahoma seems to be flipped around to show her underground side?

[–] [email protected] 11 points 6 hours ago

Dirty

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments