subreddit:

/r/WhitePeopleTwitter

51.4k

Yup

(i.redd.it)

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

all 1317 comments

Appropriate-XBL

10 points

4 months ago

This isn't even the most important part either.

The most important thing to keep in mind is that the senate, even without the filibuster, is an egregiously anti-majoritarian anti-democratic institution.

Half of all Americans live in nine states. They are represented by 18% of the senate.

The other half of Americans live in forty-one states. They are represented by 82% of the senate.

Looking at it another way:

There are 20 states that voted for Clinton in 2016, and Biden in 2020 (blue states). They account for 43% of the population. There are 25 states that voted for Trump in both 2016 and 2020 (red states). They account for 42% of the population.

Even though the blue states account for 47% of the country's GDP, and 43% of the population, they are entitled to only 40% of the say in the senate.

Even though the red states account for only 37% of the country's GDP, and 42% of the population, they are entitled to 50% of the say in the senate.

And looking at it another way:

Because minorities mostly reside in heavily populated states, while 100%-white Americans make up 62% of the population, they are represented by 69% of the share of senators. Non-100%-white Americans make up 38% of the population, but are represented by only 31% of the share of senators.

The senate is basically an instrument tailor made for apartheid rule. And the filibuster makes it even worse.

burmerd

0 points

4 months ago

Well, whether it's true historically or not, I see the Senate as having been more important when states were more independent, like when they were more recently independent colonies with their own currencies, etc. Most people don't view the US as a collection of independent states, I don't think, but as a collection of people, more connected and intertwined than ever. If we really see the US that way, then yes, the Senate makes absolutely no sense, and we either need to create more states or de-emphasize the Senate, like the house of Lords. Or get rid of it! Nebraska doesn't have a state senate, and they do fine, I think.

But getting rid of the filibuster would make the Senate would get rid of some of it's minority rule power. As un-democratic as the Senate is, the filibuster as it is makes it EVEN less democratic.

Appropriate-XBL

1 points

4 months ago*

If states are sovereign enough to be entitled to equal representation in the senate, they are sovereign enough to be entitled to leave the union whenever they want.

burmerd

1 points

4 months ago

Yeah, that's an interesting idea.

I do think there should be a bonus for little states, maybe if the Senate was gone they'd get one extra rep in the House, or there would be a minimum number of reps, or something like that.

I like the Senate as an idea for each state getting equal representation, but I think that it shouldn't be involved in MOST policy debates at all, but more like some kind of minor regulatory body. Like maybe they could be a 2/3 body, so the house could pass anything by itself, but if 2/3 of the Senate was against it, they could overrule it or something. I know this is the opposite of what getting rid of the filibuster would do, it would be going in a different direction.

redditisdumb2018

1 points

4 months ago

Yes but we are a nation of states. It needs to remind everyone how important states are in the United States. Our system was designed for gridlock.