• Hegar@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    Eliminating the Senate might seem like a good way to reduce the outsized influence that voters in smaller states wield, but the Senate helps keep those states in the union.

    Also, the death penalty should be eliminated, not expanded.

    We obviously need to address the fact that our government doesn’t represent the country, but drastically increasing the ability of larger states to ride roughshod over the interests of smaller states is not a recipe for stability.

      • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Don’t kill. Killing is wrong. No, seriously, it is so so bad. Don’t even think about it, because if you kill, we will kill you right back buster!

    • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      the Senate helps keep those states in the union.

      In that case California should secede; we’ll be better represented that way.

    • InvertedParallax@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      the Senate helps keep those states in the union.

      Oh, so we need the Senate to keep such valuable states as Alabama, Mississippi and Florida in the union?

      This is like arguing the need for the Senate filibuster, because of how important it was to such orators as Strom Thurmond and Richard Russell.

      I’m fine keeping the Senate on the condition that if you suppress voting for a senator, he can’t be seated.

    • YtA4QCam2A9j7EfTgHrH@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      The death penalty thing was said tongue in cheek. And we already settled the whole can you leave the union thing a little while back.