this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2024
987 points (97.1% liked)

Political Memes

5349 readers
2147 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

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

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 weeks ago (3 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] 7 points 4 weeks ago (5 children)

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.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] -5 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Californians are welcome to try to split into multiple states if they would like more Senators.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (2 children)

Really? Please explain. Like, I get the DEI joke, but the fact all these little states are red isn't some law of the Universe. They have been blue and can be again.

Unless I'm missing some deeper joke? Apparently I am unless the down votes are just circlejerking.

EDIT: Maybe you all think the Senate should be determined by population? If so, that's what the House is for. Uncap it.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (4 children)

It's not that it should be by population. It's that the idea of the senate itself is outdated.

Now the cities are the source of almost all of America's wealth, power, education, and population, but they are forced to bend the knee to a tiny portion of the country. The whole system is way out of wack.

Carving up California into more states wouldn't fix that, as it would still put more power into fewer hands.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 weeks ago

Ha, no, they love isolating power to claim more for themselves.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›