Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall
?
So it's okay for it to work in the exact opposite direction? It makes more sense to have a smaller number of people control decisions for a much larger number? Hell, states with higher GDPs already subsidize states with lower. It just got worse with the latest bullshit tax bill. And the more Republicans are in power, the more will be transferred to states with fewer people and resources. Now, if Republicans weren't so against that as a concept when it's applied in any circumstance in which a person of color might benefit, it wouldn't piss me off so much. But why should anyone in a state with all the people and the money be okay with it?
TM
|
Michigan has more water than any of you all. Should California be able to divert it? Or should California have more say in that question than Michigan? We don't have complete power over any question as the House is still tied to population, but I see value to the Senate being equal.
For that matter, throw out the electoral college (which is really the same question) and when do you think we will ever get another Presidential candidate not from NY/Ill/Ca or Texas? And, no offense, I am not so in love with the one NY just gave us.
Bad facts lead to bad laws/rules. We need to get some balance in congress and get someone who doesn't have bad chemicals in his brain in the white house. that might mean dealing with gerrymandering and insulting third party voters every chance we get until 2020, but it doesn't justify throwing out the baby.
