Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Not sure Dianne Feinstein really counts as a liberal, for that matter. [eta: Dianne Feinstein is a liberal, but she is not on the party's left wing.]
I think you may be barking up the wrong tree in looking at party affiliation for this exercise. The bigger issue is that rural interests are over-represented in the Senate, and big cities are under-represented. The current mix of Senates means, e.g., that the country spends too much on farm subsidies and not enough on mass transit. Maybe you solve this by saying that the Senate continues as-is, but that Alaska, Idaho, Montana, the Dakotas, Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma all have to share two Senators. Without doing any math, I'm guessing those states' combined population is less than Michigan's.
|
I read this as "I think Hank is bad at math."
I get the current plan unfairly gives senators to small states. it was a plan when there were 13 states that we are now stuck with. And listen, if we go Brave New World and redistribute senate seats like the house, I'm sure Michigan gets 3. I get all that. I got 670 on the math part of my SATs.
My point is that once California gets 10 senate seats they'll all go to liberal dems because LA/SF will outweigh the rest of the state. Last actual senate race the R got 37%* of the vote- can you live with 3.7 of the 10 California senators being R? Rhetorical, I know you wouldn't, but face it, you ain't about making it fair, and representative, you're about making the senate forever liberal.
And what's so special about the California border? Break it in two- Lower and upper. And NY? Make it urbania and Hudsonville- Florida? SouthBeachatopia and RedNeckville. But don't tell me you want all people represented.
*and you had one job- go look at senate election returns and back out the LA area and see what happens to the 63/37 split. Do you so lack intellectual curiosity that you reply to me as if my IQ is in the 90s instead of actually doing the work to have an intelligent discussion?
