Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski
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?
|
- I think GGG is wrong in suggesting that small states are just as urban as big states.
- I think GGG is right in saying that if California has ten Senators, they don't have to be selected by statewide vote.
- Tom Draper spent a lot of money on an initiative to split California into smaller states, but the courts struck it from the ballot.
- I don't think there is any present danger that the Senate is going to change.
- I give work to outside lawyers, not the other way around.
- When the country was founded, people would use the plural tense referring to the country -- the United States are .... Now it's singular.
