this post was submitted on 19 Mar 2024
642 points (89.4% liked)

General Discussion

13468 readers
1 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy.World General!

This is a community for general discussion where you can get your bearings in the fediverse. Discuss topics & ask questions that don't seem to fit in any other community, or don't have an active community yet.


πŸͺ† About Lemmy World


🧭 Finding CommunitiesFeel free to ask here or over in: !lemmy411@lemmy.ca!

Also keep an eye on:

For more involved tools to find communities to join: check out Lemmyverse!


πŸ’¬ Additional Discussion Focused Communities:


Rules and Policies

Remember, Lemmy World rules also apply here.0. See: Rules for Users.

  1. No bigotry: including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
  2. Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
  3. Be thoughtful and helpful: even with β€˜silly’ questions. The world won’t be made better by dismissive comments to others on Lemmy.
  4. Link posts should include some context/opinion in the body text when the title is unaltered, or be titled to encourage discussion.
  5. Posts concerning other instances' activity/decisions are better suited to !fediverse@lemmy.world or !lemmydrama@lemmy.world communities.
  6. No Ads/Spamming.
  7. No NSFW content.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3volver@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (10 children)

No, states still would elect a number of representatives based on their population. Just no 2 senators per state.

[–] notfromhere@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (9 children)

Why even have states? Good way to get rid of jerrymandering would be to get rid of imaginary borders. No states, no senate necessary.

[–] 3volver@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Because state legislatures should continue to exist. If less populated conservative states want to go down a rabbit hole of far right shit then let them. Just don't give them 2 senators per state to gridlock the states that continue to produce and provide for their population.

[–] notfromhere@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why do you think the states govts should continue to exist if they do not have a direct voice at the Federal level?

[–] 3volver@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because states would still get a voice at the Federal level with the House, not directly and disproportionately, but rather through their population who are the ones who create value.

[–] notfromhere@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

The house is representation of the people. The senate is the voice of the states. E.g. senate ratifies treaties.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)