• Melkath
    link
    fedilink
    2
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    That is why the House exists.

    some old slave owners pitched a fit about not having power over more populated states.

    You are aware that when Congress as a whole was established, everyone owned slaves. Everyone.

    The House prevents all of the red states from getting together and patently overruling California.

    The Senate prevents the entire country being ruled by California.

    Only through striking balance through both checks can a law that impacts everyone be advanced.

    The system is build the way it is built for a reason.

    California can pass all the state legislation it wants. It needs to get a bill through both house and senate to impose their will on the other 49 states.

    If anything, the idea of the House of Representatives at a FEDERAL level is the stupid one.

    If we got rid of the Senate, we should just change the name of the country to The United State of California.

    • @Chriswild
      link
      29 months ago

      You’re literally arguing that people shouldn’t get equal representation because you think land votes.

      • Melkath
        link
        fedilink
        29 months ago

        I’m literally not.

        I’m saying checks and balances should exist because we are a country of states with different environments, different hardships, and different cultures, not a country of Californians.

        • @Chriswild
          link
          19 months ago

          Checks and balances that give inequality. Lol

          • Melkath
            link
            fedilink
            29 months ago

            Okay, one more go at trying to teach Civics 101 to the one who cant walk and chew bubblegum at the same time.

            So 1 state having all the power is equality?

            In your mind, equal = Californian?

            1 large homogenized (probably too big a world for you, but you can google) population has the right to rule over every other population?

            49 groups of people get overruled because 1 of the groups has more people?

            That is why checks and balances are in place. To ensure EVERYONE gets representation, not just one powerful group.

            Each state does have States rights though, so they can do as they please with their group. Unless it is something that has successfully made it through checks and balances to be enforced on the nation as a whole.

            EVERYONE should be represented at the Federal level, not just the majority group.

            With your throwing around of the topic of slavery earlier in the conversation, I’d think you would be for that.

            • @Chriswild
              link
              29 months ago

              So Californians should just live in Wyoming to get represented?

              • Melkath
                link
                fedilink
                -19 months ago

                Californians are the only people in America that have more representation than someone in any other state.

                They just cant steam roll the other 49 states in the Federal legislative branch because the Senate protects those 49 states from California, the state with the most legislative representation in America.

                Seriously dude, shut your mouth and read a book.

                • @Chriswild
                  link
                  29 months ago

                  They have the least representation per capita

                • @3volverOP
                  link
                  18 months ago

                  Californians are the only people in America that have more representation than someone in any other state.

                  This is false. They are extremely under represented in the Senate, and the House scales with population.

                  • Melkath
                    link
                    fedilink
                    08 months ago

                    This is true, they have more representatives in congress than any other state.

                    Thank you for explaining how Congress works, and contradicting yourself in the process.

    • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet
      link
      English
      19 months ago

      You are aware that when Congress as a whole was established, everyone owned slaves. Everyone.

      Not even remotely true. Slaves were very expensive and only rich people could afford to buy and own slaves. Or did you mean everyone who established Congress?

      • Melkath
        link
        fedilink
        19 months ago

        I meant everyone who established Congress.

        Congress didn’t get established as it is by a slave owning south to the chagrin of the not-slave-owning-north.

        Slavery was only ever (very rightfully) addressed far after.

        That was the point I was making.

        • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet
          link
          English
          19 months ago

          Gotcha. Then yes, all of the forefathers were rich enough to own slaves and did so.