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.
First time I’m hearing about that fallacy, but it seems to imply deceptive intent which I have none. You can also have machine screws in your peanut butter sandwich but it doesn’t mean it makes sense.
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.
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.
Then there is no point in having states.
That is what is referred to as a false dilemma fallacy. You can have states and state legislatures without the senate.
First time I’m hearing about that fallacy, but it seems to imply deceptive intent which I have none. You can also have machine screws in your peanut butter sandwich but it doesn’t mean it makes sense.
Nope, it’s simply an instance of an argument which erroneously limits what options are available.
Why do you think the states govts should continue to exist if they do not have a direct voice at the Federal level?
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.
The house is representation of the people. The senate is the voice of the states. E.g. senate ratifies treaties.