(November 10, 2016 at 9:55 am)mh.brewer Wrote:(November 10, 2016 at 9:32 am)Tiberius Wrote: Why do you like it? People in smaller states get more voting power. That's inherently unfair.
Not smaller states, states with smaller populations. Take it away and you've just made another minority even greater than the minority than we already are. We might as well not exist in the federal arena.
Then the Senate is unfair also. Why should tiny NE get the same two votes that CA gets? NE's population is so small that they shouldn't count.
Yeah sorry, when I said "smaller states" I meant population wise. Why should states with smaller populations get more voting power though? You are voting for a President of the entire US, so why should a person from Vermont have more say than a person from California?
The Senate might seem unfair, but is it really? The point of the split in the Senate is so every "state" as a single entity gets an equal vote. All bills must also make it through the House, which is split proportionally.
So a bill must first get passed by the House, which is fairly representative of the population. If that passes, the Senate votes, but the Senate's job is to effectively answer the question: do a majority of states in the union approve the bill?
Think of the House as the population voting on a bill, and the Senate as the states voting on it.
