NBC’s Ken Dilanian: North Dakota, New York Having Same Number of Senate Votes ‘Has to Change’

[Swordsmyth]

Ken Dilanian, a reporter for NBC News, tweeted on Monday that the idea of North Dakota and New York having the same amount of senators "has to change" because of the confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.
"It may not happen in our lifetimes, but the idea that North Dakota and New York get the same representation in the Senate has to change," Dilanian tweeted, linking to a Washington Post article about the confirmation of Kavanaugh. "Senators representing less than half the U.S. are about to confirm a nominee opposed by most Americans"

More at: https://freebeacon.com/politics/nbcs...senate-change/

[phill4paul]

Ken Dilanian,

Who the $#@! is this dumb$#@!?

a reporter for NBC News

Ah, I see.

[specsaregood]

If you don't like it, your state could just choose to secede. NYexit!

[Grandmastersexsay]

They should do something similar to the house of representatives.

[juleswin]

I know this is blasphemous around these parts but I completely agree with her. The have a lower electoral number, fewer house representatives but the equal senators. This is akin to affirmative action for states with little people power.

And I do understand give small states some power to defend themselves but equal senatorial power? That is a bridge too far

[oyarde]

Personally , I see the point . I support removing new yorks senators and sending those seats to the Dakotas.

[Swordsmyth]

I know this is blasphemous around these parts but I completely agree with her. The have a lower electoral number, fewer house representatives but the equal senators. This is akin to affirmative action for states with little people power.

And I do understand give small states some power to defend themselves but equal senatorial power? That is a bridge too far

Go back to Africa. (I know that is a continent not a country)

Giving each state an equal number of Senators is the linchpin of the union, without it there would be no union, the Senate and the EC ensure that a few high population regions can't tyrannize all the other regions.

Ending equal Senate representation and/or the EC would mean an end to the union and rightfully so.

[Swordsmyth]

Personally , I see the point . I support removing new yorks senators and sending those seats to the Dakotas.

We should give NYC to the UN, upstate New York would pick much better Senators.

[phill4paul]

I know this is blasphemous around these parts but I completely agree with her. The have a lower electoral number, fewer house representatives but the equal senators. This is akin to affirmative action for states with little people power.

And I do understand give small states some power to defend themselves but equal senatorial power? That is a bridge too far

Of course you agree with her. You don't understand the Constitution or why it was set up the way it was either.

[Pauls' Revere]

Abolishing the electoral college would fracture this country into many parts.

[VIDEODROME]

I'm unsure how I feel about the 17th Amendment changing the appointment of senators to a popular election. It seems redundant.

I'd be interested in a less populist system where 1 senator is appointed by the Governor and the other by the State Legislature as it used to be under the Constitution.

I sort of get where Jules is coming from not seeing value in the current system because if how its now run. Swordsmyth also has a point though that the senate should help balance representation among the states with different populations.

[juleswin]

Go back to Africa. (I know that is a continent not a country)

Check out the big brain on Swordm, I knew u are a quick learner. Btw, I will be leaving for Lagos on Monday and sadly for you, we have internet n Enugu, so me going back to Enugu, Nigeria isn't going to affect my posting on this site

Giving each state an equal number of Senators is the linchpin of the union, without it there would be no union, the Senate and the EC ensure that a few high population regions can't tyrannize all the other regions.

How about the 10th amendment? if followed correctly should give the states enough reason to stay in the union and enough powers to relatively run their own affairs with very little disturbance from the other bigger states. I seriously have issues with the govt giving a small states much power than it has relative to population and tax fund generated(why is this metric not used to assign representative?)

Ending equal Senate representation and/or the EC would mean an end to the union and rightfully so.

I think u are scaremongering. It wont mean the end of anything if senate representatives was reformed.

[Swordsmyth]

Check out the big brain on Swordm, I knew u are a quick learner. Btw, I will be leaving for Lagos on Monday and sadly for you, we have internet n Enugu, so me going back to Enugu, Nigeria isn't going to affect my posting on this site

I always knew it was a continent, I included the legal disclaimer because you are such a snowflake about it.
You might still be able to post here but at least you wouldn't be voting here. (Now or later, I'm unaware of your current citizenship status)

How about the 10th amendment? if followed correctly should give the states enough reason to stay in the union and enough powers to relatively run their own affairs with very little disturbance from the other bigger states. I seriously have issues with the govt giving a small states much power than it has relative to population and tax fund generated(why is this metric not used to assign representative?)

The federal government has sufficient constitutional powers to require the Senate and EC system we have and the 10thA would have to be resurrected in any case since it hasn't been honored for longer than anyone alive can remember.

I think u are scaremongering. It wont mean the end of anything if senate representatives was reformed.

That is much scarier than if the union did end.

[juleswin]

I always knew it was a continent, I included the legal disclaimer because you are such a snowflake about it.
You might still be able to post here but at least you wouldn't be voting here. (Now or later, I'm unaware of your current citizenship status)




The federal government has sufficient constitutional powers to require the Senate and EC system we have and the 10thA would have to be resurrected in any case since it hasn't been honored for longer than anyone alive can remember.




That is much scarier than if the union did end.

I don't vote anymore.

I also agree with you on the 10th amendment, we need to bring it back in a big way where the smaller states can be allowed to made decisions for their inhabitants. That to be is more important than anything else.

To reiterate my main point, I don't vote

[fedupinmo]

How about the 10th amendment? if followed correctly should give the states enough reason to stay in the union and enough powers to relatively run their own affairs with very little disturbance from the other bigger states. I seriously have issues with the govt giving a small states much power than it has relative to population and tax fund generated(why is this metric not used to assign representative?)

LOL, like that has stopped this from happening. The HOUSE is the representatives of the people, and proportionally so. The SENATE represents the states themselves. You know, the two entities mentioned in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
It's not about power, it's about checking power.

[nobody's_hero]

We'd all have to move to California just to have any ounce of say in the federal government. (not that we have much now, but . . )

I think I'll pass on this suggestion.

[specsaregood]

LOL, like that has stopped this from happening. The HOUSE is the representatives of the people, and proportionally so. The SENATE represents the states themselves. You know, the two entities mentioned in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
It's not about power, it's about checking power.

That's the problem. His suggestion/desire is all about power. It isn't that he wants his state to have the power to control their own destiny, its that they want the power to control the lives of every body else.

[Anti Federalist]

[buck000]

They should do something similar to the house of representatives.

This is what I've been thinking for a while now.

The original apportionment of Representatives was, what, no more than 1 rep for 30,000. Then Congress limited the number to 435 based on, what, the 1910 Census? Right now, we're averaging 1 Rep for about 750,000 citizens.

I certainly don't feel represented by my Rep. I'm in the same district as Fort Hood, so they get all the boot-licking love from my guy.

It seems like we should have a few thousand Representatives, who can represent a wider cross-section of political ideologies, etc. I feel this would foster needing to form alliances with various segments beyond just the silly R and D we currently have, and would allow different groups (e.g., an-caps, libertarians, heck, even Communists) to feel represented in Congress.

Is that just a stupid idea?

[specsaregood]

This is what I've been thinking for a while now.

The original apportionment of Representatives was, what, no more than 1 rep for 30,000. Then Congress limited the number to 435 based on, what, the 1910 Census? Right now, we're averaging 1 Rep for about 750,000 citizens.

I certainly don't feel represented by my Rep. I'm in the same district as Fort Hood, so they get all the boot-licking love from my guy.

It seems like we should have a few thousand Representatives, who can represent a wider cross-section of political ideologies, etc. I feel this would foster needing to form alliances with various segments beyond just the silly R and D we currently have, and would allow different groups (e.g., an-caps, libertarians, heck, even Communists) to feel represented in Congress.

Is that just a stupid idea?

It isn't a stupid idea, and with modern technology there is no reason all those reps need to go to D.C. They should stay at home in their districts.

[RJB]

There are plenty of socialist, utopian societies in the world ($#@!holes) for the people who want to radically change our country. Why don't they just go somewhere else and leave me alone. My country isn't perfect, but hell if I will let it turn into an antifa's wet dream.

[RJB]

This plan will lead to civil war if NY state and California get the power to try to disarm Wyoming. That's ultimately what they want.

[CaptUSA]

Here's a cool chart to play around with that shows the representation by State: https://www.thegreenpapers.com/Censu...ort=Alph#table

The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 set the total number of House Members in stone. We've been running with that basic number for over 100 years. Despite the growth in population. A few states have more Senators than they do Representatives, but until their population grows faster than the other states, they'll never get more.

I could support more Representatives, but adding more Senators would finally remove any semblance of a Federal government. At that point, we'd officially have a National government. You can be assured that the 10th amendment would be removed soon after.

[spudea]

Several solid blue small states would lose power and won't accept it

[AuH20]

This plan will lead to civil war if NY state and California get the power to try to disarm Wyoming. That's ultimately what they want.

We're getting civil war regardless. All present roads lead to civil war in some form or another. We're dealing with an intelligent evil that's bringing together the broken to raze us. There is no compromising with this ancient evil.

[RJB]

We're getting civil war regardless. All present roads lead to civil war in some form or another. We're dealing with an intelligent evil that's bringing together the broken to raze us. There is no compromising with this ancient evil.

I don't take Hillary's threat that civility will only return if her side wins lightly.

[Swordsmyth]

This is what I've been thinking for a while now.

The original apportionment of Representatives was, what, no more than 1 rep for 30,000. Then Congress limited the number to 435 based on, what, the 1910 Census? Right now, we're averaging 1 Rep for about 750,000 citizens.

I certainly don't feel represented by my Rep. I'm in the same district as Fort Hood, so they get all the boot-licking love from my guy.

It seems like we should have a few thousand Representatives, who can represent a wider cross-section of political ideologies, etc. I feel this would foster needing to form alliances with various segments beyond just the silly R and D we currently have, and would allow different groups (e.g., an-caps, libertarians, heck, even Communists) to feel represented in Congress.

Is that just a stupid idea?

It isn't a stupid idea, and with modern technology there is no reason all those reps need to go to D.C. They should stay at home in their districts.

Here's a cool chart to play around with that shows the representation by State: https://www.thegreenpapers.com/Censu...ort=Alph#table

The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 set the total number of House Members in stone. We've been running with that basic number for over 100 years. Despite the growth in population. A few states have more Senators than they do Representatives, but until their population grows faster than the other states, they'll never get more.

I could support more Representatives, but adding more Senators would finally remove any semblance of a Federal government. At that point, we'd officially have a National government. You can be assured that the 10th amendment would be removed soon after.

The swamp has an unlimited bench of empty suits to fill all those extra seats, we can hardly find a few good men.

I think the ideas discussed in this thread are better:

Why not give each Rep. multiple votes?

[Jamesiv1]

This is fake news.

[ProBlue33]

So basically people who favor this want the west coast and east coast to control the whole country, everybody else east of the pacific states and west of the Atlantic coast opinions are null and void.
If you do that states will start to want to separate, as the federal control will no longer be balanced. Eventually the judiciary would be stacked with all liberals and conservatives would never win another federal election.

This is pie in the sky anyways because it would take a super majority in both Congress and the Senate to change, you might get it in the congress but it would never fly in the Senate, NEVER. As the Senators from the less populated states would be voting against themselves and the power their states now hold.

Let me make it even clearer you would be in favor of all these blue spots controlling all the red spots, and that is recipe for the dissolution of the union either peacefully or by force.