(01-28-2020 11:11 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-28-2020 10:50 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  California also has more Representatives than Nebraska to even out the imbalance from the Senate.

"Imbalance" is your word, and it's interesting because it betrays your mindset. The framers of the system saw it exactly the opposite - they considered the representation in the Senate as balanced.

The Senate is inherently balanced and imbalanced at the same time. It is balanced from a states rights' perspective, but imbalanced from a population perspective. It doesn't betray my mindset - it means I can fairly look at the organization of this portion of the legislative branch and discuss it, in the current context. Since we were talking about individual representation, it made sense to describe it as imbalanced.

I fully admit I could be wrong, but I would be SHOCKED if the founders felt that the Senate itself was perfectly balanced. My understanding is that some of the goals of the Senate being organized as it is, was to protect states' right and provide a way to balance the House's proportional nature.

Quote:And do you consider every single first past the post election to be mob rule? So all Senate and House elections are also mob rule?

Worth pointing out that originally senators were not directly elected. The direct representation was fragmented across many Congressional districts, so it was not possible for a "mob" to be a coherent mass of any more than a few hundred thousand people localized to one region.
[/quote]

Ok - but that says nothing about any other election, or current elections.

So do you consider every single first past the post election in 2020 to be mob rule? So all Senate and House elections in 2020 are also mob rule?