RobertPlant
(215 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri May-07-10 07:45 PM
Original message |
|
okay this might sound ludicrous to some and I can see why. I'm just throwing it in here because I think it sounds like an interesting idea. Why not have the US House of Representatives be an equal number instead of 435 and therefore every state would have an even number of representatives. That way the senate race would no longer be state wide. There would be two senate districts in each state. So if a state has four representatives two of them would vote for one senator and two would vote for the other. I think this would be cool in a state like Texas if it was divided by a northern senate district and a southern senate district. The northern district would have the woodlands, Tyler, DFW, Waco, Temple, Midland, Abilene, Lubbock etc. and be hard right and the southern district would have El Paso, San Antonio, Houston, Austin, Corpus Christi, Laredo and be leaning democratic.
|
| WeDidIt
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri May-07-10 07:49 PM
Response to Original message |
| 1. Ah, we have somebody who opposes the 17th amendment |
|
Edited on Fri May-07-10 07:53 PM by WeDidIt
Don't like how the Senate is today, amend the constitution.
Contact me when you have two-thirds of the House, Two-thirds of the Senate (HA!) and three-fourths of the State legislatures.
|
| Beetwasher
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri May-07-10 07:50 PM
Response to Original message |
| 2. Senators Serve In The Senate Not The house |
|
And every state alredy has two Senators.
house reps are allotted based on population.
|
| WeDidIt
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri May-07-10 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
| 3. Yeah, the OP is a bit mixed up on how tis stuff works |
|
It doesn't take long to read the constitution, though. That's all you have to do to get the basic understanding.
|
| RobertPlant
(215 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri May-07-10 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
| 4. each state would still have two senators |
|
but the difference would be that you could only vote for one senator as the state would be divided in half.
|
| WeDidIt
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri May-07-10 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
| 5. Don't try to convince me |
|
Convince two-thirds of the House, two-thirds of the Senate, and three-fourths of the State Legislatures.
That's your standard.
I say it cannot and will never be done.
|
| Motown_Johnny
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri May-07-10 08:37 PM
Response to Original message |
| 6. So you are in favor of giving the low population states with only 1 rep. 2 now? |
|
They already have more representation than the higher populations states based on a per capita ratio.
Sorry but this does sound ludicrous to me.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts)     |
Wed Apr 24th 2024, 04:32 AM
Response to Original message |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
