• lets_get_off_lemmy@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    I would argue that “the right to vote is fundamental to a democracy” has never been an American conservative ideal. Conservatives have always tried to limit the number and kind of people that can vote and still do: non land owners, ex-slaves, black people, women, ex-felons, and all minorities now. Conservatives have also made a very successful effort to limit the relative power of people’s votes when it doesn’t suit their agenda through gerrymandering and unequal representation.

    Also, really not sure what “the Senate should represent the states and not the people” means. Like it should represent the land? Not the people inside the state?

    • hddsx@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Before the amendment that made senators elected by the people, they were essentially delegations from the state. Each state having 1/50 of the representation. Changing to elected is stupid. Why do the people of Wyoming have the same representation as the people of California?

      • Chef@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Say you don’t understand a bicameral legislature without saying you don’t understand a bicameral legislature.

      • lets_get_off_lemmy@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        The people of Wyoming don’t have the same representation as the people of California. They have way more relative representation. That’s saying that rural votes mean more than urban. A Wyoming resident has 3.6 times more voting power than one in California.

        • hddsx@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          Sorry, I misstated that fact. You are correct. It’s ridiculous though