@Wallace Christensen the voters have the power to tell the representatives to stop catering to corporations it's just a matter of them saying that in a loud voice in large groups
Yes. The Electoral College, "Checks and Balances", the Senate, The House, The President.... It's all broken. Completely dysfunctional. I've played unfinished video games less broken than this government!
yes the government is dysfunctional atm and it is crucial, it is power contradicting power but checks and balances are what ultimately makes us free in the united states
@transylvanian I'm sorry I do not have a concealed mind. What's your definition of free then? lol I am not saying this government is perfect but it is a lot better than many others around the world its just we always want more due to our western culture.
1) The Senate was not designed to represent the people. 2) If Democrats want more Senators, they need a more simple, moderate platform so they can compete in more states instead of fantasizing about abolishing the Senate or breaking up larger states. 3) Once they have enough Senators, they can kill the filibuster and expand the House, which has a real proportion problem. This would also improve the imbalance issue with the Electoral College. 4) If Dems didn't want a 6-3 conservative Supreme Court, they should have turned out more in 2016 when the balance of SCOTUS was on the line, but the "Bernie-or-bust" crowd didn't think that was important enough. 5) It's not a bad thing that the federal government can't pass laws quickly without some kind of check. 6) Many progressive policies can be enacted at the state level.
1 that’s mothers problem 2. Why should democrats have to cater towards other states when they make up the majority of people? 3. that actually makes sense 4. Millions more people voted for Hilary than Trump but again instead of trying to be more electable Republicans relied on abusing an unfair system 5. True but a gridlocked government can barely function 6. This is true but if Democrats make up the majority of votes they deserve to have the majority of power at a federal level.
Boo hoo? They should. They have among the lowest GDP per capita in the union, a broken infrastructure, and sucks up federal dollars. Come to think of it, they can take Mississippi and Alabama with them.
@@phoenix5054 Hi there, yes PR does have the lowest gdp per capita in the union and broken infrastructure but we don't take up as much money as states in the union. We don't even have grants from the Federal Highay Administration, due to us not wanting to change the drinking age to 21. A top this the government still has some laws in place making it consedirably more difficult in PR (such as the Jones Act), this isn't to excuse local policy makers though, they have done an overall horrible job with administration of the colony. To conclude this comment I think it is hardly fair to compare PR with MISS and AL, they have way more resources available to them and still fail.
@@BillyBobbby With this logic we shouldn't even allow US jurisdiction with respect to our ports and local policy (which is a reality that I'm for). What I'm trying to say is that if our misgivings/disasters/mismanagemnet should not be looked at from a federal perspective (that is that we shouldn't recieve certain types of federal funding) and shouldn't be supported solely on the fact that we don't pay a federal income tax, even though many busineses in PR DO pay federal taxes and we are technically part of the union, then the US/Congress should have no authority in controling our ports/realtions with other countries/local policy but yet they do.
Dummy. How do you give 50 states equal representation? It was never about popular vote. It was about equal representation. Now you can kill a dolphin. I have no say in your state. Call Ms. Betty. She learned you.
@@rjung_ch you wanna fix the American political system to make it a strong democracy? here’s how: 1.) abolish the Senate or make it a symbolic, meaningless institution much like the UK House of Lords 2.) Expand the U.S. House from its current 435 members to 800 members, and draw congressional districts by proportional representation 3.) Expand the Supreme Court to 20 members, and introduce term limits for justices 4.) Abolish the electoral college, meaning presidents are now elected by a nationwide popular vote 5.) get big money out of politics and instead fund campaigns by public fundraising and donations and finally 6.) Make the District of Columbia a state to give its residents the representation they have so long deserved
@@greenlime1997 You should get into politics, sounds way better than the current setup. Also, leave money out of it. Then you could have a decent setup.
GOP priorities don't revolve around wanting a fair democracy for all Americans and I say that as a former Republican. They know how culture and demographics are changing and they want minority rule with the false logic that a "constitutional republic" isn't a form of democracy and that the Constitution isn't a "living document" that was supposed to evolve with a changing society. And when the built-in structures like the Senate or Electoral College aren't enough, gerrymandering and voting suppression will clearly happen far more in red states.
The more I learn about US politics and democracy the more I realize is far from what I think it was. A constitution is not a bible, you can amend it to represent the dynamics of today's life. What was correct 200 years ago, might not be today.
No , the voters must become fully engaged in reforming their government from the ground up starting in their counties, cities and states. Stripping the systemic racism out of our government will require the majorities involvement in the political process.
It's the United States of America and not the United People of America for a reason. This agreement we have was signed by the states and not the people.
Perhaps Americans could take some ideas from other nations. In Germany for example, their upper legislative chamber, the Federal Council, which is much like the US Senate, is comprised of members who represent individual states. The difference is though that the number each state has, is to an extent determined by population. So no state has fewer than 3 members, however, the number of members goes up based on population, but only to a maximum of 6 members. If a state has a population of at least 2 million it gets 4 members, or if its population is at least 6 million then it gets 5 members, and over 7 million the state gets 6 members. After that, no matter how large the population of a state they don't get any more members on the Federal Council. This is what's called degressive proportionality, and is intended to give smaller bodies more votes than a purely proportional distribution alone woukd allow. The catch with the Federal Council though, is that those members aren't elected by the people, but instead are chosen by their state governments.
@@shibavekreal The population of Germany is not evenly spread. The largest state has a population of 17 million, while the next two largest have 12 million and 10 million. The smallest state on the other hand has roughly 600,000. Meanwhile, the rest of Germany's sixteen states are no larger than roughly 6 million. So to claim Germany's population is evenly spread is ignorance at best, and a lie at worst.
@@shibavekreal this has nothing to do with it. if not many people live somewhere, yes, they are going to have a smaller chance of leading congressional priorities. the party of meritocracy wants to rig the game? mental.
I agree with this, I'm tired of minority rule in the election of the president because of the electoral college, in the disproportionate power in the senate, and now, the selection of supreme court judges by the president and senate representing a minority of voters. Even the House of Representatives can be corrupted by gerrymandering of congressional districts. We need a new constitutional convention to rewrite the constitution to correct this imbalance of power or the country may explode. In a rewtitten constitution, the oligarchs shouldn't have so much power.
Only problem with that idea is that at said convention 40% of the country would either want things to stay to same or FURTHER tilt towards regressive politics. This ship can't be righted
Great Video, thank you In the United States Senate, Wyoming has 68x less people than California so in the U.S. Senate one voter in Wyoming has 68x more power than someone living in California. I don’t think we should abolish the U.S. Senate but I think the more important duties like SCOTUS nominations and Cabinet nominations should be chosen by the United States House of Representatives. But I still think the U.S. Senate should exist. Do note in the current U.S. Senate (117th Congress, 50 Democrats, 50 Republicans) Democrats in their 50 senators represent 41.6 million more people than Republicans in their 50 senators do and Democrats in the 2016, 2018, and 2020 elections for Senate won 12.2 million more votes than Republicans. Yet it’s 50-50. The Electoral College is also undemocratic. In the 2020 United States Presidential Election, Joe Biden beat Donald Trump by over 7 million votes nationally yet in his 306-232 electoral college victory, it was decided by a little more than 40,000 votes in Georgia, Arizona, and Wisconsin. In 2016, Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump by nearly 3 million votes nationally yet lost 306-232 in the electoral college and it was decided by less than 80,000 votes in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. In the United States Electoral College, because how each state gets ECV based upon representation in Congress (# of Representatives plus # of Senators) it gives small states an advantage. One person’s vote for President because of the EC is worth 5x more in Wyoming than California. California gets 55 electoral votes. Wyoming gets 3. If we wanted to actually divide the 538 electors eventually based upon population, CA should get 64 electoral votes and WY should get only 1. And even than it’s not enough. Currently one elector in CA represents 1.4 million people yet one elector in WY represents 194,000 people. It’s actually possible to win the EC with just 22% of the national popular vote. Now the problem comes down to the United States House of Representatives. The most democratic part of our government is still undemocratic. One Representative in Wyoming represents 581,000 people yet one Representative in California represents just over 1.3 million people. Nationwide on average one U.S. House Representative represents over 762k people which has grown significantly since the 1929 Reapportionment act which capped the number at 435 seats. CGP Grey made a great video on how the U.S. Census Bureau decides how many Representatives each U.S. State gets, which is decided by a complicated system called the Huntington-Hill method. But we need to grow the size of the United States House so that it actually represents the people. We also need to end gerrymandering and have independent bipartisan commissions draw the maps. Seriously Democrats need to win the popular vote in the House just to win a simple 218 majority because the majority of the U.S. House seats have Republican partisan leans according to the Cook Political Report and FiveThirtyEight. I know it’s hard making the United States House completely proportionally for obvious reasons such as political geography but even than it can be made better. Either end partisan gerrymandering and have fair redistricting commissions or completely scrap congressional districts and have something like Israel where the Popular Vote percentage decides party majorities but that is highly flawed as than you just vote party and not candidate but at the same time no voting system is perfect. Or we have a mixed member representation, CGP Grey made great videos on this because I still do support local representatives. Another way we can get gut the two party system is not just having a complete popular vote for President but also get rid of First Past the Post plurality voting and having Rank Choice Voting. Also known as Instant Runoff voting (also if we want mixed member representation we can try Single transferable voting). But we just get rid of FPTP voting all together in all elections we have in the USA. We also must reform our Presidential Primary System. It’s still undemocratic. (But better than say fifty years ago.) We can still have the states choose when to have primaries but I’d say get rid of delegates and super delegates. Just have complete direct democracy in choosing our nominees for President. We also must overturn Citizens United, add congressional term limits, and have open or semi open primaries. There is so much electoral reform we need in the United States of America. Americans are counting on us for change. It’s why we must support things like the American Anti-Corruption Act, the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, the Freedom to Vote Act, For the People Act, and Supporting reform groups such as Represent Us, the Forward Party led by Andrew Yang, and support the Progressive and Populist movement started by Bernie Sanders. It’s time for change in America. We need a Multiparty System and end U.S. Political Polarization, Cynical Historian has a video series about this.
"The Electoral College is also undemocratic." As it should be. "Just have complete direct democracy in choosing our nominees for President. We also must overturn Citizens United, add congressional term limits, and have open or semi open primaries. There is so much electoral reform we need in the United States of America. Americans are counting on us for change. It’s why we must support things like the American Anti-Corruption Act, the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, the Freedom to Vote Act, For the People Act, and Supporting reform groups such as Represent Us, the Forward Party led by Andrew Yang, and support the Progressive and Populist movement started by Bernie Sanders. It’s time for change in America." I'd be willing to take up arms to prevent your changes from taking place.
Create more than 2 Party Lines that as of now retain the greatest amount of power. We don't have enough Party Lines to make compromises. We need a more diversified pool. That way we got more voices to represent the people. It should be principal representation for everyone not just a failing 2 Party System.
the senate can be an appointed body, but its denial of a lower house-passed bill's advancement could be overruled by the lower house after a certain period of time (like in the UK)
And California has more power in the House of Representatives This creates balance and ensures that politicians focus on the entire country on not just a few large population areas leaving others neglected
But its not proportional and votes from the house can be blocked by the senate, if people from california, texas and so on want something passed people from wyoming, alaska and so on can block that in the senate.
As a Californian that has now lived with in the three largest metro areas, and seeing the prospect of breaking up our large state; I really think another option that must be considered during elections is to simply reach out, vet candidates, and campaign in typically rural red states like Wyoming and others. I find when we focus on breaking up the larger blue states like California, and possibly Texas that is turning purple as we see, we kind of inherently leave out those other rural red states. Even if they have been voting red or conservative over the past several years, doesn’t mean we should completely ignore them. We should reach out to the people that live there, what are their issues, how they see the current political dynamics, and what can they offer from their states. After that, we must offer substantive policies, argue in favor of them and vet candidates that will carry the torch all the way to DC.
@@brandyharding7692 that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try even if I wrote my comment a year ago. I had forgotten about this, yet I still think it is worth a try. You win some you lose some, but if you are persistent, take the wins were you have them and continue. I have been thinking about a half political and half business project where I intend to build a movement of worker owned cooperatives that hopefully bring the labor movement to its ending conclusion. I’ve been listening to Richard Wolf lately and all his arguments in favor of worker co-ops or bringing democracy to the workplace. I have a feeling if a grassroots movement and economy of worker co-ops is built, then the political momentum and economic presents of them could add something to the conversation. It may seem unrelated, yet as Tom Morello once said after writing very political music across his career, all music, and everything we do is ultimately political.
0:24 you’re making it seem like a bad thing that small states have a voice. The senate is a good thing because if it didn’t exist the legislative branch would be dominated by California, Texas, New York, Florida and Pennsylvania. The senate gives everyone an equal say so five states don’t control everything. The country as a whole should have a say in what gets done instead of just the population centers.
Personally, I want California to have control more control over my states policies than it actually does I've bee tired of Indiana's crap politics. Larger states having say in what ours does is our only real hope , unless you actually like the Morons in office there.
@@FruityPebbles-420 I’m a California resident and trust me it’s not a magical utopia here. My state can’t even solve homelessness or even build a train on time and on budget. They should have zero say in anything if they can’t even get their own shit under control and I drive past the high speed rail overpass a couple times a month and it hasn’t been completed in YEARS and that’s just one overpass. And I can’t even tell you how many more years it’s been delayed and how many billions over budget it’s gone over. My state is a shining example of what not to do my friend
While I can respect your opinion, I still believe l that perhaps a bit more to larger populations. To be clear I'm not talking about a huge boost ,but for example 4-5 at the most.
@@FruityPebbles-420 Smaller state are basically going to run the senate and shut up the majority which is way worse than small states not being represented (since they have smaller economies, less people, and frankly don’t matter as much).
I know a lot of folks understand this disparity, but thank you AJ+ for explaining this again for those who are trying to figure out our arcane political system.
No. But D.C. and Puerto Rico should be States, the electoral college should be abolished, voting should be mandatory or find some way to end voting suppression, and finally, more than two parties should have a chance to elect leaders. (after watching the whole video: yes, enable a simple majority rule, 50% +1 vote)
Why should I be governed federally by California when I'm over 1,100 miles away. And D.C. 1,800 miles away... live how you want, where you're at. You have no business in my house
Not to shit on the video but the reason every state gets to senators is because it is the equal house the founding fathers designed it that way so in the Senate every state has two voices in Congress Wyoming has one so it was a compromise
Constitution was made up by slaveowners of 18th century who never took a bath. It’s time to amend more than half of it so poor illiterate red states don’t end up screwing the rest of the country and turtle-face McConnell goes back to retirement home
@@seawater4607 amen I wish I could give this comment 10 likes, its ridiculous how much this country revers the Constitution even though it's a deeply flawed, antiquated document that needs a serious upgrade Edit: The Constitution may have worked effectively when there were only 13 states and 4 million people living in America, but now in a modern, diverse, increasingly liberal country with 50 states and 325 million people the Constitution as it stands today is simply not a sustainable way to govern a country long term
Australia is having this issue right now. The Northern Territory is probably large enough in population to be a state, but the other states can't stomach giving it an equal number of Senators. Since Australia only has a few states, the problem is magnified. So the NT remains a territory, to the detriment of its populace.
Absolutely agree. NT has only 2 federal MPs and 2 Senators and they are planning to reduce the number of MP to only 1 after redistribution of seats. And the issue of overrepresentation is worsen when comparing to Tasmania (5 federal MPs - 12 federal senators) while it has a bit more than twice the population of the NT and that won’t change even the case when the population of Tasmania decreased to the same as the ACT. ‘Original state’ at the time of Federation is not the good reason to favour Tasmania over the territories. It’s also about other factors like GDP per capita, national reserves and facilities, etc. Thus, the proportional of population for MP seats for Tasmania should be applied to the NT and ACT, anh each of the territory is virtually half-state, therefore they can be eligible for 6 senators each. Also, the senate should vote on state-basis, which NT and ACT combined is worth one state rather than individual senators to combat partisanship which is acceptable in the House of Reps.
The better idea would be to combine the two houses: House of Reps and the Senate should be merged into a single house of congress ~ number of seats stays the same, individual member duties, responsibilities and terms also stay the same, but laws are passed in unison. Of course, the House of Reps members would outnumber the Senators by over 4 to 1, and would shift the balance of power towards the populace. Another solution would be to add five more states to the union, specifically American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico and American Virgin Islands, by giving those territories who have wanted statehood seats at the table.
I think no need to combine 2 chambers together. Firstly, just legalise how many permanent residents in each state ranging from say 1-15 million, and demographic statistics every 10 years. It limits the overpopulation in states like California, Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, New York and overrepresentation in states like Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, Alaska, Delaware, etc. So the requirements of population will force some states so merge with some others, on the other side, few states have to be divided to smaller states, let say California could be divided into 3 states, Texas and Florida each can be divided into 2 states. Secondly, as the Senate is on state basis, the votes should be counted on state basis instead of individual senators to avoid partisanship, and there should be 3 senators each state, at least 2/3 votes and that states would say ‘yay’, otherwise ‘nay’. It’s how the rules are modified fairly, not break the rules or abuse them by political bullying.
@@AvangionQ no. I don’t want to force people to move just because of political reasons. People have lots of reasons to live and work in another place, such as employment opportunities or retirement, negative effect of climate change or lifestyles, etc. what I suggest is the political system to adapt to changes of periodical demographic census to better reflect representation and appropriation of federal funds. People are free to move all around the country and just remain one main residence in one state.
@Karen Byrd :) I did not say that forcing people to move to less populated states as people have their own freedom of choices for their residence. What I tried to say here is an legislated interval of population due to census to be remained legitimate ‘states’, it means the legislation changes to adapt to changes of demographic shifts, not vice versa, states are not fixed permanently, they are just gerrymandering in national level.
Have you seen the GDP per capita for American samoa? MS has the lowest of the states and hers is over 3 times higher. What do you think federal laws like min wage and taxes do to American samoa? You're using them as pawns to solve a problem without thinking of the problems you might case for these places. Samoans do not want statehood. They own their land communally and you aren't allowed to own if you are less than half samoan by blood. Such laws would be illegal under statehood and that seems to a major thing for them. Give them it if they want it but I don't think any of them have definitively said they want it.
@@bruhbutwhytho Lol, you can't separate them. They are supposed to neutralize each other. The Senate isn't supposed to be democratic, it is supposed to hold 50 mini-countries together. Without it, the US would cease to exist and become many different small countries.
@@bruhbutwhytho Lol, the US Constitution is pretty solid evidence. Why do you think the Senate exists? Federal laws should be almost impossible to pass. Laws that work in California don't work in Wyoming.. There is no reason for small states to remain in the union, if bigger states have the ability to impose on them. In Europe, that's precisely the reason of why there are tiny independent countries like Luxembourg .
@@r.rodriguez6144 but that would, at least represent the will of the people... You could keep the senate as it is (though skip the fillibuster) and everytime house and senate can't agree it goes directly to the people...
I would like to have a singular body, that we would select for by voting for various parties. The parties would then get a number of seats to fill, based on their share of the vote, and they would appoint people from the party to the representative body. ...So what you would get, hopefully, is far more views represented (and many more viable parties) In order to get things done in such a representative body, one would have to form coalitions with multiple parties. Ideally, we'd all get better government decisions.
Parlimentary systems like the one you propose don't lend themselves for easy governance though, they most often times struggle to form a government if a majority isn't reached. Look at Spain fro example they had multiple ellections due to the failure of the parties to form a government.
South Korea has a unicameral legislature, so does the U.S. state of Nebraska’s state legislature. Although I do like the idea of a bicameral legislative just to put check on both Houses of Congress but I think we should make the U.S. Senate either less powerful or similar to how State Senates in states are, basically the U.S. House but on a smaller scale.
@@PremierCCGuyMMXVI The Senate is not very democratic. One thing they could do... Change it, so that the Senate basically has to have a 70-vote majority to BLOCK anything the house passes. So more of a veto function on legislation, than equality with the house.
Personally, i think we should abolish the senate, vote on the house proportionally, have all congress people be independent, allow recall votes and allow for people to vote to rescind a law, act or regulation.
You are a true insurrectionist. Your idea would end the United STATES. You don't seem to appreciate the fact that the US is WAY more democratic than any European country with the exception of Switzerland, and btw, both countries share many things. In the US the most important things that affect you life are determined at the local level in a true direct democracy system. The Senate is the only thing that allows the US to remain United even when there are too many different groups inside it.
Uh.... this whole clip is based on a false premise: that the Senate represents the population. It doesn’t. It represents each State equally. The population is represented in the House of Representatives. Same reason we have an Electoral College: so the majority in more populated, larger states cannot dominate the minority in rural, smaller states. IOW, it’s working as intended: Check and Balances.
For the Record, Wyoming has only ONE that is "1" singular, Representative in the House of Representatives. California has FIFTY TWO, that's "52" due to population differences. The Senate has SENATORS, not REPRESENTATIVES, and each state gets TWO on purpose. Thank Goodness Al-Jazeera is just some foreign entity and not teaching U.S. schoolchildren.
The founders designed the us senate to work that way so the smaller states wouldn't be abandoned politically as for a fix to this issue at hand I think it best to just distribute the senates power with the house that way both sides have to agree you have to remember the constitution was made a long time ago some of its policy aged well and others are a little bit retro
The Framers got it right. Before the 17th amendment, senators were appointed and confirmed by the state governor and legislative body. They weren't directly elected at all. The Senate is there to represent their entire state, and to balance the (people's) House, hence the difference in term length and age requirement. The House is the rowdy frat party that directly represent their own specific district and are elected every 2 years rather than 6, 25 year age instead of 30. The House also has "the power of the purse." They can initiate spending bills. The Senate is supposed to be a check on that. The word "senate" comes from Latin and means "old men" or "elders." Each state in this federal republic needs representation no matter how populated they are. At the same time, the people themselves deserve representation at the national level. So the Framers came up with a compromise system that we call the USA
The tribes have reservations which are actually large swaths of territory with Indians having their own laws. Some are really big with the Navajo reservation being the same size as Vermont and New Hampshire combined.
Trying to abolish the US Senate would be insurrectionist and a way bigger threat to democracy than Jan. 6. The US would fall apart, the name itself says it very clear... The United STATES. The Founders were more clever than these types of clown. That's why the US is a massive union of 50 mini-countries and Europe is just a continent with many many different countries inside, that btw, almost destroyed themselves twice.
EVEN WORSE!!! Mathematically speaking, small states could band together with a minority citizens to split states and give themselves even more senators. The Senate is on the tip of a political singularity.
Today the US government is not a representative form of government - we must reform our government to reflect the gov. of the people, by the people and for the people. No taxation without full representation.
The only reason this is such a big deal is because McConnell doesn’t allow the senate to vote on a bill. If they did, all the senators voting against the will of the ppl would be voted out. Allowing equal representation in the senate always made the individual vote unequal, however ppl are voting to represent their state. But the senators of that state also have to represent their constituents.
The Senate was enacted to also ensure the protection of the smaller populations within the country. Though much smaller, the population in Wyoming has many different issues than those faced by people in California. They have different economic issues, geological issues etc. If there was no equal protection for the smaller states there wouldn’t be much benefit for them to be within a union of states. The House of Representatives is reserved for population numbers, for which California possesses many more than Wyoming.
please explain to me why the rest of the country should be held hostage by the demands from sparely populated, stagnant growth states where nobody lives. The majority of the country in states where people actually live and where the economies are strong, providing much of the wealth of this country has become more liberal in its social, economic, and political beliefs. There is absolutely no reason why a rancher in Wyoming should have more say than someone living in a major metropolitan area. It's ludicrous and it's a sign of just how antiquated and flawed an institution like the Senate is. If you feel so strongly about protecting "small state rights" even at the expense of the majority of the country perhaps you should leave the Union and form your own confederacy of small states, though I doubt you'd last long considering your economic reliance on blue states
@@greenlime1997 because in the US the rights of minority interests are protected. The country is huge. One persons issues in the densely populated state isn’t the same as someone in the mid west. It prevents mob rule. The majority can be wrong. Federalism is great because damage is mostly contained within a state, giving people the opportunity to move. You are witnessing people move out of insane Democrat states in to red or more moderate states. If we didn’t have state sovereignty we wouldn’t have a union. So instead of thinking of the majority as a national group, it’s the majority of each individual state that should matter. Different cultures, values etc.
@@greenlime1997 Because the rest of the country is NOT hostage to any small state.. The House balances the Senate and most important things in the US are defined at the state level. That's why California just approved late term baby murders and South Dakota has the ability to completely ban them. That's why Florida can reduce state taxes while California increases them. You are pushing for a civil war or the destruction of the country. With your logic, then Wyoming should just leave the Union. Clown.
Maybe the focus should be why are so many people migrating en masse to a few dozen states while a big chunk of the country gets economically - and therefore politically - forgotten and "left behind". That's why the senate is a way to assure that the less populated, most rural and forgotten areas to have a s.y in America's political stage while California, New York, Texas etc gain more and more political, cultural and economic relevance
In our republican form of government the House of Representatives is meant to represent the people of the many states and the Senate represents the states in which the people live. For example, Virginia has more people than Rhode Island, so naturally Virginia has more representatives. Rhode Island is one state and Virginia is one state and each state is equal under the law and therefore each state has equal representation in the legislature. Our Great Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, created this system to prevent the larger states crushing the smaller states. The 17th Amendment to Our Great Constitution, to make things more fair, effectively abolished the Senate and created a second House of Representatives. Today(2023) California has effectively 55 representatives and Wyoming has 3. *THAT* is malapportionment.
"the US senate is the most malapportioned legislative body on the face of the earth" anyone know where I cant find more information, or any evidence, for this statement?
You can't. Insurrectionist radicals are to be found in the Jan 6th riots and in videos like this one.. The US Senate is the only reason the US is a country.
No. The Senate only exists because the Founding Fathers couldn’t agree with how representation should be handled in the legislature. The two chamber legislature was a compromise, not something that was planned.
@@Stargate2077 True, but here's something I found. *"To balance the interests of both the small and large states, the Framers of the Constitution divided the power of Congress between the two houses. Every state has an equal voice in the Senate, while representation in the House of Representatives is based on the size of each state’s population."*- Two Bodies, one branch www.visitthecapitol.gov/about-congress/two-bodies-one-branch#:~:text=To%20balance%20the%20interests%20of,size%20of%20each%20state's%20population. Just because some progressive policies were blocked by the senate doesn't mean it is unfair, it means that people in states that want to see change must elect candidates who reflect their viewpoints.
Two Sentors from each state prevents tryanny of the majority. EXACTLY as intended. Our founding fathers understood the need to prevent tryanny of the majority or mob rule. This video completely misunderstands the correct proper reason WHY we have Senate and Electoral college. Think of French Revolution where the mob or majority chopped off the heads of other members of society or more recently the lawless CHAS zone in Seattle - that was mob rule or tryanny of the majority.
No one cares about states anymore. Senate was designed when we states were basically countries and there was very little national identity. There is a full national identity now, and there's no NY law that's going to end up killing off Nebraska,The world doesn't work that way anymore. Time to update our constitution to modern times. No need for Senate anymore, kill it
Racism. Racism. Racism. In “Mein Kampf”, Hitler praises America as the one state that has made progress toward a primarily racial conception of citizenship, by “excluding certain races from naturalization.” In 1928, Hitler remarked, approvingly, that white settlers in America had “gunned down the millions of redskins to a few hundred thousand.” When he spoke of , the German drive for “living space” in Eastern Europe, he often had America in mind.
Why would Wyoming be part of the union then? The US is the best system for such a big country. That's why California has the ability to pass baby murder at 6 months and South Dakota has the ability to prohibit all abortions. Federal laws should be almost impossible to pass, the US gives most of the power to the states and local politics.
You are terribly mistaken. Each vote is still equal. It elects the same thing you're going per capita and that is not the way it was designed to be. If you want to go per capita you have to go to the house not the Senate
@@Redactedlllllllllllll States that wouldn't have a reason to remain in a "Union" that doesn't care about them. The House exists to give voice to the people, the Senate keeps 50 small countries together..
There's so much flaws in our Senate system. But one thing I suggest is having Senators/Rep with term limits so they don't hold power for decades. Maybe split California and Texas into smaller states
I would take it a step farther and say abolish the Senate entirely. It is a deeply dysfunctional, broken, undemocratic institution that has no place in 21st century governance. Here's a different solution: make the Senate a purely symbolic, meaningless body much like the UK House of Lords
The Senate wasn't meant to be democratic. It was meant to be a more mature body not controlled by the whims of the people, plus state legislatures appointing senators was meant to be a check against the national government. Unfortunately, the 17th Amendment ruined all of that and that's why it needs to be repealed.
Peurto Ricans dont pay taxes so your “taxation without representation” goes out the window. Also, the electoral elects a President and then there in turn nominate Judges, etc. It’s EXTREMELY rare for a Presidential nominee to not get confirmed. So many twists of the truth in this video it’s just crazy.
Parties haven't changed Democrats still use race to stir division still try to pass race based laws and have tricked black Americans in believing the government is who they need to take care of them. Proof is in Dem run cities. They need Democrats to get out of there business keeping them hooked on food stamps and section 8 housing preventing them from ever building any generational wealth. Meanwhile white liberal Democrats calling Larry Elder the black face of white supremecy and Ben Carson an uncle Tom. Joe Biden actively attemptes to block the first Black justices for the Supreme Court. I see the change.
The current system with an electoral college and senate helps keep America from descending into a Hunger Games scenario. America is a Constitutional Republic . It is important to know why America's system was set up as a Constitutional Republic. Politicians will listen to California and NY and literally ignore everyone else if we abolish the electoral college and senate.
The electoral college is just affirmative action for inbred degenerates at this point. We already have 3 branches of government as a check and balance. As well as the senate to keep the majority in check. You don't get the presidency as well, the EC will be eliminated once you boomers die off.
Yes. It has been a rich man's club from the beginning. As such, it is undemocratic. (Actually, I have always wished that the Founding Father's had adopted the parliamentary system.)
@Karen Byrd Children typically rebel against their parents, not always wisely. Take note Karen, that parliamentary systems had female prime ministers long before US parties even dared to nominate female Vice Presidents (the Vice Presidency, of course, being limited mostly to the power to attend state funerals that the President deems unimportant.). In parliamentary systems, minority viewpoints, such as the Green Party, can be confident that their concerns will be heard, and minority parties can grow, and therefore grow in influence. In the US, we have been frozen in the two-party system, which does not reflect the actual political culture. As AOC says, in any other country (i.e., a country with a parliament), she would not be in the same party as Joe Biden. Indeed the Neo-Liberal corporatists (out-of- touch 1%-ers all) who have been running the "Democratic" Party for decades have far more in common with the old-fashioned country-club Republicans who USED to run the Republican Party, before the rise of the Tea Party fascists. In a parliamentary system, these divisions would become clear and US politics would become more rational.
The Senate is the only reason of why the US has the ability to be such a massive country, whereas in Europe, Luxembourg is smaller than Wyoming but still another country in a continent full of radically different countries that almost wiped each other from existence twice..
What needs to be abolished and make illegal are lobbying firms and lobbyists Your presentation is assuming Anericans do not know that there is a House of Representatives.
There are problems, but this is not one of them. Congress is supposed to be proportional and popular by population. The Senate is supposed to protect the States interests. Super Majorities exist to prevent rash wide sweeping changes without the majority benefiting. I could go on, but checks and balances on every power structure is important to include majority populations it’s how we protect minorities.
This is a stupid idea, the senate is meant to ensure smaller states have equal representation to bigger states, whereas say California in the House of Representatives has more reps.
Did you ignore the beginning of the video? It clearly stated how the way that the senate is set up gives too much power to smaller states & is unfair to larger states. There's hundreds - if not thousands - of articles and videos out there that state the same thing and explain in detail how it "works".
@@mikeddh2018 yes I watched the video. The house of representatives is where the states with the larger populations get more seats. One house has more power for smaller states and one seat has more power for bigger states. I agree that the Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia should get senate seats though.
Fuc yeah it should be done away with the whole system should overhaul it was designed to fuc over the people corrupt mf's and just like Rome this house of cards is falling thank God
good video however towards the end when he states that the malaportionment problem is going to get worse over time he's actually discounting a major trend which is triggered by the emergence of the 19 outbreak and that is the moving and migration of people from large densities into smaller population errors those people that are moving are people who have vastly more progressive perspectives than other people in the places that they're moving to what this will do is it'll it will allow the political impact of maloportion to actually be eliminated
Each state represents it's own senators so they are responsible for who represents them In the Senate. The Constitution declares each state has 2 senators.
While I agree completely, populous state politicians really don't get low population needs. Even progressive protests (which can only happen in populous cities) rarely include issues that poor rural folk are dealing with (despite being caused by the same forces). And by calling out the senate based only on population, it leads to the insidious counter argument of having a ruling body based on race population. White Americans make up a super majority of America… so would it be fair to base racial representation based on fair proportions (And remove super majority needs)? And saying "people can leave their state, but can't leave their race" is only technically true. There will always be people stuck in low population areas, and as city population grows, rural needs become less of a concern to "most" people. But yes, abolish/fix the senate. Maybe later get rid of plurality rule so we can get a multi party system, then apportion seats to parties.
It wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't for the filibuster and the 60 vote supermajority. These are simply arcane rules that can be changed at any time with a simple majority vote, and do not need any sort of constitutional amendments. Quite frankly, this should've been priority number 1 for Democrats as soon as they captured the senate, because Republicans do not play by the same rules and they simply change them when it's convenient. That seems to be the problem these days with Democrats -- Repubicans play hardball; Democrats play by the rules Republicans make up.
There is no need to abolish the Senate. Just end the supermajority and turn DC and Puerto Rico into states. And also to modify the elections for the chamber to make them proportional, in addition and end the electoral college and create a majority vote in two rounds for president, to stimulate pluripartisanship.
Sign up for subtext, our newsletter about the people and movements driving change in our society: ajplus.co/g6euk
Wyoming doesn't exist though 😐
The 1st step to get anything at all done is to get Corp.$ OUT of politics.
it will never happen.
@Wallace Christensen weren't the democrats the majority on the supreme court when citizens united passed?
@Andy Ling As of now QAnon is currently making conspiracy theories about this issue as we speak.
@Andy Ling They will do anything to ruin Biden campaign for the feasible future and other reasons.
@Wallace Christensen the voters have the power to tell the representatives to stop catering to corporations
it's just a matter of them saying that in a loud voice in large groups
Yes. The Electoral College, "Checks and Balances", the Senate, The House, The President....
It's all broken.
Completely dysfunctional.
I've played unfinished video games less broken than this government!
yes the government is dysfunctional atm and it is crucial, it is power contradicting power but checks and balances are what ultimately makes us free in the united states
@transylvanian I'm sorry I do not have a concealed mind. What's your definition of free then? lol I am not saying this government is perfect but it is a lot better than many others around the world its just we always want more due to our western culture.
And the Federal Court system
@@user39404 It's a lot worse than many others, especially in providing benefits that make living easier. Tax the rich a lot more!!!!
how is the senate and checks and balances broken?
1) The Senate was not designed to represent the people.
2) If Democrats want more Senators, they need a more simple, moderate platform so they can compete in more states instead of fantasizing about abolishing the Senate or breaking up larger states.
3) Once they have enough Senators, they can kill the filibuster and expand the House, which has a real proportion problem. This would also improve the imbalance issue with the Electoral College.
4) If Dems didn't want a 6-3 conservative Supreme Court, they should have turned out more in 2016 when the balance of SCOTUS was on the line, but the "Bernie-or-bust" crowd didn't think that was important enough.
5) It's not a bad thing that the federal government can't pass laws quickly without some kind of check.
6) Many progressive policies can be enacted at the state level.
This.
1 that’s mothers problem
2. Why should democrats have to cater towards other states when they make up the majority of people?
3. that actually makes sense
4. Millions more people voted for Hilary than Trump but again instead of trying to be more electable Republicans relied on abusing an unfair system
5. True but a gridlocked government can barely function
6. This is true but if Democrats make up the majority of votes they deserve to have the majority of power at a federal level.
Glad I found the Common Sense comment!
Puerto Rico should quit the union that doesn’t represent them.
Boo hoo? They should. They have among the lowest GDP per capita in the union, a broken infrastructure, and sucks up federal dollars. Come to think of it, they can take Mississippi and Alabama with them.
@@phoenix5054 Hi there, yes PR does have the lowest gdp per capita in the union and broken infrastructure but we don't take up as much money as states in the union. We don't even have grants from the Federal Highay Administration, due to us not wanting to change the drinking age to 21. A top this the government still has some laws in place making it consedirably more difficult in PR (such as the Jones Act), this isn't to excuse local policy makers though, they have done an overall horrible job with administration of the colony. To conclude this comment I think it is hardly fair to compare PR with MISS and AL, they have way more resources available to them and still fail.
PR also doesn’t pay federal tax
@@lolo50ification Cool story, but PR doesn't pay federal income taxes
@@BillyBobbby With this logic we shouldn't even allow US jurisdiction with respect to our ports and local policy (which is a reality that I'm for). What I'm trying to say is that if our misgivings/disasters/mismanagemnet should not be looked at from a federal perspective (that is that we shouldn't recieve certain types of federal funding) and shouldn't be supported solely on the fact that we don't pay a federal income tax, even though many busineses in PR DO pay federal taxes and we are technically part of the union, then the US/Congress should have no authority in controling our ports/realtions with other countries/local policy but yet they do.
So ... the American political duopoly is the problem? Yep.
The US is just so unequal in so many areas, this being just another one. Sad, isnt' it?
Dummy.
How do you give 50 states equal representation?
It was never about popular vote. It was about equal representation.
Now you can kill a dolphin. I have no say in your state.
Call Ms. Betty. She learned you.
@@maybenexttime250 I get that point, still pretty shady. So, no need to be an American and kill shit stuff now, right? No need to be such a douche.
No, not sad. Just study a little more and you might get it, but I doubt ii.
@@rjung_ch you wanna fix the American political system to make it a strong democracy? here’s how: 1.) abolish the Senate or make it a symbolic, meaningless institution much like the UK House of Lords 2.) Expand the U.S. House from its current 435 members to 800 members, and draw congressional districts by proportional representation 3.) Expand the Supreme Court to 20 members, and introduce term limits for justices 4.) Abolish the electoral college, meaning presidents are now elected by a nationwide popular vote 5.) get big money out of politics and instead fund campaigns by public fundraising and donations and finally 6.) Make the District of Columbia a state to give its residents the representation they have so long deserved
@@greenlime1997 You should get into politics, sounds way better than the current setup. Also, leave money out of it. Then you could have a decent setup.
GOP priorities don't revolve around wanting a fair democracy for all Americans and I say that as a former Republican. They know how culture and demographics are changing and they want minority rule with the false logic that a "constitutional republic" isn't a form of democracy and that the Constitution isn't a "living document" that was supposed to evolve with a changing society. And when the built-in structures like the Senate or Electoral College aren't enough, gerrymandering and voting suppression will clearly happen far more in red states.
The more I learn about US politics and democracy the more I realize is far from what I think it was. A constitution is not a bible, you can amend it to represent the dynamics of today's life. What was correct 200 years ago, might not be today.
You should learn that we're not a democracy and that the Constitution was written to protect the rights of states.
@@mikeroagreschen5350 we all know this which is why theyre saying the constitution is not scripture and can/should be amended.
"The senate would need to vote to get rid of itself. " Right? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂😂😂
No , the voters must become fully engaged in reforming their government from the ground up starting in their counties, cities and states. Stripping the systemic racism out of our government will require the majorities involvement in the political process.
@@WonderMagician how? The senate can veto anything.
It's the United States of America and not the United People of America for a reason. This agreement we have was signed by the states and not the people.
Perhaps Americans could take some ideas from other nations. In Germany for example, their upper legislative chamber, the Federal Council, which is much like the US Senate, is comprised of members who represent individual states. The difference is though that the number each state has, is to an extent determined by population. So no state has fewer than 3 members, however, the number of members goes up based on population, but only to a maximum of 6 members.
If a state has a population of at least 2 million it gets 4 members, or if its population is at least 6 million then it gets 5 members, and over 7 million the state gets 6 members. After that, no matter how large the population of a state they don't get any more members on the Federal Council. This is what's called degressive proportionality, and is intended to give smaller bodies more votes than a purely proportional distribution alone woukd allow. The catch with the Federal Council though, is that those members aren't elected by the people, but instead are chosen by their state governments.
Very informative 👏
That wouldn’t work in the US. The population of Germany is evenly spread mostly but in the US it isn’t
@@shibavekreal The population of Germany is not evenly spread. The largest state has a population of 17 million, while the next two largest have 12 million and 10 million. The smallest state on the other hand has roughly 600,000. Meanwhile, the rest of Germany's sixteen states are no larger than roughly 6 million. So to claim Germany's population is evenly spread is ignorance at best, and a lie at worst.
@@shibavekreal this has nothing to do with it. if not many people live somewhere, yes, they are going to have a smaller chance of leading congressional priorities. the party of meritocracy wants to rig the game? mental.
As long as there are still Holocaust survivors walking around, I think we can ignore any "ideas" from Germany.
I agree with this, I'm tired of minority rule in the election of the president because of the electoral college, in the disproportionate power in the senate, and now, the selection of supreme court judges by the president and senate representing a minority of voters. Even the House of Representatives can be corrupted by gerrymandering of congressional districts. We need a new constitutional convention to rewrite the constitution to correct this imbalance of power or the country may explode. In a rewtitten constitution, the oligarchs shouldn't have so much power.
Only problem with that idea is that at said convention 40% of the country would either want things to stay to same or FURTHER tilt towards regressive politics. This ship can't be righted
Great Video, thank you
In the United States Senate, Wyoming has 68x less people than California so in the U.S. Senate one voter in Wyoming has 68x more power than someone living in California. I don’t think we should abolish the U.S. Senate but I think the more important duties like SCOTUS nominations and Cabinet nominations should be chosen by the United States House of Representatives. But I still think the U.S. Senate should exist. Do note in the current U.S. Senate (117th Congress, 50 Democrats, 50 Republicans) Democrats in their 50 senators represent 41.6 million more people than Republicans in their 50 senators do and Democrats in the 2016, 2018, and 2020 elections for Senate won 12.2 million more votes than Republicans. Yet it’s 50-50.
The Electoral College is also undemocratic. In the 2020 United States Presidential Election, Joe Biden beat Donald Trump by over 7 million votes nationally yet in his 306-232 electoral college victory, it was decided by a little more than 40,000 votes in Georgia, Arizona, and Wisconsin. In 2016, Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump by nearly 3 million votes nationally yet lost 306-232 in the electoral college and it was decided by less than 80,000 votes in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
In the United States Electoral College, because how each state gets ECV based upon representation in Congress (# of Representatives plus # of Senators) it gives small states an advantage. One person’s vote for President because of the EC is worth 5x more in Wyoming than California. California gets 55 electoral votes. Wyoming gets 3. If we wanted to actually divide the 538 electors eventually based upon population, CA should get 64 electoral votes and WY should get only 1. And even than it’s not enough. Currently one elector in CA represents 1.4 million people yet one elector in WY represents 194,000 people. It’s actually possible to win the EC with just 22% of the national popular vote.
Now the problem comes down to the United States House of Representatives. The most democratic part of our government is still undemocratic. One Representative in Wyoming represents 581,000 people yet one Representative in California represents just over 1.3 million people. Nationwide on average one U.S. House Representative represents over 762k people which has grown significantly since the 1929 Reapportionment act which capped the number at 435 seats. CGP Grey made a great video on how the U.S. Census Bureau decides how many Representatives each U.S. State gets, which is decided by a complicated system called the Huntington-Hill method. But we need to grow the size of the United States House so that it actually represents the people. We also need to end gerrymandering and have independent bipartisan commissions draw the maps. Seriously Democrats need to win the popular vote in the House just to win a simple 218 majority because the majority of the U.S. House seats have Republican partisan leans according to the Cook Political Report and FiveThirtyEight. I know it’s hard making the United States House completely proportionally for obvious reasons such as political geography but even than it can be made better. Either end partisan gerrymandering and have fair redistricting commissions or completely scrap congressional districts and have something like Israel where the Popular Vote percentage decides party majorities but that is highly flawed as than you just vote party and not candidate but at the same time no voting system is perfect. Or we have a mixed member representation, CGP Grey made great videos on this because I still do support local representatives.
Another way we can get gut the two party system is not just having a complete popular vote for President but also get rid of First Past the Post plurality voting and having Rank Choice Voting. Also known as Instant Runoff voting (also if we want mixed member representation we can try Single transferable voting). But we just get rid of FPTP voting all together in all elections we have in the USA. We also must reform our Presidential Primary System. It’s still undemocratic. (But better than say fifty years ago.) We can still have the states choose when to have primaries but I’d say get rid of delegates and super delegates. Just have complete direct democracy in choosing our nominees for President. We also must overturn Citizens United, add congressional term limits, and have open or semi open primaries. There is so much electoral reform we need in the United States of America. Americans are counting on us for change. It’s why we must support things like the American Anti-Corruption Act, the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, the Freedom to Vote Act, For the People Act, and Supporting reform groups such as Represent Us, the Forward Party led by Andrew Yang, and support the Progressive and Populist movement started by Bernie Sanders. It’s time for change in America. We need a Multiparty System and end U.S. Political Polarization, Cynical Historian has a video series about this.
Agreed.
I wish more people would realize how unfair the voting system, for both the house and presidential elections, is.
"The Electoral College is also undemocratic."
As it should be.
"Just have complete direct democracy in choosing our nominees for President. We also must overturn Citizens United, add congressional term limits, and have open or semi open primaries. There is so much electoral reform we need in the United States of America. Americans are counting on us for change. It’s why we must support things like the American Anti-Corruption Act, the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, the Freedom to Vote Act, For the People Act, and Supporting reform groups such as Represent Us, the Forward Party led by Andrew Yang, and support the Progressive and Populist movement started by Bernie Sanders. It’s time for change in America."
I'd be willing to take up arms to prevent your changes from taking place.
A good smart people who founded America... 👍👍👍👍
Create more than 2 Party Lines that as of now retain the greatest amount of power. We don't have enough Party Lines to make compromises. We need a more diversified pool. That way we got more voices to represent the people. It should be principal representation for everyone not just a failing 2 Party System.
How about no parties and elect based on merit?
ranked choice voting with multi-member districts
like they do in ireland
and a parliamentary system instead of the presidential
the senate can be an appointed body, but its denial of a lower house-passed bill's advancement could be overruled by the lower house after a certain period of time (like in the UK)
And California has more power in the House of Representatives
This creates balance and ensures that politicians focus on the entire country on not just a few large population areas leaving others neglected
But its not proportional and votes from the house can be blocked by the senate, if people from california, texas and so on want something passed people from wyoming, alaska and so on can block that in the senate.
As a Californian that has now lived with in the three largest metro areas, and seeing the prospect of breaking up our large state; I really think another option that must be considered during elections is to simply reach out, vet candidates, and campaign in typically rural red states like Wyoming and others. I find when we focus on breaking up the larger blue states like California, and possibly Texas that is turning purple as we see, we kind of inherently leave out those other rural red states. Even if they have been voting red or conservative over the past several years, doesn’t mean we should completely ignore them. We should reach out to the people that live there, what are their issues, how they see the current political dynamics, and what can they offer from their states. After that, we must offer substantive policies, argue in favor of them and vet candidates that will carry the torch all the way to DC.
pfffft, Texas isnt purple. The latino vote is increasingly turning red.
@@brandyharding7692 that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try even if I wrote my comment a year ago. I had forgotten about this, yet I still think it is worth a try. You win some you lose some, but if you are persistent, take the wins were you have them and continue. I have been thinking about a half political and half business project where I intend to build a movement of worker owned cooperatives that hopefully bring the labor movement to its ending conclusion. I’ve been listening to Richard Wolf lately and all his arguments in favor of worker co-ops or bringing democracy to the workplace. I have a feeling if a grassroots movement and economy of worker co-ops is built, then the political momentum and economic presents of them could add something to the conversation. It may seem unrelated, yet as Tom Morello once said after writing very political music across his career, all music, and everything we do is ultimately political.
0:24 you’re making it seem like a bad thing that small states have a voice. The senate is a good thing because if it didn’t exist the legislative branch would be dominated by California, Texas, New York, Florida and Pennsylvania. The senate gives everyone an equal say so five states don’t control everything. The country as a whole should have a say in what gets done instead of just the population centers.
Personally, I want California to have control more control over my states policies than it actually does I've bee tired of Indiana's crap politics. Larger states having say in what ours does is our only real hope , unless you actually like the Morons in office there.
@@FruityPebbles-420 I’m a California resident and trust me it’s not a magical utopia here. My state can’t even solve homelessness or even build a train on time and on budget. They should have zero say in anything if they can’t even get their own shit under control and I drive past the high speed rail overpass a couple times a month and it hasn’t been completed in YEARS and that’s just one overpass. And I can’t even tell you how many more years it’s been delayed and how many billions over budget it’s gone over. My state is a shining example of what not to do my friend
While I can respect your opinion, I still believe l that perhaps a bit more to larger populations. To be clear I'm not talking about a huge boost ,but for example 4-5 at the most.
@@FruityPebbles-420 Smaller state are basically going to run the senate and shut up the majority which is way worse than small states not being represented (since they have smaller economies, less people, and frankly don’t matter as much).
Excellent summary!
Really good overview!
Forget the Senate, America should be abolished.
I know a lot of folks understand this disparity, but thank you AJ+ for explaining this again for those who are trying to figure out our arcane political system.
well informed video
Money and Religion in government are the issues. end of story
No. But D.C. and Puerto Rico should be States, the electoral college should be abolished, voting should be mandatory or find some way to end voting suppression, and finally, more than two parties should have a chance to elect leaders. (after watching the whole video: yes, enable a simple majority rule, 50% +1 vote)
Um brasileiro sensato já comentou!
E é exatamente isso aí mesmo que você disse.
What is your logical argument that the Senate is not unfair for its malapportioned voting system?
Why not break California into 7 states, and then all 7 of them Govern under a "super state" with it's current rules intact.
Because Democrats do not want red portions of California to have representation in the Senate.
Why should I be governed federally by California when I'm over 1,100 miles away. And D.C. 1,800 miles away... live how you want, where you're at. You have no business in my house
Not to shit on the video but the reason every state gets to senators is because it is the equal house the founding fathers designed it that way so in the Senate every state has two voices in Congress Wyoming has one so it was a compromise
Qatar's system is perfect 🤣
It's supposed to be like this. Are you really now just reading the constitution?
Constitution was made up by slaveowners of 18th century who never took a bath. It’s time to amend more than half of it so poor illiterate red states don’t end up screwing the rest of the country and turtle-face McConnell goes back to retirement home
@@seawater4607 They actually did take baths
@@seawater4607 amen I wish I could give this comment 10 likes, its ridiculous how much this country revers the Constitution even though it's a deeply flawed, antiquated document that needs a serious upgrade Edit: The Constitution may have worked effectively when there were only 13 states and 4 million people living in America, but now in a modern, diverse, increasingly liberal country with 50 states and 325 million people the Constitution as it stands today is simply not a sustainable way to govern a country long term
@@seawater4607 Time to scrap the old and just redo the thing.
@@greenlime1997 Oh no, it's not. Is the only reason the US is the longest uninterrupted democracy in the World.
Australia is having this issue right now. The Northern Territory is probably large enough in population to be a state, but the other states can't stomach giving it an equal number of Senators. Since Australia only has a few states, the problem is magnified. So the NT remains a territory, to the detriment of its populace.
Absolutely agree. NT has only 2 federal MPs and 2 Senators and they are planning to reduce the number of MP to only 1 after redistribution of seats. And the issue of overrepresentation is worsen when comparing to Tasmania (5 federal MPs - 12 federal senators) while it has a bit more than twice the population of the NT and that won’t change even the case when the population of Tasmania decreased to the same as the ACT. ‘Original state’ at the time of Federation is not the good reason to favour Tasmania over the territories. It’s also about other factors like GDP per capita, national reserves and facilities, etc. Thus, the proportional of population for MP seats for Tasmania should be applied to the NT and ACT, anh each of the territory is virtually half-state, therefore they can be eligible for 6 senators each. Also, the senate should vote on state-basis, which NT and ACT combined is worth one state rather than individual senators to combat partisanship which is acceptable in the House of Reps.
Imagine passing a bill that changes the lives for 330,000,000 people because 165,000,001 wanted it LOL
The better idea would be to combine the two houses: House of Reps and the Senate should be merged into a single house of congress ~ number of seats stays the same, individual member duties, responsibilities and terms also stay the same, but laws are passed in unison. Of course, the House of Reps members would outnumber the Senators by over 4 to 1, and would shift the balance of power towards the populace. Another solution would be to add five more states to the union, specifically American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico and American Virgin Islands, by giving those territories who have wanted statehood seats at the table.
I think no need to combine 2 chambers together. Firstly, just legalise how many permanent residents in each state ranging from say 1-15 million, and demographic statistics every 10 years. It limits the overpopulation in states like California, Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, New York and overrepresentation in states like Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, Alaska, Delaware, etc. So the requirements of population will force some states so merge with some others, on the other side, few states have to be divided to smaller states, let say California could be divided into 3 states, Texas and Florida each can be divided into 2 states. Secondly, as the Senate is on state basis, the votes should be counted on state basis instead of individual senators to avoid partisanship, and there should be 3 senators each state, at least 2/3 votes and that states would say ‘yay’, otherwise ‘nay’. It’s how the rules are modified fairly, not break the rules or abuse them by political bullying.
@@chaunguyenphuc6642 You want to force people to move in order to fix a broken political system? That's not gonna work.
@@AvangionQ no. I don’t want to force people to move just because of political reasons. People have lots of reasons to live and work in another place, such as employment opportunities or retirement, negative effect of climate change or lifestyles, etc. what I suggest is the political system to adapt to changes of periodical demographic census to better reflect representation and appropriation of federal funds. People are free to move all around the country and just remain one main residence in one state.
@Karen Byrd :) I did not say that forcing people to move to less populated states as people have their own freedom of choices for their residence. What I tried to say here is an legislated interval of population due to census to be remained legitimate ‘states’, it means the legislation changes to adapt to changes of demographic shifts, not vice versa, states are not fixed permanently, they are just gerrymandering in national level.
Have you seen the GDP per capita for American samoa? MS has the lowest of the states and hers is over 3 times higher. What do you think federal laws like min wage and taxes do to American samoa?
You're using them as pawns to solve a problem without thinking of the problems you might case for these places. Samoans do not want statehood. They own their land communally and you aren't allowed to own if you are less than half samoan by blood. Such laws would be illegal under statehood and that seems to a major thing for them.
Give them it if they want it but I don't think any of them have definitively said they want it.
Why he doesn’t mention that California has 54 representatives while Wyoming only 1? Doesn’t fit narrative
Because they are talking about the Senate?
@@bruhbutwhytho Lol, you can't separate them. They are supposed to neutralize each other. The Senate isn't supposed to be democratic, it is supposed to hold 50 mini-countries together. Without it, the US would cease to exist and become many different small countries.
@@rodrigo445678 there is absolutely no evidence for that claim
@@bruhbutwhytho Lol, the US Constitution is pretty solid evidence. Why do you think the Senate exists?
Federal laws should be almost impossible to pass. Laws that work in California don't work in Wyoming..
There is no reason for small states to remain in the union, if bigger states have the ability to impose on them.
In Europe, that's precisely the reason of why there are tiny independent countries like Luxembourg .
They should base the number of senators on how many people live in each state.
Wouldn't that just be a second house?
It might be more intresting to make senators also a federal election...
@@saraa.4295 it would be interesting to see what we can do.
@@emmacat3202 true..but yeah, the senate needs a major overhole...
That will leave California and New York over-representing in votes. Doesn't matter what other states vote on because they will always be outvoted.
@@r.rodriguez6144 but that would, at least represent the will of the people...
You could keep the senate as it is (though skip the fillibuster) and everytime house and senate can't agree it goes directly to the people...
I would like to have a singular body, that we would select for by voting for various parties.
The parties would then get a number of seats to fill, based on their share of the vote, and they would appoint people from the party to the representative body.
...So what you would get, hopefully, is far more views represented (and many more viable parties)
In order to get things done in such a representative body, one would have to form coalitions with multiple parties. Ideally, we'd all get better government decisions.
That’s a parliamentary system. We would have to change large aspects of the Constitution to do that.
Parlimentary systems like the one you propose don't lend themselves for easy governance though, they most often times struggle to form a government if a majority isn't reached. Look at Spain fro example they had multiple ellections due to the failure of the parties to form a government.
Ahh Germanys system nice. Only problem though is that parliamentry forms of government struggle to get a majority.
South Korea has a unicameral legislature, so does the U.S. state of Nebraska’s state legislature. Although I do like the idea of a bicameral legislative just to put check on both Houses of Congress but I think we should make the U.S. Senate either less powerful or similar to how State Senates in states are, basically the U.S. House but on a smaller scale.
@@PremierCCGuyMMXVI
The Senate is not very democratic.
One thing they could do... Change it, so that the Senate basically has to have a 70-vote majority to BLOCK anything the house passes. So more of a veto function on legislation, than equality with the house.
The Senate isn't supposed to be like the House 😂 the Senate represents the States while the House represents the people !!
Personally, i think we should abolish the senate, vote on the house proportionally, have all congress people be independent, allow recall votes and allow for people to vote to rescind a law, act or regulation.
We really need to split up the state of California....The six California’s was a good idea. Maybe even split New York, Texas, and Florida.
Probably a good idea but the resulting senate total might still result in the same stalemate although it will be more representative.
the problem is that this would set a precedent, if dems have 5 calis, whats stopping republicans from having 10 wyomings?
@@colleencurry118 Well gee, why don't you have 50 Calis?
You are a true insurrectionist. Your idea would end the United STATES. You don't seem to appreciate the fact that the US is WAY more democratic than any European country with the exception of Switzerland, and btw, both countries share many things.
In the US the most important things that affect you life are determined at the local level in a true direct democracy system. The Senate is the only thing that allows the US to remain United even when there are too many different groups inside it.
Uh.... this whole clip is based on a false premise: that the Senate represents the population. It doesn’t. It represents each State equally. The population is represented in the House of Representatives. Same reason we have an Electoral College: so the majority in more populated, larger states cannot dominate the minority in rural, smaller states. IOW, it’s working as intended: Check and Balances.
@RICHARD'S that is fair and makes it balance out.
@@jamesgentry13 🤦♂️ It means that the small states get WAYYYYY more power than large states is that your definition of "balance"?
@@jamesgentry13 Balanced would be the lower poplulation getting the lower represesentation.
For the Record, Wyoming has only ONE that is "1" singular, Representative in the House of Representatives. California has FIFTY TWO, that's "52" due to population differences. The Senate has SENATORS, not REPRESENTATIVES, and each state gets TWO on purpose. Thank Goodness Al-Jazeera is just some foreign entity and not teaching U.S. schoolchildren.
Grand opening of justice
Of course it should! One people, one vote!
*Bookmark me but Democrats will hold more than 60 seats in the Senate. 😊*
Does not matter now. The republicans can block anything even with democrat majority in both houses and a democrat president.
Update: The currents seats are 49-49. 2 seats will be determine in 2021 by Georgia!
The founders designed the us senate to work that way so the smaller states wouldn't be abandoned politically as for a fix to this issue at hand I think it best to just distribute the senates power with the house that way both sides have to agree you have to remember the constitution was made a long time ago some of its policy aged well and others are a little bit retro
The Framers got it right. Before the 17th amendment, senators were appointed and confirmed by the state governor and legislative body. They weren't directly elected at all.
The Senate is there to represent their entire state, and to balance the (people's) House, hence the difference in term length and age requirement. The House is the rowdy frat party that directly represent their own specific district and are elected every 2 years rather than 6, 25 year age instead of 30.
The House also has "the power of the purse." They can initiate spending bills. The Senate is supposed to be a check on that. The word "senate" comes from Latin and means "old men" or "elders."
Each state in this federal republic needs representation no matter how populated they are. At the same time, the people themselves deserve representation at the national level. So the Framers came up with a compromise system that we call the USA
"The founders said" is not an argument. (See: slavery)
@@booqueefious2230 you want to gerrymander the Senate you POS authoritarian.
Cough slavery cough
@@jacksonsanfacon9610 no...they were right about that too
For those who are pro senate, will you give the Amerindians 1,000 senate seats? 2 per federally recognized tribes?
Underappreciated comment.
Great question. Of course the defenders didn't reply.
Not american but why the heck would you base a district on race/group.
The tribes have reservations which are actually large swaths of territory with Indians having their own laws. Some are really big with the Navajo reservation being the same size as Vermont and New Hampshire combined.
Lol, I have a better idea, why don't you, and all the people who want to change history, get out of the US and give the land to the true owners?
Can we also get "Why the US Senate should not be abolished"? For the sake of fairness, I guess
Trying to abolish the US Senate would be insurrectionist and a way bigger threat to democracy than Jan. 6.
The US would fall apart, the name itself says it very clear... The United STATES.
The Founders were more clever than these types of clown. That's why the US is a massive union of 50 mini-countries and Europe is just a continent with many many different countries inside, that btw, almost destroyed themselves twice.
EVEN WORSE!!! Mathematically speaking, small states could band together with a minority citizens to split states and give themselves even more senators. The Senate is on the tip of a political singularity.
That won't happen unless people start pushing stupid insurrectionist ideas like "splitting California" or giving useless politicians 2 senators in DC.
Watch the reenactment of the fall of Rome on celebrity apprentice Caesar ... This fall on Fox
Today the US government is not a representative form of government - we must reform our government to reflect the gov. of the people, by the people and for the people. No taxation without full representation.
The only reason this is such a big deal is because McConnell doesn’t allow the senate to vote on a bill. If they did, all the senators voting against the will of the ppl would be voted out. Allowing equal representation in the senate always made the individual vote unequal, however ppl are voting to represent their state. But the senators of that state also have to represent their constituents.
The Senate was enacted to also ensure the protection of the smaller populations within the country. Though much smaller, the population in Wyoming has many different issues than those faced by people in California. They have different economic issues, geological issues etc. If there was no equal protection for the smaller states there wouldn’t be much benefit for them to be within a union of states. The House of Representatives is reserved for population numbers, for which California possesses many more than Wyoming.
please explain to me why the rest of the country should be held hostage by the demands from sparely populated, stagnant growth states where nobody lives. The majority of the country in states where people actually live and where the economies are strong, providing much of the wealth of this country has become more liberal in its social, economic, and political beliefs. There is absolutely no reason why a rancher in Wyoming should have more say than someone living in a major metropolitan area. It's ludicrous and it's a sign of just how antiquated and flawed an institution like the Senate is. If you feel so strongly about protecting "small state rights" even at the expense of the majority of the country perhaps you should leave the Union and form your own confederacy of small states, though I doubt you'd last long considering your economic reliance on blue states
@@greenlime1997 because in the US the rights of minority interests are protected. The country is huge. One persons issues in the densely populated state isn’t the same as someone in the mid west. It prevents mob rule. The majority can be wrong. Federalism is great because damage is mostly contained within a state, giving people the opportunity to move. You are witnessing people move out of insane Democrat states in to red or more moderate states. If we didn’t have state sovereignty we wouldn’t have a union. So instead of thinking of the majority as a national group, it’s the majority of each individual state that should matter. Different cultures, values etc.
@@greenlime1997 Because the rest of the country is NOT hostage to any small state.. The House balances the Senate and most important things in the US are defined at the state level. That's why California just approved late term baby murders and South Dakota has the ability to completely ban them. That's why Florida can reduce state taxes while California increases them.
You are pushing for a civil war or the destruction of the country. With your logic, then Wyoming should just leave the Union. Clown.
why can't the roles of the two chambers get reversed? The chamber that represents the people should have more power.
Maybe the focus should be why are so many people migrating en masse to a few dozen states while a big chunk of the country gets economically - and therefore politically - forgotten and "left behind". That's why the senate is a way to assure that the less populated, most rural and forgotten areas to have a s.y in America's political stage while California, New York, Texas etc gain more and more political, cultural and economic relevance
good, Wyoming has better senators.
In our republican form of government the House of Representatives is meant to represent the people of the many states and the Senate represents the states in which the people live. For example, Virginia has more people than Rhode Island, so naturally Virginia has more representatives. Rhode Island is one state and Virginia is one state and each state is equal under the law and therefore each state has equal representation in the legislature. Our Great Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, created this system to prevent the larger states crushing the smaller states. The 17th Amendment to Our Great Constitution, to make things more fair, effectively abolished the Senate and created a second House of Representatives. Today(2023) California has effectively 55 representatives and Wyoming has 3. *THAT* is malapportionment.
"the US senate is the most malapportioned legislative body on the face of the earth" anyone know where I cant find more information, or any evidence, for this statement?
You can't. Insurrectionist radicals are to be found in the Jan 6th riots and in videos like this one.. The US Senate is the only reason the US is a country.
No, it was meant to limit the House's power.
No. The Senate only exists because the Founding Fathers couldn’t agree with how representation should be handled in the legislature. The two chamber legislature was a compromise, not something that was planned.
@@Stargate2077 True, but here's something I found. *"To balance the interests of both the small and large states, the Framers of the Constitution divided the power of Congress between the two houses. Every state has an equal voice in the Senate, while representation in the House of Representatives is based on the size of each state’s population."*- Two Bodies, one branch
www.visitthecapitol.gov/about-congress/two-bodies-one-branch#:~:text=To%20balance%20the%20interests%20of,size%20of%20each%20state's%20population.
Just because some progressive policies were blocked by the senate doesn't mean it is unfair, it means that people in states that want to see change must elect candidates who reflect their viewpoints.
Two Sentors from each state prevents tryanny of the majority. EXACTLY as intended. Our founding fathers understood the need to prevent tryanny of the majority or mob rule. This video completely misunderstands the correct proper reason WHY we have Senate and Electoral college. Think of French Revolution where the mob or majority chopped off the heads of other members of society or more recently the lawless CHAS zone in Seattle - that was mob rule or tryanny of the majority.
Exactly ! Explained it perfectly.
So instead we should continue suffering tyranny from all these rural states? 😂
No one cares about states anymore. Senate was designed when we states were basically countries and there was very little national identity. There is a full national identity now, and there's no NY law that's going to end up killing off Nebraska,The world doesn't work that way anymore. Time to update our constitution to modern times. No need for Senate anymore, kill it
I was born and live in California
Okayyyyyyyyy
With Regards to Supreme Court Judges can’t the congress pass a law limiting any new appointment for a certain term or age?
That would require a Constitutional Amendment - 75% of states would need agree to it
Or just make independent commissions choose them instead of the senate.
Racism. Racism. Racism. In “Mein Kampf”, Hitler praises America as the one state that has made progress toward a primarily racial conception of citizenship, by “excluding certain races from naturalization.” In 1928, Hitler remarked, approvingly, that white settlers in America had “gunned down the millions of redskins to a few hundred thousand.” When he spoke of , the German drive for “living space” in Eastern Europe, he often had America in mind.
our elections is so flawed! wtf
I wish we could be like New Zealand and abolish the Senate
New Zealand has less than 5 million people Nebraska has around 2 million people and they also abolished their state senate.
Why would Wyoming be part of the union then? The US is the best system for such a big country. That's why California has the ability to pass baby murder at 6 months and South Dakota has the ability to prohibit all abortions.
Federal laws should be almost impossible to pass, the US gives most of the power to the states and local politics.
We have the same system in switzerland and it is the best.
You are terribly mistaken. Each vote is still equal. It elects the same thing you're going per capita and that is not the way it was designed to be. If you want to go per capita you have to go to the house not the Senate
The point of their system is to protect minorities educate yourself
Who is this minority you're speaking of?
@@Redactedlllllllllllll States that wouldn't have a reason to remain in a "Union" that doesn't care about them. The House exists to give voice to the people, the Senate keeps 50 small countries together..
There's so much flaws in our Senate system. But one thing I suggest is having Senators/Rep with term limits so they don't hold power for decades. Maybe split California and Texas into smaller states
I would take it a step farther and say abolish the Senate entirely. It is a deeply dysfunctional, broken, undemocratic institution that has no place in 21st century governance. Here's a different solution: make the Senate a purely symbolic, meaningless body much like the UK House of Lords
@@greenlime1997 uk isn't the us considering the uk doesn't have a federal system
How does that address anything in the video. Did you pay attention at all?
@@jacksonsanfacon9610 it actually does lol
The Senate is THE ONLY reason the US exists.
In a word, yes! Get rid of it all! Senate, House, Presidency....ALL OF IT!
Let every people vote for every new law. Let’s have elections once a week.
The Senate wasn't meant to be democratic. It was meant to be a more mature body not controlled by the whims of the people, plus state legislatures appointing senators was meant to be a check against the national government. Unfortunately, the 17th Amendment ruined all of that and that's why it needs to be repealed.
“meant”
That was 234 years ago and the times have changed.
@@PremierCCGuyMMXVI The Senate is the only reason such a massive country is even possible.
There should be term limits of for senators. Once they stay in power, they only care about power. McConnell.
Peurto Ricans dont pay taxes so your “taxation without representation” goes out the window. Also, the electoral elects a President and then there in turn nominate Judges, etc. It’s EXTREMELY rare for a Presidential nominee to not get confirmed. So many twists of the truth in this video it’s just crazy.
I don't think it would be impossible for California to divide. It already seems north and south.
Yes Democrats passed Jim crow laws.
Yeah, and the Republicans was aligned with Abraham Lincoln, a hero, obviously the parties have changed.
Yeah and all those Democrats switched Republican!
Parties haven't changed Democrats still use race to stir division still try to pass race based laws and have tricked black Americans in believing the government is who they need to take care of them. Proof is in Dem run cities. They need Democrats to get out of there business keeping them hooked on food stamps and section 8 housing preventing them from ever building any generational wealth. Meanwhile white liberal Democrats calling Larry Elder the black face of white supremecy and Ben Carson an uncle Tom. Joe Biden actively attemptes to block the first Black justices for the Supreme Court. I see the change.
@@robertjordan6723 Yeah, yet at the same time the KKK votes Republican!
Just get rid of the Senate and give it's few powers to Congress. Problem fixed.
You mean the house of representatives.
The current system with an electoral college and senate helps keep America from descending into a Hunger Games scenario. America is a Constitutional Republic . It is important to know why America's system was set up as a Constitutional Republic. Politicians will listen to California and NY and literally ignore everyone else if we abolish the electoral college and senate.
The electoral college is just affirmative action for inbred degenerates at this point. We already have 3 branches of government as a check and balance. As well as the senate to keep the majority in check. You don't get the presidency as well, the EC will be eliminated once you boomers die off.
Yes. It has been a rich man's club from the beginning. As such, it is undemocratic. (Actually, I have always wished that the Founding Father's had adopted the parliamentary system.)
@Karen Byrd Children typically rebel against their parents, not always wisely. Take note Karen, that parliamentary systems had female prime ministers long before US parties even dared to nominate female Vice Presidents (the Vice Presidency, of course, being limited mostly to the power to attend state funerals that the President deems unimportant.). In parliamentary systems, minority viewpoints, such as the Green Party, can be confident that their concerns will be heard, and minority parties can grow, and therefore grow in influence. In the US, we have been frozen in the two-party system, which does not reflect the actual political culture. As AOC says, in any other country (i.e., a country with a parliament), she would not be in the same party as Joe Biden. Indeed the Neo-Liberal corporatists (out-of- touch 1%-ers all) who have been running the "Democratic" Party for decades have far more in common with the old-fashioned country-club Republicans who USED to run the Republican Party, before the rise of the Tea Party fascists. In a parliamentary system, these divisions would become clear and US politics would become more rational.
Keep the senate, abolish the US.
NO
The Senate is the only reason of why the US has the ability to be such a massive country, whereas in Europe, Luxembourg is smaller than Wyoming but still another country in a continent full of radically different countries that almost wiped each other from existence twice..
What does California want done in the Senate that it can't do in its own state?
What needs to be abolished and make illegal are lobbying firms and lobbyists
Your presentation is assuming Anericans do not know that there is a House of Representatives.
So there’s no democracy in America sad 😔
Funny wasn't Obama and Biden in charge for 8 years.
You could also reviste the Constitution. That would be very good.
It's a Federal system, deal with it. If we get rid of the Senate we might as well get rid of States. The EU has a similar set up.
YES.
There are problems, but this is not one of them. Congress is supposed to be proportional and popular by population. The Senate is supposed to protect the States interests. Super Majorities exist to prevent rash wide sweeping changes without the majority benefiting. I could go on, but checks and balances on every power structure is important to include majority populations it’s how we protect minorities.
Lmao. This isn’t at all. Everyone who knows a little about politics know that the Senators represents states not people.
Changes... Big Changes, Yes. Not abolished though.
It's almost like we are a sovereign nation of many sovereign states...
This is a stupid idea, the senate is meant to ensure smaller states have equal representation to bigger states, whereas say California in the House of Representatives has more reps.
Did you ignore the beginning of the video? It clearly stated how the way that the senate is set up gives too much power to smaller states & is unfair to larger states. There's hundreds - if not thousands - of articles and videos out there that state the same thing and explain in detail how it "works".
@@mikeddh2018 yes I watched the video. The house of representatives is where the states with the larger populations get more seats. One house has more power for smaller states and one seat has more power for bigger states. I agree that the Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia should get senate seats though.
Fuc yeah it should be done away with the whole system should overhaul it was designed to fuc over the people corrupt mf's and just like Rome this house of cards is falling thank God
good video however towards the end when he states that the malaportionment problem is going to get worse over time he's actually discounting a major trend which is triggered by the emergence of the 19 outbreak and that is the moving and migration of people from large densities into smaller population errors those people that are moving are people who have vastly more progressive perspectives than other people in the places that they're moving to what this will do is it'll it will allow the political impact of maloportion to actually be eliminated
Yes.
Each state represents it's own senators so they are responsible for who represents them In the Senate. The Constitution declares each state has 2 senators.
While I agree completely, populous state politicians really don't get low population needs. Even progressive protests (which can only happen in populous cities) rarely include issues that poor rural folk are dealing with (despite being caused by the same forces).
And by calling out the senate based only on population, it leads to the insidious counter argument of having a ruling body based on race population. White Americans make up a super majority of America… so would it be fair to base racial representation based on fair proportions (And remove super majority needs)? And saying "people can leave their state, but can't leave their race" is only technically true. There will always be people stuck in low population areas, and as city population grows, rural needs become less of a concern to "most" people.
But yes, abolish/fix the senate. Maybe later get rid of plurality rule so we can get a multi party system, then apportion seats to parties.
Abolish the filibuster- that’s more practical in the near future.
It wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't for the filibuster and the 60 vote supermajority. These are simply arcane rules that can be changed at any time with a simple majority vote, and do not need any sort of constitutional amendments.
Quite frankly, this should've been priority number 1 for Democrats as soon as they captured the senate, because Republicans do not play by the same rules and they simply change them when it's convenient.
That seems to be the problem these days with Democrats -- Repubicans play hardball; Democrats play by the rules Republicans make up.
There is no need to abolish the Senate. Just end the supermajority and turn DC and Puerto Rico into states. And also to modify the elections for the chamber to make them proportional, in addition and end the electoral college and create a majority vote in two rounds for president, to stimulate pluripartisanship.