• freddydunningkruger@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      Except CA isn’t fairly represented in the House either. CA would need 68 representatives just to have the same representation as Wyoming.

      And say, shouldn’t the states that have a huge economy and bring in more tax dollars have more of a say than the red welfare states that suck up those tax dollars? Just sayin…

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        39 minutes ago

        I disagree with the economy part. Fuck that. Your value isn’t described by how much wealth you generate.

        Republicans are (or were) hypocritical with their talk of fiscal responsibility while representing states that take in more money than they give back. This should be pointed out if they ever return to that argument. This isn’t to say poor people from republican states (or anywhere else) are less valuable though. It’s only hypocrisy that’s wrong, not trying to help lower income people that’s wrong.

      • uis@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        30 minutes ago

        shouldn’t the states that have a huge economy and bring in more tax dollars have more of a say

        Wtf, dude? Can you make something even more american-sounding?

    • Zorg@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      2 hours ago

      The house were any given rep represents between 550k and close to a million constituents?

    • expr@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      57 minutes ago

      There’s no need for a bicameral system. It was a system designed to capitulate to wealthy interests and nothing more.