• notfromhere@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Then what you’re really saying is abolish the concept of states and have a single federal state.

    • 3volver@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      No, states still would elect a number of representatives based on their population. Just no 2 senators per state.

      • notfromhere@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Why even have states? Good way to get rid of jerrymandering would be to get rid of imaginary borders. No states, no senate necessary.

        • 3volver@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Because state legislatures should continue to exist. If less populated conservative states want to go down a rabbit hole of far right shit then let them. Just don’t give them 2 senators per state to gridlock the states that continue to produce and provide for their population.

            • 3volver@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              That is what is referred to as a false dilemma fallacy. You can have states and state legislatures without the senate.

              • notfromhere@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                First time I’m hearing about that fallacy, but it seems to imply deceptive intent which I have none. You can also have machine screws in your peanut butter sandwich but it doesn’t mean it makes sense.

                • 3volver@lemmy.worldOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  imply deceptive intent

                  Nope, it’s simply an instance of an argument which erroneously limits what options are available.

          • notfromhere@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Why do you think the states govts should continue to exist if they do not have a direct voice at the Federal level?

            • 3volver@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              Because states would still get a voice at the Federal level with the House, not directly and disproportionately, but rather through their population who are the ones who create value.

              • notfromhere@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                The house is representation of the people. The senate is the voice of the states. E.g. senate ratifies treaties.