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

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

    • notfromhere
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 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
        ·
        8 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
            ·
            8 months ago

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

            • notfromhere
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              8 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
                8 months ago

                imply deceptive intent

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

        • notfromhere
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 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
            ·
            8 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
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

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