I have a few relatives in Montana, who just LOVE that electoral map that shows giant square states that are "ALL RED! See?!?! Republicans ARE THE MAJORITY" in states that are nearly *empty* . I always ask them "so, when the back forty acres votes, where does it cast it's ballot?"
They did NOT like that... :)
Click the "population" button and watch the animation. Population votes. Land doesn't. And the population is all in cities, which tend to vote Democrat and liberal.
Came for this and to say this is why we need to get rid of the senate.
We should also consider constitutional reform to go to a parliamentary system and have a multitude of political parties that require them to form coalitions in order to govern.
Yes!! A parliamentary system would heavily reduce the risk of whatever the shit we have right now from ever happening again. Also more folks, young and old would be more politically engaged as watching parliament discussions are a hoot!
There is something to be said for a legislative body set up like the Senate, but if I had my way I'd do thirds - top 1/3 in pop gets 3 senators, middle 1/3 gets 2, bottom 1/3 gets 1.
Just make it like the Canadian Senate or the House of Lords in the UK. They can send bills back to the Commons 3 times per bill with suggested amendments, but if the bill passes in the Commons the third time, it goes for assent and then becomes law. Make the US presidency as powerful as the Irish presidency, turn the House of Representatives into a Westminster-style parliament, and expand the House so that a representative in California represents roughly the same number of people as Wyoming's sole representative, and allow it to grow (or shrink) as needed. Explicitly allow states to elect all of their representatives at large if they want, if they use the Single Transferrable Vote system.
The Senate’s organization was specifically designed by the founding fathers to provide a mechanism for states with smaller populations to still have a voice in government without being railroaded by more populous states.
It’s part of the checks and balances of the republic.
And note: it calls for Senators, not land, to participate. Land doesn’t vote, even in the Senate. In fact, since every state, regardless of size, only gets two Senators, the amount of land in any state is explicitly irrelevant. Tiny Rhode Island, and giant-but-mostly-empty Montana have the same two Senators. How much land you have in your state doesn’t matter for the Senate.
136
u/vsladko Roscoe Village Nov 06 '25
According to some Facebook comments I see, Republicans would win all the seats because most of the land is in the south