John Dingell calls for Senate to be abolished

[brooklynite]

Source: The Hill

Former Rep. John Dingell (D-Mi.) penned an op-ed Tuesday calling for the Senate to be abolished and for elections to be publicly funded.

Dingell, who represented Michigan in the House for over 59 years, wrote for the Atlantic a series of suggestions to address the "unprecedented cynicism about the nobility of public service itself."

The Rep. noted that in 1958 a survey from the University of Michigan found that 73 percent of Americans trusted the federal government “to do the right thing almost always or most of the time.” In 2017, the same study conducted by the Pew Research Center found that number down to just 18 percent.

One of the causes of frayed trust identified by Dingell was how a "minority of obnoxious asses can hold the entire country hostage to extremist views" because of the electoral college system and a Senate that provides two representatives to each state regardless of size.

Read more: https://thehill.com/homenews/house/419612-john-dingell-calls-for-senate-to-be-abolished

---

I'm sure someone will get right on that...

(Just an observation that, without the Senate, the Republicans would have had unfettered legislative control from 2010 through 2014 AND the ACA would have been repealed today)

[question everything]

1. K&R for your additional comment

[beachbum bob]

2. no good would become of abolishing the Senate, public funding of elections will not happen either,

we do need to limit the money and there are ways of doing that thru legislation, but it takes some leadership and GUTS

[angrychair]

43. There are already limitations

But there are also loopholes big enough to drive an aircraft carrier through.

Even the limitations that do exist they can just say “gosh I made a mistake” and it’s all good. It’s bullshit.


Most importantly, this notion that we cannot do anything is ridiculous and dangerous. By saying “we can’t change that” is giving up control of our government as citizens and voters.
We, the citizens, are in control, no matter how hard they work to make us think the opposite, it is no less still true: we are the government.

If enough people care about something than not only will it change, it has to change. At the end of the day our government is nothing more than a reflection of its citizens, for good or bad, in any nation, no matter the type of government they have in place. Any government can be changed, all it takes is citizen involvement and effort. Especially in our case, we are, after all, “a government of the people, by the people and for the people...” we are “the people” that President Lincoln was talking about and as long as we remain so, we, “shall not perish from the Earth.”

[mahina]

47. Thank you. Well said. I hope you make it an OP.

[angrychair]

58. Thank you

And I have I just posted it.

[Magoo48]

61. At this point the Senate is diseased.

If we the people decide that it is vestigial as well, then I needs to be removed.

[DownriverDem]

60. Love Mr. Dingell

He was my rep and now his wife is my rep (she is very qualified in her own right). He's right. We are being held hostage by an extreme repub party.

[ck4829]

3. The Senate has become a mess though, is it a savable mess is the question?

[brooklynite]

15. There's a very savable solution: win back the Senate

Gerrymandering isn't a factor. Candidates are. We won the Senate in 2006.

[vlyons]

26. Winning back the Senate does not address the problem

that the Senate over-represents rural Americans, and under-represents urban and suburban Americans.

For example,in Calif each senator represents 18.9 million people
in Texas, each senator represents 14.3 million
in Iowa, 0.9 million
in Alaska 369 thousand

That's not fair, and it's not democratic.

[brooklynite]

44. That may be true, but it is the reality we've had since the Country was formed

Every piece of historic legislation we have was passed by that unrepresentative Senate. And every piece of that legislation has been protected from unilateral Republican repeal by that unrepresentative Senate.

[NewJeffCT]

62. California has 53 representatives in the House

the 21 least populated states combine to have 50 representatives in Congress.

[justie18]

65. Exactly!

Dingell points out in his article that 20 small states, their population totaled together, does not equal CA, but they have 40 senators representing them where CA has only 2. Incredibly undemocratic. And then there is the electoral college.

[shanny]

80. pfft

the twenty-five least populated states currently comprise about 15-16% of the national population but they elect 50% of the Senate. So 8-ish% of the population* can control the Senate and stymie the wishes of the remaining 92%. That is fucking obscene and it isn't going to get better.

This is your "democracy", America. Cherish it. (h/t Charles Pierce)




*even less than 8%, since some states require only a plurality of the vote to win

[mahatmakanejeeves]

4. Dear John: take your meds. NT

[YessirAtsaFact]

18. Stupid comment

The senate is an undemoctatic institution.

Why can’t we discuss abolishing it?

BTW, the craziest thing we can do now is nothing.

[BlueStater]

48. That's rude.

How is he wrong? The Senate is an institution that gives an unfair amount of power to states with low population.

Collectively, the senators from Wyoming, Idaho, and Nebraska have more power than the senators from New York and California, despite being put into office by and representing a fewer and far less diverse populace. That's complete bullshit.

[shenmue]

55. Shut up. Don't be disrespectful.

[LiberalArkie]

5. If anything, a third branch of congress should be created with a maximum personal wealth of

$500,000 and have never served in any branch of government before. Call it the house of commoners or something.

[pangaia]

6. Good ideas.

I would up the amount to $1,000,000.

today's million is yesterday's hundred thousand..

Not that I speak from experience.

[DavidDvorkin]

7. That would be a useful step towards a parliamentary system

Which would be an improvement.

[Maven]

12. Yes indeed.

A parliamentary system would be a big improvement.

[Polybius]

77. Only a ConCon can accomplish that

It would be Pandora's Box.

[turbinetree]

8. This is why the District of Columbia is not a state, and also the Constitution

"One of the causes of frayed trust identified by Dingell was how a "minority of obnoxious asses can hold the entire country hostage to extremist views" because of the electoral college system and a Senate that provides two representatives to each state regardless of size."


Because two more democrats would be in the Senate from the district, and if the territories voted themselves into the statehood, then there would not be the on going crises in Puerto Rico, or the Virgin Islands.................

[watoos]

9. We should do away with the Electoral College.

How many countries elect leaders who don't get the most votes? Like get 3 1/2 million less votes?

[Tiggeroshii]

10. I support that if the Senate is replaced with a constitutional

Last edited Tue Dec 4, 2018, 04:28 PM - Edit history (1)

Amendment abolishing gerrymandering

[Maven]

11. I agree with Dingell.

The Senate is an antidemocratic institution that saddles us with tyranny of an ever-dwindling and ever-more-radical minority of the population. It should be abolished or relegated to a more or less ceremonial function.

Dingell is ahead of the curve on this.

[brush]

59. Agreed. McConnell is actually more powerful than the president. He personally...

stole two extreme right wing justices onto the Supreme Court.

The EC for sure should be abolished and the Senate, if not abolished, at least the number of Senators per state should be adjusted. If the small, rural states count stays at two, up the larger states senators to three or maybe four for the biggest states like NY, Calif, TX, Ill.

[LanternWaste]

13. I doubt his expectations are that a mere editorial will lead to any meaningful change.

"I'm sure someone will get right on that..."

But I can certainly understand why you would infer as such.

[PatSeg]

14. We need fairer representation

Wyoming has a population of about 380,000 people and they have the same number of senators as California with almost 40,000,000. We are too often ruled by the minority, who may not have the same needs and concerns as people in Los Angeles, Chicago, or New York.

[deurbano]

19. I just posted the same comparison without realizing you already had!

[PatSeg]

25. It's funny

that it had never dawned on me until this year. What on earth were the founders thinking?

[zipplewrath]

31. 13 states

This concept was written when there were 13 states. At the time is was envisioned that that might grow to 15, maybe 18 states. The majority of people would control a majority of the senate, but no individual state could be completely excluded. They were thinking that a small state would inherently be exposed to bias, and so it was thought to give them a little bias back.

The problem came when we made so many small states (in population). Now, a majority of the senate can be controlled by a minority of the population. And this difference isn't trivial. Right now something like 30% of the population controls the senate. It's constitutionally possible to be even smaller. Back when there was more serious filibusterer rules, something like 15% of the population could stop all legislation in the senate.

[PatSeg]

36. Yes

I remember reading that and I suppose they couldn't envision the country that we would become. Also most people lived in rural areas back then.

[zipplewrath]

45. Agrarian versus merchant class

We tend to think in terms of rural versus urban today. But the reality is that in colonial times the same conflicts broke down between the "merchant" versus the "agrarian" classes. The only real difference is that today, "all" the agrarians are now all "rural" and the merchant/working class are all urban/suburban.

[PatSeg]

54. "Agrarian"

That was the word I was looking for. Thomas Jefferson envision an agrarian society for the United States.

[DrToast]

35. It was the only way they could get everyone on board.

[Calista241]

79. Basically you're saying that since California and NY have larger populations

That Wyoming's citizens are less important, and their opinions don't matter if they conflict with what the large states want.

[PatSeg]

83. No

I am saying that low population states can and often do pass legislation that affects other states that have far more people. We've reached a point where we often are living under minority rule. That doesn't strike me as being very democratic.

[hibbing]

16. 59 years? I like the guy but geesh n/t

[deurbano]

17. While this may not be the solution, we have a major problem when the three branches of government

are dominated by the minority party (in terms of population represented). The Great Compromise means CA (almost 40,000,000 people) and WY (less than 600,000) are represented equally in the Senate ... and the Electoral College (which extends the inequality of the Great Compromise) produces a president the majority of the voters didn't vote for... and together, they get to shove their Supreme Court selections (and other judicial picks) down our throats.

We need a REAL Tea Party. WE are the ones being taxed without representation. We need to start whining and protesting and displaying the aggrieved outrage the other side has been so skilled at perfecting for imagined oppression. We ARE being oppressed... by a radical right minority.

https://www.history.com/news/how-the-great-compromise-affects-politics-today

Was that the intention of the Founding Fathers? Edwards is doubtful since, as he points out, the majority of Americans at the time of Constitutional Congress came from rural areas—not urban. “No one was thinking about protecting rural interests,” Edwards said. “Rural interests were dominant at the time.”

[KPN]

32. THIS! "We need a REAL Tea Party. WE are the ones being taxed without representation."

I agree 100%.

[zipplewrath]

41. So many "Wyomings"

The real issue is that now we have so many more Wyomings than Californias. You've got the big 4 (TX, CA, FL, NY) that constitute about 32% of the population. A middle group that is mostly the midwest and east coast that has 55% of the population spread over about half the country. Then you have all of these very small population states that represent about 11% of the population over 21 states (about 40%). 50% of the country lives in just 9 states. That's 18% of the senate represents 50% of the population. Alternately, 19% of the population represents 50% of the Senate.

This was never intended by anyone.

[Maven]

20. Also, here is a direct link to Dingell's op-ed in the Atlantic

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/12/john-dingell-how-restore-faith-government/577222/

So that people don't have to give clicks to shit-stirring gossip rag "The Hill".

[blogslut]

24. Thank you

[TreasonousBastard]

21. I hope he knows we can't eliminate the Senate or the EC without changing the Constitution...

but these are interesting talking points.

The Supremes have made it extremely difficult to reduce the money in elections, and probably impossible to be totally state-funded. But, something should be doable there.

[tnlurker]

22. I think

We should eliminate the cap on number of representatives at 435. We should have 1 rep per 100,000 people or so with regional centers for the reps to congregate during sessions and secure electronic voting on bills and such. Each of the regional locations would house different committees with a few of the more important committees housed in DC.

This would give about 3200 reps for the entire country and would make it much more parliamentary system. It would also allow for the rise of third parties to be represented with smaller population sizes.

[MarvinGardens]

71. Agree!

This would also make gerrymandering more difficult.

It would also balance the EC closer to population percentage, since each state gets EC representation equal to House members + Senate members.

[aggiesal]

23. Congress was created so that ...

the larger states would have more power in the House of Representatives,
while the smaller states would have more power in the Senate.

This is by design.

[Maven]

27. It was by design when the number of states and the disparity in their populations was far less

than what we have now.

It was by design when slavery existed and women couldn't vote.

It was by design at a time when Jefferson expected that we would rewrite the Constitution every 19 years.

It was not a design that contemplates current-day conditions or one that was expected to be our governing document for 240 years.

Do not buy into the notion that slave-owning white men designed things this way 240 years ago when there were 13 states and the population of the U.S. was less than 1/100th its current size, and therefore we must live with it forever. It is a dishonest right-wing talking point. Designs can and often do become obsolete.

[aggiesal]

49. Everyone responding makes valid points ...

but congress was designed for the house to benefit the larger states and the senate to benefit the smaller states.
And, I'm far from RW or its talking points.

Our forefathers were very smart people, and they knew one thing, that they didn't know everything.
So, the designed our system of government to be self correcting.

It is the responsibility of the generations that followed, to see the need to correct any deficiencies in
the current system.

House still controls the purse strings, so they have more leverage when it concerns the budget,
but the senate gets to consult the president, so they get to control more of the policy.

I agree that the minority should not be in control of either, which I believe is currently the state of congress.
This needs to be fixed.

[Maven]

50. Myths about the founding fathers and their divine wisdom

are foolhardy and misplaced. Yes, the framers understood that they didn't know everything. They also designed a Constitution that is nearly impossible to amend. It is, in many respects, a seriously flawed design. Conservatives understand that, and they have spent the last 30 to 40 years exploiting ambiguities in the Constitution to press their advantages and seize more and more power. Liberals would do well to adopt a healthy skepticism about an anachronistic system that is tilted against them and needs reform. The framers, were they alive today, would probably be astounded that our country operates under the same Constitution now that they devised 240 years ago.

Also, I disagree with your characterization of the two chambers and their purposes. The Senate was not intended to benefit the smaller states per se. It was intended as a check on the political whims of the democratically-elected House as, originally, Senators were not directly elected by the people. Due to changes in population size and distribution, the Senate now functions as an instrument of tyranny by a minority of citizens who live in small, sparsely populated states. Their grossly disproportionate influence on our political system has led to the gridlock and distrust in government that we have today. People understand that the government does not represent the majority of the people. Unfortunately, many simply misunderstand why that is.

[aggiesal]

64. I think we agree that some changes need to be made ...

regardless about how we believe the congress was set up.

Minority rule needs to be removed from our government.

Myths about the founding fathers and their divine wisdom are foolhardy and misplaced

Our forefathers where very smart people.
They recognized a need to create our own country, and found a way to accomplish that against all odds.
I'm in complete awe, at their creation every day.
You can't convince me otherwise.

No system of government has lasted this long in the history of the world.

[DrToast]

34. You don't think he knows it's by design?

Just because it was by design, it doesn't prevent it from being a ridiculous institution.

[zipplewrath]

42. Not exactly

It was designed to give a bias in the senate that would favor smaller states. It was never intended that the majority of the senate could be controlled by a minority of the population.

[saidsimplesimon]

28. WOW

Is Mr. Dingell funding an overhaul of our Constitution? If so, I would like to reform the electoral college to reflect, one person, one vote rules for both state and federal elections.

My wish list is much longer.

[djacq]

29. Unconstitutional!

All due respect for the former Congressman’s service, the three branches of service is necessary to maintain balance of power.

The real solution is to get rid of the archaic electoral college and to stop gerrymandering.

I reside in VA-05. It’s been heavily gerrymandered that it’s difficult for a Democrat to fairly compete.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

30. The 10 cities with 1M + populations should probably become states

I'd also like to see Puerto Rico/USVI become a state, and to incorporate DC into Maryland for Federal voting purposes. Similarly, I'd like to incorporate Guam into Hawaii for Federal voting purposes.

In a perfect world, I'd like to see states with < 1M in population be forced to merge with neighboring states. Delaware, Montana, Wyoming, Vermont, and the Dakotas. I'd carve out an exception for Alaska based on practicality.

I think it would not change the balance of parties in the Senate as much as you'd initially believe, but it would make the Senate more reflective of the American population.

[DrToast]

33. Amen. North Dakota shouldn't have the same number of Senators as California.

The Senate is an abomination. Get rid of it.

[The Mouth]

37. basic point-

I think it misses the basic distrust that the writers of the Constitution had regarding cities. Cities were regarded as the bastion of bankers and other thieves, also individuals from less savory social strata. There was very much an anti-city and pro rural bias intended and carefully built in. The Constitution was written by men who regarded the landholding ‘yeoman farmer’ as the backbone of what they wanted the nation to become.

Speaking from California, I’m not completely opposed to a body that protects rural areas; in a genuine democracy a city like Los Angles can basically rape the entire northern part of the state of its water and other resources, and any pure democracy would have, at various points in our history, done even worse things than our republic has.

Any serious discussions need to take into account that the United States was never intended to be a Democracy but instead a Constitutional Republic, people complaining that such and such a feature (‘bug) is not ‘democratic’ merely sound willfully ignorant, like complaining that a big rig can’t do a quarter mile as fast as a sports car, or that it’s ‘unfair’ that they can’t eat as much pizza as they want without gaining weight. Nobody ever improved a situation by ignoring reality and the ‘laws’ under which the world operates.

If someone doesn’t understand the mechanism of amending the Constitution (and why, for example, short of a revolution that completely discards the Constitution it is not going away), then even heartfelt and eloquently expressed feelings are noise and not information; I’d like other aspects of reality to change, also, but they aren’t, so the only options are to either work within the constraints of reality or sound like a petulant whining child.

The only option is to retake the Senate. If the principles we stand for and vision for America we espouse are genuinely the best way to go *AND* we can articulate this as well as previous generations of Democrats have, it is doable.

[inwiththenew]

38. Do people really want that kind of volatility in the Legislative branch?

For better or worse the Senate moves slowly and it less susceptible to large swings in its makeup. If that was the case Obama would have been impeached, maybe not removed but impeached. ACA would have been repealed. We'd get all kind of crazy things because the volatile nature of the House.

[DrToast]

46. Yes, I'm for more Democracy, not less

You want to know why people think both parties are the same? It's because they vote a certain way and expect things to get done. But they never get done because of ridiculous Senate procedures (60 votes in an already unfairly represented institution? come on!)

Let's make it easier for both parties to enact their agendas. Let the American people see what both sides want to do and let them decide which they prefer.

Also, I think it would lead to less volatility.

[The Liberal Lion]

39. Why stop at that Senate when the whole damn system is irreparably broken?

[StevieM]

69. Agreed. The House is gerrymandered like we have never seen before. (eom)

[dlk]

40. I Sense His Frustration with the Way Big Money Has Completely Contaminated the Senate

For the most part, the Senate has become merely a vehicle to redistribute all of American wealth upward, to the very top. The Narcissistic GOP has managed to accomplish this in a relatively few number of years. It will take a long time, if ever, to turn the Senate around.

[marble falls]

51. Yeah because a Tea Party house works out well for us. Taking primary elections out of the hands ...

of the parties IS a good idea.

[SCantiGOP]

52. I know the Senate is "undemocratic"by nature

But throughout our history they have tended to be the more progressive chamber (not always, just in general) and act as a brake on emotional responses by the House.
During the late 60s the Senate was where the Vietnam War was debated while the House went along with it. It was the Senate in the mid-70s who finally told Nixon that it was time to go. And, there hasn't been any significant pushback from the House to Trump's soft coup - it has been the Senate that has on occasion smacked him down.

[BlueMTexpat]

53. I am also K&R-ing

your additional comment.

We need to think hard about unintended consequences.

[Devil Child]

56. No thank you Rep. Dingell, the Senate is critical for checks and balances

I see nothing good resulting from the abolition of the Senate.

[Perseus]

57. The Electoral College is what needs to be banished

I am hoping for Democrats to begin working on that. The EC doesn't make sense.

[jmowreader]

63. The Senate is the way it is on purpose

When the Founding Fathers set up Congress, there were two schools of thought on what it should look like.

One of them was the Virginia Plan. It called for two houses in the national legislature, both sized according to the population of each state. The members of the lower house would be elected by the citizens of the states; the members of the upper house would be elected by the members of the lower house. The national executive would be elected by the upper house and limited to one term. The Virginia Plan people wanted to create a new constitution to go along with their new government. Under the Virginia Plan Congress could have repealed a state law.

The other was the New Jersey Plan. State legislatures would each choose one person to serve in the single-house Congress. Congress would choose the national executive, which would have been a committee. And they would have kept the Articles of Confederation.

They finally wound up with the Connecticut Compromise, which (except that the Senate was installed by state legislatures, a process that was changed to direct election by the 17th Amendment) is pretty much what we have now.

When I am elected president I will push for a federal law that all children will receive three years' instruction in civics before they graduate from high school.

[Maven]

66. Why assume that others are ignorant of history and civics?

We understand that the Senate was designed this way.

It was designed by 18th century thinkers who inhabited a country of 13 states and roughly 2.5 million people. With slaves. And no suffrage for women.

Just because something was by design does not mean it is etched in stone for eternity. Old designs can, and often do, become obsolete.

[pecosbob]

67. Oh, my

look at all the defenders of the status quo.

[defacto7]

68. Well, it's certainly a fact that population has changed,

the number of states have changed, demographics have changed, and the economy has changed in the last 200 years. It just goes to support the idea that the system is outdated and needs to be overhauled somehow. But as long as the country is split almost diametrically opposed to each other on the grounds of ideology we will probably go nowhere in that regard. Historically speaking we are more posed for stagnation and decline, civil war or all out revolution than fixing what we have.

Why do you think the RW has been consolidating power politically and economically for all these years only giving empty promises to the masses? Divide and conquer is an ancient strategy. Finding the achilles heel and exploiting it has also been around a long time. Why change a system when you have perfectly good loopholes to employ.

[MarvinGardens]

70. Might be impossible without a revolution.

From Article 6 of the Constitution, covering the methods, of amendment:

and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

This was the 2nd item that could not be changed even through amendment. The first, now obsolete, was that the slave trade could not be abolished prior to 1808.

It appears to me that abolishing the Senate would be an extra-constitutional act, like the establishment of the Constitution itself was. That sort of thing doesn't happen often and it's extremely risky.

I do not support revolution at this time, nor abolition of the Senate. As many have noted on this thread, the Senate has had a stabilizing influence on our government.

However, I do agree with those on this thread who call for abolition of the Electoral College. I think it is bad for the nation to have a president who was elected by a minority of the populace. And that change will require a mere constitutional amendment, not a revolution.

Whether or not we can abolish the EC, I also support radically increasing the size of the House, as proposed by at least one poster to this thread. That would require a mere change to federal law, and it would help balance the EC closer to population, if it can't be abolished. It would also make our representation more local and granular, a good thing I think.

[Polybius]

78. You are correct

A constitutional amendment can not disband the Senate. However, a ConCon can.

[friend of m and j]

72. Solution for the immdiate Senate Problem

is for Dems to scour the state of Kentucky and find a likeable potential candidate with great integrity and character and recruit him/her to run against Mitch McConnell in 2020 and send that SOB home. Get him out of the Senate and we will solve a lot of problems. He is the second mos dangerous man in our country.

[onenote]

73. So Dingell is suggesting that the states that benefit from having two Senators

should support giving up that advantage.

Seems like we'd benefit more from his ideas as to how we can win more elections than his suggestion of something that isn't remotely possible.

[BlueStater]

84. Even if it isn't possible, it still needs to be said.

The Senate is an obsolete unit of government which unfairly gives a minority of voters power over the majority.

[onenote]

85. Ok It's been said. Now what.

Hopefully it’s back to working on something that can be done.

[yurbud]

74. Easy way around gerrymandering: multi-seat districts

They could be made heterogenous and therefore more sensitive to shifts in voter support.

[D23MIURG23]

75. He's right. We need to demolish every structural advantage propping up the reprobate party.

The senate and electoral college are there to privilege the voices of less populus states and give their voters more impact. In practice that means giving the reprobates more power than they are entitled to. We need to get rid of that. Rural and small state voters should have precisely as much impact as everyone else.

[Polybius]

76. Fun fact: Not even a constitutional amendment can disband the Senate

The only way to do it is with a ConCon, and we sure don't want that to happen.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

82. I think if there were a CC right now, nothing would be accomplished

Maybe bringing control of weed over to the states (they are getting close to 3/4 with some form of legal weed now). Maybe ...maybe if the stars aligned, they'd pass a balanced budget amendment. That's it. You can't get 3/4 of the states to agree on anything else. Abortion, term limits, corporate personhood, equality based on gender - forget it.

[shanny]

81. He's right.

As for "unfettered legislative control," you are aware that we had a Democratic president from 2010 through 2014, right? So, no.

Also too: this would certainly motivate people to get off their butts and vote, wouldn't it? Like they did this year.

[Jedi Guy]

86. Not a fan of this idea.

It'd basically tell everyone in smaller states (i.e., flyover country) that they have no say in the way the nation is governed. If the Senate were abolished, people in smaller and/or less populous states would be completely frozen out. Their votes wouldn't count for anything.

If the shoe were on the other foot, and the populous states were deep red, everyone here would be screaming bloody murder about this idea, and rightly so. Same thing with the electoral college. If Hillary had won the EC but lost the popular vote, how many people here would be clamoring for it to be deep-sixed and saying that her administration wasn't legitimate?

It's more than a little disheartening to see a group of people who decry voter suppression advocating voter suppression simply because it'd work in our favor. If it's bad when they do it, it's bad if we do it. Also, if anything would spark another civil war, a proposal like this would definitely be it.

I know this is likely to be an unpopular opinion, but oh well. Flame away.

[BlueStater]

87. That's the way it works in all other Democratic countries. It seems to work fine with them.

The government is the one most people voted for and the ones who didn't vote for it are just plain out of luck. Too bad.