I want to hear Barbara Boxer say to Michael Enzi (R-WY)

[pk_du]

"..would the gentleman , who represents 247 Thousand people , kindly yield , for a Senator who represents 17 million?"


California (Pop 34 Mil) gets to send two classy Seantors like Feinstein and Boxer.

Wyoming ( Pop less than 0.5 mil) gets to send 2 senators also - both Repugs of course.

DIRT DONT VOTE - but it sure gets representation.


Dem Senators need to remind the Repugs that 9 States represent 51% of the US Population ( CA,TX,NY,FL,IL,PA,OH,MI,NJ) and Dems are 11 of the 18 Senators from those States...AND lets not forget Wash. D.C. who would undoubtedly have 2 Dem Senators if they could.

[yardwork]

1. The interesting thing is that the Senate is usually more reasonable

than the House. One would expect California, for instance, to send a ton of progressive Representatives to the House. Unfortunately, the House is full of hard-core right-wingers, some of them from blue states.

On the other hand, red states like North Carolina often have fairly liberal senators.

There have been many times when I have thought "Thank goodness for the Senate."

[Richardo]

2. This is the great compromise of a bi-cameral legislature....

Which is why California has 53 Representatives to Wyoming's 1.

[pk_du]

5. I take your point on the House Reps to a large degree

but the House then ends up reflecting more of the "PURPLE" nature of a state ( unless your talking about Delays Texas)than the Senate , a good thing in my opinion, even though several States have 1-R/1-D Senators or even elect Senators opposite to how they choose presidents.

[Bertha Venation]

3. Do you believe that a senator's vote ought to be weighted depending

upon how many people he or she represents?

[pk_du]

4. Dont think I'd go down that road :O) but i do think Dems

need to start pushing back HARD on this "Mandate" bullshit ...by pointing out things like this and "Purple States" , not Red/Blue.