this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2024
1265 points (96.9% liked)

Political Memes

5612 readers
1039 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] freddydunningkruger@lemmy.world 55 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

Except CA isn't fairly represented in the House either. CA would need 68 representatives just to have the same representation as Wyoming.

And say, shouldn't the states that have a huge economy and bring in more tax dollars have more of a say than the red welfare states that suck up those tax dollars? Just sayin...

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 34 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I disagree with the economy part. Fuck that. Your value isn't described by how much wealth you generate.

Republicans are (or were) hypocritical with their talk of fiscal responsibility while representing states that take in more money than they give back. This should be pointed out if they ever return to that argument. This isn't to say poor people from republican states (or anywhere else) are less valuable though. It's only hypocrisy that's wrong, not trying to help lower income people that's wrong.

[–] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

It's pointed out every time. Their base is completely blind to any kind of irony or hypocrisy.

[–] IzzyJ@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Im not even sure theyre blind to it, they just only care about winning ethics be dammed

[–] IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 28 points 1 month ago (5 children)

And say, shouldn’t the states that have a huge economy and bring in more tax dollars have more of a say than the red welfare states that suck up those tax dollars?

By that logic, a rich person should have more say in government?

[–] brlemworld@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago

No, they don't generate the tax dollars

[–] Liz@midwest.social 4 points 1 month ago

States are not people and should not be given any extra power simply for being a state.

[–] michaelmrose@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

The rich economy actually contributes

[–] uis@lemm.ee 20 points 1 month ago

shouldn't the states that have a huge economy and bring in more tax dollars have more of a say

Wtf, dude? Can you make something even more american-sounding?

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

CA would need 68 representatives just to have the same representation as Wyoming.

Every state is guaranteed one representative, and then otherwise by population. Wyoming has one representative.

[–] BaldManGoomba@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Exactly and then based on that number what we SHOULD do is do proportionality based on that in the most even way possible. But then the issue is states like delaware with almost double Wyoming population would still be unequal since they would still get 1 representative but would be more fair for California. Congress shouldn't have a capped number. Every population of Wyoming size should have one representative in Congress this would give California 68

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The number should have been capped smaller. As it is, there are too many representatives; it's already impossibly hard to get anything through congress. If you want to make gridlock even worse, then sure, add more people.

[–] BaldManGoomba@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

No more representation the better. It is easier to vote someone out and be more engaged when there is a representative for every 250k to 500k people. I don't agree one person should be able to gridlock congress though. Key thing is there is laws in the books to unlock more there would have to be a changing of a law to reduce then less people for billionaires to buy off

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It's not that any one person can gridlock Congress, but that the more people you have, the more difficult it is to get enough of them pointing in the same direction to get anything accomplished.

[–] BaldManGoomba@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

More people you have in Congress the higher chance their view will reflect America causing less grid lock on issues 60-70% believe in. It's not like they wouldn't be in the same party. Also you are more likely to replace bad actors since you will be more engaged and any lone wolf wouldn't matter as much

[–] michaelmrose@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

How about selecting reps independently from home state in a national election. Every million people get to send someone from anywhere. The dakotas can share one

[–] BaldManGoomba@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

More representation the better I am cool with 250k or 500k. Easier to hold accountable

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 month ago

Thanks for explaining how the system was rigged.