Laws like something that could curtail the worst of gerrymandering will never be passed because of the senate. The people that benefit from unequal and unfair representation will never vote to change them. Those people largely sit in the senate unequally representing the people that want positive change.
"Those people largely sit in the senate unequally representing the people that want positive change."
I thought we already covered that they represent states, not people.
By the way, what bill would they pass that would fix gerrymandering? I thought the states had the authority to draw their districts and it can be contentious as to what a good fix is.
And of course we have the same logic on the other side - that a party in power will do what they can to add to their power. We see that with laws about non-citizens voting (struck down), restoring/giving voring rights to groups that would disproportionately support them, and such.
> I thought we already covered that they represent states, not people.
We did, and that's the point.
> what bill would they pass that would fix gerrymandering? I thought the states had the authority to draw their districts and it can be contentious as to what a good fix is.
There is no bill, also my point. Also, it's only contentious to those who are deliberately attempting to gerrymander.
> that a party in power will do what they can to add to their power.
I agree with this part, its also my point; that is, undemocratic processes are self-perpetuating and self-strengthening.
> We see that with laws about non-citizens voting (struck down), restoring/giving voting rights to groups that would disproportionately support them, and such.
Interesting that that all your counter examples here are about giving people rights to vote. People having the right to vote is fundamental to democracy. Seems your view on democracy is of the 'only the right sort of people should be allowed to vote' variety, pun intended.
Then why are you misrepresenting it to mean something that it doesn't? Only one house is meant to represent people.
"Also, it's only contentious to those who are deliberately attempting to gerrymander."
Maybe for the general idea. But I can see implementation ideas being contentious. That's my point - the solutions are likely to contain biases, and there's going to be opposition to that.
"Interesting that that all your counter examples here are about giving people rights to vote. People having the right to vote is fundamental to democracy. Seems your view on democracy is of the 'only the right sort of people should be allowed to vote' variety, pun intended."
Please name a democracy that has unlimited voting rights. All democracies have some limits. Requiring that someone is a citizen is a damn low bar. Losing rights for felonies can be debated, but that's not too uncommon either. The purpose of those most basic restrictions is do that society does not become influenced by the criminal elements (you're banned from office too) or from outside influence. And guess what, those restrictions were democratically implemented. So please stop with the attacks and more righteous than thou attitude. Please state some argument beyond "fundamental".
>Then why are you misrepresenting it to mean something that it doesn't?
I didn't mispresent anything, I've been consistent and clear about my view of the senate.
>Please name a democracy that has unlimited voting rights.
It's not my position that voting rights should be unlimited. I was only pointing out that your own list of bad things were all about giving people who don't have a say about the government whose rules they must live by, a say in that government by vote.
>The purpose of those most basic restrictions is do that society does not become influenced by the criminal elements
This is historical laughable, the purpose of most restrictions is to limit the vote of marginalized groups, usually by race. For just one example, Step 1: Pass laws making weed a felony. Step 2: Focus all law enforcement efforts on marginalized groups smoking weed but let the kids in suburbs and college dorms smoke all they want. Step 3: Harshly punish marginalized groups by making them felons. Step 4: Strip them of the right to vote.
