-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion
- Thread starter Raffy.Roma
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
Norbert
TSLA will win
Well.....there is no perfect democracy, it's always an endeavour...
Somehow that made me think about this: By population numbers, states that to tend to hesitate on renewable energy (and EVs) seem to be overrepresented in the Senate. Washington DC (would not be the smallest state) and Puerto Rico with its population of > 3 million deserve a representation as well. (And it would still be fair in terms of votes per population).
mspohr
Well-Known Member
California (40 million) and Wyoming (less than 1 million) each have two Senators.
Not democracy.
The House represents the people The Senate represents the minority. Filibuster ensures that a small minority rules, like in an Oligarchy.
Norbert
TSLA will win
Geez! The country is not a Democracy. It is a Federal Republic with representatives democratically elected. Further it is by the Constitution designed to limit government power and protect minorities from the tyranny and whims of the majority. If you want to get something done follow the rules and make your case with honest science and debate. Ranting solves nothing. Exaggeration and scare tactics harm your position in debate. There is an excellent case to be made to develop clean and sustainable energy and reducing or eliminating reliance on fossil fuels but forcing economic pain on the population before alternatives are available is not going to help those who differ with you to support your agenda.
AND you need them!
AND you need them!
mspohr
Well-Known Member
It's a fascist kleptocracy where the rich control everything. This prevents popular ideas like clean, cheap energy, universal health care, reproductive freedom, etc. from being enacted.
Norbert
TSLA will win
This could have been said 20 years ago, but a lot has changed since then. An "excellent case" for a substantial increase in solar (both implementation and research) has already been made many times, and a strong majority of voters of both parties supports that already for a long time, so we are wondering why the "elected representatives" don't act like it. Your post doesn't explain it, since a plan for complete elimination of fossils isn't necessary for a substantial increase of solar, which is still only 3%.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
The only minority that the rules protect is the rich and their profits.
So the House and Senate power balance is fine, But read up on how the Filibuster started, it was not to protect the minorities.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Breakthrough Zero-Carbon Fertilizer Set to Take Root Across the World as ‘Biochar’
Biochar isn’t like hydroponic or vertical farming—it doesn’t change the picture of a garden, and, in reality, it’s quite straight forward.
www.goodnewsnetwork.org
Turned into a charcoal-like substance, it’s not only carbon negative, meaning it removes more CO2 than it produces, but also more effective soil nutrition than other traditional soil amendments like nitrogen-phosphorus fertilizer.
Norbert
TSLA will win
Protecting minorities doesn't mean that a minority should rule over the majority, such as in the Senate. The case for increasing solar has already gone through all checks for many years.
EDIT: And which minority gets protected by the fact that North Dakota plus South Dakota have 4 Senators, while DC plus Puerto Rico plus California have 2 Senators?
Last edited:
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Except that it has lead to the government power being controlled by the tyranny and whims of the minority which is worse.
Why are there two Dakotas anyway?
cpa
Active Member
From what I kinda sorta remember from reading about "How the States Got Their Shapes," was that at one time, Congress wanted states to have approximately the same area. The original 13 ranged from small states in New England to much larger states in the South. With the two senator per state rule and the apportioning of Representatives by population I think it was better to have four senators and two representatives instead of two and one had their been one state of Dakota.
Sorta like today. The senators in Wyoming cancel the senators in California or New York.
That is why the Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas all are "about" the same size. As are Wyoming and Colorado.
There may be other reasons, but I think those were two of the main reasons.
Norbert
TSLA will win
Maybe the next thing the supreme court rules is that only the original 13 get representatives, and the Senate is reduced to 26 Senators.
I 've also read that at the time shortly before statehood Dakota split into two because Dakota split into two because the South Dakontans didn't like the North Dakotans.
Norbert
TSLA will win
I see that our Constitution is troublesome to some of you. To succeed you have to work within it. The Supreme Court insists.
As far as I know there are serious thoughts about statehood for DC and Puerto Rico. Are you saying statehood for them would be against the constitution?
In case you haven't understood, what is troublesome for us is that representatives don't appear to represent the intent of their voters, as I think they generally should.
Last edited:
Our Constitution has enshrined some wonderful principles, but you may recall it's had to be amended a number of times since it was written. So it wasn't perfect.I see that our Constitution is troublesome to some of you. To succeed you have to work within it. The Supreme Court insists.
As for our current Supreme Court, they just blew up Stare Decisis. They know they did it, because they addressed it. Claimed they didn't, then proceeded to explain why they did ("it's not carved in stone"). That's a principle of law that goes back well before our constitution, and upending longstanding "settled laws," willy nilly, all in a couple of weeks sets a bad precedent. Will the SCOTUS just keep overriding laws they don't like each time the majority changes? I don't think that is good for the country, nor do I think the Founding Fathers had that in mind when they set things up.
You may think you are happy about it now, but you won't be when your favorite right gets taken away.
Last edited:
I was being sort of facetious, but I appreciate your answer. Of course as we look back today, it's all silly. Why should states be determined according to their size on a map? Did it work out to an equal number of landowners? The number of farms? Of course, different states have different topographies and local climates, so that doesn't work. Anyway, it's a joke.
I think most of the Founding Fathers didn't intend for such lopsided representation. None of them had any idea how big the country would end up being.
Similar threads
