This is the kind of thing that happens in third world countries and leads to violent riots. When politicians use their majority power to block out any kind of power for another party, its anti democratic and dangerous.
It is anti-democratic to make a democracy more representative ? What kind of backwards logic is that.
The Democrats have ran the country like idiots, where they have repeatedly made good faith assumptions about the republicans and been betrayed every time.
When the system is broken, the least you do is fix it.
We could dive into a whole political argument here. I am to add, not a republican either, I just think both sides have massive failings and need to be disrupted.
It's anti-democratic to have some votes count for more than others, which is what the status quo is.
Also, blatant gerrymandering (Which is a far more anti-democratic version of this phenomena) has been heavily practiced in the US for many, many decades, and has, to my knowledge never resulted in bloody riots in the streets. [1]
[1] Most recently, the Supreme Court has ruled[2] that if you're not happy with how your government gerrymanders, you should vote it out. It's a wonderfully ironic non-solution...
One of the basic tenets of the founding fathers was that small groups can have out sized power. A flaw in democracy is when some group gets a majority vote and only votes for their own self interest (see Plato).
States rights and the phenomenon of some small states having large sway in elections was originally intended to stop highly populated cities from dominating the rural plantation/farming states way back when. We continue to see this now, California is left partly because of the huge amount of international immigration it has seen in the last 50 years. I want to emphasize that I am not anti immigration, I am just pointing out that it has a massive effect on the future of elections, and ignoring this effect is intellectually dishonest. Using electoral college as a voting system acts as an aqueduct from any one area completely dominating the national voting. Without the electoral college, all the left would need to do (which they are trying to do now), is to flood California with poor people from mexico, and then capture their children's votes/their votes in national elections. We will still see this play out in 20 or 30 years, but the system so far has stopped anti democratic attacks like this
Sure my language was a bit inflammatory, and regardless of your opinion of their intentions, a massive shift in the voting base will be the effect of their immigration policies
It is also the effect of the immigration, economic, and social policies of red states. When they hound, or allow discrimination against people who are just trying to live and mind their own fucking business, is it any surprise that this drives people out of them?
Ironically, for some reason, they are allowed to benefit politically from disenfranchised people (Stripped of their voting rights due to crime, or due to inability to demonstrate sufficient documentation, or due to being permanent residents, as opposed to citizens), while not allowing them to vote. For some reason, though, the right rarely takes issue with this idea (While harping non-stop about legal and illegal immigrants skewing California's representation.)
If you truly want to be fair, the number of seats each state gets should be determined based on voter turnout, as opposed to population. If a person is not permitted to, or does not care enough to vote, why should their state benefit from their representation? [1]
Consider how morally reprehensible, and hypocritical the three-fifths compromise was.
[1] This would, of course, make efforts at voter suppression delightfully counter-productive. If that's the can of worms we want to open, I'm fully behind it.
By "that kind of thing" you mean more democratically elected representatives per voter? But I don't disagree, there are some really good democratic countries in the "third world" (e.g. Mauritius).
