We used to count black Americans as 3/5 of a person. For Reparations give them 5/3 of the vote.

[Anonymous]

Just curious..... Isn’t affirmative action a form of reparations??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course it's crazy. It offends the most basic principle of democracy: one person, one vote.

So does the Senate, which gives people from small states far more representation than those from large states. Abolish it.

No, that's designed as a balance of power which is a focal point of the founding fathers. That's also why those in the House are called Representatives.

There's no good reason to give people from Wyoming nearly 70 times more representation than people from California. That's an imbalance that was not contemplated when the Senate was established.

It was absolutely contemplated! I suggest you read about how our government was formed. Representation and balance of power were keys. And given how laws are passed there is no imbalance.

Okay. Please post a link indicating that someone in the 1700s contemplated that one state would be 70 times larger than another. I'll be happy read it. Thanks.

[Anonymous]

Wouldn't have to if 100% voted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course it's crazy. It offends the most basic principle of democracy: one person, one vote.

So does the Senate, which gives people from small states far more representation than those from large states. Abolish it.

No, that's designed as a balance of power which is a focal point of the founding fathers. That's also why those in the House are called Representatives.

There's no good reason to give people from Wyoming nearly 70 times more representation than people from California. That's an imbalance that was not contemplated when the Senate was established.

It was absolutely contemplated! I suggest you read about how our government was formed. Representation and balance of power were keys. And given how laws are passed there is no imbalance.

Okay. Please post a link indicating that someone in the 1700s contemplated that one state would be 70 times larger than another. I'll be happy read it. Thanks.

NP here. I think you need to go back to high school and learn a little in a basic government class.
On second thought, you will probably be there in a few weeks. Forgive me for not recognizing that you have not had that high school government class yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
How about the descendants of people who did not own land? Indentured servants? Many were disenfranchised.

You cannot make up for past injustices. You just can't. The past is gone. It was wrong and those people suffered and they are dead and gone now. You can only do what is right and move forward.

At this point there are also many African-Americans who came here or whose families came here in recent decades, long after slavery and in many cases even after Jim Crow. They may be black, but what "reparations" are they entitled to? The same as any other African-American? Why? There are also African-Americans descended from slave holders. Not all slave owners were white, and not all whites were slave owners. And what about whites who came here long after slavery and Jim Crow ended? Why should they be punished for something that they did not take part in, and which they didn't benefit from?

"Reparations" simply cannot be implemented in any fair or reasonable way at this point. There are simply too many complexities that nobody wants to address in any meaningful way. The only proposals out there have been far too simplistic and completely fail to take fairness into account.

Fairness?
Lol - that's funny.

Fairness? What is "fair" about holding people responsible for things they never did simply because of the color of their skin?

Forcing people into subprime mortgages simply because of the color of their skin is fair, right? Gerrymandering and redlining districts simply because of the color of the constituents skin is fair, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course it's crazy. It offends the most basic principle of democracy: one person, one vote.

So does the Senate, which gives people from small states far more representation than those from large states. Abolish it.

No, that's designed as a balance of power which is a focal point of the founding fathers. That's also why those in the House are called Representatives.

There's no good reason to give people from Wyoming nearly 70 times more representation than people from California. That's an imbalance that was not contemplated when the Senate was established.

It was absolutely contemplated! I suggest you read about how our government was formed. Representation and balance of power were keys. And given how laws are passed there is no imbalance.

Okay. Please post a link indicating that someone in the 1700s contemplated that one state would be 70 times larger than another. I'll be happy read it. Thanks.

NP here. I think you need to go back to high school and learn a little in a basic government class.
On second thought, you will probably be there in a few weeks. Forgive me for not recognizing that you have not had that high school government class yet.

You're not funny. Britain also used to have a legislative body that was not representive of the populace -- the House of Lords -- but it has correctly relegated it to a ceremonial/advisory role. The U.S. should do the same to its version of the House of Lords -- the Senate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course it's crazy. It offends the most basic principle of democracy: one person, one vote.

So does the Senate, which gives people from small states far more representation than those from large states. Abolish it.

No, that's designed as a balance of power which is a focal point of the founding fathers. That's also why those in the House are called Representatives.

There's no good reason to give people from Wyoming nearly 70 times more representation than people from California. That's an imbalance that was not contemplated when the Senate was established.

It was absolutely contemplated! I suggest you read about how our government was formed. Representation and balance of power were keys. And given how laws are passed there is no imbalance.

Okay. Please post a link indicating that someone in the 1700s contemplated that one state would be 70 times larger than another. I'll be happy read it. Thanks.

Your ignorance is showing. In 1790 Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York & Massachusetts had a lot more people living in those states than did Rhode Island, Georgia and Delaware. Virginia had about 12 times more people living there than Delaware.

BTW...California is not 70 times larger. Not by land mass or population. It's about 18 to 19 times more populated and has 18 times the number of reps than Wyoming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
How about the descendants of people who did not own land? Indentured servants? Many were disenfranchised.

You cannot make up for past injustices. You just can't. The past is gone. It was wrong and those people suffered and they are dead and gone now. You can only do what is right and move forward.

At this point there are also many African-Americans who came here or whose families came here in recent decades, long after slavery and in many cases even after Jim Crow. They may be black, but what "reparations" are they entitled to? The same as any other African-American? Why? There are also African-Americans descended from slave holders. Not all slave owners were white, and not all whites were slave owners. And what about whites who came here long after slavery and Jim Crow ended? Why should they be punished for something that they did not take part in, and which they didn't benefit from?

"Reparations" simply cannot be implemented in any fair or reasonable way at this point. There are simply too many complexities that nobody wants to address in any meaningful way. The only proposals out there have been far too simplistic and completely fail to take fairness into account.

Fairness?
Lol - that's funny.

Fairness? What is "fair" about holding people responsible for things they never did simply because of the color of their skin?

Forcing people into subprime mortgages simply because of the color of their skin is fair, right? Gerrymandering and redlining districts simply because of the color of the constituents skin is fair, right?

Wow...all those white people that were in subprime were forced to take those loans because of color? LMAO

And btw...where is redlining legal in the US?

As for Gerrymandering...it's about politics and voting not color. If minorities voted more evenly it would change how they do that in a flash.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course it's crazy. It offends the most basic principle of democracy: one person, one vote.

So does the Senate, which gives people from small states far more representation than those from large states. Abolish it.

No, that's designed as a balance of power which is a focal point of the founding fathers. That's also why those in the House are called Representatives.

There's no good reason to give people from Wyoming nearly 70 times more representation than people from California. That's an imbalance that was not contemplated when the Senate was established.

It was absolutely contemplated! I suggest you read about how our government was formed. Representation and balance of power were keys. And given how laws are passed there is no imbalance.

Okay. Please post a link indicating that someone in the 1700s contemplated that one state would be 70 times larger than another. I'll be happy read it. Thanks.

NP here. I think you need to go back to high school and learn a little in a basic government class.
On second thought, you will probably be there in a few weeks. Forgive me for not recognizing that you have not had that high school government class yet.

LOL

And do they teach how search engines work in school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course it's crazy. It offends the most basic principle of democracy: one person, one vote.

So does the Senate, which gives people from small states far more representation than those from large states. Abolish it.

No, that's designed as a balance of power which is a focal point of the founding fathers. That's also why those in the House are called Representatives.

There's no good reason to give people from Wyoming nearly 70 times more representation than people from California. That's an imbalance that was not contemplated when the Senate was established.

It was absolutely contemplated! I suggest you read about how our government was formed. Representation and balance of power were keys. And given how laws are passed there is no imbalance.

Okay. Please post a link indicating that someone in the 1700s contemplated that one state would be 70 times larger than another. I'll be happy read it. Thanks.

Your ignorance is showing. In 1790 Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York & Massachusetts had a lot more people living in those states than did Rhode Island, Georgia and Delaware. Virginia had about 12 times more people living there than Delaware.

BTW...California is not 70 times larger. Not by land mass or population. It's about 18 to 19 times more populated and has 18 times the number of reps than Wyoming.

For someone hurling the "ignorance" label, you're either not good at math or not good at reading population stats. California has about 38.8 million people, while Wyoming has about 584,000. That means California's population is nearly 70 times larger. Use a calculator if you must.

[Anonymous]

I think the math is wrong, it should be 7/5.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course it's crazy. It offends the most basic principle of democracy: one person, one vote.

So does the Senate, which gives people from small states far more representation than those from large states. Abolish it.

No, that's designed as a balance of power which is a focal point of the founding fathers. That's also why those in the House are called Representatives.

There's no good reason to give people from Wyoming nearly 70 times more representation than people from California. That's an imbalance that was not contemplated when the Senate was established.

It was absolutely contemplated! I suggest you read about how our government was formed. Representation and balance of power were keys. And given how laws are passed there is no imbalance.

Okay. Please post a link indicating that someone in the 1700s contemplated that one state would be 70 times larger than another. I'll be happy read it. Thanks.

Your ignorance is showing. In 1790 Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York & Massachusetts had a lot more people living in those states than did Rhode Island, Georgia and Delaware. Virginia had about 12 times more people living there than Delaware.

BTW...California is not 70 times larger. Not by land mass or population. It's about 18 to 19 times more populated and has 18 times the number of reps than Wyoming.

For someone hurling the "ignorance" label, you're either not good at math or not good at reading population stats. California has about 38.8 million people, while Wyoming has about 584,000. That means California's population is nearly 70 times larger. Use a calculator if you must.

Ok...ya got me on the numbers thing, my apologies, because I was using representatives and not paying attention. HOWEVER, you are wrong about the rest regarding how the balance of power was considered by the founding fathers. One of the major concerns when our nation was formed was that the larger populated states could dominate and dictate to the smaller. The Union would have never been formed if that had been allowed. That's another reason we don't live in a democracy, we live in a Republic. In a democracy majority rules and no one then, and I don't think anyone now, would want that. Our system of government isn't perfect but it's survived and thrived when many others haven't. For additional info regarding the three branches search checks and balances.

[Anonymous]

I don't exactly know where the above feud is going, but given that the imbalance between 1790 Virginia and Delaware was 19 to 1, and knowing that the thirteen colonies comprised a tiny fraction of the continent, it would take a real lack of imagination on the part of the founders not to consider that there would one day be a state four times the size of Virginia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't exactly know where the above feud is going, but given that the imbalance between 1790 Virginia and Delaware was 19 to 1, and knowing that the thirteen colonies comprised a tiny fraction of the continent, it would take a real lack of imagination on the part of the founders not to consider that there would one day be a state four times the size of Virginia.

Y'all are too hung up on numbers. But using those numbers let's consider that if you had one rep per 500k we would have over 1,500 reps in Congress. We have 435 now and we don't need any more. Would you like to hazard a guess at what it would be like to have over 1,500 reps there?

Take a look at each state and how many reps they have.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/Census10/FedRep.phtml

California has the most with 53 and Wyoming has the least with 1.

Keep an eye on the right hand column People per House seat and note that a state can have no less than 1 rep.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
How about the descendants of people who did not own land? Indentured servants? Many were disenfranchised.

You cannot make up for past injustices. You just can't. The past is gone. It was wrong and those people suffered and they are dead and gone now. You can only do what is right and move forward.

At this point there are also many African-Americans who came here or whose families came here in recent decades, long after slavery and in many cases even after Jim Crow. They may be black, but what "reparations" are they entitled to? The same as any other African-American? Why? There are also African-Americans descended from slave holders. Not all slave owners were white, and not all whites were slave owners. And what about whites who came here long after slavery and Jim Crow ended? Why should they be punished for something that they did not take part in, and which they didn't benefit from?

"Reparations" simply cannot be implemented in any fair or reasonable way at this point. There are simply too many complexities that nobody wants to address in any meaningful way. The only proposals out there have been far too simplistic and completely fail to take fairness into account.

I see that still nobody is prepared to speak to any of these questions and complexities. How can any proposal move forward if you can't answer even the most basic questions?