Former U.S. Rep. John Dingell is making a case for why the Senate should be abolished, and Vox is trying to help him roll out the argument:
John Dingell's argument for abolishing the Senate is rooted in the institution’s failure to equally represent Americans, regardless of where they live.https://t.co/waqrutOH8r
— Vox (@voxdotcom) December 5, 2018
Not that they’ll listen, but who wants to try and tell them?
Quite literally the point of the Senate was so each STATE would have fair representation in the Legislature.
— CWest631 (@Cwest631) December 5, 2018
Details details.
It actually exactly does – everyone has two Senators, no matter what. More importantly, the Senate was created to represent the states, the House represents the people. #RepealThe17thAmendment https://t.co/gLbzs8I689
— Derek Hunter (@derekahunter) December 6, 2018
It's always amazing how the Left seems to ignore the Connecticut Compromise and that the Senate was never intended to equally represent Americans https://t.co/9yZcnRf3Jc
— Brandon (@BMS355) December 5, 2018
The Senate is operating precisely as it was designed. The fact there is even more disparity in terms of influence of very large (CA, TX, NY, FL) states makes it more imperative small states’ governments have adequate representation.
— Mark Harrison (@meh130) December 5, 2018
59 years in Washington and he doesn't know the senate represents the states, not the people. https://t.co/JsPyTFTybG
— TomJefferson30 (@TomJefferson30) December 5, 2018
Maybe the reason why the Senate does not represent persons equally is because, get this, THAT IS NOT THE PURPOSE OF THE SENATE! https://t.co/OKOKS3CHJd
— Grandpa Mohawks Son (@MRKokoski) December 5, 2018
John Dingell's argument for abolishing the Senate is rooted in the institution’s failure to do what it was never intended to do. https://t.co/rM06yD6Oez
— Jeryl Bier (@JerylBier) December 5, 2018
this never won't be an intellectually silly argument.
— Jason Hamby (@IPAzRGR8) December 6, 2018
And they’ll have a lot more in the months to come. Oh, and one more thing:
I respect Dingell, but there's something more than a bit disingenuous about someone who held a seat for 59 years (succeeding his father after 22 yrs) and then bequeathing it to his wife — making an argument to dissolve the other legislative chamber on "representation" grounds. https://t.co/lzgq06aTqx
— Robbin’ ‘Round the X-mas Tree (@RobGeorge) December 6, 2018
As is frequently the case the folks at Vox would greatly benefit from occasionally opening up a history book. I’d also say that a guy that took his Dad’s seat in Congress & served for 60 years before being succeeded by his wife is probably not the best person to argue DC is broke https://t.co/VN4EI3M6hC
— Jeff (@DeGironimo) December 5, 2018
Yeah, isn’t that something.
Join the Conversation
VIP members get the ability to comment on articles.