Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

zipplewrath

(16,692 posts)
3. No
Mon Oct 15, 2018, 07:50 PM
Oct 2018

Yes, they meant for the minority to be protected from the "tyranny of the majority", but it was never realized that roughly 1/3 of the country could control the federal government. Remember, there were 13 colonies. There was no intent that 4 or 5 of the smallest states could control the federal government. When they wrote the constitution, the House was based upon population. Later it was changed to limit the total number of Congressmen in the House. So now we have Alaska guaranteed a congress critter, regardless of the fact that they have fewer citizens than a single borough of New York. This is NOT what the founders intended. The system is vastly broken and although needs to be fixed, I don't see how under the existing constitution. The last time we got in a position like this we had a horrible civil war. The only other option I see is a Constitutional Convention, which is almost as equally frightening.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

and that.... getagrip_already Oct 2018 #1
No zipplewrath Oct 2018 #3
uhmm, actually it is..... getagrip_already Oct 2018 #5
Protected yes zipplewrath Oct 2018 #6
and thus, the majority can frustrate the minority... getagrip_already Oct 2018 #7
Minority rule meadowlark5 Oct 2018 #2
Bingo zipplewrath Oct 2018 #4
in 40 years... make that fewer states, maybe 6 lapfog_1 Oct 2018 #8
Latest Discussions»Region Forums»North Carolina»In about 20 years, half t...»Reply #3