Then she can have the voice of 10 million people count for 1 vote. And a Senator from Montana can have the voice of ~5% of that count for the same 1 vote.
Sorry for sounding down about it, we need better senators, but we need to overhaul the way the Senate works
This is why we have both the house of reps and the senate. The house of reps means that states with a high population get adequate representation, and the senate means that states with lower populations can still have a say instead of having no chance of outvoting the high pop states
Yeah I think thr house and senate are good as they are for that reason. It’s the electoral college and gerrymandering districts that are the biggest election problems.
Gerrymandering is what Senators are for the most part. I’ll drawn lines not according to populous depicting who’s word means more than another. If they drew a map and said that Albany New York had a representative and New York City has a representative and their votes were worth the same for matters dealt within the state of New York people would find it deeply unfair. The voice of the many is meant to outweigh the voice of the few in a democratic form of government. That doesn’t mean that New York wouldn’t vote to support rural areas as the people know you don’t grow agriculture in cities. To keep food plentiful and cheap, they would vote to ensure the rural areas have what they need as well. If they don’t have enough, they would start to move away and hurt the population. If they have a lot, more people would move from the cities to the rural areas yearning for the same, which would decrease with increased farmers and eventually balance out. Note, people who live in cities are more likely to vote left of those who live in rural areas. Yet those who live in cities are the ones voting for candidates who bring up issues like the bees dying out. They believe in supporting the bees not because they actually care about the species, but because they know their deaths would cause struggles for rural areas and drive food prices up and cause scarcity. This isnt all black and white of course, but you get my drift. People aren’t pushing for healthcare for city dwellers only, they are pushing for healthcare for all. When 500,000 people 10,000,000 peoples voices, it is not in the best interest of the people.
There are two seperate houses in congress, the house of reps, and the senate. Each state gets a number of reps proportional to its population. But they each get two senators no matter the size of the population. AOC is a rep in the house. Schumer is one of two senators for NY.
A primary election is an election within a party (in this case the democrats, of which they are both members). When he has to run for office again, she (or anyone) can challenge him as the Democratic candidate. If she were to win, then the only other way he could run would be under amother party (or without a party, called an independant).
She is in a very blue district that loves her, if she vacates her seat it will almost certainly be filled with another blue candidate,and likely one that she personally endorses.
People have been pushing her to primary Chuck Schumer for his Senate seat which goes up for election in 2028
What does that mean and why is that different from her current role?
She is currently in the house as a rep for her district. There are 435 members.
She’s campaigning for the senate to represent the state. There are 100 members, two from each state.
Then she can have the voice of 10 million people count for 1 vote. And a Senator from Montana can have the voice of ~5% of that count for the same 1 vote.
Sorry for sounding down about it, we need better senators, but we need to overhaul the way the Senate works
This is why we have both the house of reps and the senate. The house of reps means that states with a high population get adequate representation, and the senate means that states with lower populations can still have a say instead of having no chance of outvoting the high pop states
Yeah I think thr house and senate are good as they are for that reason. It’s the electoral college and gerrymandering districts that are the biggest election problems.
Gerrymandering is what Senators are for the most part. I’ll drawn lines not according to populous depicting who’s word means more than another. If they drew a map and said that Albany New York had a representative and New York City has a representative and their votes were worth the same for matters dealt within the state of New York people would find it deeply unfair. The voice of the many is meant to outweigh the voice of the few in a democratic form of government. That doesn’t mean that New York wouldn’t vote to support rural areas as the people know you don’t grow agriculture in cities. To keep food plentiful and cheap, they would vote to ensure the rural areas have what they need as well. If they don’t have enough, they would start to move away and hurt the population. If they have a lot, more people would move from the cities to the rural areas yearning for the same, which would decrease with increased farmers and eventually balance out. Note, people who live in cities are more likely to vote left of those who live in rural areas. Yet those who live in cities are the ones voting for candidates who bring up issues like the bees dying out. They believe in supporting the bees not because they actually care about the species, but because they know their deaths would cause struggles for rural areas and drive food prices up and cause scarcity. This isnt all black and white of course, but you get my drift. People aren’t pushing for healthcare for city dwellers only, they are pushing for healthcare for all. When 500,000 people 10,000,000 peoples voices, it is not in the best interest of the people.
There are two seperate houses in congress, the house of reps, and the senate. Each state gets a number of reps proportional to its population. But they each get two senators no matter the size of the population. AOC is a rep in the house. Schumer is one of two senators for NY.
A primary election is an election within a party (in this case the democrats, of which they are both members). When he has to run for office again, she (or anyone) can challenge him as the Democratic candidate. If she were to win, then the only other way he could run would be under amother party (or without a party, called an independant).
Good succinct explanation.
Further reading on this type of legislature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism
Wouldn’t that leave her old seat empty, for Trump supporter to take?
I dont see why this would be a good change.
It would be empty yes. However, the district she lresides over is very left leaning. A Trumper wouldnt jave a chance in hell of winning it
She is in a very blue district that loves her, if she vacates her seat it will almost certainly be filled with another blue candidate,and likely one that she personally endorses.