[par1970]

I think OP is arguing that because they literally said "The Senate is fundamentally a ridiculous way of representing 350 million people and we’re going to continue to get absurd unrepresentative outcomes for as long as it remains a relevant body."

What do you think they are arguing?

[kulahan]

Right, but that's explicitly not the body of government meant to represent people. So is he saying the Senate is fundamentally a ridiculous way of representing 100 states, or is he saying the House is fundamentally a ridiculous way of representing 350 million people?

[par1970]

Maybe we are talking past one another.

> Right, but that's explicitly not the body of government meant to represent people.

I haven't claimed that the Senate was intended to represent the people. I also haven't claimed that OP claimed that the Senate was intended to represent the people.

> So is he saying the Senate is fundamentally a ridiculous way of representing 100 states, or is he saying the House is fundamentally a ridiculous way of representing 350 million people?

He didn't say either of those things. He said this "The Senate is fundamentally a ridiculous way of representing 350 million people."

[kulahan]

I know that's what he typed, I'm asking what he meant. The Senate does not represent 350 million people. It has never represented people. It was never meant to represent people. Of course it's a ridiculous way of representing people, in the same way that a hammer is a ridiculous tool for heating something up. It's a completely nonsensical statement.