[ericmay]

> Vermonters might not want that because they hold outsized influence on the direction of the country, but then they shouldn't pretend to believe in Democracy.

A Republic is a form of democracy. Having a Senate in the structure that we do is entirely consistent with democratic principles. To suggest otherwise is incorrect and counter to established definitions in the realm of political philosophy.

> So, yes, 50 million people should have more say over the country's direction than 1 million. We should stop pretending we have 55 mini countries, because the Supreme Court has stopped pretending we have a 10th Amendment.

Right, like how Donald Trump and his 75 million voters get to have more sway of Kamala Harris' voters (I don't recall the exact losing number)?

Nevermind that the state of Vermont is a sovereign entity in our constitutional republic. To modify this existing arrangement you give opportunity for certain states to leave (pro-Russian viewpoints try break up the US - don't fall for them!) since they are deciding as sovereign entities whether or not to participate in the Republic. If you are upset about the 10th Amendment or whatever then you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and inviting a Civil War or something similar. I say nah to that. We'll keep the existing system because it's pretty damn good.

[coryrc]

We are supposed to have a REPRESENTATIVE Democratic Republic, but it's no longer representative when you have orders of magnitude difference in representation.

> Right, like how Donald Trump and his 75 million voters get to have more sway of Kamala Harris' voters

They do in the Presidential race (and only because of FPTP and because we don't have i.e. approval voting), but they shouldn't control the House as well (because trump voters don't always vote R for reps).

States aren't sovereign entities -- they can't make agreements with foreign countries that isn't granted by Congress.

[ericmay]

> States aren't sovereign entities -- they can't make agreements with foreign countries that isn't granted by Congress.

This is incorrect. They can't make "agreements" with foreign countries but that's because of the Constitution they all agreed to, not because they aren't sovereign.

[coryrc]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sovereignty

> supreme power especially over a body politic

> freedom from external control

States aren't sovereign. The state legislatures don't even control their Senators anymore. The fiction of "collection of independent states" is just that: fiction. If nothing else, the American Civil War put an end to that. The Senate is just an unjust system which causes California to have to remit 33% of taxes to other states, while those are state's Senators vote to strip the rights Californians wish to have.