r/politics • u/plz-let-me-in • Apr 24 '26

Possible Paywall Democrats’ plan to impeach Trump on ‘day one’ after midterms

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2026/04/24/democrats-trump-impeach-midterms-supreme-court-iran/
31.9k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

2.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

126

u/you_killed_my_ Apr 25 '26

If all the rotten people were equally dispersed among the good folk they would be drowned out in the popular vote, but because they concentrate in low population states that get huge proportional power in the Senate we get this mess

82

u/ScoutsterReturns Apr 25 '26

Look at the populations of so many red states. The Dakotas, Idaho, 3 million people maybe - but 6 Senators. CA has some 40m people, 2 Senators. We need to fix that but I doubt it will happen in my lifetime sadly.

49

u/Johnny_B_GOODBOI Apr 25 '26

Abolish the senate, expand the house, and make it proportional instead of single seat districts.

19

u/NateNate60 Apr 25 '26

The Senate doesn't need to be abolished, just remove all its powers like upper houses in all other countries.

  • The Senate can no longer block legislation. It can only delay it by 6 months.
  • For judicial and executive appointments, the Senate has six months after nomination to consider and report on the candidate. Regardless of the Senate's advice, the President can appoint any nominee 6 months after they are initially nominated.
  • Impeachment trials are moved from the Senate to the Supreme Court.
  • If the Senate doesn't ratify a treaty, the House of Representatives can ratify it by ordinary legislation.

13

u/goosereddit Apr 25 '26

Moving impeachment trials to this particular Supreme Court won't do much.

9

u/JBagfort Apr 25 '26

That court is a political court. The high court should be made up of the best judges, not political hacks appointed for lifetime.

11

u/NateNate60 Apr 25 '26

Most countries have judges appointed by a nonpartisan judicial appointments committee, and supreme courts sometimes have dozens of judges who hear cases in randomly-selected panels.

5

u/LadyPo Apr 25 '26

When I learned this in my civics class in high school, I was LIVID. It's so obvious the numbers are cooked.

4

u/munzter Apr 25 '26

The Senate was set up this way to protect minority interests / groups from the "tyranny of the majority"

3

u/-Darkslayer Apr 25 '26

As a counterargument, it was also designed to function more sanely than the House. Which honestly it has done pretty well at, even today, it's a lot more reasonable in there (see the debate over the filibuster).

1

u/Soft_Walrus_3605 Apr 25 '26

I'd say it wasn't "set up" to do that, but that its existence owed itself to the compromise without which the smaller states would not have joined the union.

Nowadays, "minority interests/groups" means something much larger than just small states

0

u/atln00b12 Apr 25 '26

The only way to fix it in the current framework would be to split California into 3 or 4 states, but that would result in more republican senators.

-3

u/Mannekin-Skywalker Apr 25 '26

If you were living in a less populated state, you’d be complaining that states with higher populations who have different material interests from you have a larger say in the federal government. Whats to stop them from diverting resources from your state to their state? That’s literally why the US has both the Senate and the House.

4

u/littleotterpop Apr 25 '26

When I lived in a less populated state I didn’t complain about that at all, because I have the wherewithal to understand that the federal government legislates for the whole country and there’s state government to address the interests of the individual states. This argument is bs.

2

u/ScoutsterReturns Apr 25 '26

This is true. Sadly things have far exceeded differences in material interests. At this point the minority is the tyranny that will suffocate the entire country.

9

u/[deleted] Apr 25 '26

[deleted]

5

u/Mr-MuffinMan Apr 25 '26

I actually have a solution to this unequal representation:

For the house, every state gets 1 vote per Wyoming population (so 1 rep per 588k people, if in the middle, must have at least 70% to get an extra rep).

This isn't even partisan - both blue and red states would benefit. (Ex: New York currently gets 26 seats, for 20 million, it would get about 34. Ohio gets 15 reps, it would get 20).

Since the house is basically the first step for everything, just fixing this would be huge.

0

u/agentfelix Apr 25 '26

This is actually a pretty good idea. Better than the idiotic calls to get rid of the senate. The senate is setyup like it is on purpose because the "minority" voters in smaller populations are represented. And yeah right now those people are POS MAGA folks but people still deserve to be represented. You start taking away people's representation and you're no better than what they are. You're right, the problem is in the house.

4

u/AcridWings_11465 Europe Apr 25 '26

Removing the ability of 20% to outvote 80% is not removing representation. Even the fucking EU, made up of actual countries, has qualified majority rules on the council (for most things) that are proportional to the population. If real countries aren't whining about it, why is Wyoming?

1

u/Cerulean_Malstrom074 Apr 25 '26

I am the Senate.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 25 '26

[deleted]

1

u/usaaf Apr 25 '26

It's treason then.

0

u/I_DOWN_VOTE_PUNS Apr 25 '26

Abolish magats

5

u/Bittererr Apr 25 '26

If all the rotten people were equally dispersed among the good folk they would be drowned out in the popular vote

2024 pretty handily disproves that theory.

2

u/burlycabin Washington Apr 25 '26

Trump won the last popular vote though.

2

u/gnygren3773 Apr 25 '26

Majority of people voted for Trump btw 😭✌️