Q6. ... ('a' is a feature, not a bug!)

Q6. Which of the following would you consider to be a grievous enough violation of the democratic process to impair the determination of the consent of the governed?
a. Rigging the Senate to give states with small populations the same representation as states with large populations.

Just curious, Alan: are you aware of the history of packing the Senate by admitting underpopulated states? The most egregious period was 1889-1890, when North and South Dakota (... after splitting the Dakota Territory in two), Montana, Washington, Idaho, and Wyoming -- all very sparsely populated at the time, and all but Washington still sparsely populated) were all admitted within nine months ... although Nevada had been admitted in 1864 with almost no population at all.

All of this was done pretty blatantly by Republican-controlled Congress in order to perpetuate Republican control; plainly anti-democratic.

Thanks -- that's interesting history -- was not aware. 

I do recall Democrat George McGovern, who ran for President in 1972, was from SD, showing things can change. (His was the only Presidential campaign I ever volunteered for.)

So, are you similarly against adding Washington, DC and Puerto Rico as states, as a significant motivation is to lock in future Democratic control of the Senate?  (Like SD, not guaranteed, although, esp. in the case of DC, pretty certain for the foreseeable future).

Both of my parents' families are from South Dakota. I believe it had, in the mid- to late-twentieth century, a fairly healthy Democratic Party, mostly as a reaction to the Great Depression, when Hoover's "it'll all sort itself out" attitude was not appreciated.

Then I think the story is that "Texas oilmen" came in the 1980s or so and took over the airways and the politics; it wouldn't have taken a very big investment.

Adding DC and PR as states would be a band-aid on a gaping wound. It might offset some existing inequities, but the underlying problem would remain ... and would probably re-manifest itself in some other way after a few political realignments. The South was once solidly Democratic, remember.

Really, it's a bit absurd that we have no legislators who answer to the entire country rather than just to a state or a district, not unless you count the very marginal roles of the President and Vice President. There are ways that the issue could be addressed in theory, but I think they are all politically impossible.

"... Dr. Seuss character" -- ?

There may have been a time when the term “moderate Republican” may have meant something. In light of the unanimous election of the utter piece of trash from Louisiana as House speaker, the GOP is all a deep cesspool of shit.

And I am very much restraining my language to keep me and Paul out of trouble.

Quote

"Netanyahu is Trump on Steroids and no better than Putin."

Correction: “….is Richard Nixon on steroids”