The filibuster is not a feature inherent to the Senate and could be removed at any time with a simple majority, just like it has been done for the filibuster for several types of nominations, and was threatened during this past shutdown.

I also assume you meant tiny majority, as the minority cannot force legislation through regardless of whether the filibuster exists or not.

Yes, I meant tiny majority.

I recognize that the filibuster isn't guaranteed, but it has served as a powerful tool for a very long time.

The States are a gerrymandering. Five states have populations less than a million and three wouldn't even qualify for Member of Congress by census. Yet they get two Senators, a Member and three Electoral College votes.

You've got filibuster backwards. Filibuster grants rights to a Senate minority.

> You've got filibuster backwards. Filibuster grants rights to a Senate minority.

Yeah, I meant that 50.1% can't force legislation through. I should have said tiny majority.

States aren't gerrymandering because the people decide for themselves where to live.

> States aren't gerrymandering because the people decide for themselves where to live.

The people can also decide for themselves where they want to live with respect to gerrymandered Congressional and other districts. So by your logic, gerrymandering doesn't exist at that level either.

You're not going to convince me that some procedural nonsense is more important than equal representation.

“No gerrymandering”. Wut? The Senate is the most egregious example of anti-democratic systems in any country you could reasonably call democratic. It’s far worse than the worst examples of gerrymandering.

I get what you are saying, but I think gerrymandering is a specific thing -- voters being chosen rather than being the ones to choose. You pick the state you want to live in, and the boundaries are not going to change. But at least every 10 years the congressional district you live in may change without you having any say. So it is definitely worse though I think the lopsided representation due to the senate is pretty shitty too.

> voters being chosen rather than being the ones to choose

With the Missouri Compromise, when territories were admitted, their voters were being chosen for political reasons. Territories were admitted two by two, slave holding and free to maintain a status quo. This falls under your definition of gerrymandering.

There is no justification for this gerrymandering. There's nothing so great about Wyoming such that it should have such an outsized influence on the body politic while possessing the GDP of a mid-sized county.