Anti-Climacus

HOW ABOUT: Some contempt for the American system of government to go with your coffee this morning? From Matt Yglesias' comments section:

"But the Democrats have a major problem: as voting trends currently sit, Republicans have a structural advantage; the Democrats currently have a handicap. Democratic Senators represent more people than Republican Senators -- yet Republicans have the majority in the Senate. Ditto for the House (I think). Our Constitution essentially grants de facto voting power to land. And currently, the the vast, mostly empty tracts of land have people that vote Republican. It is ludicrous to have Wyoming, North Dakota, Alaska, and Montana having the same Senatorial power as California, Texas, New York, and Florida: yet they do."

Never mind the fact that the Senate was structurally designed to do exactly what it's now doing, and a complaint about that is a little silly (I think it's ludicrous that clocks tell time, don't you?): I'm going to expand upon the point Josh Marshall made awhile back about loyalty to the eventual nominee being the price of running in a party primary. If you want to talk about American Government, you have to be prepared to accept it for what it is (that is, not object to bicameralism*), or else your opinions shouldn't matter**.

*The equally vile Republican example is all those people who said in 2000 that if people couldn't figure out how the ballot worked, they didn't deserve to vote. Everyone who wants to and is legally able to should be allowed to vote, and to have that vote reflect their choice. I'm not saying we should run 2000 over again... Bush won, fair and square. But to be unable to recognize the value of the underlying principle is sort of disgusting.

**I'm not saying that you can't argue that, say, initiatives ought to be done away with, but that you really can't attack any of the Constitutionally enshrined principles, at least not without a much strong argument than the glib one tossed off in the comment.