comment: >
  
  Probably back in the good old days when women and anyone with the slightest hint of melanin weren’t considered “people”.
context: Also worth noting 26% of the US are non-religious and have 0% of the Supreme Court (and 0.2% of Congress). >
  
  There’s an “out” atheist in Congress? Who? >
  
  Ignoring all the other religious connotations...
  
  She is replaced by Kai Kahele, who declined to specify a religious affiliation.
  One member, California Democratic Rep. Jared Huffman, describes himself as a humanist. He is listed in the “other” category. Fewer than three-tenths of 1% of U.S. adults specifically call themselves humanists.
  Sinema is the only member of the 117th Congress who identifies as religiously unaffiliated. Both Sinema and Huffman have said they do not consider themselves atheists.
  
  Although this is just for the 117th. >
  
  That is so bad.  Get some atheists in power asap >
  
  I'm betting quite a few in Congress are actually atheists, and their religious convictions purely performative. >
  
  The fact they maintain that illusion is an entirely separate, and equally problematic, thing. >
  
  No shit. >
  
  Republican majority Congress disproportionately filled with religious extremists, more at 11.  And here's Tom, with the weather! >
  
  Ahh religion…. The great explanation for all things…
  At least until we got the internet and access to all human knowledge. >
  
  That shit falls apart real fuckin quick. >
  
  It’s almost as though congress has been rigged to over represent small isolated communities and under represent large diverse communities… >
  
  You're right.  Anyone not in a large city deserves no representation at all.  Fuck anyone in a town with a population less than 50,000 >
  
  As opposed to the current situation: fuck anyone who lives in a town with MORE than 50,000?  How is that better?
  Serious question:  Why should someone's individual vote count for less, because they choose to live in a big city vs. a small town?  How is that morally defensible? >
  
  How would it be morally defensible to completely deny meaningful representation to Americans in areas with lower population densities?  At least with the current system, those Americans have some influence.  The alternative would lead them to being completely irrelevant.  Their wants and needs would be completely overshadowed just because of where they live.
  With your logic, what's the point of representing minority racial groups or sexual orientations?  Their population is so small, their numbers aren't large enough to make an impact, so why bother listening to them? >
  
  
  With your logic, what's the point of representing minority racial groups or sexual orientations? 
  
  You understand that those demographics are underrepresented, while rural demographics are over represented, right? >
  
  He likes the latter. >
  
  Politically, Congress doesn’t reflect modern America, anyone with eyes should find. >
  
  It probably better reflects the background of multimillionaires, which is what you generally have to be in politics. >
  
  Nor financially, racially, by gender, age, education, housing status, hair color, occupation or any number of other criteria, but it's who people voted for.
  All that said, I recognize there are representation problems, especially around how we draw districts, but unless we start getting enclaves of people grouped by religion, how is this particular issue supposed to be addressed? Are we supposed to move into atheist neighborhoods and Jewish neighborhoods and catholic neighborhoods? Draw districts based on religion? Pick so many reps of each religious group to send to congress?
  I feel like we should fix our absurd districts and then let the people who live in them pick who represents them. >
  
  The Christians run the Congress. >
  
  Folks who claim to be Christians maybe.  Practicing Christians?  Not so much. >
  
  No, they're practicing. They are just choosing some of the most hateful and judgemental teachings of the most hateful, ignorant, and judgemental sects. >
  
  Definitely not by gender or economic class. You’re right. >
  
  Vote them all out. >
  
  I know one party that sure as hell doesn't. >
  
  I think this is a result of the winner-take-all model of representation we currently use combined with rampant gerrymandering and lobbyist influence.  At best, perhaps 65% of a district are represented, usually a little over half.
  If instead a district were given proxy votes proportionate to population and sent as many representatives as get 10 percent or more of a district's counted votes and the right to cast as many of those proxy votes in proportion to what percentage of that districts votes they got, far more people would have their views heard in congress.  The green party gets 10 percent of the district's votes, they cast 10 percent of the district's proxy votes on legislation.  Same for the democrat, republican, the evangelical, and the libertarian.
  This would not only blunt the impact of gerrymandering but virtually declaw lobbyists since congress would balloon in size.  That however is manageable since counting to 2000 or 3000 is well within our capability using technology.
  The committee system would have to be scrapped, but it's unclear that it does any good.  Also the senate would be done away with - rome is long dead.
  Bill and rules would be subject to simple majority votes.  But, there would be at least 5 parties - the progressive, the conservative, the green, the evangelical, and the libertarian.
  Since it would accurately represent the population the influence of the fringes would be just that - fringe.  While there may be concern of a 'tyranny of the majority' it is worth noting that we now live under the tyranny of the minority.  
  And, congress wouldn't be more deadlocked than it is now by any interpretation of 'deadlocked'.  Thanks to a conspiratorial fringe a number of which actively participated in an insurrection, congress can't even be seated. >
  
  Did it ever?