3 ms·

This logic confounds me. Is there some inherent reason to disproportionately focus our national choices on the areas of the country with the fewest people (rur

This logic confounds me. Is there some inherent reason to disproportionately focus our national choices on the areas of the country with the fewest people (rural areas)? I've lived in both the most rural and urban parts of the US, and it's clear that the current system massively discounts the will of people in urban areas in this stated endeavor of providing some kind of rural / urban "balance". Depending on what you consider urban, the US is roughly split 80% urban, 20% rural. To me, it seems unlikely that a ground effort in rural America would be completely neglected in a proportional system. If a party did neglect the ~20% of rural voters, it would seem to put itself at a disadvantage to other parties, especially given the lower relative cost of rural media markets. We see the same problem with the Senate, where populous states such as Texas and California stand at a remarkable disadvantage to Montana and Wyoming in terms of representation. The voice of a constituent in Wyoming is 66 times that of one in California. How can we call this system representative?

LordKano 11y ago
I don't see the composition of the Senate as a problem. I see it as balance. More populous states get greater representation in the House. The Senate serves to prevent more populous states from steamrolling less populous states. It's a feature, not a bug.
- TheCoelacanth 11y ago
  Since the passage of the 17th amendment, Senators don't represent states, they represent people. And some of those people have vastly disproportionate representation by Senators.
  - gohrt 11y ago
    Senators represent the people of their state.
    - TheCoelacanth 11y ago
      Yes, and some of those people have a vastly disproportionate amount of representation.
  - LordKano 11y ago
    The Constitution only provides for proportional representation in the House. There were disparities in population during ratification. This was a necessary compromise to address the concerns of the smaller states. The system is working as intended.
    - TheCoelacanth 11y ago
      I'm well aware of the reason it was created that way. I just don't think it makes sense in an era where 3/4 of the states are just arbitrarily chosen chunks of land rather than formerly sovereign entities.
- Fishkins 11y ago
  In my view, talking about how much representation a state deserves doesn't even make sense. People should decide elections, not some semi-arbitrary geographical boundaries. In the house, people are fairly represented. In the senate, people in smaller states are unfairly over-represented. It's a feature like an "install our app" popup on every random mobile site is a feature. Someone thought it was a good idea and did it intentionally, but I think it's awful and was done for bad reasons.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > In the house, people are fairly represented. Moreso than in the Senate, but beyond that, not actually fairly by most reasonable standards. Monatana's Congressional district has a little under a million people, each of Rhode Islands two districts has a little over a half-million. So the division into states creates an almost 2:1 advantage in representation for Rhode Islanders compared to Montanans in the House. Now, that's not as lopsided as the 66:1 advantage Wyomingans have over Californians when it comes to representation in the Senate, but its not exactly equal representation, either.
OniBait 11y ago
If you look at the United States as a collection of State governments, it makes perfect sense. I'm surprised you are confounded by that logic. It was actually the most controversial issue during the Constitutional Convention (See "The Great Compromise"). And read up on the Federalist vs. Anti-Federalist debates. One of the main points is to not give all federal power to the top 9-10 states. Otherwise you end up with the situation where a few large cities are deciding things at the national level and there is no representation for rural areas. As an extremely over-simplified example, imagine urban voters voting to outlaw tractors because "Tractors emit huge amounts pollution and nobody I know even uses a tractor! Those dirty farmers that I hear use them are dirtying up our air!"
- LordKano 11y ago
  Excellent metaphor. That's precisely the kind of thing that would happen. This system was created to prevent that kind of mob rule.

LordKano 11y ago

I don't see the composition of the Senate as a problem. I see it as balance. More populous states get greater representation in the House. The Senate serves to prevent more populous states from steamrolling less populous states. It's a feature, not a bug.

TheCoelacanth 11y ago
Since the passage of the 17th amendment, Senators don't represent states, they represent people. And some of those people have vastly disproportionate representation by Senators.
- gohrt 11y ago
  Senators represent the people of their state.
  - TheCoelacanth 11y ago
    Yes, and some of those people have a vastly disproportionate amount of representation.
- LordKano 11y ago
  The Constitution only provides for proportional representation in the House. There were disparities in population during ratification. This was a necessary compromise to address the concerns of the smaller states. The system is working as intended.
  - TheCoelacanth 11y ago
    I'm well aware of the reason it was created that way. I just don't think it makes sense in an era where 3/4 of the states are just arbitrarily chosen chunks of land rather than formerly sovereign entities.
Fishkins 11y ago
In my view, talking about how much representation a state deserves doesn't even make sense. People should decide elections, not some semi-arbitrary geographical boundaries. In the house, people are fairly represented. In the senate, people in smaller states are unfairly over-represented. It's a feature like an "install our app" popup on every random mobile site is a feature. Someone thought it was a good idea and did it intentionally, but I think it's awful and was done for bad reasons.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > In the house, people are fairly represented. Moreso than in the Senate, but beyond that, not actually fairly by most reasonable standards. Monatana's Congressional district has a little under a million people, each of Rhode Islands two districts has a little over a half-million. So the division into states creates an almost 2:1 advantage in representation for Rhode Islanders compared to Montanans in the House. Now, that's not as lopsided as the 66:1 advantage Wyomingans have over Californians when it comes to representation in the Senate, but its not exactly equal representation, either.

OniBait 11y ago

If you look at the United States as a collection of State governments, it makes perfect sense. I'm surprised you are confounded by that logic. It was actually the most controversial issue during the Constitutional Convention (See "The Great Compromise"). And read up on the Federalist vs. Anti-Federalist debates. One of the main points is to not give all federal power to the top 9-10 states. Otherwise you end up with the situation where a few large cities are deciding things at the national level and there is no representation for rural areas. As an extremely over-simplified example, imagine urban voters voting to outlaw tractors because "Tractors emit huge amounts pollution and nobody I know even uses a tractor! Those dirty farmers that I hear use them are dirtying up our air!"

LordKano 11y ago
Excellent metaphor. That's precisely the kind of thing that would happen. This system was created to prevent that kind of mob rule.