5 ms·

This is interesting and it should be paired with a dramatic re-thinking of the way our democracy functions. Namely, we should abolish the Senate's overrepresent

This is interesting and it should be paired with a dramatic re-thinking of the way our democracy functions. Namely, we should abolish the Senate's overrepresentation of small, rural states. It made sense that all states got two senators in 1789, but not in 2016. Wyoming, with a population of less than a million, does not deserve the representation of two senators, the same representation that California, New York, or Texas receive. The US is less agrarian than ever. This antiquated representation makes less sense than ever and harms our democracy by under-representing urban populations.

douche 11y ago
Literally, this is exactly why the Senate was constructed in the way in which it is, as a check on mass-rule politics and the more populous states ramrodding country-wide legislation through.
- ZanyProgrammer 11y ago
  Except it's the opposite now- smaller states out punch larger states.
  - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
    Smaller states outpunch in the Senate, larger states outpunch in the House. As douche said, it was intended to be this way. [Edit: Unless by "outpunch" you mean "have higher per-capita representation", in which case they punch equally in the House. But the large states dominate the House: nine states have more than half the votes.)
    - ZanyProgrammer 11y ago
      Do large cities really out perform more sparsely populated areas in terms of representatives?
      - douche 11y ago
        NY City has more than half of the congressional districts allotted to NY state, so yes.
      - pboutros 11y ago
        Yes, of course. Representatives are assigned at 1 per ~700,000 ppl.
    - bluthru 11y ago
      One being proportional to population while the other is biased towards low population doesn't balance out. You would need another chamber biased towards high population.
    - pnathan 11y ago
      Correct; smaller states having a larger voice is by original centrally planned design.
- gohrt 11y ago
  Why do the empty acres of Wyoming need defense against ramrodding? Why isn't my town its own state, as a check against ramrodding country-wide legislation?
  - mac01021 11y ago
    The empty acres of Wyoming need no such defense. The people of Wyoming do. There is are families of issues where which side of the debate a person is on correlates strongly with his/her geographic location. On those issues, without some kind of protection, people in the less populous places will lose every time. You could say that it's only fair for the majority to win all the time. But I've heard it said that a pure democracy is like 2 wolves and 1 sheep voting on what to eat for dinner, and that doesn't sound very just to me.
- philwelch 11y ago
  It wasn't thoughtfully designed by the Founding Fathers as a check. The less populous colonies insisted on federalism and disproportionate representation as a condition of ratifying the Constitution and a compromise was reached, the same as how slaves counted for 3/5 of a person in the census.
humanrebar 11y ago
Why not just split California up into smaller states? Wouldn't that also solve the problem?
- newjersey 11y ago
  That would be like cutting off an arm because it is bleeding. Here's an alternative off the top of my head. Each US citizen gets ONE vote no matter where they live. They vote for ONE person no matter where that person lives. The top 33 (or 34 once every six years) become United States senator.
  - zeveb 11y ago
    > Each US citizen gets ONE vote no matter where they live. They vote for ONE person no matter where that person lives. The top 33 (or 34 once every six years) become United States senator. So, we'd be ruled by American Idol winners? That doesn't seem like an improvement.
    - sharkmerry 11y ago
      I believe american idol gets more than one vote a person, so it is only representative of those that spam votes
      - newjersey 11y ago
        Also I'd like to add that I am not saying the plan I proposed is necessarily good. It is only at least as good as the proposal to split California. Speaking of elections and democracy, we have more problems when it comes to state and local governments. At least many people can name who they'd like to vote for POTUS and some can even name their state senators. Given this, I think it is ridiculous to say that state legislators get to decide replacement for US Senators. I am also not a big fan of the way we do things in the house. As an elected House member of District n of the great state of X, how do I approach any legislation? What's best for the nation is not always what's best for the businesses in state X and definitely what's good for the nation isn't always what's best for the businesses in district n. If I am supposed to look out for the whole nation, not just people in a particular district, why am I being voted in by just people in a particular district in a particular state? If I am supposed to look out for just my district, is this the best way to look out for the interest of my district? Anyone with one ounce of naivety removed from them can easily see that although all of our House members and Senators are supposedly equal, some are more equal than others (and not just because we have two major political parties).
matt_wulfeck 11y ago
It was created this way by design. I'm not saying it's good, but there's always been skew in representation. Big cities can have their power checked by smaller cities. I'll take the counter argument. It's generally the ideologies in the most populated cities that drive Senate seats. Do you think that the vast agricultural population of California is represented by Dianne Feinstein? In fact, it's becoming an issue even among similar cities. For example, Senator's Feinstein's stance on surveillance is at odds with many of the technorati living around the bay.
- ryandrake 11y ago
  It wasn't just designed that way to allow small cities/states to check the power of big cities/states. Additionally, the federal government was designed to be both a government of the people and a government of the states. The House represented the interests of the people, and the senate represented the interests of the states. This idea (that the Senate represented the states and not necessarily the people) was pretty much wrecked by the 17th amendment, but it was nonetheless part of the original design.
euroclydon 11y ago
I think you'd have to renegotiate representation with states as if they were sovereign entities.
- TheCoelacanth 11y ago
  No, the method for changing how representation is apportioned was already negotiated as part of the original constitution. You would just have to pass a constitutional amendment.
maxerickson 11y ago
We should go back in the other direction and repeal the 17th amendment. The argument goes that if we do that the Senate appointments will be highly politicized and so on, but uh, that's the way the elections are. Having the Senate represent the interests of the state governments was a useful check on centralization of government at the federal level.
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago
  > Having the Senate represent the interests of the state governments was a useful check on centralization of government at the federal level. Confirming evidence: Shortly after the 17th amendment was passed, the federal government began growing dramatically.
- gohrt 11y ago
  >was a useful check on centralization of government at the federal level. Why? Those Senators were accountable to the people of their state, same as state legislatures.
- twoodfin 11y ago
  I am sympathetic to this idea, but I don't think it would work out the way you suppose. Rather than push the interests of state governments up into Washington, I think it would push Federal political debates down into state elections. Do we really want every state senate election to be fought over national issues rather than local ones?
jbondeson 11y ago
What you're actually calling for is to completely remove the Senate since what you want is exactly how the House of Representatives is structured. Also due to the fact that the wealth of the nation is centered in many of these urban centers I'm probably more worried about them wielding too much power in our current era of money/lobby dominated politics.
- gohrt 11y ago
  The way you avoid power corruption by wealth is apportion votes to people.
zeveb 11y ago
> This antiquated representation makes less sense than ever and harms our democracy by under-representing urban populations. The United States are a federal republic, a federation of fifty states, not a unitary government of 350 million people. The Senate is where the States, not the people, are represented; the House is where the people's Representatives sit. Abolish the 17th Amendment and have state legislatures appoint Senators.
bluthru 11y ago
Every argument against this hinges on a very odd idea that land is more important than individuals. Rural areas use more resources per capita, contribute less to our GDP, and are less educated than urban areas. Giving these areas a greater influence holds back progress.
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago
  No, it hinges on the idea that both states and individuals matter. The Senate represents states; the House represents individuals. Why is it this way? Because at the Constitutional Convention, the small states were wary of being dominated by the large ones. Well, that was then: Is it still a reasonable concern? If you live in Iowa or North Dakota, say, and you don't want New York, California, and Ohio to set policy for the whole nation (including you), then yes, it's still a reasonable concern.
  - bluthru 11y ago
    States are just a collection of individuals. Laws are made by human beings, not land. House: Californians and Wyomingans are equal. Senate: Wyomingans are 48 times more important than Californians. It doesn't balance out. If you're ok with the senate giving greater influence to low-populated areas, would you be ok with giving rural voters a larger vote weight than urban people when electing a senator? It's contradictory to vote for senators by using "1 person 1 vote" who then do not proportionally represent the population.
    - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
      > States are just a collection of individuals. No. States actually have rights, not just individuals. There's a difference between a federation and a unitary state, and federation was considered a good idea. (Short summary: any power can become a tyranny, so keep other powers around to counter the national government.) > Laws are made by human beings, not land. Nobody ever said that laws were made by land. But laws are made by states, not just by individuals. > It's contradictory to vote for senators by using "1 person 1 vote" who then do not proportionally represent the population. Only if you hold the mistaken idea that senators represent people rather than states. They don't, and they shouldn't.

douche 11y ago

Literally, this is exactly why the Senate was constructed in the way in which it is, as a check on mass-rule politics and the more populous states ramrodding country-wide legislation through.

ZanyProgrammer 11y ago
Except it's the opposite now- smaller states out punch larger states.
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago
  Smaller states outpunch in the Senate, larger states outpunch in the House. As douche said, it was intended to be this way. [Edit: Unless by "outpunch" you mean "have higher per-capita representation", in which case they punch equally in the House. But the large states dominate the House: nine states have more than half the votes.)
  - ZanyProgrammer 11y ago
    Do large cities really out perform more sparsely populated areas in terms of representatives?
    - douche 11y ago
      NY City has more than half of the congressional districts allotted to NY state, so yes.
    - pboutros 11y ago
      Yes, of course. Representatives are assigned at 1 per ~700,000 ppl.
  - bluthru 11y ago
    One being proportional to population while the other is biased towards low population doesn't balance out. You would need another chamber biased towards high population.
  - pnathan 11y ago
    Correct; smaller states having a larger voice is by original centrally planned design.
gohrt 11y ago
Why do the empty acres of Wyoming need defense against ramrodding? Why isn't my town its own state, as a check against ramrodding country-wide legislation?
- mac01021 11y ago
  The empty acres of Wyoming need no such defense. The people of Wyoming do. There is are families of issues where which side of the debate a person is on correlates strongly with his/her geographic location. On those issues, without some kind of protection, people in the less populous places will lose every time. You could say that it's only fair for the majority to win all the time. But I've heard it said that a pure democracy is like 2 wolves and 1 sheep voting on what to eat for dinner, and that doesn't sound very just to me.
philwelch 11y ago
It wasn't thoughtfully designed by the Founding Fathers as a check. The less populous colonies insisted on federalism and disproportionate representation as a condition of ratifying the Constitution and a compromise was reached, the same as how slaves counted for 3/5 of a person in the census.

humanrebar 11y ago

Why not just split California up into smaller states? Wouldn't that also solve the problem?

newjersey 11y ago
That would be like cutting off an arm because it is bleeding. Here's an alternative off the top of my head. Each US citizen gets ONE vote no matter where they live. They vote for ONE person no matter where that person lives. The top 33 (or 34 once every six years) become United States senator.
- zeveb 11y ago
  > Each US citizen gets ONE vote no matter where they live. They vote for ONE person no matter where that person lives. The top 33 (or 34 once every six years) become United States senator. So, we'd be ruled by American Idol winners? That doesn't seem like an improvement.
  - sharkmerry 11y ago
    I believe american idol gets more than one vote a person, so it is only representative of those that spam votes
    - newjersey 11y ago
      Also I'd like to add that I am not saying the plan I proposed is necessarily good. It is only at least as good as the proposal to split California. Speaking of elections and democracy, we have more problems when it comes to state and local governments. At least many people can name who they'd like to vote for POTUS and some can even name their state senators. Given this, I think it is ridiculous to say that state legislators get to decide replacement for US Senators. I am also not a big fan of the way we do things in the house. As an elected House member of District n of the great state of X, how do I approach any legislation? What's best for the nation is not always what's best for the businesses in state X and definitely what's good for the nation isn't always what's best for the businesses in district n. If I am supposed to look out for the whole nation, not just people in a particular district, why am I being voted in by just people in a particular district in a particular state? If I am supposed to look out for just my district, is this the best way to look out for the interest of my district? Anyone with one ounce of naivety removed from them can easily see that although all of our House members and Senators are supposedly equal, some are more equal than others (and not just because we have two major political parties).

matt_wulfeck 11y ago

It was created this way by design. I'm not saying it's good, but there's always been skew in representation. Big cities can have their power checked by smaller cities. I'll take the counter argument. It's generally the ideologies in the most populated cities that drive Senate seats. Do you think that the vast agricultural population of California is represented by Dianne Feinstein? In fact, it's becoming an issue even among similar cities. For example, Senator's Feinstein's stance on surveillance is at odds with many of the technorati living around the bay.

ryandrake 11y ago
It wasn't just designed that way to allow small cities/states to check the power of big cities/states. Additionally, the federal government was designed to be both a government of the people and a government of the states. The House represented the interests of the people, and the senate represented the interests of the states. This idea (that the Senate represented the states and not necessarily the people) was pretty much wrecked by the 17th amendment, but it was nonetheless part of the original design.

euroclydon 11y ago

I think you'd have to renegotiate representation with states as if they were sovereign entities.

TheCoelacanth 11y ago
No, the method for changing how representation is apportioned was already negotiated as part of the original constitution. You would just have to pass a constitutional amendment.

maxerickson 11y ago

We should go back in the other direction and repeal the 17th amendment. The argument goes that if we do that the Senate appointments will be highly politicized and so on, but uh, that's the way the elections are. Having the Senate represent the interests of the state governments was a useful check on centralization of government at the federal level.

AnimalMuppet 11y ago
> Having the Senate represent the interests of the state governments was a useful check on centralization of government at the federal level. Confirming evidence: Shortly after the 17th amendment was passed, the federal government began growing dramatically.
gohrt 11y ago
>was a useful check on centralization of government at the federal level. Why? Those Senators were accountable to the people of their state, same as state legislatures.
twoodfin 11y ago
I am sympathetic to this idea, but I don't think it would work out the way you suppose. Rather than push the interests of state governments up into Washington, I think it would push Federal political debates down into state elections. Do we really want every state senate election to be fought over national issues rather than local ones?

jbondeson 11y ago

What you're actually calling for is to completely remove the Senate since what you want is exactly how the House of Representatives is structured. Also due to the fact that the wealth of the nation is centered in many of these urban centers I'm probably more worried about them wielding too much power in our current era of money/lobby dominated politics.

gohrt 11y ago
The way you avoid power corruption by wealth is apportion votes to people.

zeveb 11y ago

> This antiquated representation makes less sense than ever and harms our democracy by under-representing urban populations. The United States are a federal republic, a federation of fifty states, not a unitary government of 350 million people. The Senate is where the States, not the people, are represented; the House is where the people's Representatives sit. Abolish the 17th Amendment and have state legislatures appoint Senators.

bluthru 11y ago

Every argument against this hinges on a very odd idea that land is more important than individuals. Rural areas use more resources per capita, contribute less to our GDP, and are less educated than urban areas. Giving these areas a greater influence holds back progress.

AnimalMuppet 11y ago
No, it hinges on the idea that both states and individuals matter. The Senate represents states; the House represents individuals. Why is it this way? Because at the Constitutional Convention, the small states were wary of being dominated by the large ones. Well, that was then: Is it still a reasonable concern? If you live in Iowa or North Dakota, say, and you don't want New York, California, and Ohio to set policy for the whole nation (including you), then yes, it's still a reasonable concern.
- bluthru 11y ago
  States are just a collection of individuals. Laws are made by human beings, not land. House: Californians and Wyomingans are equal. Senate: Wyomingans are 48 times more important than Californians. It doesn't balance out. If you're ok with the senate giving greater influence to low-populated areas, would you be ok with giving rural voters a larger vote weight than urban people when electing a senator? It's contradictory to vote for senators by using "1 person 1 vote" who then do not proportionally represent the population.
  - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
    > States are just a collection of individuals. No. States actually have rights, not just individuals. There's a difference between a federation and a unitary state, and federation was considered a good idea. (Short summary: any power can become a tyranny, so keep other powers around to counter the national government.) > Laws are made by human beings, not land. Nobody ever said that laws were made by land. But laws are made by states, not just by individuals. > It's contradictory to vote for senators by using "1 person 1 vote" who then do not proportionally represent the population. Only if you hold the mistaken idea that senators represent people rather than states. They don't, and they shouldn't.