5 ms·

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 co

by 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.

by 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.