6 ms·

We have gerrymandering at every level, but first with the States. Why does Wyoming have two Senators and California have two Senators? We have 12% of the popula

We have gerrymandering at every level, but first with the States. Why does Wyoming have two Senators and California have two Senators? We have 12% of the population of the US. Wyoming has 0.18%, smaller than DC. Of course, this continues with the House and the Electoral College. Et cetera. However, there is no incentive for Wyoming and ND and Alaska and ... to fix this. No Taxation Without Representation? Sure, but that doesn't mean the representation has to be fair.

nerdponx 9y ago
This is by design. The whole point of the House is proportional representation. Recall that senators originally weren't even directly elected.
- CalChris 9y ago
  Gerrymandering is always by design.
  - aptwebapps 9y ago
    But that's not gerrymandering. It's a different thing. Gerrymandering is specifically the process of drawing otherwise unthinkable district boundaries to achieve some particular electoral result.
    - CalChris 9y ago
      Wyoming became a state on July 10, 1890. It then had a population of 62,555 and now has 563,626 [1]. The population of the US in 1890 was 62,979,766 and is now 321.4 million. So with Wyoming's 0.1% population of the US then and its 0.17% now, is that a thinkable process or is it gerrymandering? [1] http://eadiv.state.wy.us/demog_data/cntycity_hist.htm http://eadiv.state.wy.us/demog_data/cntycity_hist.htm
      - aptwebapps 9y ago
        I think maybe you're operating at a higher level of abstraction than I am. Electoral distortions like the allocation of two Senate seats per state regardless of population share, or failure to keep representation inline with original intentions are definitely things to carp about. They might even have a similar effect as gerrymandering in some cases. But unless you're redrawing borders for purely electoral reasons you're not gerrymandering. Is this really debatable? Are we actually arguing about something that can be settled by referencing a dictionary?
        CalChris 9y ago
        If you are adding another state then you are redrawing borders.
jghn 9y ago
That's exactly the point of the Senate. The House is supposed to be the proportional one.
- ouid 9y ago
  You're misunderstanding, I think. It's not that it isn't by design. It's that the design principle is stupid.
  - baddox 9y ago
    I think you mean that you don't like the goal this design principle is intended to achieve.
    - ouid 9y ago
      No, I said precisely what I meant.
      - aptwebapps 9y ago
        So you like the goal but not the means used to achieve it?
  - Aloha 9y ago
    Why is the design flawed? We have house that is proportional representation, another that is fixed representation - theoretically the Senate is supposed to represent the interests of each state (which is why they used to be appointed by the Governor of that state) and the House is supposed to represent the people of the nation. Is this a bad idea?
    - wyldfire 9y ago
      > Is this a bad idea? It is a bad idea if you reject federalism (which grandparent might?). If instead of a union we are a mostly homogeneous country with a single identity, a single logical state -- then perhaps it doesn't make sense for the States to exist as independently as they do today.
jschwartzi 9y ago
The Senate was originally meant to ensure that smaller states such as Wyoming had an equal part of the vote, so that a simple majority wasn't enough for a bill to pass and become law.
- CalChris 9y ago
  No, the original purpose of the Senate (and the 3/5ths clause) was to make sure the South had enough representation so they wouldn't get steamrolled by the more populous and anti-slave North.
marcell 9y ago
This is going downvoted to oblivion but I think it's a fair point. The Senate / House divide made a lot of sense for 13 colonies, which were kind of like separate entities, but doesn't make as much sense now. For example, why are North Dakota and South Dakota separate states? If they were merged, and became just Dakota, would anyone notice? Why should they get double representation in the Senate vs. California? If anything, having North and South California makes more sense. I think the system is outdated today. Of course, hell will freeze over before it is reformed in a fair way.
- mitchty 9y ago
  > For example, why are North Dakota and South Dakota separate states? Because the Republicans at the time wanted 2 states that would vote Republican. > If they were merged, and became just Dakota, would anyone notice? Yes, as someone from North Dakota, you're being rather stupendously ignorant of the midwest and the differences between North and South Dakota. > Why should they get double representation in the Senate vs. California? Because the Senate is about state representation. The house is for proportional representation. This is basic civics 101 you learn in High School. > If anything, having North and South California makes more sense. You're not the first to propose it, feel free to join these people https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_(proposed_Pacific_state) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_(proposed_Pacific_st...
  - marcell 9y ago
    This seems like a bit of a troll? You haven't given any substantial reason for why North/South Dakota makes sense, while North/South California doesn't, except that "Republicans... wanted 2 states that would vote Republican", which obviously is not a legit reason. If it were, we would split North Dakota into 100 Dakota's so that it would give 200 Republican votes in the senate. Also: > Yes, as someone from North Dakota, you're being rather stupendously ignorant of the midwest and the differences between North and South Dakota. And North and South California are massively different, yet lo-and-behold they are the same state. Even more different is central vs. costal California.
IncRnd 9y ago
>> Why does Wyoming have two Senators and California have two Senators? The answer is that the US is not a Democracy, and the Senate was created to limit the short term vacillations of the people. When you think of representation in the House, think of representation of the States. The United States of America not the United People of America.
- uncletaco 9y ago
  The US is a democracy, albeit a flawed one. The only criteria for being a democracy is having the ability to elect your rulers. Also, despite what the Senate was created to do, all Senators are now elected by citizens of their states. With the janky exception of the president you vote directly for rulers at every level of government.
  - IncRnd 9y ago
    >> The only criteria for being a democracy is having the ability to elect your rulers That's incorrect just looking at the definition of the word Democracy. Don't look at Google's definition of the word. Google almost always gets their definitions imprecise or incorrect. Look in a dictionary, either online or one that you have. You may also want to consider that you posted your comment on a page about gerrymandered elections.
    - CalChris 9y ago
      The Oxford English Dictionary defines democracy thus [1]: > 1. A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. > 1.1 A state governed under a system of democracy > 1.2 Control of an organization or group by the majority of its members > 1.3 The practice or principles of social equality You are mistakenly assuming that the only form or meaning of democracy is direct democracy (1.2 above). That is not the case. [1] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/democracy https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/democracy
    - uncletaco 9y ago
mburns 9y ago
A better question is why we have artificially capped our House of Representatives at 435 members. It has skewed the proportion of representation (and by extension, the electoral college) for decades. Even the UK has 650 members in their lower house.
- davidnc 9y ago
  Or, give each representative voting power proportional to the number of voters in their district. That way, no need for the added salary and chaos of 200+ more representatives, and you can get perfectly proportional representation.
  - curun1r 9y ago
    I would prefer to give representatives spending power based on their district's taxes paid. It would solve a lot of long-standing squabbles...Republicans could put none of their constituents' taxes towards Planned Parenthood, the NEA and other liberal pet agencies and the Democrats could refuse to chip in towards military boondoggles and other Republican favorites. Being able to look at a line item list of how your rep spent your Federal taxes might bring some much needed fiscal responsibility to government spending.

nerdponx 9y ago

This is by design. The whole point of the House is proportional representation. Recall that senators originally weren't even directly elected.

CalChris 9y ago
Gerrymandering is always by design.
- aptwebapps 9y ago
  But that's not gerrymandering. It's a different thing. Gerrymandering is specifically the process of drawing otherwise unthinkable district boundaries to achieve some particular electoral result.
  - CalChris 9y ago
    Wyoming became a state on July 10, 1890. It then had a population of 62,555 and now has 563,626 [1]. The population of the US in 1890 was 62,979,766 and is now 321.4 million. So with Wyoming's 0.1% population of the US then and its 0.17% now, is that a thinkable process or is it gerrymandering? [1] http://eadiv.state.wy.us/demog_data/cntycity_hist.htm http://eadiv.state.wy.us/demog_data/cntycity_hist.htm
    - aptwebapps 9y ago
      I think maybe you're operating at a higher level of abstraction than I am. Electoral distortions like the allocation of two Senate seats per state regardless of population share, or failure to keep representation inline with original intentions are definitely things to carp about. They might even have a similar effect as gerrymandering in some cases. But unless you're redrawing borders for purely electoral reasons you're not gerrymandering. Is this really debatable? Are we actually arguing about something that can be settled by referencing a dictionary?
      - CalChris 9y ago
        If you are adding another state then you are redrawing borders.

jghn 9y ago

That's exactly the point of the Senate. The House is supposed to be the proportional one.

ouid 9y ago
You're misunderstanding, I think. It's not that it isn't by design. It's that the design principle is stupid.
- baddox 9y ago
  I think you mean that you don't like the goal this design principle is intended to achieve.
  - ouid 9y ago
    No, I said precisely what I meant.
    - aptwebapps 9y ago
      So you like the goal but not the means used to achieve it?
- Aloha 9y ago
  Why is the design flawed? We have house that is proportional representation, another that is fixed representation - theoretically the Senate is supposed to represent the interests of each state (which is why they used to be appointed by the Governor of that state) and the House is supposed to represent the people of the nation. Is this a bad idea?
  - wyldfire 9y ago
    > Is this a bad idea? It is a bad idea if you reject federalism (which grandparent might?). If instead of a union we are a mostly homogeneous country with a single identity, a single logical state -- then perhaps it doesn't make sense for the States to exist as independently as they do today.

jschwartzi 9y ago

The Senate was originally meant to ensure that smaller states such as Wyoming had an equal part of the vote, so that a simple majority wasn't enough for a bill to pass and become law.

CalChris 9y ago
No, the original purpose of the Senate (and the 3/5ths clause) was to make sure the South had enough representation so they wouldn't get steamrolled by the more populous and anti-slave North.

marcell 9y ago

This is going downvoted to oblivion but I think it's a fair point. The Senate / House divide made a lot of sense for 13 colonies, which were kind of like separate entities, but doesn't make as much sense now. For example, why are North Dakota and South Dakota separate states? If they were merged, and became just Dakota, would anyone notice? Why should they get double representation in the Senate vs. California? If anything, having North and South California makes more sense. I think the system is outdated today. Of course, hell will freeze over before it is reformed in a fair way.

mitchty 9y ago
> For example, why are North Dakota and South Dakota separate states? Because the Republicans at the time wanted 2 states that would vote Republican. > If they were merged, and became just Dakota, would anyone notice? Yes, as someone from North Dakota, you're being rather stupendously ignorant of the midwest and the differences between North and South Dakota. > Why should they get double representation in the Senate vs. California? Because the Senate is about state representation. The house is for proportional representation. This is basic civics 101 you learn in High School. > If anything, having North and South California makes more sense. You're not the first to propose it, feel free to join these people https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_(proposed_Pacific_state) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_(proposed_Pacific_st...
- marcell 9y ago
  This seems like a bit of a troll? You haven't given any substantial reason for why North/South Dakota makes sense, while North/South California doesn't, except that "Republicans... wanted 2 states that would vote Republican", which obviously is not a legit reason. If it were, we would split North Dakota into 100 Dakota's so that it would give 200 Republican votes in the senate. Also: > Yes, as someone from North Dakota, you're being rather stupendously ignorant of the midwest and the differences between North and South Dakota. And North and South California are massively different, yet lo-and-behold they are the same state. Even more different is central vs. costal California.

IncRnd 9y ago

>> Why does Wyoming have two Senators and California have two Senators? The answer is that the US is not a Democracy, and the Senate was created to limit the short term vacillations of the people. When you think of representation in the House, think of representation of the States. The United States of America not the United People of America.

uncletaco 9y ago
The US is a democracy, albeit a flawed one. The only criteria for being a democracy is having the ability to elect your rulers. Also, despite what the Senate was created to do, all Senators are now elected by citizens of their states. With the janky exception of the president you vote directly for rulers at every level of government.
- IncRnd 9y ago
  >> The only criteria for being a democracy is having the ability to elect your rulers That's incorrect just looking at the definition of the word Democracy. Don't look at Google's definition of the word. Google almost always gets their definitions imprecise or incorrect. Look in a dictionary, either online or one that you have. You may also want to consider that you posted your comment on a page about gerrymandered elections.
  - CalChris 9y ago
    The Oxford English Dictionary defines democracy thus [1]: > 1. A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. > 1.1 A state governed under a system of democracy > 1.2 Control of an organization or group by the majority of its members > 1.3 The practice or principles of social equality You are mistakenly assuming that the only form or meaning of democracy is direct democracy (1.2 above). That is not the case. [1] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/democracy https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/democracy
  - uncletaco 9y ago

mburns 9y ago

A better question is why we have artificially capped our House of Representatives at 435 members. It has skewed the proportion of representation (and by extension, the electoral college) for decades. Even the UK has 650 members in their lower house.

davidnc 9y ago
Or, give each representative voting power proportional to the number of voters in their district. That way, no need for the added salary and chaos of 200+ more representatives, and you can get perfectly proportional representation.
- curun1r 9y ago
  I would prefer to give representatives spending power based on their district's taxes paid. It would solve a lot of long-standing squabbles...Republicans could put none of their constituents' taxes towards Planned Parenthood, the NEA and other liberal pet agencies and the Democrats could refuse to chip in towards military boondoggles and other Republican favorites. Being able to look at a line item list of how your rep spent your Federal taxes might bring some much needed fiscal responsibility to government spending.