4 ms·

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

by jghn 9y ago

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.
  - ouid 9y ago
    People are the only ingredients of states. You don't add water or eggs. The state is equal to the formal sum of its people. Giving states with unequal populations equal representation is equivalent to giving its people disproportionate representation, which is a stupid idea.
    - CalChris 9y ago
      That a Wyoming voter has 66.77 times the Senatorial power of Californian is an extremely stupid idea.
    - baddox 9y ago
      Senators used to be appointed by state legislatures, not the people directly. You can still have valid complaints about that, but it wasn't really an issue of "disproportionate representation" any more than, say, Congress voting to confirm Supreme Court justices or executive cabinet officials.
    - dllthomas 9y ago
      One square mile, one vote!
    - Aloha 9y ago
      Yes. But the needs of a state as a whole may be significantly different than the needs of one congressional district within the state. Consider that historically the Senate has been a voice of moderation to an often much more radical house.
  - baddox 9y ago
    The senators used to be elected by the state legislatures.
  - CalChris 9y ago
    Senators were chosen by the Legislature thereof. It's not so much a bad idea as it is completely inaccurate.
CalChris 9y ago
No, the House isn't proportional. There is a minimum of one House member per State: each State shall have at Least one Representative. At 321.4 million / 435 = 738850. Wyoming wouldn't even get a House member. Vermont wouldn't either.
- noobermin 9y ago
  I suppose the principle of charity would lead us to believe they meant the House is more proportional compared to the Senate.
- jghn 9y ago
  Thus the "supposed to be". A better way to have phrased it would be quasi-proportional. I was suggesting that your beef really should be with the House.
  - CalChris 9y ago
    The Senate represented the States. Senators until the 17th Amendment were appointed by State legislatures. The President was elected by the Electoral College with votes apportioned to the States. House members were popularly elected but only by white men; indeed the 1790 Naturalization Law said that only free white men could vote. Only 6% of the population could vote. This is your original intent. This is your design.
- drewmol 9y ago
  It was intended to continue to grow with population, I copied this from a previous comment of mine bc I'm lazy: "The U.S. Constitution called for at least one Representative per state and that no more than one for every 30,000 persons." [1] The Appointment Act of 1911 and subsequent Permanent Appointment Act of 1929 capped the total number of House congressional representatives at 435 [2], so the degree of seperation between an individual elector and their representative in any given congressional district continues to grow as population increases. This also has an effect on the Electoral College, as it's membership numbers are based on the number of congress persons. Furthermore, I will assume this limit, combined with a growing population will increase the chances of a Presidential Candidate winning election without also winning the national popular vote, as we have seen on multiple occasions in recent decades. [1] http://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1901-1950/The.. http://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1901-1950/The.... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reapportionment_Act_of_1929 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reapportionment_Act_of_1929

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

by 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.
- ouid 9y ago
  People are the only ingredients of states. You don't add water or eggs. The state is equal to the formal sum of its people. Giving states with unequal populations equal representation is equivalent to giving its people disproportionate representation, which is a stupid idea.
  - CalChris 9y ago
    That a Wyoming voter has 66.77 times the Senatorial power of Californian is an extremely stupid idea.
  - baddox 9y ago
    Senators used to be appointed by state legislatures, not the people directly. You can still have valid complaints about that, but it wasn't really an issue of "disproportionate representation" any more than, say, Congress voting to confirm Supreme Court justices or executive cabinet officials.
  - dllthomas 9y ago
    One square mile, one vote!
  - Aloha 9y ago
    Yes. But the needs of a state as a whole may be significantly different than the needs of one congressional district within the state. Consider that historically the Senate has been a voice of moderation to an often much more radical house.
- baddox 9y ago
  The senators used to be elected by the state legislatures.
- CalChris 9y ago
  Senators were chosen by the Legislature thereof. It's not so much a bad idea as it is completely inaccurate.

CalChris 9y ago

No, the House isn't proportional. There is a minimum of one House member per State: each State shall have at Least one Representative. At 321.4 million / 435 = 738850. Wyoming wouldn't even get a House member. Vermont wouldn't either.

noobermin 9y ago
I suppose the principle of charity would lead us to believe they meant the House is more proportional compared to the Senate.
jghn 9y ago
Thus the "supposed to be". A better way to have phrased it would be quasi-proportional. I was suggesting that your beef really should be with the House.
- CalChris 9y ago
  The Senate represented the States. Senators until the 17th Amendment were appointed by State legislatures. The President was elected by the Electoral College with votes apportioned to the States. House members were popularly elected but only by white men; indeed the 1790 Naturalization Law said that only free white men could vote. Only 6% of the population could vote. This is your original intent. This is your design.
drewmol 9y ago
It was intended to continue to grow with population, I copied this from a previous comment of mine bc I'm lazy: "The U.S. Constitution called for at least one Representative per state and that no more than one for every 30,000 persons." [1] The Appointment Act of 1911 and subsequent Permanent Appointment Act of 1929 capped the total number of House congressional representatives at 435 [2], so the degree of seperation between an individual elector and their representative in any given congressional district continues to grow as population increases. This also has an effect on the Electoral College, as it's membership numbers are based on the number of congress persons. Furthermore, I will assume this limit, combined with a growing population will increase the chances of a Presidential Candidate winning election without also winning the national popular vote, as we have seen on multiple occasions in recent decades. [1] http://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1901-1950/The.. http://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1901-1950/The.... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reapportionment_Act_of_1929 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reapportionment_Act_of_1929