5 ms·

(I assume you're referring to the Senate and not the House, which does do somewhat population-based apportionment) The two-assembly structure exists because it

(I assume you're referring to the Senate and not the House, which does do somewhat population-based apportionment) The two-assembly structure exists because it was a compromise to not give the densely-populated states all the power in the new Republic. Crucially, this sort of compromise was important because it helped the less-populated states get on board with the whole "federal government" concept without fearing that power over their own affairs would be continually swamped by places like New York. "Land" gets voting rights because those who were in charge of that land (the state legislators) wanted it in order to sign onto the project. This is why I find the modern media complaints trying to do away with such structures very troubling. It may be more vestigial at this point, but the setup was supposed to emphasize a collection of states rather than mere administrative subdivisions of a faraway government. Frankly, if there would be any change to the state-based system for senators, it should come with a free ability for smaller states to secede as a group; because it would be going back on the deal.

aclimatt 8y ago
Correct. However one of the key differences is that when the Republic was established, per the Constitution, States' Rights were a primary aspect of legislation. The federal government had very little power and very few laws compared to today. Most laws existed on a state-by-state basis. The USA of the late 1700s was really more like the EU than it is today. And that's why New Hampshire needed senators. New Hampshire needed to ensure that it could still get the things it needed from the federal government (presumably money in most cases) to make New Hampshire a good place to live. That's why land has voting rights -- New Hampshire (using it as an example for all less-populated rural states) used to be a lot more sovereign. Now things have changed. New Hampshire isn't just ensuring that it gets the resources it needs. Because most laws in the US are now enacted on a federal level, New Hampshire is deciding implicitly how /other/ states behave. And this is the problem, and is clearly against the intent of the Constitution ("any power not explicitly granted to the federal government will be left to the states"). So, the bicameral legislature as designed made sense. But in its current context, it's fundamentally broken. If we want to return it back to its original intent, then it's time to get back to a period of States' Rights.
- ende 8y ago
  “most laws in the US are now enacted on a federal level” That’s simply not factually true.
  - hackeraccount 8y ago
    Factually false but effectively true? I understand what's trying to be gotten at with the statement but it's not exactly laws per se. It's more a power dynamic but quantifying that is a bit tricky.
TheCoelacanth 8y ago
The original 13 states plus Vermont and Texas should have that option because it would be going back on the deal with those states when they voluntarily joined the country. The other states should not because they were created by act of Congress out of territory that was already part of the US. There was never any deal made with those states.

aclimatt 8y ago

Correct. However one of the key differences is that when the Republic was established, per the Constitution, States' Rights were a primary aspect of legislation. The federal government had very little power and very few laws compared to today. Most laws existed on a state-by-state basis. The USA of the late 1700s was really more like the EU than it is today. And that's why New Hampshire needed senators. New Hampshire needed to ensure that it could still get the things it needed from the federal government (presumably money in most cases) to make New Hampshire a good place to live. That's why land has voting rights -- New Hampshire (using it as an example for all less-populated rural states) used to be a lot more sovereign. Now things have changed. New Hampshire isn't just ensuring that it gets the resources it needs. Because most laws in the US are now enacted on a federal level, New Hampshire is deciding implicitly how /other/ states behave. And this is the problem, and is clearly against the intent of the Constitution ("any power not explicitly granted to the federal government will be left to the states"). So, the bicameral legislature as designed made sense. But in its current context, it's fundamentally broken. If we want to return it back to its original intent, then it's time to get back to a period of States' Rights.

ende 8y ago
“most laws in the US are now enacted on a federal level” That’s simply not factually true.
- hackeraccount 8y ago
  Factually false but effectively true? I understand what's trying to be gotten at with the statement but it's not exactly laws per se. It's more a power dynamic but quantifying that is a bit tricky.

TheCoelacanth 8y ago

The original 13 states plus Vermont and Texas should have that option because it would be going back on the deal with those states when they voluntarily joined the country. The other states should not because they were created by act of Congress out of territory that was already part of the US. There was never any deal made with those states.