4 ms·

The only entities that are guaranteed representation are states. It's not obvious that statehood maps to any other demographic attribute over time. It made sen

The only entities that are guaranteed representation are states. It's not obvious that statehood maps to any other demographic attribute over time. It made sense the ensure states felt they had some guaranteed level of representation in order to get the states to agree to enter, or remain in, the union. But now that it's established precedent that states cannot leave the Union (at least without Congress) it's not clear to me that it's important to guarantee individual states anything.

DoreenMichele 8y ago
I'm trying to comply with HN guidelines and not be snarky here, but, to my ears, that sounds an awful lot like "Now that the states are the bitches of the federal government, they don't need a voice at all." And that doesn't remotely sound like a democratic system to me. It sounds pretty tyrannical.
- 8note 8y ago
  what's democratic about states being guaranteed representation? democracy is about people having a say, not abstract entities
  - DoreenMichele 8y ago
    Funny, the comment I was replying to asserts that only states get representation in the US, not people. Technically, the US is not a true democracy. Our state's speak for us and our state's represent us. This is how a presidential candidate can get less than a majority vote and still be president. There is a term for it -- maybe republic -- but I'm not that awake and can't quite put my finger on it.
    - Semirhage 8y ago
      Indirectly federated republic.
    - dannypgh 8y ago
      But, why? This transfers power to the less populous states and away from the more populous states. What's the point in doing so? The current system creates incentives for states to split in two. What's the point of that? Why is it correct that Rhode Island and Connecticut are two states, and California is one state? It strikes me as an accident of history the number of states we have. It makes sense if states have a real choice about being in the union (as otherwise the small states wouldn't go for it) but without that, what do the big states get out of it?
- scarface74 8y ago
  Knowing the history and the current makeup of the south outside of large metropolitan areas like Atlanta, “states rights” should frighten anyone who is any type of minority.
  - DoreenMichele 8y ago
    Well, I don't know what you mean. Perhaps you could explain your reasoning a bit?
    - jadell 8y ago
      "States' rights" is used as a dogwhistle in the United States for supporting legally protected racial, sexual, and religious discrimination. [edit] In many political circles. In the antebellum era of US history it was used to excuse and defend slavery, and later, Jim Crow laws and segregation. There is a legitimate need for states to protect their rights, but that's not how the phrase has been used historically.
      - jmole 8y ago
        It's also the reason California can pass a net neutrality law. Two sides to every coin.
        dannypgh 8y ago
        I'm pretty sure "subjugation of the population through chattel slavery or Jim Crow" and "net neutrality" are on different coins. That can't be your calculation in deciding whether or not to side with the "state's rights" camp. I am in favor of concentrating power in the hands of the people and have a bias towards local over regional or national. But I won't ignore the reality that many who have pushed for "state's rights" as a term were specifically fighting for the rights of states to oppress minorities. This is why I prefer to express my politics through phrases like "power to the people" and not "power to the states" - when states are undemocratic, they should have no rights.
    - scarface74 8y ago
- TheCoelacanth 8y ago
  Democracy means rule by the people, not rule by the states. How is giving states power in any way democratic?
  - hackeraccount 8y ago
    It's not. Democracy has problems though. The Bill Of Rights is undemocratic. It says that there are some things you can't do even if you can get 50% +1 of the population to agree to it. Federalism is undemocratic when the States interact with the Federal government but the upside is that it's harder a majority to run roughshod over the minority.
    - dannypgh 8y ago
      Democracy is rule by the people. That is not the same as majority rule. Consensus-based decision making (including wiser approaches like consensus-minus-1) requires supermajorities to make decisions, but that does not make them undemocratic... Likewise the amended constitution limits the ability of the Congress to pass certain laws, without amending the constitution first.
RichKatz 8y ago
This discussion of federalism, while interesting, probably ought to be accompanied by a discussion of A) what many people believe are the horrible effects of this and B) in the words of Paul Simon to "measure what we've lost." What we have lost is THE public Internet. The Internet on which companies who started from Y-combinators exist was a public Internet. It could be argued that it still is. There are at least 2 or 3 good arguments first the federal executive branch can't actually "destroy" the public Internet as a matter of policy, but that it ought to require an act of Congress. ARPANet came from an Act of Congress itself. Which may mean that all these acts to "give it away" to ISPs can be legally challenged. From the states point of view, ISPs operate on several public easements. These probably give state and local governments the authority to regulate.

DoreenMichele 8y ago

I'm trying to comply with HN guidelines and not be snarky here, but, to my ears, that sounds an awful lot like "Now that the states are the bitches of the federal government, they don't need a voice at all." And that doesn't remotely sound like a democratic system to me. It sounds pretty tyrannical.

8note 8y ago
what's democratic about states being guaranteed representation? democracy is about people having a say, not abstract entities
- DoreenMichele 8y ago
  Funny, the comment I was replying to asserts that only states get representation in the US, not people. Technically, the US is not a true democracy. Our state's speak for us and our state's represent us. This is how a presidential candidate can get less than a majority vote and still be president. There is a term for it -- maybe republic -- but I'm not that awake and can't quite put my finger on it.
  - Semirhage 8y ago
    Indirectly federated republic.
  - dannypgh 8y ago
    But, why? This transfers power to the less populous states and away from the more populous states. What's the point in doing so? The current system creates incentives for states to split in two. What's the point of that? Why is it correct that Rhode Island and Connecticut are two states, and California is one state? It strikes me as an accident of history the number of states we have. It makes sense if states have a real choice about being in the union (as otherwise the small states wouldn't go for it) but without that, what do the big states get out of it?
scarface74 8y ago
Knowing the history and the current makeup of the south outside of large metropolitan areas like Atlanta, “states rights” should frighten anyone who is any type of minority.
- DoreenMichele 8y ago
  Well, I don't know what you mean. Perhaps you could explain your reasoning a bit?
  - jadell 8y ago
    "States' rights" is used as a dogwhistle in the United States for supporting legally protected racial, sexual, and religious discrimination. [edit] In many political circles. In the antebellum era of US history it was used to excuse and defend slavery, and later, Jim Crow laws and segregation. There is a legitimate need for states to protect their rights, but that's not how the phrase has been used historically.
    - jmole 8y ago
      It's also the reason California can pass a net neutrality law. Two sides to every coin.
      - dannypgh 8y ago
        I'm pretty sure "subjugation of the population through chattel slavery or Jim Crow" and "net neutrality" are on different coins. That can't be your calculation in deciding whether or not to side with the "state's rights" camp. I am in favor of concentrating power in the hands of the people and have a bias towards local over regional or national. But I won't ignore the reality that many who have pushed for "state's rights" as a term were specifically fighting for the rights of states to oppress minorities. This is why I prefer to express my politics through phrases like "power to the people" and not "power to the states" - when states are undemocratic, they should have no rights.
  - scarface74 8y ago
TheCoelacanth 8y ago
Democracy means rule by the people, not rule by the states. How is giving states power in any way democratic?
- hackeraccount 8y ago
  It's not. Democracy has problems though. The Bill Of Rights is undemocratic. It says that there are some things you can't do even if you can get 50% +1 of the population to agree to it. Federalism is undemocratic when the States interact with the Federal government but the upside is that it's harder a majority to run roughshod over the minority.
  - dannypgh 8y ago
    Democracy is rule by the people. That is not the same as majority rule. Consensus-based decision making (including wiser approaches like consensus-minus-1) requires supermajorities to make decisions, but that does not make them undemocratic... Likewise the amended constitution limits the ability of the Congress to pass certain laws, without amending the constitution first.

RichKatz 8y ago

This discussion of federalism, while interesting, probably ought to be accompanied by a discussion of A) what many people believe are the horrible effects of this and B) in the words of Paul Simon to "measure what we've lost." What we have lost is THE public Internet. The Internet on which companies who started from Y-combinators exist was a public Internet. It could be argued that it still is. There are at least 2 or 3 good arguments first the federal executive branch can't actually "destroy" the public Internet as a matter of policy, but that it ought to require an act of Congress. ARPANet came from an Act of Congress itself. Which may mean that all these acts to "give it away" to ISPs can be legally challenged. From the states point of view, ISPs operate on several public easements. These probably give state and local governments the authority to regulate.