3 ms·
> Small states are slightly overrepresented in the House, radically overrepresented in the Senate and in judging electoral votes, and overrepresented at a level
by eiaoa 8y ago
> Small states are slightly overrepresented in the House, radically overrepresented in the Senate and in judging electoral votes, and overrepresented at a level between those two in the Electoral College.
It's only over-representation if representation must only be proportional to population.
> There's no real compromise or two-sided balance there.
There is a compromise and a two-sided balance: in the House, big states are "radically over-represented" because of their large populations; in the Senate, small-state individuals are "radically over-represented" because they're divided into more states per capita. Big states/urban areas have the power to block in the House, small states have the power to block in the Senate. The balance is that both sides have enough concentrated power that they're forced to compromise and cooperate or nothing can get done.
- TheCoelacanth 8y ago> It's only over-representation if representation must only be proportional to population. Right, it's only over-representation if you believe that all men are created equal.
- eiaoa 8y ago>> It's only over-representation if representation must only be proportional to population. > Right, it's only over-representation if you believe that all men are created equal. You're being glib and forgetting important concepts like the tyranny of the majority, etc.
- TheCoelacanth 8y agoBecause tyranny of the minority is much better...
- eiaoa 8y ago> Because tyranny of the minority is much better... That comment is basically a repetition of your last one with no further explanation or elaboration. It's pretty clear that you have the opinion that political representation should only be proportional to population and that all other systems are bad. We can't have a discussion if you don't want to engage other ideas.
- dragonwriter 8y agoOverrepresentation of select groups doesn't prevent tyranny of the majority, it makes it more likely (and tilts which majority is likely to enjoy it), and even makes tyranny of the minority possible. Tyranny of the majority can only be prevented by establishing norms that limit what government can do even with support of majorities in representative institutions either as absolute norms or with some things requiring a higher bar than a one-time majority (bicameralism with both houses not being elected fully simultaneously does this, requiring concurrence between branches does this, supermajority requirements for certain actions does this, Constitutional limitations with amendments requiring supermajorities of states even after legislative passage do this.)