5 ms·

This is by design of course. The United States is a confederation of states...geographical balancing against population density was the Great Compromise. That

This is by design of course. The United States is a confederation of states...geographical balancing against population density was the Great Compromise. That people are surprised or shocked by this reveals how poor our civics education has become. https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/A_Great_Compromise.htm https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/A_Great_...

chillwaves 7y ago
Has become? People are more educated than ever, and mostly what you hear about is people complaining because the current system is unjust, not because they are "shocked " to learn it exists. When you balance representation against population, the gulf is vast and only growing. This is a compromise that made sense in the 18th century, not the 21st. Ignore it at your peril.
- techsupporter 7y ago
  > This is a compromise that made sense in the 18th century, not the 21st. Exactly! People act like our[0] Constitution is some inviolable, sacrosanct tome with words that must be revered and held close, unchanging and unchanged forever. Yet they seem to skip that we've modified the thing TWENTY EIGHT TIMES and that every Much Revered Framer(tm) anticipated that we'd not only change it as often as needed, we would very likely scrap the whole thing and do it again every few generations. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, that mandates that the compromises, adjustments, and tweaks our nation's founders made must persist beyond tomorrow, except our own collective will to not bother with or to actively resist change. It's why I very much enjoy hearing at least one of the major parties actively talk about modification of the Electoral College or the makeup of the Supreme Court or how the legislative bodies of our nation operate. Maybe their ideas are good ones, maybe they're not, but the one thing we MUST NOT DO is shy away from a willingness to keep our country's governance current. 0 - By "our," I mean the collection of people who are citizens of the United States of America. Other nations can and do amend their nations' basic laws as they see fit.
omegaworks 7y ago
>geographical balancing against population density was the Great Compromise That's flowery language to disguise what was essentially a pact between wealthy industrialists and slavers. It's long past time to dismantle that "compromise."
- srj 7y ago
  From what I recall being taught it was to get the smaller states on board. These weren't necessarily slave states (e.g. Rhode Island). It's been effective. If presidential elections were just driven by popular vote candidates would only campaign in the top population centers. Entire regions of the country would be ignored.
  - astura 7y ago
    >If presidential elections were just driven by popular vote candidates would only campaign in the top population centers. Entire regions of the country would be ignored. This is definitely 100% false; this goes against the mathematical population distribution of the United States. The top 100 biggest cities in the United States combined only make up less than 20% of the population. But even if it were true, it's not any different than the current status quo where candidates simply only campaign in "swing states," ignoring the vast majority of the rest of the Unites States. In fact, it would be better, because more Americans live in population centers than they do swing states. https://youtu.be/7wC42HgLA4k?t=108 https://youtu.be/7wC42HgLA4k?t=108 The other problems: Many people who live in solidly blue or solidly red states don't even bother voting for president - they know their vote doesn't matter. I know this because I've literally heard people say it. This it not even considering electoral college also entirely ignores 4 million Americans because they live in territories, not states.
    - srj 7y ago
      Late reply, but your math about the top population areas doesn't seem right. Are you looking at just city populations? I don't think that's an accurate picture. For example, the population of Boston is around 685,000 but you add in the surrounding suburbs and it's 4.8 million.

chillwaves 7y ago

Has become? People are more educated than ever, and mostly what you hear about is people complaining because the current system is unjust, not because they are "shocked " to learn it exists. When you balance representation against population, the gulf is vast and only growing. This is a compromise that made sense in the 18th century, not the 21st. Ignore it at your peril.

techsupporter 7y ago
> This is a compromise that made sense in the 18th century, not the 21st. Exactly! People act like our[0] Constitution is some inviolable, sacrosanct tome with words that must be revered and held close, unchanging and unchanged forever. Yet they seem to skip that we've modified the thing TWENTY EIGHT TIMES and that every Much Revered Framer(tm) anticipated that we'd not only change it as often as needed, we would very likely scrap the whole thing and do it again every few generations. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, that mandates that the compromises, adjustments, and tweaks our nation's founders made must persist beyond tomorrow, except our own collective will to not bother with or to actively resist change. It's why I very much enjoy hearing at least one of the major parties actively talk about modification of the Electoral College or the makeup of the Supreme Court or how the legislative bodies of our nation operate. Maybe their ideas are good ones, maybe they're not, but the one thing we MUST NOT DO is shy away from a willingness to keep our country's governance current. 0 - By "our," I mean the collection of people who are citizens of the United States of America. Other nations can and do amend their nations' basic laws as they see fit.

omegaworks 7y ago

>geographical balancing against population density was the Great Compromise That's flowery language to disguise what was essentially a pact between wealthy industrialists and slavers. It's long past time to dismantle that "compromise."

srj 7y ago
From what I recall being taught it was to get the smaller states on board. These weren't necessarily slave states (e.g. Rhode Island). It's been effective. If presidential elections were just driven by popular vote candidates would only campaign in the top population centers. Entire regions of the country would be ignored.
- astura 7y ago
  >If presidential elections were just driven by popular vote candidates would only campaign in the top population centers. Entire regions of the country would be ignored. This is definitely 100% false; this goes against the mathematical population distribution of the United States. The top 100 biggest cities in the United States combined only make up less than 20% of the population. But even if it were true, it's not any different than the current status quo where candidates simply only campaign in "swing states," ignoring the vast majority of the rest of the Unites States. In fact, it would be better, because more Americans live in population centers than they do swing states. https://youtu.be/7wC42HgLA4k?t=108 https://youtu.be/7wC42HgLA4k?t=108 The other problems: Many people who live in solidly blue or solidly red states don't even bother voting for president - they know their vote doesn't matter. I know this because I've literally heard people say it. This it not even considering electoral college also entirely ignores 4 million Americans because they live in territories, not states.
  - srj 7y ago
    Late reply, but your math about the top population areas doesn't seem right. Are you looking at just city populations? I don't think that's an accurate picture. For example, the population of Boston is around 685,000 but you add in the surrounding suburbs and it's 4.8 million.