3 ms·

I don't think the disparity was expected and doubt the founders would conclude that sparsely populated states with very little economy should lead an entire bra

I don't think the disparity was expected and doubt the founders would conclude that sparsely populated states with very little economy should lead an entire branch. This is certainly not working.

mdorazio 7y ago
Had to look up the stats on this. Around the time the constitution was written, about 5% of the US population lived in cities. It's over 80% today. I think the intent of having the Senate represent the states equally regardless of population was a good one, but the massive shift in demographics over the last 200 years probably merits a different approach. I don't think going strictly by population density is the best approach either, though - that's a good way to completely alienate millions of Americans. Remember that the two branches of Congress were setup like this to force urban and rural communities to work together and compromise. The problem now is that tribalism has become so rampant on both sides that compromise no longer really happens.
- peteradio 7y ago
  What was the economy difference between founding states? I don't care about rural urban divide. I care about states that can effectively be purchased by a rich individual having same say as states with country sized economies. At the time of founding individual states were bringing something to the table.
  - mdorazio 7y ago
    We could look at state-level GDP as one measure, but I don't think it's as clear-cut as you think - see [1]. There's a significant amount of money in farming, livestock, and manufacturing, which tend to cluster in "cheap" states. I think you make a good point about concentration of wealth at the state level, though. There's probably a case to be made that rural states are more susceptible to control by a few individuals/corporations that make up large segments of the state's economic output. It's worth noting that economic inequality is usually higher in states with bigger economies, though [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_GDP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_Gini_coefficient https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_Gini_co...
logfromblammo 7y ago
How about representation proportional to economic activity instead of the quantity of state-ness being one or zero? With guaranteed representation of at least one seat, so the representation turns out to be slightly skewed against the powerhouses. Also note that Puerto Rico and Washington DC earn their seat by virtue of having enough economic activity, rather than by default. "Seats" is senate seats per state; "rep" is proportion of total representation; "econ" is proportion of total economic activity. I picked 150 for the total number of seats to make the rep vs. econ gap narrower, but not so much as to make the poorest 25 completely irrelevant. state seats rep econ --------------------------------- California 20 13.3% 14.5% Texas 12 8.0% 8.7% New York 11 7.3% 8.2% Florida 7 4.7% 5.1% Illinois 6 4.0% 4.2% PA OH }- 5 6.7% 7.1% NJ GA WA MA NC }- 4 18.7% 19.5% VA MI } MD CO MN TN IN }- 3 10.0% 9.2% AZ WI MI CT LA }- 2 10.7% 10.7% OR SC AL } KY OK IA UT KS } NV DC AK NE MS } PR NM HI NH WV }- 1 16.7% 12.5% ID DE ME RI ND } AK SD MO WY VT } island terr. }- 0 0.0% 0.1% --------------------------------- Total 150
- peteradio 7y ago
  What is column 1 and 2 with the numbers?
  - fwip 7y ago
    The first number column is "seats per state". The second number column is "combined percentage of representatives" - PA and OH each have 5 representatives, so combined they have (5+5)/150 = 6.7% of the representation. The third column is, I presume, the percentage of economic activity (GDP?) totaled among those states.
- Nasrudith 7y ago
  Economic activity would be a bad choice to tie to representation from perverse incentives. It would encourage outright sabotaging other states to preserve power when it would be more optimal to go with national net economic output instead of "best for my region". Essentially the same issues as regulatory capture but worse. It is also why auctioning off positions of power for fundraising would be a terrible idea - it encourages the biggest vested interest to buy it up and exploit it at the cost of everyone else.
slowmovintarget 7y ago
The disparity was expected and that is part of the reason that the House of Representatives is based on population.

I don't think the disparity was expected and doubt the founders would conclude that sparsely populated states with very little economy should lead an entire branch. This is certainly not working.

mdorazio 7y ago

Had to look up the stats on this. Around the time the constitution was written, about 5% of the US population lived in cities. It's over 80% today. I think the intent of having the Senate represent the states equally regardless of population was a good one, but the massive shift in demographics over the last 200 years probably merits a different approach. I don't think going strictly by population density is the best approach either, though - that's a good way to completely alienate millions of Americans. Remember that the two branches of Congress were setup like this to force urban and rural communities to work together and compromise. The problem now is that tribalism has become so rampant on both sides that compromise no longer really happens.

peteradio 7y ago
What was the economy difference between founding states? I don't care about rural urban divide. I care about states that can effectively be purchased by a rich individual having same say as states with country sized economies. At the time of founding individual states were bringing something to the table.
- mdorazio 7y ago
  We could look at state-level GDP as one measure, but I don't think it's as clear-cut as you think - see [1]. There's a significant amount of money in farming, livestock, and manufacturing, which tend to cluster in "cheap" states. I think you make a good point about concentration of wealth at the state level, though. There's probably a case to be made that rural states are more susceptible to control by a few individuals/corporations that make up large segments of the state's economic output. It's worth noting that economic inequality is usually higher in states with bigger economies, though [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_GDP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_Gini_coefficient https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_Gini_co...

logfromblammo 7y ago

How about representation proportional to economic activity instead of the quantity of state-ness being one or zero? With guaranteed representation of at least one seat, so the representation turns out to be slightly skewed against the powerhouses. Also note that Puerto Rico and Washington DC earn their seat by virtue of having enough economic activity, rather than by default. "Seats" is senate seats per state; "rep" is proportion of total representation; "econ" is proportion of total economic activity. I picked 150 for the total number of seats to make the rep vs. econ gap narrower, but not so much as to make the poorest 25 completely irrelevant. state seats rep econ --------------------------------- California 20 13.3% 14.5% Texas 12 8.0% 8.7% New York 11 7.3% 8.2% Florida 7 4.7% 5.1% Illinois 6 4.0% 4.2% PA OH }- 5 6.7% 7.1% NJ GA WA MA NC }- 4 18.7% 19.5% VA MI } MD CO MN TN IN }- 3 10.0% 9.2% AZ WI MI CT LA }- 2 10.7% 10.7% OR SC AL } KY OK IA UT KS } NV DC AK NE MS } PR NM HI NH WV }- 1 16.7% 12.5% ID DE ME RI ND } AK SD MO WY VT } island terr. }- 0 0.0% 0.1% --------------------------------- Total 150

peteradio 7y ago
What is column 1 and 2 with the numbers?
- fwip 7y ago
  The first number column is "seats per state". The second number column is "combined percentage of representatives" - PA and OH each have 5 representatives, so combined they have (5+5)/150 = 6.7% of the representation. The third column is, I presume, the percentage of economic activity (GDP?) totaled among those states.
Nasrudith 7y ago
Economic activity would be a bad choice to tie to representation from perverse incentives. It would encourage outright sabotaging other states to preserve power when it would be more optimal to go with national net economic output instead of "best for my region". Essentially the same issues as regulatory capture but worse. It is also why auctioning off positions of power for fundraising would be a terrible idea - it encourages the biggest vested interest to buy it up and exploit it at the cost of everyone else.

slowmovintarget 7y ago

The disparity was expected and that is part of the reason that the House of Representatives is based on population.