3 ms·
Economic activity would be a bad choice to tie to representation from perverse incentives. It would encourage outright sabotaging other states to preserve powe
by 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.
- logfromblammo 7y agoIt doesn't have to be a good choice; it just has to be better than "two per state, no matter what". The perverse incentive there encourages secession, state-splitting, endless intractable battles over Puerto Rican statehood or DC representation, and engineering politics at the state level to influence interstate migrations based partly on political views on national issues. I.e. Colorado decriminalizes recreational cannabis, and Alabama recriminalizes abortion. Lefties are incentivized to move from AL to CO, and righties the reverse. Everybody who voted Doug Jones leaves for literally greener pastures, and mall-menace Roy Moore wins the seat. (Anecdotally, one of my co-workers is moving to Denver, and I have realized I am envious.) It further incentivizes politically competitive states to do anything for just 0.1% of the vote, because that might just be the margin that gets you all the power, for six whole years, on election day.