5 ms·

Electoral college is for the presidency. But the political power discrepancy between rural and urban areas is quite stark in other branches of government. For

Electoral college is for the presidency. But the political power discrepancy between rural and urban areas is quite stark in other branches of government. For example: Right now in the US there are 2 senators from each state. California with a population of over 39 million has 2 senators, Alaska with a population around 700,000 also has 2 senators.

flyingfences 7y ago
That was the explicit purpose of the Senate: each state is equal in the union. Senators weren't even supposed to represent the state's people; they represented the state itself up until the misguided Seventeenth Amendment. Representation proportional to the population is the purpose of the House - that's why our government has two chambers.
- NoodleIncident 7y ago
  This is a flawed argument, because the House isn't proportional to population, either. It's _still_ weighted towards smaller, emptier states.
  - GeekyBear 7y ago
    All states get at least one House member. Should some states have zero?
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      No, but the total number should not have been fixed in 1929 to stop continued increase (and thereby accelerate inequality in representation.)
  - LargeWu 7y ago
    Also, the two chambers are not equal. The Senate is very clearly the upper chamber.
    - flyingfences 7y ago
      Spatial metaphors are not illustrative. Please give some examples of what you mean.
      - NeoBasilisk 7y ago
        The Senate alone has the power to confirm every judge in the entire judicial branch. The House has absolutely no say in any of that.
      - UncleMeat 7y ago
        The Senate is who convicts impeached officials. They approve judges and cabinet appointments.
      - wmgries 7y ago
        This isn't a spatial metaphor any more than "upperclassmen" and "underclassmen" are for high schools or "left" and "right" are for politics. We call it the "upper" chamber because it's supposed to be the higher status, more "dignified" chamber. Words have histories of course, and probably at one point this was a spatial metaphor - maybe some bicameral legislature literally did have one of their higher status body on a different floor than their lower status body. But the words upper and lower when applied to the legislative branch have evolved since then.
    - ben509 7y ago
      The House is the chamber with actual power, while the Senate was intended to act as a check on the House and the executive. That's why the 17th amendment made such a mess: they were supposed to represent state interests, and especially having a balanced budget is much more a state interest than a popular interest. In particular, for any bill requiring spending, the Senate can only amend a bill that started in the House. Impeachment must start in the house and is then tried in the Senate. The Senate can't nominate someone to office, they can only confirm a nominee presented by the executive.
- fintechpwmMEdev 7y ago
  Misguided? Are you saying you want to go back to when your state's House Reps decided your state's Senators? I understand our federal politics are a complete mess but think that has more to do to equating money with freedom of speech, the great return on campaign donations, the polarization of our media and the lack of solid non-partisan research institutes that our elected leaders can rely upon. Have you ever watched CSPAN? Our leaders routinely become informed about the world around us through the same mass media as we do.
  - dwighttk 7y ago
    >Are you saying you want to go back to when your state's House Reps decided your state's Senators? I would not mind that
    - danek 7y ago
      This would give even more power to special interests, as they only need to influence a governor (or a small number of state reps) to get their senate choice, rather than all the voters in the state. I can’t see why that’s better, since at least now senators have to pretend to represent constituents.
      - dwighttk 7y ago
        oh good... pretending to represent constituents... holding the bulwark against special interests.
        danek 7y ago
        Maybe you could explain how your position improves upon this...
hoorayimhelping 7y ago
>For example: Right now in the US there are 2 senators from each state. California with a population of over 39 million has 2 senators, Alaska with a population around 700,000 also has 2 senators. This is why we have the House of Representatives, which is based on population. California has 53 representatives, Alaska has one. The original idea as I understand it, before the 17th amendment, was that the Senate was supposed to represent the interests of the states, hence two senators from each equally represented state. While the House was supposed to represent the interests of the residents of those states.
- chillwaves 7y ago
  It's still not proportional. Life the limit of Representatives in the house. It was passed by simple law, it can be repealed by simple law. Make it proportional and you will have an argument, though not a great one because the Senate has more power than the House based on judicial appointments alone.
eunoia 7y ago
> Alaska with a population around 700,000 also has 2 senators As does: 1. Wyoming (Population: 572,381) 2. Vermont (Population: 627,180) 3. Alaska (Population: 735,720) 4. North Dakota (Population: 760,900) 5. South Dakota (Population: 892,631) 6. Delaware (Population: 975,033) 7. Rhode Island (Population: 1,056,738) 8. Montana (Population: 1,074,532) 9. Maine (Population: 1,342,097) 10. New Hampshire (Population: 1,363,852) These states combined control 20% of the Senate with a roughly combined population of 10 million people. That's only 25% the population of California alone, or 3% of the total country. Now obviously the Senate/House power balance was designed with this in mind. But the House hasn't reapportioned representation by population in a century. Seems to me like the American democratic system has a very large bias for rural voters, especially when you consider where in the country presidential campaigns start every 4 years.
- peapicker 7y ago
  "But the House hasn't reapportioned representation by population in a century." Not sure where you live, but since 1914 in Colorado: 1914 - four representatives 1973 - five representatives 1983 - six representatives 2003 - seven representatives So clearly seats are added as population changes in a state. See also: https://www.insightsassociation.org/article/states-expected-gain-or-lose-congressional-seats-after-2020-census https://www.insightsassociation.org/article/states-expected-...
  - eunoia 7y ago
    I stand corrected. Feeling particularly silly as I’m from Colorado and probably should have known that.
  - jonathankoren 7y ago
    No. 385 are redistributed, which still enforces unequal representation, as states with less population than some territories have more purchasing power in the House. For example, Wyoming get a rep for 500,000 people, but everyone else has to pay 700,000 people. To truly remedy this situation in the House, you have to bring the House up to about 930. https://time.com/5423623/house-representatives-number-seats/ https://time.com/5423623/house-representatives-number-seats/
GeekyBear 7y ago
All states get one electoral college vote for each member of Congress they have. All states have two Senators and at least one member of the House, with additional House members based on their population. This is why California (with it's large population) has 55 electoral college votes, while Alaska only gets the default minimum of three.
felipemnoa 7y ago
>>For example: Right now in the US there are 2 senators from each state. California with a population of over 39 million has 2 senators, Alaska with a population around 700,000 also has 2 senators. This was all by design. The smaller states would not have joined the union if it mean that the bigger states would monopolize all the power.
- gnulinux 7y ago
  Yes but maybe we can reform the system to make US more democratic. This question is about why this has been this way, rather it's about whether it's worth to change it even it was originally justified. Are people in Wyoming willing to leave the union if their votes are exactly equal to Californians?
  - CompanionCuuube 7y ago
    And the other question: Are people in California willing to leave the union if their votes are not exactly equal to Wyoming's?
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

flyingfences 7y ago

That was the explicit purpose of the Senate: each state is equal in the union. Senators weren't even supposed to represent the state's people; they represented the state itself up until the misguided Seventeenth Amendment. Representation proportional to the population is the purpose of the House - that's why our government has two chambers.

NoodleIncident 7y ago
This is a flawed argument, because the House isn't proportional to population, either. It's _still_ weighted towards smaller, emptier states.
- GeekyBear 7y ago
  All states get at least one House member. Should some states have zero?
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    No, but the total number should not have been fixed in 1929 to stop continued increase (and thereby accelerate inequality in representation.)
- LargeWu 7y ago
  Also, the two chambers are not equal. The Senate is very clearly the upper chamber.
  - flyingfences 7y ago
    Spatial metaphors are not illustrative. Please give some examples of what you mean.
    - NeoBasilisk 7y ago
      The Senate alone has the power to confirm every judge in the entire judicial branch. The House has absolutely no say in any of that.
    - UncleMeat 7y ago
      The Senate is who convicts impeached officials. They approve judges and cabinet appointments.
    - wmgries 7y ago
      This isn't a spatial metaphor any more than "upperclassmen" and "underclassmen" are for high schools or "left" and "right" are for politics. We call it the "upper" chamber because it's supposed to be the higher status, more "dignified" chamber. Words have histories of course, and probably at one point this was a spatial metaphor - maybe some bicameral legislature literally did have one of their higher status body on a different floor than their lower status body. But the words upper and lower when applied to the legislative branch have evolved since then.
  - ben509 7y ago
    The House is the chamber with actual power, while the Senate was intended to act as a check on the House and the executive. That's why the 17th amendment made such a mess: they were supposed to represent state interests, and especially having a balanced budget is much more a state interest than a popular interest. In particular, for any bill requiring spending, the Senate can only amend a bill that started in the House. Impeachment must start in the house and is then tried in the Senate. The Senate can't nominate someone to office, they can only confirm a nominee presented by the executive.
fintechpwmMEdev 7y ago
Misguided? Are you saying you want to go back to when your state's House Reps decided your state's Senators? I understand our federal politics are a complete mess but think that has more to do to equating money with freedom of speech, the great return on campaign donations, the polarization of our media and the lack of solid non-partisan research institutes that our elected leaders can rely upon. Have you ever watched CSPAN? Our leaders routinely become informed about the world around us through the same mass media as we do.
- dwighttk 7y ago
  >Are you saying you want to go back to when your state's House Reps decided your state's Senators? I would not mind that
  - danek 7y ago
    This would give even more power to special interests, as they only need to influence a governor (or a small number of state reps) to get their senate choice, rather than all the voters in the state. I can’t see why that’s better, since at least now senators have to pretend to represent constituents.
    - dwighttk 7y ago
      oh good... pretending to represent constituents... holding the bulwark against special interests.
      - danek 7y ago
        Maybe you could explain how your position improves upon this...

hoorayimhelping 7y ago

>For example: Right now in the US there are 2 senators from each state. California with a population of over 39 million has 2 senators, Alaska with a population around 700,000 also has 2 senators. This is why we have the House of Representatives, which is based on population. California has 53 representatives, Alaska has one. The original idea as I understand it, before the 17th amendment, was that the Senate was supposed to represent the interests of the states, hence two senators from each equally represented state. While the House was supposed to represent the interests of the residents of those states.

chillwaves 7y ago
It's still not proportional. Life the limit of Representatives in the house. It was passed by simple law, it can be repealed by simple law. Make it proportional and you will have an argument, though not a great one because the Senate has more power than the House based on judicial appointments alone.

eunoia 7y ago

> Alaska with a population around 700,000 also has 2 senators As does: 1. Wyoming (Population: 572,381) 2. Vermont (Population: 627,180) 3. Alaska (Population: 735,720) 4. North Dakota (Population: 760,900) 5. South Dakota (Population: 892,631) 6. Delaware (Population: 975,033) 7. Rhode Island (Population: 1,056,738) 8. Montana (Population: 1,074,532) 9. Maine (Population: 1,342,097) 10. New Hampshire (Population: 1,363,852) These states combined control 20% of the Senate with a roughly combined population of 10 million people. That's only 25% the population of California alone, or 3% of the total country. Now obviously the Senate/House power balance was designed with this in mind. But the House hasn't reapportioned representation by population in a century. Seems to me like the American democratic system has a very large bias for rural voters, especially when you consider where in the country presidential campaigns start every 4 years.

peapicker 7y ago
"But the House hasn't reapportioned representation by population in a century." Not sure where you live, but since 1914 in Colorado: 1914 - four representatives 1973 - five representatives 1983 - six representatives 2003 - seven representatives So clearly seats are added as population changes in a state. See also: https://www.insightsassociation.org/article/states-expected-gain-or-lose-congressional-seats-after-2020-census https://www.insightsassociation.org/article/states-expected-...
- eunoia 7y ago
  I stand corrected. Feeling particularly silly as I’m from Colorado and probably should have known that.
- jonathankoren 7y ago
  No. 385 are redistributed, which still enforces unequal representation, as states with less population than some territories have more purchasing power in the House. For example, Wyoming get a rep for 500,000 people, but everyone else has to pay 700,000 people. To truly remedy this situation in the House, you have to bring the House up to about 930. https://time.com/5423623/house-representatives-number-seats/ https://time.com/5423623/house-representatives-number-seats/

GeekyBear 7y ago

All states get one electoral college vote for each member of Congress they have. All states have two Senators and at least one member of the House, with additional House members based on their population. This is why California (with it's large population) has 55 electoral college votes, while Alaska only gets the default minimum of three.

felipemnoa 7y ago

>>For example: Right now in the US there are 2 senators from each state. California with a population of over 39 million has 2 senators, Alaska with a population around 700,000 also has 2 senators. This was all by design. The smaller states would not have joined the union if it mean that the bigger states would monopolize all the power.

gnulinux 7y ago
Yes but maybe we can reform the system to make US more democratic. This question is about why this has been this way, rather it's about whether it's worth to change it even it was originally justified. Are people in Wyoming willing to leave the union if their votes are exactly equal to Californians?
- CompanionCuuube 7y ago
  And the other question: Are people in California willing to leave the union if their votes are not exactly equal to Wyoming's?

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]