4 ms·

I feel like the bigger problem than the electoral college is the senate. I think it’s pretty crazy California and Texas have the same number of senate votes as

I feel like the bigger problem than the electoral college is the senate. I think it’s pretty crazy California and Texas have the same number of senate votes as Rhode Island. It made sense at the time and we do have a house to nominally balance that out. But nowadays it just makes some people’s votes count for a lot more than others.

smsm42 7y ago
Why is it crazy? Do you know the UN? Is it weird that countries like Benin or Qatar or Moldova have same vote in the UN general assembly as China or India or USA?
- tekkk 7y ago
  Yet in the EU parliament each country gets representatives proportionate to their size and the positions in the EU commission are filled basically how the larger countries decide? So your analogue doesn't really hold and frankly, just because UN (which gives their largest members veto-power), has one country one vote system, it's quite a stretch to extrapolate that to mean it would be a good fit for national governments too. Or how would you feel if some rural area in your home country got the same amount of votes than the whole capital? Would make perfect sense, right? But all in all, they are so different organizations serving very different purposes that comparing them isn't even that useful.
  - jpollock 7y ago
    The EU is more complex than that, there's the European Council, which is not proportional to population (made up of the heads of state, like the original US Senate). The Council is involved in foreign affairs, particularly trade agreements. This is why Belgium had a veto over the Canada/EU trade agreement. In particular, it was Wallonia's PM who held the veto because Belgium devolved that power. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/24/eu-trade-deal-with-canada-collapses-as-belgium-refuses-to-sign https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/24/eu-trade-deal-...
  - smsm42 7y ago
    > So your analogue doesn't really hold I think you miss the idea of how analogies work. If I say "the Moon is affected by Earth gravity just like an apple that falls down is" then if you way "but if I put an apple underwater then it'd flow up instead!" that doesn't mean my analogy didn't work. That means you are talking about different things that are outside of what analogy is about. The fact that EU didn't choose equal representation for member countries and as the result minor countries are powerless is exactly why minor states in the US do not want such arrangement. Just as with an example above about the apple, your counter-example does not disprove existence of gravity - or flaws in proportional representation between sovereign states - it in fact supports it, you just fail to see how. > Or how would you feel if some rural area in your home country got the same amount of votes than the whole capital? If that's the arrangement that is the condition of the union between the rural area and the capital - perfectly normal. I know Bill Gates has much more shares of Microsoft than I do and I don't feel bad about it. Why should I feel bad about those things?
- threatofrain 7y ago
  Why choose the UN whose story is one of inefficacy and being propped up by US power and money? The UN’s relevance has faded and nobody is optimistic for its resurgence. From that context we speak of sensible organizational practices? The fact is the idea that somebody born somewhere else has way more power has a smell, and people are talking about that smell now and whether they like it.
  - smsm42 7y ago
    > UN whose story is one of inefficacy and being propped up by US power and money And yet, it exists and nobody is in a rush to disband it. Despite the fact that it's propped by US money but San Marino (population 33,344) has the same number of votes in UN GA as US. > The fact is the idea that somebody born somewhere else has way more power has a smell The only way all people can have exactly the same power if they all have no power at all. Otherwise there would always be somebody richer, smarter, more charismatic, more eloquent, born in better family with better education, etc. etc. which will give them more power. Absolute equality is possible only as equality in being destitute and powerless. Other aspect of it - I appreciate that somebody living in LA wants to have power over somebody living in rural Appalachia, because there's a lot of people in LA so obviously they should be ruling the whole country. But that's not how US as a country works, and I don't see why people in rural Appalachia would agree to such arrangement. So you have to either conquer them by force (and risk that they would conquer you by force instead) or come to a mutually agreeable arrangement, even if it deprives the LA people of their birthright powers of ruling Appalachia. That's the way it works.
SeekingMeaning 7y ago
Don’t forget about the house of representatives
- lazyasciiart 7y ago
  They didn’t.
jngreenlee 7y ago
Remember as well that the Senate was intended as a sort of administrative body, with each states senators being selected by the state government...not via popular election. In my estimation, the removal of that aspect diluted the original concept to some degree.
- ddebernardy 7y ago
  It could be done like in Germany without the spirit of the Senate being lost. Something like 2 representatives plus some number that depends on the population.
  - axaxs 7y ago
    Neat idea. Maybe we could give it a name depicting its function, like say, a house of representatives...
    - ddebernardy 7y ago
      It's not the same. The House of Representatives is intended to represent the people. The point of the upper house is to represent the States. There's no reason why there shouldn't be some weight thrown in based on some objective criteria like population. The way it works in Germany is every Lander has 3 seats; they then add up to 3 extra seats based on the population. This over-represents the smaller states too, but not to the point where small states can block the whole country like in the US Senate.
      - axaxs 7y ago
        So, of course my comment was tongue in cheek, but not completely. In order to get states to agree to unify, they had to give them incentive in representation. Remember that Germany is the size of a US state. It would be more akin to trying to unify all of west Europe as a country. Would Denmark join if they knew they'd get zero representation based of population?
        7y ago
bayareabadboy 7y ago
You should look up the Virginia plan and the New Jersey plan
billfruit 7y ago
I feel the entire opposite, this distribution ensures that all states are dealt in a equal manner by the federal government. India the seats in the upper legislature are distributed unequally between the States, causing smaller states to be marginalized, which could also cause issues. Bigger states could align together and push measures that are detrimental to the intesests of the smaller states.
- Iv 7y ago
  Which is another way to say that smaller state want a way to undemocratically leech out things from more populous areas. Bigger states aligning and pushing measures that are in their interests rather than in smaller states interests is called democracy. The opposite is called privilege based on state of residence.
  - billfruit 7y ago
    Will it be acceptable to the member states of the EU, any configuration that makes some members more equal than others? Also in countries like India, this could offer a perverse incentive for states to refrain from population control policies. Also some states having larger populations than others is a historical accident.
    - Iv 7y ago
      There are 500 million members to the EU. I am in favor of all of them being equal, yes. We still have to quelch local nationalisms so there are some compromises being made to give state some kind of sovereignty, like the US used to need 200 years ago, but once the reasons for these are removed, remove these privileges. India: You assume states work against each other and populations automatically favor their states over the federation they belong to. If that's the case, you have a cultural problem to solve first. I doubt this is the case in the US right now. And yes, there are various reasons for some state to be populous. It is irrelevant with the question on whether all the peoples' vote should have equal weight.
  - billfruit 7y ago
kortilla 7y ago
How did it make sense at the time but not now? The entire point of the senate is to treat each state as an equal entity regardless of population. What changed?
- Redoubts 7y ago
  slavery. It affected literally every design decision of this nation between founding and the civil war.
  - kortilla 7y ago
    Most states in the west didn’t have slaves and still joined under the notion of being a state with rights. “Slavery” is used an excuse to not think critically about things from before the civil war that you don’t like.
evil-olive 7y ago
> I think it’s pretty crazy California and Texas have the same number of senate votes as Rhode Island. A statistic that has stuck in my head is the prediction [0] that in 2040, 70% of the US population will be represented by 30 Senators, while 30% of the population will be represented by 70 Senators. 0: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/11/28/by-2040-two-thirds-of-americans-will-be-represented-by-30-percent-of-the-senate/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/11/28/b...
- anfilt 7y ago
  The senate is for the states. If we changed it, some states will have less say. It's also a problem since for example in the west the vast majority of the land is federally owned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_lands#/media/File:Map_of_all_U.S._Federal_Land.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_lands#/media/File:Map_... How do you think Nevada would react if nuclear testing was being conducted again. How do think Montana or Idaho would react if the federal government gave logging rights to companies outside of local communities. If you reduce the states power and say over federal polices that effect them the most why even have states. Why even have tiered levels governance. Local governments exist for a reason. Federal laws and polices can effect certain areas more or exclusively. Ignoring those people who reside in that area because the majority outside the area wish to do something is just tyranny by the majority. Therefore areas which people reside also need to voice their concerns. What we currently have is a blend. The senate and house have to agree on things to get bills passed. The house is already based off population. Having the two houses ensures that states and peoples concerns are voiced through their representatives. States with a larger population already get more say in the house. The senate ensures that each states government is represented equally. It's also sad that less people vote in state and local elections than federal ones since local government a lot times is much more important.
  - jrs235 7y ago
    I think it would be even better if in order for bills to pass, a majority of the House must pass and a majority of States, via both Senators from a given State, must pass the bill too. We shouldn't talk about Senator John For voted for or against bill Y, but rather California voted for or against bill Y. The individuals ought not matter except to their State's governments/legislatures.
masonic 7y ago
I think it’s pretty crazy California and Texas have the same number of senate votes as Rhode Island When CA was admitted to the Union, it had a lower population than RI. CA had the third-lowest population of all US states, yet nobody was saying CA didn't "deserve" two Senate seats because of that. (Source: 1850 Census)
- xref 7y ago
  Actually, people did say that. Even the founding fathers disagreed on the composition of Congress. It’s been argued for/against since day 0.

smsm42 7y ago

Why is it crazy? Do you know the UN? Is it weird that countries like Benin or Qatar or Moldova have same vote in the UN general assembly as China or India or USA?

tekkk 7y ago
Yet in the EU parliament each country gets representatives proportionate to their size and the positions in the EU commission are filled basically how the larger countries decide? So your analogue doesn't really hold and frankly, just because UN (which gives their largest members veto-power), has one country one vote system, it's quite a stretch to extrapolate that to mean it would be a good fit for national governments too. Or how would you feel if some rural area in your home country got the same amount of votes than the whole capital? Would make perfect sense, right? But all in all, they are so different organizations serving very different purposes that comparing them isn't even that useful.
- jpollock 7y ago
  The EU is more complex than that, there's the European Council, which is not proportional to population (made up of the heads of state, like the original US Senate). The Council is involved in foreign affairs, particularly trade agreements. This is why Belgium had a veto over the Canada/EU trade agreement. In particular, it was Wallonia's PM who held the veto because Belgium devolved that power. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/24/eu-trade-deal-with-canada-collapses-as-belgium-refuses-to-sign https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/24/eu-trade-deal-...
- smsm42 7y ago
  > So your analogue doesn't really hold I think you miss the idea of how analogies work. If I say "the Moon is affected by Earth gravity just like an apple that falls down is" then if you way "but if I put an apple underwater then it'd flow up instead!" that doesn't mean my analogy didn't work. That means you are talking about different things that are outside of what analogy is about. The fact that EU didn't choose equal representation for member countries and as the result minor countries are powerless is exactly why minor states in the US do not want such arrangement. Just as with an example above about the apple, your counter-example does not disprove existence of gravity - or flaws in proportional representation between sovereign states - it in fact supports it, you just fail to see how. > Or how would you feel if some rural area in your home country got the same amount of votes than the whole capital? If that's the arrangement that is the condition of the union between the rural area and the capital - perfectly normal. I know Bill Gates has much more shares of Microsoft than I do and I don't feel bad about it. Why should I feel bad about those things?
threatofrain 7y ago
Why choose the UN whose story is one of inefficacy and being propped up by US power and money? The UN’s relevance has faded and nobody is optimistic for its resurgence. From that context we speak of sensible organizational practices? The fact is the idea that somebody born somewhere else has way more power has a smell, and people are talking about that smell now and whether they like it.
- smsm42 7y ago
  > UN whose story is one of inefficacy and being propped up by US power and money And yet, it exists and nobody is in a rush to disband it. Despite the fact that it's propped by US money but San Marino (population 33,344) has the same number of votes in UN GA as US. > The fact is the idea that somebody born somewhere else has way more power has a smell The only way all people can have exactly the same power if they all have no power at all. Otherwise there would always be somebody richer, smarter, more charismatic, more eloquent, born in better family with better education, etc. etc. which will give them more power. Absolute equality is possible only as equality in being destitute and powerless. Other aspect of it - I appreciate that somebody living in LA wants to have power over somebody living in rural Appalachia, because there's a lot of people in LA so obviously they should be ruling the whole country. But that's not how US as a country works, and I don't see why people in rural Appalachia would agree to such arrangement. So you have to either conquer them by force (and risk that they would conquer you by force instead) or come to a mutually agreeable arrangement, even if it deprives the LA people of their birthright powers of ruling Appalachia. That's the way it works.

SeekingMeaning 7y ago

Don’t forget about the house of representatives

lazyasciiart 7y ago
They didn’t.

jngreenlee 7y ago

Remember as well that the Senate was intended as a sort of administrative body, with each states senators being selected by the state government...not via popular election. In my estimation, the removal of that aspect diluted the original concept to some degree.

ddebernardy 7y ago
It could be done like in Germany without the spirit of the Senate being lost. Something like 2 representatives plus some number that depends on the population.
- axaxs 7y ago
  Neat idea. Maybe we could give it a name depicting its function, like say, a house of representatives...
  - ddebernardy 7y ago
    It's not the same. The House of Representatives is intended to represent the people. The point of the upper house is to represent the States. There's no reason why there shouldn't be some weight thrown in based on some objective criteria like population. The way it works in Germany is every Lander has 3 seats; they then add up to 3 extra seats based on the population. This over-represents the smaller states too, but not to the point where small states can block the whole country like in the US Senate.
    - axaxs 7y ago
      So, of course my comment was tongue in cheek, but not completely. In order to get states to agree to unify, they had to give them incentive in representation. Remember that Germany is the size of a US state. It would be more akin to trying to unify all of west Europe as a country. Would Denmark join if they knew they'd get zero representation based of population?
      - 7y ago

bayareabadboy 7y ago

You should look up the Virginia plan and the New Jersey plan

billfruit 7y ago

I feel the entire opposite, this distribution ensures that all states are dealt in a equal manner by the federal government. India the seats in the upper legislature are distributed unequally between the States, causing smaller states to be marginalized, which could also cause issues. Bigger states could align together and push measures that are detrimental to the intesests of the smaller states.

Iv 7y ago
Which is another way to say that smaller state want a way to undemocratically leech out things from more populous areas. Bigger states aligning and pushing measures that are in their interests rather than in smaller states interests is called democracy. The opposite is called privilege based on state of residence.
- billfruit 7y ago
  Will it be acceptable to the member states of the EU, any configuration that makes some members more equal than others? Also in countries like India, this could offer a perverse incentive for states to refrain from population control policies. Also some states having larger populations than others is a historical accident.
  - Iv 7y ago
    There are 500 million members to the EU. I am in favor of all of them being equal, yes. We still have to quelch local nationalisms so there are some compromises being made to give state some kind of sovereignty, like the US used to need 200 years ago, but once the reasons for these are removed, remove these privileges. India: You assume states work against each other and populations automatically favor their states over the federation they belong to. If that's the case, you have a cultural problem to solve first. I doubt this is the case in the US right now. And yes, there are various reasons for some state to be populous. It is irrelevant with the question on whether all the peoples' vote should have equal weight.
- billfruit 7y ago

kortilla 7y ago

How did it make sense at the time but not now? The entire point of the senate is to treat each state as an equal entity regardless of population. What changed?

Redoubts 7y ago
slavery. It affected literally every design decision of this nation between founding and the civil war.
- kortilla 7y ago
  Most states in the west didn’t have slaves and still joined under the notion of being a state with rights. “Slavery” is used an excuse to not think critically about things from before the civil war that you don’t like.

evil-olive 7y ago

> I think it’s pretty crazy California and Texas have the same number of senate votes as Rhode Island. A statistic that has stuck in my head is the prediction [0] that in 2040, 70% of the US population will be represented by 30 Senators, while 30% of the population will be represented by 70 Senators. 0: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/11/28/by-2040-two-thirds-of-americans-will-be-represented-by-30-percent-of-the-senate/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/11/28/b...

anfilt 7y ago
The senate is for the states. If we changed it, some states will have less say. It's also a problem since for example in the west the vast majority of the land is federally owned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_lands#/media/File:Map_of_all_U.S._Federal_Land.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_lands#/media/File:Map_... How do you think Nevada would react if nuclear testing was being conducted again. How do think Montana or Idaho would react if the federal government gave logging rights to companies outside of local communities. If you reduce the states power and say over federal polices that effect them the most why even have states. Why even have tiered levels governance. Local governments exist for a reason. Federal laws and polices can effect certain areas more or exclusively. Ignoring those people who reside in that area because the majority outside the area wish to do something is just tyranny by the majority. Therefore areas which people reside also need to voice their concerns. What we currently have is a blend. The senate and house have to agree on things to get bills passed. The house is already based off population. Having the two houses ensures that states and peoples concerns are voiced through their representatives. States with a larger population already get more say in the house. The senate ensures that each states government is represented equally. It's also sad that less people vote in state and local elections than federal ones since local government a lot times is much more important.
- jrs235 7y ago
  I think it would be even better if in order for bills to pass, a majority of the House must pass and a majority of States, via both Senators from a given State, must pass the bill too. We shouldn't talk about Senator John For voted for or against bill Y, but rather California voted for or against bill Y. The individuals ought not matter except to their State's governments/legislatures.

masonic 7y ago

I think it’s pretty crazy California and Texas have the same number of senate votes as Rhode Island When CA was admitted to the Union, it had a lower population than RI. CA had the third-lowest population of all US states, yet nobody was saying CA didn't "deserve" two Senate seats because of that. (Source: 1850 Census)

xref 7y ago
Actually, people did say that. Even the founding fathers disagreed on the composition of Congress. It’s been argued for/against since day 0.