7 ms·

This will only exacerbate the housing problem, quite distopian if you ask me. it doesn't make sense to have everyone crowded into areas that didn't want to gro

This will only exacerbate the housing problem, quite distopian if you ask me. it doesn't make sense to have everyone crowded into areas that didn't want to grow in the first place. I think the fed should give companies incentives to move to unpopulated states that actually want to grow, instead of handing out tax cuts like free candy.

Wowfunhappy 7y ago
These states still have a lot of land area, so I don't find this specific statistic so troubling from a housing perspective. I find it very, very scary however in terms of what it means for our political system. If half of the US population controls only 16 senate seats, and the other half controls 84 seats, how does the senate have any democratic legitimacy at all?
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  The Senate isn't supposed to be a democratic institution. Once you understand that, you can quit being scared by the situation.
  - jefurii 7y ago
    Whether or not you're okay about this says a lot about you.
    - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
      Perhaps, and not in the direction you think. We don't need the Senate to be the House. We already have the House for that. If you think that the Senate is the problem, that more House-like behavior is what we need, then what it says about you is that you don't understand the point behind the American system of government. The point was to not have too much direct democracy. If you don't understand why that was the point, yes, that says something about you.
      - jefurii 7y ago
        Oh I understand perfectly well the reason why the Senate and the Electoral College and superdelegates in e.g. the Democratic Party were created. It was because the founders were afraid of actual democracy and they wanted to ensure their own positions. It has had the effect that a certain constituency (rich white men) are privileged above all others. There is a disconnect between the narrative we have told ourselves about democracy and the actual system we have. I would like to change the system so that it better serves our entire population and not just rich white men.
        AnimalMuppet 7y ago
        There was a bit more to the founders' opposition to direct democracy than merely "wanting to ensure their own positions"...
  - Jeff_Brown 7y ago
    The fact that our ancestors wrote the constitution like that doesn't mean they thought it was a good idea. They considered risking tyranny of the minority a worthwhile gamble in order to unify the states.
- JohnFen 7y ago
  The senate is not intended to be democratic. There are two senators per state in order to ensure that less populous states have equal representation in the Senate. The House is the democratic side, as the number of representatives is proportional to population. The combination of the two is important to help maintain balance of power.
  - Jeff_Brown 7y ago
    Balance of power is not what motivated the Senate's existence. It is practically the definition of imbalance of power. The Senate was a Faustian bargain to make the Union possible at all.
    - blotter_paper 7y ago
      > The Senate was a Faustian bargain to make the Union possible at all. ...because the lower-population states didn't want to be over-powered. Hence, a balance. If you wanna change the bargain, give the little guys a chance to leave.
      - Jeff_Brown 7y ago
        Fair enough -- they sacrificed the balance of power among voters today, in order to achieve a balance of power among the states in the 1700s. God how I would love to change the bargain. I see zero path forward.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        Gibbon1 7y ago
        Don't know but Britain made fixes eventually to it's rotten borough problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Act_1832 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Act_1832
    - JohnFen 7y ago
      That's certainly a legitimate argument that could be had. Whatever the motivations, though, it seems like a reasonable (while certainly imperfect) balance to me. The Senate is the deliberative body of the state governments, the House is the deliberative body of the people. I think both are important in order to balance between governmental tyranny and the tyranny of the popular majority.
- nkrisc 7y ago
  As others have said the Senate is not democratic. In fact, it wasn't until the ratification of the 17th amendment that senators were even chosen by popular election, having previously been elected by state legislatures.
harimau777 7y ago
Perhaps the other states should start doing things that make people want to live there. A couple of ideas: - Drug legalization (e.g. recreational cannabis) - Build public transportation - Build walkable cities - Fund the arts and culture
- thorwasdfasdf 7y ago
  The states mentioned aren't doing the above much better.

Wowfunhappy 7y ago

These states still have a lot of land area, so I don't find this specific statistic so troubling from a housing perspective. I find it very, very scary however in terms of what it means for our political system. If half of the US population controls only 16 senate seats, and the other half controls 84 seats, how does the senate have any democratic legitimacy at all?

AnimalMuppet 7y ago
The Senate isn't supposed to be a democratic institution. Once you understand that, you can quit being scared by the situation.
- jefurii 7y ago
  Whether or not you're okay about this says a lot about you.
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    Perhaps, and not in the direction you think. We don't need the Senate to be the House. We already have the House for that. If you think that the Senate is the problem, that more House-like behavior is what we need, then what it says about you is that you don't understand the point behind the American system of government. The point was to not have too much direct democracy. If you don't understand why that was the point, yes, that says something about you.
    - jefurii 7y ago
      Oh I understand perfectly well the reason why the Senate and the Electoral College and superdelegates in e.g. the Democratic Party were created. It was because the founders were afraid of actual democracy and they wanted to ensure their own positions. It has had the effect that a certain constituency (rich white men) are privileged above all others. There is a disconnect between the narrative we have told ourselves about democracy and the actual system we have. I would like to change the system so that it better serves our entire population and not just rich white men.
      - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
        There was a bit more to the founders' opposition to direct democracy than merely "wanting to ensure their own positions"...
- Jeff_Brown 7y ago
  The fact that our ancestors wrote the constitution like that doesn't mean they thought it was a good idea. They considered risking tyranny of the minority a worthwhile gamble in order to unify the states.
JohnFen 7y ago
The senate is not intended to be democratic. There are two senators per state in order to ensure that less populous states have equal representation in the Senate. The House is the democratic side, as the number of representatives is proportional to population. The combination of the two is important to help maintain balance of power.
- Jeff_Brown 7y ago
  Balance of power is not what motivated the Senate's existence. It is practically the definition of imbalance of power. The Senate was a Faustian bargain to make the Union possible at all.
  - blotter_paper 7y ago
    > The Senate was a Faustian bargain to make the Union possible at all. ...because the lower-population states didn't want to be over-powered. Hence, a balance. If you wanna change the bargain, give the little guys a chance to leave.
    - Jeff_Brown 7y ago
      Fair enough -- they sacrificed the balance of power among voters today, in order to achieve a balance of power among the states in the 1700s. God how I would love to change the bargain. I see zero path forward.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - Gibbon1 7y ago
        Don't know but Britain made fixes eventually to it's rotten borough problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Act_1832 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Act_1832
  - JohnFen 7y ago
    That's certainly a legitimate argument that could be had. Whatever the motivations, though, it seems like a reasonable (while certainly imperfect) balance to me. The Senate is the deliberative body of the state governments, the House is the deliberative body of the people. I think both are important in order to balance between governmental tyranny and the tyranny of the popular majority.
nkrisc 7y ago
As others have said the Senate is not democratic. In fact, it wasn't until the ratification of the 17th amendment that senators were even chosen by popular election, having previously been elected by state legislatures.

harimau777 7y ago

Perhaps the other states should start doing things that make people want to live there. A couple of ideas: - Drug legalization (e.g. recreational cannabis) - Build public transportation - Build walkable cities - Fund the arts and culture

thorwasdfasdf 7y ago
The states mentioned aren't doing the above much better.