4 ms·

It was designed that way from the start, that’s the whole point of the Senate. It protects the smaller states from bullying by large population centers — which

It was designed that way from the start, that’s the whole point of the Senate. It protects the smaller states from bullying by large population centers — which was the original intent and still functioning.

jmeyer2k 6y ago
Why do those who live in smaller states deserve more voting power than those who live in larger states?
- dmoy 6y ago
  Because that was literally the only way they could convince the smaller states to join, and not have the whole thing collapse at the very beginning.
  - krapp 6y ago
    Ok. That was over 200 years ago, and it seems unlikely that smaller states are going to opt out of the union at this point. Why do they still deserve more voting power than populous states?
    - willcipriano 6y ago
      They aren't allowed to opt out, well except for Texas.
      - krapp 6y ago
        Texas really isn't allowed to opt out either, they just like to pretend they are.
    - Simulacra 6y ago
      Because Hillary Clinton lost ?
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - dmoy 6y ago
      Because constitutional amendments are hard to pass, by design. You need a supermajority in both the senate and house of reps, and then you also need effectively a majority vote in 75% of the states (so 38 states now). There is a sufficiently large number of smaller states that it is no longer possible to change this. There are some courses that cover the basics of US constitutional history, which might be instructive: https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-history/road-to-revolution#creating-a-nation https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-history/road-to-re...
      - marmada 6y ago
        You are conflating is/ought. Constitutional amendments are hard to pass. That doesn't mean they ought to be. I/the poster is claiming small states should be allowed to be "bullied" by larger states since smaller states have less people, and thus, are less important.
- AnHonestComment 6y ago
  To counterbalance the impact of factions, ensure that national level politicians continue to pay attention, and generally counteract the soft power that comes from having a higher population. If you think it’s such a benefit, then move there. That’s your right as a citizen. But almost no one does because that small political benefit doesn’t outweigh the many benefits that population centers enjoy.
  - jmeyer2k 6y ago
    So, voting power is the best way to counterbalance the downsides of living in a small state? I'd understand if someone proposed, for example, increased federal aid for smaller states that don't have as many support systems, but voting power seems like the wrong way to do this. (Same reason we don't use laws to fix inequality).
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- Simulacra 6y ago
  By this logic, all policy and political decisions would be made by California, Texas, and New York. The point is not to give more voting power to anyone, but you equalize.
  - adjkant 6y ago
    If the majority of the populations are in these states, why should they not be the primary drivers of political decisions? This won't magically ignore the other states, it simply means a the majority of the population would actually have control of their government - this is a bad thing how exactly?
    - AnHonestComment 6y ago
      The extra voting comes from giving them enough legislative say that they can negotiate for their own benefits in the Senate. The Senate is a counter-balancing force to the population distributed House of Representatives. The Senate is meant to represent each state as an equal and autonomous member of the union. Your snark aside, horse-trading in the senate seems to be what accomplished small state agendas. The US government was never meant to be a democracy, and certainly not one with fully equal representation across states. The majority of the country already has a majority of the representation — only 1 in 10 states has the minimal representation, thus extra voting. The majority of votes in the House, by a wide margin, are distributed based on population with less than 3% going to minimums in excess of population. But if you truly believe this is a better way, implement it on a regional or state level first to model for the rest of the country how well it works. That’s the beauty of autonomous states — we can try before we fully commit.
    - pandaman 6y ago
      Populations in these states have 100% power over their government and are already primary drivers of political decisions that do not affect other states. However, why people in California should have to be the primary driver of political decisions affecting people in Montana? This would be a good thing how exactly?

jmeyer2k 6y ago

Why do those who live in smaller states deserve more voting power than those who live in larger states?

dmoy 6y ago
Because that was literally the only way they could convince the smaller states to join, and not have the whole thing collapse at the very beginning.
- krapp 6y ago
  Ok. That was over 200 years ago, and it seems unlikely that smaller states are going to opt out of the union at this point. Why do they still deserve more voting power than populous states?
  - willcipriano 6y ago
    They aren't allowed to opt out, well except for Texas.
    - krapp 6y ago
      Texas really isn't allowed to opt out either, they just like to pretend they are.
  - Simulacra 6y ago
    Because Hillary Clinton lost ?
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - dmoy 6y ago
    Because constitutional amendments are hard to pass, by design. You need a supermajority in both the senate and house of reps, and then you also need effectively a majority vote in 75% of the states (so 38 states now). There is a sufficiently large number of smaller states that it is no longer possible to change this. There are some courses that cover the basics of US constitutional history, which might be instructive: https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-history/road-to-revolution#creating-a-nation https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-history/road-to-re...
    - marmada 6y ago
      You are conflating is/ought. Constitutional amendments are hard to pass. That doesn't mean they ought to be. I/the poster is claiming small states should be allowed to be "bullied" by larger states since smaller states have less people, and thus, are less important.
AnHonestComment 6y ago
To counterbalance the impact of factions, ensure that national level politicians continue to pay attention, and generally counteract the soft power that comes from having a higher population. If you think it’s such a benefit, then move there. That’s your right as a citizen. But almost no one does because that small political benefit doesn’t outweigh the many benefits that population centers enjoy.
- jmeyer2k 6y ago
  So, voting power is the best way to counterbalance the downsides of living in a small state? I'd understand if someone proposed, for example, increased federal aid for smaller states that don't have as many support systems, but voting power seems like the wrong way to do this. (Same reason we don't use laws to fix inequality).
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Simulacra 6y ago
By this logic, all policy and political decisions would be made by California, Texas, and New York. The point is not to give more voting power to anyone, but you equalize.
- adjkant 6y ago
  If the majority of the populations are in these states, why should they not be the primary drivers of political decisions? This won't magically ignore the other states, it simply means a the majority of the population would actually have control of their government - this is a bad thing how exactly?
  - AnHonestComment 6y ago
    The extra voting comes from giving them enough legislative say that they can negotiate for their own benefits in the Senate. The Senate is a counter-balancing force to the population distributed House of Representatives. The Senate is meant to represent each state as an equal and autonomous member of the union. Your snark aside, horse-trading in the senate seems to be what accomplished small state agendas. The US government was never meant to be a democracy, and certainly not one with fully equal representation across states. The majority of the country already has a majority of the representation — only 1 in 10 states has the minimal representation, thus extra voting. The majority of votes in the House, by a wide margin, are distributed based on population with less than 3% going to minimums in excess of population. But if you truly believe this is a better way, implement it on a regional or state level first to model for the rest of the country how well it works. That’s the beauty of autonomous states — we can try before we fully commit.
  - pandaman 6y ago
    Populations in these states have 100% power over their government and are already primary drivers of political decisions that do not affect other states. However, why people in California should have to be the primary driver of political decisions affecting people in Montana? This would be a good thing how exactly?