3 ms·
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
by 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 agoThe 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 agoPopulations 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?