3 ms·

Because that's the only way there would be a federal government in America. What choice would you have made in 1787?

TylerE 6y ago
We're way beyond 1787. The Reapportionment Act of 1929 is the cause of the worst distortions. It fixes the HoR at 435, and is the main cause of the gross imbalance of power. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reapportionment_Act_of_1929 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reapportionment_Act_of_1929
- jcranmer 6y ago
  Actually, it doesn't. Wyoming (the least-populous state) has .183% of the US population, so it should have .183% of the US House seats if they were fully proportional. It actually has .230% (1 / 435)--about 1.25× the power it should have. Rhode Island getting two House seats gives it about 1.34× the power it should have. Montana having only one seat leaves it at about 0.673× the power it ought to have. As quantization errors go, the House's quantization isn't terribly distortive.
  - TylerE 6y ago
    Yes but the Electoral College is House+Senante. So Wyoming gets 4 EC votes. So... WY gets 4 EC votes with it's 578k population. My state of NC only gets 15 with it's population of almost 11M. In what universe is that fair or just?
    - zaroth 6y ago
      The alternative view is that CA, MA, and NY already get a Democrat candidate 95/270 or 35% of the way to the Presidency with just 20% of the population. Do those states really need a greater impact?
      - TylerE 6y ago
        That's rather a disingenuous way to twist the numbers. Those states are 20% of the population and 17% of the EC. By taking advantage of the tiny states the EC can be won with less than 30% of the vote https://www.npr.org/2016/11/02/500112248/how-to-win-the-presidency-with-27-percent-of-the-popular-vote https://www.npr.org/2016/11/02/500112248/how-to-win-the-pres...
    - AuryGlenz 6y ago
      A universe where were the United States of America, not just America. We were supposed to be a group of states with a fairly limited federal government. I think it’s really unfortunate that’s been largely done away with.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - zo1 6y ago
      "Fair and just" is out the window as soon as others get to decide how the fruits of 40% of my labor gets spent without my consent. At this point, we might as well just change the rules as we go along because you can't really point to the system we have now and say "it's fair" or "just" in a 100% clearly defined and unambiguous sense that we can all agree on.
FireBeyond 6y ago
Well, I guess we're just stuck with it, because as we all know, progress is impossible. Now, where are my leeches? I'm having a problem with my four humors, you know, blood, black bile, yellow bile and phlegm.

We're way beyond 1787. The Reapportionment Act of 1929 is the cause of the worst distortions. It fixes the HoR at 435, and is the main cause of the gross imbalance of power. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reapportionment_Act_of_1929 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reapportionment_Act_of_1929

jcranmer 6y ago
Actually, it doesn't. Wyoming (the least-populous state) has .183% of the US population, so it should have .183% of the US House seats if they were fully proportional. It actually has .230% (1 / 435)--about 1.25× the power it should have. Rhode Island getting two House seats gives it about 1.34× the power it should have. Montana having only one seat leaves it at about 0.673× the power it ought to have. As quantization errors go, the House's quantization isn't terribly distortive.
- TylerE 6y ago
  Yes but the Electoral College is House+Senante. So Wyoming gets 4 EC votes. So... WY gets 4 EC votes with it's 578k population. My state of NC only gets 15 with it's population of almost 11M. In what universe is that fair or just?
  - zaroth 6y ago
    The alternative view is that CA, MA, and NY already get a Democrat candidate 95/270 or 35% of the way to the Presidency with just 20% of the population. Do those states really need a greater impact?
    - TylerE 6y ago
      That's rather a disingenuous way to twist the numbers. Those states are 20% of the population and 17% of the EC. By taking advantage of the tiny states the EC can be won with less than 30% of the vote https://www.npr.org/2016/11/02/500112248/how-to-win-the-presidency-with-27-percent-of-the-popular-vote https://www.npr.org/2016/11/02/500112248/how-to-win-the-pres...
  - AuryGlenz 6y ago
    A universe where were the United States of America, not just America. We were supposed to be a group of states with a fairly limited federal government. I think it’s really unfortunate that’s been largely done away with.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - zo1 6y ago
    "Fair and just" is out the window as soon as others get to decide how the fruits of 40% of my labor gets spent without my consent. At this point, we might as well just change the rules as we go along because you can't really point to the system we have now and say "it's fair" or "just" in a 100% clearly defined and unambiguous sense that we can all agree on.

FireBeyond 6y ago

Well, I guess we're just stuck with it, because as we all know, progress is impossible. Now, where are my leeches? I'm having a problem with my four humors, you know, blood, black bile, yellow bile and phlegm.