7 ms·

Federal law impacts all citizens. It doesn't just make laws concerning the states. Why should a man in wyoming's opinion on what federal laws I should live und

Federal law impacts all citizens. It doesn't just make laws concerning the states. Why should a man in wyoming's opinion on what federal laws I should live under count 70x as much as mine? Why should a minority of the country make a decision that impacts the majority of people?

umvi 6y ago
Well if you believe Wyoming should just be steamrolled by California's desires 100% of the time, why shouldn't Wyoming secede from the union? In fact, why should any "small states" join the union in the first place if they are just going to be steamrolled by California and New York?
- tastyfreeze 6y ago
  Being from Alaska I would argue that my vote for president has never counted. Some years there is a decision before my polls close.
  - michaelmrose 6y ago
    Your state doesn't start counting mail in ballots until a week after election. Given the logistical challenge you ought to be simply mailing out ballots sooner and counting them as they come in. Every other state avoids duplication between mail and in person voting without waiting a week between polls and ballots.
- majormajor 6y ago
  I would love small states to secede... I think, though, that they would realize they need the big states to pay for shit, protect them, etc...
  - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
    This is a red herring. All the states are only a few % away from net neutral when it comes to federal money in vs out. Pretty much any state could go it alone from a monetary perspective. Trade agreements would be the hard part. Also, I think you're greatly mis-judging how a deal to the tune of "be 5% poorer but do 100% listening to what the people on the coasts have to say" sounds to e.g. the midwest. You say that like it's an obvious bad deal. I don't think all of them would agree with you on that though. They might just take you up on it given the option.
    - majormajor 6y ago
      I'm unconvinced that I'd be any worse off if, say, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and the Dakotas left. Again, right now, I'd like them to take me up on it. Their citizens' voting power is so much greater than mine, it is infuriating.
  - umvi 6y ago
    Canada and EU don't seem to mind having tiny militaries and relying on the US protecting them. Small states can just be their own countries that pay some small % of GDP for USA to protect them with military.
- DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
  Because if they leave, they'll have the pleasure of getting steamrolled by other countries, including the United States. Fundamentally, you're making an argument against democracy, and in favor of giving people who live in small states greater influence than people who live in large states. A person who moves a few miles across the border from Colorado to Wyoming suddenly sees their vote count for 3 times as much in the Electoral College. It gets even crazier once you start considering how swing states play into this. Your vote makes no difference in most states. But there are a few states where your vote might count, for the sole reason that those states happen to be evenly balanced. It's a ridiculous, irrational system. It was the best that could be negotiated in 1787, but it doesn't make sense in 2020.
  - umvi 6y ago
    So would you say Canada (the entire country of which has a smaller population than California) regularly gets steamrolled by other countries, including USA? And if not, then maybe all the small states need to do is band together into their own country, away from large state bullies
    - DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
      Sometimes it does. It certainly doesn't get the preferential treatment from the US that Wyoming gets. Would the US treat Wyoming better as a state or as a foreign country? Just as importantly, how much leverage would Wyoming have in dealing with foreign countries? How much leverage would it have in trade negotiations with the EU, or with the US, for that matter?
tastyfreeze 6y ago
Your vote counts just as much as the other people in your state. You are voting for who your state thinks the president should be. You have never voted for the president directly.
- TheDong 6y ago
  I'm aware of that fact. I'm hopeful the popular vote interstate compact[0] will get adopted by enough states to make it so each person's vote counts equally. What you suggested above is a way to weight citizen's vote's even less equally than they do now, which is what I was responding to. The situation we have now is bad too, imo, but better than each state having an equal vote, irrespective of population. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta...
  - tastyfreeze 6y ago
    Popular vote destroys any shred of state sovereignty that remains. Why would states remain in the union if California and New York forever dictate the direction of the country? This is a dark path to tread.
    - js2 6y ago
      Minoritarian rule through anti-democratic bodies like the EC and the Senate is a dark path to tread. The states have sovereignty through federalism and the US constitution. The EC and the Senate are not necessary to their sovereignty.
    - mithr 6y ago
      Presumably because they'd want something that another union state provides, and/or benefits that comes with being a larger country rather than an small independent one. A union can't really be "equal" between all states unless all states contribute and benefit equally, and you can't really expect millions of people who live in a prosperous and populous state to be willing to discount their own voices so that the voices of those who may contribute less count far more than theirs. I'm not sure a perfect system exists -- it's all a series of tradeoffs, and a popular vote system would have its own -- but saying that the 700k people living in Alaska should have the exact same influence as the 40 million people living in California doesn't make things any better. Ultimately, a country is made up of people, not political entities.
rayiner 6y ago
Because federal law is only supposed to be a very small part of the law that applies to people.
- dd36 6y ago
  Hence the Senate. The President doesn’t legislate.
- JamesBarney 6y ago
  In 18th century theory. In 21st century practice it's incredibly influential. Do we tax more for social security or cut benefits, do we extend medicare to 55 year olds or delay it until 70, can my daca friends get a job, can Icontinue to operate a company(Obamacare), not to mention war. It's far more influential than my city( or state government.(I live in Houston, this would probably be less true in states like New York or California which has have a larger government) Another proxy for influence is money, and I contribute far more to the federal government than I pay in state and local taxes, which reflects the very large impact it has on our lives.
  - rayiner 6y ago
    It’s not an 18th century versus 21st century thing. Switzerland manages to be a 21sr century country without equal representation at the federal level.
    - JamesBarney 6y ago
      My point was just that you're right, in the 18th century when the founding fathers designed this system the federal government was weak and federal law had very little influence. But in the 21st century the u.s. federal government has a much larger influence on people's lives. When a government is closer to a defense pact like Nato it makes sense to have voting apportioned by regional power. But as that government starts to have a larger impact on your day to day life than it makes less sense. If we started sending nato several trillion dollars a year it makes less sense for Bulgaria to have the same say in how that money is spent as we do. And there isn't really any political appetite to roll back the federal government to a size where that type of representation made sense. Moving social security and Medicare from the federal to the state or city level would be a political non starter.
jessedhillon 6y ago
> Why should a man in wyoming's opinion on what federal laws I should live under count 70x as much as mine? Because ideally, that distribution will give you pause when considering vesting power into the federal government.

umvi 6y ago

Well if you believe Wyoming should just be steamrolled by California's desires 100% of the time, why shouldn't Wyoming secede from the union? In fact, why should any "small states" join the union in the first place if they are just going to be steamrolled by California and New York?

tastyfreeze 6y ago
Being from Alaska I would argue that my vote for president has never counted. Some years there is a decision before my polls close.
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  Your state doesn't start counting mail in ballots until a week after election. Given the logistical challenge you ought to be simply mailing out ballots sooner and counting them as they come in. Every other state avoids duplication between mail and in person voting without waiting a week between polls and ballots.
majormajor 6y ago
I would love small states to secede... I think, though, that they would realize they need the big states to pay for shit, protect them, etc...
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  This is a red herring. All the states are only a few % away from net neutral when it comes to federal money in vs out. Pretty much any state could go it alone from a monetary perspective. Trade agreements would be the hard part. Also, I think you're greatly mis-judging how a deal to the tune of "be 5% poorer but do 100% listening to what the people on the coasts have to say" sounds to e.g. the midwest. You say that like it's an obvious bad deal. I don't think all of them would agree with you on that though. They might just take you up on it given the option.
  - majormajor 6y ago
    I'm unconvinced that I'd be any worse off if, say, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and the Dakotas left. Again, right now, I'd like them to take me up on it. Their citizens' voting power is so much greater than mine, it is infuriating.
- umvi 6y ago
  Canada and EU don't seem to mind having tiny militaries and relying on the US protecting them. Small states can just be their own countries that pay some small % of GDP for USA to protect them with military.
DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
Because if they leave, they'll have the pleasure of getting steamrolled by other countries, including the United States. Fundamentally, you're making an argument against democracy, and in favor of giving people who live in small states greater influence than people who live in large states. A person who moves a few miles across the border from Colorado to Wyoming suddenly sees their vote count for 3 times as much in the Electoral College. It gets even crazier once you start considering how swing states play into this. Your vote makes no difference in most states. But there are a few states where your vote might count, for the sole reason that those states happen to be evenly balanced. It's a ridiculous, irrational system. It was the best that could be negotiated in 1787, but it doesn't make sense in 2020.
- umvi 6y ago
  So would you say Canada (the entire country of which has a smaller population than California) regularly gets steamrolled by other countries, including USA? And if not, then maybe all the small states need to do is band together into their own country, away from large state bullies
  - DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
    Sometimes it does. It certainly doesn't get the preferential treatment from the US that Wyoming gets. Would the US treat Wyoming better as a state or as a foreign country? Just as importantly, how much leverage would Wyoming have in dealing with foreign countries? How much leverage would it have in trade negotiations with the EU, or with the US, for that matter?

tastyfreeze 6y ago

Your vote counts just as much as the other people in your state. You are voting for who your state thinks the president should be. You have never voted for the president directly.

TheDong 6y ago
I'm aware of that fact. I'm hopeful the popular vote interstate compact[0] will get adopted by enough states to make it so each person's vote counts equally. What you suggested above is a way to weight citizen's vote's even less equally than they do now, which is what I was responding to. The situation we have now is bad too, imo, but better than each state having an equal vote, irrespective of population. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta...
- tastyfreeze 6y ago
  Popular vote destroys any shred of state sovereignty that remains. Why would states remain in the union if California and New York forever dictate the direction of the country? This is a dark path to tread.
  - js2 6y ago
    Minoritarian rule through anti-democratic bodies like the EC and the Senate is a dark path to tread. The states have sovereignty through federalism and the US constitution. The EC and the Senate are not necessary to their sovereignty.
  - mithr 6y ago
    Presumably because they'd want something that another union state provides, and/or benefits that comes with being a larger country rather than an small independent one. A union can't really be "equal" between all states unless all states contribute and benefit equally, and you can't really expect millions of people who live in a prosperous and populous state to be willing to discount their own voices so that the voices of those who may contribute less count far more than theirs. I'm not sure a perfect system exists -- it's all a series of tradeoffs, and a popular vote system would have its own -- but saying that the 700k people living in Alaska should have the exact same influence as the 40 million people living in California doesn't make things any better. Ultimately, a country is made up of people, not political entities.

rayiner 6y ago

Because federal law is only supposed to be a very small part of the law that applies to people.

dd36 6y ago
Hence the Senate. The President doesn’t legislate.
JamesBarney 6y ago
In 18th century theory. In 21st century practice it's incredibly influential. Do we tax more for social security or cut benefits, do we extend medicare to 55 year olds or delay it until 70, can my daca friends get a job, can Icontinue to operate a company(Obamacare), not to mention war. It's far more influential than my city( or state government.(I live in Houston, this would probably be less true in states like New York or California which has have a larger government) Another proxy for influence is money, and I contribute far more to the federal government than I pay in state and local taxes, which reflects the very large impact it has on our lives.
- rayiner 6y ago
  It’s not an 18th century versus 21st century thing. Switzerland manages to be a 21sr century country without equal representation at the federal level.
  - JamesBarney 6y ago
    My point was just that you're right, in the 18th century when the founding fathers designed this system the federal government was weak and federal law had very little influence. But in the 21st century the u.s. federal government has a much larger influence on people's lives. When a government is closer to a defense pact like Nato it makes sense to have voting apportioned by regional power. But as that government starts to have a larger impact on your day to day life than it makes less sense. If we started sending nato several trillion dollars a year it makes less sense for Bulgaria to have the same say in how that money is spent as we do. And there isn't really any political appetite to roll back the federal government to a size where that type of representation made sense. Moving social security and Medicare from the federal to the state or city level would be a political non starter.

jessedhillon 6y ago

> Why should a man in wyoming's opinion on what federal laws I should live under count 70x as much as mine? Because ideally, that distribution will give you pause when considering vesting power into the federal government.