3 ms·

The problem isn't that we're a representative democracy. The problem is the ratio of representation is very far off from the ratios present when the country was

The problem isn't that we're a representative democracy. The problem is the ratio of representation is very far off from the ratios present when the country was formed. The population growth in urban centers combined with the addition of many states with low population has shifted power significantly to a minority. When the United States was formed and the compromise for 2 Senators per state and house representatives by population was agreed to, the largest state population was 11x the smallest state population. Today, California is 70x Wyoming. This has the effect that Senators from smaller states have way more power in today's world than they did in the 1800s. The ratios are unbalanced and need to be adjusted just like we adjust the apportionment of house representatives via the census every 10 years.

TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
The House represents the people. The Senate represents the state. Without the balance, highly populous states would determine the fate of the entire nation, leaving less populated states behind.
- mmcconnell1618 6y ago
  The division of states is somewhat arbitrary. Why shouldn't California, New York, Texas or Florida split into North/South or East/West versions to gain more Senators. I understand the compromise that the House represents people and the Senate represents states so the small states don't get overrun by the will of more populous states. But, by the same token, small states should not have so much power that they always overrun the will of the larger states. There should be balance. The House remains relatively in balance due to regular apportionment with the census. The Senate has no mechanism to make sure their power remains balanced. This is a gap that needs to be addressed.
- jadell 6y ago
  > The House represents the people. The Senate represents the state. That was the original thinking, but the 17th amendment turned the Senate into just another House of Representatives, but one where each member has a longer term and a hugely outsized influence compared to the number of people they represent.
- CameronNemo 6y ago
  So you are explicitly saying that less populated states should override the will of the majority of Americans. That sounds like abuse, not balance.
  - TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
    If the needs of less populated states weren't considered, then there'd be no incentive for them to stay part of the nation. It's necessary for the political system to remain stable.
    - CameronNemo 6y ago
      It is not. Less populated states are a drop in the bucket. If you care about stability, you best not disenfranchise the majority of Americans. There are consequences for such blatant and persistent abuse.

TheAdamAndChe 6y ago

The House represents the people. The Senate represents the state. Without the balance, highly populous states would determine the fate of the entire nation, leaving less populated states behind.

mmcconnell1618 6y ago
The division of states is somewhat arbitrary. Why shouldn't California, New York, Texas or Florida split into North/South or East/West versions to gain more Senators. I understand the compromise that the House represents people and the Senate represents states so the small states don't get overrun by the will of more populous states. But, by the same token, small states should not have so much power that they always overrun the will of the larger states. There should be balance. The House remains relatively in balance due to regular apportionment with the census. The Senate has no mechanism to make sure their power remains balanced. This is a gap that needs to be addressed.
jadell 6y ago
> The House represents the people. The Senate represents the state. That was the original thinking, but the 17th amendment turned the Senate into just another House of Representatives, but one where each member has a longer term and a hugely outsized influence compared to the number of people they represent.
CameronNemo 6y ago
So you are explicitly saying that less populated states should override the will of the majority of Americans. That sounds like abuse, not balance.
- TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
  If the needs of less populated states weren't considered, then there'd be no incentive for them to stay part of the nation. It's necessary for the political system to remain stable.
  - CameronNemo 6y ago
    It is not. Less populated states are a drop in the bucket. If you care about stability, you best not disenfranchise the majority of Americans. There are consequences for such blatant and persistent abuse.