3 ms·

This discussion was had when the original 13 colonies made a decision, for the second time, to unify under a single federal umbrella government. After the comp

by JPKab 6y ago

This discussion was had when the original 13 colonies made a decision, for the second time, to unify under a single federal umbrella government. After the complete failure of the Articles of Confederation, a second initiative was created to desperately try to get the 13 states to subjugate themselves to a collective government. They all wanted the benefits of this shared collective, but had various gripes about joining it. The biggest gripe: At the time of the drafting of the Constitution, Virginia alone had over 20% of the entire population of the US. New York and Pennsylvania were also populous, compared to states like Delaware, Connecticut, South Carolina, etc. The original design of just having a purely population-based House of Representatives (and Presidency) was immediately rejected by all of the smaller states. Only the big states were ok with that. The smaller states were unwilling to join under an umbrella government that could be fully controlled by two or three populous states, at the expense of the interests of their own citizens. They immediately rejected the Constitution. This resulted in the creation of the Senate, and it's role as being the UPPER body of Congress, with more power than the House of Rep. Without removing the pure popular vote, the union could have never been created in the first place, because it was immediately viewed as a way for populous states to subjugate less populous states. And those states and their citizens were unwilling to take that risk. When you understand that this system was DEMANDED by smaller states before they were willing to join the union, you quickly realize why removal of such a system would likely result in some form of gradual disintegration of the union. The system now makes it so liberals in Mass and rednecks in Wyoming occasionally get people that match their beliefs running the Federal government, with cycles of fury from the losing side every election. Abolishing the EC would have the near-term effect of having one of those groups, the one that dominates large, sparsely populated states that control most food production, become perennial losers, in a permanent and unending fury at a government that doesn't listen to or care about them. If you want to understand what this looks like, go talk to your average voter in upstate New York, whose state government and tax policies are dictated by NYC voters who are mostly renters. Do you think upstate New York has similar needs to NYC? I can guarantee they don't, and those needs are unaddressed. Ditto for voters in southern Illinois. The animosity is palpable, and that's for neighbors a hundred miles away. Eventually, states will secede. And in a modern world like ours, I don't think it would be dramatic and violent. Likely just modern secession referendums. The current conversation about abolishing the EC has always been a partisan power-game, just like giving DC statehood. If the conversation around DC statehood were actually about representation, rather than 2 new Senate seats that are guaranteed to represent city-dweller interests, the Congressional Act that allocated land from Maryland to be DC would simply be reversed, with the land ceded back to Maryland, and the addition of two new Congressional representatives to Maryland. This is exactly what was done in the 1800s with the unused portion of land Virginia allocated to form DC with Maryland. (the Virginia side of the Potomac was ignored by Fed gov, so the residents demanded to be rejoined with Virginia, and they were.)

mreome 6y ago
This only holds if people still think they are a "Virginian" first and an "American" second. I've lived in several states, have close family in a dozen different states, and extended friends and family in almost every state. For me and many others, the state borders don't mean a whole lot, they're artificial lines drawn based on political maneuvering from 200 years ago.
- erik_seaberg 6y ago
  It’s true that many citizens feel little loyalty to their state. I think that’s because the feds are so far beyond their remit that states are left with few options for policy differences that would attract like-minded citizens. We now have different people enacting largely the same federal policies.
  - mbg721 6y ago
    That, and it's just easier to travel now.
- JPKab 6y ago
  You make a good point, but keep in mind that nothing will create a culture of distinctiveness from the Fed and group-cohesion within a state/region than imposition of rules that are popular nationally, but highly unpopular in said region. As of now, the Federal government still treats cannabis like it's supremely harmful, with zero medical use, along with other DEA schedule 1 classified drugs. This is about to change, but since the 1990's, there have been locations in the US where a majority of the population reject this. California was the first, and eventually in 2014 you had Colorado become the first state to wholesale legalize it, in spite of Federal law. Along with those movements, came a feeling of identity as a Californian first, an American second, that became particularly strong when the Feds raided businesses which complied with state, but not federal law. The people who really wanted legal weed increasingly viewed the Fed as an overreaching, far away tyrant. Imagine what it will be like in states that embrace low taxation if the Federal Govt is controlled for 3 consecutive decades by the party that represents city dwelling voters? Just like the reaction from Californians and Coloradans when the Feds raided citizens in their states for activities made legal at state level, it will help fuel anti-fed sentiment. I think that's the risk we run today: City residents are upset with what they correctly view as an intransigent, backwards system that gives too much power to small states and rural residents. They want to tilt this more in their favor, and correctly state the common sense "every vote should have equal weight" argument. The issue is that the construct that ties these states together always assumed that each state would have some form of pure democracy, and that the coalition of states would funnel each state's democratic desires into the Federal construct that was, by design, not democratic. My view is that the majority of citizens, most of whom don't even care to know about US history at a remotely detailed level, and don't understand that the system they want will gradually erode the benefits of staying in for many states, and simultaneously raise the costs. Resentment grows, and next thing you know you have a secession movement.

by JPKab 6y ago

mreome 6y ago

This only holds if people still think they are a "Virginian" first and an "American" second. I've lived in several states, have close family in a dozen different states, and extended friends and family in almost every state. For me and many others, the state borders don't mean a whole lot, they're artificial lines drawn based on political maneuvering from 200 years ago.

erik_seaberg 6y ago
It’s true that many citizens feel little loyalty to their state. I think that’s because the feds are so far beyond their remit that states are left with few options for policy differences that would attract like-minded citizens. We now have different people enacting largely the same federal policies.
- mbg721 6y ago
  That, and it's just easier to travel now.
JPKab 6y ago
You make a good point, but keep in mind that nothing will create a culture of distinctiveness from the Fed and group-cohesion within a state/region than imposition of rules that are popular nationally, but highly unpopular in said region. As of now, the Federal government still treats cannabis like it's supremely harmful, with zero medical use, along with other DEA schedule 1 classified drugs. This is about to change, but since the 1990's, there have been locations in the US where a majority of the population reject this. California was the first, and eventually in 2014 you had Colorado become the first state to wholesale legalize it, in spite of Federal law. Along with those movements, came a feeling of identity as a Californian first, an American second, that became particularly strong when the Feds raided businesses which complied with state, but not federal law. The people who really wanted legal weed increasingly viewed the Fed as an overreaching, far away tyrant. Imagine what it will be like in states that embrace low taxation if the Federal Govt is controlled for 3 consecutive decades by the party that represents city dwelling voters? Just like the reaction from Californians and Coloradans when the Feds raided citizens in their states for activities made legal at state level, it will help fuel anti-fed sentiment. I think that's the risk we run today: City residents are upset with what they correctly view as an intransigent, backwards system that gives too much power to small states and rural residents. They want to tilt this more in their favor, and correctly state the common sense "every vote should have equal weight" argument. The issue is that the construct that ties these states together always assumed that each state would have some form of pure democracy, and that the coalition of states would funnel each state's democratic desires into the Federal construct that was, by design, not democratic. My view is that the majority of citizens, most of whom don't even care to know about US history at a remotely detailed level, and don't understand that the system they want will gradually erode the benefits of staying in for many states, and simultaneously raise the costs. Resentment grows, and next thing you know you have a secession movement.