4 ms·

> don't think the original senate had states that had 80X the representation by population, as we have today between CA and WY. I would argue the "false-posit

> don't think the original senate had states that had 80X the representation by population, as we have today between CA and WY. I would argue the "false-positive" state that in this case is California. Imagine if the entire Eastern seaboard was divided into three States. That would be equally imbalanced.

emn13 6y ago
Texas is only slightly smaller. But perhaps splitting both in 3 (or whatever) would be a good start. Or split any state that has more than 4% of the nations population (that would include FL and NY). Practical hacks like that might mitigate the imbalance, but really - the senate needs proportional representation too. It's OK that small states are slightly over-represented, but the current state of affairs is pretty crazy. Also, the amount of people per senator is unbelievably high, making them less approachable than they once were. If the senate were proportional, we could simply abolish the electoral college with little loss; just let congress elect the president and be done with it.
- war1025 6y ago
  The House is supposed to represent the interests of the people. The Senate is supposed to represent the interests of the states. Each state is supposed to be an equal member of the union, which is why they each get equal voice in the senate. Up until the early 1900s senators were appointed by state governments rather than being popularly elected. It's sort of fallen out of fashion to identify strongly as a member of your state rather than just as a citizen of the United States, but I think this year has demonstrated that state governments still have a lot of influence and autonomy. I for one have been very pleased with my state's handling of the situation and have been glad to live here rather than somewhere else.
  - emn13 6y ago
    The intent is all fine and good, but that doesn't excuse legislative influence that is so disproportionate to population. In general I'm a a little skeptical that "intent" matters at all; what matters is practical political power no matter how you label it - but even if we were to constrain ourselves to the notion of representing states, not people: they can represent their states just fine even if the number of senators varies by state. The idea that all states are equal should be dropped.
- eadmund 6y ago
  > the senate needs proportional representation too No, the Seventeenth Amendment should be repealed and state legislatures should be required to appoint senators. The United States form a federal government, not a unitary state; that means the several states should be represented. > If the senate were proportional, we could simply abolish the electoral college with little loss; just let congress elect the president and be done with it. Alternatively, state legislatures could appoint electors. Or maybe they could appoint two electors, and the people of the state could vote for the rest.
  - emn13 6y ago
    Regardless of how senators are picked, it's deeply problematic if representation is so divorced from population size. Alternatively, if we insist on retaining a fixed number of senators per state we could strip the senate of essentially all of its powers (perhaps becoming more advisory in role, with only the capability to temporarily filibuster house legislation); but that strikes me as being even more unachievable. But personally, I don't think appointed senators would practically help much. The point of federalism isn't to achieve some ivory tower ideal of centuries past, but to have real value today. Some of the value we can still retain is flexibility: essentially letting states go their own way for many laws and regulations. That benefit of federalism is quite real, and imposes no requirements that the senate needs to have appointed senators vs. elected, nor that the number of senators be fixed (vs. scale with population size). I'm pretty sure we can mitigate the deadlock, lack of accountability, and undemocratic representation issues with today's congress+executive while also eating our federalist cake. To be clear: I don't think of this is worth pursuing as political reform; it's entirely unachievable due to the US's virtually unamendable constitution (basically only populist amendments are ever achievable, never this stuff; states need to large agree, after all - and pure political power play makes that utterly impossible).
    - war1025 6y ago
      A proportionally represented Senate is just a duplicate of the House. It would have no reason to exist. The whole point of having two separate bodies is that it requires two groups that are chosen in a different manner to both agree that a piece of legislation is acceptable.

emn13 6y ago

Texas is only slightly smaller. But perhaps splitting both in 3 (or whatever) would be a good start. Or split any state that has more than 4% of the nations population (that would include FL and NY). Practical hacks like that might mitigate the imbalance, but really - the senate needs proportional representation too. It's OK that small states are slightly over-represented, but the current state of affairs is pretty crazy. Also, the amount of people per senator is unbelievably high, making them less approachable than they once were. If the senate were proportional, we could simply abolish the electoral college with little loss; just let congress elect the president and be done with it.

war1025 6y ago
The House is supposed to represent the interests of the people. The Senate is supposed to represent the interests of the states. Each state is supposed to be an equal member of the union, which is why they each get equal voice in the senate. Up until the early 1900s senators were appointed by state governments rather than being popularly elected. It's sort of fallen out of fashion to identify strongly as a member of your state rather than just as a citizen of the United States, but I think this year has demonstrated that state governments still have a lot of influence and autonomy. I for one have been very pleased with my state's handling of the situation and have been glad to live here rather than somewhere else.
- emn13 6y ago
  The intent is all fine and good, but that doesn't excuse legislative influence that is so disproportionate to population. In general I'm a a little skeptical that "intent" matters at all; what matters is practical political power no matter how you label it - but even if we were to constrain ourselves to the notion of representing states, not people: they can represent their states just fine even if the number of senators varies by state. The idea that all states are equal should be dropped.
eadmund 6y ago
> the senate needs proportional representation too No, the Seventeenth Amendment should be repealed and state legislatures should be required to appoint senators. The United States form a federal government, not a unitary state; that means the several states should be represented. > If the senate were proportional, we could simply abolish the electoral college with little loss; just let congress elect the president and be done with it. Alternatively, state legislatures could appoint electors. Or maybe they could appoint two electors, and the people of the state could vote for the rest.
- emn13 6y ago
  Regardless of how senators are picked, it's deeply problematic if representation is so divorced from population size. Alternatively, if we insist on retaining a fixed number of senators per state we could strip the senate of essentially all of its powers (perhaps becoming more advisory in role, with only the capability to temporarily filibuster house legislation); but that strikes me as being even more unachievable. But personally, I don't think appointed senators would practically help much. The point of federalism isn't to achieve some ivory tower ideal of centuries past, but to have real value today. Some of the value we can still retain is flexibility: essentially letting states go their own way for many laws and regulations. That benefit of federalism is quite real, and imposes no requirements that the senate needs to have appointed senators vs. elected, nor that the number of senators be fixed (vs. scale with population size). I'm pretty sure we can mitigate the deadlock, lack of accountability, and undemocratic representation issues with today's congress+executive while also eating our federalist cake. To be clear: I don't think of this is worth pursuing as political reform; it's entirely unachievable due to the US's virtually unamendable constitution (basically only populist amendments are ever achievable, never this stuff; states need to large agree, after all - and pure political power play makes that utterly impossible).
  - war1025 6y ago
    A proportionally represented Senate is just a duplicate of the House. It would have no reason to exist. The whole point of having two separate bodies is that it requires two groups that are chosen in a different manner to both agree that a piece of legislation is acceptable.