5 ms·

> States are lines on a map. Saying this doesn't make them less important, it just shows a childish attitude. Local and State governments and representation ar

> States are lines on a map. Saying this doesn't make them less important, it just shows a childish attitude. Local and State governments and representation are important parts of the Republic. Dollars are just numbers in a database. Will you give me all your money? Or is it only certain "made-up" things that are important to you? > Do you seriously not see how that can lead to disproportionate representation of some views? Yes, and straight up popular vote leads to the same thing. That's why we have a system that is a combination of popular vote and state vote. * The People are represented by the House. * The States are represented by the Senate. * Both are represented by the President. Seems like a well-balanced system to me.

sjwright 6y ago
> , it just shows a childish attitude So that you can understand how your contribution is being consumed by others: when I came to that sentence fragment I stopped reading and down-voted your post. The remainder of your contribution might have been insightful... but I'll never know.
PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago
Seem more accurate to say: * electoral districts are represented by the House [0] * states are represented by the Senate which then begs the questions * who represents the people as a whole (if anyone) ? * who or what does the President represent? [0] since representatives are elected solely by the voters within a district, with no reference to voters in any other district.
triceratops 6y ago
> Local and State governments and representation are important parts of the Republic Why? What even is a state, if not its people? What even is a local or state government, if not the people in the city or state? Can you even have a state or a state government if there are no people in the state? What's special about the state or state government specifically that it should get its representation separate from the people it governs? Are the state or state government's aims and objectives different from the people of the state? If so, why, and what legitimacy does it have? If not, why have it represented? Moreover, if this was really and actually true, why was the 17th Amendment passed? Why aren't senators still chosen by state legislatures, or nominated by governors and confirmed by legislatures? Why does the state get represented twice (Senate and EC) but the people only get represented once? Isn't that an imbalance? > Seems like a well-balanced system to me. Because it favors your side. You'd be singing a different tune if it was the other way around.
- jki275 6y ago
  States are sovereign entities that made a choice years ago to join together in a federal union. The parameters of that union are spelled out in the Constitution -- you remove that Constitution at peril of the continued existence of that union. Amendments, like the 17th, are one way to change that union, with the consent of those members of it -- but if you push too far there won't be a union any more, because a portion of those states will walk away from a union no longer defined as they define it.
  - triceratops 6y ago
    > if you push too far there won't be a union any more, because a portion of those states will walk away from a union As the lopsidedness of representation grows ever more pronounced, it increases the probability that federal law and policy will diverge significantly from the views of the majority of the nation. This will likely increase disenchantment with the federal government even further, which is just as great a danger to the union. Surely you agree that this situation isn't ideal either, even if the Constitution says it's supposed to be like that?
    - jki275 6y ago
      They already have. If the people don't want things to be that way, they can pass amendments to change it.
      - triceratops 6y ago
        They can't though. The states that would lose representation have the most incentive to block amendments. Amendments aren't done by referenda.
        jki275 6y ago
        Amendments are done by the consent of 2/3s of the states, as is spelled out in the document that governs the union of such states. If you don't want to call that a "referenda", I think you're incorrect, but it doesn't really matter.

sjwright 6y ago

> , it just shows a childish attitude So that you can understand how your contribution is being consumed by others: when I came to that sentence fragment I stopped reading and down-voted your post. The remainder of your contribution might have been insightful... but I'll never know.

PaulDavisThe1st 6y ago

Seem more accurate to say: * electoral districts are represented by the House [0] * states are represented by the Senate which then begs the questions * who represents the people as a whole (if anyone) ? * who or what does the President represent? [0] since representatives are elected solely by the voters within a district, with no reference to voters in any other district.

triceratops 6y ago

> Local and State governments and representation are important parts of the Republic Why? What even is a state, if not its people? What even is a local or state government, if not the people in the city or state? Can you even have a state or a state government if there are no people in the state? What's special about the state or state government specifically that it should get its representation separate from the people it governs? Are the state or state government's aims and objectives different from the people of the state? If so, why, and what legitimacy does it have? If not, why have it represented? Moreover, if this was really and actually true, why was the 17th Amendment passed? Why aren't senators still chosen by state legislatures, or nominated by governors and confirmed by legislatures? Why does the state get represented twice (Senate and EC) but the people only get represented once? Isn't that an imbalance? > Seems like a well-balanced system to me. Because it favors your side. You'd be singing a different tune if it was the other way around.

jki275 6y ago
States are sovereign entities that made a choice years ago to join together in a federal union. The parameters of that union are spelled out in the Constitution -- you remove that Constitution at peril of the continued existence of that union. Amendments, like the 17th, are one way to change that union, with the consent of those members of it -- but if you push too far there won't be a union any more, because a portion of those states will walk away from a union no longer defined as they define it.
- triceratops 6y ago
  > if you push too far there won't be a union any more, because a portion of those states will walk away from a union As the lopsidedness of representation grows ever more pronounced, it increases the probability that federal law and policy will diverge significantly from the views of the majority of the nation. This will likely increase disenchantment with the federal government even further, which is just as great a danger to the union. Surely you agree that this situation isn't ideal either, even if the Constitution says it's supposed to be like that?
  - jki275 6y ago
    They already have. If the people don't want things to be that way, they can pass amendments to change it.
    - triceratops 6y ago
      They can't though. The states that would lose representation have the most incentive to block amendments. Amendments aren't done by referenda.
      - jki275 6y ago
        Amendments are done by the consent of 2/3s of the states, as is spelled out in the document that governs the union of such states. If you don't want to call that a "referenda", I think you're incorrect, but it doesn't really matter.