8 ms·

I could see Congress going along with this in exchange for DC statehood. But, while we're talking about things that won't ever happen, we should also combine t

I could see Congress going along with this in exchange for DC statehood. But, while we're talking about things that won't ever happen, we should also combine the Dakotas into one state. Lot of government administrative resources wasted for very few people actually living there. And we're paying for four senators, where two is way more than necessary to represent that population.

da_big_ghey 5y ago
Very convenient proposal for eliminating 2 red state senators, I see.
taylorfinley 5y ago
Population of California: 39,656,838* Population of North + South Dakota: 1,645,198* Persons per senator in California: 19,828,419 Persons per senator in the Dakotas: 411,300 Getting highly-overrepresented people to give up their overrepresentation is a hard ask. *latest US Census figures
- nickff 5y ago
  It's not over-representation, as the senate was never supposed to represent citizens, it was supposed to represent the states. At the time of the declaration of independence, there were some states much larger than others; Virginia had a population of ~747k, and Delaware was at ~59k.
  - taylorfinley 5y ago
    I certainly agree that this disparity exists by-design. We can disagree on the word used to describe it, but the fact remains: For every person in a state represented by a senator's vote in the Dakotas, there is nearly 50 people in the state of California. This is ~400% the disparity you cite between Delaware and Virginia. Certainly that growth in disparity is not entirely unforeseeable by the founders. The system is functioning as intended. My point was that you aren't likely to get people to voluntarily choose to have less power.
  - pseudalopex 5y ago
    State governments are supposed to represent the people of the state. The people who designed the system just didn't trust the masses. And people can disagree with the design.
  - Imnimo 5y ago
    Okay, but the division of the Dakota Territory into two states was done, at least in part, to game the system and secure more seats for the 1870s Republican party. It's not just a matter of "well, there turned out to be two states, and so they just happen to get two sets of representatives and senators" - the causal arrow points in the other direction.
  - wbsss4412 5y ago
    The senate was also originally chosen by the state legislatures, the federal government wasn’t able to levy income taxes, DC wasn’t given federal representation, etc. It can both be true that the senate was “designed” to represent different interests and at the same time we can critique it and say that certain states are “over represented” as the society the senate was originally designed for no longer exists. we have different needs and values than we did in 1789 and the system we live under today is already radically different than the one that existed in say 1800.
  - 8note 5y ago
    That would make sense if senators were appointed by state governors and not by by elections. Really, Senate representation is set up to uphold the status quo on slavery. It's supposed toaesre that the free states cant outlaw slavery, and so that slave states cant change the due date for when slavery would stop. Today's representation carries that legacy, where new states are not allowed unless they preserve the status quo.
    - nickff 5y ago
      >"Really, Senate representation is set up to uphold the status quo on slavery. It's supposed toaesre that the free states cant outlaw slavery, and so that slave states cant change the due date for when slavery would stop." Senate representation was one of many bulwarks against majoritarianism, which was one of the founders' principal concerns, for a variety of reasons.
- tut-urut-utut 5y ago
  But that’s my design. Senators were never supposed to represent population proportionally. That’s what congressman are for, senators represent a state. If you want pure proportional representation then you need to dismiss senate, and change congressional election to nation wide proportional system. Afterwards you wouldn’t even need states anymore.
  - neaden 5y ago
    States do a lot more then just vote for Federal legislators. We could have a federal election system that didn't take states into account but still had independent state laws, governors, police forces, etc.
  - rplst8 5y ago
    And, folks often forget, the fact that the states exist and have control of their elections is part of what helps with the incorruptibility of the system.
  - 8note 5y ago
    Senators nowadays represent voters in their state, and not the state itself. The governor doesn't tell their senators how to vote
- tomjen3 5y ago
  The house represents people, the senate the states. Hence why senators are elected for 6 years, because states interests don't change that often and the house every 2, in order for the people to have as much influence as possible. Same reason all tax bills have to start in the house, why senators weren't elected by popular vote.
  - 8note 5y ago
    Doesn't the state's interests change during every state election?

da_big_ghey 5y ago

Very convenient proposal for eliminating 2 red state senators, I see.

taylorfinley 5y ago

Population of California: 39,656,838* Population of North + South Dakota: 1,645,198* Persons per senator in California: 19,828,419 Persons per senator in the Dakotas: 411,300 Getting highly-overrepresented people to give up their overrepresentation is a hard ask. *latest US Census figures

nickff 5y ago
It's not over-representation, as the senate was never supposed to represent citizens, it was supposed to represent the states. At the time of the declaration of independence, there were some states much larger than others; Virginia had a population of ~747k, and Delaware was at ~59k.
- taylorfinley 5y ago
  I certainly agree that this disparity exists by-design. We can disagree on the word used to describe it, but the fact remains: For every person in a state represented by a senator's vote in the Dakotas, there is nearly 50 people in the state of California. This is ~400% the disparity you cite between Delaware and Virginia. Certainly that growth in disparity is not entirely unforeseeable by the founders. The system is functioning as intended. My point was that you aren't likely to get people to voluntarily choose to have less power.
- pseudalopex 5y ago
  State governments are supposed to represent the people of the state. The people who designed the system just didn't trust the masses. And people can disagree with the design.
- Imnimo 5y ago
  Okay, but the division of the Dakota Territory into two states was done, at least in part, to game the system and secure more seats for the 1870s Republican party. It's not just a matter of "well, there turned out to be two states, and so they just happen to get two sets of representatives and senators" - the causal arrow points in the other direction.
- wbsss4412 5y ago
  The senate was also originally chosen by the state legislatures, the federal government wasn’t able to levy income taxes, DC wasn’t given federal representation, etc. It can both be true that the senate was “designed” to represent different interests and at the same time we can critique it and say that certain states are “over represented” as the society the senate was originally designed for no longer exists. we have different needs and values than we did in 1789 and the system we live under today is already radically different than the one that existed in say 1800.
- 8note 5y ago
  That would make sense if senators were appointed by state governors and not by by elections. Really, Senate representation is set up to uphold the status quo on slavery. It's supposed toaesre that the free states cant outlaw slavery, and so that slave states cant change the due date for when slavery would stop. Today's representation carries that legacy, where new states are not allowed unless they preserve the status quo.
  - nickff 5y ago
    >"Really, Senate representation is set up to uphold the status quo on slavery. It's supposed toaesre that the free states cant outlaw slavery, and so that slave states cant change the due date for when slavery would stop." Senate representation was one of many bulwarks against majoritarianism, which was one of the founders' principal concerns, for a variety of reasons.
tut-urut-utut 5y ago
But that’s my design. Senators were never supposed to represent population proportionally. That’s what congressman are for, senators represent a state. If you want pure proportional representation then you need to dismiss senate, and change congressional election to nation wide proportional system. Afterwards you wouldn’t even need states anymore.
- neaden 5y ago
  States do a lot more then just vote for Federal legislators. We could have a federal election system that didn't take states into account but still had independent state laws, governors, police forces, etc.
- rplst8 5y ago
  And, folks often forget, the fact that the states exist and have control of their elections is part of what helps with the incorruptibility of the system.
- 8note 5y ago
  Senators nowadays represent voters in their state, and not the state itself. The governor doesn't tell their senators how to vote
tomjen3 5y ago
The house represents people, the senate the states. Hence why senators are elected for 6 years, because states interests don't change that often and the house every 2, in order for the people to have as much influence as possible. Same reason all tax bills have to start in the house, why senators weren't elected by popular vote.
- 8note 5y ago
  Doesn't the state's interests change during every state election?