8 ms·

Democratic senators represent 40 million more people than Republican senators and their agenda can't be passed. The last time Republican senators represented m

• DennisAleynikov 5y ago
  population density isn't how our legislature is set up. not sure why people always bring this incredibly irrelevant statistic up.
  • vanviegen 5y ago
    'incredibly irrelevant'? Wow...
    • DennisAleynikov 5y ago
      yes, the opinions of 40million "more" americans are irrelevant in a country where 330million reside. its a big territory with a lot of different laws, borders and voting districts. gerrymandering is the enemy not the electoral college itself. in a similar vein people brought up that democrats got more individual votes and "won" the popular vote in 2016. again cool? but completely irrelevant.
      • syki 5y ago
        It’s not irrelevant if a majority consistently feel their will is ignored. It’s not irrelevant if it leads to widespread discontent. The system set up 250 years ago is no longer sustainable. It’s needs to be changed.
        • whythre 5y ago
          The only reason our nation exists is because of the agreements made between large and small states. Rhode Island was not interested in being completely politically eclipsed by New York, and rightly so. Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny. The system set up 250 years ago was and is a wonder. When you cry out for sweeping change you ignore what happens if the transformation is prosecuted badly. Most revolutions are not conducted with any measure of restraint or wisdom. They end up like France or Haiti or China or Russia or on and on.
          • syki 5y ago
            I have not ignored anything. The system is not sustainable and needs to be changed. It can be changed in an orderly way and it can also be changed in a disorderly way. However it occurs or whatever form it takes it’s clear to me that change will occur eventually. It’s not feasible to think that what worked 250 years ago will always work. The framers even knew that what they set up will need to be updated periodically since they built in an updating mechanism into the system.
          • mocheeze 5y ago
            And the American revolution was rational and free of bloodshed? Or the Confederation's revolution?
  • solarhoma 5y ago
    There is a push to water down rural votes (typically conservative) as democrats feel they are not represented fairly among the senate. Arguing that Wyoming should not have the same power in the senate that California has with many more people. The US government was not set up as a pure democracy but rather a republic. They forget the founding fathers did this to prevent a tyranny by majority. The ones arguing for abolishing this process are ok with tyranny by majority rule only because they find themselves in the majority. But too quickly forget that one day they will likely find themselves in the minority. Wishing they had these protections back.
    • vanviegen 5y ago
      I don't see how the tyranny by a large minority is better than the tyranny by a majority. In either case you can find yourself in disagreement with the government. That's the very nature of government- enforcing policy, hopefully for the common good. How is the republic protecting people against that?
      • garmaine 5y ago
        They could, you know, actually work out their differences and legislate, instead of acting to the CPAN camera and following whatever their party says.
        • vanviegen 5y ago
          I agree that they should, but that doesn't actually address my point.
• rafale 5y ago
  The US is a republic, not a democracy. And for good reasons. Otherwise, politicians will try to one-up each other with promises of freebies. It's easy to win elections when you promise free healthcare, free education, free childcare,... The average person will vote in their immediate interest and not worry about the big picture. The big picture: nothing is free.
  • thghtihadanacct 5y ago
    I dont remember seeing the word 'free' in the posted article anywhere related to the paying for this bill. In fact, it clearly states the cost will come from taxes on the wealthy ... whom Manchin represents.
    • DennisAleynikov 5y ago
      those damn wealthy... and their... running the country into the ground... darn Manchin can't get his hands out of the coffers long enough to see the people suffering outside!!!
      • thghtihadanacct 5y ago
        Indeed, Im under the impression WV is one of the most heavily subsidized by the fed.
      • klarstrup 5y ago
        curious to know where you were going with this comment
        • DennisAleynikov 5y ago
          the people in Manchins district are reliant on coal and other non democratic agenda aligned perspectives, him acting the way he does isn't as simple as him catering to the rich....
          • 5y ago
• phkahler 5y ago
  >> Democratic senators represent 40 million more people than Republican senators and their agenda can't be passed. The last time Republican senators represented more than half the population was 1996. Rural, low population states have far too much power in the present system. This is not sustainable. Spending insane amounts of money like that is not sustainable. We are already looking at greater than 10 percent annual inflation and trillions of federal debt. Guess who owes that debt back? We do. People need to stop seeing the government as some kind of external magical entity that can grant gifts to whomever it wants if only it had cooperation from [my]party.
  • thghtihadanacct 5y ago
    This bill looks like its trying to give some of it back too. One of the few times a big bill like this goes to us rather than war, bank bail outs, or propping up some other country.
    • garmaine 5y ago
      It’s not clear it would be a net positive for most readers of HN, who are in the income ranges or building businesses which would be affected by the new tax rules.
  • syki 5y ago
    In a system that nominally purports to represent the will of the people it is not relevant that you are opposed to the spending. You are not the dictator of the country. The will of the majority is being thwarted consistently by a minority. This is not a sustainable way to run a representative form of government.
    • salawat 5y ago
      Everyone hides behind Majority rules right up until the Majority wants something they don't agree with. Be careful what you wish for hombre. You just might get it.
      • 5y ago
• cm2187 5y ago
  The point of having two chambers is that they are selected in a different way, otherwise you might as well have only one. The senate is a way for smaller states to not be in a permanent structural minority and have no say on the direction of the country. Many countries have a similar system. Also even the house is not a proportional system. I know some people like proportional systems but let’s keep in mind they often come with political instability.
  • errcorrectcode 5y ago
    • hagbard_c 5y ago
      So much condescension in a single line, quite a performance. Also a good demonstration of how representative democracy does its job in protecting those people from those who consider themselves morally superior over them.
    • gjsman-1000 5y ago
      Yes, I do, so that the rich states don’t fall into the trap of thinking everybody is like them and as rich as them and thinks as they do and loves every new idea they have. Checks and balances.
      • errcorrectcode 5y ago
        What is a "rich" state? Is this a conservative dog whistle? That's not a check or a balance, separation of powers is.
      • kergonath 5y ago
        [flagged]
        • Turing_Machine 5y ago
          It would be interesting to see what would happen if the blue areas stopped sending the red areas simulated pieces of green paper and the red areas stopped sending the blue areas food, water, and energy. I say "areas" because there aren't really any "blue states". Just islands of blue in a sea of red. Interesting in theory, that is. I would recommend against running this experiment in real life. Strongly.
• errcorrectcode 5y ago
  Gerrymandering is completely out of control. Mostly R's are locking-in their wins for the foreseeable future. I don't think it's a D/R thing in particular. He's completely corrupt by WV coal and other corporate interests paying him to be an insurgent DINO to do their bidding. Sinema is clearly a nutter and possibly corrupt too. The D's and R's also contain too many corrupt, plutocrat sycophants to name individually here. The system is what's broken, and it's doubtful it can be fixed from within.
  • maxerickson 5y ago
    Senate isn't gerrymandered.
    • errcorrectcode 5y ago
      I wasn't talking about that. The House is. Duh. The problem is still that the Senate gives nearly empty, conservative states outsized power they don't deserve. It was a Colonial concern that no longer exists to the degree it did during the founding.
      • Ekaros 5y ago
        There is easy solutions for this. 1. Break up the union. Each state goes it own way or forms a block between neighbours. 2. Get rid of states in general. Same federal laws and rule over all of the USA.
        • errcorrectcode 5y ago
          Reorgs rarely solve anything and administratively impossible. 50 currencies. Too many cities to roll-up to DC.
    • deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    • mocheeze 5y ago
      No, it's worse. Some states have far-outsized voting power compared to others. Same as the electoral college.
• mozman 5y ago
  I am an independent and I do not support this bill. Can we please not make it sound so black and white? Republicans aren’t evil, and neither are democrats. Both groups exist and have the right to fight for their agendas. Accept it.
  • syki 5y ago
    I have not painted anyone as evil. I suggest you reread what I wrote and take it at face value. It appears to me that you are projecting and making some assumptions about my views that aren’t supported by anything that I wrote. My post is about imbalances in the present system. It is my view and contention that the current federal system for apportioning senators and representatives is not sustainable. Everyone is free to advocate/fight for what they believe. I’ve not suggested otherwise. A system in which a minority viewpoint regularly impedes the legislative spending agenda of the majority is not sustainable long term. There is a power imbalance. The problem of this imbalance will exacerbate largely along rural/urban lines until something gives.
    • garmaine 5y ago
      You made an automatic assumption that this bill is in the best interests of the masses. That may not be the case.
      • syki 5y ago
        I made no such assumption. I don’t know anything about the bill and don’t care if it is in the best interests of the masses. I do care about the majority of the electorate having their votes count for something with regard to public policy (provided said policy does not violate Constitutional rights). It’s best to read what I wrote without trying to guess my feelings on things I’ve not talked about.
        • senectus1 5y ago
          yeah I read it that way, I'm not sure why these two posters are twisting your words/intentions.
• yucky 5y ago
  Is it possible that the people those Senators (including Manchin) represent, aren't interested in a "New Deal" style bill that nobody fully understands?
• kcplate 5y ago
  > Democratic senators represent 40 million more people than Republican senators and their agenda can't be passed. Sorry, but it needs to be said that this is a fundamental misunderstanding of who the senate represents. The senate represents the states, not the people. That is why there are only 2 per state. The house represents the people and is proportional to the population.
  • syki 5y ago
    There is no misunderstanding on my part. I’m pointing out why I think the current system is not sustainable. I’m complaining about the setup of the current system. Since the abandonment of state legislatures appointing senators I think it’s common to say senators represent the people of the state that elected them. The House is not proportional to population since each state gets one member of the House regardless of population size. One Representative from California represents around 745,000 people and this number is greater than the population of 6 states.
    • kcplate 5y ago
      They may be elected by the people in their state (which is simply the way the states have chosen to appoint them), but they still represent the state.
      • syki 5y ago
        Do you know of any other elected officials who are elected by popular vote who are said to not represent the people that elected them? At any rate, let’s not quibble on this minor semantic issue and ignore what was wrong with your original post. Also, the Constitution dictates how senators are elected. The states themselves have no choice in this matter. See the 17th Amendment.
• pandaman 5y ago
  This would be a tragedy if the majority of people wanted some laws for themselves but were held back by the minority from implementing them. Luckily, this is not the case in the US, which is a federation: if the majority of e.g. Californians want some laws for themselves then they can just make them the laws of California. The consequences of that is that if e.g. Texans want some laws for California then they need to convince the majority of the states too, which is not easy and that is by design.