3 ms·

The senate is affirmative action for rural areas. Why do we accept minority rule?

gruez 4y ago
Because it was explicitly created with the goal of preventing majoritarian rule. The majority's interests are represented in the house.
deelowe 4y ago
B/c the US is a union. I live in a rural area. There are plenty of laws that make sense for my area that would be ridiculous in high density cities and vise verse. Here there is no minimum speed limit and I can drive my tractor down the road by attaching an orange triangle. I can drill my own well. I can chop and burn trees on my property. None if thus would make sense in the city.
- camgunz 4y ago
  What you're describing is pluralism and federalism, not minority rule. Minority rule with your examples would be to force cities to burn their trash because that's what makes sense in rural areas.
vorpalhex 4y ago
Tyranny of the majority. New York City doesn't make rules for Eerie, Indiana. NYC can make rules for NYC.
- throwaway0a5e 4y ago
  NYC makes the rules for NY state. And the people of Buffalo, Plattsburg, etc, etc, aren't exactly happy with that or benefiting from that. They have more industrial economies than downstate does and they are kneecapped hard by some of downstate's economic policies. States that are economically and politically dominated by a single economic zone are a great examples of why minority contingents need strong veto power.
bpodgursky 4y ago
The democrats have the senate majority. They just have to be willing to pass laws that the moderates will vote for. For dumb political reasons, they refuse to do this, and this is a forcing function to make them act like adults. They could even get ~2 Republican votes for broad abortion rights, and likely more if they passed a targeted bill about the health of the mother, incest, etc. As recently as a decade ago the democrats had a supermajority and passed sweeping healthcare reform bills. It's really not an insurmountable barrier.
mmcconnell1618 4y ago
The Senate is way out of balance from the power it originally had in 1776. Delaware was the smallest of the 13 states with a population of 59K. That's 2.36% of the 2.5M total in 1776. There were 26 Senators so each one had about 7.7% voting power. Today, South Dakota has a population of 905K out of 330M or 0.274% of the population. There are 100 Senators so each has about 2% voting power. A Senator from South Dakota today represents 1/10 the population that a Senator from Delaware did in 1776. If influence scaled with the same distribution it did in 1776, a South Dakota Senator should only have about 0.77% voting power, but today they have 2%. Population distribution is more widely varied today which creates much more power for lower population states than when in the country was formed.
usrn 4y ago
Because the alternative would be not having the rural areas continuing to be part of the nation. If you can't come to an agreement with us, that's fine, try to move the regulation out of the federal government and see if you'll have better luck at the state level with more like-minded people.

Because it was explicitly created with the goal of preventing majoritarian rule. The majority's interests are represented in the house.

deelowe 4y ago

B/c the US is a union. I live in a rural area. There are plenty of laws that make sense for my area that would be ridiculous in high density cities and vise verse. Here there is no minimum speed limit and I can drive my tractor down the road by attaching an orange triangle. I can drill my own well. I can chop and burn trees on my property. None if thus would make sense in the city.

camgunz 4y ago
What you're describing is pluralism and federalism, not minority rule. Minority rule with your examples would be to force cities to burn their trash because that's what makes sense in rural areas.

vorpalhex 4y ago

Tyranny of the majority. New York City doesn't make rules for Eerie, Indiana. NYC can make rules for NYC.

throwaway0a5e 4y ago
NYC makes the rules for NY state. And the people of Buffalo, Plattsburg, etc, etc, aren't exactly happy with that or benefiting from that. They have more industrial economies than downstate does and they are kneecapped hard by some of downstate's economic policies. States that are economically and politically dominated by a single economic zone are a great examples of why minority contingents need strong veto power.

bpodgursky 4y ago

The democrats have the senate majority. They just have to be willing to pass laws that the moderates will vote for. For dumb political reasons, they refuse to do this, and this is a forcing function to make them act like adults. They could even get ~2 Republican votes for broad abortion rights, and likely more if they passed a targeted bill about the health of the mother, incest, etc. As recently as a decade ago the democrats had a supermajority and passed sweeping healthcare reform bills. It's really not an insurmountable barrier.

mmcconnell1618 4y ago

The Senate is way out of balance from the power it originally had in 1776. Delaware was the smallest of the 13 states with a population of 59K. That's 2.36% of the 2.5M total in 1776. There were 26 Senators so each one had about 7.7% voting power. Today, South Dakota has a population of 905K out of 330M or 0.274% of the population. There are 100 Senators so each has about 2% voting power. A Senator from South Dakota today represents 1/10 the population that a Senator from Delaware did in 1776. If influence scaled with the same distribution it did in 1776, a South Dakota Senator should only have about 0.77% voting power, but today they have 2%. Population distribution is more widely varied today which creates much more power for lower population states than when in the country was formed.

usrn 4y ago

Because the alternative would be not having the rural areas continuing to be part of the nation. If you can't come to an agreement with us, that's fine, try to move the regulation out of the federal government and see if you'll have better luck at the state level with more like-minded people.