4 ms·

There's also a strong argument to be made for citizens to get equal representation when it comes to the crafting of laws that affect them.

giantg2 4y ago
They do. The people get equal representation under the house. The states get equal representation under the senate. This is a feature to control populist movements as well as protect states' interests (which are also composed by the people, but this separate ensures that the culture of one set of state will not be imposed over the other set).
- Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
  The senate does not give people equal representation - regardless of the motivation for having it, this is objectively true. You can say that you like a system that has this feature for states or it has certain other benefits and so on, but you can't say that it is equal representation because it is not.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    As I said, the house gives people equal representation. A bill will not become law without passing the with through representation of the house. The only limit is that some things the house wants won't pass because the states don't agree. If you truly want equal representation, then we have to go the direct democracy route since you will not have equal numbers of people under each representative. You also need to get rid of appointments by the executive (including rule making agencies), closed primaries, and provide universal voting including for felons and non-citizens. So what is this argument for equal representation across the board? I don't see any benefit other than if you want populist movements to succeed based on the whims of the day and potentially at the expense of the minority rights (even more so than today). The main point here is that state representation was necessary in order to create the country, and is likely necessary for the country to continue. I don't see any argument that supercedes this so far.
    - Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
      I understand how it works, and you agree that the senate does not provide equal representation for people, only the states. I'm not suggesting that the numbers for each representative be exactly the same because that's not achievable in practice. What I am saying is that the current system is much less democratic than it could be if either there was no senate or it had proportional representation. You may think that would lead to chaos, but I disagree.
      - giantg2 4y ago
        It wouldn't lead to chaos. It could lead to states leaving the union if the senate were dissolved. It's happened in the past when states didn't want to be trampled and the divide seems large today. But what is the objective benefit to removing the senate? The argument I'm hearing is just that it could be more democratic, but there are many changes that could make things more democratic. Some things are about fairness, like gerrymandering. But I don't see any benefit to removing the senate.
        Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
        Laws like something that could curtail the worst of gerrymandering will never be passed because of the senate. The people that benefit from unequal and unfair representation will never vote to change them. Those people largely sit in the senate unequally representing the people that want positive change.
        giantg2 4y ago
        "Those people largely sit in the senate unequally representing the people that want positive change." I thought we already covered that they represent states, not people. By the way, what bill would they pass that would fix gerrymandering? I thought the states had the authority to draw their districts and it can be contentious as to what a good fix is. And of course we have the same logic on the other side - that a party in power will do what they can to add to their power. We see that with laws about non-citizens voting (struck down), restoring/giving voring rights to groups that would disproportionately support them, and such.
- stormbrew 4y ago
  > The people get equal representation under the house. The states get equal representation under the senate. Neither of these things are actually true in practice.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    Elaborate, please.
    - stormbrew 4y ago
      A person in Wyoming doesn't have equal representation in the house as a person in California, by quite a large margin. The house is not representative in practice. As I said in another branch of this conversation, the use of the filibuster on nearly all bills of any significance (budgets and confirmations aside) in the Senate (and the chilling effect it's had on even bringing other bills to the floor) means that states are not represented equally either. The most obstructionist states have substantially more legislative power than the ones that want to actually pass bills. This is obviously more abstract, but it's pretty clear that in practice states are not equal in the senate.
      - giantg2 4y ago
        The other states also have the power to filibuster things they don't like. This is feature not a bug. We want to fail open (liberty). The way to do that is placing safeguards that make it harder to pass laws, as they are generally imposing restrictions. The passage of any law will negatively affect some minority, the point is to make that group small and avoid straight partisanship via a modest supermajority. Yes, there are some outliers and discrepancy in the number a representative represents. It probably should be adjusted.
        stormbrew 4y ago
        It's a feature to a point. I hope it's uncontroversial that, say, blocking a bill to ban slavery is not "failing open," for example, and the persistent effort to prevent slavery from being banned led to many failures in liberty? When your main bulwark is making it hard to pass bills, all you've really done is make it so that the status quo is powerful. The status quo is not, by default, freedom.

giantg2 4y ago

They do. The people get equal representation under the house. The states get equal representation under the senate. This is a feature to control populist movements as well as protect states' interests (which are also composed by the people, but this separate ensures that the culture of one set of state will not be imposed over the other set).

Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
The senate does not give people equal representation - regardless of the motivation for having it, this is objectively true. You can say that you like a system that has this feature for states or it has certain other benefits and so on, but you can't say that it is equal representation because it is not.
- giantg2 4y ago
  As I said, the house gives people equal representation. A bill will not become law without passing the with through representation of the house. The only limit is that some things the house wants won't pass because the states don't agree. If you truly want equal representation, then we have to go the direct democracy route since you will not have equal numbers of people under each representative. You also need to get rid of appointments by the executive (including rule making agencies), closed primaries, and provide universal voting including for felons and non-citizens. So what is this argument for equal representation across the board? I don't see any benefit other than if you want populist movements to succeed based on the whims of the day and potentially at the expense of the minority rights (even more so than today). The main point here is that state representation was necessary in order to create the country, and is likely necessary for the country to continue. I don't see any argument that supercedes this so far.
  - Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
    I understand how it works, and you agree that the senate does not provide equal representation for people, only the states. I'm not suggesting that the numbers for each representative be exactly the same because that's not achievable in practice. What I am saying is that the current system is much less democratic than it could be if either there was no senate or it had proportional representation. You may think that would lead to chaos, but I disagree.
    - giantg2 4y ago
      It wouldn't lead to chaos. It could lead to states leaving the union if the senate were dissolved. It's happened in the past when states didn't want to be trampled and the divide seems large today. But what is the objective benefit to removing the senate? The argument I'm hearing is just that it could be more democratic, but there are many changes that could make things more democratic. Some things are about fairness, like gerrymandering. But I don't see any benefit to removing the senate.
      - Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
        Laws like something that could curtail the worst of gerrymandering will never be passed because of the senate. The people that benefit from unequal and unfair representation will never vote to change them. Those people largely sit in the senate unequally representing the people that want positive change.
        giantg2 4y ago
        "Those people largely sit in the senate unequally representing the people that want positive change." I thought we already covered that they represent states, not people. By the way, what bill would they pass that would fix gerrymandering? I thought the states had the authority to draw their districts and it can be contentious as to what a good fix is. And of course we have the same logic on the other side - that a party in power will do what they can to add to their power. We see that with laws about non-citizens voting (struck down), restoring/giving voring rights to groups that would disproportionately support them, and such.
stormbrew 4y ago
> The people get equal representation under the house. The states get equal representation under the senate. Neither of these things are actually true in practice.
- giantg2 4y ago
  Elaborate, please.
  - stormbrew 4y ago
    A person in Wyoming doesn't have equal representation in the house as a person in California, by quite a large margin. The house is not representative in practice. As I said in another branch of this conversation, the use of the filibuster on nearly all bills of any significance (budgets and confirmations aside) in the Senate (and the chilling effect it's had on even bringing other bills to the floor) means that states are not represented equally either. The most obstructionist states have substantially more legislative power than the ones that want to actually pass bills. This is obviously more abstract, but it's pretty clear that in practice states are not equal in the senate.
    - giantg2 4y ago
      The other states also have the power to filibuster things they don't like. This is feature not a bug. We want to fail open (liberty). The way to do that is placing safeguards that make it harder to pass laws, as they are generally imposing restrictions. The passage of any law will negatively affect some minority, the point is to make that group small and avoid straight partisanship via a modest supermajority. Yes, there are some outliers and discrepancy in the number a representative represents. It probably should be adjusted.
      - stormbrew 4y ago
        It's a feature to a point. I hope it's uncontroversial that, say, blocking a bill to ban slavery is not "failing open," for example, and the persistent effort to prevent slavery from being banned led to many failures in liberty? When your main bulwark is making it hard to pass bills, all you've really done is make it so that the status quo is powerful. The status quo is not, by default, freedom.