5 ms·

Given a disproportionate number of HN users are in California, no we don't actually "choose" congress in any reasonable sense. We get to pick 2 people to repre

by nr2x 4y ago

Given a disproportionate number of HN users are in California, no we don't actually "choose" congress in any reasonable sense. We get to pick 2 people to represent ~40M people in the Senate, whereas the ~500k people of Wyoming get to pick 2 representative as well. Given how our institutions work, the people of Wyoming have vastly more influence on a per capita basis than those in California, which is evidenced in our recent Supreme Court turn to the batshit insane side of reality. WONTFIX: NEEDS REFACTOR

RcouF1uZ4gsC 4y ago
Doesn’t Belgium also have the the same number of UN representatives as India?
- nr2x 4y ago
  Yes, and I can't believe the supreme world court of the UN just removed all countries ability to set gun laws and the world has gone full Alabama overnight. rad.
Akronymus 4y ago
> We get to pick 2 people to represent ~40M people in the Senate, whereas the ~500k people of Wyoming get to pick 2 representative as well. That sounds like it is working as the founding fathers intended. As that gives rural states a voice as well. If that is a good or bad thing is debatable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
- Maursault 4y ago
  > That sounds like it is working as the founding fathers intended. As that gives rural states a voice as well. This is why residents of DC and Puerto Rico should be allowed to choose representation in Congress, because as it is, about 4M US citizens are paying taxes without any voting influence in Congress.
  - Akronymus 4y ago
    Isn't DC a district? And Puerto Rico an unincorporated territory? As in, both would need to be converted to states first, and in the process lose some benefits a lack of statehood provides. (At least in the case of PR) For DC there is a legal argument that can be made that it shouldn't be one due to being the seat of the government and under direct rule of congress. at least from my reading up on it. But yeah, the citizens deserve representation as well.
  - gedy 4y ago
    > This is why residents of DC ... should be allowed to choose representation in Congress I agree, but noticed that when suggestions of combining DC with surrounding Maryland come up, many folks go silent. This gives the appearance of just using DC to get extra Democrat votes.
    - Maursault 4y ago
      > just using DC to get extra Democrat votes DC isn't just a group of people, it is the city and its unique architecture, culture, subcultures, etc., it's definitely not a suburb of Baltimore unless your goal is to sustain their lack of legislative influence. The problem is they are burdened with taxes without representation in Congress, and your bias against actually solving what many might say the Founders would consider evil is ultimately a matter of their political leanings — because the residents happen to be tolerant and progressive, their votes and rights must be stifled. If DC was red, it'd be a different story. Tribalism is only one of many problems with Republicans and the Republican Party, that blind loyalty is above honesty and fairness. I always saw the bigger problem as 99% of voting Republicans are literally voting against their current personal economic interests in anticipation of the day when they will be rich (say, earning $400K+/yr or having $2M in investments, business, real estate or bonds) and served by economically and socially destructive goals and absurd ideals such as the fewest having the most. If everyone suddenly always voted in their personal economic interests, Republicans wouldn't be able to win any more elections, because it would just be the 5 richest guys voting Republican. It is stark to realize, nevertheless true that the Republican Party, at its heart, if its heart is those whose interests are always best served by Republican agenda, it'd just be those half dozen or so rich guys. I'm sure they appreciate your vote, but not enough to help you improve or even sustain your economic situation. Sucks for everyone that this is really whats happening, by and large the poorer are propping up the richer completely divorced from their economic situation and the awareness of the influence they have to change it with their vote. The Republican Party uses a couple of distraction, guns and abortion, and taps into that unfortunate obsession in rural and suburban and urban areas of my team, which sometimes turns comically and other times tragically violent. Yelling and screaming, throwing things, fighting. It is embarrassing what Republicans have done lately... the 2000 election, McConnell stonewalling Garland's appointment, electing Trump and all of that absurd shit, and now the Supreme Court stacked by a corrupt administration is proving that it has lost all credibility, and ensured that the State will cause young women to suffer and die, unnecessarily. Eventually and ultimately, the majority will correct the court, but it will be decades.
- Fatnino 4y ago
  The senate works as intended (if you call that working). The house is utterly broken. The half a million people in Wyoming get one representative in the house. By that logic, California's 40m people should have 80 representatives. Instead we only have 53. The problem is that at some point they simply capped the size of the house. It should really be ~2 times as big as it is now.
- nr2x 4y ago
  People speak, land doesn't - there is no such thing as a "rural voice".
- filoeleven 4y ago
  No, the senate was intended to represent the concerns of each state government to the federal government, so its members were elected by state legislatures. It was changed in 1913 so that senators became directly elected by popular vote. It is certainly not what the founders intended.
AndriyKunitsyn 4y ago
Did anyone promise the equality of influence of people in different states on the Senate? The country is called United States, not a Union of California and the Northeast. (I'm not American.)
- nr2x 4y ago
  That's my point, a system designed hundreds of years ago by slave owners - which is an outlier in global governance - needs an overhaul. It's not fit for purpose, and even when the US help countries "build" democracy we set up parliamentary systems (eg Japan).
timapplesauce 4y ago
> Supreme Court turn to the batshit insane side of reality. Following the Constitution as written instead of legislating from the bench is batshit insane? Federal protection of abortion rights should come from Congress, not an overreaching activist Judiciary. Also, if you’re in California nothing has changed about access to abortion and nothing will change for the foreseeable future.
- nr2x 4y ago
  For logical consistency either states have control over both guns and abortion, or neither. The picking and choosing exposes this as a religious crusade.
  - timapplesauce 4y ago
hnburnsy 4y ago
Now do the House of Representatives.

by nr2x 4y ago

RcouF1uZ4gsC 4y ago

Doesn’t Belgium also have the the same number of UN representatives as India?

nr2x 4y ago
Yes, and I can't believe the supreme world court of the UN just removed all countries ability to set gun laws and the world has gone full Alabama overnight. rad.

Akronymus 4y ago

> We get to pick 2 people to represent ~40M people in the Senate, whereas the ~500k people of Wyoming get to pick 2 representative as well. That sounds like it is working as the founding fathers intended. As that gives rural states a voice as well. If that is a good or bad thing is debatable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

Maursault 4y ago
> That sounds like it is working as the founding fathers intended. As that gives rural states a voice as well. This is why residents of DC and Puerto Rico should be allowed to choose representation in Congress, because as it is, about 4M US citizens are paying taxes without any voting influence in Congress.
- Akronymus 4y ago
  Isn't DC a district? And Puerto Rico an unincorporated territory? As in, both would need to be converted to states first, and in the process lose some benefits a lack of statehood provides. (At least in the case of PR) For DC there is a legal argument that can be made that it shouldn't be one due to being the seat of the government and under direct rule of congress. at least from my reading up on it. But yeah, the citizens deserve representation as well.
- gedy 4y ago
  > This is why residents of DC ... should be allowed to choose representation in Congress I agree, but noticed that when suggestions of combining DC with surrounding Maryland come up, many folks go silent. This gives the appearance of just using DC to get extra Democrat votes.
  - Maursault 4y ago
    > just using DC to get extra Democrat votes DC isn't just a group of people, it is the city and its unique architecture, culture, subcultures, etc., it's definitely not a suburb of Baltimore unless your goal is to sustain their lack of legislative influence. The problem is they are burdened with taxes without representation in Congress, and your bias against actually solving what many might say the Founders would consider evil is ultimately a matter of their political leanings — because the residents happen to be tolerant and progressive, their votes and rights must be stifled. If DC was red, it'd be a different story. Tribalism is only one of many problems with Republicans and the Republican Party, that blind loyalty is above honesty and fairness. I always saw the bigger problem as 99% of voting Republicans are literally voting against their current personal economic interests in anticipation of the day when they will be rich (say, earning $400K+/yr or having $2M in investments, business, real estate or bonds) and served by economically and socially destructive goals and absurd ideals such as the fewest having the most. If everyone suddenly always voted in their personal economic interests, Republicans wouldn't be able to win any more elections, because it would just be the 5 richest guys voting Republican. It is stark to realize, nevertheless true that the Republican Party, at its heart, if its heart is those whose interests are always best served by Republican agenda, it'd just be those half dozen or so rich guys. I'm sure they appreciate your vote, but not enough to help you improve or even sustain your economic situation. Sucks for everyone that this is really whats happening, by and large the poorer are propping up the richer completely divorced from their economic situation and the awareness of the influence they have to change it with their vote. The Republican Party uses a couple of distraction, guns and abortion, and taps into that unfortunate obsession in rural and suburban and urban areas of my team, which sometimes turns comically and other times tragically violent. Yelling and screaming, throwing things, fighting. It is embarrassing what Republicans have done lately... the 2000 election, McConnell stonewalling Garland's appointment, electing Trump and all of that absurd shit, and now the Supreme Court stacked by a corrupt administration is proving that it has lost all credibility, and ensured that the State will cause young women to suffer and die, unnecessarily. Eventually and ultimately, the majority will correct the court, but it will be decades.
Fatnino 4y ago
The senate works as intended (if you call that working). The house is utterly broken. The half a million people in Wyoming get one representative in the house. By that logic, California's 40m people should have 80 representatives. Instead we only have 53. The problem is that at some point they simply capped the size of the house. It should really be ~2 times as big as it is now.
nr2x 4y ago
People speak, land doesn't - there is no such thing as a "rural voice".
filoeleven 4y ago
No, the senate was intended to represent the concerns of each state government to the federal government, so its members were elected by state legislatures. It was changed in 1913 so that senators became directly elected by popular vote. It is certainly not what the founders intended.

AndriyKunitsyn 4y ago

Did anyone promise the equality of influence of people in different states on the Senate? The country is called United States, not a Union of California and the Northeast. (I'm not American.)

nr2x 4y ago
That's my point, a system designed hundreds of years ago by slave owners - which is an outlier in global governance - needs an overhaul. It's not fit for purpose, and even when the US help countries "build" democracy we set up parliamentary systems (eg Japan).

timapplesauce 4y ago

> Supreme Court turn to the batshit insane side of reality. Following the Constitution as written instead of legislating from the bench is batshit insane? Federal protection of abortion rights should come from Congress, not an overreaching activist Judiciary. Also, if you’re in California nothing has changed about access to abortion and nothing will change for the foreseeable future.

nr2x 4y ago
For logical consistency either states have control over both guns and abortion, or neither. The picking and choosing exposes this as a religious crusade.
- timapplesauce 4y ago

hnburnsy 4y ago

Now do the House of Representatives.