8 ms·

I think you're strongly misrepresenting motives here. The House + Senate system was setup so that less-populous states would still get a say in federal policie

I think you're strongly misrepresenting motives here. The House + Senate system was setup so that less-populous states would still get a say in federal policies that impacted them. The alternative was (and is) that farmers in Kansas who have much different concerns than urbanites in NYC get effectively zero representation at the federal level. Hence the senate was setup specifically to prevent tyranny of the majority, which is exactly what you're now saying should exist.

robcohen 4y ago
That’s correct. Farmers in Kansas shouldn’t be dictating how this country is run. We don’t need to compromise with them.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- benf76 4y ago
  If that’s your opinion why should they listen to you at all? They would secede along with the rest of the small states. You’re not understanding the principle of why everyone respects one another
  - robcohen 4y ago
    Let me flip the script here, how large does a minority group need to be before we need to do what they say? Conversely, when is a group small enough that we can disregard their desires when it conflicts with our own?
- gedy 4y ago
  Gee, maybe we should just murder the Kulaks then? Sounds like you are advocating something other than a democracy.
  - robcohen 4y ago
    No one is suggesting murder here, nice strawman. I’m just saying I’m frankly tired of living in a country where a minority is in control of our political process.
throw0101a 4y ago
> The House + Senate system was setup so that less-populous states would still get a say in federal policies that impacted them. But what was "less-populous" when this was initially configured? What was the disparity between the lowest- and highest-population states/colonies back then? Los Angeles county has a higher population than 40 states: * https://www.latimes.com/california/newsletter/2022-05-12/los-angeles-county-has-a-higher-population-than-40-states-essential-california https://www.latimes.com/california/newsletter/2022-05-12/los... It has a population of 9.8M: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_County,_California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_County,_California That's more than New Jersey: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...
- pie_flavor 4y ago
  You say this as though this means a popular vote is a better idea, rather than a worse idea.
  - danaris 4y ago
    What do you think would happen if every person in LA County had their vote for president count as much as every person in Wyoming? It's not like the vote for President is something where people from cities are going to have an opportunity to vote to harvest the blood and organs from people from rural areas or something (as if that's something they even would vote for if that were on the table). It's literally only about electing the President. That's all the electoral college affects. It's become somewhat of a meme that there's this big divide between rural dwellers and city dwellers, and that somehow if city dwellers were allowed to have genuine proportional representation, somehow they would screw over the rural dwellers, but I have never heard anyone articulate any specific thing they think would go toward that. Let alone how they think getting proportional representation purely for Presidential elections would let them do so.
    - pie_flavor 4y ago
      But the president does not just represent dwellers. He also represents jurisdictions and governments. This is the reason a state's pull in the presidential election is a combination of its pull in the House (representing purely dwellers) and its pull in the Senate (representing purely jurisdictions/governments). People who want a popular vote for the president fundamentally do not see the US as a federation. People who want a leader for LA can vote for LA's mayor. It is unfortunate how many people did not pay attention in civics class when they went over every compromise made in the formation of the Constitution, especially the ones about population proportionality as it relates to the legislative and executive branches. If you want the particular arguments for how large states would screw over small ones, the records of the Constitutional Convention are a good place to start.
p1esk 4y ago
Should 100 farmers in Kansas have the same political weight as 10000 people in NYC? If yes, then maybe we should use some form of meritocracy where what people do or who they are matters when it comes to their voting power. Would you like that?
- snickerbockers 4y ago
  no, but if i did i would argue that food production is more meritorious than investment banking.
  - shlurpy 4y ago
    There are probably more people involved in providing food for people among the 10000 NYC people then the 100 Kansas farmers.
  - p1esk 4y ago
    Do you believe that deciding what to do with money is less important than making food?
    - snickerbockers 4y ago
      ...yes?
      - p1esk 4y ago
        So deciding whether to invest a couple billion dollars into a farm is not as important as running the farm? Are you sure?
        snickerbockers 4y ago
        yes
- dahfizz 4y ago
  You're greatly exaggerating, the difference between New York and Kansas elector-per-capita is less than a factor of two. But to answer your question, yes. The people of Kansas, on a federal level, should have meaningful power. Federal laws affect all states, so each state should have a seat at the table.
yardstick 4y ago
As an outsider (non-American), can you give me an example of loss of representation for Kansas farmers at the federal level? I thought most things are delegated to the State level already. My gut instinct is the issue isn’t lack of representation, it’s federal overreach in general.
- jaredhallen 4y ago
  You're not wrong about Federal overreach, in my opinion, but the representation issue is real as well. If the Senate didn't exist, or if it wasn't setup with equal representation, then less populous states would almost never have the votes to affect Federal policy. With both House and Senate required to pass legislation, it helps to ensure that the more populous states can't pass legislation at will.
  - yardstick 4y ago
    Doesn’t the under representation swing both ways? Seems like not such a good idea to treat large numbers of people within a small area as essentially the same from a voting perspective. Quickly checking Wikipedia, the Californian governor had a ~62% share of the vote, and the NY governor ~67%. That roughly translates to at least 30% of each of those States populations dissenting from the majority view. Shouldn’t their voices be heard, same as the Kansas voters?
    - t-3 4y ago
      The difference is that the internal representation in any state is a state issue, and it's up to the states to make sure those people do/do not have representation at the state level. I get the impression that most state legislatures do somewhat mirror the federal system with a popularly elected governor, but I haven't ever looked into it deeply.
- CSSer 4y ago
  Huge swaths of the American populous live on the coasts and in large cities. Illinois (home to Chicago) is home to 12 million people (2020 census data). That’s over 3x the number of people who live in the entire state of Kansas (2020 census data). Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to “Regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States”. If farmers in Kansas feel they’re being unfairly treated by any company that trades across state lines their only point of recourse is their congressional representatives. As a historical example, railroad companies were once notorious for business practices that unduly favored high-volume users. They'd provide discounts to large corporations while excluding small businesses, and they'd charge more for short hauls than they did for long hauls[0]. It was incredibly unpopular for years, and it disincentivized trade and development in perfectly suitable states like Kansas. Yet it still took congress years to take action for the same reason it does today (they don't want to anger corporate interests). It finally took a politician from a populous state (Illinois) to bring the issue to bear and incentivize congress to act. It's not a perfect example of what you were asking for, but it's an interesting case study. Kansas would've been much less equally represented in congress than it is today. If anything, it's closer to being over-represented now due to the caps. At any rate, and to your point, the result was the creation of the first independent federal regulatory agency, the Interstate Commerce Commission. Now there are at least 32[1]. This is often cited as an example of federal overreach. It's worth considering that without these agencies, however, that congress may simply be gridlocked on more and more issues the way they were on railroads for years even with more equal representation. Despite any personal political views I may hold or knowledge I may have acquired, I get extremely nervous when people are quickly and passionately in favor of something like eliminating the electoral college. It's a challenge to find pure functions in our system. Ultimately, I have no grand conclusions to offer up here. I just hope you find it interesting or helpful. [0] https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Interstate_Commerce_Act_Is_Passed.htm https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Intersta... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_United_States_government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_Un...
salawat 4y ago
Rhode Island would be a better example, or any of the New England states, seeing as they were the main group who pushed for the Senate.
divided 4y ago
The only thing worse than the tyranny of the majority is the tyranny of the minority, which we see happening today around bodily autonomy and LGBTQ. Also this fear of tyranny of the majority is widely ignorant of US history. It has happened countless times in different contexts, what value is there in treating the urban/rural divide special? The white majority supported enslavement of black people. And destroying or expelling Native Americans. And the banning of immigration from China. And Jim Crow. Then Japanese internment. Christian majority pushed for criminalizing homosexuality. And banning gay marriage. And criminalizing drug use. Or the capitalist majority sought to destroy communists in the McCarthy era. All throughout US history we have examples of a majority exerting their power over a minority. It’s just really weird that the urban/rural divide is where you and others draw the line. Should black people’s votes be counted twice? Should communists get 40 votes? Should gay people get 10? Then why is it rural Kansas farmer gets 2?
- pauldenton 4y ago
  When you are talking about tyranny of the minority, and LGBTQ, are you referring to LGBTQ people being a minority of the population, something like 10%, and are imposing their beliefs and values on everyone else?
Balgair 4y ago
> The House + Senate system was setup so that less-populous states would still get a say in federal policies that impacted them I was under the impression that it was a compromise between slave holding and free states. Smaller free states we worried about larger slave states overrunning things with their large enslaved populations. There was a lot of back and forth on this in the convention.
skinnymuch 4y ago
Right now we have a tyranny of the right that gets to have so much control because of the current set up. You’re suggesting that is fine. Why would a different senate set up equal zero effective representation for those farmers? I didn’t even say what my alternative would be. How come we only care about farmers in Kansas anyway? How come we don’t care about the many other minorities less represented? I’m American, but I’m brown. Why don’t brown minorities like me get our own better representation? Same with lgbtq, and so many more. It’s always only about giving rural conservatives an absurd amount of power.

robcohen 4y ago

That’s correct. Farmers in Kansas shouldn’t be dictating how this country is run. We don’t need to compromise with them.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
benf76 4y ago
If that’s your opinion why should they listen to you at all? They would secede along with the rest of the small states. You’re not understanding the principle of why everyone respects one another
- robcohen 4y ago
  Let me flip the script here, how large does a minority group need to be before we need to do what they say? Conversely, when is a group small enough that we can disregard their desires when it conflicts with our own?
gedy 4y ago
Gee, maybe we should just murder the Kulaks then? Sounds like you are advocating something other than a democracy.
- robcohen 4y ago
  No one is suggesting murder here, nice strawman. I’m just saying I’m frankly tired of living in a country where a minority is in control of our political process.

throw0101a 4y ago

> The House + Senate system was setup so that less-populous states would still get a say in federal policies that impacted them. But what was "less-populous" when this was initially configured? What was the disparity between the lowest- and highest-population states/colonies back then? Los Angeles county has a higher population than 40 states: * https://www.latimes.com/california/newsletter/2022-05-12/los-angeles-county-has-a-higher-population-than-40-states-essential-california https://www.latimes.com/california/newsletter/2022-05-12/los... It has a population of 9.8M: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_County,_California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_County,_California That's more than New Jersey: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...

pie_flavor 4y ago
You say this as though this means a popular vote is a better idea, rather than a worse idea.
- danaris 4y ago
  What do you think would happen if every person in LA County had their vote for president count as much as every person in Wyoming? It's not like the vote for President is something where people from cities are going to have an opportunity to vote to harvest the blood and organs from people from rural areas or something (as if that's something they even would vote for if that were on the table). It's literally only about electing the President. That's all the electoral college affects. It's become somewhat of a meme that there's this big divide between rural dwellers and city dwellers, and that somehow if city dwellers were allowed to have genuine proportional representation, somehow they would screw over the rural dwellers, but I have never heard anyone articulate any specific thing they think would go toward that. Let alone how they think getting proportional representation purely for Presidential elections would let them do so.
  - pie_flavor 4y ago
    But the president does not just represent dwellers. He also represents jurisdictions and governments. This is the reason a state's pull in the presidential election is a combination of its pull in the House (representing purely dwellers) and its pull in the Senate (representing purely jurisdictions/governments). People who want a popular vote for the president fundamentally do not see the US as a federation. People who want a leader for LA can vote for LA's mayor. It is unfortunate how many people did not pay attention in civics class when they went over every compromise made in the formation of the Constitution, especially the ones about population proportionality as it relates to the legislative and executive branches. If you want the particular arguments for how large states would screw over small ones, the records of the Constitutional Convention are a good place to start.

p1esk 4y ago

Should 100 farmers in Kansas have the same political weight as 10000 people in NYC? If yes, then maybe we should use some form of meritocracy where what people do or who they are matters when it comes to their voting power. Would you like that?

snickerbockers 4y ago
no, but if i did i would argue that food production is more meritorious than investment banking.
- shlurpy 4y ago
  There are probably more people involved in providing food for people among the 10000 NYC people then the 100 Kansas farmers.
- p1esk 4y ago
  Do you believe that deciding what to do with money is less important than making food?
  - snickerbockers 4y ago
    ...yes?
    - p1esk 4y ago
      So deciding whether to invest a couple billion dollars into a farm is not as important as running the farm? Are you sure?
      - snickerbockers 4y ago
        yes
dahfizz 4y ago
You're greatly exaggerating, the difference between New York and Kansas elector-per-capita is less than a factor of two. But to answer your question, yes. The people of Kansas, on a federal level, should have meaningful power. Federal laws affect all states, so each state should have a seat at the table.

yardstick 4y ago

As an outsider (non-American), can you give me an example of loss of representation for Kansas farmers at the federal level? I thought most things are delegated to the State level already. My gut instinct is the issue isn’t lack of representation, it’s federal overreach in general.

jaredhallen 4y ago
You're not wrong about Federal overreach, in my opinion, but the representation issue is real as well. If the Senate didn't exist, or if it wasn't setup with equal representation, then less populous states would almost never have the votes to affect Federal policy. With both House and Senate required to pass legislation, it helps to ensure that the more populous states can't pass legislation at will.
- yardstick 4y ago
  Doesn’t the under representation swing both ways? Seems like not such a good idea to treat large numbers of people within a small area as essentially the same from a voting perspective. Quickly checking Wikipedia, the Californian governor had a ~62% share of the vote, and the NY governor ~67%. That roughly translates to at least 30% of each of those States populations dissenting from the majority view. Shouldn’t their voices be heard, same as the Kansas voters?
  - t-3 4y ago
    The difference is that the internal representation in any state is a state issue, and it's up to the states to make sure those people do/do not have representation at the state level. I get the impression that most state legislatures do somewhat mirror the federal system with a popularly elected governor, but I haven't ever looked into it deeply.
CSSer 4y ago
Huge swaths of the American populous live on the coasts and in large cities. Illinois (home to Chicago) is home to 12 million people (2020 census data). That’s over 3x the number of people who live in the entire state of Kansas (2020 census data). Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to “Regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States”. If farmers in Kansas feel they’re being unfairly treated by any company that trades across state lines their only point of recourse is their congressional representatives. As a historical example, railroad companies were once notorious for business practices that unduly favored high-volume users. They'd provide discounts to large corporations while excluding small businesses, and they'd charge more for short hauls than they did for long hauls[0]. It was incredibly unpopular for years, and it disincentivized trade and development in perfectly suitable states like Kansas. Yet it still took congress years to take action for the same reason it does today (they don't want to anger corporate interests). It finally took a politician from a populous state (Illinois) to bring the issue to bear and incentivize congress to act. It's not a perfect example of what you were asking for, but it's an interesting case study. Kansas would've been much less equally represented in congress than it is today. If anything, it's closer to being over-represented now due to the caps. At any rate, and to your point, the result was the creation of the first independent federal regulatory agency, the Interstate Commerce Commission. Now there are at least 32[1]. This is often cited as an example of federal overreach. It's worth considering that without these agencies, however, that congress may simply be gridlocked on more and more issues the way they were on railroads for years even with more equal representation. Despite any personal political views I may hold or knowledge I may have acquired, I get extremely nervous when people are quickly and passionately in favor of something like eliminating the electoral college. It's a challenge to find pure functions in our system. Ultimately, I have no grand conclusions to offer up here. I just hope you find it interesting or helpful. [0] https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Interstate_Commerce_Act_Is_Passed.htm https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Intersta... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_United_States_government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_Un...

salawat 4y ago

Rhode Island would be a better example, or any of the New England states, seeing as they were the main group who pushed for the Senate.

divided 4y ago

The only thing worse than the tyranny of the majority is the tyranny of the minority, which we see happening today around bodily autonomy and LGBTQ. Also this fear of tyranny of the majority is widely ignorant of US history. It has happened countless times in different contexts, what value is there in treating the urban/rural divide special? The white majority supported enslavement of black people. And destroying or expelling Native Americans. And the banning of immigration from China. And Jim Crow. Then Japanese internment. Christian majority pushed for criminalizing homosexuality. And banning gay marriage. And criminalizing drug use. Or the capitalist majority sought to destroy communists in the McCarthy era. All throughout US history we have examples of a majority exerting their power over a minority. It’s just really weird that the urban/rural divide is where you and others draw the line. Should black people’s votes be counted twice? Should communists get 40 votes? Should gay people get 10? Then why is it rural Kansas farmer gets 2?

pauldenton 4y ago
When you are talking about tyranny of the minority, and LGBTQ, are you referring to LGBTQ people being a minority of the population, something like 10%, and are imposing their beliefs and values on everyone else?

Balgair 4y ago

> The House + Senate system was setup so that less-populous states would still get a say in federal policies that impacted them I was under the impression that it was a compromise between slave holding and free states. Smaller free states we worried about larger slave states overrunning things with their large enslaved populations. There was a lot of back and forth on this in the convention.

skinnymuch 4y ago

Right now we have a tyranny of the right that gets to have so much control because of the current set up. You’re suggesting that is fine. Why would a different senate set up equal zero effective representation for those farmers? I didn’t even say what my alternative would be. How come we only care about farmers in Kansas anyway? How come we don’t care about the many other minorities less represented? I’m American, but I’m brown. Why don’t brown minorities like me get our own better representation? Same with lgbtq, and so many more. It’s always only about giving rural conservatives an absurd amount of power.