3 ms·

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

by 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...

yardstick 4y ago
Thank you for the insightful & detailed reply!
skinnymuch 4y ago
It’s been depressing for me with how adamant people are on keeping bad systems like the electoral college or how the senate is set up. Even worse when they were initially set up by elitist, classist, and other powerful people that cared more about their own wealth and power than democracy. Why would we listen to what people like John Adams (who as far as I know is one of the better founding fathers) think of democracy when they believed in a system where only land owning men matter[0]. To prevent a response of “things were different then”. Even putting aside things that would be different if they were around today, namely women’s and non white’s rights, the core crux of being power hungry and considering themselves above poorer people is something that fits in perfectly with their writing and how the status quo is today. There’s no reason to think they’d think differently about who should wield power today. Elitism and greed hasn’t changed like sexism and racism has. 0. https://shec.ashp.cuny.edu/items/show/1645 https://shec.ashp.cuny.edu/items/show/1645
divided 4y ago
Interesting, but I’d say your case study is a much clearer explanation of the downsides to unfettered capitalism (especially in regards to infrastructure) and money in politics than it is of political power apportioned by population. Traditionally, the government spends more per capita on infrastructure in less populated territories. This holds true for most developed countries. Within states this also holds true. More state budget is spent per capita to build up rural roads than city ones. They ensure water, sewage, electricity, television, and internet to provide service to remote populations instead of allowing them to only operate in cities (and they charge the same price despite a higher cost to serve rural populations). Again, this tends to be the case despite whether a developed country has a body like the US Senate or not. When it comes to government decisions, rural territories whether at the state level or the national level receive disproportionately more benefit from their association with more urban counties or states. It’s ok to get nervous about change. That’s what conservative beliefs are: change is bad. But if I could offer any advice about a better way to think about this specific issue: dozens of countries don’t have a body like the US Senate and don’t decide their elections based on an electoral college. They’re doing fine and in many ways better than the US. The suggestions to abolish these institutions aren’t some untried theoretical far-fetched idea. They’ve been used for hundreds of years in some places. Not so scary, huh?

by CSSer 4y ago

yardstick 4y ago

Thank you for the insightful & detailed reply!

skinnymuch 4y ago

It’s been depressing for me with how adamant people are on keeping bad systems like the electoral college or how the senate is set up. Even worse when they were initially set up by elitist, classist, and other powerful people that cared more about their own wealth and power than democracy. Why would we listen to what people like John Adams (who as far as I know is one of the better founding fathers) think of democracy when they believed in a system where only land owning men matter[0]. To prevent a response of “things were different then”. Even putting aside things that would be different if they were around today, namely women’s and non white’s rights, the core crux of being power hungry and considering themselves above poorer people is something that fits in perfectly with their writing and how the status quo is today. There’s no reason to think they’d think differently about who should wield power today. Elitism and greed hasn’t changed like sexism and racism has. 0. https://shec.ashp.cuny.edu/items/show/1645 https://shec.ashp.cuny.edu/items/show/1645

divided 4y ago

Interesting, but I’d say your case study is a much clearer explanation of the downsides to unfettered capitalism (especially in regards to infrastructure) and money in politics than it is of political power apportioned by population. Traditionally, the government spends more per capita on infrastructure in less populated territories. This holds true for most developed countries. Within states this also holds true. More state budget is spent per capita to build up rural roads than city ones. They ensure water, sewage, electricity, television, and internet to provide service to remote populations instead of allowing them to only operate in cities (and they charge the same price despite a higher cost to serve rural populations). Again, this tends to be the case despite whether a developed country has a body like the US Senate or not. When it comes to government decisions, rural territories whether at the state level or the national level receive disproportionately more benefit from their association with more urban counties or states. It’s ok to get nervous about change. That’s what conservative beliefs are: change is bad. But if I could offer any advice about a better way to think about this specific issue: dozens of countries don’t have a body like the US Senate and don’t decide their elections based on an electoral college. They’re doing fine and in many ways better than the US. The suggestions to abolish these institutions aren’t some untried theoretical far-fetched idea. They’ve been used for hundreds of years in some places. Not so scary, huh?