7 ms·

Under the Articles of Confederation all decisions were made by a vote of the states. The Constitution has a very different structure. Most of the power resides

Under the Articles of Confederation all decisions were made by a vote of the states. The Constitution has a very different structure. Most of the power resides in Congress that the people control. The Electoral College is solely selecting the executive not deciding Constitutional questions. The people are represented by the House and assert their will that way. The apportionment of representatives should be changed so the same number of people are represented by each representative. That alone would alleviate most of the complaints of unequal representation. Being stuck with 435 representatives really skews the power distribution. Returning the Senate to selection by state legislature also solves the complaint of unequal representation in the senate. Representing the people isn't supposed to be the purpose of the senate. However, for electing an executive, what is wrong with one vote per state? The states are selecting their international representative that Constitutionally has little power. The mess we have was made incrementally over time. It doesn't make sense to give states one vote in presidential elections without fixing representation of the people and of the state governments. Fixing the house should be the first step so the people feel like they are being represented equally. Then fix the Senate so state governments have a voice. The maybe we address changes to the Electoral College.

PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
> Returning the Senate to selection by state legislature also solves the complaint of unequal representation in the senate. ?? Wyoming would still have 2 senators, just like California. How does that help in any way? > Representing the people isn't supposed to be the purpose of the senate. For many of us, that's precisely the problem. The role of the government is the representation of the people, and to the extent that the senate fails to do that, it is a failed part of the government.
- tastyfreeze 4y ago
  The House is the representation of the people. The Senate is supposed to represent each state government. Regardless of population the state governments do not need more representation. The role of government is to protect states from foreign or domestic invasion and to ensure no government tramples the rights of the people. But, we are so far past what the government is supposed to do we have people trying to figure out how to get more power for themselves. The Federal government was meant to be inconsequential to your daily life.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
    What interest does a state government have other than the interests of the people of the state. Your assertions about the role of the federal government represent one view of that role, and a very historical one at that. That doesn't make it wrong, but it would probably be more useful to say something like "I continue to believe that the view of the some of the framers, and many of the land owning class in the 1700's, that the federal government's role should be very small, continues to be correct even in the 2020s". More useful because lots of people don't agree with that perspective.
    - tastyfreeze 4y ago
      The state government is a consolidated view of the people in that state. That doesn't mean that everybody in the state agrees. But, it does mean that there are some settled issues at the state level. A state's senators should be representing those settled views. Senators did represent the people but once removed. The people can be swayed by a smooth talker or a pretty face. The state legislature selecting senators ensured that senators represented the collective wishes of the state and reinforced state sovereignty by giving the state government a voice in congress. The Senate acted as a check on the people's whims represented in the House. Federalists 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 75, and 76 address the Senate but the reason for the Senate is summarized at https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/idea-of-the-senate/1787Federalist62.htm https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/idea-of-the.... Unless a Constitution describing a large government is ratified I will stick to my belief that a large portion of the government is unconstitutional and unnecessary. The Constitution explicitly says that the only powers the federal government has are what is described in the Constitution. Anything beyond that shouldn't exist at the federal level. A small federal government ensures that what the people of one state want has absolutely zero effect on any other state. It ensures that the people that live closest to each other are deciding the rules they live by. That makes for a happier populous as the people feel they actually have a say in how their lives are governed. A large central government is costly, ineffective and overbearing.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago

PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago

> Returning the Senate to selection by state legislature also solves the complaint of unequal representation in the senate. ?? Wyoming would still have 2 senators, just like California. How does that help in any way? > Representing the people isn't supposed to be the purpose of the senate. For many of us, that's precisely the problem. The role of the government is the representation of the people, and to the extent that the senate fails to do that, it is a failed part of the government.

tastyfreeze 4y ago
The House is the representation of the people. The Senate is supposed to represent each state government. Regardless of population the state governments do not need more representation. The role of government is to protect states from foreign or domestic invasion and to ensure no government tramples the rights of the people. But, we are so far past what the government is supposed to do we have people trying to figure out how to get more power for themselves. The Federal government was meant to be inconsequential to your daily life.
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
  What interest does a state government have other than the interests of the people of the state. Your assertions about the role of the federal government represent one view of that role, and a very historical one at that. That doesn't make it wrong, but it would probably be more useful to say something like "I continue to believe that the view of the some of the framers, and many of the land owning class in the 1700's, that the federal government's role should be very small, continues to be correct even in the 2020s". More useful because lots of people don't agree with that perspective.
  - tastyfreeze 4y ago
    The state government is a consolidated view of the people in that state. That doesn't mean that everybody in the state agrees. But, it does mean that there are some settled issues at the state level. A state's senators should be representing those settled views. Senators did represent the people but once removed. The people can be swayed by a smooth talker or a pretty face. The state legislature selecting senators ensured that senators represented the collective wishes of the state and reinforced state sovereignty by giving the state government a voice in congress. The Senate acted as a check on the people's whims represented in the House. Federalists 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 75, and 76 address the Senate but the reason for the Senate is summarized at https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/idea-of-the-senate/1787Federalist62.htm https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/idea-of-the.... Unless a Constitution describing a large government is ratified I will stick to my belief that a large portion of the government is unconstitutional and unnecessary. The Constitution explicitly says that the only powers the federal government has are what is described in the Constitution. Anything beyond that shouldn't exist at the federal level. A small federal government ensures that what the people of one state want has absolutely zero effect on any other state. It ensures that the people that live closest to each other are deciding the rules they live by. That makes for a happier populous as the people feel they actually have a say in how their lives are governed. A large central government is costly, ineffective and overbearing.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago