6 ms·

Gerrymandering is at the state level. The electoral college is in the Constitution. What does "senate reform" mean other than filibuster reform, which if you a

by pc86 1y ago

Gerrymandering is at the state level. The electoral college is in the Constitution. What does "senate reform" mean other than filibuster reform, which if you ask anyone who has studied government will tell you is an intentional design decision for a more deliberative body. "Pass laws quickly" is, depending on who you ask, either not the right thing you want to optimize for, or the exact opposite of what you want. "Tax law reform" okay great but that's going to mean 15 different things to 10 different people.

cyberax 1y ago
The Senate _itself_ is gerrymandering on the national level.
- Terr_ 1y ago
  That's mixing up "gerrymandering" with "wildly disproportionate representation to certain states because of a join-up bribe from 237 years ago". Nobody's redrawing the lines, and in a way that's part of the problem. The former is much shorter to say, but... not really accurate. Tangential gripe: Anyone who says it's "to protect the rural areas" or whatever is talking nonsense. The greater NYC area could legally convert to ~14 new states, and all those very-urban voters would reap the same kind of unfair benefits that Wyoming does with the equivalent population.
  - pc86 1y ago
    Both of these comments show a pretty glaring ignorance of how the government worked prior to 17A, when Senators weren't elected by popular vote. Prior to that they were "elected" by state legislatures. Why is that important? Put a little more crudely, and with a lot of hand-waving generalization, Senators aren't supposed to represent people in a district, they're supposed to represent the interests of their state as a whole. They're not just "Representatives but Bigger," they're something else entirely. So the fact that "but disproportionate representation!!1" is even an argument belies the lack of understanding about why the system was set up that way in the first place. It has nothing to do with rural or urban but that's a great "I don't like Republicans" dog whistle. The needs of Wyoming are different than the needs of Kansas, which are different than the needs of Upstate NY (even considered in isolation from NYC) and a representative body concerned primarily with the interests of a state protects those needs better than one Senator covering several states would be able to.
    - Terr_ 1y ago
      > the fact that "but disproportionate representation!!1" is even an argument belies the lack of understanding about why the system was set up that way in the first place. Your reply belies a lack of bothering to read before making a hostile rant. I literally just said the situation involves "a join-up bribe from 237 years ago", and I don't see how any minor-amendment-citer such as yourself could have missed the meaning, namely: Smaller states were granted disproportionate influence on federal policy, via the Senate, as an inducement to get their state-legislatures to ratify the federal constitution. That decision involved sacrificing democratic principles and ethics in favor of reaching a deal. The same tradeoff occurred with the infamous "3/5ths compromise." One of those two thankfully became moot, and it's high time we got around to fixing the other. _________ > a representative body concerned primarily with the interests of a state You have provided absolutely nothing to justify giving some states disproportionate influence on federal policy which affects all states. At best, you've provided an argument for reverting the 17th Amendment and changing how senators are chosen. That is orthogonal to how many senators a State has. _________ > > Anyone who says it's "to protect the rural areas" or whatever is talking nonsense. > that's a great "I don't like Republicans" dog whistle. LOL, this is one of those times when the indignant response is an indirect admission. Yes, it is nonsense, and yes, you disproportionately see it from Republicans. Kind of like when a context-free "Nazis=Bad" sign leads someone to complain that the sign is hostile to their party. _________ > pretty glaring ignorance of how the government worked prior to 17A A pedantic non-sequitur: 1. How senators are chosen is orthogonal to how many exist. 2. Only tangentially related to "gerrymandering" if you mean that the state legislators' boundaries were gerrymandered. If anything, 17A change made gerrymandering less relevant.
      - pc86 1y ago
        > Smaller states were granted disproportionate influence on federal policy This shows you're thinking about population which is irrelevant. Wyoming is a state and California is a state and as states they have equal weight in how their federal government is run. There are 50 equal states, regardless of how their populations differ. That was literally the only point I was making, was that decrying disproportionate representation based on a population:Senator ratio has nothing to do with how the Senate operates. California gets the same number of Senators as Wyoming because each state gets two Senators.
xnx 1y ago
> What does "senate reform" mean other than filibuster reform Along with more conventional and familiar ideas, I like to toss in the occasional radical one like "abolish the senate" to stretch people's minds a little.
opo 1y ago
>"Pass laws quickly" is, depending on who you ask, either not the right thing you want to optimize for, or the exact opposite of what you want. Opinions on the filibuster are often also time dependent. If the person's preferred party has a majority in the Senate, then the filibuster is called an evil relic of the past that should be removed. If the other party has a majority, the filibuster is a sacred part of democracy and must not be touched.

by pc86 1y ago

cyberax 1y ago

The Senate _itself_ is gerrymandering on the national level.

Terr_ 1y ago
That's mixing up "gerrymandering" with "wildly disproportionate representation to certain states because of a join-up bribe from 237 years ago". Nobody's redrawing the lines, and in a way that's part of the problem. The former is much shorter to say, but... not really accurate. Tangential gripe: Anyone who says it's "to protect the rural areas" or whatever is talking nonsense. The greater NYC area could legally convert to ~14 new states, and all those very-urban voters would reap the same kind of unfair benefits that Wyoming does with the equivalent population.
- pc86 1y ago
  Both of these comments show a pretty glaring ignorance of how the government worked prior to 17A, when Senators weren't elected by popular vote. Prior to that they were "elected" by state legislatures. Why is that important? Put a little more crudely, and with a lot of hand-waving generalization, Senators aren't supposed to represent people in a district, they're supposed to represent the interests of their state as a whole. They're not just "Representatives but Bigger," they're something else entirely. So the fact that "but disproportionate representation!!1" is even an argument belies the lack of understanding about why the system was set up that way in the first place. It has nothing to do with rural or urban but that's a great "I don't like Republicans" dog whistle. The needs of Wyoming are different than the needs of Kansas, which are different than the needs of Upstate NY (even considered in isolation from NYC) and a representative body concerned primarily with the interests of a state protects those needs better than one Senator covering several states would be able to.
  - Terr_ 1y ago
    > the fact that "but disproportionate representation!!1" is even an argument belies the lack of understanding about why the system was set up that way in the first place. Your reply belies a lack of bothering to read before making a hostile rant. I literally just said the situation involves "a join-up bribe from 237 years ago", and I don't see how any minor-amendment-citer such as yourself could have missed the meaning, namely: Smaller states were granted disproportionate influence on federal policy, via the Senate, as an inducement to get their state-legislatures to ratify the federal constitution. That decision involved sacrificing democratic principles and ethics in favor of reaching a deal. The same tradeoff occurred with the infamous "3/5ths compromise." One of those two thankfully became moot, and it's high time we got around to fixing the other. _________ > a representative body concerned primarily with the interests of a state You have provided absolutely nothing to justify giving some states disproportionate influence on federal policy which affects all states. At best, you've provided an argument for reverting the 17th Amendment and changing how senators are chosen. That is orthogonal to how many senators a State has. _________ > > Anyone who says it's "to protect the rural areas" or whatever is talking nonsense. > that's a great "I don't like Republicans" dog whistle. LOL, this is one of those times when the indignant response is an indirect admission. Yes, it is nonsense, and yes, you disproportionately see it from Republicans. Kind of like when a context-free "Nazis=Bad" sign leads someone to complain that the sign is hostile to their party. _________ > pretty glaring ignorance of how the government worked prior to 17A A pedantic non-sequitur: 1. How senators are chosen is orthogonal to how many exist. 2. Only tangentially related to "gerrymandering" if you mean that the state legislators' boundaries were gerrymandered. If anything, 17A change made gerrymandering less relevant.
    - pc86 1y ago
      > Smaller states were granted disproportionate influence on federal policy This shows you're thinking about population which is irrelevant. Wyoming is a state and California is a state and as states they have equal weight in how their federal government is run. There are 50 equal states, regardless of how their populations differ. That was literally the only point I was making, was that decrying disproportionate representation based on a population:Senator ratio has nothing to do with how the Senate operates. California gets the same number of Senators as Wyoming because each state gets two Senators.

xnx 1y ago

> What does "senate reform" mean other than filibuster reform Along with more conventional and familiar ideas, I like to toss in the occasional radical one like "abolish the senate" to stretch people's minds a little.

opo 1y ago

>"Pass laws quickly" is, depending on who you ask, either not the right thing you want to optimize for, or the exact opposite of what you want. Opinions on the filibuster are often also time dependent. If the person's preferred party has a majority in the Senate, then the filibuster is called an evil relic of the past that should be removed. If the other party has a majority, the filibuster is a sacred part of democracy and must not be touched.