6 ms·

Gerrymandering is at the heart of the rot.

nullocator 11mo ago
The Senate is not subject to garrymandering and if we fixed the issues with the House (literally via any mechanism) the Senate would immediately go back to being the vehicle used to prevent the will of the people (see the Senate under Mitch McConnell any time the House was under Democrat control) Until the Dem party fixes their brand and wins back some of the Senate seats they used to control in the 90s and early 2000s there will be no positive progress.
- JauntTrooper 11mo ago
  The Senate is in a permanent state of gerrymandering. There were only 13 states when the Constitution was ratified. It was never envisioned to be as disproportionate as it is today, with California's two Senators representing 40 million people vs. Wyoming's 0.6 million.
  - Loughla 11mo ago
    No, I like the way the Senate runs in theory. Equal representation for the states regardless of size. Only if it's alongside the house with proportionate representation. That seems like a good theory that would keep itself in check. In execution it's an absolute shit show, I'll give you. But I do believe the theory is sound. With the house and the Senate we get the best of both worlds. In theory.
    - lotsofpulp 11mo ago
      Why is the theory sound? It’s an arbitrary number of regions delineated by arbitrary lines given a disproportionate amount of power that run completely counter to the goal of a democracy.
      - echelon 11mo ago
        States are sovereign entities with their own laws. They can even, in theory, secede from the union. The Senate is a good system, it's just that most states are Republican. Some of the larger states might consider splitting themselves into separate states to better represent their populations. Though that may not be constitutionally possible. If we ever add additional states to the Union (Puerto Rico, D.C., etc.), they'll want to enjoy having an equal say with every other state in the Union. It's a compelling feature of our system. The House, as a proportional system, actually needs to be re-normalized. There are not enough representatives to have an actually proportional vote.
        spankalee 11mo ago
        The Senate is a terrible system. There's no logical reason why citizens in one state should have orders of magnitude more say in the federal government than citizens in another. The founders aren't infallible gods, and they really fucked up here.
        Centrino 11mo ago
        Unlike in many other countries, where provinces or regions are merely administrative divisions created to decentralize or streamline administration, the US emerged when states voluntarily came together and decided to create a country. The states were willing to outsource part of their autonomy to a federal level, on condition that guardrails were put in place to limit the power of that federal level. Those guardrails were: bicameralism, equal representation of states in the Senate, and the electoral college. The House is the voice of the people, the Senate is the voice of the states. The practical consequence of this system is that it effectively prevents a majority of voters from large urban centers from imposing their will onto rural populations, at least at the federal level. It was designed that way. I've seen comments here claiming that countries like Canada or France deliver better outcomes than the US. They are stronger welfare states, yes, but they also have become overly paternalistic nanny states, with heavy-handed regulations, and high taxes stifling individual initiative.
  - koolba 11mo ago
    In 1776, the population of Virgin was about 500K, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts were about 270K, and Delaware and Georgia were about 50K each. The founders knew exactly what they were agreeing to when they gave each State two Senators. It’s supposed to be a separate check on the Federal power to force a wide swathe of consensus.
    - judahmeek 11mo ago
      I doubt the founders considered the possibility that political realignment would result in nearly all low population states being on one side of the spectrum.
      - cherrycherry98 11mo ago
        Counting the two Independents as Democrats, who they caucus with: Top 25 states: 2 Democrats - 52% 2 Republicans - 40% Split - 8% Bottom 25 states: 2 Democrats - 36% 2 Republicans - 60% Split - 4% Top quintile: 2 Democrats - 50% 2 Republicans - 40% Split - 10% 2nd quintile: 2 Democrats - 60% 2 Republicans - 30% Split - 10% Middle quintile: 2 Democrats - 40% 2 Republicans - 60% 4th quintile: 2 Democrats - 30% 2 Republicans - 70% Bottom quintile: 2 Democrats - 40% 2 Republicans - 50% Split - 10% The very top and very bottom are a 55% to 45% split in either direction. It's not a heavy skew, a single party flip in the quintile from the majority to the minority would make it 50/50 even. Those quintiles cancel each other out when voting on party/caucus lines. It's actually the 2nd and 4th quintiles that have the biggest skews. Democrats take the 2nd quintile while Republicans take the 3rd and 4th.
        judahmeek 11mo ago
        I definitely appreciate your measurements, but I think your analysis is off. The top & bottom quintiles don't cancel out, but rather support the same trend, which is that Republicans have more voting power per capita. That said, I am surprised that the top & bottom quintiles are nearly balanced. I'll have to look up which bottom quintile states have Democratic senators.
otikik 11mo ago
Money is. Politicians are for sale.
- SaltyBackendGuy 11mo ago
  This is my take as well. Nothing will improve until we roll back Citizens United.
  - spankalee 11mo ago
    Citizens United is impossible to roll back with the structural problem of the Senate.
moron4hire 11mo ago
Gerrymandering is particular powerful because Congress has refused to reapportion representatives for over a century. They just decided to stop following that part of the Constitution back in 1929. We still have the same number of representatives as we did when we were less than a third our current population. Each representative now covers 20 times more people than when the Constitution was ratified.
specialist 11mo ago
Yes and: our first-past-the-post form of elections begets gerrymandering. My future perfect world: proportional representation for assemblies (eg US House), some arbitrarily low number of reps per citizens (200k - 400k?), no upper assembly (eg US Senate), approval voting for executive positions (eg Mayor, Sheriff, President), only public financing of campaigns, limit campaign season to maybe 6 weeks. Friendly amendments to my wishlist cheerfully accepted. There's so many reasonable, impactful reforms which could be done. And my wishlist is based on my (imperfect) understanding of best available (political) science. And I'm all ears about SCOTUS reforms. And I doubt any reforms will stick, so long as our gini coefficient is so out of whack (wealth vs democracy, the timeless struggle).

The Senate is not subject to garrymandering and if we fixed the issues with the House (literally via any mechanism) the Senate would immediately go back to being the vehicle used to prevent the will of the people (see the Senate under Mitch McConnell any time the House was under Democrat control) Until the Dem party fixes their brand and wins back some of the Senate seats they used to control in the 90s and early 2000s there will be no positive progress.

JauntTrooper 11mo ago
The Senate is in a permanent state of gerrymandering. There were only 13 states when the Constitution was ratified. It was never envisioned to be as disproportionate as it is today, with California's two Senators representing 40 million people vs. Wyoming's 0.6 million.
- Loughla 11mo ago
  No, I like the way the Senate runs in theory. Equal representation for the states regardless of size. Only if it's alongside the house with proportionate representation. That seems like a good theory that would keep itself in check. In execution it's an absolute shit show, I'll give you. But I do believe the theory is sound. With the house and the Senate we get the best of both worlds. In theory.
  - lotsofpulp 11mo ago
    Why is the theory sound? It’s an arbitrary number of regions delineated by arbitrary lines given a disproportionate amount of power that run completely counter to the goal of a democracy.
    - echelon 11mo ago
      States are sovereign entities with their own laws. They can even, in theory, secede from the union. The Senate is a good system, it's just that most states are Republican. Some of the larger states might consider splitting themselves into separate states to better represent their populations. Though that may not be constitutionally possible. If we ever add additional states to the Union (Puerto Rico, D.C., etc.), they'll want to enjoy having an equal say with every other state in the Union. It's a compelling feature of our system. The House, as a proportional system, actually needs to be re-normalized. There are not enough representatives to have an actually proportional vote.
      - spankalee 11mo ago
        The Senate is a terrible system. There's no logical reason why citizens in one state should have orders of magnitude more say in the federal government than citizens in another. The founders aren't infallible gods, and they really fucked up here.
        Centrino 11mo ago
        Unlike in many other countries, where provinces or regions are merely administrative divisions created to decentralize or streamline administration, the US emerged when states voluntarily came together and decided to create a country. The states were willing to outsource part of their autonomy to a federal level, on condition that guardrails were put in place to limit the power of that federal level. Those guardrails were: bicameralism, equal representation of states in the Senate, and the electoral college. The House is the voice of the people, the Senate is the voice of the states. The practical consequence of this system is that it effectively prevents a majority of voters from large urban centers from imposing their will onto rural populations, at least at the federal level. It was designed that way. I've seen comments here claiming that countries like Canada or France deliver better outcomes than the US. They are stronger welfare states, yes, but they also have become overly paternalistic nanny states, with heavy-handed regulations, and high taxes stifling individual initiative.
- koolba 11mo ago
  In 1776, the population of Virgin was about 500K, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts were about 270K, and Delaware and Georgia were about 50K each. The founders knew exactly what they were agreeing to when they gave each State two Senators. It’s supposed to be a separate check on the Federal power to force a wide swathe of consensus.
  - judahmeek 11mo ago
    I doubt the founders considered the possibility that political realignment would result in nearly all low population states being on one side of the spectrum.
    - cherrycherry98 11mo ago
      Counting the two Independents as Democrats, who they caucus with: Top 25 states: 2 Democrats - 52% 2 Republicans - 40% Split - 8% Bottom 25 states: 2 Democrats - 36% 2 Republicans - 60% Split - 4% Top quintile: 2 Democrats - 50% 2 Republicans - 40% Split - 10% 2nd quintile: 2 Democrats - 60% 2 Republicans - 30% Split - 10% Middle quintile: 2 Democrats - 40% 2 Republicans - 60% 4th quintile: 2 Democrats - 30% 2 Republicans - 70% Bottom quintile: 2 Democrats - 40% 2 Republicans - 50% Split - 10% The very top and very bottom are a 55% to 45% split in either direction. It's not a heavy skew, a single party flip in the quintile from the majority to the minority would make it 50/50 even. Those quintiles cancel each other out when voting on party/caucus lines. It's actually the 2nd and 4th quintiles that have the biggest skews. Democrats take the 2nd quintile while Republicans take the 3rd and 4th.
      - judahmeek 11mo ago
        I definitely appreciate your measurements, but I think your analysis is off. The top & bottom quintiles don't cancel out, but rather support the same trend, which is that Republicans have more voting power per capita. That said, I am surprised that the top & bottom quintiles are nearly balanced. I'll have to look up which bottom quintile states have Democratic senators.

otikik 11mo ago

Money is. Politicians are for sale.

SaltyBackendGuy 11mo ago
This is my take as well. Nothing will improve until we roll back Citizens United.
- spankalee 11mo ago
  Citizens United is impossible to roll back with the structural problem of the Senate.

moron4hire 11mo ago

Gerrymandering is particular powerful because Congress has refused to reapportion representatives for over a century. They just decided to stop following that part of the Constitution back in 1929. We still have the same number of representatives as we did when we were less than a third our current population. Each representative now covers 20 times more people than when the Constitution was ratified.

specialist 11mo ago

Yes and: our first-past-the-post form of elections begets gerrymandering. My future perfect world: proportional representation for assemblies (eg US House), some arbitrarily low number of reps per citizens (200k - 400k?), no upper assembly (eg US Senate), approval voting for executive positions (eg Mayor, Sheriff, President), only public financing of campaigns, limit campaign season to maybe 6 weeks. Friendly amendments to my wishlist cheerfully accepted. There's so many reasonable, impactful reforms which could be done. And my wishlist is based on my (imperfect) understanding of best available (political) science. And I'm all ears about SCOTUS reforms. And I doubt any reforms will stick, so long as our gini coefficient is so out of whack (wealth vs democracy, the timeless struggle).