6 ms·

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 dispropor

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 1y 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 1y 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 1y 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 1y 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 1y 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.
        spankalee 1y ago
        The practical consequence of this system is that it effectively allows a minority of voters from rural areas to impose their will onto large urban centers
        mlrtime 1y ago
        Which you want the opposite to happen , not a better system.
        spankalee 1y ago
  - Loughla 1y ago
    Arbitrary or not, States are sovereign things. They set their own laws. Having 1 chamber that allows equal representation And Having 1 chamber that allows proportionate Is a good system in theory. Otherwise, States (which are again separate entities) with high populations just steamroll those that have low populations. The system now allows states with high populations to be appropriately represented in the house, which sends bills to the Senate. I feel like it's a good system, in theory. You get your population representation and checks and balances for rural areas as well.
    - nullocator 1y ago
      The barrier of entry to becoming a state is currently too high, and the barrier to stopping to be a state is even higher.
    - lotsofpulp 1y ago
      > (which are again separate entities) In theory, but in practice, most states are highly dependent on a few very populous and productive ones, for economic and military protection. Not to mention that the Feds control the purchasing power of the currency and international trade, so the states aren’t sovereign to do anything of consequence. Hence in practice, this whole theory of states being sovereign goes out the window.
    - kelnos 1y ago
      You keep saying "in theory". If the practice -- as you seem to admit -- doesn't actually work, then what's the point defending the theory? It doesn't work in practice, so it's a bad idea. > Arbitrary or not, States are sovereign things. In practice that's not really true. The federal government has many, many levers it can use to get states to fall in line.
      - mlrtime 1y ago
        >The federal government has many, many levers it can use to get states to fall in line. This is a separate problem that should be fixed.
  - johnnyanmac 1y ago
    >Why is the theory sound? Because tyranny of the majority is still a thing. Elections would just switch from swing states to appealing to California and Texas if we did everything with purely popular votes. So the house is there as a large power and senate can check it. Of course, in practice the house is way under represented so its almost like we have a senate and a mini-senate. That's where things fall apart.
    - lotsofpulp 1y ago
      > tyranny of the majority Aka democracy. > Elections would just switch from swing states to appealing to California and Texas if we did everything with purely popular votes. No, it wouldn’t. It would switch to appealing to the most voters, who may or may not happen to live in California and Texas, but that is irrelevant to a democracy.
      - johnnyanmac 1y ago
        >Aka democracy. Yes. I hope I don't need to explain the many times that the majority sentiment was in fact not the correct one. A pure democracy under the basis the US was founded under would end up much more conservative than what we have today. > It would switch to appealing to the most voters. So it'd switch to appealing to urban cities and ignore the rural areas. Iirc the top 10 cities today make up some 40+% of voters. Why bother going to Omaha when you can focus instead of LA and NYC?
        twixfel 1y ago
        Tyranny of the majority may be undesirable but tyranny of the minority is even worse. At least the majority, are, you know, the majority.
      - mlrtime 1y ago
        You are taking a very narrow one sided view. We live in a Republic of states, not a Federal Democracy. I know you would like this to happen, but it won't here for good reasons.
koolba 1y 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 1y 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 1y 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 1y 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.

Loughla 1y 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 1y 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 1y 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 1y 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 1y 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.
      - spankalee 1y ago
        The practical consequence of this system is that it effectively allows a minority of voters from rural areas to impose their will onto large urban centers
        mlrtime 1y ago
        Which you want the opposite to happen , not a better system.
        spankalee 1y ago
- Loughla 1y ago
  Arbitrary or not, States are sovereign things. They set their own laws. Having 1 chamber that allows equal representation And Having 1 chamber that allows proportionate Is a good system in theory. Otherwise, States (which are again separate entities) with high populations just steamroll those that have low populations. The system now allows states with high populations to be appropriately represented in the house, which sends bills to the Senate. I feel like it's a good system, in theory. You get your population representation and checks and balances for rural areas as well.
  - nullocator 1y ago
    The barrier of entry to becoming a state is currently too high, and the barrier to stopping to be a state is even higher.
  - lotsofpulp 1y ago
    > (which are again separate entities) In theory, but in practice, most states are highly dependent on a few very populous and productive ones, for economic and military protection. Not to mention that the Feds control the purchasing power of the currency and international trade, so the states aren’t sovereign to do anything of consequence. Hence in practice, this whole theory of states being sovereign goes out the window.
  - kelnos 1y ago
    You keep saying "in theory". If the practice -- as you seem to admit -- doesn't actually work, then what's the point defending the theory? It doesn't work in practice, so it's a bad idea. > Arbitrary or not, States are sovereign things. In practice that's not really true. The federal government has many, many levers it can use to get states to fall in line.
    - mlrtime 1y ago
      >The federal government has many, many levers it can use to get states to fall in line. This is a separate problem that should be fixed.
- johnnyanmac 1y ago
  >Why is the theory sound? Because tyranny of the majority is still a thing. Elections would just switch from swing states to appealing to California and Texas if we did everything with purely popular votes. So the house is there as a large power and senate can check it. Of course, in practice the house is way under represented so its almost like we have a senate and a mini-senate. That's where things fall apart.
  - lotsofpulp 1y ago
    > tyranny of the majority Aka democracy. > Elections would just switch from swing states to appealing to California and Texas if we did everything with purely popular votes. No, it wouldn’t. It would switch to appealing to the most voters, who may or may not happen to live in California and Texas, but that is irrelevant to a democracy.
    - johnnyanmac 1y ago
      >Aka democracy. Yes. I hope I don't need to explain the many times that the majority sentiment was in fact not the correct one. A pure democracy under the basis the US was founded under would end up much more conservative than what we have today. > It would switch to appealing to the most voters. So it'd switch to appealing to urban cities and ignore the rural areas. Iirc the top 10 cities today make up some 40+% of voters. Why bother going to Omaha when you can focus instead of LA and NYC?
      - twixfel 1y ago
        Tyranny of the majority may be undesirable but tyranny of the minority is even worse. At least the majority, are, you know, the majority.
    - mlrtime 1y ago
      You are taking a very narrow one sided view. We live in a Republic of states, not a Federal Democracy. I know you would like this to happen, but it won't here for good reasons.

koolba 1y 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 1y 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 1y 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 1y 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.