4 ms·

The goal isn't about guaranteeing that all states have X number of votes; the house and the senate vote separately on things. For a bill to pass the house and t

by danudey 11mo ago

The goal isn't about guaranteeing that all states have X number of votes; the house and the senate vote separately on things. For a bill to pass the house and the senate requires: 1. A majority vote by the house whose members are allocated by population and therefore (ostensibly) represent the general population 2. A majority vote by the senate whose members are allocated by state and therefore (ostensibly) represent the will or needs of the states themselves. As an example of why that distinction is relevant, consider Rhode Island. With a population of 1.1 million people, 100 reserved seats plus one seat per 500k would give Rhode Island 4 votes. Meanwhile, California's population of 38.9 million would give it 70 votes. That prohibits effectively representing Rhode Island as a state in any meaningful way. As it is now, vote-by-population could allow a small number of states with the majority of population to out-vote the entire rest of the country, passing a law that states that all healthcare should be made free and the states have to pay for it themselves. Large states with strong economies and large tax bases might be in favor of that, but smaller and less populous states with weaker economies would go bankrupt. Thus comes the senate, where a majority of states can decide that the law is inappropriate or against their interests and vote against it. The distinction I think that most people from outside of the US probably don't fully understand is that, unlike in a lot of countries, each state is its own economy, government, politics, etc. rather than one sort of unified government that covers the whole country. Many of them see the federal government as not much more than a necessary evil to help the independent-but-united states coordinate themselves and prosper together. I remember someone once saying that it used to be "The United States are..." and not "The United States is..." and that kind of gives you an idea of the separation. The best comparison might be the EU, where you could imagine the large, rich countries with large populations wanting to pass a vote that the smaller, poorer countries might chafe against. Imagine an EU resolution that said that all countries must spend at least 70 billion euro on defense; fine for large countries like Germany which already do, but absurd for a smaller country like Malta. The senate exists to prohibit that sort of unfairness in the US federal government.

Y-bar 11mo ago
> The distinction I think that most people from outside of the US probably don't fully understand is that, unlike in a lot of countries, each state is its own economy, government, politics, etc. rather than one sort of unified government that covers the whole country. This is exactly how I see how my country and EU works. I feel like this is something I am intimately familiar with. > Thus comes the senate, where a majority of states can decide that the law is inappropriate or against their interests and vote against it. What mechanism causes the senate to be more resilient to those issues than a unified Congress?
- cameron_b 11mo ago
  Before 1913, State's legislatures would elect their US Senators. Since 1913, Senators are directly elected but to longer terms than their peers in the House, as a way to make them less beholden to the whims of the zeitgeist and more stable in their consideration of "what serves the state" in that they do not face elections immediately and the results of their work are meant to be evaluated over a longer period. -- this is the intent, reality may bear out differently
- pwg 11mo ago
  > What mechanism causes the senate to be more resilient to those issues than a unified Congress? The Senate is limited to two seats per state. With the current 50 states, that makes 100 members. So only 51 seats need vote against a bill they feel would harm their states. As the Senate is divided up, a very populous state (California) receives two, just like a very small state (Delaware) receives two, so each is on "equal footing" with the other states. [note that "small" here refers to population, not land area] If everyone was all mixed together into one bowl, then a populous state like California (52 house seats, plus 2 senators for 54) is 22% of the total votes needed for a simple majority, all by themselves.
  - alistairSH 11mo ago
    Don't forget the filibuster - most votes actually require 60 Senators to pass. For most day-to-day legislation, we can have 59% in favor and still have a deadlocked Senate. The House has no means to bypass/override the Senate. But, that's probably a whole other topic and way in the weeds.
alistairSH 11mo ago
Additionally, the Senate in original form was actually selected by the states (or rather, their governments). Direct election of Senators only came about in the early 20th century with the 17th Amendment. And this whole discussion gets further complex when you consider the US uses an antiquated indirect system to elect the President (who in our government is more akin to a Prime Minister in many parliamentary systems than the ceremonial president in those same systems). In the US, each state gets a number of electors who elect the President. The number is based on the number of Sentators plus the number of House members. So the smallest states are guaranteed 3 electors no matter how out of proportion that count may be. The consequence of this is in my lifetime, Republicans have won the Presidency twice with a minority of the popular vote (and thrice with a majority)... 2000 - George W Bush won with 47% of the vote to Al Gore's 51%. 2016 - Trump won with 46% to Clinton's 56%. Reagan, Bush Snr, and Trump (2nd term) won with majorities of the popular vote. Notably, a Democrat has NEVER won the presidency with LESS than a majority. For those of who are both residents of moderately sized states, and also lean left on political issues, this certainly feels like a massive structural problem.
youainti 11mo ago
Also, states have their own militaries. Some states even have multiple. All states have an Army National Guard and some have and Air National Guard. Those militaries can be federalized, but normally pertain to the state. Some states even have other military branches such as Texas, which has a State Guard which cannot be federalized.

by danudey 11mo ago

Y-bar 11mo ago

> The distinction I think that most people from outside of the US probably don't fully understand is that, unlike in a lot of countries, each state is its own economy, government, politics, etc. rather than one sort of unified government that covers the whole country. This is exactly how I see how my country and EU works. I feel like this is something I am intimately familiar with. > Thus comes the senate, where a majority of states can decide that the law is inappropriate or against their interests and vote against it. What mechanism causes the senate to be more resilient to those issues than a unified Congress?

cameron_b 11mo ago
Before 1913, State's legislatures would elect their US Senators. Since 1913, Senators are directly elected but to longer terms than their peers in the House, as a way to make them less beholden to the whims of the zeitgeist and more stable in their consideration of "what serves the state" in that they do not face elections immediately and the results of their work are meant to be evaluated over a longer period. -- this is the intent, reality may bear out differently
pwg 11mo ago
> What mechanism causes the senate to be more resilient to those issues than a unified Congress? The Senate is limited to two seats per state. With the current 50 states, that makes 100 members. So only 51 seats need vote against a bill they feel would harm their states. As the Senate is divided up, a very populous state (California) receives two, just like a very small state (Delaware) receives two, so each is on "equal footing" with the other states. [note that "small" here refers to population, not land area] If everyone was all mixed together into one bowl, then a populous state like California (52 house seats, plus 2 senators for 54) is 22% of the total votes needed for a simple majority, all by themselves.
- alistairSH 11mo ago
  Don't forget the filibuster - most votes actually require 60 Senators to pass. For most day-to-day legislation, we can have 59% in favor and still have a deadlocked Senate. The House has no means to bypass/override the Senate. But, that's probably a whole other topic and way in the weeds.

alistairSH 11mo ago

Additionally, the Senate in original form was actually selected by the states (or rather, their governments). Direct election of Senators only came about in the early 20th century with the 17th Amendment. And this whole discussion gets further complex when you consider the US uses an antiquated indirect system to elect the President (who in our government is more akin to a Prime Minister in many parliamentary systems than the ceremonial president in those same systems). In the US, each state gets a number of electors who elect the President. The number is based on the number of Sentators plus the number of House members. So the smallest states are guaranteed 3 electors no matter how out of proportion that count may be. The consequence of this is in my lifetime, Republicans have won the Presidency twice with a minority of the popular vote (and thrice with a majority)... 2000 - George W Bush won with 47% of the vote to Al Gore's 51%. 2016 - Trump won with 46% to Clinton's 56%. Reagan, Bush Snr, and Trump (2nd term) won with majorities of the popular vote. Notably, a Democrat has NEVER won the presidency with LESS than a majority. For those of who are both residents of moderately sized states, and also lean left on political issues, this certainly feels like a massive structural problem.

youainti 11mo ago

Also, states have their own militaries. Some states even have multiple. All states have an Army National Guard and some have and Air National Guard. Those militaries can be federalized, but normally pertain to the state. Some states even have other military branches such as Texas, which has a State Guard which cannot be federalized.