5 ms·

Good luck convincing the rest of the country to give your region 10 new senators.

by tansey 13y ago

dllthomas 13y ago
Stacking small states until you have CA's population, you have enough senators to sustain a filibuster. We have 2. This is both undemocratic and unreasonable.
- twoodfin 13y ago
  The undemocratic part was considered a feature, not a bug. As to unreasonable: It's a rare issue that unites the smaller states. From a national political perspective, Vermont and Wyoming couldn't be much further apart. So I am not persuaded by arguments that assume there is a threat of a small-state Senate alliance against the overwhelming wishes of the rest of the country. On the other hand, if you want to argue that overuse of the filibuster has put an inordinate amount of legislative power in the hands of the Senate majority leader and a dozen middle-of-the-road Senators, I agree. But the solution to that problem is to fix the filibuster, not destroy the Constitutional balance between states and the Federal government.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    Undemocratic is a feature and a bug. It shifts over firmly into "bug" territory when it gets too extreme. "From a national political perspective, Vermont and Wyoming couldn't be much further apart." Vermont and Wyoming are strongly united on a number of issues (guns immediately springs to mind). I'm not the least bit sure that Central California and Silicon Valley would be united on fewer. The notion that Vermont and New Hampshire should be separate; Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhodes Island should be separate; Maryland and Virginia should be separate; but Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and San Francisco all belong in the same state is laughable. "But the solution to that problem is to fix the filibuster, not destroy the Constitutional balance between states and the Federal government." Right, because when they wrote the Constitution, Jefferson and Madison and friends carefully laid out California's borders. When California entered the Union, its population was less than 1% of the total US population. Now it's well more than 10%. The borders that made sense when it was a state like Wyoming don't make sense anymore. It has population like the eastern seaboard, it has industry like the eastern seaboard, it should have borders more like the eastern seaboard.
- protomyth 13y ago
  The Senate isn't supposed to be democratic, that is what the House is for.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    That's the way the system was designed, yes, and I'm not failing to understand that. That doesn't change the fact that it is undemocratic, and if democracy is something we value then it's a legitimate consideration. More is not always better, but at extremes it's a concern. I'm not saying we should turn the Senate into a purely democratic body. I'm saying that when we consider how we draw our state lines "how democratic it makes the Senate" is one relevant factor. As I said, it is also unreasonable.
    - protomyth 13y ago
      "if democracy is something we value then it's a legitimate consideration" I don't think we've ever valued democracy for its own sake. The founders were much more focused on the States and checks and balances. Democracy had to fit into that framework. [Edit] the proper rights of a British subject became the proper rights of an American citizen and should affect the House directly.
      - dllthomas 13y ago
        "The founders were much more focused on the States and checks and balances." First, quite obviously, the borders of California were no part of that deliberation. Second, the focuses of the founders don't have to be our own. They had legitimate concerns, of which we should also not lose sight, but that doesn't mean democracy is an illegitimate concern.
        protomyth 13y ago
        I think we ought to go back to listening to the concerns on the proper balance between the people, states, and federal government. We have done a poor job of it in the 1900's and 2000's.

Good luck convincing the rest of the country to give your region 10 new senators.

by tansey 13y ago

Good luck convincing the rest of the country to give your region 10 new senators.

Stacking small states until you have CA's population, you have enough senators to sustain a filibuster. We have 2. This is both undemocratic and unreasonable.

twoodfin 13y ago
The undemocratic part was considered a feature, not a bug. As to unreasonable: It's a rare issue that unites the smaller states. From a national political perspective, Vermont and Wyoming couldn't be much further apart. So I am not persuaded by arguments that assume there is a threat of a small-state Senate alliance against the overwhelming wishes of the rest of the country. On the other hand, if you want to argue that overuse of the filibuster has put an inordinate amount of legislative power in the hands of the Senate majority leader and a dozen middle-of-the-road Senators, I agree. But the solution to that problem is to fix the filibuster, not destroy the Constitutional balance between states and the Federal government.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  Undemocratic is a feature and a bug. It shifts over firmly into "bug" territory when it gets too extreme. "From a national political perspective, Vermont and Wyoming couldn't be much further apart." Vermont and Wyoming are strongly united on a number of issues (guns immediately springs to mind). I'm not the least bit sure that Central California and Silicon Valley would be united on fewer. The notion that Vermont and New Hampshire should be separate; Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhodes Island should be separate; Maryland and Virginia should be separate; but Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and San Francisco all belong in the same state is laughable. "But the solution to that problem is to fix the filibuster, not destroy the Constitutional balance between states and the Federal government." Right, because when they wrote the Constitution, Jefferson and Madison and friends carefully laid out California's borders. When California entered the Union, its population was less than 1% of the total US population. Now it's well more than 10%. The borders that made sense when it was a state like Wyoming don't make sense anymore. It has population like the eastern seaboard, it has industry like the eastern seaboard, it should have borders more like the eastern seaboard.
protomyth 13y ago
The Senate isn't supposed to be democratic, that is what the House is for.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  That's the way the system was designed, yes, and I'm not failing to understand that. That doesn't change the fact that it is undemocratic, and if democracy is something we value then it's a legitimate consideration. More is not always better, but at extremes it's a concern. I'm not saying we should turn the Senate into a purely democratic body. I'm saying that when we consider how we draw our state lines "how democratic it makes the Senate" is one relevant factor. As I said, it is also unreasonable.
  - protomyth 13y ago
    "if democracy is something we value then it's a legitimate consideration" I don't think we've ever valued democracy for its own sake. The founders were much more focused on the States and checks and balances. Democracy had to fit into that framework. [Edit] the proper rights of a British subject became the proper rights of an American citizen and should affect the House directly.
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      "The founders were much more focused on the States and checks and balances." First, quite obviously, the borders of California were no part of that deliberation. Second, the focuses of the founders don't have to be our own. They had legitimate concerns, of which we should also not lose sight, but that doesn't mean democracy is an illegitimate concern.
      - protomyth 13y ago
        I think we ought to go back to listening to the concerns on the proper balance between the people, states, and federal government. We have done a poor job of it in the 1900's and 2000's.