View Single Post
Old 06-03-2019, 12:53 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,564
Originally Posted by mikecurtis View Post
That's a thuggish view of our system, IMHO: just because you have the votes you can do anything you want, take anything you want from whomever you want. How is that any different than sticking a gun in someone's face and and taking their wallet.
And how is it any different that just because they have a disproportionate number of votes, they can have anything they want?
And we have more than just a national govt. We have a graduated system of responsibility. The Federal govt has jurisdiction over certain thing within its domain. And the State govts have jurisdiction over things in it's domain. and so on down to local govts and to the family unit and finally down to personal jurisdiction. No matter how many votes you have there are some things that no one can force me to do. Just as the Fed govt, no matter how many votes they have can't force a state to do certain things.
No one is disputing that. Just that it takes fewer votes to affect the jurisdistions that the fed has from the states with smaller populations than from the states with larger.

If you are worried about the large states voting the fed to force the small states to do things, why do you not understand the concern the large states have of the small states voting to force the large states to do things?
When it comes to things like natural resources, the "people" can decide that the country as a whole would be better off if areas like Bears Ears were preserved. But we have to remember that that land is in the state of UT. It's their land. Under normal circumstances the people of UT would be the ones who decide how its used. So UT NEEDS to have a disproportionate say in the matter.
BLM stuff is complicated. Utah didn't want that land, they wanted the fed to use its resources to protect and develop it, and did so with the understanding that the fed would have jurisdiction. Now that Utah is in a different position, and sees profit to be had in exploiting the land, they want to change the arrangement.

I don't know that the people who paid taxes to support that land when it was unwanted shouldn't have a say in the matter.
Without the Senate, CA and the rest of the country could just take the land without considering, or even caring about the effect it has in UT.
Take it? Take it where?
And the opposite would not be true. If the Fed govt decided to set aside land in CA for the benefit of all; CA would have a virtual power of veto (or close to it) over such legislature if it was simply majority rule. How is that democratic? when one group of people have powers that a different group of people do not?
But if that were a concern for Utah, then why should California not be worried that the coalition of small states that make up a tenth of their population does not decide to set land aside in California?
Democracy is so much more than "majority rules". The concerns of the minority have to be consider appropriately. Otherwise, its just a form of fascism: the majority forcing the minority to bow to their rule.
Which is why there are protections for the minority. What this setup does though is not protect the minority from a majority rule, but rather subjugate the majority by a minority.
Don't get me wrong. Times have changed and priorities are not the same as they were in 1787. Its not the most efficient system. The Senate, imho, does have too much power, and that power is often not used properly. But, I don't think that's the fault of apportionment. It has more to do with our "two party" system and that Senators (and Representatives for that matter) often are more loyal to their party than they are to their constituency.

Don't be too concerned about a two party system, as the way things are going, we'll have a one party system soon enough.

Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Well I don’t believe in a pure democracy. Not at all. Furthermore, I believe contracts, especially those that allow for modifications should be taken seriously.
A pure democracy is a difficult proposition, but that has nothing to do with the disproportionate power of the senate.

All people should be represented equally, their concerns and their desires considered. Balancing the senate so that it has less absurd disproportionate of representation is not a direct democracy, nor even a step towards it.
Now, I think we could do with breaking up California if those who make up California want more senators. I also think we should significantly expand the house.
How about the combining of the Dakotas and maybe creating Utado and Wyomisota?
But in a world where 1/2 the folks have a double digit IQ? I am not down for pure democracy.
That's a funny line, but is bullshit for considering policy. 84% of people have greater than an 85 IQ, which is plenty for critical thinking and understanding how policies will affect their lives, if given adequate civic education. Implement policy and determining exact priorities and budgets and such can certainly be left to the "smart" ones, but you don't have to be a genius to have an informed opinion on the direction our communities take.
Anyways, none of these threads that are calling for structural change actually address the root problem which is a system that has is stable with two dominant parties.
And the two party system is also an "unforeseen" consequence of our founding father's decisions which would take nearly the same amount of work to change as making changes to the senate.

Last edited by k9bfriender; 06-03-2019 at 12:56 AM.