I think I read some statistic that said that Democrats won a minority of the seats in some recent election (not 2006) but that those represent a majority of the electorate. I’m pretty sure the US Senate was involved-- presumably the distinction has to do with the populated Eastern states (where Democrats would live) getting represented by two Senators and the empty Western States (where Republicans live) also getting two Senators. This “all states are equal, regardless of population” principle seems to me to skew the way the country makes its decisions. I understand that this is part and parcel of the US constitution, but it just seems screwy and outdated to me. The idea that voters get disproportionate power bcause of where they live strikes me as inherently undemocratic. How do you rationalize such a system?
(I’ve voted in New York City and in Colorado, btw, and it seems as unfair to me when I got the disproportionate power as when I didn’t.)
I think that I can rationalize this - but it will sound odd.
The lads who drew up the US Constitution only had one long term and viable constitution to look at - that of the UK
The President mimics the monarch, Congress mimics The House of Commons and the Senate mimics the House of Lords
The Senate does not have to be ‘representative’, it is more a sea anchor on the rest of the system.
It sounds strange, but having a not very legitimate part of the legislature is actually quite a good idea. It is a sort of smoothing algorithm applied the the rather fickle ‘will of the electorate’.
This algorithm sounds a little like “Whatever the majority wants? Let’s see that they don’t get it, perfectly legally, because what the majority wants is usually wrong anyway, and this is a way to assure that power stays in the hands of the minority.”
In the UK the House of Lords works quite well, because they know that they have zilch legitimacy - they just do technical reviews - and rear up on their hind legs when they know that the government is doing something seriously out of order.
The Senate could not have been appointed (although the Supreme Court …) as it was out of kilter with the times, but the last thing one wanted was to have a second house with equal claim to legitimacy as the H of R
Think of it as a steering damper
it might be an idea to talk the thing over with some of your colleagues who teach political science (or whatever they call it)
On closer examination, some daft and unfair things are actually quite smart.
For example Proportional Representation looks really good, until you realize that it is actually dictatorship of a small and mobile minority.
No, the Senate does not “assure that power stays in the hands of the minority,” but by giving equal power to all states, it insures that all states, regardless of size, will have equal power in one body. It does not allow small states to boss around big states, it requires big states to respect little states.
This is just one of the ways in which the Constitution is undemocratic. And it doesn’t bother me at all.
Hmmm… perhaps because vox populi, vox dei is not always the right idea? The term “tyranny of the majority” has been bandied about the board in relation to a wide range of subjects. Let me take one controversial example that is not very controversial among the subset of the population that are Dopers: gay marriage/civil unions. There are many states in which a majority of the population, for one reason or another, is opposed to granting any recognition to the quasi-marital commitment of a same-sex couple. And I’d say the overwhelming majority of Dopers believe this is “wrong” in some meta-analytical sense that deems that commitment to be an individual right not amenable to majoritarian choices – just as a majority opinion on, say, Robinson Jeffers’ poetry is not the proper criterion for evaluating it, or the majority view on an unpopular political opinion does not control the opinion-holder’s right to express it.
The Senate is set up as it is precisely because of, and not despite, its inequality as per individuals. It guarantees that a majority of Texans and Californians and New Yorkers and Pennsylvanians cannot tell North Dakota or New Hampshire what laws they in their big-city wisdom feel are needed for life in small rural areas. Californians today are represented by something like 20% of the House – but they’re only 2% of the Senate. And that’s just as it should be – providing a counterpoise to the “tyranny of the majority.”
There was a point some years back when there was great conflict in New York State between Upstate and Downstate – when NYC legislators comprised a majority and made state laws that were perhaps just what the Big Apple needed but which were laughably and inexcusably dysfunctional as applied to small towns and smaller resorts. I’ve mentioned before being on the sidelines in a case where a state auditor criticized the Supervisor of the Town of Pinckney for having held some town receipts for seven days before depositing it, instead of having done so within the 48 hours prescribed by law. What the critique missed was that she (the Supervisor) had made the deposit as soon as the State Police permitted vehicular traffic along the highway from Pinckney to the nearest bank, 17 miles away, following a blizzard that had isolated the town.
Montana needs someone to say, “Fine, you live in Southern California and can probably find a Tajik vegetarian restaurant if you want one – but up here visiting an obstetrician or an endocrinologist can be an all-day or overnight trip! Ban gang members from having guns in your city if you want, but remember that some of us live much closer to grizzly bears than we do to the nearest police, and may need guns for legitimate purposes.”
I’m waxing eloquent about small-town and small-state concerns, but I trust you see the point – a majority does not always have the right to control what a minority may do. And the small states among the original 13 insisted on being protected from that sort of supersession of their own local rights by the people of the large states. Le plus ce change, le plus c’est le meme chose.
But of course literally what we have is big states (like Wyoming and Montana) bossing around little states (like Massachusetts and Connecticut) around.
The presence of the Senate is designed to make sure that one or two states, with a large majority of population, cannot hijack the government for their own ends.
Imagine two states, say New York and Virginia, held a majority of the population of the 13 original states. What, under just a parliamentary or House of Representative system, would keep them from passing the ‘New York and Virginia get all the money and resources and the little states had better put up with it if they know what’s good for them’ act of 1793?
Having a house of congress that makes all states equal (i.e. Rhode Island or Wyoming count just as much as California or New York) make certain that a small number of highly populated states can’t decide legislation on their own, even though they might hold a majority of population.
Another issue that no one has raised is that this country is made up of 50 partially independant states. As such, each state has equal claim to be represented at the federal level.
Comapre to - If population determined representation at the UN.
I have no problem with the construction of the Senate. FRDE & **Polycarp ** summed up beautifully why it works so well. I object instead to the electoral college where the residents of Wyoming and similar low population states have votes that are worth vastly more than the residents of the high population states.
The electoral college is an unfair and undemocratic, dated system that should be abolished in this modern age. Every vote should be equal for our President.
I am going to save myself some work and lift this example from wikipedia:
I am ignorant of it at least, if you started a thread and linked to it, I would enjoy reading it, even though I would be unable to contribute. I think you have a better understanding of US political mechanics than I do, I would enjoy learning about the changes to the UK.
Concerning the electoral college, are you saying keep the college, but ensure the representation works out to all voter end up having an equal vote?
If so, I would of course, be fine with that change.
Most democracies use some form of PR. In how many does it work out that way?* I’ve never heard any bad things about New Zealand’s experience with PR (they switched over in 1996).
*Please don’t mention Italy. Their notorious inability to form a stable government says more about their political culture than their political system.
The electoral college is an anachronism. It was pre rapid communication and no longer is needed. There is a danger that they could vote for someone other than they were supposed to. It has happened but not to any significance.It should be eliminated.
Are you accusing me of being a lazy, search-resistent slob?
Plead “Guilty as Charged.”
Thanks for the links. I hadn’t realized before how this set-up was inherently anti-democratic. It seems to me that the big/little Western states could be protected by the courts if some language about “no citizen’s voting power shall be aggrandized or diminished by his or state of residence,” which the courts could interpret as protecting Wyoming from being used as an all-purpose toxic waste dump.
So, would the UN make more sense if China and India got 4 or 5 times more many votes that the USA? I mean, it’s silly for states with 1/6 of the world’d population each to be pushed around by population rinky-dinks like the USA, the UK, or Egypt.
The US states are not counties or territories. They are political entities that have a significant amount of political authority vested in them. There are reasons for recognizing that in the national legislature.
Whenever entities come together to form a union, some sort of system like this ensues, othewise you’d never get the enitites to form the union in the first place. No “justification” is needed.
Most democracies use some form of PR. In how many does it work out that way?* I’ve never heard any bad things about New Zealand’s experience with PR (they switched over in