“stagnation” is such a subjective word! ( really, I am joking here. just to make that clear)
Many would argue, and most certainly many of the founding fathers did argue, that “he who governs best governs least”. In some minds less laws = better government. That certainly is the intent of the US system.
./ end joking.
Didn’t work though. The US has LOTS of laws. What it did was to force the legislature to make the laws too complicated for easy understanding then rush them through. I would argue that we would have many fewer and much more comprehensible laws if it was easier to pass the law in the first place. Not sure we would like it any better, but at least we would understand our government better.
I don’t think small states resent larger states. They are however, very wary when the highly-populated states want to mess with the Sentate or the EC.
So California is a small, populous state and Texas is a large state with a small population. It would also mean that Oregon and Washington are smaller than Ohio and Florida, but with larger populations.
I think it’s worth noting that many people (most?) would agree that of the two possibilities:
A somewhat disproportionate distribution of power in the small states favor, versus
A near complete subjugation of small states to the large ones in a perfectly representative system.
That the former is most certainly the lesser of the two evils. In action there’s a pretty small number of cases in which this has actually been a major problem.
No, not really. We make up for it in the US House of Representatives. The Senate has different powers than the House, but not more important ones.
The last time I looked, California had 53 congresspeople (members of the House of Representatives), which by my estimation means we have several times the number of people in Wyoming (just kidding).
What amazes me is that Wyoming can find two senators, one Congressperson, a state legislature, a governor, and all the state officials in such a small population. I live in the Silicon Valley; my guess is that I have the equivalent of the entire state of Wyoming living within 10 miles of my house. The Lord help us all if we had to provide an entire state and Federal representation from them…
So in fact, I pity the Wyomingers; seems like everybody in that state has to be part of the gummint. Talk about hating your neighbors!
Of course, since I live in California, I don’t really pay attention to the rest of the United States. California is a lot more isolated than people imagine. Heck, up here in the “north” we don’t even pay attention to Los Angeles! We are thankful for Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, North and South Dakota, and all the other land between here and the Mississippi River. They keep us isolated from Washington, DC, and remember, if they didn’t exist, we’d have a border in common with <shudder>
Nope. Presidential candidates spend most of their time campaigning in swing states - those states where the vote will be close. They spend almost no time campaigning in states where the election won’t be close, no matter how large the population. For example, in 2004 Bush and Kerry spent little time in California, the most populous state, because everyone knew the state would go to Kerry. They also pretty much ignored Texas and New York, the second and third most populous states (Texas was heavily slanted toward Bush, while New York was in favor of Kerry). They spent a lot of time in Ohio, the seventh most populous state, because it has a relatively large population and they knew the vote would be close. I’d guess the campaigns spent more time (and money) in New Mexico, with its 5 electoral votes, than they did in California, with its 55 electoral votes, simply because they had some chance of changing the outcome of the election in New Mexico.
To answer the OP - I live in California and I rarely hear anyone complain about small states. Sometimes people who pay a lot of attention to politics get annoyed that small states get more federal money per person than we do (for example), but you just don’t hear Californians gripe about those &%^(^%$ from Wyoming.
Point out to them that the current situation is actually skewed towards the Republicans already.
The real place where the big state/little state thing makes a difference is in the Electoral College. All states get a minimum of 3 electoral votes, which is a disproportionately large representation for low population states. Since more of them tend to vote Republican, this gives that party an extra boost in Presidential elections. For instance, in the 2000 election, if the minimum number of electoral votes per state had been just 2, Gore would have won.
To add to the confusion, as a resident of Washington, DC I resent all of the states. We have a larger population than Wyoming and yet have no representation in Congress at all (except for a pointless, figurehead rep).
Exactly. Like Ohio. One f***ing state determined not only the future of the U.S., but (possibly) the Middle East. One state where they really didn’t seem to care, let alone, know, about what they were voting about. I know they are good people, but I don’t think they are good voters. I really don’t mean this statement to be condescending or confrontational; I just really have this gut feeling that the “swing” states seem to be places where people are not connected to nation-wide or world-wide reality. This is really better for IMHO, and I RECOGNIZE IT’S NOTHING BUT A SUBJECTIVE VIEW, but the question had the word “resent”; and, yes, I for one really resent the “small” states. It’s not so much because of the Senate as the Electoral College.
It’s only electorially, though. The “small” states can be the most beautiful, the most worth visiting. (But, heck, there’s still nothing like the Golden State.
One reason why I asked my question about merging small states or splitting big ones was that something similar happened in the UK in 1974 with the counties, and it caused uproar. Although the English counties don’t have the power of the US states, they’d been around since the ninth century and people had got attached to them.
A little side track - at the time of the framing of the constitution, was the realtive disparity in populations between the populous and less populous states as great as it is today?
I made my statement in a GQ, not a GD sense. I meant “harm” in the sense that he was not removed from office despite an impeachment.
While the powers of the Senate and the House are different, IMHO the power of the Senate exceeds the power of the House if only for the fact that they confirm Presidential appointments.
First off I think the “red state/bue state” so-called split is blown pretty far out of proportion. In most cases you’re talking about 55-45% splits among the 60% or so of eligible adults who bothered voting; in most cases this is nearly meaningless in predicting general attitudes on any given issue. On top of that the two major parties are far closer in attitude on most issue than major parties in democratic countries tend to be. In many cases neither party holds a position on a given issue that most Americans would poll in favor of.
Although most people against the Iraq war voted for Kerry (never did understand that one!), recall that he stated he was in favor of sending two additional divisions into Iraq to “do the job right.” Between that and the fact that Ohio simply got their vote total in later than most states I don’t think that Ohio can be singled out for determining the fate of either the US or the Middle East in 2004 or any other year.
Unlike the average SDMB participant, most Americans can’t tell you even the basics of how their government is arranged. There’s a lack of outrage over some specific issues owing to a general ignorance. Things are unlikely to change because the people who benefit most from the system would have to agree to change it. A more likely alternative to splitting or combining states (there are any number of cultural and political reasons this won’t happen) would be amending the constitution to reconfigure the Senate. As a majority of Senators and state assemblies filled with party functionaries would have to vote for this I wouldn’t hold your breath.
There was a cover story article in The Nation magazine (left leaning weekly) a few years ago on how the Senate’s two-per-state rule helps prevent liberalism from prevailing. The article suggested that the US Senate was in the tradition of the Roman Senate and House of Lords, a conservative counterweight to popular trends filled with patricians. Some people notice this but not all that many, and it’s not a hot topic. Everyone knows the rules as they are and we work from there.
One noticable way in which some particular smaller states have an inordinate amount of power in deciding presidential campaigns would be through the system of party primaries and caucuses which kick off for purely traditional reasons in New Hampshire and Iowa. If this were shifted to, say, New York and Texas I think we’d see some impact.
The latest estimates I can find (2005) show a range from 509,294 (Wyoming) to 36,132,147 (California). The 1790 census shows a range from 59,096 (Delaware) to 747,610 (Virginia). The ratio from largest to smallest has increased (from 12.7 to 70.9).
You often see a lot of resentment within states where there is one large, very dominant city. Because the majority of elected officials in the state legislature will be from the dominant region, there is often a well-justified belief that one part of the state is favored for public works projects, economic development programs, and so on, while the rest of the state is ignored.
New York - Upstate NY (Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse) towards New York City
Illinois - everybody towards Chicago
New Mexico - Southern NM towards the area north of Interstate 40 (Albuquerque, Santa Fe, an assortment of small towns settled by Spaniards centuries ago)
Some states seem to avoid this. I never encountered a “Denver sucks up all our tax dollars” sentiment in areas of Colorado outside of the Front Range.
Speaking as a native Ohioan (but no longer resident in Ohio), I disagree with the decision that the voters made (and suspect that they might not have actually made that decision), but I don’t believe that Ohio voters are any more clueless or disconnected from reality or careless than voters in any other part of the country.
I’d say it’s something more than subjective. How about “arbitrary”?
What are we talking about here? Small states or states that voted in a way you disagree with? Ohio is not a small state.
Well, There were only 13 States and 4 million people in the U.S. in 1790 – so I think the answer has to be that Small states had more voice then because there were so few States.
Consider this: while 20% of the population lived in Virginia – that is like a state having 60 million people today (a little less than twice the current population of California), and if you throw in the next 3 largest states in order: Pennsylvania (434K), North Carolina (393K), and New York (393K) and you have a situation where ~1/3 of the states have 50% of the population
Which is a similar situation today doing the same thing – so if you say 5 of the 13 States have half the population or 20 selected states have half the country’s population – in one sense you are saying the same thing – except that the power of the minority states is more diluted and that is the real difference.
It is worth mentioning that in 1775 circa one-fifth of the people of the mainland colonies were of African ancestry and it was an even higher percentage in the South – given that every 5 slaves counted as 3 people places with huge proportional slave populations like Virginia(1st), North Carolina (3rd), Maryland(5th) and South Carolina(6th) seem like they have more power in the House of Representative based on population than they actually did. To add another unequal; dimension : Given that only white men could vote a South Carolinian’s vote carried disprortionate weight in a vote for the U.S. House than did the vote of a man from New Jersey.
BTW fun demographic fact/highjack: What many people don’t realize is that even by the time of the Civil War 50% of the U.S. population was still in the 13 colonies. Even today, Almost 1 in 3 Americans live in the original 13. http://www.elderweb.com/home/node/2850
Your statements are correct. I should have caveated my post by saying “generally speaking”.
However, if you look at red/blue maps with results broken out by county, the trend I’m talking about is borne out: California is a state that voted blue, but a lot of its rural, non-coastal counties voted red.
I did but note that that statement also appears in the constitution itself. Even the poster noted it was an arguable prohibition. I would still say that that’s a change more likely than a bunch of states combining or splitting; last time a state split off (1863, West Virginia) it was the result of civil war.
ascenray, guizot - how is it you figure that Ohio accounts for the results of the 2004 election in isolation? There were 51 contests for electoral votes and Kerry didn’t win enough of them. Again, OH simply turned in its numbers later than the rest of the states in adjoining time zones.
John Mace stated that this was an arguable position, and he’s exactly right. This is not GD, but as an example I could argue that the ratification of an amendment by the state in question would amount to that stating giving consent to being divided.
( really, I am joking here. just to make that clear)
