Yes, and this last point hints at my main purpose in starting this thread, which I think most everyone has lost. Specifically to say, in re Scalia, that the 2014 election that swung the Senate into Republican hands did not represent “the people speaking” whereas Obama’s reelection in 2012 did.
At the time that the Constitution was ratified, neither Wyoming nor my living room existed as a state, nor as any other sort of polity. At some point, the existing United State created and admitted the state of Wyoming. They did not do the same for my living room. Why the one and not the other?
How is that any different from people in Cheyenne, Cody, and the few other population centers all deciding that the portions of Wyoming outside of those few small cities should be strip-mined? Why should those people be allowed to choose to strip-mine areas outside of their homes, if Floridians can’t?
No. And if the entire population of the United States other than me decided I should be dismembered and my body parts used as fuel, I wouldn’t be thrilled either, yet the solution to that is not generally held to be to give me voting power in Congress comparable to the entire rest of the population of the United States.
It is important to keep the tyranny of the majority from running roughshod over all minority rights, but the means of doing so needn’t be by investing inflated voting power in the minority one is concerned about (and, indeed, we don’t do this for any minorities other than the particular grouping of “people who live in states with low population”).
You go further than giving minorities special rights. The U.S. has enshrined individual rights. Enshrining equal representation of the States is similar in nature.
Similar in that it’s the exact opposite.
Of course none of this is really on point (and unlike you I haven’t seen much, if any, serious SDMB defense of the idea of obstructing SCOTUS nominations for a year but maybe it’s out there)–the Senate is not intended to be reflective of current popular sentiment. They stagger the elections to insulate the Senate to a degree from “popular passions.” Additionally, while “popularly elected” Senators represent States, not “the people” broadly. It doesn’t matter that one cohort of Senators represents “fewer people” than another, because the Senate was never designed to have anything close to balanced representation based on population–in fact it was designed to have the very opposite.
While you can (and many do) question the legitimacy of the Federalist system (even though I think it has its place, with modifications–Germany’s for example is a good model), in its present form it’s “working as intended.” I don’t just mean that as a paean to the Founding Fathers, I’m talking more broadly about how we as a country have agreed it should work for hundreds of years now.
Change the rules, if you can.
Yes, even Britain with lines that are drawn apolitically, the different demographics of the parties means different ones need different victory percentages to control Parliament. Unless a party’s supporters are “perfectly geographically dispersed in relation to other parties” this will always be the case in a FPTP system like we or Britain have.
Well we had a civil war over regional interest clashes, so one might think it prudent to manage them. Even European countries generally have done a lot to give regional interest some nod in government, the simple reality is it leads to unwanted results otherwise. Parts of several European countries are now perpetually trying to break away at this point, and I think our Federalist system–or Germany’s is why those two countries don’t have that.
Similar in that gives protection/power to the little guys. In what way is it opposite?
As if inner city blacks–the least-represented group in both House and Senate–aren’t “little guys”?
What some people call “majority-minority” districts I refer to as electoral ghettos. And if no such border drawing were done, I would still regard it as offensive to suggest that whites would not vote for minority members as representatives. There would be many who would, just as there have been many who have voted for minority candidates for Senator, heck maybe even for President.
The goal of the left is to consolidate central power in the hopes they can usurp it. The idea that central power is a function of delegated power from the states and individuals is a problematic idea that needs to be reeducate do away.
The US is not nor should it be a democracy.
Do you not understand the differences between city, county, state, and national governments?
Um. No. The states are older than the nation. Well some are at least. The states had no obligation to form a union and delegate portions of their sovereignty. You can’t, logically, expect a contract to be valid if the terms can be redefined by one party for that one party’s benefit.
The left plans to and has. The mechanism is by redefining language and attacking opponents with disingenuous tactics. Don’t like the federal government usurping powers that it was never granted? Why you must be a dirty racist, sexist, fill in the blankist.
The US has an amendment process. That’s how things ought to get done.
Could you draw a couple more lines there? Are you calling for a Blacks at large Senate seat?
Except that what bugs me about it is that it gives protection/power to some random sets of people, who are grouped together basically for historical geographical reasons, at the expense of other similar groups of people.
Take the entire population of Wyoming, and calculate how much power they have, which is quite disproportionate on a per-capita basis. “But they have distinct concerns which are uniquely theirs, and are separate from the concerns of the people who live in New York and LA”, you might say, and to a certain extent you would be right.
But then draw a big circle on a map in the middle of California’s central valley. You’ll find just as many people as live in Wyoming, and that group of people, who are geographically and culturally similar to each other, also has distinct concerns which are uniquely theirs, and are separate from the concerns of the people who live in New York and LA. But that group of people, due to the way lines were drawn on a map 150+ years ago, have nothing like the same kind of power that the same number of people from Wyoming have.
Now, the system is what it is. To paraphrase some movie or other “‘Fair’ ain’t got nothing to do with it”. But the system doesn’t protect “the little guy”. It protects SOME groups of little guys and tramples others, basically arbitrarily.
It is and always has been a compromise, and is not expected to be perfect.
But California does have more political power than Wyoming. While the Senate has more tools, the House of Representatives can block legislation too and California has 52 more votes than Wyoming there.
And California gets 52 more votes on who the President is too. But the one part of government meant to give the States equal say is too much?
The large states also have several kinds of power entirely apart from their Congressional delegations. California’s product standards are drivers in several industries, for example.
But what does it matter how much power “California” has, as an abstract concept? I live in California. But I am not California. I am a single person. And I have far far less power than someone who lives in either one of the small states or one of the swings states.
Or to think about it another way… suppose that I do happen to agree with most of the residents of California, and we throw our political weight around and try to get something done. Well, that’s just as likely as someone from Wyoming agreeing with most of the residents of 15 or 20 states and all of them throwing their political weight around… and 15 or 20 states, whose population add up to that of CA, have WAY WAY WAY WAY more political power than CA.