Because there’s no increase in the number of Representatives, California gets 1 for every 730k people, Wyoming gets 1 for it’s 580k people. So yes there’s a discrepancy. Increasing the size of the House seems reasonable. But trying to apply that to the Senate is a crazy pipe dream.
I’m not actively suggesting any change here. What I am saying is that there’s nothing virtuous or inherently correct about the way things are. They are what they are. But it’s not because our system was in some sense intelligently designed to fairly treat competing interests… and even if it was, that fairness would have expired decades ago. Rather, it is the way it is for accidental historical and geographical reasons, which accidentally and historically give certain citizens vastly more political influence than others.
Sure. The first step towards change is discussion. Hence, this discussion.
It’s just not reasonable to say that the designation of an equal number of Senate seats per State is an historical accident. It was explicitly argued for. The United States probably wouldn’t exist today if not for that agreement. The rule was foĺlowed throughout the addition of new States. You can say it’s not a great thing, but it’s not some odd set of circumstances that led to it.
I’m not disagreeing with what you’re saying. It’s not just due to random chance that the US constitution is set up the way it’s set up. What is an “accident of history”, in my opinion, is how the state boundaries are drawn. Is there some fundamental geographical or cultural reason why Boston and New York are in two separate states while San Francisco and LA are not? Not really… certainly not one that is relevant to the current wants and needs of Bostonians vs. New Yorkers vs San Franciscans vs. Los Angelinos.
The formations of states are not random or arbitrary. Would you have preferred the alternative history of no USA being formed? States are real political units with real powers.
Well I can’t really argue with that. What terrorities became a state was certainly a matter of debate and give and take but it certainly as plotted out as the original Constitution.
Did your living room petition for admission?
Chowder. New England vs Manhattan. It all comes down to chowder. There is simply no way to reconcile those two culinary traditions into one state.
But I’m ready to split CA over the use of “the” in front of freeway numbers. We NorCalers cannot abide locutions like “The 101”.
Who needs one?
What are your motivations to further consolidate power? Who needs a republic or democracy?
Yet countries with unicameral parliaments aren’t dictatorships.
I still think my “two amendments to change the Senate” thing would work in theory. In practice it would never fly because it would require ratification by at least some states that benefit from the current arrangement.
A better plan might be for George Soros to build luxurious colonies in Wyoming, Idaho, North Dakota, etc., and invite homeless minorities to move there by the hundreds of thousands. Then build a political patronage machine, get everyone registered to vote, put friendly but relentless pressure on those benefiting from the largesse to vote as their benefactors suggest.
Checks and balance between government entities is a hedge. Furthermore the rights in question are the rights of the states.
Texas (with 27 million people) gets 2 senators. Delaware, Vermont, rhode island, Hawaii, New Mexico… get more. So what? Are you saying we should get rid of the senate and leave everything to the house? I didn’t see liberals complaining about the senate when Democrats controlled a filibusterproof majority in the senate.
And do you think we could get ratification of a constitution today without the rural states?
OTOH, the Republicans also hold the house so its not like the old days when the Democrats held the house and got the majority of the votes but the Republicans held onto the senate by virtue of states like Wyoming and the Dakotas.
Don’t worry, the senate is about to head back into the blue column. The next two presidential elections will see twice as many Republican senators up for re-election as Democratic senators. 23 to 46. 13 out of 16 competitive senate races have Republican incumbents.
By 2021 the senate will likely be controlled by Democrats. It will be hard to repeat the Republican performance of 2010 and 2014.
Look at the 2018 map. And realize that most of the governors elected for the 2020 census will be Republican, as well as a pretty decent percentage of state legislators. Plus by then the GOP could very well control more Senate seats than they do today.
So you’ll have to wait a little longer than 2020 to get the Senate back, although there might be a slim Dem majority in 2016.
granted. but computer generated compact equal population districts are hard to argue against. Yes, some areas are ‘naturally’ more liberal or more conservative. Still, I’d rather have a computer spit out the new congressional district boundaries every ten years than have a legislator dominated by either party do it. Look at the news stories about how the N.C. districts will now look vs. the way the legislature drew them…the net result, minority vs. white congressmen, probably won’t change too much, maybe even be a shade lighter than previous, but the vote is, verily, fair.
A veteran congressman of either party has very little to worry about come election time. The Tea party has shaken that up a bit, but now ‘they’ are the incumbants. Once in Washington, they don’t have a lot of incentive to cater to the constituents, though many do a good job of it. Gerrymandering is done, frankly, as much to protect the jobs of the incumbents as it is to preserve the party domination. For example, when a new map is drawn, one rarely hears “they just drew those lines to make me have to go up against another incumbent.”
Has there ever once in the history of this country been an argument in favor of “state’s rights” that didn’t run exactly opposed to individual rights? The sooner we can quash this notion of “state’s rights”, the better, so far as I’m concerned.
I agree that computers should do the job, but Republicans will still have a natural advantage unless you tell the computer to create balanced districts by party ID. If it just grabs random groups of people who live close to each other, you’ll get more red districts than blue.