Today’s Washington Post has an editorial “What if senators represented people by income or race, not by state?” by Anne Lowry:
So, what would happen? Would anything change? Do senators really “represent” their states to start with? Would the same people get elected? Would the plutocrats allow it? Would they still wield disproportionate power?
I’ve thought about that (especially about the racial representation bit), but mainly as a counterargument to the Electoral College. It seems pretty likely to me that a black guy living in Detroit has more in common in life experience with a black guy living in LA, than a homeless guy living in Charlotte has in common with a film producer living in Wilmington. But it’s odious to suggest that we apportion senators by race. Why, then, is it acceptable to apportion them by geography?
There are tons of people who are poor because of bad circumstances (illness, disability, transitions). But tons are poor because of bad decisions too. Of course there are middle class and wealthy who make horrible decisions too.
Not only that, but most poor don’t vote as often. Voter turnout increases as income increases. So the lower income senators will be decided by lower numbers of voters. However that is no different than our current system where Vermont & California both have 2 senators.
Either way, the wealthiest would still just fund think tanks designed to convince the poor and middle class that voting for politicians who benefit the wealthy will benefit them too (indirectly) like they do now.
Lower income people vote more progressive, but have lower turnout. So if we did it would move politics to the left since the lower turnout would be accommodated for.
The strongest factor in politics is almost certainly economics, which includes income. Of all things that people care about, this is probably it–though people might not admit it consciously. So it would make some sort of sense.
When you run for office, you always have to present yourself as vaguely as possible so as not to encourage the wrath of any one particular group. If you can limit the number of people who you are campaigning too, you can be more openly opinionated–which I think would allow for a wider range of beliefs to enter.
This could be good, or it could mean that there would be less middle-ground and more divisiveness.
Ultimately, I think it would move everything towards favoring the poor. When you have to wave in the wind, you’re generally going to favor the center, which means the middle-class. With everyone representing, more-or-less, the middle class, that’s the group who sees the greatest advantage from the senators. With a wider range of beliefs, you have support for all groups, but more at the bottom. And more importantly, in general wealthier people are smarter. When they see the senate getting grid-locked over divisiveness, they’ll elect in someone who they think can actually move things forward–which means compromise. Poorer people, being less intelligent, will be more likely to hold to their guns and keep voting in the hard-liner. So not only is there going to be greater representation towards the bottom, but you’re going to have less and less willingness to compromise as you go in that direction as well, which generally equates to wins.
I think this system would favor poor, ill-advised people. That might be somewhat bi-partisan compared to now, but it would favor the left, and certainly not be to the benefit of society at large.
Uh-huh. Tell us another.
And just consider how intransigent the current Republican party is. Sure, it’s partly an attempt to play to the far-far-right, but it also works to stymie progressive efforts–to the advantage of the wealthy.
So, poor people just need things decided for them?
Anyway, as to the OP, it depends if the senators are selected from that very tax bracket, or not? And it should really be by wealth, rather than income, but I assume that that’s what was meant.
I think that, earmarks aside, most legislation affects all geographic areas equally.
You’d still need adequate campaign finance laws to ensure that the wealthy don’t influence the election through advertising and such. Plus, as was the case in the Roman Senate, persons of modest social class could still be bankrolled to do the aristocracy’s bidding. So, that would have to be addressed, too.
For most practical purposes they already do. They generally vote according to the campaign contributions they get; not what the people who voted for them want.
I’m not getting where you’re getting that from what I said. Stupid people make stupid decisions. Sarah Palin and George Bush II are perfectly good proof of that, and they’re both good examples–though on the wrong side of the fence–of that. You would always rather have your elected representative be bright. This is the point of the representative system. Rich people, poor people, and the middle class all want someone smart representing them and making wise decisions that might not be obvious from the outside to those who can’t familiarize themselves as well with the issue.
That’s not “having things decided for you”, it’s called electing the right person.
So, there is no actual down side.
If you really believe that having any one tribe lopsidedly gathering all the spoils is a good thing (as long as it’s MY tribe), that might explain why people are so incensed at the Dems right now.
Which would not be a fair characterization of “moving everything towards favoring the poor.” That would, in fact, be a halfassed and highly inadequate corrective of a status quo that is way far tilted the other way and has been since time immemorial.
Depends on your politics. Basing your economy around the poor–looking at the USSR, Cuba, and Maoist China–certainly don’t encourage me in that direction. You’re a Socialist, however, so you think that’s all fine and dandy.
I’ll still bet you that even in a Socialist world, you’d rather be lead by the wise than the fools.* I don’t know who the Sarah Palin is of the left side of the fence since this is a left-leaning board and my only source of information on current politics. I’m sure an equivalent exists, and would run things into the ground.
Certainly. But what reason do you have to expect that if the poorest 2% of Americans got to elect their own two senators, they would choose fools?
If we chose 100 senators by a random lottery, like jury duty, then they would be statistically likely to come from all strata in society, and a great many of them (and not from the lower strata alone) would be fools. But elections are a different process.
I agree. That is why I advocate that we eliminate the concept of “one man, one vote,” and replace it with “one dollar, one vote.”
You want to vote once? Costs you a buck. You want to vote TWICE? No problem, costs you two bucks. You want to cast a MILLION votes? Sure thing, sign here. Fork over your million dollars and your votes are cast.
In this way, the most productive members of society, the capitalists and movers and shakers, those with an actual *stake *in the running of the country, would get their fair, proportional say. Instead of the losers and degenerates and reprobates and PARASITES getting exactly the same say as people who are actually creating jobs.
Hey, it couldn’t be any worse than what we have now…TRM
:dubious: Everyone has an equal stake in that, because, whatever government decides to do or not to do, everyone, equally, has to live with the results.
Anyway, anything that brings a society an inch nearer to passing the veil of ignorance test is worth doing.
I think you are confusing a regulated welfare state with a centrally planned communist economy. Those generally do not work. Even communist nations have abandoned them.
Have we no workhouses? Have we no prisons?
Come to think of it, what ever did happen to workhouses?
They were certainly better than multi-generational welfare families.