May not apply stateside, but on this side of the puddle it is a general principal that all Australians are entitled to access to the same level of basic services, education, health, government services, infrastructure etc. The role of government is to make all reasonable efforts to do this those it is a practical impossibility. Such services and infrastructure are obviously easier and more cost effective to provide in higher population densities. The only way to ensure it is a plausible level of basic service for all is for those less populated areas to be proportionately over represented where those decisions are being made.
This principle applies at several levels and varying levels of effectiveness.
.
All six Australian states elect 12 senators to the Federal upper House. Tasmania has a population of approx 520k. NSW has a population of approx 7.6mil represented by 12 senators. Tasmania has 2.2% of the national population and 15.8% of the Senate vote.
In the House of Representatives each state and territory gains representation in the in proportion to their population, and there are a similar number of electors in each electoral division for a given state or territory.
Australia’s smallest electorate is the seat of Wentworth in Sydney, where the local member happens to be the Prime Minister. Wentworth has 107k electors in an area of 38 sq kms (<15 sq miles) and you could circumnavigate the border during daylight hours at a brisk walk.
Australia’s largest electorate is the WA seat of Durack covers 1,629,858 sq kms (629,292 sq miles), a land mass larger than Alaska with 97k electors.
I think what some non-urban people miss is that urban areas aren’t monolithic with monolithic interests. It’s around the same distance from New York to Philly as it is from Amarillo to Lubbock yet there’s a larger social separation.
To take a trivial example, the sheer mass of people means that if the government favors Philly over NYC, you can’t just commute to the newly prosperous Philly every day due to the congestion. As well as competing neighborhoods within metropolises such as NYC and LA, some of which are large enough to have their own Congressperson – as much representation in the House as some states, and with good reason because they need someone to represent the millions of people in Brooklyn as much as the millions of people in Wyoming.
Just because you physically live close to someone doesn’t mean your interests are the same as theirs.
BTW the disproportional vote weight in the USA is not by “land mass”. Delaware and Rhode Island have a +2 factor just as much as Alaska and Montana do. That particular system explicitly protects low-population jurisdictions regardless of landmass.
Now, the bias towards thinking that overrepresenting the RURAL as such is somehow “natural”, is not only USA based. A lot if it IMO has to do that for virtually all societies, until very very recently the holding of land or natural resources WAS (and in some still is) the key to economic power.
It’s a bit of a block against the tyranny of the majority, or to put it another way, to preserve a ruling class, the house and senate systems represent this philosophy. It uses things in common with a ruling/upper class and a common/poor class to prevent the common class from having too much control, but also get a say.
In this one group, those who hold large land plots, and therefore low population density, would be assured there views are represented, common folks in dense population areas such as cities would also get their voice. While not exactly the English system explicitly, it does set up a similar divide and does define what is the ruling class.
In the EC the 2 house system collapses into one in a way still preserving the ruling class idea.
And in that perhaps it is not a bad idea, a pure majority will not protect the views of a minority as well as if that minority was a ruling class with greater say. Ruling or privileged classes are by necessity smaller in number than the common class, and therefore democracy does not properally represent this group.
I think the fix should be in apportioning electors based on population and not by number of congressional + senate seats. The latest census for Wyoming shows 563,767 residents for which they get 3 votes, or 187,922 per vote. California has 37,254,503 people and get 55 votes, or 677,355 per vote. I say use the lowest state as the standard and assign EVs per state at the rate of 187,922 per seat. In my plan, California gets 198 EVs. Using a quick and dirty spreadsheet, I did this for all states and get 1645 EVs in total, or 823 to win. In my plan, Hillary got 712 EVs, so she’s still short, but I think a fairer result.
Eh, the 2 extra EVs every state gets isn’t likely to be a difference maker. I think the main problem people have with the EC isn’t the vote apportionment, but the fact that a candidate can run up the score in a few states as Clinton did, but still lose 30 states, many by narrow margins, and thus the election.
I concur that apportioning electors minus the senators would be the way to go. Rural states would still have a collective voice but not over representation. They’d still wield influence greater than their population due to their over representation in the Senate. The only urban states that would be affected are RI, HI, and DE. However, DC would be doubly affected because their electoral votes are their only national representation at all and would be cut in third.
Right. And that article also points out how people outside the big cities are ignored and suffering. Give them even less political representation and this becomes even worse.
Yes, quite a few people are overlooking this. Below is a link to an interesting analysis that shows how the electoral college vote wouldn’t change all that much, if the votes were allocated according to true population (but retained the “winner take all” format)
A lot of Hillary supporters are claiming that the EC is unfair for this or that reason…but the blue side also got a kicker from DC, RI, VT and a few other smaller states.
But their being given disproportionate electoral/congressional weight (at the federal level) is not because they’re rural but because they’re small populations. And the disproportion applies most sharply to the states with population below 3 million due to the apportionment “floor”. That the low population often correlates with rurality is something of a chicken-or-egg scenario for this pueposr. FWIW huge swaths of California or New York or Illinois ARE rural farmland. Just that you got some big-ass cities plonked in within those borders.
At the state/local level pre-1960s, and in many other countries to this day, you did/do still have a trend or expectation that representation must be by geographic unit not because of federative nature but because somehow regions or communities are entitled to retain the degree of influence they had in the past, even if by now you have more sheep than people in the jurisdiction – what in politics were called “rotten boroughs”. At least at the federal level representaion drops with population loss until you hit the “floor”.
It’s an oversimplification to say that land is represented. Rhode Island and Delaware get 7 electoral votes altogether despite that, added together, they have much less land area than the next smallest state. Texas (and Alaska!) would deserve many more ev’s if representing land were an objective.
Cite for the “independent countries”? California and Texas had independent status for a while, but they were very short-lived. Besides Hawaii are there other examples?
The “California Republic” lasted only weeks, controled the building where it was self-proclaimed, and was recognized by nobody. Vermont was a functional de-facto independent state between the Revolution and admission, and fought off both NY and NH rather effectively. The Hawaiian Kingdom had fallen and the Republic was dissolved upon US annexation in 1898. Only Texas was a fully recognized “foreign” nation at the time of admission.
What DagNation makes reference to is that the states are legally considered *sovereign *, not mere administrative subdivisions that the central authority can create and dissolve.
As it goes, the 13 originals had declared themselves “free and independent states” in the DoI, and retained their primary sovereignty during the Articles of Confederation regime (even though the confederation was nominally entered in perpetuity).
Upon the adoption of the current Constitution, the legal figure was adopted that the theretofore “free and independent states” had an enumerated part of their sovereignty preempted by the new federal state created by The People. After that, for each successive new state to be entered in the Union on equal legal footing with the originals, each admission of a territory as a state includes the implied recognition of a sovereign status for that polity, that as such sovereign ratifies the federal Constitution’s terms.
This is a (refreshing?) variation of “Why should those poor people get more than absolute minimum?!”.
The fear that someone, somewhere, is getting More Than They Deserve is almost as strong as the fear that someone, somewhere, is having More Fun Than They Should!
I get depressed every time I see either sentiment both expressed and agreed with…
If millions of random people around American suddenly got to vote three times, and everyone else only a proportional vote, people would rightly think that this was undemocratic. Or would you support this as well, and think that your neighbors who only got to vote once via this random process were just engaging in sour grapes?
It’s not the end of the world. All else being equal, there isn’t much injustice in having a presidency awarded to someone who got just a percent or so less than the other person. A really wacky result like 10% would be a different story. But by the same token, all else being equal, changing the system to reflect the actual will of the people would be better.
A basic, fundamental characteristic of the political systems I have exposure to, large and small, international and family, is protection of minority interests, in return for minority co-operation.
In the Australian political system, a 20% minority also has a small chance of being the deciding power in (not 20% of the time), so that’s also part of the political compromise here, but I don’t know how the numbers work out in rural/urban USA.
Another way the majority/minority compromise works out is the way congress/senate is supposed to work: the majority gives the minority a fair go, because they know that next year, the boot may be on the other foot.
Those two points may be part of the reason, but they don’t have to be: it might be out of a sense of fairness that you learn as part of a largly mobile society, or maybe out of a sense of fear, but the fact remains: working political systems have built into them the protection of minority interests.
Okay, but again, why do this by geographical minority when there are tons of minorities of the population that aren’t concentrated in any one region that need protecting?
E: Again, not saying that this isn’t a valid interest, just that it’s one of many and we only protect the one in this way.
In the case of the US because under constitutional law a number of varying size geographical units are the federation’s constituent entities whose interests are represented in the national government, and in this case the “disadvantage” for which “the weak” need to be given a leg up is literally numerical inferiority. You boost the value of the vote for the few people in tiny, industrial/banking Delaware AND for the few people in big, agricultural/mining Montana, vs. those of large, mixed-use California and New York.
And this particular system was come up with when *most *of the country *was *agrarian. So it’s not like the rural populations were a “minority” then.
Right, but that’s the historical reason. My point is that there are tons of groups that, in fact, have staggering numerical inferiority, we don’t give such powers to. It was a way for straight, cis, landowning white men to negotiate with straight, cis, landowning white men who didn’t want their voices to be drowned out. There are other groups that are not defined based on geography and arbitrary state or regional lines that could use the exact same protections. “Protecting the minority” isn’t a reason we should keep the EC/senate/whatever, and doesn’t really make sense as a justification, it’s just the way historical negotiations went when there was only a limited amount of demographics who were negotiating their interests.
And yes, I understand the US is a federation of states, but that just begs the question. The US is a federation of states that ratified a constitution because that constitution gave rights to those states. It was an arbitrary negotiating procedure that protected an admittedly legitimate interest on the part of smaller states.
Morally, ethically, there are many other protections and power boosters that were not ceded because those people were not involved or considered when ratifying the document.