Some ideas to fix the senate un-balance

[brandonbull]

Because again, the circumstances under which that body was created have changed dramatically. How many times do I have to repeat this?

Remember, the disparity is SEVEN HUNDRED PERCENT GREATER than how it was envisioned to be. That's absolutely colossal by any rational measure.



While gerrymandering is absolutely a problem it's one that's also probably pretty easily fixed. Overall the House is fine as it is. The senate is what needs a radical overhaul. Remember,

Seven.

Hundred.

Percent.

I don't recall a threshold for population disparity. I missed the part where the founding fathers agreed that "When the time comes that the population disparity between the most populous and least populous states is 7 times greater than currently exists, the Senate must be disbanded.".

 

[pmv]

This is part of my argument against some of the uncritical fans of the EU. They insist that 'internationalism is intrinsically good' and 'coming together in a bigger unit is always good'. And sometimes they point to the US as an example of a successful 'coming together' (ignoring the little matter of a stupendously bloody civil war).

But I say It depends on the terms under which that coming together occurs. I would not want a united Europe that came about with the same baked-in inequality-of-representation that the US tolerated as the price for unity. If the EU were to mutate into a superstate, the massive over-representation of smaller EU nations in the EU parliament (1 Luxembourger vote being worth 11 Germans or Brits - particularly irritating given that Luxembourg is basicaly a giant gated-community of tax-avoiders) would have to go.

Either they are independent nations, and represented as such in a purely free-trade-based association of independent nations, or they are not and are a single state, in which case it has to be one-person-one-vote.

The US, it seems to me, allowed an awful lot of crap to be 'baked in' to the system as the price of unity. If I were American I'd want to see that undone. As a European I don't want to see it repeated.

 

[ivwshane]

So you think the US created states out of the kindness of their heart because otherwise the people in those territories would have been sad?

I think you are confusing territories and states. Territories are typically granted statehood through petition to congress and congress sets up the requirements for admittance. The benefit of the territory to the US has rarely been a condition of admittance. Typically things like population, a state constitution that is similar to the US constitution, using English in their courts, etc. But if you must, the Dakotas both have a lot of natural resources, coal and oil specifically.

 

[hal2kilo]

This is part of my argument against some of the uncritical fans of the EU. They insist that 'internationalism is intrinsically good' and 'coming together in a bigger unit is always good'. And sometimes they point to the US as an example of a successful 'coming together' (ignoring the little matter of a stupendously bloody civil war).

But I say It depends on the terms under which that coming together occurs. I would not want a united Europe that came about with the same baked-in inequality-of-representation that the US tolerated as the price for unity. If the EU were to mutate into a superstate, the massive over-representation of smaller EU nations in the EU parliament (1 Luxembourger vote being worth 11 Germans or Brits - particularly irritating given that Luxembourg is basicaly a giant gated-community of tax-avoiders) would have to go.

Either they are independent nations, and represented as such in a purely free-trade-based association of independent nations, or they are not and are a single state, in which case it has to be one-person-one-vote.

The US, it seems to me, allowed an awful lot of crap to be 'baked in' to the system as the price of unity. If I were American I'd want to see that undone. As a European I don't want to see it repeated.

Oh good that's all we need now, the Balkanization of America.

 

[fskimospy]

You are misrepresenting what the functions of each of the 3 Chambers of Congress are and the purpose behind them.

How dare I misrepresent the third chamber of congress like that, you're right.

 

[fskimospy]

I think you are confusing territories and states. Territories are typically granted statehood through petition to congress and congress sets up the requirements for admittance. The benefit of the territory to the US has rarely been a condition of admittance. Typically things like population, a state constitution that is similar to the US constitution, using English in their courts, etc. But if you must, the Dakotas both have a lot of natural resources, coal and oil specifically.

Those are all requirements designed to ensure that the new state will benefit the US. Again, Congress doesn't do it out of the goodness of their hearts.

It's unclear to me why having coal and oil would lead to the creation of two states instead of one.

 

[pmv]

Oh good that's all we need now, the Balkanization of America.

But why does that follow? Would the smaller states be better off going it alone than part of a US but without disproportionate representation?

 

[fskimospy]

Which, again, is exactly as it was intended. There are no rules, like there are with the house, that specify ratios or provide for changes in the number of Representatives relating to the size of the states population. Don't you find it odd that the founding fathers were smart enough to provide a provision for the house that said as the population increases more seats should be had to represent them but that no such provision was made for the senate?

No. And again, if we care about what the founding fathers thought they clearly thought the existing disparity between the largest and smallest was problematic. If you multiplied that by seven it stands to reason they would have found that EXTREMELY problematic.

The sane way to look at things is if we were making a new government today out of nothing if people would be okay with 35 million people getting the same representation as 500k. They wouldn't and you know it. Why not just acknowledge this?

 

[ivwshane]

This is part of my argument against some of the uncritical fans of the EU. They insist that 'internationalism is intrinsically good' and 'coming together in a bigger unit is always good'. And sometimes they point to the US as an example of a successful 'coming together' (ignoring the little matter of a stupendously bloody civil war).

But I say It depends on the terms under which that coming together occurs. I would not want a united Europe that came about with the same baked-in inequality-of-representation that the US tolerated as the price for unity. If the EU were to mutate into a superstate, the massive over-representation of smaller EU nations in the EU parliament (1 Luxembourger vote being worth 11 Germans or Brits - particularly irritating given that Luxembourg is basicaly a giant gated-community of tax-avoiders) would have to go.

Either they are independent nations, and represented as such in a purely free-trade-based association of independent nations, or they are not and are a single state, in which case it has to be one-person-one-vote.

The US, it seems to me, allowed an awful lot of crap to be 'baked in' to the system as the price of unity. If I were American I'd want to see that undone. As a European I don't want to see it repeated.

So basically smaller countries should bend to the will of the larger countries? I'm sure if you were from one of those smaller countries and you were going to get fucked over by policies of the larger countries you'd be OK with that and saying the same thing /eyeroll

 

[Maxima1]

The great thing about the constitution is that it's principals were agreed to and ratified by all those involved. Even better is that to change those principals it requires a similar universal agreement and ratification.

And that agreement was based on voting as sovereign states i.e. already giving leverage to the smaller states. I’m annoyed how people seem to think the compromise was for some kind of ideal. Some states would have never confederated without big concessions to them on the issue of slavery, and the smaller states had leverage via how the convention was setup.

Again, the issue isn't small states preventing more populous states from enacting their agenda, the issue is a party that doesn't believe in the purpose of the institution itself and a leader who seems intent on corrupting the process.

Democrats would be wise to do what Republicans have done to Democrat party leaders and to demonize Republican leaders like Mitch McConnell. The difference, of course, is that their demonization of Mitch would be rooted in fact and reality.

The senate isn't broken, the people who were elected that lead it are.

But it is a huge problem because there's something fundamentally wrong about a possibility where Democrats can keep getting under 50 in the Senate, which doesn't even get into how laughable the filibuster is now with the polarization of the parties as a consequence of mass media and other developments in the modern era. it's not just the turtle. The others are just like him. This is the outcome because our insittutions are incredibly flawed.

Yeah, I said that up thread. At the end of the day, the constitution has some fundamental problems with elections, representation and checks and balance, but the people that benefit will never vote to change it.

I disagree. There are a number of things that arguably should have required amendments, yet they happened. It only takes the majority of the SC to agree it violates some part of the Constitution.

Don't you find it odd that the founding fathers were smart enough to provide a provision for the house that said as the population increases more seats should be had to represent them but that no such provision was made for the senate?

Why are you even asking this? Yes, they weren't infallible. They fucked up. You know what else was a colossal fuck up? The Articles of Confederation. The absurd ratios regarding the Senate are bringing up similar issues as were with the Articles of Confederation.

As has already been discussed, creating more states would be a good start. We should consider consolidating others as again, as a good example still to this day no one has explained to me a single, solitary advantage to the United States of having two Dakotas.

The easiest start is Puerto Rico and DC. i can't see the state thing happening when the majority in CA don't want it to happen. And there's nothing preventing the Republicans from doing the same if that's feasible.

 

[ivwshane]

No. And again, if we care about what the founding fathers thought they clearly thought the existing disparity between the largest and smallest was problematic. If you multiplied that by seven it stands to reason they would have found that EXTREMELY problematic.

The sane way to look at things is if we were making a new government today out of nothing if people would be okay with 35 million people getting the same representation as 500k. They wouldn't and you know it. Why not just acknowledge this?

Clearly they didn't think it was a problem as they all voted for the current system. The fact that some founding fathers brought up potential issues with such a system doesn't change the fact that those same people later agreed to such a setup. I am completely baffled why you think their objections override their acceptance.

Again, the house is where the people are represented, the senate is where the states are represented. Why is this so difficult for you?

 

[Zorba]

True but that's not an issue caused by how the senate is setup, it's a symptom of a larger problem.


The senate wasn't setup to be representative of the people, that's what the house is for.
Those of you complaining about unequal representation and gerrymanderering shouldn't be complaining about the senate, you should be complaining about the house. The house, as it's currently setup, has fewer representatives then the founders originally intended and that has caused many issues, one of which is that people's votes have become diluted.

1) The senate is structurally gerrymandered by the way states were allowed into the union, this was done on purpose at the time of state formation
2) Congress must vote to increase the number of representatives. Since small state hold undue power in the senate, they will not vote to increase the number of representatives because that would dilute their power in the house as well.

 

[Zorba]

“The system isn’t delivering my desired results so the system must be broken!”

You already admitted that states were purposefully gerrymandered to protect the voting power of slave states. That seems pretty broken to me.

 

[fskimospy]

Clearly they didn't think it was a problem as they all voted for the current system. The fact that some founding fathers brought up potential issues with such a system doesn't change the fact that those same people later agreed to such a setup. I am completely baffled why you think their objections override their acceptance.

You're completely baffled? Allow me to assist!

Say you're making a deal and someone wants to trade you one widget for $100. You have reservations but decide to accept because you think that deal is worth it. Later they come back and want to offer you one widget for $700. Do you think that would perhaps alter your perception of the deal? Once you understand that this should all become clear.

Again, the house is where the people are represented, the senate is where the states are represented. Why is this so difficult for you?

It's not difficult for me and it's also irrelevant to any of my points.

 

[ivwshane]

1) The senate is structurally gerrymandered by the way states were allowed into the union, the was done on purpose at the time of state formation
2) Congress must vote to increase the number of representatives. Since small state hold undue power in the senate, they will not vote to increase the number of representatives because that would dilute their power in the house as well.

That's a bullshit copout and a defeatist attitude. You guys are indeed trying to rig the system. The senate in this current climate is much more likely to switch parties than the house. In fact it's changed parties 8 times in the last 40 years vs the five times its changed in the house during the same time period.

Admitting new states and increasing the number of Representatives are all within the capability of future democrats.

 

[ewdotson]

Clearly they didn't think it was a problem as they all voted for the current system. The fact that some founding fathers brought up potential issues with such a system doesn't change the fact that those same people later agreed to such a setup. I am completely baffled why you think their objections override their acceptance.

Again, the house is where the people are represented, the senate is where the states are represented. Why is this so difficult for you?

I think the argument is about whether or not its a good thing that the states get that representation, given how completely arbitrary their borders are.

In all sincerity, I can see the virtue of having bicameral legislature. I can even see the virtue of having one chamber be more static than the other. But what exactly is the virtue of having one be based on arbitrary borders that are set for all time?

 

[ivwshane]

You already admitted that states were purposefully gerrymandered to protect the voting power of slave states. That seems pretty broken to me.

We don't have slavery any more so I'm not sure why that matters now. We as a people also have the ability to move relatively easily so demographic changes not only will happen but they already are.

 

[Maxima1]

We don't have slavery any more so I'm not sure why that matters now. We as a people also have the ability to move relatively easily so demographic changes not only will happen but they already are.

We obviously still have the institutions created to benefit the slave-holding elite at that time.

 

[ivwshane]

I think the argument is about whether or not its a good thing that the states get that representation, given how completely arbitrary their borders are.

In all sincerity, I can see the virtue of having bicameral legislature. I can even see the virtue of having one chamber be more static than the other. But what exactly is the virtue of having one be based on arbitrary borders that are set for all time?

They aren't based on borders they are based on statehood. Period. If democrats wanted to they could split up existing terrorist into obscenely small pieces and turn them into states.

 

[Zorba]

I'm not hearing a single solution to the problems people are complaining about.

I said up thread. Add more senators, then give each state either 1, 2, 3, or 4 depending on population. I believe in the purpose of the senate, I don't agree with the massively lopsided representation of tiny states vs massive states.

 

[ivwshane]

We obviously still have the institutions created to benefit the slave-holding elite at that time.

The senate was not created for the benifit of slave holders. In fact, at the time, larger states whose population included the most slaves and whose economic value added the most value argued for a more proportional system which would have given them more representation in the senate. The current setup would be a negative for them.


AGAIN, THE PURPOSE OF THE SENATE IS TO REPRESENT THE STATE.

 

[Zorba]

They don't have the same representation.

1. Wyoming: 2 Senators and 1 Representative
2. California: 2 Senators and 53 Representatives
3. Texas: 2 Senators and 36 Representatives.

You said senator represent states and representatives represent people. Therefore, by your logic, all three states have the some representation and voting power. You can't separate the idea of the people and the states in one argument, then turn right around and combine them in the next.

 

[ewdotson]

They aren't based on borders they are based on statehood. Period. If democrats wanted to they could split up existing terrorist into obscenely small pieces and turn them into states.

The *states* are based on arbitrary borders. And ok, great. How does the system benefit the country?

 

[ivwshane]

I said up thread. Add more senators, then give each state either 1, 2, 3, or 4 depending on population. I believe in the purpose of the senate, I don't agree with the massively lopsided representation of tiny states vs massive states.

The founding fathers voted on how many senators there should be. It came down to either three or two. Only one state voted for three. However the main objection to more senators was with regards to the cost.

Having the senate be proportional defeats the whole purpose of the senate. There is only one California, there is only one Texas, there is only one north dakota, etc, etc, no state is more of a state than any other. Proportional representation would not only defeat it's propose but it would duplicate the purpose of the house.

 

[Zorba]

Because they were territories and the people who lived there wanted representation and the benefits that go along with statehood?

For the record it was only one territory:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_Territory

The Dakota Territory was divided into the states of North Dakota and South Dakota on November 2, 1889. The admission of two states, as opposed to one, was done for a number of reasons. The two population centers in the territory were in the northeast and southeast corners of the territory, several hundred miles away from each other. On a national level, there was pressure from the Republican Party to admit two states to add to their political power in the Senate.