Some ideas to fix the senate un-balance

[ivwshane]

I don't think states hold any meaning. They are arbitrary distinctions between regions. They are no more important or useful than the districts drawn up to identify reps for the house.
Most people don't know the differences in laws between states or who their politicians are or even the functional differences between states. Most people don't even know the capitols of most states. In fact 40% of Americans never move more than 20 miles from their original town in their lifetime. You make it sound like most people are actively choosing the states they live in. The reality is state affiliation like most things is mostly inherited and most people generally wouldn't know the difference if it went away.

I think most people would end up noticing the difference as governing "regions" has been done since the beginning of time and its been done because it's easier to focus resources and create better policies when "regions" are broken into smaller pieces. This is basic shit that applies to pretty much everything in human life. For example;
educational institution> schools> departments> classrooms

Business> administration> managers> workers

Country> states> counties> cities

 

[ivwshane]

No they get what all the other people get. Proportional representation.

Lol yes, in the house.

 

[ivwshane]

It should be pretty telling that in nearly every case the debate about admitting new states has not turned on the administrative merits of doing that but instead on how it would affect the balance of power in the Senate. ie: the tail is wagging the dog here.

It's just like with DC and Puerto Rico today. Should they be states? Maybe! Maybe not! There will be no meaningful debate about the merits one way or the other though because it's not going to happen until the Democrats get unified control of government because Republicans won't allow it solely due to the effect on the Senate. This right here should be a pretty obvious indication that the Senate is fucked up.

Its a pretty good indication that it's working as intended as the "issue" and justification has been the same since our founding.

 

[Sunburn74]

I think most people would end up noticing the difference as governing "regions" has been done since the beginning of time and its been done because it's easier to focus resources and create better policies when "regions" are broken into smaller pieces. This is basic shit that applies to pretty much everything in human life. For example;
educational institution> schools> departments> classrooms

Business> administration> managers> workers

Country> states> counties> cities

I don't think there is actually any proof of that.

There are well run cities and crappy cities. Well run counties and crappy counties. This is true even down to the individual level. There are people who have their stuff together and individuals who don't. There is no proof you are citing that the additional layer of government which is the state contributes anything to the success of a country, just like there is no proof that adding a county or a district or a whatever in the middle adds anything. Honestly even there is no proof that being an independent country adds anything to how well run things are and problems are solved over say a continent or a bigger unified country. Just look at what happened when the USSR decided to split into a ton of small countries or big African countries split into smaller African countries. Or the flip side, see what leaving the EU is doing to England. States are basically meaningless and probably if anything add an unnecessary level of cost to the actual government we need.

 

[hal2kilo]

Lol yes, in the house.

So why do states get outsized power votes, why can't it be proportional yet again. I know, I know the poor minority.....

 

[ivwshane]

I don't think there is actually any proof of that.

There are well run cities and crappy cities. Well run counties and crappy counties. This is true even down to the individual level. There are people who have their stuff together and individuals who don't. There is no proof you are citing that the additional layer of government which is the state contributes anything to the success of a country. Honestly even there is no proof that being a country adds anything to how well run things are and problems are solved over say a continent. Just look at what happened when the USSR decided to split into a ton of small countries or all three African countries split into smaller African countries. Or the flip side, see what leaving the EU is doing to England.

Thanks for inadvertently making my point for me. Your examples proved my point

 

[fskimospy]

Its a pretty good indication that it's working as intended as the "issue" and justification has been the same since our founding.

So to be clear you believe it was the intent of the framers of the constitution that we incorporate new states as part of a domestic power struggle instead of based on the merits.

Hmm. It's pretty obvious the tail is wagging the dog here - the Senate is including new states based on what it means for the Senate, not what it means for the country or the residents of those areas. Bad public policy.

 

[ivwshane]

So why do states get outsized power votes, why can't it be proportional yet again. I know, I know the poor minority.....

So you know the answer is the minority and yet you dismiss it. Why?

If, in order to fight climate change, it was determined that an increase in nuclear power plants was needed and that the increase in nuclear waste meant that we needed somewhere to dump it that, if the larger states determined that a good place for the waste was in a small state despite the fact that a larger state had a more appropriate location, then that small state shouldn't get a say? After all, their two votes would be meaningless against a state with 20 votes. Does that make sense to you?

 

[Sunburn74]

Thanks for inadvertently making my point for me. Your examples proved my point

I don't see how.
Anyway all I'm saying is competent people are what makes government work. It's not really a matter of layers of government because even if you have a few layers that can delegate well, things will get done and problems will be solved. There have been well run countries and empires that have a single guy at the top who can delegate well. History is filled with this. That is the key ingredient to why some places function well and others do not. When you have incompent or corrupt people, it doesn't matter how good a framework of government you lay down it'll fail. Try setting up a study schedule for a crack addict. It doesn't matter how well designed the study schedule is, a crack addict is a crack addict and it won't work.

The basic problem with US politics is not a matter of framework, though the framework is not perfect, but mostly a matter of a lack of incentives for the absolute best people to govern to actually get into government. Rather they go run apple or go into medicine or go build vaccines and have families and instead you get degenerates with dads money deciding to run for senate

 

[ivwshane]

So to be clear you believe it was the intent of the framers of the constitution that we incorporate new states as part of a domestic power struggle instead of based on the merits.

Hmm. It's pretty obvious the tail is wagging the dog here - the Senate is including new states based on what it means for the Senate, not what it means for the country or the residents of those areas. Bad public policy.

I'm sorry did you think some other body should be deciding what gets statehood besides the one stipulated by the constitution? You do realize that the constitution gives Congress complete control over what the requirements are for admitting a new state right? So while we currently have bad actors in control now, that won't always be the case and I'll stick with the safeguards that have been in place and working for over 200 years.

 

[ivwshane]

I don't see how.
Anyway all I'm saying is competent people are what makes government work. It's not really a matter of layers of government because even if you have a few layers that can delegate well, things will get done and problems will be solved. There have been well run countries and empires that have a single guy at the top who can delegate well. History is filled with this. That is the key ingredient to why some places function well and others do not. When you have incompent or corrupt people, it doesn't matter how good a framework of government you lay down it'll fail. Try setting up a study schedule for a crack addict. It doesn't matter how well designed the study schedule is, a crack addict is a crack addict and it won't work.

The basic problem with US politics is not a matter of framework, though the framework is not perfect, but mostly a matter of a lack of incentives for the absolute best people to govern to actually get into government. Rather they go run apple or go into medicine or go build vaccines and have families and instead you get degenerates with dads money deciding to run for senate

I agree, any system is as only good as the people who run it. People here are suggesting we change the system as opposed to the people. One is easier than the other.

 

[ElFenix]

states shouldn't have representation independent of the population. people are what matters, not arbitrary lines drawn on maps.


anyway, for a more realistic fix, just changing how leadership works would be a vast improvement. leadership should not be able to torpedo legislation that has majority support. but it very much can (fuck you denny hastert you pedophile piece of shit)

mitch mcconnell: because fuck you, that's why:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1103398939762585605

 

[Starbuck1975]

The results I desire are a government that is able to remain functional without recurring governance crises and one that can generally enact policies supported by overwhelming percentages of the population.

These are results that every person should desire and yet we don't have them. These are also the results that the US government was able to provide for most of its existence. As it is no longer able to do so, change is required.

You have not. In fact you've scrupulously refused to respond to it because you know as well as I do there's no actual governance case for it.

I would suggest you read that study more closely as it finds overall conservatives dislike liberals more than liberals dislike conservatives. The idea that you would need to inform me that white liberals in Brooklyn can be intolerant though is kind of funny. I live here, I know. Most people here react with the same horror as ATPN does when I tell them that we should build more houses instead of just demanding that nobody else move to the city ever. Regardless, I have large numbers of friends and associations with people who disagree with me politically. That's what comes from having a family from the Eastern Shore of Maryland, growing up in the Republican Philadelphia suburbs, and spending a considerable amount of time in the military.

My critique of the Senate is based purely on the breakdown in governance and that breakdown is undeniable. People need to stop worrying what changes mean for their political party and need to start worrying about the country.

But the breakdown of governance is a reflection of character of the people holding the seats, not the underlying system. You’ve yet to make a compelling argument for why we need to redesign a system that solely exists to provide balance to each state. Your grievances are somewhat partisan in nature.

I don’t need to defend the wisdom of how the states came to be. I simply respect the balance provided by respecting the process by which they became states and the sovereignty afforded by the Senate.

As for the article I linked, what is most interesting is that it bursts the myth of liberal tolerance. Growing up under similar circumstances to you, my observations are similar but my takeaways are quite different.

 

[pmv]

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

But that's the whole point! (/eyeroll right back at you!).

You are calling them 'countries'. As long as they are independent countries, then, OK, fair enough. But the point I'm making is what happens when we stop treating them as 'countries' and become regions of a superstate (which is the direction the EU is slowly heading in). Pick one or the other. If they are independent countries than its a different situation. If there's a strong central government that can impose rules on every region, then that government should be elected on the basis of one-person-one-vote.

Why should 'region you live in' be a special protected category with disproportionate representation, when the same is not true of, say, racial identity, sexuality, class, age, or any other demographic characteristic? As it is, in fact, giving higher representation to smaller regions is likely to have the side-effect of giving higher representation to white people than others (I'd be interested to see how that calculation works for the EU and also for the US - what effect does disproportional representation by region of residence have on the representativeness on the basis of other characteristics? Has anyone done that calculation?).

 

[fskimospy]

But the breakdown of governance is a reflection of character of the people holding the seats, not the underlying system. You’ve yet to make a compelling argument for why we need to redesign a system that solely exists to provide balance to each state. Your grievances are somewhat partisan in nature.

You are again impugning my motives instead of countering my arguments. For the second time stop doing that.

A well designed system does not depend on having great people in it all the time to remain functional. If you’re saying all it takes is the modern Republican Party to break it then this screams for changes as the Republican Party isn’t going away.

I don’t need to defend the wisdom of how the states came to be. I simply respect the balance provided by respecting the process by which they became states and the sovereignty afforded by the Senate.

So again, the only justification is:

1) that’s how it’s always been.

This is not a good argument.

As for the article I linked, what is most interesting is that it bursts the myth of liberal tolerance. Growing up under similar circumstances to you, my observations are similar but my takeaways are quite different.

This presumes a symmetry between the parties that does not exist. I’m not equating Republicans with Nazis but if we had a finding that liberals were less tolerant of Nazis than vice versa I would find that to be a good thing. Given the attributes of the current Republican Party a decent dose of contempt for its members is probably warranted.

Regardless, I have friends and family from all over the ideological spectrum, my family in Maryland is particularly conservative. While I have contempt for their political views I would never not associate with them for them.

 

[fskimospy]

But that's the whole point! (/eyeroll right back at you!).

You are calling them 'countries'. As long as they are independent countries, then, OK, fair enough. But the point I'm making is what happens when we stop treating them as 'countries' and become regions of a superstate (which is the direction the EU is slowly heading in). Pick one or the other. If they are independent countries than its a different situation. If there's a strong central government that can impose rules on every region, then that government should be elected on the basis of one-person-one-vote.

Why should 'region you live in' be a special protected category with disproportionate representation, when the same is not true of, say, racial identity, sexuality, class, age, or any other demographic characteristic? As it is, in fact, giving higher representation to smaller regions is quite likely to have the side-effect of giving higher representation to white people than others (I'd be interested to see how that calculation works for the EU and also for the US - what effect does disproporitonal representation by region of residence have on the representativeness on the basis of other characteristics? Has anyone done that calculation?).

And as the US abundantly proved in 1865 the states are not countries.

In the US the easiest metric for how much your vote counts is how far away you are from your closest neighbor. From the senate to gerrymandering and geographic concentration in the House, to electoral college votes for president at every step sparsely populated areas are given extra representation despite generally being a net drain on the resources of the country. (These two things are probably related, haha)

 

[Fern]

And it's perfectly gerrymandered enough to be represented by 2 Republicans - Mark Meadows and Patrick McHenry.

WTF am I talking about indeed.. how is that possible?

Gerrymandering - which is voter suppression in a rigged way.

Mark Meadows doesn't represent Asheville.

Asheville is a liberal city out in the mountains surrounded by mostly conservative/red areas. I haven't looked at the numbers, but I suspect that you if moved Asheville to the 10th district (instead of the 11th) it wouldn't change anything. There's only two possible districts Asheville could be in: 10 and 11.

In any case, your post that I commented seemed to claim voter surpression in Asheville: not that they were being surpressed.

Fern

 

[ivwshane]

But that's the whole point! (/eyeroll right back at you!).

You are calling them 'countries'. As long as they are independent countries, then, OK, fair enough. But the point I'm making is what happens when we stop treating them as 'countries' and become regions of a superstate (which is the direction the EU is slowly heading in). Pick one or the other. If they are independent countries than its a different situation. If there's a strong central government that can impose rules on every region, then that government should be elected on the basis of one-person-one-vote.

Why should 'region you live in' be a special protected category with disproportionate representation, when the same is not true of, say, racial identity, sexuality, class, age, or any other demographic characteristic? As it is, in fact, giving higher representation to smaller regions is quite likely to have the side-effect of giving higher representation to white people than others (I'd be interested to see how that calculation works for the EU and also for the US - what effect does disproporitonal representation by region of residence have on the representativeness on the basis of other characteristics? Has anyone done that calculation?).

The states are independent and laws created that the states have to follow are created by people representing those states. You are basically telling states that they don't get any input because...well I have no idea what your reasoning is. I would think that if laws are passed at the federal level that states should get input on laws that will directly affect them, especially when a lot of those laws will have to be implemented by them directly.

All your other points are handled directly by the other body in Congress, the house or at the state level.

If you don't understand why we have states then I suggest you tell California to go fuck itself with its tougher than federal law clean air regulations. Maybe you could tell north Dakota they can't drill or frack for oil anymore. Perhaps you can tell Texans that you'll be taking their land for trumps new wall. Why not tell west Virginia they have to only use coal now? Who do these states think they are anyway?

 

[Indus]

Mark Meadows doesn't represent Asheville.

Asheville is a liberal city out in the mountains surrounded by mostly conservative/red areas. I haven't looked at the numbers, but I suspect that you if moved Asheville to the 10th district (instead of the 11th) it wouldn't change anything. There's only two possible districts Asheville could be in: 10 and 11.

In any case, your post that I commented seemed to claim voter surpression in Asheville: not that they were being surpressed.

Fern

Ahh k, I am of the opinion that voter suppression and gerrymandering is a two headed monster but the same monster.

 

[brycejones]

Willfully ignorant is your bag.

 

[Starbuck1975]

You are again impugning my motives instead of countering my arguments. For the second time stop doing that.

On more than one occasion, I’ve expressed respect and admiration for how you carry yourself. I believe that your argument stands on a partisan evaluation of the outcomes...that in no way reflects on your character and there is nothing judgmental in my disagreement with you.

A well designed system does not depend on having great people in it all the time to remain functional. If you’re saying all it takes is the modern Republican Party to break it then this screams for changes as the Republican Party isn’t going away.

Sure it does. A military unit fails to function if it tolerates incompetence. We have a mechanism to purge and punish the GOP for breaking the system. A Democrat majority is not some ridiculous goal. The Democrats had a majority less than 10 years ago. Perhaps their loss of the majority is a reflection of their leaders. Just sayin’

So again, the only justification is:

1) that’s how it’s always been.

This is not a good argument.

The justification is that it isn’t broken

This presumes a symmetry between the parties that does not exist. I’m not equating Republicans with Nazis but if we had a finding that liberals were less tolerant of Nazis than vice versa I would find that to be a good thing. Given the attributes of the current Republican Party a decent dose of contempt for its members is probably warranted.

The tolerance paradox eventually and inevitably becomes an echo chamber.

Regardless, I have friends and family from all over the ideological spectrum, my family in Maryland is particularly conservative. While I have contempt for their political views I would never not associate with them for them.

I have family members and friends who were diehard union New Deal Democrats that are now true Trump believers, and these are not social media saavy or Fox News viewers. I don’t agree with them but I understand why.

 

[fskimospy]

On more than one occasion, I’ve expressed respect and admiration for how you carry yourself. I believe that your argument stands on a partisan evaluation of the outcomes...that in no way reflects on your character and there is nothing judgmental in my disagreement with you.

I do appreciate that, genuinely, but my evaluation does not. For example earlier in this thread I described the Republican defeat of a compromise immigration bill in the House as the system functioning correctly. Even though it wasn’t the outcome I wanted from a partisan perspective it’s not an example of a broken system.

Sure it does. A military unit fails to function if it tolerates incompetence. We have a mechanism to purge and punish the GOP for breaking the system. A Democrat majority is not some ridiculous goal. The Democrats had a majority less than 10 years ago. Perhaps their loss of the majority is a reflection of their leaders. Just sayin’

This relates to my point. Military systems are designed to withstand incompetence to the greatest extent possible. You can have a lot of stupid people and things still work. I’m sure you know this.

As for the senate it is more of a case of the last pre-ultrapartisan era Democrats being cleared out. They will not be back.

Also, a good example of how broken the Senate is 2009-2011. Despite the largest landslide we are likely to see in our lifetimes it was an incredible struggle to pass even moderate legislation. Contrast that to the FDR era.

The justification is that it isn’t broken

I think most political scientists disagree.

The tolerance paradox eventually and inevitably becomes an echo chamber.

I have family members and friends who were diehard union New Deal Democrats that are now true Trump believers, and these are not social media saavy or Fox News viewers. I don’t agree with them but I understand why.

People are angry and desperate, I think in part because broken institutions like the senate have rendered government incapable of effective action.

 

[mect]

I agree, any system is as only good as the people who run it. People here are suggesting we change the system as opposed to the people. One is easier than the other.

And this is the exact problem with the function of the senate. A good system will continue to function with a few bad players. A bad system allows a small minority of bad players to completely shut it down.

 

[mect]

One ironic aspect of the senate is the concept is to prevent the ignorant masses from enforcing mob rule. The problem is that the way the senate is designed, the least educated proportions of our society are the ones getting the greatest representation.

 

[pmv]

Yeah, I'm curious how MEP's are allocated according to race in the EU. The counter-veiling trends is that Belgium and the Netherlands are small but have substantial 'persons of colour' populations. That might ensure it doesn't end up too bad. But apart from that, most of the non-white citizens of Europe live in the larger countries such as France and the UK, while the smaller Baltic and Eastern European countries tend to be much more white. The effect of the lop-sided European parliamentary seat allocation could be that the average person-of-colour in Europe gets less of a vote than the average white person.

The states are independent and laws created that the states have to follow are created by people representing those states. You are basically telling states that they don't get any input because...well I have no idea what your reasoning is. I would think that if laws are passed at the federal level that states should get input on laws that will directly affect them, especially when a lot of those laws will have to be implemented by them directly.

All your other points are handled directly by the other body in Congress, the house or at the state level.

If you don't understand why we have states then I suggest you tell California to go fuck itself with its tougher than federal law clean air regulations. Maybe you could tell north Dakota they can't drill or frack for oil anymore. Perhaps you can tell Texans that you'll be taking their land for trumps new wall. Why not tell west Virginia they have to only use coal now? Who do these states think they are anyway?

You seem confused - your arguments exactly work the other way from what you say. California's tougher local laws are just that - local laws. That's not about a Californian getting more say over laws in, say, Vermont, than does someone in Vermont.

It's the reverse of my point. Why should areas that have lower-population density get disproportionate power to _impose_ laws on those who live in higher-population density states? Why should (and I'm mostly thinking about the EU here) a Luxembourg voter get 11 times as much say, as an individual, over the EU laws that apply to me in the UK as I do?

I'm interested in the argument in a US context for two reasons - one being that uncritical pro-EU people will often point to the US as an example of a 'working system' (when I don't want the EU to follow that model, thanks). Another being that the US system affects the country's foreign policy, meaning it ends up disproportionately influenced by low-population regions, which tend to be the least knowledgeable about the outside world.