|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On November 18 2019 08:27 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2019 08:06 Gorgonoth wrote:On November 18 2019 07:54 Aquanim wrote:
So it looks like a gerrymander, swims like a gerrymander and quacks like a gerrymander, but it wasn't hatched from an egg like a gerrymander. Its effect on the world is still pretty similar. Nope it doesn't look like a gerrymander at all. One is manipulation and re-drawing of boundaries the other doesn't touch boundaries at all but it is the consequence of representative democracy. Its effect on the world is similar in the way that someone can be hit by a truck because the sun is in the driver's eyes or because someone is trying to murder them. The person's dead in both scenarios, one is far worse though. The senate isn't a representative democracy. The senators don't represent the people, but the states.
They represent the people of a states choice, not the state as an identity. A senator of Louisiana is a reflection of the people of Louisiana. It is a representative democracy because each state elects people to represent them in the senate, so they have a say, but indirectly, through a person as a proxy which they choose.
|
Northern Ireland27014 Posts
On November 18 2019 08:36 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2019 08:32 Wombat_NI wrote:
I don’t really think the States being disproportionately represented vs population in the Senate is a particularly terrible thing anyway, or at least has some benefits to it.
Any purely majoritarian system just wholly revolves around centralised hubs of population, which tend to also house a lot of cultural power and industry and politics can largely just ignore big chunks of a country. Which then sees x city or region grow even more dominant over the landscape and rams that home even further.
Chunks of countryside don’t deserve representation, people do. It’s a zero sum game, you can only give representation to land by taking it from people. I’ve yet to see a good argument for why the cornfields of Iowa deserve representation over the citizens of Los Angeles.
People don’t appear in certain places completely by accident, there are all sorts of forces at play.
Plenty of people in areas that export emigrants out don’t wish to leave their homes, but well that’s where those jobs happen to be.
Any kind of economic decentralisation process is far less likely to happen if you leave it up to majoritarian votes and structures.
London has more people living in the greater metropolitan area than vast swathes of the UK combined. It’s the cultural hub, it’s the economic hub.
More investment is urgently needed throughout the rest of the UK, Londoners aren’t going to vote to move their own jobs around anytime soon.
|
On November 18 2019 08:32 Wombat_NI wrote:
I don’t really think the States being disproportionately represented vs population in the Senate is a particularly terrible thing anyway, or at least has some benefits to it.
Any purely majoritarian system just wholly revolves around centralised hubs of population, which tend to also house a lot of cultural power and industry and politics can largely just ignore big chunks of a country. Which then sees x city or region grow even more dominant over the landscape and rams that home even further.
Except the disproportionate representation is in the Senate, the president due to the electoral college and the house due to rounding.
It wouldn't be bad to have a part of the process have individual states with increased representation but to have it to this extent just causes the majority of the population to not believe in the government because the majority of the government does not represent them.
|
On November 18 2019 09:51 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2019 08:32 Wombat_NI wrote:
I don’t really think the States being disproportionately represented vs population in the Senate is a particularly terrible thing anyway, or at least has some benefits to it.
Any purely majoritarian system just wholly revolves around centralised hubs of population, which tend to also house a lot of cultural power and industry and politics can largely just ignore big chunks of a country. Which then sees x city or region grow even more dominant over the landscape and rams that home even further.
Except the disproportionate representation is in the Senate, the president due to the electoral college and the house due to rounding. It wouldn't be bad to have a part of the process have individual states with increased representation but to have it to this extent just causes the majority of the population to not believe in the government because the majority of the government does not represent them.
"Majority of the population", I don't think you know what that means considering the voting participation records. The non-voter is the majority person in this country, and I'd wager, a majority of those people are just fed up of the Government or believe that their views are not represented by either binary choice. If we only take it to mean of the voting population why do you assume that plurality representation is inherently a better choice? There would be no United States if this was adopted in the 1770s and 1780s. As the country begins to drift more and more to plurality democracy the country becomes more fractious and politically dominated. The end result of shifting from a Representative Republic to a Plurality Democracy will just erode the political units of the country and result in the same fracturing as say, the USSR. Why should Maine or Idaho or Alaska subject themselves to the dictates and interests of CA, NY, FL, and TX?
You may think the pendulum swung to far in one direction because it currently disfavors your particular brand of politics or party, but such a myopic view is far more destructive to the political fabric of this country. They should really make reading the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers mandatory in Government schooling.
|
On November 18 2019 11:12 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2019 09:51 semantics wrote:On November 18 2019 08:32 Wombat_NI wrote:
I don’t really think the States being disproportionately represented vs population in the Senate is a particularly terrible thing anyway, or at least has some benefits to it.
Any purely majoritarian system just wholly revolves around centralised hubs of population, which tend to also house a lot of cultural power and industry and politics can largely just ignore big chunks of a country. Which then sees x city or region grow even more dominant over the landscape and rams that home even further.
Except the disproportionate representation is in the Senate, the president due to the electoral college and the house due to rounding. It wouldn't be bad to have a part of the process have individual states with increased representation but to have it to this extent just causes the majority of the population to not believe in the government because the majority of the government does not represent them. "Majority of the population", I don't think you know what that means considering the voting participation records. The non-voter is the majority person in this country, and I'd wager, a majority of those people are just fed up of the Government or believe that their views are not represented by either binary choice. If we only take it to mean of the voting population why do you assume that plurality representation is inherently a better choice?
You accept that the majority of people are disaffected but you defend the current system? Seems like a self defeating stance.
On November 18 2019 11:12 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2019 09:51 semantics wrote:On November 18 2019 08:32 Wombat_NI wrote:
I don’t really think the States being disproportionately represented vs population in the Senate is a particularly terrible thing anyway, or at least has some benefits to it.
Any purely majoritarian system just wholly revolves around centralised hubs of population, which tend to also house a lot of cultural power and industry and politics can largely just ignore big chunks of a country. Which then sees x city or region grow even more dominant over the landscape and rams that home even further.
Except the disproportionate representation is in the Senate, the president due to the electoral college and the house due to rounding. It wouldn't be bad to have a part of the process have individual states with increased representation but to have it to this extent just causes the majority of the population to not believe in the government because the majority of the government does not represent them. There would be no United States if this was adopted in the 1770s and 1780s.
We had slavery in 1770 and 1780, i call that good enough reason not to treat everything from then as sacrosanct. We have an amendment process for a reason.
We also can travel across the country in a single day, get updates to any part of the country in seconds. The times have changed, women can vote. We no longer elect the loser of the presidency to vice president. Just because shit started off one way doesn't mean it has to stay that way.
A business that rest on laurels is doomed to become irrelevant, improvement is a way to continued success.
On November 18 2019 11:12 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2019 09:51 semantics wrote:On November 18 2019 08:32 Wombat_NI wrote:
I don’t really think the States being disproportionately represented vs population in the Senate is a particularly terrible thing anyway, or at least has some benefits to it.
Any purely majoritarian system just wholly revolves around centralised hubs of population, which tend to also house a lot of cultural power and industry and politics can largely just ignore big chunks of a country. Which then sees x city or region grow even more dominant over the landscape and rams that home even further.
Except the disproportionate representation is in the Senate, the president due to the electoral college and the house due to rounding. It wouldn't be bad to have a part of the process have individual states with increased representation but to have it to this extent just causes the majority of the population to not believe in the government because the majority of the government does not represent them. As the country begins to drift more and more to plurality democracy the country becomes more fractious and politically dominated. The end result of shifting from a Representative Republic to a Plurality Democracy will just erode the political units of the country and result in the same fracturing as say, the USSR. Why should Maine or Idaho or Alaska subject themselves to the dictates and interests of CA, NY, FL, and TX?
Why should CA, NY, FL and TX subject themselves to the dictates of Maine, Idaho and Alaska. Your argument against change seems to be tone-death to the current situation. Why claim something is bad when the same thing is currently happening just to different people.
On November 18 2019 11:12 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2019 09:51 semantics wrote:On November 18 2019 08:32 Wombat_NI wrote:
I don’t really think the States being disproportionately represented vs population in the Senate is a particularly terrible thing anyway, or at least has some benefits to it.
Any purely majoritarian system just wholly revolves around centralised hubs of population, which tend to also house a lot of cultural power and industry and politics can largely just ignore big chunks of a country. Which then sees x city or region grow even more dominant over the landscape and rams that home even further.
Except the disproportionate representation is in the Senate, the president due to the electoral college and the house due to rounding. It wouldn't be bad to have a part of the process have individual states with increased representation but to have it to this extent just causes the majority of the population to not believe in the government because the majority of the government does not represent them. You may think the pendulum swung to far in one direction because it currently disfavors your particular brand of politics or party, but such a myopic view is far more destructive to the political fabric of this country. They should really make reading the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers mandatory in Government schooling.
I've read the anti-federalist papers and the federalist papers. Get off your high horse that's not an argument.
The current system has the majority of people disaffected for decades, that's a failing system. Change has to occur as to the exact details of the change, we can only speculate but to defend it as acceptable is crap.
|
On November 18 2019 11:39 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2019 11:12 Wegandi wrote:On November 18 2019 09:51 semantics wrote:On November 18 2019 08:32 Wombat_NI wrote:
I don’t really think the States being disproportionately represented vs population in the Senate is a particularly terrible thing anyway, or at least has some benefits to it.
Any purely majoritarian system just wholly revolves around centralised hubs of population, which tend to also house a lot of cultural power and industry and politics can largely just ignore big chunks of a country. Which then sees x city or region grow even more dominant over the landscape and rams that home even further.
Except the disproportionate representation is in the Senate, the president due to the electoral college and the house due to rounding. It wouldn't be bad to have a part of the process have individual states with increased representation but to have it to this extent just causes the majority of the population to not believe in the government because the majority of the government does not represent them. "Majority of the population", I don't think you know what that means considering the voting participation records. The non-voter is the majority person in this country, and I'd wager, a majority of those people are just fed up of the Government or believe that their views are not represented by either binary choice. If we only take it to mean of the voting population why do you assume that plurality representation is inherently a better choice? You accept that the majority of people are disaffected but you defend the current system? Seems like a self defeating stance. Show nested quote +On November 18 2019 11:12 Wegandi wrote:On November 18 2019 09:51 semantics wrote:On November 18 2019 08:32 Wombat_NI wrote:
I don’t really think the States being disproportionately represented vs population in the Senate is a particularly terrible thing anyway, or at least has some benefits to it.
Any purely majoritarian system just wholly revolves around centralised hubs of population, which tend to also house a lot of cultural power and industry and politics can largely just ignore big chunks of a country. Which then sees x city or region grow even more dominant over the landscape and rams that home even further.
Except the disproportionate representation is in the Senate, the president due to the electoral college and the house due to rounding. It wouldn't be bad to have a part of the process have individual states with increased representation but to have it to this extent just causes the majority of the population to not believe in the government because the majority of the government does not represent them. There would be no United States if this was adopted in the 1770s and 1780s. We had slavery in 1770 and 1780, i call that good enough reason not to treat everything from then as sacrosanct. We have an amendment process for a reason. We also can travel across the country in a single day, get updates to any part of the country in seconds. The times have changed, women can vote. We no longer elect the loser of the presidency to vice president. Just because shit started off one way doesn't mean it has to stay that way. A business that rest on laurels is doomed to become irrelevant, improvement is a way to continued success. Show nested quote +On November 18 2019 11:12 Wegandi wrote:On November 18 2019 09:51 semantics wrote:On November 18 2019 08:32 Wombat_NI wrote:
I don’t really think the States being disproportionately represented vs population in the Senate is a particularly terrible thing anyway, or at least has some benefits to it.
Any purely majoritarian system just wholly revolves around centralised hubs of population, which tend to also house a lot of cultural power and industry and politics can largely just ignore big chunks of a country. Which then sees x city or region grow even more dominant over the landscape and rams that home even further.
Except the disproportionate representation is in the Senate, the president due to the electoral college and the house due to rounding. It wouldn't be bad to have a part of the process have individual states with increased representation but to have it to this extent just causes the majority of the population to not believe in the government because the majority of the government does not represent them. As the country begins to drift more and more to plurality democracy the country becomes more fractious and politically dominated. The end result of shifting from a Representative Republic to a Plurality Democracy will just erode the political units of the country and result in the same fracturing as say, the USSR. Why should Maine or Idaho or Alaska subject themselves to the dictates and interests of CA, NY, FL, and TX? Why should CA, NY, FL and TX subject themselves to the dictates of Maine, Idaho and Alaska. Your argument against change seems to be tone-death to the current situation. Why claim something is bad when the same thing is currently happening just to different people. Show nested quote +On November 18 2019 11:12 Wegandi wrote:On November 18 2019 09:51 semantics wrote:On November 18 2019 08:32 Wombat_NI wrote:
I don’t really think the States being disproportionately represented vs population in the Senate is a particularly terrible thing anyway, or at least has some benefits to it.
Any purely majoritarian system just wholly revolves around centralised hubs of population, which tend to also house a lot of cultural power and industry and politics can largely just ignore big chunks of a country. Which then sees x city or region grow even more dominant over the landscape and rams that home even further.
Except the disproportionate representation is in the Senate, the president due to the electoral college and the house due to rounding. It wouldn't be bad to have a part of the process have individual states with increased representation but to have it to this extent just causes the majority of the population to not believe in the government because the majority of the government does not represent them. You may think the pendulum swung to far in one direction because it currently disfavors your particular brand of politics or party, but such a myopic view is far more destructive to the political fabric of this country. They should really make reading the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers mandatory in Government schooling. I've read the anti-federalist papers and the federalist papers. Get off your high horse that's not an argument. The current system has the majority of people disaffected for decades, that's a failing system. Change has to occur as to the exact details of the change, we can only speculate but to defend it as acceptable is crap.
You have a very poor knowledge of civics and our Government system. CA, TX, FL, NY, etc. and other populous states are not subject to the dictates of the rural states. The House of Representatives is based on population. The populous states have plenty of voices as is (not to mention more influence with larger economies, etc.). What you're arguing for is to strip any power the rural states have right now and to make them subjects of the larger populous states. That's not conducive to a stable political unit. The rural states will not tolerate this for long and it will result in these states leaving the US.
You didn't address my point about your assumptions at all and just re-stated them. If that's going to be the norm in this conversation I don't see continuing with it. You flippantly dismiss the reason why the US has been atypically politically stable as a country and are willing to erode those institutions and systems because you happen to be disaffected with being temporarily out of power. Your time span of awareness is extremely myopic. I think a system that is entirely democratically plurality based is inherently flawed and dangerous to public confidence and cooperation.
Also, if you have at any time made a mistake or done something you're not proud of, I hope I get to reserve the right to dismiss anything you say or done regardless of merit or not. Just because slavery was legal in 1770 is irrelevant. Should we burn the Magna Carta as well or the lessons of Cicero? Holy shit your view is toxic AF.
|
Why should CA, NY, FL and TX subject themselves to the dictates of Maine, Idaho and Alaska. Your argument against change seems to be tone-death to the current situation. Why claim something is bad when the same thing is currently happening just to different people.
Just a thought Semantics, but do you think that It would be valuable for smaller state officials, governments, etc to have a platform where they can vote to protect the interests of their regions? For instance, a state like New Mexico may have significantly fewer people then say, Calfornia, but if it comes to voting on a matter like reservation laws, Shouldn't New Mexico have more power(or at least a similar level and voice) than California because it's people are directly impacted by it? I
I think that It is good that we have to branches of government with different aims(from the way I understand them) the House to represent the people more thoroughly through rewarding urban areas with more political power; and a Senate where the states( specific regions with different interests) have equal power to represent their people's needs.
I think the US Congress is an attempt (certainly not perfect, but I believe a pretty damn good one) to balance these contrasting concerns.
|
This argument goes back and forth a lot. Heres an example of a situation where the idea of a system that removes power from the rual states will be an issue.
California is running out of water. Its going to happen within our lifetimes most likely that there will be large scale water shortages east of the Rockies. An easy solution would be to ship the freshwater from the great lakes region, which has a huge supply of freshwater, to LA and other cities in California.
Explain why we shouldn't do this and why it won't happen if the rual states are stripped of their seats in the senate and the house?
|
Why should the country be forced to deal with a presidency that can be gained with less than 22% of the vote?
|
On November 18 2019 11:55 Gorgonoth wrote:Show nested quote +
Why should CA, NY, FL and TX subject themselves to the dictates of Maine, Idaho and Alaska. Your argument against change seems to be tone-death to the current situation. Why claim something is bad when the same thing is currently happening just to different people.
Just a thought Semantics, but do you think that It would be valuable for smaller state officials, governments, etc to have a platform where they can vote to protect the interests of their regions? For instance, a state like New Mexico may have significantly fewer people then say, Calfornia, but if it comes to voting on a matter like reservation laws, Shouldn't New Mexico have more power(or at least a similar level and voice) than California because it's people are directly impacted by it? I I think that It is good that we have to branches of government with different aims(from the way I understand them) the House to represent the people more thoroughly through rewarding urban areas with more political power; and a Senate where the states( specific regions with different interests) have equal power to represent their people's needs. I think the US Congress is an attempt (certainly not perfect, but I believe a pretty damn good one) to balance these contrasting concerns.
I would say it's fine to have disproportional representation in specific places but it's that way for the entire federal government. The senate is obvious, The presidency has it due to electoral college, the house of representatives is a bit more random but due to rounding and minimums it's disproportional as well. It makes the entire federal government unrepresentative. I see that as a failure unless you think that's a desired result. I see it in large part as a failure because most Americans aren't happy with the federal government and they haven't been for a long time.
Also why use California which has smaller reservations than new mexico but still has many reservations. Why not use anything on the easy coast which unlike the west doesn't have large parts of their states as reservations or even federal land.
|
If you want to have the interests of a specific geographical minority heard without having your democracy suffer for it, there's this thing that I hear you're not huge fans of that's called "identity politics". I think you should look into it.
|
On November 18 2019 11:53 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2019 11:39 semantics wrote:On November 18 2019 11:12 Wegandi wrote:On November 18 2019 09:51 semantics wrote:On November 18 2019 08:32 Wombat_NI wrote:
I don’t really think the States being disproportionately represented vs population in the Senate is a particularly terrible thing anyway, or at least has some benefits to it.
Any purely majoritarian system just wholly revolves around centralised hubs of population, which tend to also house a lot of cultural power and industry and politics can largely just ignore big chunks of a country. Which then sees x city or region grow even more dominant over the landscape and rams that home even further.
Except the disproportionate representation is in the Senate, the president due to the electoral college and the house due to rounding. It wouldn't be bad to have a part of the process have individual states with increased representation but to have it to this extent just causes the majority of the population to not believe in the government because the majority of the government does not represent them. "Majority of the population", I don't think you know what that means considering the voting participation records. The non-voter is the majority person in this country, and I'd wager, a majority of those people are just fed up of the Government or believe that their views are not represented by either binary choice. If we only take it to mean of the voting population why do you assume that plurality representation is inherently a better choice? You accept that the majority of people are disaffected but you defend the current system? Seems like a self defeating stance. On November 18 2019 11:12 Wegandi wrote:On November 18 2019 09:51 semantics wrote:On November 18 2019 08:32 Wombat_NI wrote:
I don’t really think the States being disproportionately represented vs population in the Senate is a particularly terrible thing anyway, or at least has some benefits to it.
Any purely majoritarian system just wholly revolves around centralised hubs of population, which tend to also house a lot of cultural power and industry and politics can largely just ignore big chunks of a country. Which then sees x city or region grow even more dominant over the landscape and rams that home even further.
Except the disproportionate representation is in the Senate, the president due to the electoral college and the house due to rounding. It wouldn't be bad to have a part of the process have individual states with increased representation but to have it to this extent just causes the majority of the population to not believe in the government because the majority of the government does not represent them. There would be no United States if this was adopted in the 1770s and 1780s. We had slavery in 1770 and 1780, i call that good enough reason not to treat everything from then as sacrosanct. We have an amendment process for a reason. We also can travel across the country in a single day, get updates to any part of the country in seconds. The times have changed, women can vote. We no longer elect the loser of the presidency to vice president. Just because shit started off one way doesn't mean it has to stay that way. A business that rest on laurels is doomed to become irrelevant, improvement is a way to continued success. On November 18 2019 11:12 Wegandi wrote:On November 18 2019 09:51 semantics wrote:On November 18 2019 08:32 Wombat_NI wrote:
I don’t really think the States being disproportionately represented vs population in the Senate is a particularly terrible thing anyway, or at least has some benefits to it.
Any purely majoritarian system just wholly revolves around centralised hubs of population, which tend to also house a lot of cultural power and industry and politics can largely just ignore big chunks of a country. Which then sees x city or region grow even more dominant over the landscape and rams that home even further.
Except the disproportionate representation is in the Senate, the president due to the electoral college and the house due to rounding. It wouldn't be bad to have a part of the process have individual states with increased representation but to have it to this extent just causes the majority of the population to not believe in the government because the majority of the government does not represent them. As the country begins to drift more and more to plurality democracy the country becomes more fractious and politically dominated. The end result of shifting from a Representative Republic to a Plurality Democracy will just erode the political units of the country and result in the same fracturing as say, the USSR. Why should Maine or Idaho or Alaska subject themselves to the dictates and interests of CA, NY, FL, and TX? Why should CA, NY, FL and TX subject themselves to the dictates of Maine, Idaho and Alaska. Your argument against change seems to be tone-death to the current situation. Why claim something is bad when the same thing is currently happening just to different people. On November 18 2019 11:12 Wegandi wrote:On November 18 2019 09:51 semantics wrote:On November 18 2019 08:32 Wombat_NI wrote:
I don’t really think the States being disproportionately represented vs population in the Senate is a particularly terrible thing anyway, or at least has some benefits to it.
Any purely majoritarian system just wholly revolves around centralised hubs of population, which tend to also house a lot of cultural power and industry and politics can largely just ignore big chunks of a country. Which then sees x city or region grow even more dominant over the landscape and rams that home even further.
Except the disproportionate representation is in the Senate, the president due to the electoral college and the house due to rounding. It wouldn't be bad to have a part of the process have individual states with increased representation but to have it to this extent just causes the majority of the population to not believe in the government because the majority of the government does not represent them. You may think the pendulum swung to far in one direction because it currently disfavors your particular brand of politics or party, but such a myopic view is far more destructive to the political fabric of this country. They should really make reading the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers mandatory in Government schooling. I've read the anti-federalist papers and the federalist papers. Get off your high horse that's not an argument. The current system has the majority of people disaffected for decades, that's a failing system. Change has to occur as to the exact details of the change, we can only speculate but to defend it as acceptable is crap. You have a very poor knowledge of civics and our Government system. CA, TX, FL, NY, etc. and other populous states are not subject to the dictates of the rural states. The House of Representatives is based on population. The populous states have plenty of voices as is (not to mention more influence with larger economies, etc.). What you're arguing for is to strip any power the rural states have right now and to make them subjects of the larger populous states. That's not conducive to a stable political unit. The rural states will not tolerate this for long and it will result in these states leaving the US. You didn't address my point about your assumptions at all and just re-stated them. If that's going to be the norm in this conversation I don't see continuing with it. You flippantly dismiss the reason why the US has been atypically politically stable as a country and are willing to erode those institutions and systems because you happen to be disaffected with being temporarily out of power. Your time span of awareness is extremely myopic. I think a system that is entirely democratically plurality based is inherently flawed and dangerous to public confidence and cooperation. Also, if you have at any time made a mistake or done something you're not proud of, I hope I get to reserve the right to dismiss anything you say or done regardless of merit or not. Just because slavery was legal in 1770 is irrelevant. Should we burn the Magna Carta as well or the lessons of Cicero? Holy shit your view is toxic AF.
You claim i have a poor understanding but you seem to think the house of representatives is actually representative it's not due to the 435 cap, it still favors small states(mostly)
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/05/31/u-s-population-keeps-growing-but-house-of-representatives-is-same-size-as-in-taft-era/
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/bpU7G1N.png)
https://www.thegreenpapers.com/Census10/FedRep.phtml
California each seat represents 704,566 people
West Virginia seat 619,938 people
Maine seat 666,537
This isn't as bad the electoral college (matters less as the electoral college although inherently unrepresentative that part doesn't matter due to the winner take all system put in place by the individual states cause this to favor only swing states not just small or large states)
Califronia 678,945 per elector
West Virgina 371,963 per elector
Maine 333,269 per elector
Every branch of the government is not representative the house is just the least worst.
The most populous states tend to also be the wealthiest and the federal government redistributes that wealth to less populous states due to the effects of population and scales of economy with federal programs. You really don't seem to understand how much the current system disfavors the majority of people.
Look there is merit in shit like the Magna Carta but it's not the be all end all, you continually straw man me which i don't appreciate. I never said burn the shit to the ground, i said we have process for change and we have changed how this government works though the amendment process and laws over the centuries. My argument was that your claim that something is sacrosanct, is crap. I got that from the fact you just randomly brought up how important ideas from 1770 and 1780 are as a defense against change without actually citing specifics only saying i don't know things. If you could take a second to be less demeaning.
I asked you how do you defend that most americans don't like the current system. My understanding is your stance, is change wont help. My stance is change has to occur because the system is not liked, what the change is, i've only suggested improving representation because current representation is actually flat out terrible if the goal was representation.
|
Canada11555 Posts
On November 18 2019 08:36 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2019 08:32 Wombat_NI wrote:
I don’t really think the States being disproportionately represented vs population in the Senate is a particularly terrible thing anyway, or at least has some benefits to it.
Any purely majoritarian system just wholly revolves around centralised hubs of population, which tend to also house a lot of cultural power and industry and politics can largely just ignore big chunks of a country. Which then sees x city or region grow even more dominant over the landscape and rams that home even further.
Chunks of countryside don’t deserve representation, people do. It’s a zero sum game, you can only give representation to land by taking it from people. I’ve yet to see a good argument for why the cornfields of Iowa deserve representation over the citizens of Los Angeles.
It actually makes a lot of sense, and coming from a country that has very strong regional differences, I wish our Senate was actually representative of regions. The American system is built as a series of counterbalances.
They can directly vote for both the legislative branch and the leader of the executive (whereas in our Westminster systems, one only indirectly votes for the leader of the executive). But while the House covers representation by population, the Senate recognizes that there are serious regional differences that simply cannot be overridden. So then the Senate is the check and balance to make sure there is not the tyranny of the majority and that regional interests can be properly argued.
Regardless, it is simply wrong to describe states as gerrymandering. It's wrong to think of states as analogous to electoral districts as they are distinct polities. This makes sense within the framework of US's founding. It wasn't New York invading and conquering the rest of the territories and then dividing up the territories into imperial provinces. Rather it was thirteen distinct political entities agreeing to join together to form a common union. As more were added, it was understood that they are also distinct political bodies (states rights). These aren't just borders that can switched around arbitrarily. It would be quite a big deal to start uniting certain states together- I can't imagine it would be terribly popular either. But you must have the ability to change the borders with some regularity so that you can actually game the system. Borders that have lasted centuries through various iterations of political parties cannot be described as 'gerrymandering' in any meaningful sense. Category error, I'd say.
|
United States44113 Posts
On November 18 2019 15:16 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2019 08:36 KwarK wrote:On November 18 2019 08:32 Wombat_NI wrote:
I don’t really think the States being disproportionately represented vs population in the Senate is a particularly terrible thing anyway, or at least has some benefits to it.
Any purely majoritarian system just wholly revolves around centralised hubs of population, which tend to also house a lot of cultural power and industry and politics can largely just ignore big chunks of a country. Which then sees x city or region grow even more dominant over the landscape and rams that home even further.
Chunks of countryside don’t deserve representation, people do. It’s a zero sum game, you can only give representation to land by taking it from people. I’ve yet to see a good argument for why the cornfields of Iowa deserve representation over the citizens of Los Angeles. It actually makes a lot of sense, and coming from a country that has very strong regional differences, I wish our Senate was actually representative of regions. The American system is built as a series of counterbalances. They can directly vote for both the legislative branch and the leader of the executive (whereas in our Westminster systems, one only indirectly votes for the leader of the executive). But while the House covers representation by population, the Senate recognizes that there are serious regional differences that simply cannot be overridden. So then the Senate is the check and balance to make sure there is not the tyranny of the majority and that regional interests can be properly argued. Regardless, it is simply wrong to describe states as gerrymandering. It's wrong to think of states as analogous to electoral districts as they are distinct polities. This makes sense within the framework of US's founding. It wasn't New York invading and conquering the rest of the territories and then dividing up the territories into imperial provinces. Rather it was thirteen distinct political entities agreeing to join together to form a common union. As more were added, it was understood that they are also distinct political bodies (states rights). These aren't just borders that can switched around arbitrarily. It would be quite a big deal to start uniting certain states together- I can't imagine it would be terribly popular either. But you must have the ability to change the borders with some regularity so that you can actually game the system. Borders that have lasted centuries through various iterations of political parties cannot be described as 'gerrymandering' in any meaningful sense. Category error, I'd say.
Tyranny of the majority is such a weird attack on democracy as if the will of the majority wasn’t the entire point and undue power given to a minority wasn’t the thing we created democracy to deal with. Why should we be empower minorities disproportionately in order to prevent the majority from getting their way? It’s like there’s a missing step in your argument where you go
1. Democracy is very important
2. ?????
3. And that’s why minority interests need to be empowered so that the popular will of the people cannot decide policy
and I’m just not seeing 2.
|
On November 18 2019 16:20 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2019 15:16 Falling wrote:On November 18 2019 08:36 KwarK wrote:On November 18 2019 08:32 Wombat_NI wrote:
I don’t really think the States being disproportionately represented vs population in the Senate is a particularly terrible thing anyway, or at least has some benefits to it.
Any purely majoritarian system just wholly revolves around centralised hubs of population, which tend to also house a lot of cultural power and industry and politics can largely just ignore big chunks of a country. Which then sees x city or region grow even more dominant over the landscape and rams that home even further.
Chunks of countryside don’t deserve representation, people do. It’s a zero sum game, you can only give representation to land by taking it from people. I’ve yet to see a good argument for why the cornfields of Iowa deserve representation over the citizens of Los Angeles. It actually makes a lot of sense, and coming from a country that has very strong regional differences, I wish our Senate was actually representative of regions. The American system is built as a series of counterbalances. They can directly vote for both the legislative branch and the leader of the executive (whereas in our Westminster systems, one only indirectly votes for the leader of the executive). But while the House covers representation by population, the Senate recognizes that there are serious regional differences that simply cannot be overridden. So then the Senate is the check and balance to make sure there is not the tyranny of the majority and that regional interests can be properly argued. Regardless, it is simply wrong to describe states as gerrymandering. It's wrong to think of states as analogous to electoral districts as they are distinct polities. This makes sense within the framework of US's founding. It wasn't New York invading and conquering the rest of the territories and then dividing up the territories into imperial provinces. Rather it was thirteen distinct political entities agreeing to join together to form a common union. As more were added, it was understood that they are also distinct political bodies (states rights). These aren't just borders that can switched around arbitrarily. It would be quite a big deal to start uniting certain states together- I can't imagine it would be terribly popular either. But you must have the ability to change the borders with some regularity so that you can actually game the system. Borders that have lasted centuries through various iterations of political parties cannot be described as 'gerrymandering' in any meaningful sense. Category error, I'd say. Tyranny of the majority is such a weird attack on democracy as if the will of the majority wasn’t the entire point and undue power given to a minority wasn’t the thing we created democracy to deal with. Why should we be empower minorities disproportionately in order to prevent the majority from getting their way? It’s like there’s a missing step in your argument where you go 1. Democracy is very important 2. ????? 3. And that’s why minority interests need to be empowered so that the popular will of the people cannot decide policy and I’m just not seeing 2.
Are you willing to follow your argument? Do you complain about say....the majority of people in Georgia sanctioning voter suppression? Also, is it only me, but how weird is it to justify a system just because 51% (or worse, just a plurality) of the people decide a thing? Surely, you're not also for vigilante justice in small towns, either, right? It's like Democracy is supported so uncritically with asinine assumptions....but, I digress. Carry on.
I'm sure you'll talk about fairness or something, but isn't giving each state 2 Senators not the most fair thing to do, equality and all?
|
On November 18 2019 17:03 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2019 16:20 KwarK wrote:On November 18 2019 15:16 Falling wrote:On November 18 2019 08:36 KwarK wrote:On November 18 2019 08:32 Wombat_NI wrote:
I don’t really think the States being disproportionately represented vs population in the Senate is a particularly terrible thing anyway, or at least has some benefits to it.
Any purely majoritarian system just wholly revolves around centralised hubs of population, which tend to also house a lot of cultural power and industry and politics can largely just ignore big chunks of a country. Which then sees x city or region grow even more dominant over the landscape and rams that home even further.
Chunks of countryside don’t deserve representation, people do. It’s a zero sum game, you can only give representation to land by taking it from people. I’ve yet to see a good argument for why the cornfields of Iowa deserve representation over the citizens of Los Angeles. It actually makes a lot of sense, and coming from a country that has very strong regional differences, I wish our Senate was actually representative of regions. The American system is built as a series of counterbalances. They can directly vote for both the legislative branch and the leader of the executive (whereas in our Westminster systems, one only indirectly votes for the leader of the executive). But while the House covers representation by population, the Senate recognizes that there are serious regional differences that simply cannot be overridden. So then the Senate is the check and balance to make sure there is not the tyranny of the majority and that regional interests can be properly argued. Regardless, it is simply wrong to describe states as gerrymandering. It's wrong to think of states as analogous to electoral districts as they are distinct polities. This makes sense within the framework of US's founding. It wasn't New York invading and conquering the rest of the territories and then dividing up the territories into imperial provinces. Rather it was thirteen distinct political entities agreeing to join together to form a common union. As more were added, it was understood that they are also distinct political bodies (states rights). These aren't just borders that can switched around arbitrarily. It would be quite a big deal to start uniting certain states together- I can't imagine it would be terribly popular either. But you must have the ability to change the borders with some regularity so that you can actually game the system. Borders that have lasted centuries through various iterations of political parties cannot be described as 'gerrymandering' in any meaningful sense. Category error, I'd say. Tyranny of the majority is such a weird attack on democracy as if the will of the majority wasn’t the entire point and undue power given to a minority wasn’t the thing we created democracy to deal with. Why should we be empower minorities disproportionately in order to prevent the majority from getting their way? It’s like there’s a missing step in your argument where you go 1. Democracy is very important 2. ????? 3. And that’s why minority interests need to be empowered so that the popular will of the people cannot decide policy and I’m just not seeing 2. Are you willing to follow your argument? Do you complain about say....the majority of people in Georgia sanctioning voter suppression? Also, is it only me, but how weird is it to justify a system just because 51% (or worse, just a plurality) of the people decide a thing? Surely, you're not also for vigilante justice in small towns, either, right? It's like Democracy is supported so uncritically with asinine assumptions....but, I digress. Carry on. I'm sure you'll talk about fairness or something, but isn't giving each state 2 Senators not the most fair thing to do, equality and all?
This isn't a serious response. It does the thing where the US isn't a democracy which is incredibly silly in the first place, but let's grant that it isn't silly and that the US really isn't a democracy; literally none of the arguments that you bring up against democracy are solved by the US system, as evidenced by the fact that they are problems, in the US, right now.
I'm going to stress it again, we have a way of making sure that regional interests are heard without giving their vote an unfair weight. It's called advocacy, and more generally identity politics. It's not hard. Imagine how your head would explode if someone said that black people's vote should weigh more because they're a minority and they shouldn't experience the "tyranny of the (white) majority"? Or the same for LGBT people? There's no reason to feel different about regional interests, you just do because it suits you politically. We can listen to regional interests, and we should, just like we listen to all other identities.
|
Canada11555 Posts
@Kwark
Well the whole point of the constitution was also to limit what the majority could do. Seems to me there was an understanding that mob rule wasn't a great alternative to the monarchy either- so a lot of checks and balances were put into place to limit the power of the state. Federalism was one. Separation of legislative and executive (including by vote) and judicial was another. But another seems to be to balance representation by population with state representation (themselves made up of smaller populations). Considering that the States is made up of many states, this makes some sense.
(I don't see why you (Nebuchad) are bringing identities into this- unless these identity groups joined the United States as a political unit, in a geographical place... as a State, making them the 51st State to join, I fail to see the relevance.)
|
We know from contemporary writings that the system was designed to limit the power of voters and put degrees of separation between the masses and our rulers.
Senators weren't even elected by the voters until the 20th century.
|
On November 18 2019 18:28 Falling wrote:
(I don't see why you (Nebuchad) are bringing identities into this- unless these identity groups joined the United States as a political unit, in a geographical place... as a State, making them the 51st State to join, I fail to see the relevance.)
They're minorities. We're making silly tyranny arguments against the idea that having the majority of people decide stuff is pretty decent. I find it interesting that we're extremely concerned about this only in a single specific dynamic of majority vs minority, and absolutely not in others. It's almost like it isn't a serious principle.
|
You can simply prevent the "tyranny of the majority" by increasing the vote requirements. If a simple majority is too terrible for the minority then make super majority the vote requirements.
There is little reason to have disproportional representation be so pervasive outside of making a minority feel like they're not a minority because they're now over represented. With how committees and chairs work along with perceptions, over representation just distorts perception of value to the public while increasing power of the minority, thus we get tyranny of the minority. It doesn't do anything to make compromise any more appealing vs just actually reflecting the electorate and having stricter requirements. It does increase influence of the minority at least with how Congress has set up their own internal rules.
I think people forget the draftings had to contend with worries over the less populated southern states. Thus we get 3/5th compromise. We get the electoral college because they don't believe the common man could be informed in making political decisions, because information traveled at the speed of a horse and because it allows them to give more power to the slave states in picking a President to help claim their tits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
