|
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 January 03 2021 01:41 Danglars wrote:
It’s getting kind of blatant with the criticism of the Senate for helping large states not dominate a country of many states precisely because some people wish the larger states possessed the ability to dominate in greater measure.
It’s desirable that these kind of people wedded to those kind of wishes are frustrated. They have a message that rarely resonates outside of populous urban centers, they don’t want to change it, they’ve given up persuasion, they just want to force feed it to the rest of the country. A simple re-read of the last dozen or so posts should make this kind of thinking dead obvious.
I’m not convinced the logic of empowering small groups is useful. There’s way more grocery workers then doctors, more construction workers than lawyers, more technicians than engineers. There are numerous examples of groups that are smaller than others that we don’t specifically make sure to empower through distorted vote mechanisms. The doctor vote has significantly less cultural power than the construction worker vote. Isn’t that a bad thing for the same reason? The senate model makes less densely populated areas more equivalent to more populated areas. Less populated areas generally have stagnant culture but I don’t see why that stagnation needs to be kept equal to places with more developed cultures. I understand the basic premise that that stagnant areas tend to be culturally distinct from the urban areas, but I don’t see where there jump exists that shows those areas need to have equal representation to a larger population. In your eyes, why is it important that the smaller group has more representation per person?
|
United States24773 Posts
Building off of what was previously said, I think the current design of the government has not scaled properly in accordance with how geographic demographics have shifted over the life of the nation. Some protections against tyranny of the minority by the majority are appropriate and the implementation in 1787 was likely well-intentioned, but the status quo is no longer effective. If the population of every smaller state goes to 2, and everyone else lives in the more populous states, it no longer makes sense for those small states to have almost complete control of the Senate. What we are living in is less extreme than that but the same general idea.
|
On January 03 2021 01:59 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2021 01:41 Danglars wrote:
It’s getting kind of blatant with the criticism of the Senate for helping large states not dominate a country of many states precisely because some people wish the larger states possessed the ability to dominate in greater measure.
It’s desirable that these kind of people wedded to those kind of wishes are frustrated. They have a message that rarely resonates outside of populous urban centers, they don’t want to change it, they’ve given up persuasion, they just want to force feed it to the rest of the country. A simple re-read of the last dozen or so posts should make this kind of thinking dead obvious. The thing is, how much of the country's population is represented by "large" states has only grown since the country's inception. In 1770 the difference in population between the most- and least-populous states was about a factor of 20 (~447k in Virginia vs. ~23k in Georgia). In 2020 that difference is something closer to a factor of 70 (~570k in Wyoming vs. 40 million in California). Attempts to protect a minority from being dominated by a majority need to be tempered by how much of a minority you're actually giving power relative to how much of a majority. The kind of balanced power structure that made sense in 1770 hasn't actually scaled to the realities of the country's population distribution in 2020, and "because that's how it always was" is not a good enough defense of those systems to not consider amending them.
I don’t understand criticism of “because that’s how it always was,” when you state and do not defend why protecting “a minority from being dominated by a majority need to be tempered by how much of a minority.”
Like, how does the calculus change? The sides have lived under an enduring system that produced that outcome. Go spout more pablum about “the realities of the country’s population.” Those are bumper stickers you slap on your car, not arguments for diminished representation for the majority of states in the union.
|
On January 03 2021 02:15 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2021 01:41 Danglars wrote:
It’s getting kind of blatant with the criticism of the Senate for helping large states not dominate a country of many states precisely because some people wish the larger states possessed the ability to dominate in greater measure.
It’s desirable that these kind of people wedded to those kind of wishes are frustrated. They have a message that rarely resonates outside of populous urban centers, they don’t want to change it, they’ve given up persuasion, they just want to force feed it to the rest of the country. A simple re-read of the last dozen or so posts should make this kind of thinking dead obvious. I’m not convinced the logic of empowering small groups is useful. There’s way more grocery workers then doctors, more construction workers than lawyers, more technicians than engineers. There are numerous examples of groups that are smaller than others that we don’t specifically make sure to empower through distorted vote mechanisms. The doctor vote has significantly less cultural power than the construction worker vote. Isn’t that a bad thing for the same reason? The senate model makes less densely populated areas more equivalent to more populated areas. Less populated areas generally have stagnant culture but I don’t see why that stagnation needs to be kept equal to places with more developed cultures. I understand the basic premise that that stagnant areas tend to be culturally distinct from the urban areas, but I don’t see where there jump exists that shows those areas need to have equal representation to a larger population. In your eyes, why is it important that the smaller group has more representation per person?
May I say, your treatment of “less populated areas have stagnant culture but I don’t see why that stagnation needs to be kept equal” is exactly the kind of elitist bullshit that prompts the increased tyranny of the majority arguments.
If you are fine so demeaning your fellow citizens, go have the courage to endorse a final separation of the country into a half that wants to be rid of cultures they generalize as lesser cultures. We don’t have to be an United States if certain populous states view some 20-30 of the 50 as a burden culturally and electorally. They can be states of a different union, and maintain firmer structures of division of power, if that’s the will of the biggest and richest.
|
I don’t think framing this discussion as “bigger states wanting to dominate smaller states” is a remotely useful starting point. It’s intentionally choosing language to reach a conclusion before the discussion starts. I mean, by the same framing, it’s outrageous that the larger third estate wanted to dominate the other estates when the Ancien Regime was specifically designed to give them each equal representation.
On the actual question, I can imagine there being value in hard-coding representation for smaller communities and lifestyles so they don’t get bulldozed over by tyranny of the majority. I’m not convinced that goal is being earnestly served by considering CA one big monoculture community, while North and South Dakota are unique and distinct cultures that need their own senators. But the concept, at least, isn’t meaningless.
But Republicans’ commitment to ensuring representation for diverse communities and lifestyles evaporates as soon as extending that representation to US territories comes up. The logic favoring over-representing smaller states relative to their population clearly favors extending statehood to Puerto Rico. I don’t hold with Kwark’s interpretation that conservatism is just secret fascism, but I think he’s right on voting/representation issues that the only predictor of the Republican position is power. Whether it’s judicial remedies to gerrymandering, preserving the electoral college, increasing red tape between voters and their ballots, or creating new states, the only reliable predictor of their position is “what would give us more power?”
|
On January 03 2021 02:42 ChristianS wrote:
But Republicans’ commitment to ensuring representation for diverse communities and lifestyles evaporates as soon as extending that representation to US territories comes up. The logic favoring over-representing smaller states relative to their population clearly favors extending statehood to Puerto Rico.
I was going to bring DC/Puerto Rico statehood, but that's not really going to be an argument that makes headway with Danglars given that he's expressed that the rural/urban cultural divide is the primary one that warrants protecting in the legislature. Puerto Rico is an almost entirely urban territory at this point.
Your other example of NorCal/SoCal compared to the Dakotas/Virginias seems more relevant.
On January 03 2021 02:33 Danglars wrote:
Like, how does the calculus change? The sides have lived under an enduring system that produced that outcome.
The calculus changes because the system very clearly at it's root does not scale to the extremes. Equally representing each state is not absolutely scalable to every possible population distribution. As Micronesia said, it's obvious at face value that a hypothetical state of 2 people should not have equal representation to a state of 300 million. So somewhere before that, you cross over a point where the system as it exists does not make sense.
|
On January 03 2021 02:42 ChristianS wrote:
I don’t think framing this discussion as “bigger states wanting to dominate smaller states” is a remotely useful starting point. It’s intentionally choosing language to reach a conclusion before the discussion starts. I mean, by the same framing, it’s outrageous that the larger third estate wanted to dominate the other estates when the Ancien Regime was specifically designed to give them each equal representation.
On the actual question, I can imagine there being value in hard-coding representation for smaller communities and lifestyles so they don’t get bulldozed over by tyranny of the majority. I’m not convinced that goal is being earnestly served by considering CA one big monoculture community, while North and South Dakota are unique and distinct cultures that need their own senators. But the concept, at least, isn’t meaningless.
But Republicans’ commitment to ensuring representation for diverse communities and lifestyles evaporates as soon as extending that representation to US territories comes up. The logic favoring over-representing smaller states relative to their population clearly favors extending statehood to Puerto Rico. I don’t hold with Kwark’s interpretation that conservatism is just secret fascism, but I think he’s right on voting/representation issues that the only predictor of the Republican position is power. Whether it’s judicial remedies to gerrymandering, preserving the electoral college, increasing red tape between voters and their ballots, or creating new states, the only reliable predictor of their position is “what would give us more power?”
Yeah, Danglars is really good at framing a discussion in a really strange way that supports his conclusions.
If you start at zero, the conclusion to give some people more voting power than other people in a democracy is really strange. If you hide that conclusion behind a lot of different assumptions, it suddenly sounds far less absurd. It is not the people in California who are worth less than the people in Wyoming, states should have similar power in the US. Instead of associating votes with people, you use maps and associate votes with maps to make it seem weird that large empty spaces get so little representation.
It makes more sense if you start from the conclusion he wants to reach, and assume that all his arguments are hollow and only there to reach that conclusion. The conclusion is that US republicans should have as much power as possible. Every argument leads to this goal. The arguments never matter and can be exchanged at a moments notice.
|
On January 03 2021 02:39 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2021 02:15 Mohdoo wrote:On January 03 2021 01:41 Danglars wrote:
It’s getting kind of blatant with the criticism of the Senate for helping large states not dominate a country of many states precisely because some people wish the larger states possessed the ability to dominate in greater measure.
It’s desirable that these kind of people wedded to those kind of wishes are frustrated. They have a message that rarely resonates outside of populous urban centers, they don’t want to change it, they’ve given up persuasion, they just want to force feed it to the rest of the country. A simple re-read of the last dozen or so posts should make this kind of thinking dead obvious. I’m not convinced the logic of empowering small groups is useful. There’s way more grocery workers then doctors, more construction workers than lawyers, more technicians than engineers. There are numerous examples of groups that are smaller than others that we don’t specifically make sure to empower through distorted vote mechanisms. The doctor vote has significantly less cultural power than the construction worker vote. Isn’t that a bad thing for the same reason? The senate model makes less densely populated areas more equivalent to more populated areas. Less populated areas generally have stagnant culture but I don’t see why that stagnation needs to be kept equal to places with more developed cultures. I understand the basic premise that that stagnant areas tend to be culturally distinct from the urban areas, but I don’t see where there jump exists that shows those areas need to have equal representation to a larger population. In your eyes, why is it important that the smaller group has more representation per person? May I say, your treatment of “less populated areas have stagnant culture but I don’t see why that stagnation needs to be kept equal” is exactly the kind of elitist bullshit that prompts the increased tyranny of the majority arguments. If you are fine so demeaning your fellow citizens, go have the courage to endorse a final separation of the country into a half that wants to be rid of cultures they generalize as lesser cultures. We don’t have to be an United States if certain populous states view some 20-30 of the 50 as a burden culturally and electorally. They can be states of a different union, and maintain firmer structures of division of power, if that’s the will of the biggest and richest.
Cultural stagnation is a well understood dynamic documented in sociology and psychology. Amish civilization is an example of isolation encouraging cultural stagnation. Are you saying this idea is so offensive to you that you can’t bring yourself to give your perspective on my question? All you can bring yourself to say is “well then let’s split the country in half”? Being demeaning doesn’t mean I’m not interested in the contribution of the people I am demeaning. They still make the collective stronger, despite our disagreements. Everyone thinks some group of people are dumb and wrong. You’ve been very clear how wrong and dumb plenty of people are.
|
On January 03 2021 02:48 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2021 02:42 ChristianS wrote:
But Republicans’ commitment to ensuring representation for diverse communities and lifestyles evaporates as soon as extending that representation to US territories comes up. The logic favoring over-representing smaller states relative to their population clearly favors extending statehood to Puerto Rico. I was going to bring DC/Puerto Rico statehood, but that's not really going to be an argument that makes headway with Danglars given that he's expressed that the rural/urban cultural divide is the primary one that warrants protecting in the legislature. Puerto Rico is an almost entirely urban territory at this point. Your other example of NorCal/SoCal compared to the Dakotas/Virginias seems more relevant. Show nested quote +On January 03 2021 02:33 Danglars wrote:
Like, how does the calculus change? The sides have lived under an enduring system that produced that outcome. The calculus changes because the system very clearly at it's root does not scale to the extremes. Equally representing each state is not absolutely scalable to every possible population distribution. As Micronesia said, it's obvious at face value that a hypothetical state of 2 people should not have equal representation to a state of 300 million. So somewhere before that, you cross over a point where the system as it exists does not make sense.
If your argument is an argument of extremes, then yes, a state with 2 people should not have equal representation to 300 million. Currently, they don't in the House of Representatives or in electoral votes for President.
They don't have equal representation in the nation's capital. They have equal representatives as states in the chamber representing the interests of each state equally.
That's one half of one third of the federal government.
Come to me with a proposal to give smaller states equal numbers of representatives in the House and equal electoral votes for the President, and I'd reject it under the argument that bigger states deserve a greater share of representation in some bodies to prevent smaller states from dominating how their increased tax revenue should be spent.
|
On January 03 2021 02:48 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2021 02:42 ChristianS wrote:
But Republicans’ commitment to ensuring representation for diverse communities and lifestyles evaporates as soon as extending that representation to US territories comes up. The logic favoring over-representing smaller states relative to their population clearly favors extending statehood to Puerto Rico. I was going to bring DC/Puerto Rico statehood, but that's not really going to be an argument that makes headway with Danglars given that he's expressed that the rural/urban cultural divide is the primary one that warrants protecting in the legislature. Puerto Rico is an almost entirely urban territory at this point. Your other example of NorCal/SoCal compared to the Dakotas/Virginias seems more relevant. Show nested quote +On January 03 2021 02:33 Danglars wrote:
Like, how does the calculus change? The sides have lived under an enduring system that produced that outcome. The calculus changes because the system very clearly at it's root does not scale to the extremes. Equally representing each state is not absolutely scalable to every possible population distribution. As Micronesia said, it's obvious at face value that a hypothetical state of 2 people should not have equal representation to a state of 300 million. So somewhere before that, you cross over a point where the system as it exists does not make sense.
I wonder what you mean by “make headway.” If you mean “convince him you’re right and he’s wrong,” I think you may as well give up now. Not because of any special trait of Danglars’, I just think that’s not a good way to think about political discussions.
If Danglars doesn’t think Puerto Ricans deserve representation because they’re urban he’s betraying his own principles! His primary framing is that different states represent different communities and lifestyles, so they should get equal representation. Well, here’s some communities and lifestyles over here that have no representation at all. Don’t they deserve the same equal representation?
But this isn’t really about Danglars anyway. If he wants to contribute interesting and illuminating points to the discussion he’s welcome to; if I think he’s just playing rhetorical games I should not post or find a more valuable conversation to engage in.
|
On January 03 2021 02:54 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2021 02:39 Danglars wrote:On January 03 2021 02:15 Mohdoo wrote:On January 03 2021 01:41 Danglars wrote:
It’s getting kind of blatant with the criticism of the Senate for helping large states not dominate a country of many states precisely because some people wish the larger states possessed the ability to dominate in greater measure.
It’s desirable that these kind of people wedded to those kind of wishes are frustrated. They have a message that rarely resonates outside of populous urban centers, they don’t want to change it, they’ve given up persuasion, they just want to force feed it to the rest of the country. A simple re-read of the last dozen or so posts should make this kind of thinking dead obvious. I’m not convinced the logic of empowering small groups is useful. There’s way more grocery workers then doctors, more construction workers than lawyers, more technicians than engineers. There are numerous examples of groups that are smaller than others that we don’t specifically make sure to empower through distorted vote mechanisms. The doctor vote has significantly less cultural power than the construction worker vote. Isn’t that a bad thing for the same reason? The senate model makes less densely populated areas more equivalent to more populated areas. Less populated areas generally have stagnant culture but I don’t see why that stagnation needs to be kept equal to places with more developed cultures. I understand the basic premise that that stagnant areas tend to be culturally distinct from the urban areas, but I don’t see where there jump exists that shows those areas need to have equal representation to a larger population. In your eyes, why is it important that the smaller group has more representation per person? May I say, your treatment of “less populated areas have stagnant culture but I don’t see why that stagnation needs to be kept equal” is exactly the kind of elitist bullshit that prompts the increased tyranny of the majority arguments. If you are fine so demeaning your fellow citizens, go have the courage to endorse a final separation of the country into a half that wants to be rid of cultures they generalize as lesser cultures. We don’t have to be an United States if certain populous states view some 20-30 of the 50 as a burden culturally and electorally. They can be states of a different union, and maintain firmer structures of division of power, if that’s the will of the biggest and richest. Cultural stagnation is a well understood dynamic documented in sociology and psychology. Amish civilization is an example of isolation encouraging cultural stagnation. Are you saying this idea is so offensive to you that you can’t bring yourself to give your perspective on my question? All you can bring yourself to say is “well then let’s split the country in half”? Being demeaning doesn’t mean I’m not interested in the contribution of the people I am demeaning. They still make the collective stronger, despite our disagreements. Everyone thinks some group of people are dumb and wrong. You’ve been very clear how wrong and dumb plenty of people are.
Let me amend my previous post to state, if you are fine so demeaning your fellow citizens, based in your appreciation of the current trends in sociology and psychology, go have the courage to endorse a final separation of the country into a half that wants to be rid of cultures they generalize as lesser cultures. I haven't gone after the culture of the urban dense cities, but maybe to earn your respect, I better launch into diatribes about failing schools, rampant crime, and extreme homelessness, and how that's traceable to their supposedly more vibrant cultures.
I don't really see that as a great direction, particularly for the maintenance of the union, but if y'all are so intent on dictating terms of continued sharing of power from big blue states to smaller red states, maybe that's the inevitable conclusion.
If I imagine a huge majority of citizens in California and New York and New Jersey etc really do think like you do, then I don't stand in the way of your secession to form a nation that precisely decides national decisions in precise proportion to their population. If current power sharing is really so disgusting and damaging to them, by all means they shouldn't be held in the union that grants equal power to STATES in a United States of America in one half of one third of the government of those United States of America. State decisions in blue states with supermajorities of Democrats already can ignore the opinions of the country hicks in states with lesser cultures. By God, that's by design, and the delegation of power to the national government of everything is what got us into this mess in the first place. Cede power back to the states, redistribute less money from federal taxation, and let people with sociology degrees not worry about the political representation from states that border theirs.
Pardon the statement of my opinion, but this whole debate sounds like noblesse oblige. The poorer, smaller states are living high on the hog from the largesse of the bigger states, and they should be brought down lower, seeing as how they'd be so destitute and pitiable if, for some reason, they were cut off from the benefits brought by the bigger, bluer areas of the country. They're now tired of that "responsibility," and are sadly announcing they're no longer fine with supporting that obligation. To which I say: it's fine, any kind of union of red counties will be fine. It should be more obvious to people participating that I don't think smaller states will vote for less power in the union, so the honest truth is that big states should leave if they can't pass electoral reform to their liking and this situation is so unbearable to them, and the same to the smaller states vice versa.
The big states already have bigger representation in the House; some people want it to be more extreme. The big states already have bigger representation in electoral votes for President; some people want it to be more extreme. These arguments always come up when Democrats fail to secure a major electoral win, and no surprise, they narrowly won the states necessary for the Presidency, and lost power in the House.
|
United States43991 Posts
On January 03 2021 01:41 Danglars wrote:
It’s getting kind of blatant with the criticism of the Senate for helping large states not dominate a country of many states precisely because some people wish the larger states possessed the ability to dominate in greater measure.
It’s desirable that these kind of people wedded to those kind of wishes are frustrated. They have a message that rarely resonates outside of populous urban centers, they don’t want to change it, they’ve given up persuasion, they just want to force feed it to the rest of the country. A simple re-read of the last dozen or so posts should make this kind of thinking dead obvious.
What you’re objecting to here is called democracy. The political views of the majority should not need to persuade a minority to be realized. After the people vote the side that had more voters should be able to force feed it to the rest of the country.
Your problem is that you have a bankrupt unpopular ideology that survives purely through arbitrary vote subsidies and rather than address the fact that you can’t win the public’s vote you attack the idea that you should need to.
|
I don’t think I’ve seen a single person anywhere argue that House representation should be anything other than proportional to population. What would that scheme even be? # of representatives rises quadratically with population?
The underlying principle is obviously that a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people” should decide its representation primarily by the opinion of the majority of people. If you’re going to privilege the opinion of some people by a couple orders of magnitude over the opinion of other people, you should present a compelling reason why they should be so over-represented. Protecting less populous communities and lifestyles from tyranny of the majority is potentially such a reason, but then apply it equally.
Or if you’ve got a different reason, spit it out.
|
On January 03 2021 02:28 micronesia wrote:
Building off of what was previously said, I think the current design of the government has not scaled properly in accordance with how geographic demographics have shifted over the life of the nation. Some protections against tyranny of the minority by the majority are appropriate and the implementation in 1787 was likely well-intentioned, but the status quo is no longer effective. If the population of every smaller state goes to 2, and everyone else lives in the more populous states, it no longer makes sense for those small states to have almost complete control of the Senate. What we are living in is less extreme than that but the same general idea.
I addressed this in a different post, but to be more direct, the extreme example of 2 vs 300 million sounds like two different nations living side by side, and no real national government could adequately govern those in the middle, who would be cut off from decisions affecting them should we presume that the national government retains current levels of federal taxation and domestic spending.
When you say "those small states to have almost complete control of the Senate," which is almost certainly an indefensible, exaggerated assertation, would you like to set the bar at the ~26 states under ~5mil (~1/8 the population of the largest state of the union)? I'd say the largest states already have plenty of control of the Senate, the trouble is, the Democrats have failed to secure Texas, Florida, (historically) Georgia, North Carolina, Tenessee ... and half of Ohio, Pennsylvania. I wonder how much of "the biggest states don't have a big enough say over the smaller states in the USA" is actually closeted "some of the biggest states of the Union are ninnies that won't vote with us, which is why we're failing to capture the necessary votes on bills we'd like to see passed." If we actually had a nationally representative voice, I'd ask some citizens of Texas and Florida if they think smaller states have too much of a voice over theirs.
|
On January 03 2021 03:32 ChristianS wrote:
I don’t think I’ve seen a single person anywhere argue that House representation should be anything other than proportional to population. What would that scheme even be? # of representatives rises quadratically with population?
The underlying principle is obviously that a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people” should decide its representation primarily by the opinion of the majority of people. If you’re going to privilege the opinion of some people by a couple orders of magnitude over the opinion of other people, you should present a compelling reason why they should be so over-represented. Protecting less populous communities and lifestyles from tyranny of the majority is potentially such a reason, but then apply it equally.
Or if you’ve got a different reason, spit it out.
When people say "these areas need to have equal representation" and you, yourself "equal representation," it should be said that they don't have equal representation as the system exists today. It's literally one half of one third of the governing system. It deserves to be pointed out that equal only applies to the Senate, and as such arguments exist in electoral arguments more generally, people want them to have proportionately less representation in a system that already gives them less representation today. See: Electoral college reform, House reform.
Please contest any of the factual basis you dispute in this post.
|
United States43991 Posts
On January 03 2021 03:38 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2021 03:32 ChristianS wrote:
I don’t think I’ve seen a single person anywhere argue that House representation should be anything other than proportional to population. What would that scheme even be? # of representatives rises quadratically with population?
The underlying principle is obviously that a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people” should decide its representation primarily by the opinion of the majority of people. If you’re going to privilege the opinion of some people by a couple orders of magnitude over the opinion of other people, you should present a compelling reason why they should be so over-represented. Protecting less populous communities and lifestyles from tyranny of the majority is potentially such a reason, but then apply it equally.
Or if you’ve got a different reason, spit it out. When people say "these areas need to have equal representation" and you, yourself "equal representation," it should be said that they don't have equal representation as the system exists today. It's literally one half of one third of the governing system. It deserves to be pointed out that equal only applies to the Senate, and as such arguments exist in electoral arguments more generally, people want them to have proportionately less representation in a system that already gives them less representation today. See: Electoral college reform, House reform. Please contest any of the factual basis you dispute in this post.
Are you unaware that the same state boundaries that rig the senate also rig the presidential election or are you being dishonest here?
You also seem to be attempting the argument that the judiciary does 1/3 of the governing.
|
United States24773 Posts
On January 03 2021 03:35 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2021 02:28 micronesia wrote:
Building off of what was previously said, I think the current design of the government has not scaled properly in accordance with how geographic demographics have shifted over the life of the nation. Some protections against tyranny of the minority by the majority are appropriate and the implementation in 1787 was likely well-intentioned, but the status quo is no longer effective. If the population of every smaller state goes to 2, and everyone else lives in the more populous states, it no longer makes sense for those small states to have almost complete control of the Senate. What we are living in is less extreme than that but the same general idea. I addressed this in a different post, but to be more direct, the extreme example of 2 vs 300 million sounds like two different nations living side by side, and no real national government could adequately govern those in the middle, who would be cut off from decisions affecting them should we presume that the national government retains current levels of federal taxation and domestic spending. "could adequately govern those in the middle..." middle of what?
When you say "those small states to have almost complete control of the Senate," which is almost certainly an indefensible, exaggerated assertation It is a hypothetical, not an assertion. It is intentionally exaggerated. I don't believe it is indefensible.
would you like to set the bar at the ~26 states under ~5mil (~1/8 the population of the largest state of the union)? I'd say the largest states already have plenty of control of the Senate, the trouble is, the Democrats have failed to secure Texas, Florida, (historically) Georgia, North Carolina, Tenessee ... and half of Ohio, Pennsylvania. I wonder how much of "the biggest states don't have a big enough say over the smaller states in the USA" is actually closeted "some of the biggest states of the Union are ninnies that won't vote with us, which is why we're failing to capture the necessary votes on bills we'd like to see passed." If we actually had a nationally representative voice, I'd ask some citizens of Texas and Florida if they think smaller states have too much of a voice over theirs. Clearly the divides in the country are not as simple as big states vs small states, only.
|
On January 03 2021 03:38 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2021 03:32 ChristianS wrote:
I don’t think I’ve seen a single person anywhere argue that House representation should be anything other than proportional to population. What would that scheme even be? # of representatives rises quadratically with population?
The underlying principle is obviously that a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people” should decide its representation primarily by the opinion of the majority of people. If you’re going to privilege the opinion of some people by a couple orders of magnitude over the opinion of other people, you should present a compelling reason why they should be so over-represented. Protecting less populous communities and lifestyles from tyranny of the majority is potentially such a reason, but then apply it equally.
Or if you’ve got a different reason, spit it out. When people say "these areas need to have equal representation" and you, yourself "equal representation," it should be said that they don't have equal representation as the system exists today. It's literally one half of one third of the governing system. It deserves to be pointed out that equal only applies to the Senate, and as such arguments exist in electoral arguments more generally, people want them to have proportionately less representation in a system that already gives them less representation today. See: Electoral college reform, House reform. Please contest any of the factual basis you dispute in this post.
The big states already have bigger representation in the House; some people want it to be more extreme.
This is what I was responding to. Haven’t seen a single person anywhere argue that # of representatives per state should scale >linearly with population, and while I’m sure someone at some point has said it, it obviously violates the principle everyone is implicitly arguing about (i.e. that everyone’s vote should count equally). No idea what you’re referring to with “House reform,” if there’s some movement I’m unaware of to double CA’s house representatives or something you’ll have to give me a link.
Why should people in wyoming have 70X (or w/e) more say than me on SCOTUS confirmations? This question isn’t rhetorical; give me an actual justification for weighting this way.
|
I think this whole debate of who should get what just highlights the absurdity of our enormous, heterogeneous country being divided into two parties. There is a whole diversity of interests that are so poorly served by their respective parties. The consolidation of political power we have seen reminds me a lot of how giant corporations have gobbled up all their small competitors in recent decades.
|
On January 03 2021 03:19 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2021 02:54 Mohdoo wrote:On January 03 2021 02:39 Danglars wrote:On January 03 2021 02:15 Mohdoo wrote:On January 03 2021 01:41 Danglars wrote:
It’s getting kind of blatant with the criticism of the Senate for helping large states not dominate a country of many states precisely because some people wish the larger states possessed the ability to dominate in greater measure.
It’s desirable that these kind of people wedded to those kind of wishes are frustrated. They have a message that rarely resonates outside of populous urban centers, they don’t want to change it, they’ve given up persuasion, they just want to force feed it to the rest of the country. A simple re-read of the last dozen or so posts should make this kind of thinking dead obvious. I’m not convinced the logic of empowering small groups is useful. There’s way more grocery workers then doctors, more construction workers than lawyers, more technicians than engineers. There are numerous examples of groups that are smaller than others that we don’t specifically make sure to empower through distorted vote mechanisms. The doctor vote has significantly less cultural power than the construction worker vote. Isn’t that a bad thing for the same reason? The senate model makes less densely populated areas more equivalent to more populated areas. Less populated areas generally have stagnant culture but I don’t see why that stagnation needs to be kept equal to places with more developed cultures. I understand the basic premise that that stagnant areas tend to be culturally distinct from the urban areas, but I don’t see where there jump exists that shows those areas need to have equal representation to a larger population. In your eyes, why is it important that the smaller group has more representation per person? May I say, your treatment of “less populated areas have stagnant culture but I don’t see why that stagnation needs to be kept equal” is exactly the kind of elitist bullshit that prompts the increased tyranny of the majority arguments. If you are fine so demeaning your fellow citizens, go have the courage to endorse a final separation of the country into a half that wants to be rid of cultures they generalize as lesser cultures. We don’t have to be an United States if certain populous states view some 20-30 of the 50 as a burden culturally and electorally. They can be states of a different union, and maintain firmer structures of division of power, if that’s the will of the biggest and richest. Cultural stagnation is a well understood dynamic documented in sociology and psychology. Amish civilization is an example of isolation encouraging cultural stagnation. Are you saying this idea is so offensive to you that you can’t bring yourself to give your perspective on my question? All you can bring yourself to say is “well then let’s split the country in half”? Being demeaning doesn’t mean I’m not interested in the contribution of the people I am demeaning. They still make the collective stronger, despite our disagreements. Everyone thinks some group of people are dumb and wrong. You’ve been very clear how wrong and dumb plenty of people are. Let me amend my previous post to state, if you are fine so demeaning your fellow citizens, based in your appreciation of the current trends in sociology and psychology, go have the courage to endorse a final separation of the country into a half that wants to be rid of cultures they generalize as lesser cultures.
It is not necessary for an entire state to have equal cultures. I don't understand this logic at all. Any large state will have differing culture. This just seems weird to say.
On January 03 2021 03:19 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2021 02:54 Mohdoo wrote:On January 03 2021 02:39 Danglars wrote:On January 03 2021 02:15 Mohdoo wrote:On January 03 2021 01:41 Danglars wrote:
It’s getting kind of blatant with the criticism of the Senate for helping large states not dominate a country of many states precisely because some people wish the larger states possessed the ability to dominate in greater measure.
It’s desirable that these kind of people wedded to those kind of wishes are frustrated. They have a message that rarely resonates outside of populous urban centers, they don’t want to change it, they’ve given up persuasion, they just want to force feed it to the rest of the country. A simple re-read of the last dozen or so posts should make this kind of thinking dead obvious. I’m not convinced the logic of empowering small groups is useful. There’s way more grocery workers then doctors, more construction workers than lawyers, more technicians than engineers. There are numerous examples of groups that are smaller than others that we don’t specifically make sure to empower through distorted vote mechanisms. The doctor vote has significantly less cultural power than the construction worker vote. Isn’t that a bad thing for the same reason? The senate model makes less densely populated areas more equivalent to more populated areas. Less populated areas generally have stagnant culture but I don’t see why that stagnation needs to be kept equal to places with more developed cultures. I understand the basic premise that that stagnant areas tend to be culturally distinct from the urban areas, but I don’t see where there jump exists that shows those areas need to have equal representation to a larger population. In your eyes, why is it important that the smaller group has more representation per person? May I say, your treatment of “less populated areas have stagnant culture but I don’t see why that stagnation needs to be kept equal” is exactly the kind of elitist bullshit that prompts the increased tyranny of the majority arguments. If you are fine so demeaning your fellow citizens, go have the courage to endorse a final separation of the country into a half that wants to be rid of cultures they generalize as lesser cultures. We don’t have to be an United States if certain populous states view some 20-30 of the 50 as a burden culturally and electorally. They can be states of a different union, and maintain firmer structures of division of power, if that’s the will of the biggest and richest. Cultural stagnation is a well understood dynamic documented in sociology and psychology. Amish civilization is an example of isolation encouraging cultural stagnation. Are you saying this idea is so offensive to you that you can’t bring yourself to give your perspective on my question? All you can bring yourself to say is “well then let’s split the country in half”? Being demeaning doesn’t mean I’m not interested in the contribution of the people I am demeaning. They still make the collective stronger, despite our disagreements. Everyone thinks some group of people are dumb and wrong. You’ve been very clear how wrong and dumb plenty of people are. If I imagine a huge majority of citizens in California and New York and New Jersey etc really do think like you do, then I don't stand in the way of your secession to form a nation that precisely decides national decisions in precise proportion to their population. If current power sharing is really so disgusting and damaging to them, by all means they shouldn't be held in the union that grants equal power to STATES in a United States of America in one half of one third of the government of those United States of America. State decisions in blue states with supermajorities of Democrats already can ignore the opinions of the country hicks in states with lesser cultures. By God, that's by design, and the delegation of power to the national government of everything is what got us into this mess in the first place. Cede power back to the states, redistribute less money from federal taxation, and let people with sociology degrees not worry about the political representation from states that border theirs.
Sharing power is great. As an Oregonian, Texas should have way more power than Oregon, because it represents a greater total amount of human consciousness. What makes this not true in your eyes? Why should Oregon and Texas have the same power? I understand our current system but I am asking you why you think it is important for this to remain true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
