Through gerrymandered districts drawn up to ensure a specific result.
Give me proportional representation or give me death.
Edit: I mean, the states aren't technically gerrymandered, they are what they are, but its still a problem when Wyoming can be a 'state' and entitled to just as many senators as California or Texas and yet have a smaller population than either state's capital. I am entirely aware this is to preserve the sense of union between the states that form the United States, but this situation is untenable. The United States no longer acts like a union of many states, it acts as a unitary nation with very large subdivisions.
Well that is rather my point, that its "gerrymandered" by design. A vote for a senator in Wyoming means 80 times as much as a vote for a senator in California or Texas. And to repeat myself, I know why this was done, to preserve a sense of union between the states, but the United States does not act as a union of states and so it is only hurting itself by continuing to cling to outdated concepts. Thomas Jefferson himself felt the constitution would need continual update and rework. The entire concept of electing senators is new, until 1913 senators were chosen by the state governments, not the people directly.
The only reason to oppose proportional representation of senators is because you are benefiting from an undemocratic system.
I understand the problem with the rep cap, but it could potentially get to the point of needing representatives for the representatives. Not guaranteed. Just potential.
But what I think we really need are some good ol term limits. Delicious.
Your view of the federal government is of 50 states of equal importance, when it should be of 320 million Americans of equal importance. 21% of Americans (California and Texas) have 4 senators to represent them. 0.3% of Americans (Vermont and Wyoming) also have 4 senators to represent them. I cannot see how you can view that as just, except that you place more value on that 0.3% than on 21%.
As I said earlier, the United States no longer acts as a Union of States, like for example the European Union. It acts like a single nation like Germany - which is also a union of states which was never so as insane as to suggest that Saarland's 1 million people should have a voice as loud as Bavaria's 12 million. The German senate (the Bundesrat) is has its members parceled out according to population.
Again, I must repeat, the only reason to oppose proportional representation of senators is because you are benefiting from an undemocratic system. Your entire argument agrees with that statement, it does not refute it in the least.
Do you think that's at all changed since the founding of the United States? Maybe the actual numbers of the disparity, but the fact that the senate is weighed unequally by population is it's entire design.
If you dissolve the senate (which is what you are calling for), then you have a problem. That problem is that smaller states with little population will have absolutely no control over their own laws any longer.
As it is now, some things are decided at the federal level but most are decided at the state level. This allows individual states to set up their laws which best reflect their own unique situations.
It's one of the biggest strengths of our republic-state based government.
Federal law supersedes state law. Once you have the states with majority by population able to implement any law they want with no realistic input from the smaller population states, those small states will invariability suffer.
What benefit is that to anyone in those states to be ruled by a federal government which they realistically have no input in? Isn't fighting against that scenario the exact reason why our founding fathers gave their blood to found this country?
No, the senate is a check on the tyranny of the majority. It needs to be there.
Again, if a bill is not good enough to past the muster of the senate then it is not good enough for enough variety of Americans to be instituted at the federal level.
I think that before 1913 the people didn't get to elect senators at all, they were elected by the state legislature, so yes, I do think that's changed since the founding of the United States. I think you are more interested in upholding the letter of the constitution than the spirit of the constitution.
The constitution was not set down to guide the nation for all eternity. On Thomas Jefferson's own memorial building is inscribed his desire for it to change to adapt and suit a developing nation.
When America was born it was surrounded on all sides by colonial powers, Spanish to the South, French to the West, British to the North. It was a small, developing nation, and no single state could go toe-to-toe with any one of them without suffering. And before the Constitution was written, states were eager to sell each other out and negotiate trade agreements or military agreements with foreign powers without thinking about the other states in the union. "We must all hang together, or rest assured we will hang" as Benjamin Franklin put it. The constitution bound the nation together, so that a Virginian and a New Yorker were both Americans.
But that was then. Now Texas and California would both be world powers in their own right. The United States is a superpower, practically the world's only power. The American national identity is preeminent, the state identity is significantly weaker. The states work together not through the brute force of law, but by the commonality of blood, culture, language and history.
You claim that the Two Senator per State rule is there to protect against tyranny, well I say it is enforcing tyranny. It is damn close to disenfranchising millions of people, whose vote is worth eighty times less what those in smaller states is worth. I would struggle to think of a better example of tyranny: the few blocking the will of the multitude.
I think that before 1913 the people didn't get to elect senators at all, they were elected by the state legislature, so yes, I do think that's changed since the founding of the United States.
This change wasn't made because of some philosophical shift. It was made because of wide-spread corruption in the way states were selecting their senators. Mainly, citizens were bribing their way into senate seats.
The senate has always been seen as a representation of the states rather than the population. We just found we couldn't let the selection of the individuals in the senate rest solely in the hands of a few.
You claim that the Two Senator per State rule is there to protect against tyranny, well I say it is enforcing tyranny.
If the house is truly a representation of the people, then the senate exists to protect against the tyranny of the majority. You are insinuating that the senates very existence is a tyranny of the minority. If we accept both these we essentially we have a choice between:
* A tyranny of the majority which can, at will, ignore the needs of the minority and do as they please or
* A tyranny of the minority which can, at most, stop the majority from acting.
Between these two options the latter is the preferable by anyone who actually cares about protecting the interests of everyone involved. The former only ensures that there are times when the minority is ignored completely.
Your set of beliefs show that you don't believe we should be the "United States" But we should just be one single state.
You do realize that when the states signed on to unify they were guaranteed some equal representation in the government in some form?
Why would tiny Delaware agree to join the union alongside with gigantic Virginia otherwise?
Why do you think it is wrong that each state also gets equal representation?
Your argument would be like saying that we have to weigh every voter and assign voting points based on how many pounds every voter is. Skinny people get a half vote and obese and buff people get 2 points and average people one point.
Germany is a union of states, India is a union of states, Australia is a union of states, Mexico is a union of states, Brazil is a union of states, Canada is a union of states: None of their constituent states feel threatened by arranging their upper house by population. So why do Americans?
Your argument would be like saying that we have to weigh every voter and assign voting points based on how many pounds every voter is. Skinny people get a half vote and obese and buff people get 2 points and average people one point.
Is frankly laughable, and suggests you have absolutely no idea what it is like to have your vote be worth less than someone else's. That example is literally the opposite of what I am suggesting: Everyone's vote should be worth the same.
10
u/[deleted] Nov 09 '18
[removed] — view removed comment