Quote:
Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda
Which is completely outdated in the 21st century. It made sense when the US was founded and each state was much more autonomous, but now all the senate does is hold back legislation that the majority of the US population actually wants (universal healthcare, abortion rights, worker protections, LGBTQ rights, etc). California has more people than the smallest 20 states combined, yet they only get 2 votes in the senate compared to their 40. It's tyranny of the minority, and it's what's holding the US back from joining the rest of the western world in quality of life metrics
|
It never really used to work like that. It seems to be a product of modern partisanship. People used to work together even if they came from other states and parties and often there were unexpected coalitions. I take your point, but it is a relatively recent phenomenon.
I think there should be a bit more representation by population, but I don't want to sway too heavily in that direction. I think it's important knowing the tenuous history of federalism in America to realize that if you don't give a strong voice to the less populous states you begin to create grievances that divide the nation (ironic considering today's political climate). The whole point of giving states equal representation was to acquiesce some federal control back to the states so they could speak for themselves. Again, it is a nation of individual states that are more or less coalesced together. It's 50 individual nations that present a united front internationally, but are very different from each other within the nation. To change senate away from state representation would likely renew the grievances towards the federal government and only further divide the nation, possibly pushing us closer to civil war.
However, I take your point and I do agree that the level of minority representation is out of control. Wyoming should probably only have one senator, and California should have 3-4.