Quote:
Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan
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.
|
I'd say the electoral college strikes a good balance between state representation and voter representation..... for the purpose of the Senate.
The problem with the US system of government is that it double-dips on state representation. The President is the top government official and respresents each American by the same amount, hence, popular vote is the only truly sensible way to determine who the President should be. The purpose of the Senate is for states to be represented... that's where the electoral college belongs. IMO.