Quote:
Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary
I appreciate your perspective - as a Canadian, I don't have the same investment that you do obviously. I also think Senate bottlenecks would disappear with true proportional Senate representation, but I think that a case for the protection of the minority, in this case smaller states, can be made so they are not run roughshod by bigger states (and bigger economies).
We'll agree to disagree on this, though I do wonder how you square the notion of an egalitarian system of apportionment based on population when the Senate is the opposite of that?
|
Thanks, friend.
I think that it's akin to me cheering for a minority government of any stripe in Canadian elections, even though I no longer live there.
The notion you referred to was squared away years ago, I think. We use pure apportionment in the House, and they're responsible to come back and ask for our vote again every election.
It's equal representation in the Senate, but I'm not a huge fan of the 17th amendment. The US Senate used to be elected by state representatives, instead of a popular election. It had the effect of making a state representative more powerful and made people more concerned about local politics.
And, of course what I'll call "tempered" apportionment for the presidency, where there's a minimum number of electors that all states receive, but the balance are apportioned proportionately.
Each one of these varying systems and terms were designed to protect the rights of the states and the people. It's imperfect, sure, but I can't imagine anything better. It's intended to make things difficult for the federal government to do anything to us.