[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by butterfly

Why did it make sense at the founding and it's nonsense now?

Because the world has changed. We live in a world and a country that would make the founding fathers shat their proverbial britches. The idea of a truly global economy was beyond them. The geopolitical and economic ramifications were well beyond their context or understanding. Just the sheer size and complexity of the United States itself is something that they didn't have answers for. They never would have thought of the great population disparities that exist today in the republic they would found.

The founding fathers established a system to pull 13 geographically limited colonies together into a loose federation of states under the same banner. They were working under their context and addressing their needs as the elites of the time. They never would have envisioned a world where cities with tens of millions of people peacefully co-exist but can then be wiped off the face of the map in minutes because of the weapons available to nations. The context of their world was monarchies and fiefdoms, not the many various forms of democracy we see today. The United States was a great experiment and at the time that experiment was just in its first generation of growth in a small Petrie dish. The founders had no idea what the country would ultimately become and did not design a system of government to address those concerns, especially the one of population and economic inequality.

Originally Posted by butterfly

Actually, the Southern states were growing at a faster rate than the Northern states at the time of the Great Compromise. The Southern states advocated for proportional representation, as they anticipated the faster growth rate to continue. They accepted the "three-fifths" calculation of the slave population as part of the Great Compromise.

It was the smaller states like Delaware that were protective of their own interests and insisted on equal representation in order to join the union.

This is a gross simplification of the great compromise and a conflation with the 3/5ths compromise as the same thig, which they were not. The great compromise was a means to establish fair representation and a contrast between the Virginia and New Jersey plans for establishment of governance.
This was an answer to the concerns of the various colonies and their ability to maintain their independence in governance. These were not states, these were individual colonies with individual governments who each had claims of sovereignty. There were some that were still pro-British because they did not trust their fellow colonists and their representatives to not turn into despots themselves. The smaller states wanted guarantees of fair and equal representation or they would be forced to establish foreign alliances to protect their own well being. This is where the great compromise came into being and the bicameral form of governance being adopted.

The 3/5th compromise was a means to establish what was fair representation and how taxation would be applied to each state. The southern states wanted to have their cake and eat it in this regard. They wanted their slaves to count when it came to representation but not have them count when it came to taxation. The northern states wanted it the other way around. The southern states wanted their slaves to count for representation, even though the slaves would be unable to vote or own property. The compromise ultimately gave both parties a fair and equitable means to enter into the fold and birth the nation, even if it game more electoral power to the southern states. The terms really are reprehensible in our modern context, which is why an amendment would later be needed to the constitution. This is the language of the 3/5ths compromise that made it into Article 1 of the constitution.

“Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons.”

Originally Posted by butterfly

In 1780, the population of Delaware was 8% of the population of Virginia. They were not similarly sized.

Why would the economy of California matter at all in this debate? If our economy was smaller than Wyoming, North Dakota, or Vermont, and the populations remained the same, should we have less representation?

For the very same reason that you bring up Delaware's population in relation to Virginia. The system was not fair then and remains inequitable now, just for slightly different reasons. Also, your comment on scales of economies doesn't make sense. The populations would not remain the same if the scales of economies shifted. The reason their is a population advantage is because there is an economic advantage.

Originally Posted by butterfly

I happen to enjoy divided government, and I'm happy when there's a major bottleneck for legislation. I don't think we need more of it.

That's your view on government, which is kind of messed up. Government should be effective and willing to find compromise, not deadlocked because ideological differences. Legislation is the means by which we reach compromise and put into play systems that work for everyone, and not just the select few. Laws and regulation level the playing field, provide protections to the have-nots, and make our country stronger.

When the Senate and the presidency are divided, we typically get more mainstream SCOTUS appointments, although there hasn't been one of these in over 30 years. Rehnquist and Kennedy were both cut from this particular cloth.

Don't agree with this. The history of the court is filled with nominations that sailed through regardless of the alignment of the Senate to that of the nominating President. The problem is the court has been very much become a politicized body because of the coordinated power grab by Republicans. This is not about governance, this is about enforcing the will of the minority on the majority and usurping the long held neutrality of the judiciary. There have been controversial appointments throughout history, like Rehnquist, but the court managed to maintain its separation as a political body. The stacking of the courts has punched a hole in the firewall between the branches and function of government.

California's economy shouldn't matter a hill of beans when it comes to apportionment, in my opinion. I believe more strongly in an egalitarian system of apportionment based on population. Although, I'm sure there's a reasonable argument you can make in favor of apportionment weighted by per capita GDP. People who pay more in taxes ought to matter more at the ballot box? I hadn't considered it, but my initial reaction is to oppose it.

I agree with you here. Economics shouldn't be a big driver in fair and equal representation, but it must be considered in some mechanism, like the Senate. It is why the House of Representatives is the body that creates laws and budgets and the Senate is responsible for oversight and approval. But there needs to be a change in the system to be more representative of the make up of the country today. California generates a disproportionately larger economic benefit to the whole of the country than 20 of the red states together. Those red states are an economic vacuum and suck off the teet of the blue states like California, yet those same lower populated and less economically viable red states have a disproportionately larger say in governance that impacts those economic engines. The states that generate the revenue should have a greater say in how the taxes are spent. That should come through an oversight chamber which is the Senate. A fair and equitable Senate is open to debate, but I would argue the current institution is not set up to be fairly representative of the people nor the common good of the nation. The system needs amending to be more reflective of the 21st century context and not that of an 18th century context.