Quote:
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.
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.
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 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?