American Politics 3.0 - Back to Brunch

[#-3]

well lose 12 states and it's a no go constitutionally.

1) Wyoming
2) Vermont
3) Alaska
4) North Dakota
5) South Dakota
6) Delaware
7) Rhode Island
8) Montana
9) Maine
10) New Hampshire
Hawaii
11) Idaho
12) West Virginia
13) Nebraska
14) New Mexico
15) Kansas
16) Mississippi

I'll grant you Hawaii might do something weird, but I can't see you picking off 4 other states to volunteer to lose a seat.

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Um...you change the constitution with a 2/3rds majority. If the other states agree you can totally make that happen. The house wouldn't be a problem since it represents the population proportionally.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

Um...you change the constitution with a 2/3rds majority. If the other states agree you can totally make that happen. The house wouldn't be a problem since it represents the population proportionally.

The Congress can't do anything to the constitution without the agreement of three-fourths of the states.

No state is going to vote to limit their power in the federal government, and the states that are losing relative population will not ratify this.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

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.

I don't know if that's really that true anymore. Is there really a substantial cultural difference between the States? I don't think there really is, I think the differences can seem significant because the similarities are so many, and so vast, that small differences really stand out.

I mean Canada is incredibly similar to the US in most respects, and the differences between Canada and the US are more substantial than between any two States.

The big difference in the US, as it is in Canada, is the Urban-Rural divide. People who live in St. Louis or San Diego or Philadelphia or Dallas aren't going to have much cultural differences between them, generally. And people who live in rural Missouri or California or Pennsylvania or Texas are going to be culturally quite similar between each other (when you control for other demographics like race). While between the two groups I think you see the largest differences.

The issue of the Urban-Rural split is an enormous political challenge for the geographically-large democracies (Canada, The US, Australia, Brazil, etc.). Right now, 70% of Americans live in urban areas, yet the rural vote power substantially exceeds them.

Here's a great article about the urban-rural vote split: https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...s-rural-urban/



Interestingly, median household income does not vary significantly between these groups of districts:



In total, in 2022 157 disticts fall into the "more urban" half of these six groups, while 278 fall into the "more rural." Pure urban is represented by 34 House members while pure rural has 73. Finding ways to navigate the power imbalance and the cultural differences between urban and rural is going to be the major problem for these geographically large democracies.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by driveway

The issue of the Urban-Rural split is an enormous political challenge for the geographically-large democracies (Canada, The US, Australia, Brazil, etc.). Right now, 70% of Americans live in urban areas, yet the rural vote power substantially exceeds them.

Where did you get that number from? It's not in the Washington Post article you linked. The methodology behind the graphics you reported is here.

[oldschoolcalgary]

the US has an antiquated system: states having equal representation in the senate made sense back when the country was founded, but its nonsense now.

That being said, the have not states would never agree to losing leverage. Why would they? Like voter districts in rural Canada wouldn't give up seats even if the idea of true representative democracy would demand it.

the fact that California, on the verge of becoming the fourth biggest economy in the World has the same number of senators that North Dakota or Wyoming has is insane to me.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-b2216277.html

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

the US has an antiquated system: states having equal representation in the senate made sense back when the country was founded, but its nonsense now.

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

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by butterfly

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

slavery, it was a way to bring the slave states on board, the South was already more pro British than the North, the fear was without a mechanism to protect slavery they would just peel off and request British Dominion status

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by butterfly

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

well, it started in 1789 for one... with 11 states that were similarly sized at the time... even then this was a compromise(the vote was 6-5), allowing smaller states to have an equal say, in order for the union to even be formed.

I'll say it again; the fact that California, the world's fourth biggest economy, has the same number of senators and Wyoming or North Dakota or Vermont doesn't make a lot of sense, both in terms of actual financial output nor representational democracy.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

slavery, it was a way to bring the slave states on board, the South was already more pro British than the North, the fear was without a mechanism to protect slavery they would just peel off and request British Dominion status

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.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

well, it started in 1789 for one... with 11 states that were similarly sized at the time... even then this was a compromise(the vote was 6-5), allowing smaller states to have an equal say, in order for the union to even be formed.

I'll say it again; the fact that California, the world's fourth biggest economy, has the same number of senators and Wyoming or North Dakota or Vermont doesn't make a lot of sense, both in terms of actual financial output nor representational democracy.

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?

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by butterfly

The Congress can't do anything to the constitution without the agreement of three-fourths of the states.

No state is going to vote to limit their power in the federal government, and the states that are losing relative population will not ratify this.

Maybe the solution is the larger states break themselves up into several states to reap the benefits of small-statehood.

[afc wimbledon]

I stand corrected, I think it is important to realize that while the US was founded on the principal of giving every man the vote (well every white and basically middle class land owning man) that was still a novel concept, so it didn't really matter that much if the system had egregious faults, democracy wasn't as cherished for its own sake then, it was more a means to an end

[oldschoolcalgary]

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?

The fourth biggest economy is a big thing in terms of incomes taxes and revenue going into the US economy.

A better question is why does your hypothetical even matter? Because that is not the case that California's economy is the size of Wyoming.

It's certainly your prerogative to think that Delaware or Wyoming's 1.4 M combined population should have the same number of Senators as California 40 million population (even though that's not representative democracy by any definition)
If the Union was being formed today, I highly doubt it would take on this level disparity, thus the notion of it being "outdated".

Curious why you don't think its outdated? When the Senate has become a major bottleneck for legislation and especially for SCOTUS appointments.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

The fourth biggest economy is a big thing in terms of incomes taxes and revenue going into the US economy.

A better question is why does your hypothetical even matter? Because that is not the case that California's economy is the size of Wyoming.

It's certainly your prerogative to think that Delaware or Wyoming's 1.4 M combined population should have the same number of Senators as California 40 million.

If the Union was being formed today, I highly doubt it would take on this level disparity, thus the notion of it being "outdated".

Curious why you don't think its outdated? When the Senate has become a major bottle for legislation and especially for SCOTUS appointments.

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.

[oldschoolcalgary]

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?

[butterfly]

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.

[afc wimbledon]

Nothing down there will change but the obvious first step would be to make the Presidential election a straight nation wide first past the post, reducing the term limits on the senate down to 4 years would also probably help

but again, never ever going to happen

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Nothing down there will change but the obvious first step would be to make the Presidential election a straight nation wide first past the post, reducing the term limits on the senate down to 4 years would also probably help

but again, never ever going to happen

An "obvious first step" on the path to where? Erin O'Toole and Hillary Clinton winning, I guess.

The point of not having that is to prevent strongly concentrated regional interests from winning elections.

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by butterfly

The point of not having that is to prevent strongly concentrated regional interests from winning elections.

This "strongly concentrated regional interest" sounds suspiciously like a "city".