How can we have democracy when half the population holds 20% of the Senate?

[CreekDog]

Obviously this isn't the only problem that complicates democracy in the United States, but half the representative/legislative part of our government, the part that represents the people, is based on something anti-democratic:

by allocating two senators per state:

169 million people in 10 states have 20 out of 100 Senators.
144 million people in 40 states have 80 out of 100 Senators.

if you think all you need is a majority of the people to favor Single Payer, even if they did, they wouldn't be represented by a majority of Senate seats.

[TreasonousBastard]

1. We can't-- we have a republic...

which was brilliantly designed to reduce the chances of the majority running over the minority. The Senate is the check on the rabble in the House, which does represent the population..

Does it work perfectly? Of course not-- what political system does? Plato went over all this over 2,000 years ago in "The Republic" and we still have no answer.

[CreekDog]

5. then why have any democracy?

just like put 1 person in charge.

then the majority can't run over anybody?

[oneofthe99]

8. Remember we had that? King George ring a bell

[TreasonousBastard]

11. That was Plato's answer.

[CreekDog]

36. how did the constitution protect slaves?

oh, maybe they weren't even minorities, the constitution didn't even count them as people...

[TreasonousBastard]

48. It didn't...

voting wasn't an issue because only white, male landowners could vote. Other rights pertained to citizens, so the question was the citizenship status of a slave. Slaves were, however, people, of a sort.

So, the large slave populations of the southern states alarmed the northerners who were afraid that would inflate the House membership and they came up with that part of a person idea to even things out.

(And we worry about how we think of things now...)

[CreekDog]

50. so if you're explaining how the Senate was created to put slaves down

why are you defending the allocations that we live with today?

people are going to read this post of yours and read the others in this very thread and wonder if you're defending the Senate because it helped preserve slavery.

i don't think you intend that, but you posted as if the other posts weren't here.

[TreasonousBastard]

58. Huh? The Senate was to stop big states like Pennsylvania...

and Virginia from running roughshod over Vermont and Delaware.

That's only marginally related to the slave population skewing the House for more members.

At any rate, I'm not defending slavery in any way, simply giving the history. As far as saying the concept of the Senate was a brilliant idea, it was at the time, and I'm not sure it's outlived its usefulness.

[thucythucy]

116. Yet what we have now is small red states like Wyoming

running over large blue states like California.

What we have is state of the art polity for the late 18th century.

Not that this will change any time soon.

[ManiacJoe]

154. If CA knows better than WY

what is best for WY, then CA just needs to be a bit more persuasive in its arguments.

The point of the Senate representing the states, and not the people, is to make sure that CA and NY do not run over states like WY. This is a good thing and works quite well.

[thucythucy]

169. Let me see if I have this right.

The two senators from California, which is a blue state, represent something more than thirty million people. The two senators from Wyoming, a red state, represent a very small fraction of that amount, less than half a million, last time I checked. Yet the (Republicans) from Wyoming carry equal weight with the (Democrats) from California, and that's fine with you?

You honestly think that the reason we don't get more progressive federal legislation is because the arguments for such legislation aren't "persuasive?" Like Republican senators can be persuaded by rational argument? Seriously?

Or is it that senators from Wyoming and other small red states use the senate's arcane rules to block progressive legislation, block liberal court appointees? That's what I see happening. Senators from red states, who generally represent vastly smaller constituencies, carry the day over senators from blue states, who generally represent many millions more.

It's a system rigged to favor rural conservatives over urban liberals. If you're a rural conservative that works just fine. But the existence of the Senate, this great drag on democracy, is why the US lags far behind the rest of the industrialized world in everything from environmental protection to health care. Hell, even the House of Lords has been downgraded by the Commons in Britain.

I admit, it is better than it used to be: until the early 20th century federal senators were appointed by state legislatures, not elected by popular vote. Maybe someday we'll amend the system further, so that a few red state voters won't have such a disproportionate hold over the nation's agenda.

BTW, could you give me an example of the "big states" running over the rights of "little states"? Seems to me it's generally the other way around: on issues from marriage equality to pay equity for women to abortion rights, it's the little states trying to impose their "morality" on the rest of us. Which is why my federal tax dollars are more likely to go toward subsidies for agribusiness (in red states) than nutrition for poor children (in blue AND red states).

[Jenoch]

176. Our country is called the United States for a reason.

It was an intentional thing to give each state two senators. Nothing has changed since that time to make a change in the proportionality of U.S. Senate seats.

[thucythucy]

182. Of course it was "an intentional thing."

It was also intentional in the original constitution that southern blacks (slaves) only be counted as fractional whites. Thankfully we did manage to change that.

Most EVERYTHING else has changed since the 1780s as well. Whereas in 1788 there was only one even marginally democratic polity in the world, today there are dozens. Whereas in the 1780s the majority of the US population were small farmers, scattered throughout the countryside, today we are mostly concentrated in urban and suburban centers. Whereas in the 1780s communication between scattered parts of the country could take weeks or even months, today it happens in seconds. In the 1780s most Americans were illiterate. In the 1780s women couldn't vote or even--in many states--own property independent of men. In the 1780s we didn't even know what a galaxy was. Electricity was unharnessed. Hell, even STEAM power was a thing of the future. And, BTW, federal senators were APPOINTED by state legislatures and governors, not directly elected by the people. Changing that was a small step for progress, but an important one.

There is nothing inherently sacred or immutable about the US constitution. It was, perhaps, the best possible way to try to run a country in 1788, but I think we've made quite a bit of progress since then, in science, human and civil rights. Too bad our politics so often lags so far behind.

[Jenoch]

184. So you would prefer that the U.S. Senate be abolished?

Please explain to me how that would or could ever happen.

[thucythucy]

185. It won't happen in our lifetimes, certainly.

I don't have all the answers.

I do know though that the current system is outdated and unfair.

Just take another instance that grinds my gears: voting.

The reason federal elections are on the first Tuesday of November is because back in the 1780s, when most voters were small farmers, elections had to be scheduled well after the harvest. They couldn't be on a Sunday because the churches would object. It might take some farmers all day to ride a wagon or walk to the nearest polling place, so Tuesday it had to be.

Today, most voters work at a job the first Tuesday in November. So those who work 9 to 5 have less of a chance of being able to vote than those who don't--which is one reason why seniors are disproportionately represented almost every election.

Most other democracies schedule their elections so that workers have an easier time voting, not a harder time. In some countries federal elections are on the weekends, and scheduled over two or three days, giving workers a better shot at the franchise.

Simply changing WHEN we have our elections would, I think, make a big difference in who gets elected.

But no, I don't expect any changes at all--those who benefit most from the current system are too deeply entrenched and too powerful. Hell, we can't even get voters in the District of Columbia a voting member in Congress, let alone two senators, even though there are more voters in DC than in the entire state of Wyoming. How is that fair? Remember: "taxation without representation is tyranny!" Unless you happen to live in the District of Columbia.

I wish we could work out all the problems of the world on DU, but of course that can't happen.

Ah well.

In the meantime, best wishes to you and yours.

[Jenoch]

191. In Minnesota we have a law in which an employer

must allow employees paie time off to vote if they are unable to get to the polls in non-working hours.

The reason I don't want to change the way congress is set up is that I know the only way a change would be made is if there was a total collapse of the government and society. That would only happen through a world wide conomic collapse due to an environmental catastrophe or world wide nuclear destruction.

[thucythucy]

247. That is a very enlightened law you have in Minnesota.

And I suspect you're right--it would most probably take some major political or economic catastrophe to bring about these sorts of changes, and even then there's no guarantee the changes would be for the better. So we're stuck with what we've got, and have to do the best we can. This won't stop me from griping, through!

Best wishes.

[CreekDog]

220. 38 million Californians need to have more of a say than 600,000 Wyomingans

that's all there is to it.

if you want something else, just don't say it's free country. don't say everybody's vote counts, etc.

[ManiacJoe]

230. The 38 million CA residents do have more say.

However, their more say stops at the CA borders, as it should.

The folks in CA most definitely do not know what is better for WY more than the folks in WY do. To think otherwise is just silly. If the senators from CA think they have a good idea for the whole country, then they need to put their debate skills to use and make their case.

While my WA congressmen may have more "representation" in Congress over WY due to their larger numbers, I certainly do not want to be "run over" buy the voters from CA and NY just because they out number me.

I am very happy with the way the Senate is used to cover the "minority rights" part of "majority rules with minority rights." Does that slow down good legislation? Absolutely it does. More importantly, it slows down the bad legislation which Congress is so good at introducing. Better that no legislation get passed than bad legislation get passed.

[thucythucy]

256. The current structure of the senate didn't stop

the Patriot Act, the Iraq war, DOMA, or a host of other bad pieces of legislation.

It did, however, stop the public option, a better stimulus package, stronger union rights, and a raft of other good measures that passed under the Pelosi House but couldn't get passed the Senate.

Senators from Wyoming and other small states make and affect policies that affect the entire nation. These include Supreme Court and other federal court appointees, cabinet confirmations, Senate investigations and hearings, etc.

If the influence of the senators from Wyoming and Mississippi stopped at the borders of Wyoming and Mississippi, I'd have no problem. But their actions have an impact on Californians, New Yorkers, and far beyond. The DOMA act threatened to mess up gay rights in Massachusetts--how is that protecting "minority rights."

I have yet to hear a cogent example of how the "rights" of Wyoming might be "swamped" by California or New York or other more populous states having a say more proportionate to their populations. How is Wyoming being "oppressed" by California? What is it the "small" states are so worried about?

[ManiacJoe]

262. I am willing to take the good with the bad.

Based on my observations, senators from the "big" states often do not have my interests at heart. Sometimes, but not always.

The current structure of the senate didn't stop the Patriot Act, the Iraq war, DOMA, or a host of other bad pieces of legislation.

It did, however, stop the public option, a better stimulus package, stronger union rights, and a raft of other good measures that passed under the Pelosi House but couldn't get passed the Senate.

Far too many Dems voted for that first line of shit.

Not enough work by the Dems to pass the second set, including my reps in that count.

[CreekDog]

300. Well California would support protecting gays from discrimination, Wyoming does not

why would you be against that rule running over Washington?

environmental laws? you want Wyoming's environmental laws?

and again, where you're wrong is that we have a say in the national laws, which are also the law in other states.

i have a say in the laws that govern Olympic National Park and Yellowstone.

you say i don't and i shouldn't. you're wrong. i do and i should.

stop being wrong. try harder.

[ManiacJoe]

305. I appologize for your misunderstanding.

> Well California would support protecting gays from discrimination, Wyoming does not

Some of CA would, any way. WY, like CA, does not always do the right thing.

> why would you be against that rule running over Washington?

No one said I would be. CA as the stopped clock being right twice a day?

> environmental laws? you want Wyoming's environmental laws?

No, nor do I want CA's environmental laws. WA does environmental laws quite nicely, thank you.

> and again, where you're wrong is that we have a say in the national laws, which are also the law in other states.
> i have a say in the laws that govern Olympic National Park and Yellowstone.
> you say i don't and i shouldn't. you're wrong. i do and i should.

I never said you didn't. Yes, you do have a say. Fortunately it is a diluted say. Just as fortunately as my say over you is diluted.

> stop being wrong. try harder.

If disagreeing with you is the definition of being wrong, yay me.

[Savannahmann]

168. Interesting take

Wyoming has one Representative in the House, the minimum allowable. California has 53 all based strictly upon the population. So let me ask you this. In the House, who is running all over whom?

How would you decide to allocate Senators? We only have 100, limited as it is by the constitutional limit of 2 per state. So taking away Wyoming's two senators, to give to California would accomplish what besides driving another state hoplessly out of reach for Democrats?

Perhaps you would allocate Senators much like we do Represenatives, based upon population. Wyoming would get one, the minimum allowed, California would get 53 based upon population. Then Republicans would control the House and the Senate with Gerymandering.

Besides giving control of the Senate to the Rethugs, is there a reason for this discussion other than nonsense?

[thucythucy]

172. Republicans run the federal House because Democrats stayed home in 2010,

enabling them to gerrymander districts out of all recognition. GOTV has therefore to be the number one priority of every progressive and every Democrat from now to November.

Otherwise, Republicans will get the Senate anyway.

Regardless of the current corruption, the idea of millions of Californians (or New Yorkers, or Texans for that matter) being outweighed by a few hundred thousand voters from Wyoming, South Dakota, Alaska, is inherently undemocratic. The Senate exists in its current form because the elites of the late 18th century were afraid of "the masses." It would be nice to think we've outgrown such an elitist and aristocratic notion of politics.

[DanTex]

207. Actually, Wyoming is also over-represented in the house.

The population of CA is more than 53 times larger than the population of WY. So the citizens of Wyoming are running all over the citizens of CA in both the house and the Senate.

[Art_from_Ark]

222. More powerful than 53 California representatives!

Able to leap tall Capitol buildings in a single bound! It's Supercongressman!

[DanTex]

224. Per capita, yes. States are not people, you know.

Obviously, since there are more people in CA, the total influence if CA is greater. As it should be.

I'm not sure why rural conservatives find this so hard to comprehend.

[Art_from_Ark]

228. Each state has equal rights under the laws of the US,

therefore each state should be equally represented in at least one chamber of Congress.

[DanTex]

233. Of course, the good ol' "that's just the way it is" defense.

Probably the single all-time favorite argument for defenders of inequality and injustice.

[badtoworse]

235. Actually, more like the "that's the way it should be" defense.

[DanTex]

239. Except for the lack of any rationale for the "should" part...

[badtoworse]

303. There's planty of rationale. It just doesn't suit your agenda.

[Art_from_Ark]

236. Nonsense

Look, big not states not only get to have more representatives based on their population, they also get to have more electoral votes-- so they have far more clout in Presidential elections.

[DanTex]

242. Big states also have more people. One person, one vote. That's equality.

Giving some people more influence simply because of where they live is inequality, plain and simple. Like I said, I don't know why rural conservatives are so confused about the very simple concept of equal representation.

[Art_from_Ark]

249. But it's NOT one person, one vote in Presidential elections

That was so painfully illustrated in 2000 when the man who received the most popular votes "lost" because the key big state cast its votes for the other, lesser candidate, under rather dubious circumstances.

[DanTex]

253. Yes, the electoral college is also dumb.

Another example of a decision by the founding fathers that is still having negative consequences to this day.

[Jack Rabbit]

16. The majority can always run over the one elitist they put in charge

He's probably too big for his breeches, anyway.

[pipoman]

21. We are a republic based on democratic principals

An expectation of perfection or infallibility is unrealistic silliness. To understand the success of this model, one must study the models of government available in the 18th century. With that insight, one can truly appreciate what was created at that time.

[CreekDog]

200. so you're saying that our system is based on 18th century models, and shouldn't be changed

it's was the best available in the 1700's.

don't change anything about it now.

[BlindTiresias]

212. You will find

that many people actually do think this. People will keep on deifying the founding fathers and take the original structure of American federalism as a Thing Never To Be Revised until suffers a catastrophic failure, and then it is too late to revise -or- preserve.

[DonCoquixote]

287. what defense would YOU put in place

to make sure that people had to do more than secured NY, TX CA, and FL to run the nation? I say this as someone from FL by the way, one that would gain due to population.

[pnwmom]

310. What would the benefit be of one person in charge

instead of two houses of Congress, plus a President?

[TreasonousBastard]

371. Depends on the person, but...

there wouldn't be any gridlock.

The British parliamentary system is close. The majority party installs the PM who runs things. If he screws up enough he could be ousted, with some difficulty, though, but he won't have a chance to sell the country off. It's worked for them for a few hundred years.

Not that any system is perfect or everlasting. All systems are designed by humans, run by humans, and are subject to human flaws. The trick is to reduce those flaws to a manageable level. The Philosopher King was one idea, maybe not the best, but it had merit.

[pnwmom]

372. "Depends on the person." And that makes it entirely not worth the risk.

Dividing the power reduces the risk.

[TreasonousBastard]

373. And what reward is there without risk?

[pnwmom]

374. There's always some risk. But I prefer reasonable risk to insane risk.n/t

[MohRokTah]

28. Except the House no longer represents the population.

One word: Gerrymandering.

We live in a nation where minority rules.

[TreasonousBastard]

33. For now.

[Jenoch]

118. Gerrymandering goes both ways in many instances.

[Gothmog]

203. There is a twenty year cycle for redistricting

Redistricting is done every ten years and due to the four year presidential cycle, redistricting occurs on both presidential and mid term elections. 2010 was a mid term election and the GOP was able to lock in gains in redistricting. 2000 was a year when the GOP won the White House (thanks to Nader and the SCOTUS) but according to the current demographic trends, 2020 should be a good year for Democrats. Even in 2000, the Texas GOP had to resort to mid term redistricting to undo some of the results of the 2000 redistricting.

I would love to see non-partisan redistricting programs like the one in California go into effect for all of the states including blue states. There are some really interesting districts in Illinois. In the mean time, we need to work like crazy to try to mitigate the effects of the GOP gerrymandered districts. If the generic ballot differential is more than 8% to 10%, then we can retake the House. In 2006, the GOP redistricting did not matter much.

The GOP may start becoming reasonable if they see the 2020 election look like a large Democratic sweep at the state level and may be willing to compromise on redistricting.

Finally, the Texas redistricting case go to trial in July of this year. The Democrats and the DOJ have a good case. That case may lessen the effect of the GOP redistricting in Texas. The State of Texas would save a great deal of money if it used non-partisan redistricting methods.

In addition, the same conservative group who won in the Shelby County case just filed suit in Texas on Texas State Senate cases. http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60696 The redistricting cases going to trial on July do not include Texas State Senate seats but this case is making an interesting argument based on population differences between districts compared to voting age populations of districts. Again, this lawsuit is being brought by the same conservative group who won the Shelby County case.

[MohRokTah]

215. Texas and Tom DeLay threw that cycle overboard.

The courts sided with them, too.

Redistricting can happen at any time in any stat due to the Texas precedent, so the cycle is BS now.

[joshcryer]

282. apportionment is the bigger deal

Washington argued we needed 1 rep for every 30k people.

[DanTex]

52. How does giving some people more influence than others reduce tyranny of the majority?

It actually does the opposite. Sure, if you live in Wyoming, then it's great, because you have far more power than an ordinary American, but people who live in, say Brooklyn, are even more vulnerably to tyranny of the majority.

With unequal representation, you can control a majority of the Senate without even having a majority of the population on your side. It makes it easier for one group of people to tyrannize another.

[TreasonousBastard]

64. So, find a better way...

Explain how a parliamentary system would work better. Or perhaps a term-limited dictator. Or a pure democracy with national "town meetings" over every issue.

The US is, at its core, really an amalgam of several different countries. Wyoming has very different concerns from Illinois and if we were closer to a real Democracy it would end up not only ignored, but a dumping ground for anything the rest of the country doesn't want.

[DanTex]

67. A better way? OK, how about changing the senate so that each voter has equal influence.

For example, by merging states into equal population blocs of two senators each, or by assigning different numbers of senators to each state according to population.

I'm sure Wyoming has a lot of legitimate concerns. So do Staten Island and Fresno. I'm not sure why the people in Wyoming deserve two whole senators while those of Staten Island and Fresno have to share their senators with tens of millions of others.

Equal representation is all I'm after.

[TreasonousBastard]

70. Interesting thought...

merging state Senators, but I doubt there's a chance in hell of it happening. Just like a lot of other interesting ideas that will die in the face of a Constitutional Convention that will never happen.

Anyway, I'm kinda pissed at the situation myself, since anyone in Delaware has a good chance of seeing a Senator at breakfast in the IHOP but my two Senators might as well be Olympic Gods for all they seem to care about what's happening out here. Gillibrand does get within a hundred miles of here at least once a year, but that's usually NYC and the ticket costs a bundle. The other guy we've never seen and rarely hear from.

California, Pennsylvania, Texas... all in the same boat. Maybe Wyoming can keep its two Senators and we could get three?

[DanTex]

72. No, it won't happen.

Particularly since it would require the very people who benefit from the current system to voluntarily give up their privilege in the interests of equal representation. Not likely.

What's really unfortunate is that the flaws in the house and the senate both currently favor Republicans. In the senate, low population states tend to be rural red states (though not all -- Vermont, Delaware, Hawaii, etc). In the house, the problem is that Democratic voters are more concentrated into highly blue urban districts, which means that, even without redistricting problems, a 50-50 popular vote is likely to result in a GOP-controlled house, where more districts go red than blue, but the average Dem wins by a larger margin than the average Rep.

[thucythucy]

179. Not to mention, the people of the District of Columbia,

which has a population on a par with some entire states, who get none.

Equal representation is precisely what is needed.

[Hip_Flask]

199. Take a hint...

They are fine with that because they don't live there...

[CreekDog]

221. not true. when i lived in Arizona and Utah, I had no problem with CA having more power

none at all.

California has more people, if they didn't have more power, it would be ridiculous.

besides, my interests and goals are not specific to California or to any state in particular.

[Hip_Flask]

240. You don't seem concerned...

... That the lower population states would become the dumping grounds for America while at the same time losing all benefits and infrastructure.

NIMBY in its ultimate form...

Maybe you are just counting on the good will of the majority to provide resources for the minority.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

327. I don't think the evidence supports your claim.

The people in Congress trying to improve the lives of those in the low population states are those from the large blue states. Those working to keep everyone in low population red states in poverty and without healthcare are their own red-state leaders. Heck, it's also been shown again and again that blue states are net providers of money to the government and red states are net takers. Blue state people constantly try to raise up their red state neighbours.

[Hip_Flask]

330. The two are unrelated...

A California senator who votes to bring a new Highway or water treatment plant to Wyoming instead of his home area will be out on his ass.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

332. Which is why rural electrification and the TVA

passed entirely on the votes of the affected states. Oh wait, they didn't.

National politicians are just that, 'national'. They're there to do things to benefit the entire nation. Your state legislature and governor are the correct people to only consider the interests of your own state.

[CreekDog]

365. No, you take a hint

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=313264&sub=trans

Hip_Flask

Hip_Flask's Profile


Transparency Status

Information on this Transparency page is currently displayed to logged-in members because the member's posting privileges were revoked on Apr 23, 2014.

Posting Privileges Revoked

Revoked on------Reason-------Revoked by
Apr 23, 2014----Gun nut troll.-EarlG(Administrator)

For more information see Terms of Service

[NYC_SKP]

366. Copa Cabana!!!

Her name was Lola!

"Copacabana (At The Copa)"

Her name was Lola, she was a showgirl
With yellow feathers in her hair and a dress cut down to there
She would merengue and do the cha-cha
And while she tried to be a star
Tony always tended bar
Across the crowded floor, they worked from 8 til 4
They were young and they had each other
Who could ask for more?

[Chorus:]
At the copa (CO!) Copacabana (Copacabana)
The hottest spot north of Havana (here)
At the copa (CO!) Copacabana
Music and passion were always in fashion
At the copa.... they fell in love

His name was Rico
He wore a diamond
He was escorted to his chair, he saw Lola dancing there
And when she finished,he called her over
But Rico went a bit to far
Tony sailed across the bar
And then the punches flew and chairs were smashed in two
There was blood and a single gun shot
But just who shot who?

[Chorus]

At the copa... she lost her love

Her name is Lola, she was a showgirl,
But that was 30 years ago, when they used to have a show
Now it's a disco, but not for Lola,
Still in dress she used to wear,
Faded feathers in her hair
She sits there so refined,and drinks herself half-blind
She lost her youth and she lost her Tony
Now she's lost her mind

[Chorus]

At the copa... don't fall in love
Don't fall in love

[Spider Jerusalem]

121. I'm tired of people who seem to think that "republic" and "democracy" are mutually exclusive terms.

The US is has a republican form of government and representative democracy. And it wasn't so brilliantly designed if the result is the majority being dictated to by the minority. (Fun fact, part of the reason for the imbalance of power in the Senate was to protect slavery. Is that really a relevant concern, now?)

[Art_from_Ark]

299. The reason for the "imbalance of power" in the Senate

was to protect small states, most of which were in the North (see "New Jersey Plan&quot . It was America's first slave state, Virginia, that proposed a plan for proportionate representation in both houses of Congress.

[blm]

153. We have a democratic republic. This nation has always operated as a hybrid.

.

[phleshdef]

193. A republic is a type of a democracy.

[AlinPA]

370. I'm somewhat off topic, but MI voters' banning affirmative action at UM is a case of the majority

running over the minority and the SC saying that an election can't be overturned. The voters, not the legislators did the "running over" the minority and didn't need the house or senate to do it. IMO, we will see a lot more of this sort of thing now, and the 1964 Civil Rights Act will be eroded by states' votes. The AZ, KS and MS anti-gay/anti-minority laws can really move ahead now with the precedent of the MI decision.

[oneofthe99]

2. It was never intended to be a democracy

They don't work well and never will.

[CreekDog]

7. so you're saying democracies don't work, therefore, it's good to do things

in a way different from democracy.

are you sure you have thought this through?

[oneofthe99]

9. good reading

http://faculty.frostburg.edu/phil/forum/PlatoRep.htm

[BlindTiresias]

15. Philosophy guy here

Plato hates federal republics too, and would despise liberalism in general (classical liberalism) as well as capitalism.

[oneofthe99]

17. I'm just throwing it out there for the OP to read , she could also read the Republic by Plato

Just my opinion but for all it's faults a Republic is the closest thing there is to a fair system of government.

It's certainly not perfect or even close but it was well thought and for the most part it works.

The one thing that we are sure would never work is a democracy . Our Founding fathers knew that

[BlindTiresias]

18. The history of republics

Is just as bad as democracies, so I wouldn't look to history to support your argument.

[oneofthe99]

19. My argument is for present time

Edit to add

If you have a system of government that you think would work better I would like to hear it.

[BlindTiresias]

20. Ideologies look towards the future

Nothing has ultimately worked in perpetuity. Things change, new challenges emerge, old systems prove to not be up to the task and so are replaced. I'm not fortuneteller so I can't tell you what will replace this order, just that it will eventually happen.

[AngryAmish]

27. The history of every form of government stinks

It is the people who make up the population that determine if a country works.

There are well run monarchies. There are monarchies which are hell on earth.

[muriel_volestrangler]

23. Will you give your definition of a 'republic', please?

You obviously mean something more than just 'not a monarchy'.

Are you actually advocating the system Plato put forth in The Republic?

The one thing that we are sure would never work is a democracy . Our Founding fathers knew that

What's your definition of 'democracy', too, in that case? Using the definition in general use, the nations that have achieved most for their members have been democracies.

[CreekDog]

223. Don't run away from what you posted

if you put it out there to criticize what someone else says, OWN it. OWN what you post.

what the heck? you use something to disagree with someone else then you wash your hands of it?

they why did YOU use it in an argument?

insincere at best, game playing at worst.

[oneofthe99]

243. My statement was clear

I don't play word games

[CreekDog]

255. you ran away from it, you were quoting it and then when questioned you said...

that you just posted it and then you ran from it like it was chasing you.

the quote you tried to win an argument with, the minute you were expected to defend your use of it, you had no use for it.

that IS a game.

[oneofthe99]

261. I didn't run away , It's not my definition of what a republic or

what a democracy is or which would work better.

This is older than you or I. This has been debated ad nauseam in thousands of classes and in real life.

I asked if there is a better system of government than what we have now I would like to see it proposed.

So far I have read this entire thread and I haven't been convinced .

[yeoman6987]

26. Supposedly the Republic is the best system in the World

That is what I have heard from numerous sources. I am not really sure one way or the other.

[DanTex]

45. That doesn't make it right.

Arbitrarily giving some people more political power than other simply because of where they live doesn't make the system better, it makes it worse.

Remember, the founders also intended to protect slavery. They weren't infallible.

[Journeyman]

3. Ten states have 20 senators - 20% . . .

40 states have 80.

Not much difference, granted, but you may want to edit.

[CreekDog]

6. thanks, too many numbers running in my head!

[cui bono]

4. I think the 2 senators per state is outdated myself.

There needs to be some checks and balances but at a certain point this just became unbalanced.

[joshcryer]

10. It was actually by design. The House is proportional represention.

The Senate was to be state representation, that is, the Senate and Houses of the states would select the Senators. The Seventeenth amendment changed that because what was happening was that Senators were corrupted by it, they didn't have to meet the will of the people, but merely the people that the people represented.

[Shandris]

12. Keep in mind that even though Wyoming may have the same number of Senators as...

...California, the people of Wyoming (to a lesser or greater degree) have regional understandings/beliefs/differences than the people of California, who are different than the people of Indiana, who are different than the people of Vermont, and so on. Forgetting just how huge the US is compared to, say, the EU is a good way to silence entire regions simply because fewer people live there.

The rush to authoritarianism is fast enough as it is; we need to be careful and not push it along.

[muriel_volestrangler]

24. But the boundaries of states have been set up pretty arbitrarily

The people of Idaho and Montana are probably closer to each other in their regional understandings/beliefs than the people of New York City and upstate New York. North Dakota and South Dakota - why 2 states, next to each other, admitted to the union on the same day?

Politics and society are about people, not land area. "Because fewer people live there" is a pretty good reason for them having a smaller voice in the collective decisions.

[Shandris]

375. NYC and upstate NY MIGHT be one of the few areas where that is true...

...but they don't serve as the general rule (California would be another one; I'd hate to break that one into geographical regions!). Generically speaking, Columbus Ohio and Pittsburgh will have more in common that, say, Columbus and New York City. I know it has more in common with Indianapolis than New York City, and Indy has more in common with St. Louis and Kansas City than Seattle or San Francisco.

But there's no getting around the fact that coasters and midwesterners, and southerners, and westerners inside the mountains, and other quasi-geographical groupings are vastly different. I'm sorry, but you don't to arbitrarily shut them up because they didn't choose to live on a coast no matter how much we may disagree with them on certain topics. That's what the House is for. The Senate is whole nother thing.

[muriel_volestrangler]

376. But it goes more with accidents of history than type of place

Some of the small population states are on the east coast - Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Delaware - very close to the large New York. They're separate because of a historical pattern of colonisation, or argument about religious freedom, or other event that may be interesting, but really shouldn't have such an effect on modern-day federal legislation.

[DanTex]

69. Are you saying that the understandings/beliefs/concerns of the people in, say, Staten Island

are less important than those of the people in Wyoming? Really?

I tend to think that every American's concerns and beliefs are equally important, and that everyone should have equal representation in government. But if we are going to have a system which insists that some people are more important than others, at the very least we should have a serious debate about which people are more important and why, rather than having it be based on arbitrary boundaries that were drawn centuries ago.

[theboss]

146. I think the last thing we want is to pay attention to the beliefs or concerns of Staten Island

I'm not sure the Republic could survive that.

[CreekDog]

226. well the Senate is such that it would be akin to Staten Island getting 2 senators...

and the rest of NYC getting 2 senators.

[CreekDog]

225. that's ridiculous. i lived in 3 different states and i am the same person

i did not magically change from one person to another as a consequence of moving from state to state to state.

[ManiacJoe]

13. The Senate represents the states not the poeple.

The people are represented by the House.

The system works as designed. Whether or not you like the design is a different discussion.

[hfojvt]

14. how does that work out by party?

The top ten states by population
California - two Democrats
Texas - two Republicans
New York - two Democrats
Florida - one of each
Illinois - one of each
Pennsylvania - one of each
Ohio - one of each
Michigan - two Democrats
Georgia - two Republicans
North Carolina - one of each

11/20 Democrats, 9/20 Republicans

the other 80 then?

44/80 Democrats, 36/80 Republicans

Percentages are equal. The small states are 55% Democrats, the large states 55%.

The ten smallest states by population

Wyoming - two Republicans
Vermont - two Democrats
North Dakota - one of each
Alaska - one of each
South Dakota - one of each
Delaware - two Democrats
Montana - two Democrats
Rhode Island - two Democrats
Hawaii - two Democrats
New Hampshire - one of each

14/20 Democrats 6/20 Republicans

The smallest states seem to heavily favor the Democratic Party.

How undemocratic can you get?

[CreekDog]

227. the question wasn't asking to rerun the 2012 election under the scenario you cited

come on. we are talking about a concept.

[pipoman]

22. It's always surprising how many

Haven't a clue of history or context of our system of government. It reminds me of those 'man on the street' polls that find nobody who knows who the vice president is...

oh, and you're not alone. ...everybody thinks they should rule everyone else.

[DanTex]

39. That's not it.

People understand the history perfectly well. The problem is that some poor decisions made 200+ years ago have the effect of undermining democracy, and those undemocratic decisions are very difficult to change, because the people who are over-represented don't have much interest in making the system more equitable.

[pipoman]

165. Of course by "more equitable"

you mean ceding their constitutional rights to representation to those who know what's best for them, huh?

Oh, and the US isn't a "democracy", it is a republic based on democratic principles. That means that every citizen's vote matters, and that the populous areas don't get to rule the sparse areas. It means that what's good for residents New York may be bad for Nebraska. It means that infrastructure exists where few people live.

[DanTex]

195. Of course, I don't expect the privileged class to simply give up their privileges.

On the contrary, I expect them to cling to their privilege, and make all kinds of preposterous arguments as to why that privilege is justified (for example, what you are doing).

Like I said, you didn't see too many medieval lords eager to share power with their serfs. So it's not surprising that rural conservative white people aren't too receptive to the argument that urban minorities deserve the same amount of say in government as them.

[NutmegYankee]

25. The Senate represents states. The House is based on population.

Believe it or not, they used to teach basic fundamental US government concepts like this back in school. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Compromise

We have a Democratic Republic. One of the key things in a republic of that type is the concept of Majority Rule, Minority Rights. While the Majority rules, the Minority retains certain rights that cannot be undone by the Majority.

[muriel_volestrangler]

29. But minority rights are not defined by the votes in the Senate

What the senate system protects, as the Wikipedia entry points out, is the power of states, not the rights of any minority.

[NutmegYankee]

30. What are you responding to?

I was commenting on how we don't have a "Democracy" as the OP stated, but a Democratic Republic. The concept of minority rights isn't in a pure Democracy. The Senate discussion was a separate topic in the OP.

[muriel_volestrangler]

296. I was responding to your invocation of minority rights

Since you brought it up in this thread, I thought you meant it's relevant to why a state should have 2 seats whatever the population. The senate discussion is the only topic in the OP.

If you're going to insist on talking about "a democracy", then I should point out that the OP doesn't talk about "a democracy" - just about "democracy" (no article) as a value, not a system (as it could ask "how can we have equality when ...&quot . The description of the USA as "a democratic republic" still requires democracy.

[NutmegYankee]

306. Minority Rights are part of what seperates a republic apart from a pure democracy.

Our first Amendment is a great example -it serves to primarily protect the minorities right to speech. Even minority speakers we hate, like the Fred Phelps, were allowed to speak even though a clear majority would have preferred he be silenced. I realize the Court has perverted it's meaning of late with campaigns, but it still is a great protection.

Since I'm a card carrying ACLU member, this concept of protection of minorities is important to me.

[DanTex]

65. That doesn't make it right.

Here's another fundamental US government concept.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise

Having a Democratic republic doesn't mean that we have to have grossly unequal representation like we do in the senate. There is simply no justification for giving some privileged people a huge amount of extra political influence, at the expense of others who's only sin is living in the wrong part of the country.

[NutmegYankee]

73. Not fundamental at all - in fact, it doesn't exist any more

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The Senate is a check and balance and is part of a federalist system. Given the 17th Amendment this shouldn't even be an issue. Hell, the Senate actually gives us a chance in many states - House districts are too easily gerrymandered.

[DanTex]

74. Yes, it was fundamental, at the time.

Checks and balances are great. What's not great is that the senate arbitrarily gives some people far more representation than others. It's possible to have checks and balances and also equal representation.

I'm not sure why the people in Wyoming deserve to have so much more influence over the senate's checks and balances than the people from Staten Island. It seems that some people here actually think Wyomingers are somehow superior to Staten Islanders. Otherwise, why the special privilege?

[NutmegYankee]

75. No, 3/5th was never of of central importance.

It was a sub tier issue of mechanics to finish the deal. The bicameral legislative body on the other hand IS fundamental.

In your example, you complain that Wyoming has the same representation in the Senate as New York. This is part of a check and balance in the Senate. Given that most of the US population lives on the Coasts or the East, why would they ever choose to do things in Wyoming? Wyoming gets an equal voice in the Senate, whereas it has basically nothing in the House.

You act as though Wyoming has more voice. That is incorrect. It has the same number of senators as any other state. We have 1 body that is filled by apportionment. New York has quite a bit of representation there.

The Senate balances out the House.

[CreekDog]

78. 3/5ths was of central importance to black men in this country

as for Wyoming's influence? mass transit funding and support (lack of) reflects small, rural states' oversize influence, absolutely it does.

[NutmegYankee]

80. Isn't that nice. Shame the topic was the Constitution and Constitutional Convention.

Last edited Mon Apr 21, 2014, 12:57 PM - Edit history (1)

The discussion is over fundamental or not.

[CreekDog]

82. you're shaming me for brining up slavery in a discussion of minority rights

no, shame on you.

and I started the thread. don't tell me what not to talk about, and don't tell me that slavery isn't relevant to a discussion about the constitution.

what kind of liberal or DUer takes such a position?

[NutmegYankee]

98. I and DanTex were discussing the Senate.

The 3/5th discussion centered on what was fundamental to the functioning of the Government. I argued that it wasn't "fundamental" (and doesn't exist any more), versus the bicameral legislature which is. And given the structure of Article I, that would be true.

what kind of liberal or DUer takes such a position?

Which position is that? That the Senate in a bicameral legislature is good? That two house legislature, one for states and one for people is fundamental to the American form of government?
Or were you attempting to use a combination of Straw man and Red Herring fallacies against me?

[CreekDog]

101. well DanTex isn't defending you

so...

[NutmegYankee]

105. Defend me from what?

[DanTex]

99. I think race is probably a touchy subject for people arguing in favor of entrenched inequality.

[NutmegYankee]

133. If you wish to make such an accusation -

Do it openly and we'll let a jury settle it.

[DanTex]

136. OK. People arguing in favor of entrenched inequality (i.e. you)

probably don't want race to be part of the discussion because race is another glaring example of entrenched inequality that was defended for years with specious arguments. Essentially, the only arguments we've seen in favor of unequal representation boil down to "the founders are always right" and "some people deserve more representation than others". The history of race in this country shows the dangers of both of those arguments.

And then consider the fact that many of the people who end up with less representation under the current unequal senate are often minorities, and it starts to become clear why proponents of inequality don't want race to be part of the discussion. It's just kind of, say, odd, to be arguing that the 500,000 in Wyoming should have two senators all to themselves while the 2.5 million people who live in Brooklyn don't. One has to wonder what would happen if instead of rural conservative white people being over-represented, it was urban minorities. Suppose Brooklyn had 10 senators (two for every 500K people, same rate as Wyoming) and if Queens had another 8 senators.

I think maybe in that case a lot of the conservatives defending the current system of entrenched inequality might have second thoughts.

[NutmegYankee]

139. That word salad is your accusation?

Cut the shit. You want the cities to dominate the rural areas with no check to protect rural areas. I've repeatedly asked how you would prevent smaller states like Vermont from being ignored and you just answered back with ad hominems and other fallacies. Because you have made it clear implicitly that you don't care about them.

You are dancing around calling me conservative and racist simply because I disagree with you on the structure of our government. Seriously?

[DanTex]

140. Well, you are certainly making a very conservative argument.

Anti-urbanism is a very conservative idea (e.g. Sarah Palin claiming that "real Americans" live in small towns), and you are taking it to an extreme by stating that urban people actually deserve less per capita representation in government as rural people. I have no idea whether you are actually conservative or whether you have some progressive views on some issues also, but the argument you are making is heard from conservatives.

I'm not calling you a racist, let's be clear. I'm saying that you would rather not have race be part of the conversation, because you don't want to be reminded that the system of unequal representation that you are in favor of results in minorities getting less representation. For example, right now there are a grand total of two African American senators -- and for a while recently there were zero. And more generally, entrenched inequality like what you are defending has a long history in this country, and race is certainly a part of that history.

No, I don't think you are racist, but I do think you would rather ignore the race aspects of this discussion because it makes it much more uncomfortable for you to defend entrenched inequality and political privilege for certain groups of mainly white people.

[NutmegYankee]

141. Whatever

You seem to miss that the apportionment of the House offsets the Senate apportionment by state. Not to mention that apportionment by population would not guarantee that racial minorities get an equal representation in the Senate to their percentage in population. Hell, a majority of Americans vote Democratic and yet we don't even control the House.

You keep going on and on about how some regions have more people than others, but you miss the balance the Senate provides. How else would a small state like Vermont, or even my home of Connecticut get money with their small populations in a pure population based system? I can understand why you and Creek want that, you live in large states. Your proposal would keep the small states permanently voiceless and powerless. Some equality that is.

[DanTex]

142. It's silly to argue that the house "offsets" the Senate.

Umm, because we have one chamber with equal representation, that justifies having another one that is grossly unequal? That's absurd. Each citizen's overall representation in government should be equal, period.

The fact that rural people are your favorite group of victims doesn't mean that urban people should be punished with less representation in government. I can think of a whole bunch of other groups of people who feel victimized, but I can't think of many that have the gall to insist that they should have more representation in government than anyone else.

I guess I need to remind you again that states are not people. States are political entities. What matters is that the people are equally represented. With a system of equal representation, a person living in Wyoming will have the same representation as a person living in Brooklyn, no more, no less. Which is just.

PS. So how many of these posts of mine have you alerted on? Just one or are you going down the whole thread?

[NutmegYankee]

143. You just keep missing the point.

Over and over again. It is obvious we are not going to reach a middle position. I need to get back to preparing the garden for planting. It's been an interesting discussion none-the-less.

[CreekDog]

232. you won't accept a middle position

you've defined what we have as the middle.

[yawnmaster]

353. How was it important to the slaves in the south?? eom

[CreekDog]

355. It empowered slave states over non-slave states, helping keep slaves from freedom

and helping expand slavery.

i'm a bit incredulous that you'd think it wasn't important to slaves in the South.

[yawnmaster]

356. those against slavery wanted it to be 0/5! Counting a slave as anything over 0 gave...

the south more representation and more money!

Therefore slaves should have wanted 0/5...that is to not be counted.

[CreekDog]

357. the slaves were human beings. they wanted to be counted fully and have full rights.

come on. think this through next time.

[FBaggins]

358. You're not paying attention

You just assume that you understand why the debate went the way it did... but you have it backwards.

The slave states wanted the slaves to count... the other states didn't want them to count at all. Were it not for the 3/5 "compromise", the southern states would have wielded more power in the House and Electoral College.

The debate had not thing one to do with what the slaves themselves wanted.

[CreekDog]

359. QUOTE me where i said that what the slaves wanted was considered in the debate

ONE QUOTE.

and stop making stuff up.

[FBaggins]

364. Easy

"It empowered slave states over non-slave states, helping keep slaves from freedom - and helping expand slavery. "

That's dead wrong. You can't dodge that by trying to pretend that the debate was really about whether or not their desires were considered.

[yawnmaster]

360. Do you really think they, the slaves, had much, if any, knowledge about how the constitution...

was being negotiated? really??
and you are wrong...the slave owners wanted their slaves to be counted fully.
The anti-slave north did not want to give the south the added representation and therefore more power.

0, 3/5, 5/5 ... It didn't have impact on everyday circumstances of those enslaved, but did have impact on the power of the southern states.

Ironically, if you are arguing for full counting of each slave you are arguing for giving the southern states more power and supporting slavery!

[CreekDog]

361. do you think they needed any special knowledge to want to be thought of as human beings?

does that take a degree or something?

do you think they needed any special knowledge to want to be able to vote and have freedom?

does wanting that take a degree or something?


this line you're arguing...it sucks.

[yawnmaster]

362. what are you arguing?? what does this have to do with the 3/5 count???

Do you think they knew that they were being counted as 3/5 from a census point of view?
and do you think if they were counted as 1/1 that slavery would have somehow ended?
(no and it may have lasted longer by the way).

0,3/5,or 5/5 had nothing to do with them having freedom or the ability to vote, or even how they were thought of as human beings! They were thought of as slaves; how they were counted had no impact on that.

and I'm not so much arguing as giving some historical information.
You, of course, are free to ignore it and try to take tangents from the points being made.

[CreekDog]

363. you don't think every detail of a slave's position in this country would be of interest to them?

you're talking about them like they weren't even human.

the fact is any person who was a slave would care what debate was going on about their fate, and they would care about the details.

to say they wouldn't is beneath this place.

[yawnmaster]

369. That is right, I don't think many even knew there was a debate going on. Do you realize that...

they didn't have internets back then and they did not have access to cspan?

[DanTex]

81. Again, a bicameral legislature doesn't have to be grossly unequal.

We can have two legislatures which are both based on the principle of equal representation. You know, one citizen, one vote.

People from Wyoming absolutely have more of a voice than people in any other state. It's great that the senate balances out the house, but you still haven't explained why Wyoming gets the lucky lottery ticket that gives it's citizens 20 times more influence per capita in the senate than people in Fresno or Staten Island.

What do you have against Staten Island? There are the same number of people there as in Wyoming. Have you ever been there or talked to anyone from there? Why makes you so convinced that they don't deserve the same number of senators of their own as Wyoming? Just because of their physical location near the Atlantic Ocean, they should be denied equal representation? Really? Well how about people in El Paso, Texas? Or Peoria, Illinois?

Tell you what, here's a compromise. Wyoming gets to keep it's enormously oversized influence in government, but at the very least, they should have to pay the same amount in taxes, total as a state, as anyone else. If people in Wyoming want to continue to have 20X as much influence as people in Staten Island, they should also have to pay 20X as much in taxes per capita. Otherwise, what we have is taxation without representation -- people in Staten Island are paying the Federal Government to do what people in Wyoming want.

[joeglow3]

86. Then, why have two houses?

[DanTex]

88. For checks and balances.

I don't see why inequality is necessary for checks and balances. Either change the number of senators per state, or merge some of the smaller states into "senate blocs" of roughly equal population.

[joeglow3]

128. Then why not have 10 houses?

Why is two the magic number? I live in a state with only one house and I don't think anything would change with a second house filled under the same mechanics of the first house.

[DanTex]

130. I don't know why. Maybe two isn't the magic number.

Maybe we don't actually need two houses after all.

But, one thing is clear. No matter how many houses there are, each citizen should be equally represented.

[yawnmaster]

354. it is a REGIONAL checks and balance, ftmp. That is why it is not based on population. eom

[NutmegYankee]

87. There is no reason for two houses if they are both by apportionment.

As for the Rest:

People from Wyoming absolutely have more of a voice than people in any other state. It's great that the senate balances out the house, but you still haven't explained why Wyoming gets the lucky lottery ticket that gives it's citizens 20 times more influence per capita in the senate than people in Fresno or Staten Island.

Last I checked Fresno and Staten island aren't states. And New York's 11th Congressional District, which is Republican held, has the same power as an entire state in the House. Balances out the Senate quite nicely.

What do you have against Staten Island? There are the same number of people there as in Wyoming. Have you ever been there or talked to anyone from there? Why makes you so convinced that they don't deserve the same number of senators of their own as Wyoming? Just because of their physical location near the Atlantic Ocean, they should be denied equal representation? Really? Well how about people in El Paso, Texas? Or Peoria, Illinois?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy
A Person in New York or California has the same representation as a person in Wyoming. Two votes. Once again, by state versus population to balance out the power of populous states. Wyoming has only 1/435th of power in the House. New York has 26 times more power in the House.

Tell you what, here's a compromise. Wyoming gets to keep it's enormously oversized influence in government, but at the very least, they should have to pay the same amount in taxes, total as a state, as anyone else. If people in Wyoming want to continue to have 20X as much influence as people in Staten Island, they should also have to pay 20X as much in taxes per capita. Otherwise, what we have is taxation without representation -- people in Staten Island are paying the Federal Government to do what people in Wyoming want.

16th Amendment: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. And speaking of a PERFECT example of why the Senate exists!!!!!

[DanTex]

95. Sure there is, for checks and balances.

You can have checks and balances without gross inequality, you know.

Last I checked Fresno and Staten island aren't states. And New York's 11th Congressional District, which is Republican held, has the same power as an entire state in the House. Balances out the Senate quite nicely.

No kidding. That's the whole point. The fact that Staten Island isn't a state doesn't justify repressing the electoral influence of the people that live there.

A Person in New York or California has the same representation as a person in Wyoming. Two votes. Once again, by state versus population to balance out the power of populous states. Wyoming has only 1/435th of power in the House. New York has 26 times more power in the House.

This is just silliness. Anyone who can divide two numbers can tell that the per capita representation in the Senate for Wyoming is around 20X larger than the representation of a person in New York. Here's a hint. Put the number of senators in the numerator, and the state population in the denominator. The quotient will yield the number of senators per capita.

16th Amendment: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. And speaking of a PERFECT example of why the Senate exists!!!!!

Umm, saying "that's the way it is" isn't a rebuttal. I'm questioning the justice and equality of the status quo. Your only response is that the status quo is, in fact, the status quo. Yes, I know that. I'm saying the status quo is bad. If people in Wyoming get more senators per capita, then they should pay more taxes per capita. Otherwise we have taxation without representation.

[NutmegYankee]

102. Why spend any money in a state like Wyoming in a pure apportioned legislative body?

Why should the people in the East even care about our rural western states? Why build roads to them? Why not just crank taxes up and make them suffer for amusement? What would they do, have their pitiful representation wail?

Gosh, I wonder how we can make a check and balance to fix that?

[DanTex]

108. For the same reason that we spend money in Staten Island.

Or El Paso. Or Peoria. Why should Wyoming have such a big advantage over Staten Island in terms of getting government spending?

And why are you so worried about Wyoming and not at all worried about Staten Island?

I don't see the people Wyoming as any more or less vulnerable than any other group of 500K people in the country. In fact, I strongly feel that every citizen, regardless of where they live, should have an equal opportunity to influence the government through the electoral process.

What's odd is that you think people in Wyoming are somehow special, and need to have two senators all to themselves, whereas most of the rest of us (except people who live in say Vermont or North Dakota) have to share two senators with millions of other people. And I still have no idea why you think this a remotely fair allocation of power.

Surely, if Wyoming gets two senators, so should Staten Island and El Paso, right? Equal protection under the laws. Equal representation in government. It's a very basic principle.

[NutmegYankee]

113. You need to sit back and think about this some more.

Think about the mechanics of how we ensure that small states don't get ignored.

[DanTex]

120. States are not people, any more than corporations are.

Every person should have equal access to government. I think the people of Wyoming deserve exactly the same representation as people in Staten Island. And frankly, I find it pretty absurd that you think that the simple fact that Wyoming is a state means that the people there should have 20X as much influence on the Senate.

I also find it pretty absurd that you think that being a state makes the people of Wyoming more vulnerable to being ignored than the people of Staten Island. Or the people of El Paso. Seriously, I have no clue what kind of mechanics you have in mind here when you insist that we don't need to worry about El Pasoans and Staten Islanders being ignored but Wyomingans are so vulnerable that they need 20X Senate representation.

[NutmegYankee]

122. Sigh

[DanTex]

123. Really? That's your answer?

[CreekDog]

216. the argument may be pointless

but the insight into one's character and belief system is not!

[Progressive dog]

183. No it doesn't and James Madison agreed with you

He consented to the unequal representation in the Senate, he did not favor it.

[yawnmaster]

352. you do realize that those supporting slavery wanted the 3/5 to be 5/5 a full representation...

of the population.
are you agreeing with the pro-slavery people??

of course you aren't, but I'm illustrating the irrelevancy of you bringing up an concept that doesn't exist any longer and doesn't having bearing on the issue being discussed.

[hack89]

31. Our system is designed to protect minority rights

it is at the core of our Constitution.

[CreekDog]

34. so was slavery

but if you want to defend it as if it was perfect.

[pintobean]

37. Insulting people like that

isn't going to get you twelve senators. Nothing is.

[CreekDog]

42. that's not your decision to make

[pintobean]

46. No shit, nor yours.

It's nothing more than an observation of reality.

[CreekDog]

49. now you're swearing?

and lecturing on civility. charming.

[pintobean]

56. You're so cute

[CreekDog]

62. sounds like your post against insults wasn't sincere

what you meant was it's not ok to insult unless you're doing it.

[NutmegYankee]

76. The use of profanity not directed at a person isn't an insult. nt

[CreekDog]

77. are you answering for him?

do you know what he's thinking?

[NutmegYankee]

79. Just correcting you.

A profane phrase like "no shit" is not an insult. It is not directed at a person. One does not have to read minds or know what one is thinking to understand that. It's inherent to knowing a language.

[CreekDog]

91. Your corrections in this thread included "shaming" me for mentioning slavery in this thread

your corrections are false and amoral.

just a fact.

[NutmegYankee]

110. What?

Please explain how my correction (Only one I made was on profanity) is false and amoral?

[pintobean]

90. Obviously, more so than you

It's just simple comprehension of what was posted.

[pipoman]

166. LOL....ffs

[CreekDog]

234. you disapprove? good.

[pipoman]

315. Not disapproval. ..disbelief

That anyone could seriously believe that the Senate system could change in the next century or three without something cataclysmic like civil war. I thought until I read this you were playing devils advocate, not that you actually believe any significant portion of the population would agree. So again..lol...ffs

[hack89]

38. Nothing man made is perfect

my only point is that the founders understood as well as most that the tyranny of the majority can be just as bad as the tyranny of one person if you happen to be the odd man out.

The make up of the Senate was specifically designed as a brake on explosive popular opinion - it makes sure that no decision of national importance is made hastily and without proper debate. It also ensures that government policy is not dominated by a handful of populous states.

[DanTex]

41. This has nothing to do with protecting minority rights.

The undemocratic nature of senate simply serves to arbitrarily give some people much more influence than others. Defending it using the "minority rights" slogan is equally absurd as defending the outsize influence of the Koch Brothers as "minority rights".

[hack89]

44. Sure is it

it was to ensure that the national discourse was not dominated by a few populous cities/states. The founders understood that the tyranny of the majority was just as bad as a single tyrant.

[DanTex]

47. But giving some people more power than others arbitrarily doesn't make things better.

It makes things worse. Sure, the tyranny of the majority is a problem, but with the senate, you don't even need a majority to be tyrannical.

Unequal representation actually makes it more likely that one group of people will tyrannize another.

[hack89]

51. True democracy would destroy America

Once a particular voting bloc got 51% of the national votes, they would ignore and disfranchise the remainder of the country.

That would be "fair". It would also be disastrous as those on the outside wonder what was in it for them as their concerns and interests were ignored.

The only way a country like America will work is through forced compromise - if everyone doesn't get some of what they want then those that get nothing will have no incentive to support America.

[CreekDog]

53. you mean like if the presidency were decided by 51% of the popular vote?

that would destroy us?

[hack89]

61. No - there are serious checks to an imperial presidency

if all social policy, tax policies, farm policies, all government spending, etc were deciding by a straight up 51% vote then we would have a disaster.

[Niceguy1]

111. you can already see that in states

States like California. ...where some of the less populated areas don t even have safe tap water and others have every luxury. .from bike trials to mass transit. Basically the bay area and socal gets everything and the restbof ca just hets scraps when it cpmes to spending.

Change the senate and that will hapen nationally

[CreekDog]

237. The Bay Area has been voting to give you more support

for State Government to expand social programs and improve funding, for the whole state, the poor areas and other areas.

the rural areas? voting against the Bay Area.

make your own state, see how much the government you're left with is willing to fund. see how much money comes from the Bay Area then.

[Niceguy1]

244. politics should effect basic services

Like it does.....change the senate and the small states wont get anything. ...a

[DanTex]

55. Equal representation doesn't require "true Democracy".

The answer is to have checks and balances, a bill of rights, everything else we have. But there's no reason we can't have those things without arbitrarily giving some people more power than others.

The system right now is totally arbitrary. How about giving people who live in Staten Island, or Fresno, CA, two whole senators of their own, rather than people from Wyoming? Why is Wyoming so special, and why do Staten Island and Fresno deserve so little representation? Who protects the people of Staten Island from tyranny?

[hack89]

59. I am loathe to change anything

simply because the people that would make the changes are the people that are in power now. There is no way to ensure that they would not take advantage of the situation to make things worse, not better.

[DanTex]

63. That's the very reason things won't change -- the people with power don't want to give it up.

They care more about themselves than they do about equal representation. The only way to actually have a fairer and more equally representative government is if the very people who enjoy disproportionate influence decide to give it up just for the sake of justice and equality.

I'm not saying that the people of Wyoming are uniquely bad people. I'm pretty sure that if Staten Island had two whole senators to themselves, they would also want to keep their position of privilege. People are like that.

[hack89]

66. But they won't give it up if it will harm them

basic human nature.

I live in RI - there is no way in hell we would give up our two senators. They have historically been a driving force in ensuring that we get our fair share of federal funds.

[DanTex]

68. Exactly. People with privilege don't want to give up that privilege.

It's a story as long as history. You didn't see many medieval lords voluntary sharing land with the serfs who worked it.

Instead, the people with privilege and power cling to that privilege. Another thing they often do is come up with convoluted "logical" arguments as to why they actually deserve that privilege. Bogus arguments in defense of inequality have been around just as long as inequality itself.

[Lonusca]

83. This is where your argument fails

The people of privilege you are railing about right now are the two Senators who defend the little guy state of Rhode Island. The states that would become powerless with your solution. The states that would be crushed by the powerful already in charge.

think this through

[DanTex]

85. In that case, the question is, why doesn't Staten Island get two senators to defend itself?

Why do only a few small groups of people get the enormous advantage of two senators all to themselves, while most Americans have to share their senators with millions of other people.

What makes Wyoming and Delaware and Rhode Island so special that they get this immense privilege?

But I'll tell you what. Here's an idea. Wyoming and RI get to keep their excess influence, but to make it fair, as a state they need to contribute just as much in taxes to the Federal Government as other states. If people in Wyoming want to have 20X as much influence per capita in the senate, then they should pay 20X more capita in taxes than people in Staten Island. Otherwise we have taxation without representation -- people in Staten Island paying taxes to support the decisions of people in Wyoming.

[Lonusca]

106. Because it's not a state.

So why don't we just eliminate the Senate? That's sort of the end effect isn't it? Two bodies of representation proportional to the people? Why have 2?

I like your solution as long as we in CA can keep our proportion of what we contribute. I am sure Texas feels the same. And Florida.

And what you will create is "shooting fish in a barrel". All the GOP needs to do then is mobilize to concentrate their enormous wealth of certain races.

Haven't I seen here the horror of the NRA and GOP walking into CO and basically getting 3, count them 3, Dems out of office? Are you under the impression that your solution would turn out well for Democrats?

You can't have it both ways. It sounds like a wonderful idea when you think it will benefit you.

[DanTex]

112. States aren't people, and state lines don't justify gross inequality of representation.

I get that legally, that's the status quo, but I'm saying the status quo is bad.

The house has its own problems, for example with redistricting, but the fact that the house has problems doesn't in any way justify the enormous inequality of the senate. I think I remember Rachel Maddow at one point stating that the Senate is either the or one of the most unequal and undemocratic parliamentary bodies in the entire first world. Two senators per state is basically an absurd relic.

[Lonusca]

131. I agree with you there.

There are gross inequalities. You and I may differ on our view of the overall situation. I think my view is the little guy view. Those senators are my protection against the bullies of TX, FL, CA, OH, etc etc. It doesn't matter what the politics of the bully states are - it's a big vs small thing. Having lived for a time in the great state of RI, you REALLY get to understand why Senators are there.

This is why I sort of jumped on your answer to Hack. When you are one of those little guy states, you really get it. Think about it - who's the first guy out of the Senate with your plan? My guess is Sanders. Is that what we want?

Don't play into GOP hands.

They would like nothing better than to be able to target 51% of the population, concentrated in the smallest geographical area, to win. And they will do it. You want to talk about the ultimate gerrymandering? Your plan gives it to them. Don't think that because LA, NYC, SF are blue now they will be in 5 years. Have you seen what a condo costs in SF? Sooner or later, the cities very well could be GOP strongholds. Remember - they don't have to win by having more people in a city just enough people with more money.

You can't rail against people like the Koch brothers and then basically give them the ideal situation to flex their money

[DanTex]

132. The thing is, there are little guys that don't live in little states.

I keep bringing up Staten Island because they have the same population as Wyoming, and are every bit as little and vulnerable, and yet they don't get two senators of their own to protect them from the bullies.

On the other hand, if you look at rural red states, sure, maybe individually they might seem small and vulnerable, but since they have a lot in common, and they have a lot of senators, the result is that they become the bullies, despite only representing a small fraction of the population at large. At the national level, it is states like NY and CA that get pushed around by WY, ND, SD, NE, etc,

As to which party would benefit from the change, I'm not sure about that. Sure, with equality in the senate, Sanders would be gone, but there are more small red states than there are blue states, so overall the shift would probably help Dems. But it's almost besides the point. Equality in representation is a value in and of itself.

[EX500rider]

268. "and yet they don't get two senators of their own to protect them from the bullies."

Sure they do, everybody in NY has 2 Senators.

[DanTex]

270. No, they don't. They have to share 2 senators with 20 million other people.

In Wyoming, 500 thousand people get 2 senators to themselves. The per capita representation is about 40 times higher for people in Wyoming than in New York. The level of inequality is staggering.

[EX500rider]

271. They have 2 Senators like every other American does.

[DanTex]

274. Not so good with math, huh. I guess division and proportionality are kind of advanced concepts.

[EX500rider]

276. No, its quite true, EVERY American has 2 Senators. (not counting DC)

[DanTex]

279. But the amount of representation per capita, which is what matters, is grossly unequal.

The problem is, to figure out per capita representation, you have to divide the number of senators by the population. I think this is where you are running into problems.

[EX500rider]

284. Which is what matter to you you mean, I like the current system.

And I live in a big state- Fla

[DanTex]

289. It's what matters in terms of equal representation.

You know, "all men are created equal" and all that. Per capita representation is the way to measure the influence of an individual citizen in government. I imagine you like the current system because you like the outcome. That's great, but it doesn't make the system just or fair.

[EX500rider]

316. The people HAVE equal representation in the House and the States have equal representation..

....in the Senate, just the way it was designed.

[DanTex]

320. Yes, the senate was designed as an unequal, undemocratic body. This is a bad thing.

The founders also made other bad designs: protecting slavery, not allowing women to vote. I'm not sure why conservatives get so obsessed with worshiping every decision they made.

The fact that the senate was designed to be unequal doesn't make it a good thing. I don't see why this is so hard to understand.

[badtoworse]

321. The "problem" is that you can't differentiate between an objective and a side effect

The founders objective was to insure that the states, as independent political units had an equal voice somewhere, i.e. in the Senate. The fact that it caused per capita Senate representation to be unequal was a side effect.

[DanTex]

322. Of course I can. But the objective doesn't justify the inequality of representation.

The objective, by the way, was to come up with a compromise in order to be able form a nation. That's the same reason that the founders protected slavery. Some of the compromises were good, others not so good.

Entrenched inequality is not good, period.

[badtoworse]

323. We'll just have to disagree about whether the structure of the Senate is good or bad.

I'm quite comfortable with the current structure of our government and wouldn't change a thing.

[DanTex]

333. Would you change the electoral college? Or give representation to DC in the house/senate?

[badtoworse]

334. DC representation, No. Electoral College, maybe - I need to think about it.

[DanTex]

335. How do you justify DC not even having one representative in the house?

That seems like a pretty straightforward case of taxation without representation.

[badtoworse]

337. "That seems like a pretty straightforward case of taxation without representation"

You're right; it is. The founding fathers did not want the capitol to be part of any state. You can argue that it's not or shouldn't be an issue anymore and there is some validity to that. My reasons for opposing it are personal. In any case, a constitutional amendment would be needed and that isn't in the cards.

[Jenoch]

328. Inequality would be the states with large populations

trodding all over the states with small populations.

[DanTex]

331. States are not people. They don't need to be equally representated.

If you insist on state equality, then how about all states pay the same amount in federal taxes? Otherwise, what we have is essentially taxation without representation. Or how about each state contributes the same number of soldiers to the military? Otherwise, the people deciding who goes to war aren't the same as the people who die in the wars. And so on. The whole notion that states need to be "equal" doesn't add up.

The fundamental principle of importance is equality of representation for citizens, not for states, or corporations, or any other kind of legal entity.

[EX500rider]

341. Unequal in your mind, making the States have some equal rights in my mind.

[CreekDog]

325. no they don't and in DC they have no representation in the Senate, do you like that?

[EX500rider]

340. Yes they DO have equal in the House and DC was set up like that for a reason.

[FBaggins]

342. Half right

Did their delegate (nor representative) ever get a floor vote in the House? Not that I can remember. They therefore cannot be said to have equal representation in the House.

And yes... of course it was set up that way for a reason (a good one)

[CreekDog]

343. No, they don't, stop posting nonsense

DC doesn't have senators --zero
DC doesn't have voting House members --zero
DC residents couldn't even vote for president until 1964 --and you defend how they were set up.

you can do better than posting nonsense.

[EX500rider]

344. Wasn't talking about DC and i even said "except DC" in a previous post.

[CreekDog]

345. you were being an apologist for the 2nd class status of DC citizens

if you're going to post these opinions, you could at least not run away from them later on.

[EX500rider]

346. I am sure MUSt know what I meant more then me, huh? LOL

[CreekDog]

347. "than"

there are other errors, but that's a good place to start...

[EX500rider]

348. And who doesn't love a grammar nazi?

[pintobean]

349. Is your caps lock key broken?

[CreekDog]

350. no, but sometimes that finger is busy

[pintobean]

351. That's no surprise.

[CreekDog]

324. no, they share their senators with 20 million other people

in Wyoming, the 600k people share two senators.

completely different.

[TheKentuckian]

231. The make up (statewide election, 6 year terms, and separation of powers) would still be the purpose

of the Senate. It would continue to be a functionally distinct and arguably more mature body less reactive to popular short term whim than the two year, district elected House in charge of the purse strings even if it was representively elected.

[Lonusca]

308. Point taken. nt

[DanTex]

196. Yes, people are selfish.

Convincing rural conservative white people that urban minorities deserve the same amount of representation as them is an uphill fight, for sure. People in privileged positions tend to cling to that privilege, and make all kinds of bogus arguments as to why that privilege is deserved.

[hack89]

202. RI has many urban minorities

I suspect they appreciate their "privilege" and would be reluctant to give it up.

[DanTex]

204. Not really. RI is whiter than the nation as a whole.

Like I said, I wonder how DU's conservatives would feel about the entrenched inequality of the Senate if instead of North Dakota and Wyoming being overrepresented, it was Brooklyn and the Bronx. My guess is suddenly inequality wouldn't sound so appealing to them.

[hack89]

206. Who knows?

Doubt we will ever find out.

[CreekDog]

241. Rhode Island's interests are a lot more like New York's and California's than Wyoming

you really think higher farm subsidies and lower food stamp assistance are what Rhode Islanders want?

[hack89]

254. No. They just like having two Senators

Ensuring RI is not ignored. Why do you assume that CA or NY care about RI?

[CreekDog]

257. Rhode Islanders opinion on war, mass transit, global warming are ignored

when Wyoming's positions prevail.

wake up.

[hack89]

286. Several huge assumptions there

For one thing, defense spending is a huge part of our economy. Secondly, we have a lot of farms so farm policy is important to us, just like Wyoming.

We don't worry about Wyoming - our New England neighbors are a much bigger concern as we all fight tooth and nail for jobs.

[pipoman]

171. Maybe because most people don't believe

The people of California would do what's right for Wyoming. You may not value Wyoming but those who enjoy the state do value it. Seeing how those you speak of treat the rural areas of their own state is evidence enough that they would pillage the land and ignore the needs of the residents. Vast areas of that map are where your food comes from. .maybe representatives should be based on contribution to the nation...or better yet, maybe individual's who own the most acreage should have more votes...

[CreekDog]

245. California has stronger laws protecting its rural environment than Wyoming does

please, speak to what you know.

you posted nonsense.

[pipoman]

294. "Rural environment", not so much the people who live there...

No, nonsense is pretending we won't all be dead, along with our children and grandchildren before your grand illusion would even be considered among the sober or sane...

[CreekDog]

295. California has stronger laws to protect people than Wyoming (saw you try to move the goalposts btw)

California has stronger and better funded social programs
California has stronger anti discrimination laws for minorities, including LGBT
California has stronger worker protection laws
California has a more progressive income tax than Wyoming

you act like such an expert and time and time again you just make huge mistakes when you try to win an argument.

you keep posting nonsense, cut it out.

[edhopper]

32. The real problem

is the Democratic minority in the House got more votes than the GOP majority. There are States like Ohio and Penn, where the Dem/Rep split is close to 50/50 among voters, yet they have 80% to 90% of their seats go to Repugs. That is where democracy falls apart.

[CreekDog]

35. because there aren't enough House seats

the House increased with the population in the past, but hasn't for almost a century.

[TDale313]

285. That's a good point.

And it's also an area we really do need to work on. The House actually is supposed to have proportional representation, but Repugs have gerrymandered things so badly that millions more vote for Democratic Reps, yet we still end up with a significant Republican majority in the House.

[alarimer]

205. Because of the collusion between the two parties during redistricting

To ensure each has "safe" seats.

Each state needs a nonpartisan (or bipartisan) redistricting commission to redraw boundaries in a way that is fair and equitable, but gives no thought to what party might get which seat.

If you've ever seen some of the boundary maps for some districts, they are ridiculous. They need to have the same number of people, sure, but how many are vote Democratic and how many vote Republican should not be of ANY consideration. I favor districts that are more or less regular in shape, cover lots of different social strata and regions, etc.

[hughee99]

40. Leaving aside all the arguments below, is the problem with America right now the Senate?

Are you actually suggesting if we fix the SENATE right now, we'd get single payer?

[DanTex]

43. I'm surprised that people are actually defending this grossly undemocratic practice.

Unfortunately ,I don't see this changing any time soon, or ever, really, because changing it would require the consent of the people who currently benefit from the inequality, and I don't imagine they want to give up their influence just to make things more fair.

[CreekDog]

54. i'm guessing based on some of the responses that we'd end up with more gun control

[DanTex]

57. That sounds about right!

I think some of the gun nuts wouldn't mind an outright dictatorship as long as people could still buy AR-15s without background checks.

[hack89]

92. Now it makes sense why you would advocate for this. nt

[CreekDog]

93. so that's the minority you were concerned about

not African Americans or children or any other minority.

gun owners.

[hack89]

103. Minority has other meanings besides race

but naturally, you can't resist the chance to once again smear gun owners as RW racists.

No, what I meant was that the Constitution was specifically designed such that the views of the majority would not be allowed to override the civil rights of others that hold different views, whether they be political or religious. That is why we have the Bill of Rights. As much as you wish to deny it, the right to keep and bear arms is a civil right. And it is a right regardless of how few choose to exercise it.

[CreekDog]

107. you used the word "racist" not me

[hack89]

109. Because you think you are subtle

lets remember who introduced race into the sub thread.

[Romulox]

60. The US Constitution was a compromise designed to protect the "rights" of slave-owners.

200+ years later, the ignorance and greed of ex-slave states still holds the US hostage.

[NuclearDem]

71. Not with the district system, no.

[badtoworse]

84. The system was designed so that Senators represented the states, not the people.

It was intended that a few large, populous states NOT be able to ignore the interests of the smaller states and govern against their will. It means that a majority of the states and a majority of the people need to be on board for legislation to pass. This structure was essential to forming the United States and has worked beautifully over the years.

[CreekDog]

89. did it work beautifully to pass the Civil Rights Act? Answer: No

did it work beautifully to end slavery? No. took a war to end that.

did it work beautifully to protect the rights of black people after emancipation for 100 years? No.

did it make inter racial marriage legal? No.

did it work beautifully in passing the Equal Rights Amendment? No.

sounds like you're completely, 100%, absolutely, completely and not just a little bit, wrong.

unless you define "beautifully" differently than most of us.

[badtoworse]

94. We still have a country functioning under the same constitution more than 200 years later.

Few countries in the world can make that statement. Doesn't mean the system is perfect, but it works and beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

[Warren Stupidity]

187. which sort of made sense when there were 13 independent former colonies

attempting to form a federation of 13 independent former colonies.

That was a long time ago. Since then we have become a single nation-state saddled with an obsolete legislative structure and a bizarre and ridiculous electoral system, both of which are being manipulated to make this "democratic republic" a functional plutocracy/oligarchy.

Seriously, you all should stop defending the structure, it is broken, badly broken, and it desperately needs major reform.

[badtoworse]

213. We still have great differences between the states

The issues might be different today, but the same conflict still exists. Do you think people in Montana or the Dakotas would accept gun control legislation passed by populous states like New York, New Jersey and California? It's not even working in New York on a county level - the LEO's in the upstate counties are, for the most part, refusing to enforce the SAFE Act. You would have similar situations at the state level. Energy policy is another area where there are substantial differences between the states - NY has not allowed fracking, but Pennsylvania is making a fortune from it.

I am very comfortable with the fact that the structure of our government forces stakeholders to recognize the rights of the less populous states. I would not want the urban population centers calling the shots for the entire country.

[CreekDog]

246. this is on every issue

across the board.

[badtoworse]

307. States really are independent functioning political units with interests driven by local issues

A state's ability to address its own priorities is compromised unless each state has an equal voice somewhere. That somewhere is in the Senate. Sorry if that frustrates your agenda but the people who live in sparsely populated states have rights too. You need to get over that.

[oldhippie]

96. We can't, we don't, we won't, and .....

... it was never intended to be so.

Haven't we been through this before?

[get the red out]

97. We can't

End of story, we don't.

[MicaelS]

100. Let's cut the crap.

What you really want is for the urban areas to dominate politics in this country, because most of the people is these areas share your views.

And the reason the Constitution was written the way it was, was to precisely prevent the urban areas from having all the power.

[badtoworse]

104. Obviously - nt

[X_Digger]

117. +1 n/t

[CreekDog]

126. democratic representation, proportional to the population is not "crap"

[DanTex]

127. Umm, no. Actually what the OP is calling for is equality.

You know, every citizen has the same influence as any other, regardless of where they live.

[Warren Stupidity]

188. let's cut the crap

What you really want is for the rural areas to dominate politics in this country, because most of the people in these areas share your views.

And the reason the Constitution was written the way it was, was to make sure that slave states could keep their slaves.

[hrmjustin]

114. Unfortunately there is nothing that will be done about it.

[yawnmaster]

115. One must understand the problems with a pure democracy and why we have a republic...

if one wants to understand the reason for the Senate distribution.

In short, though, (you can continue research on your own to gain a deeper understanding) a democracy is at the will of the majority and the minority can be "trampled"; hence, the republic.
The Senate is in place to balance the regional majorities that may "trample" a regional minority.

[DanTex]

125. Having a republic doesn't require grossly unequal representation.

We could have a constitutional democracy in which every citizen has the same influence in government. It's not like direct referendum is the only other option besides the status quo.

[Jenoch]

119. A democracy would not work for the U.S.

Can you imagine having a nationwide vote on every bill/law?

[DanTex]

124. That doesn't justify unequal representation.

It's not like government-by-referendum is the only option to giving some citizens 20X more representation than others.

[Jenoch]

134. The U.S. Federal system of representation of The People

is working exactly as it was intended by the Founding Fathers.

Even though it would benefit Democrats, I don't want the large population states to have all the power. I live in Minnesota, a relatively small population mostly blue state.

[DanTex]

135. It was a useful compromise for the 18th century, I'll give you that.

But like a lot of 18th century ideals, it doesn't make sense in today's America. Changing to a more equal system wouldn't result in large population states having all the power, it would instead result in each citizen having the same amount of power, regardless of where they live, which is the way it should be. A lot of citizens could make arguments as to why they specifically deserve 20X more influence than some other people, but the only fair way to go is equal representation for each person.

It's not going to change, of course, since the people who benefit from it aren't going to just give up that benefit for the sake of equality. But that doesn't mean it's right.

[Jenoch]

137. "Changing to a more equal system wouldn't result in large population states having all the power..."

"All" was the wrong word to use on my part. However, I disagree with you. If you think the small population states have a disproportionate amount of power, then it would be even more disproportionate if the Senate seats were proportionate to population. The Founding Fathers got this one right. They intended for the smaller states to have equal power to the large population states, if you believe that to be wrong, that's ok.

[DanTex]

138. I think each person should have equal representation. Pretty simple.

The problem with giving some people more power than others is that everyone can come up with some justification for why they should be the Chosen Few. The only fair way to do it is equal representation.

And honestly, even if we had to pick certain people and give them more power than others, I hardly think that the people in Wyoming are the most vulnerable and most in need of special representation. State divisions are fairly arbitrary, and we're much more of a single nation than in 1800. Like I said, it might have made sense back then, but in modern America, giving people in Wyoming 20X as much say as people in Staten Island over things like whether we go to war or whether we have universal healthcare is just silly.

Obviously, the people who benefit from the current system are going to find a way to argue that it's a good idea. This is nothing new. People with privileges insist that those privileges are justified.

[Jenoch]

152. You're breaking it down to individuals.

That is not how the U.S. government was set up. Our country is called the United STATES for a reason.

[DanTex]

198. I know how the government was set up. That doesn't make it just.

The way the government was set up is unequal, and that is bad. The government was also set up to protect slave owners. Not all 18th century compromises are fair or just.

[Jenoch]

265. Where do you live?

I live in Minnesota. We may not have as low of a population as the Dakotas, Wyoming, or Rhode Island, but I believe in protectibg the interests of the lesser populatwd states.

The U.S. abolished slavery a long time ago. That is immaterial now. There are other reasons for the checks and balances.

[DanTex]

266. Right now I live in NYC.

Checks and balances are great, but checks and balances don't require unequal representation.

I have nothing against lower populated states, but I don't think that a person who lives in NYC should have less say in national affairs than a person who lives in the Dakotas. And this is exactly what happens.

Staten Island has about the same population as Wyoming. Brooklyn has about 5X as many people as Wyoming. And yet Brooklyn has to share it's two senators with the other 18 million or so people who live in New York state. The problem is, representation is a zero sum game. If you give extra representation to the people in Wyoming, that means you are taking away representation from people who live in places like New York.

[Jenoch]

267. You are still confused.

The checks and balances that the senate provides is EXACTLY what was intended. The way of apportioning the senate is about representation of the STATES, not the number of people in the various states.

Do wish for the U.S. Senate to be abolished with an amendment to the constitution?

[DanTex]

269. I don't care about what was intended. I care about equality.

The constitution was also intended to protect slavery. Women weren't intended to be able to vote. Etc. This is hardly the only example of inequality in the founding documents of the nation. "That's just the way it is" doesn't justify inequality of representation.

[Jenoch]

275. Slavery was abolished 149 years ago.

Women got the right to vote close to 100 years ago.

If the U.S. Senate were abolished, as you seem to desire, the low population states would have zero say about the governing of of rhis country. That would be unfair.

[DanTex]

278. They wouldn't have zero say. They would have the same amount of say per capita

as citizens of more populous states. That would be precisely fair. The only thing unfair is when some people have more say than others, which is what happens right now.

[Jenoch]

283. I'm not in favor of mob rule.

I cannot understand how you and the OP would like to abolish the U.S. Senate. Actually, since you live in NYC I guess I can understand why you are in favor of ggetting rid of the senate.

You are looking at the issue only from your perspective. Can't you understand how the smaller states would lose influence under your system? With majority rule, the large states could join forces and pass any laws they wished to that would benefit them.

[DanTex]

288. Me neither. But I am in favor of equal representation.

I don't think that the only alternative to mob rule is to arbitrarily give some citizens more of a voice in government than others.

Why are the people in small states so important, while people in large states so unimportant to you? What about people from, say Staten Island? Staten Island has the same population as Wyoming. Why shouldn't Staten Island get two senators of their own to protect themselves from the rest of the country ganging up on them? Or Brooklyn, which has 5X as many people as Wyoming. Why don't you care about the rights of the people of Brooklyn as much as you do the people of Wyoming? Why are Wyoming people so special?

The tyranny of the majority is just as much a risk with an unequal system as it is with an equal system. In fact, it's a greater risk. With an unequal system, you don't even need a majority to push the rest of the country around.

[Jenoch]

290. Staten Island does not get its own senator because

it is a borough of NYC, it is not a state.

This is past getting tedious. If you choose to not understand why the U.S. Senate was set up the way it was, I cannot help you.

[DanTex]

291. Again, I absolutely understand why the senate was set up the way it was.

I also understand why the three-fifths compromise was made.

None of that is justification for denying the people of Staten Island equal representation in government. The fact that a person lives in a borough of NYC rather than a rural low-population state is no reason to deny such a person an equal say in the affairs of the national government. I'm not sure why this is so complicated.

[Jenoch]

292. The people of Staten Island get equal representation in the house..

The STATES of New York and Wyoming get equal representation in the senate. You still don't understand the issues of states' rights.

You can have the last word if you wish to, as I already wrote, this is way past getting tedious because even if you wish for the U.S. Senate to be abolished it is not going to happen short of worldwide thermo nuclear war or a complete breakdown of government and society.

[DanTex]

293. Right, but not in the senate. Which means that overall they are underrepresented.

I completely understand states' right, and the original compromise, and why it was made. But none of that justifies the inequality. "That's the way it is" is not a justification for existing injustice.

I don't wish to abolish the senate, but I do wish for some way to make it equitable -- perhaps small states would merge into blocs for the sake of electing senators, or something like that.

I agree that it is not going to change. As I've mentioned before, when people have a position of privilege, they don't usually just give it up for the sake of justice. Instead, they come up with rationalizations to justify their position of privilege. Bogus justifications for inequality are just as old as inequality itself. But that doesn't mean we should shed light on injustice and inequality wherever they exist. For example, in the US Senate.

[CreekDog]

248. it's working as the founding fathers intended? you mean half slave half free nation?

of women who couldn't vote, black men and women who weren't free...

of women who couldn't own property?

you're in over your head. how sad, the nonsense that is uttered.

[Jenoch]

272. Yes it is working as it was intebded.

That is why all of the things you mentioned are not around today.

[CreekDog]

298. they intended we'd fight a civil war and lose hundreds of thousands of lives?

whatever.

[DanTex]

129. Fascinating that support for unequal representation and for the NRA are almost 100% correlated here.

You pointed it out earlier, I thought it was partially in jest, but as the evidence keeps rolling in, it's remarkable. It can't just be because of gun laws can it? Maybe it's just generally that conservatives are more comfortable with inequality and the whole notion that some people deserve more privileges than others.

[lumberjack_jeff]

147. Fascinating that support for these guys is here at all.

There's some truth to the fact that rural people are more likely to be supportive of the Republic we have than the mob rule which brought us the assholes in the photo above.

[CreekDog]

251. no, and i'm getting tired of correcting you

if asking about proportional representation means to you that everyone who is asking wants the picture you posted, that's is complete nonsense.

and i'm tired of correcting you, here on this issue and on most others.

and when/if you respond, don't say this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4759382

i know you'd like to come up with some physical reason why i'm wrong and you're right, but try to argue intellectually this time.

[lumberjack_jeff]

273. Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results

The photo above was delivered by the kind of democracy you crave. Promising better results next time is... adorable.

The House is controlled by representatives of ten states. Fuck that.

The great compromise is "great" for an excellent reason.

[CreekDog]

297. was it "great" for black people?

i didn't think so.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

329. 'Mob rule'?

Boehner is in that picture because of gerrymandering. I don't know about the others, but it wouldn't surprise me if they all were.

Ohio is pretty darn close to 50-50, but we have something like 75-80% representation by Republicans because Republicans got to 'choose' their voters, as opposed to voters being able to 'choose' their Representatives.

That's nothing like 'mob rule'.

[badtoworse]

180. The elephant in the room is RKBA

[pintobean]

189. And it's pink

and can only be seen by a few.

[DanTex]

197. Well, that's one of the elephants. Race is another one.

I wonder how the same parties would feel if instead of Wyoming and North Dakota being over-represented, it was Brooklyn and the Bronx. My guess is that the same rural conservatives that are enjoying their privilege would be the first to cry foul.

[badtoworse]

208. What privilege?

[DanTex]

211. The privilege of over-representation in the Senate.

[badtoworse]

217. That is not a privilege. Representation in the Senate was never intended to be based on population.

States are independent political entities and our form of government was designed to give each state an equal voice in that body of the legislature. Call it a privilege if you want to, but that does not make it so.

[DanTex]

219. Of course it's a privilege.

You are doing exactly why I described: making excuses and bogus arguments trying to justify the privilege. Justifications for privilege have always accompanied privilege.

Yes, having more representation in the government than other people is most definitely a privilege.

[badtoworse]

229. I'm not justifying anything - there is no need to.

Every single person in the country is entitled to be representated by the two senators that represent their state; IOW everyone gets the same deal. The fact that some states have lower populations does not mean the residents of that state are privileged; it means that their state has an equal voice. If it were otherwise, residents of the less populous states would have no voice

The structure of our government is elegant. The people have a voice and so do the states - legislation that gets passed needs to be acceptable to both. Thankfully, that means that the urban population centers don't get to steamroll legislation that ignores the views of flyover country. Don't mistake good government with privilege.

[DanTex]

238. Of course you are. You are justifying inequality of representation.

"That's the way it is" is not a moral justification. I get that you like it this way -- like I said, people who benefit from inequality usually don't care to give up their privilege, or even admit that they have it.

You didn't see many feudal lords sharing their land with serfs. Instead they said things like "the structure of our government is elegant" and "don't mistake good government with privilege".

[lumberjack_jeff]

144. How can we have a Republic in which 20% of the states have 51% of the Representatives? n/t

[pipoman]

319. Oh that's completely fair because the op lives in one of the 20%..

[CreekDog]

326. because democracies are based on the principle of one person one vote

[KamaAina]

145. The House is more evenly distributed by population

So which of the two chambers do you think is less democratic?

[CreekDog]

150. you're asking about party affiliation

that's not the point of the question.

[KamaAina]

151. No, I meant small-d democratic

thanks to gerrymandering, the House is no more representative of the American body politic than is the Senate.

[CreekDog]

156. well then what is your solution?

[KamaAina]

157. Fair, nonpartisan redistricting like we now have in California

and Iowa has had for years.

[CreekDog]

158. and for the Senate?

i do agree about California by the way.

[KamaAina]

159. Don't have a solution there

but in the House, Dem candidates actually received more votes in NC than repukes did. But repukes won nine of the 13 gerrymandered districts!

[CreekDog]

161. if you don't have a "solution" then you do think the Senate is a problem

[KamaAina]

163. Maybe that's why I don't have a solution

[MineralMan]

148. It's the United STATES of America.

Our system of government is based on states as the primary divisions of the country. The Senate is set up to give each state an equal say in the legislature.

The House of Representatives is population based. That was how the country was set up originally. That's how it is today.

To change that, you'd have to rewrite the Constitution. I don't think that's in the cards.

[CreekDog]

155. did i ask you how difficult it would be? no.

way to disregard my question.

[pintobean]

160. Your question deserves to be disregarded

and he told you why.

[CreekDog]

164. are you in charge of what questions get asked around here?

because we can set up a system where we clear them with you in advance.

would you like that?

[pintobean]

167. No one needs to be in charge

If your whining had any merit, you wouldn't need to float this turd every few months.

Every state knew the score before they joined the union. If you feel you're underrepresented, you are free to move to one of the least populated states and take advantage of all the privilege that you seem to think they have.

[CreekDog]

170. so you're saying James Madison floated a turd when he opposed the non-proportional Senate?

it sounds like you don't know much about this topic.

and it sounds like you don't want us posting things you disagree with.

i would encourage you to read about the constitution, read about other representative bodies around the world and spend less time telling people not to post things supporting democracy here and abroad.

[pintobean]

175. It sounds like you

need a hearing aid.

[badtoworse]

177. ..."it sounds like you don't want us posting things you disagree with"

Kettle calling the pot black.

[CreekDog]

181. i didn't ask you not to post unless it violates the TOS or community standards

all i did was argue with you.

[MineralMan]

173. You didn't ask me any thing at all.

I posted independently in your thread. Several others posted similarly. This is a public discussion forum, and each of us has the same agency here. I will comment as I choose, and so will you.

[CreekDog]

174. yes i did ask you a question

i asked a question in the OP.

i guess you didn't read it before answering.

which explains a lot.

[MineralMan]

178. I think you misunderstand how DU works.

Every DUer is free to respond in whatever manner desired. The OP does not rule the thread.

[CreekDog]

192. wrong.

this is completely wrong: "Every DUer is free to respond in whatever manner desired."

bad advice. there are rules here.

since you want to be pedantic...

[MineralMan]

209. If I have violated a DU rule, please alert on my post.

I will post as I please, otherwise.

[CreekDog]

210. you were just wrong

being wrong doesn't break a rule.

however, posting in ANY way that one desires or pleases is not good advice because there are rules and they don't permit one to just post whatever one pleases.

[MineralMan]

218. Actually, anyone can post anything.

Anyone else can alert. A jury of DU peers decides whether what was posted will stay or be hidden. But the poster can post as he or she pleases. Community moderation. So again, please alert on any of my posts that you feel are not within DU standards. I will continue to post as I please in the meantime.

As far as I am aware, None of my posts have been hidden for a very long time.

[theboss]

149. I don't think posters here really have any idea what "pure democracy" in the US would look like

Less than 50 percent of the population believes in evolution. So, let's just put everything up to a popular vote and see what happens.

[Warren Stupidity]

190. nobody proposed a pure democracy.

The proposal was to make the current system more representative.

[Humanist_Activist]

162. The Senate was never intended to be democratic, but as a check on the "mob rule" of the House...

however, the House does control the purse strings, so they technically have more power than the Senate in legislative matters. It was instituted so that the governments of the states would have representatives of their own, also, most states didn't allow popular elections of Senators for over half this country's history.

What I don't like are the extra-constitutional regulations of the House that make it less democratic in itself. The House should have a hell of a lot more representatives in it than it currently does, and since that number has been fixed, we added 4 states to the country and more than tripled our population. There is nothing in the constitution that caps the amount of representatives in the House, and the fact that our population continues to grow, while it remains fixed, will only lead to a less democratic House as time goes on.

[DemocraticWing]

281. Nailed it.

And yeah, the Senate was intended to be a bit weaker. You might actually be able to argue that with the direct election of Senators, combining the procedures of the Senate with the ability to be popularly elected and re-elected, Senators are much more powerful now than they were intended to be.

Eliminating the Senate will never happen, but weakening the Senate is more possible.

[Democracyinkind]

186. I am in favor of bicameral legislatures.

It's no coincidence that the system succeeded in much of the western world. Small states should have the senate as a protection against large states.

American politics is fucked up for many other reasons.

If I'd get to make a change, I'd expand the house to 1000-2000 members and take away the right of individual states to engineer districts. Base all districts on algorithms that take size and population into account, no matter how awkward the districts would actually look geographically.

Living in Switzerland has made me appreciate the need for a Senate - the largest state has 1.4 million inhabitants while the smallest state has only 15'000. Those are two different worlds really, and having a senate mitigates the problems of a nation encompassing different worlds. It's an entirely rational approach to a real problem that democratic representation poses.

[Hippo_Tron]

250. Most of the western world has abolished bicameralism as we know it

Upper chambers still exist, but most nations have either stripped the upper house of legislative authority or passed something similar to the UK's parliament acts where the lower chamber can invoke to override failed passage of a bill in the upper chamber.

The United States is one of the few places that still practices real bicameralism and as far as I know we're the only one with the filibuster (though that's probably going by the wayside soon enough).

[Democracyinkind]

309. Regarding the overrepresentation of less populous states, it is still the norm in Western Europe ...

... even though it is true that most upper houses don't operate with an equal number of represantatives for each state.

[The Straight Story]

194. It is really quite simple if you think about it

States have their own governing bodies and problems to deal with. The federal government can do a lot of things which affect states.

Each state gets to have fair representation and a voice in policies since they are part of the overall scheme of things - we are a collection of states, not a collection of big cities.

The same laws that seem to be good for New York probably don't make much sense in Alaska. But if some had their way New York could expand their laws beyond their borders to affect people elsewhere with little effort.

[Agnosticsherbet]

201. We are a Representative Republic, not a Democracy.

The Senate is our version of the House of Lords designed to protect the government from the tyranny of the masses. It is better than designed by the founding fathers, where all Senators were simply appointed. Each state now elects Senators.

The bigger problem is that the House of Representatives, the peoples house, is controlled by a majority who wouldn't enact Single Payer if 99.999999999% of Americans wanted Single Payer.

Members of the House are beholden only to the voters in their Congressional district. They don't give a damn what people in other Congressional districts want. Those Congressional districts are often gerrymandered to ensure that a specific party will win in almost every election.

This happens because there are no national elections in the United States. Every 2 years we have 50 coordinated State elections. Every 4 years we have 50 separate elections for President, not one.

To sum up, we are not a Democracy and never were. We are a Republic.

[Laelth]

214. Our Senate was a compromise.

Last edited Tue Apr 22, 2014, 05:47 AM - Edit history (1)

Generally speaking, representatives at the Constitutional Convention from high-population states disliked the idea of the Senate (because it doesn't work on the one person, one vote principle). Nevertheless, representatives from the low-population states insisted upon the current structure of the Senate. Keep in mind, there would be no United States without this compromise. The smaller states would not have joined. Like most things political, our Constitution was the result of a compromise, and it's not ideal. Although we like to think of it as being perfectly-designed, the truth is that the Constitution was the product of a messy political process and it was not considered "ideal" by the people who were voting on it. Nevertheless, it was ratified and became the law of the land (much like the ACA--the product of a lot of compromise--far from ideal, but the law of the land, regardless).

Our Senate (as currently configured) may have outlived its usefulness ... perhaps ... but nobody's convincing Wyoming, North Dakota, and all the other low-population states to agree to change it.

-Laelth

[CreekDog]

258. which founders and which states supported that compromise?

and which founders and states opposed the compromise?

you make it sound like they all thought the same thing. you make it sound like once they agreed, they all agreed.

i think you're in for a surprise.

[Laelth]

259. I am not following you.

In my mind, "compromise" means people do not agree, but work out a middle position that neither party really likes but that will accomplish some larger goal, in this case a founding document for a new nation. Neither side was completely happy with the end result, but they disliked it for different reasons.

Did that not come through in my post, or am I completely missing the point you're trying to make?



-Laelth

[CreekDog]

263. you're saying the vote was unanimous?

come on now.

do you know this stuff or don't you? nobody needs to know these details, but don't lecture me if you don't.

[badtoworse]

301. It was unanimous - all 13 states ratified the constitution.

[CreekDog]

302. don't play games

if you don't know, nobody is requiring you to answer.

[badtoworse]

304. Who's playing games? Rhode Island was the 13th state to ratify the constitution...

... and it did so on May 29, 1790. That is a historical fact, so what do you disagree with?

[joeglow3]

367. Count me among those who cannot follow you

What is your point?

[CreekDog]

368. that the Senate was not proposed only as an equal proportioned body

that the vote for a Senate based on proportional representation (according to population) versus equal representation (2 senators per state) was a close vote, that many of the founders and states opposed the way Senate seats are currently allocated.

the poster i'm arguing with doesn't seem to know this. he's arguing with everybody in the thread. he's playing games with me on this and in other parts of the thread and i'm sick of the games.

[Laelth]

313. Why the hostility?

Seriously, what have I ever done to you?

If you'd like to teach me something about who voted for it and why, please do so. Don't make me go searching for the point you're trying to make.

-Laelth

[Hippo_Tron]

264. Not to nitpick, but you skipped about a decade of history there...

There would have been no American Revolution without the Senate as it is now configured.

No Senate was formed at the time of the American Revolution. The government of the United States was organized under the Articles of Confederation from 1777 (though not ratified by all the states until 1781) until 1789 when the current constitution was ratified. The Senate (and its representation scheme) was indeed a compromise to the smaller states to ratify the current constitution.

[Laelth]

312. Quite true.

My bad. The revolution had already begun long before the Constitution was drafted. I'll edit that out. Thanks.

-Laelth

[Hippo_Tron]

260. I agree with you 100%, the Senate was a bad idea then and it's a bad idea now

The framers were smart men, but they were still men and they still got some things wrong. And some of the things they got right, they had to compromise on in order to get the Constitution ratified. The Senate was a combination of both of those. Bicameralism was based on the elitist idea that you should have one chamber to represent the aristocracy and one to represent the commoners. Not really something that's befitting a nation founded on the idea that "all men are created equal".

[Laelth]

314. That's how the Romans did it.

The Senate and the People of Rome--one chamber for the aristocrats, and one chamber for the people. It's hard to argue with the success of the Roman Republic (which lasted nearly 500 years). It's easy to see why many of our founders would have found this model appealing.

-Laelth

[Hippo_Tron]

318. The Romans also had slavery and a whole lot of other things...

That aren't befitting of a modern democratic republic. If unicameralism was a cause of state failure, there'd be a whole lot more failed states.

[Warpy]

277. The Senate is not there to respond to the demands of the people

It's there to respond to the needs of the states, not the people within them.

Yes, it's anti democratic but you have to remember that rural states back in the time of the founders didn't want to get run over by the votes of the populous states in the east. The thinly settled frontier states needed a voice, too, because it was the only way their needs could be addressed.

It's even somewhat true now, even though the people on both coasts chafe at some of the things heartland states try to keep ramming through like subsidies to agribusiness.

[muriel_volestrangler]

311. For states' power concerns, can I suggest the Penrose method of square root voting power?

The Penrose method (or square-root method) is a method devised in 1946 by Professor Lionel Penrose[1] for allocating the voting weights of delegations (possibly a single representative) in decision-making bodies proportional to the square root of the population represented by this delegation. This is justified by the fact, that due to the square root law of Penrose, the a priori voting power (as defined by the Penrose–Banzhaf index) of a member of a voting body is inversely proportional to the square root of its size. Under certain conditions, this allocation achieves equal voting powers for all people represented, independent of the size of their constituency. Proportional allocation would result in excessive voting powers for the electorates of larger constituencies.

...
The Penrose method became revitalised within the European Union when it was proposed by Sweden in 2003 amid negotiations on the Amsterdam Treaty and by Poland June 2007 during summit on the Treaty of Lisbon. In this context, the method was proposed to compute voting weights of member states in the Council of the European Union.

Currently, the voting in the Council of the EU does not follow the Penrose method. Instead, the rules of the Nice Treaty are effective between 2004 and 2014, under certain conditions until 2017. The associated voting weights are compared in the table to the right along with the population data of the member states.

Besides the voting weight, the voting power (i.e., the Penrose–Banzhaf index) of a member state also depends on the threshold percentage needed to make a decision. Smaller percentages work in favor of larger states. For example, if one state has 30% of the total voting weights while the threshold for decision making is at 29%, this state will have 100% voting power (i.e., an index of 1). For the EU-27, an optimal threshold, at which the voting powers of all citizens in any member state are almost equal, has been computed at about 61.6%.[3] After the university of the authors of this paper, this system is referred to as the "Jagiellonian Compromise". Optimal threshold decreases with the number M of the member states as 1/2 +1/\sqrt{\pi M} .[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_method

So the Senate would have 1 representative elected from each state, and the voting power of each would be equal to the square root of their state's population - from 6104 for California down to 751 for Wyoming. The threshold needed for 50 states works out at 58%. That works out as the largest 19 states would be able to reach the threshold together; or the smallest 37 states would reach it together. To get to just 50%, you'd need just the 16 largest states, or the 35 smallest.

There are assumptions in the maths that showed the square root method was the 'most fair', of course; but at least this was worked out to be 'neutral', rather than by someone looking for advantage for 'their side'.

[Warpy]

339. You forgot one important thing

Most politicians can't do math and most constituents would find the formula so complicated they'd be absolutely certain that either the urban or the rural states would be cheating.

The equal representation of all states in government has simplicity going for it and sometimes that works even better.

[Gormy Cuss]

336. It's also similar in role to the upper houses of some other bicameral legislatures.

Australia, for example, has equal Senate representation for each state even though the populations of the states are wildly divergent. Tasmania would never have a voice otherwise.

[Warpy]

338. Thanks for getting the point.

Most Americans don't.

[bullimiami]

280. This is why Gerrymandering is such a vicous crime.

The senate was designed to give equal representation to each state.
The house designed to give equal representation to the people.

[Romulox]

317. This is why we have the worst society for the common person in the developed world.

Tons of wealth at the top though.