Comment by touchofevil
9 years ago
The Senate doesn't reflect majority rule based on population. California has 38.3 million residents, Wyoming has 600K residents [1] but both states have 2 senate votes. Due to this, Wyoming residents have much greater voting power in the Senate than residents of CA.
Edit: And since bills must be passed by both the House and the Senate, Wyoming residents have much more power over what becomes law than CA residents do. [1] http://www.enchantedlearning.com/usa/states/population.shtml
Hmm, well perhaps (I'm venturing into the unknown here) the problem isn't really protecting the majority from the minority (or vice versa) but protecting the weak from the powerful. When I see proposals like:
>end gerrymandering, and reform campaign financing
I think those are good because they weaken the powerful (the current majority party and the rich) to enable the weak. But I also believe that without the senate the political power of Wyomingers (Wyomans?) is going to be a lot weaker than the political power of Californians so I see the senate as overall good.
Why should we focus so much on the majority and not the relative power of those that compose the majority (or minority?)
Well, the real question to me is do we think of people who live in Wyoming as "Wyomingers" and those in CA as Californians? I don't think so. We just think of everyone in the USA as Americans. So why should it be that some Americans (those who live in Wyoming) having outsized voting power over national laws? A minority of Americans is controlling the country via the methods I mentioned. It doesn't seem to be working out very well. We need to make sure that the majority of Americans have veto power over things like electing Donald Trump, the current tax bill, the attempts to end Obamacare.
>Well, the real question to me is do we think of people who live in Wyoming as "Wyomingers" and those in CA as Californians?
I think we talk about it that way all the time, both where I live (which is a lot closer to Wyoming than California) and in places which are closer to California that Wyoming. The common issues of the day are all ones of class division and I think that geographical division really plays into it. When we really split into Wyomingers and Californians though is when we start talking about any common political issue.
>We just think of everyone in the USA as Americans.
Oh lord, how I wish this were true. Do you think Californians treat me like a Californian? Or do you think that maybe they treat me a little bit different? And do you think when a Californian transplants here they get treated like a Wyoman? Or do you think they get treated a bit different? There's a divide there, the hundreds or thousands of miles between the coasts and the middle is more than a physical divide, it's also a cultural and political one.
>It doesn't seem to be working out very well. We need to make sure that the majority of Americans have veto power over things like electing Donald Trump, the current tax bill, the attempts to end Obamacare.
Let's be real here though, the above is completely partisan thinking. Look I'm basically as far left as they come and I live in deep red country - your impulse is totally wrong. Take a look at this map: http://i0.wp.com/metrocosm.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/el...
You want to take that map and give even more power to the blue spots? I don't see the fairness. The senate exists because the coastal elites who founded this country were smart enough to realize that coastal city elites would run the whole thing if it weren't for some mechanism to help rural areas balance the scale.
>So why should it be that some Americans (those who live in Wyoming) having outsized voting power over national laws? A minority of Americans is controlling the country via the methods I mentioned.
Because it makes sure they're heard, it's protecting a weak minority from a powerful majority. I can agree with you on all the other things like gerrymandering but the senate exists for a good reason - it forces you to care about all the people who exist in rural areas or "flyover country" instead of writing them off like you'd really like to.
2 replies →
There are existing answers to these questions. It's not a grand mystery.
Instead of merely repeating the questions, you should explain why the answers to those questions are wrong.
I think you're overly consumed with the political dramas of the present and haven't really thought through questions about what a good system of governance looks like.
1 reply →
You are ignoring the fact that Wyoming only has 1 representative in the house, which is where the balancing piece comes in.
Yes, and this would be fine if the senate did not exist. But the senate can kill anything that the house proposes. So Wyoming has undue influence over what the (correctly balanced) house tries to make law.
And the house can not vote for something the senate passes too...I'm not sure how you think the House is even remotely "correctly balanced" Both parties Gerrymander like it's their only job to keep their own little fiefdoms intact.
It's not a balancing piece, it's a balanced piece. Abolishing the Senate would leave only the House, the balanced piece.
The house is not the balanced piece when it comes from the perspective of the states themselves. The smaller states then would have very little say in how the country at large operates.