9 States have 18 Senators and Half the US Population

[CreekDog]

The other half of the US Population has 82 senators.

At some point, in a democracy, this needs to be addressed.

1 person doesn't equal one vote, 1 person in one state gets more representation than 1 person in another state --it simply depends which state they live in.

(...and DC, well, that's for another post)

Whether or not you think it's impossible to reform, doesn't mean that such reform isn't necessary and shouldn't be pursued.

California 37 691 912
Texas 25 674 681
NY 19 465 197
FL 19 057 197
IL 12 869 257
PA 12 742 886
OH 11 544 951
Michigan 9 876 187
Georgia 9 815 210
population: 158 757 823

Total U.S. territory - 312,913,872

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population

(edited to add population data and link)

Over 40 years ago, the US Supreme Court declared this type of apportionment unconstitutional for all other legislative bodies, be it at the state level or the US Congressional level. The only thing stopping them from applying it to the US Senate was that body's establishment in the Constitution. Unfair or not, because it's enumerated in the constitution, it continues, were it not, it would've been outlawed or changed in the name of equality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesberry_v._Sanders
The Court issued its ruling on February 17, 1964. This decision requires each state to draw its U.S. Congressional districts so that they are approximately equal in population.
Nationally, this decision effectively reduced the representation of rural districts in the U.S. Congress. Particularly, the Court held that the population differences among Georgia's congressional districts were so great as to violate the Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Carr
landmark United States Supreme Court case that retreated from the Court's political question doctrine, deciding that redistricting (attempts to change the way voting districts are delineated) issues present justiciable questions, thus enabling federal courts to intervene in and to decide reapportionment cases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._Sims
United States Supreme Court case that ruled that state legislature districts had to be roughly equal in population.

[banned from Kos]

1. and 3/4 of the states are required to amend the Constitution

which makes repairing the problem you note nearly impossible.

I don't expect any more amendments for many decades.

[CreekDog]

7. my point is that whether it's impossible or not, it needs to be addressed

[freshwest]

54. But how? I don't see anyway to change it.

[CreekDog]

68. educate and advocate, that's where it begins

most people don't even contemplate this.

but if they were educated, they might.

same with the Electoral College.

[banned from Kos]

73. The 25 smallest states would never approve

In fact, when they all realize they are overrepresented in the Senate they would object.

[CreekDog]

75. In time that might change.

Were the nation at stake, or were it seen as a moral wrong, your assumption might not hold.

And if you're right, then the Electoral College could never be changed. Do you really think it cannot be changed either?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

77. What you see as a moral wrong

I see as a moral right. We have the House of Representatives to provide proportional representation. Unless your goal is to basically eliminate the states altogether, the makeup of the Senate needs to stay exactly the way it is.

[CreekDog]

78. you see it as a moral right that half the gov't is unfair?

look, the constitution doesn't require the US to be democratic. if you want that, there need to be some changes.

but everything is just fine as long as it's constitutional?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

82. I don't see it as unfair - that's where we differ n/t

[MNBrewer]

119. It's absolutely fair

Every state = 2 Senators. Is it unproportional? Yes, but do we really want the Senate to mirror the House in makeup? I don't necessarily want to see that. Maybe we should go to a unicameral Legislature. That would be fair, right? Except it would be efficient. And efficient government is bad government.

[CreekDog]

120. what you're saying is that one person one vote is not desirable

something unequal is more desirable.

this means you aren't in favor of what is almost universally accepted amongst free people as democratic rule.

[MNBrewer]

315. Every person has one vote... for their Senator

I don't see what your problem is.

[CreekDog]

316. same as with the Electoral College, our votes are not equal

or do you prefer the Electoral College to having a popular vote decide the presidency.

are you so uninformed that you don't seen to know the basic problems with these systems... after all you seem incredulous that such a complaint could exist. it's as if you think all democratic countries are set up this way, giving a legislative body so much power based on unequal representation. even where these bodies exist, in places like Britain and Canada, their Senate or Horse of Lords are completely deferential to the popular body.

but ours? well half the population gets 18 senators. is it any wonder mass transit is so poorly funded? it is also interesting that white voters overall get more representation, per voter than nonwhite. the smaller states are whiter, the larger states, less white.

nonwhites lose again and people like you wonder what is the big deal.

[SlimJimmy]

330. They are not equal on purpose. A popular vote would put the Presidency in the hands of about nine

states every four years. Is that what you want? Is that your goal? Based on the general tenor of your OP, I would hazard that that is exactly what you'd like. I am against mob rule in all cases, and especially in elections of importance. The Electoral College was instituted for a very specific reason ... and a good one at that.

... same as with the Electoral College, our votes are not equal or do you prefer the Electoral College to having a popular vote decide the presidency.

[ancianita]

336. What?

Why do you characterize half the population's representation as 'mob' rule. Why can't you call it majority rule. Furthermore, you try to make the politics of these nine states monolithic. Take another look at the list.

[SlimJimmy]

338. This is why.

The Federalist Papers : No. 68

Hamilton

The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.

Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp

In other words, mob rule.

[CreekDog]

345. in the hands of the people, regardless of their state

we don't all vote as a unit when we vote individually.

look, if you don't like democracies, that's your right.

[SlimJimmy]

347. The House represents the people, the Senate represents the state's interests.

That's the way it was designed. That's why the House is proportional based on population (districts) and the Senate is statewide (2 senators). If you don't like it, undertake a national campaign to amend the Constitution instead of bitching about it on a discussion board. Personally, I think the founders were absolutely brilliant in their design.

Look if you don't like the Constitution, that's your prerogative.

[CreekDog]

350. I'm not 5 years old, I have choices between liking 100% of the constitution and wanting some reform

ridiculous.

[SlimJimmy]

353. Then try to get your head wrapped around the reason the founders designed the Congress the way

they did. The House represents the people in the state, the Senate represents the state's interests as a whole. I tried to explain it to you in my last post, but you decided to skip over that, I suppose. It's really just a matter of reading the Federalist Papers. Anything you'd like to know about the why and how of the Constitution is in them.

I'm not 5 years old, I have choices between liking 100% of the constitution and wanting some reform ... ridiculous.

[CreekDog]

355. I understand it, but unlike you, won't defend a decision that called slaves 3/5ths of a person

or do you want to lecture me for not appreciating a decision that only was supported by 5 of the 13 colonies?

The report recommended that in the upper house each State should have an equal vote and in the lower house, each State should have one representative for every 40,000 inhabitants, counting slaves as three-fifths of an inhabitant, and that money bills should originate in the lower house (not subject to amendment by the upper chamber).

it passed 5 to 4 with 1 abstention.

you support the compromise more than the framers did!

[FBaggins]

357. Disingenuous or simply ignorant?

How many of them voted for the Virginia plan?

And when the compromise was adjusted to start tax bills in the House and separate senators from state legislatures (changes that in no way impact what we're debating here)... how many supported it then???

Hint... it would be the ones that ratified the Constitution.

[SlimJimmy]

362. I think willfully ignorant. This is at least the second time you've stated that the Virginia plan

was actually rejected by the larger states. But why would he let facts get in the way of his firmly held opinions?

[SlimJimmy]

361. I support the Constitution. A brilliant piece of work, and still is. It's just too bad that you

don't understand the concept of the framers. Based on your responses to me and others, I doubt you ever will.

[coalition_unwilling]

231. It's manifestly unfair and profoundly anti-democratic that a state as sparsely populated as Idaho

has as many Senators as a state as heavily populated as California. It makes a mockery of the principle of one man, one vote. No surprise that the Senate in its current form owes its existence to a sop thrown out to the slave states to get them to join the United States.

[hobbit709]

263. Try reading about the Constitution and how it was written before you make such statements.

Maybe then you'll understand how our government was set up and why there is a bicameral legislature.

A good place to start would be the Federalist Papers.
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html

[coalition_unwilling]

285. I'm well aware of the rationale for the system of 2 Senators per state and

why it was ostensibly created. That still does not negate the profoundly anti-democratic nature of the Senate as an institution. Unless you wish to explain how the interest of democracy is served when a state like Idaho has just as many senators as a state like California. The current system protects states rights but undermines the principle of one man, one vote. I don't need to read the Federalist Papers to understand that.

[SlimJimmy]

337. Actually, based on your response, it would be a good place for you to start.

I don't need to read the Federalist Papers to understand that.

I'll even give you an excerpt and a link.

The Federalist Papers : No. 68

Hamilton

The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.

Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp

In other words, mob rule.

[coalition_unwilling]

360. You say 'mob rule,' I say 'one man, one vote.' The current system of 2 Senators per state makes

a mockery of the principle of one man, one vote.

[SlimJimmy]

363. No it doesn't. That's why we have a House of Representatives. But this has been covered in

this thread over and over. I've even included a link that explains it. There's not much more any of us can do if you don't get it now.

The current system of 2 Senators per state makes a mockery of the principle of one man, one vote.

[coalition_unwilling]

364. Obviously, math is not your strong suit. So let me spell it out for you with some

specific numbers:

Population of Wyoming as of July, 2011: 568,158. Equals 1 Senator per 234,079 U.S. citizens who happen to reside in Wyoming.

http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=kf7tgg1uo9ude_&met_y=population&idim=state:56000&dl=en&hl=en&q=population+of+wyoming

Population of California as of July, 2011: 37,691,912. Equals 1 Senator per 18,845,956 U.S. citizens who happen to reside in California.

http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=kf7tgg1uo9ude_&met_y=population&idim=state:06000&dl=en&hl=en&q=population+of+california

Only by stretching ingenuity beyond its natural limits can you maintain with a straight face that the Senatorial vote of a Californian equals the Senatorial vote of a Wyoming-oid, i.e., 'one man, one vote.'

But your innumeracy is not my problem.

[FBaggins]

365. It isn't a math issue... it's a vocabulary issue.

"One man, one vote" does not mean what you seem to think it means.

Note that even in the US House, your understanding of the principle does not apply. Rhode Island has twice the representation that Montana has... despite having virtually the same population.

Moreover... the term comes from a string of Supreme Court cases that explicitly recognized that it applied to representation within a state and not at the federal level. (Emphasis mine)

The system of representation in the two Houses of the Federal Congress is one ingrained in our Constitution, as part of the law of the land. It is one conceived out of compromise and concession indispensable to the establishment of our federal republic. 55 Arising from unique historical circumstances, it is based on the consideration that in establishing our type of federalism a group of formerly independent States bound themselves together under one national government. Admittedly, the original 13 States surrendered some of their sovereignty in agreeing to join together "to form a more perfect Union." But at the heart of our constitutional system remains the concept of separate and distinct governmental entities which have delegated some, but not all, of their formerly held powers to the single national government. The fact that almost three-fourths of our present States were never in fact independently sovereign does not detract from our view that the so-called federal analogy is inapplicable as a sustaining precedent for state legislative apportionments. The developing history and growth of our republic cannot cloud the fact that, at the time of the inception of the system of representation in the Federal Congress, a compromise between the larger and smaller States on this matter averted a deadlock in the Constitutional Convention which had threatened to abort the birth of our Nation. In rejecting an asserted analogy to the federal electoral college in Gray v. Sanders, supra, we stated:

"We think the analogies to the electoral college, to districting and redistricting, and to other phases of the problems of representation in state or federal legislatures or conventions are inapposite. The inclusion of the electoral college in the Constitution, as the result of specific historical concerns, validated the collegiate principle despite its inherent numerical inequality, but implied nothing about the use of [377 U.S. 533, 575] an analogous system by a State in a statewide election. No such specific accommodation of the latter was ever undertaken, and therefore no validation of its numerical inequality ensued." 56

Political subdivisions of States - counties, cities, or whatever - never were and never have been considered as sovereign entities. Rather, they have been traditionally regarded as subordinate governmental instrumentalities created by the State to assist in the carrying out of state governmental functions. As stated by the Court in Hunter v. City of Pittsburgh, 207 U.S. 161, 178 , these governmental units are "created as convenient agencies for exercising such of the governmental powers of the State as may be entrusted to them," and the "number, nature and duration of the powers conferred upon [them] . . . and the territory over which they shall be exercised rests in the absolute discretion of the State." The relationship of the States to the Federal Government could hardly be less analogous.

[coalition_unwilling]

366. It may not be a math issue where you live, but it sure as

hell is in the universe I inhabit.

To wit,--

A Wyoming voter gets 0.000004272 Senator (approximately) - 1/234,079

A California voter, by contrast, gets only 0.00000005306 Senator (approximately) - 1/18,845,956

Both voters are supposedly equal U.S. citizens.

I can keep going with the math if you would like to show you exactly how much greater Senatorial representation a Wyoming voter gets than a California voter (as a ratio). Just let me know.

[FBaggins]

367. I live in reality. You should visit.

I can keep going with the math if you would like

And you still won't "get" that the principle does not mean that each voter gets the same proportion of a US Senator.

Nobody has said that the math is wrong... merely that it's irrelevant. Because the words don't mean what you seem to think they mean.

[coalition_unwilling]

368. I live in a reality where the principle of 'one man, one vote' (as

illustrated indisputably by the math) is a hollow sham foisted upon an ignorant and gullible public.

'One man, one vote' means I get exactly as much representation in government as some sheep-herding Yahoo in Wyoming.

[FBaggins]

369. Thanks for proving my point.

'One man, one vote' means I get exactly as much representation in government as some sheep-herding Yahoo in Wyoming.

It actually means nothing of the sort.

And never has.

[coalition_unwilling]

370. It ALWAYS has. So I suppose we have reached an unbridgeable logocentric

chasm. And shall therefore have to agree to disagree, as the vernacular saying would have it. (See, I do have vocabulary skills

[FBaggins]

371. Nope... there's no rational disagreement.

You're simply wrong. It isn't a matter of opinion. You don't get to say that the moon is made of swiss cheese and then say "oh well... two valid opinions and we'll just have to disagree".

The term has an actual history and an actual meaning. And you don't get to make it up as you go along. If it has ever had the meaning you prefer (let alone "ALWAYS&quot , you would be able to provide an authoritative example.

You can't.

You can say that you would LIKE it to mean that. You can say that you would PREFER to live in a country where that's what we believed. You can't say that it DOES mean that (let alone that it always has).

But I do appreciate you being civil about it.

[coalition_unwilling]

372. Point of clarification: what 'term' are you referring to? Is it 'one man, one vote'

(which is, properly speaking, a 'phrase' and not simply a 'term')?

I'm a little unclear now as to exactly what 'term' you think I am mis-using.

[FBaggins]

375. Yes... and term is correct.

"Term" as in "a specialized vocabulary of a specific field"

In this case, that of constitutional law.

But not just "one man one vote"... also your mis-use of "democracy" to imply a specific flavor of democracy that not only is not what our system was founded on, but which was explicitly rejected by the founders.

[coalition_unwilling]

376. I've gotten so bogged down in all this linguistic stuff that I've

almost forgotten what we were arguing about to begin with. Chalk it up to encroaching senility

Here's my current bottom-line position simply stated: the U.S. Senate as currently constituted (each state getting 2 Senators, irrespective of the state's population) is profoundly anti-democratic (emphasis on lower-case 'd'), per the mathematical data I supply upthread.

This has definitely been an educational thread for me and I'm book-marking for later review and (possible) reconsideration of my position

[FBaggins]

379. Re: the "bottom line position"

Here's my current bottom-line position simply stated: the U.S. Senate as currently constituted (each state getting 2 Senators, irrespective of the state's population) is profoundly anti-democratic (emphasis on lower-case 'd'), per the mathematical data I supply upthread.

I understood that to be what you meant. I've been trying to correct your mis perception of what "democratic" means. Democratic nations around the world have legislative bodies that would fail by that understanding of democracy (Canada, England, Spain, Germany and France all come to mind). Democratic principals (both big and little "d&quot simply do not mean that every individual voter will have exactly the same impact on all portions of government.

Again... it's entirely ok to say "I wish they would... I think we would all be better off if that's how things worked" (I would disagree with you, but it's ok to hold that position). What isn't ok is to claim that alternative forms of democracy violate the foundational principals for democracy itself.

The closer you get to what we now call a "direct democracy" (and that the founders called simply "democracy&quot , the closer you come to exactly what they were trying to avoid.

[coalition_unwilling]

388. Yeah, I think this may be the crux of our dispute: what 'democratic' means. As I wrote upthread, I

may require some serious re-schooling (and re-tooling in the fundamental meanings of words. To that end, I have bookmarked this thread for further study and reflection. (Had a job interview yesterday p.m., so could not give it the attention it deserves.)

I would, though, like to re-frame the question in more human (and less mathematical) terms: why should Wyoming's 500,000 citizens have exactly as much say-so on Supreme Court appointments as California's 18,000,000 citizens? Is that 'fair' or 'democratic'?

Love to hear your thoughts on that, but, come to think of it, it may be material for another thread

[FBaggins]

390. Hey... I hope that interview went well!

Best of luck!

I would, though, like to re-frame the question in more human (and less mathematical) terms: why should Wyoming's 500,000 citizens have exactly as much say-so on Supreme Court appointments as California's 18,000,000 citizens?

That's an excellent question... and (believe it or not), much easier to answer.

Each state has it's own state supreme court... and their rulings can be overturned by the USSC. Each state has a chief executive who can take actions that might or might not be constitutional. Each state has its own legislature that can pass laws that might be unconstitutional. States often end up in court opposing one another. In each case, it is the state that comes before the court as a single entity, not as a number of citizens.

If VT has a decades-long border dispute with NY, should NY have more than a dozen times the influence on picking the judges who will hear the dispute? CA 14 times the representation of NV in a water dispute?

There are times when we exercise our power as individuals and there are times when we exercise them collectively as states. This is clearly a case where it is the state as a body that is represented. I submit that this is likely why the House isn't even involved in judicial consent.

There are still lots of cases where similar rules apply. I'm head of a small HOA (~60 homes/lots). Each property gets a single vote. It doesn't matter how nice the home is (or if there is even a home on the lot). It doesn't matter than one home has a lone widow living there and next door is a family of seven (or even a unoccupied home next door). Each gets one because it's the ownership rights of the property that are being represented, not the individuals who live in the community.

[SlimJimmy]

373. Obviously, understanding why the Constitution was written the way it was is not your strong suit.

Understanding why the Congress was set up the way it was is beyond your comprehension. It's not like this hasn't been explained by myself and others multiple times in this thread. I can only come to the conclusion that it is willful ignorance on your part. I don't mean to be harsh, but it has to be said. Feel free to read the Federalist Papers when you get a chance and learn something.

[coalition_unwilling]

374. I understand perfectly well why the Constitution was written the way it

was. That does not mean I agree with the way it was written, nor that the way it was written comports with any reasonably-minded definition of the word 'democratic' or of the principle of 'one man, one vote.'

[SlimJimmy]

378. It completely comports with one man one vote. We elect the Senators in each state to represent our

state's interests. We elect Congressmen to represent our regional interests. Each person in the state votes and has their voice heard.

[Art_from_Ark]

290. The Senate exists mostly because of small northeastern states

At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, it was the small states that wanted equal representation, as proposed in the New Jersey Plan. It was the large states that wanted proportional representation, as proposed in the Virginia Plan. The South generally favored proportional representation, because most of the Southern states at the time had greater potential for population growth. It was the Southern states that got the 3/5 compromise pushed through for proportional representation purposes.

[FBaggins]

291. Useful to point out how times change.

You get the impression that this really has little to do with "what's the right way to set up a system" and far more to do with "I'm not happy with the results I'm getting under the current rules, so I want to change them".

[coalition_unwilling]

377. I'm clearly going to have to review my American history (or, as we

European historians call it, 'current events' .

I had all along thought I remembered that the Southern states insisted on 2 Senators per state to preserve slavery's power relative to the North. The expansion into the West (and the consequent North-West alliance using rail technology over river and canals) threatened that relative balance of power.

That is how I remembered it, but I clearly need to go back and review, it seems. Thanks for your annotation.

[freshwest]

94. I see two errors with your thinking, although I perceive the justice in it.

First, yes, the Senate is composed of only 100 persons.

They are not the most powerful body, the House of Representatives is. The HoR is based on population as you claim is fair, so changing the Senate won't help.

Second, spending time advocating for this change, which is not needed, is taking away energy and resources from changing that body which is at this time, based on population.

We need to get out the vote to change the current HoR.

If we can't stop these wackos in the present time, we can't do other things.

So after thinking about it for a while, with all due respect, and that's not a snark, I think this idea is a bad one given the times we are in, and the perils we are faced with. First, change the HoR.

[Sgent]

211. The Senate is the most powerful body

The house has one regular duty that the Senate doesn't -- to originate revenue measures. However, precedent has eroded this since the Senate is free to amend any House bill to add additional revenue.

The Senate approves all appointments (Supreme Court, Ambassadors, Cabinet members, military officers, etc.), and can ratify treaties. This vastly outweighs the other.

[freshwest]

217. The HoR controls the strings and has been extorting us since 2010. Newt did too.

The HoR has wrecked most social safety net programs in this country since the 1990s by not funding them. Want to have an EPA, EEOC, food stamps, health care, etc.?

The HoR can do midnight meetings as they did during the Clinton years and cut them. Then they present them to the Senate and keep chipping away. Or as they did last year, threaten to not raise the debt limit or pass a budget. It was not the Senate controlled by Democrats that did this, it was the HoR controlled by the radical right that did it in the HoR.

The Senate has the treaties, but the HoR can cut any thing and any where they want. And they are the representatives by the numbers of the people, not the Senate, as the OP indicates is a problem. Changing the Senate is not going to happen.

We can't get a constitutional amendment through and that's what the OP requires. The OP writers also stresses education to get people to awaken to an injustice when we have been unable to get the Teaparty voted out of Congress. In either house. I'm not being a defeatist or saying that the idea has no merit.

But we are not going to persuade the American people with more Senators through a process like an amendment when we can't even get the American people to put these people out of office.

[Flying Squirrel]

212. I don`t quite get why you say

The senate is less powerful than the House. Senators get to serve for 6 years instead of two, so they are less worried about what their constituents might think when they vote. Also the Senate has managed to make it so that 51% majority (or even 59% majority) means absolutely nothing. And they kill everything the house sends their way that they don`t like. That`s pretty powerful.

[freshwest]

221. What the HoR won't pass, they make the Senate reconcile. We are not getting the budgets passed that

We wanted. The Koches created the Teaparty and took over the House,. not the Senatem in 2010 for the purpose of not allowing the Bush tax cuts expire. Their shenanigans reduced the credit rating of the United States. They have been holding this country hostage and putting in cuts against the people's needs and the programs that Obama tried to fulill from his first day in office. I have seen these same manuevers on the state level. The power of the purse overcomes the power of debate everytime. All that has to be done is cut the money from needed programs and infrastructure. And the other point I have is that we have not made the seachange of public opinion to change the makeup of the House. Thus if we could get an amendment, which we will not, there is little hope they will not be filled by more Teabaggers. So we now have a body elected BY population as the OP is advocating in place. But it's GOP Teaparty. At this time the blue states do have more population and the Senate does not reflect it. But it was not created to do that, the House is doing that. And look what we have. Okay guys, say tomato or tomatoe, the two houses of Congress are equal in representation. But the GOP does not have the majority in the Senate and the HoR has not worked with them at all. There are a lot of things going wrong on the state level to bring in all these Teabaggers. But restructuring the Senate will not change that. I like the theory of direct representation in all elections, and the EC troubles me. If we didn't have the USSC and the EC acting the way they did, we would not have had to suffer 8 years of Bush. I gotta call it a night now and we might come to some agreement but perhaps I am looking at this in real life terms too much and not in theory as the OP does.

[lastlib]

155. I hope we see one--SOON!!

to overturn Citizens United.

[cali]

2. No, it doesn't need to be addressed. It's settled

House of Representatives- by population. Senate- each state gets two.

[LiberalFighter]

4. Agreed!

That was the intent of the Founders. If the Senate is also done by population then might as well get rid of it and just use the House. That would be a bad mistake as we would have the same problems that exists there.

[CreekDog]

6. that's right, everything in the constitution is that way forever

it's settled.

never discuss it again.

slavery was also permitted by the original constitution --why did we muck with that?

what a vapid argument.

[cali]

9. yes, yes. just like slavery.

You don't even have an argument. The reasoning behind why each state was designated to have two Senators has been explained in this thread. And it's just as valid today as it was nearly 250 years ago.

[CreekDog]

63. You said I don't have an argument? My OP has several

my responses have several.

I have the arguments of the courts and scholars on the matter.

You didn't even know the Courts had ruled on this!

Your reflexive reaction was to disagree with me on this, and that's fine.

Where you made an error was assuming that experts had thought as little about the issue and questioned the issue as little as you had.

That's where you're wrong. The subject of the Senate is a serious issue that is not as settled as you imagine.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

67. Until the Constitution is amended, the issue is completely, totally, 100% settled n/t

[CreekDog]

76. It's not settled to me. It is law, but so are many discriminatory things

I wouldn't call unfair laws and institutions "settled".

[SickOfTheOnePct]

83. Just because you see it as unfair doesn't mean that it really is unfair

How do you plan to have the Constitution amended to fix what you see as a problem?

Also, under your scenario, what is the point of even having states anymore?

[CreekDog]

109. The Courts agree with my argument about it's unfairness

court rulings have outlawed this type of representation in every case where they have authority.

but because this one is prescribed by the constitution, the US senate is the one exception.

no state is allowed to set up its senate the way the United States is.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

127. The courts agree with it at the state level

Not at the federal level.

[CreekDog]

156. No, at the Federal level as well

the states cannot just allocate their house seats any way they want.

the Senate is not up for debate not because its structure is democratic, but because it's undemocratic, but undemocratic thanks to the constitution.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

158. Um, apportionment for the House is also in the Constitution n/t

[CreekDog]

161. You don't have to read court cases posted here, but you ignorance doesn't mean they don't exist

there is a court case regarding apportionment of House seats.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

164. I did read them

And they upheld the Constitutional mandate that House seats be apportioned among the population.

Are you ever going to answer the questions that have been posed to you about your plan, namely, what is the point of having two houses that are both apportioned by population, and how will states be equally represented under your plan?

Or are of you of the opinion that we should abolish the federalist model?

[snooper2]

279. First thing I would do is start an online petition-

[CreekDog]

248. Just as valid today when only white, male property owners could vote?

and no individual could vote for a senator, only state legislators who passed religious tests, were white, property owning males of especially great wealth...

the highest irony is that you state that it's basis is as valid as it was 250* years ago, when it was even more unfair!

is yours a bankrupt argument?

PS-250 years ago was 1762. the Senate wasn't created until 1787. i hope you do not teach this subject.

[iemitsu]

60. senators used to be chosen by the Representatives from each state.

today they are selected by popular vote. some changes have been made to address issues in the senate.
yet, they remain an elite body designed to thwart the will of the masses.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

71. Yes, it was a Constitutional amendment

Which is what would be needed to address the changes wanted by the OP. It isn't as simple as passing a law.

[brewens]

81. It's that it's so easy to buy power by snagging small state senators that needs to

be fixed. If we stopped that, those senators would be much more likely to vote in the interests of their people, not the big corporations that own them.

[cali]

238. Really? I'll wager Vermont has the two most uncorrupt Senators

Post any evidence you have that small state Senators are easier to buy than larger state Senators.

[brewens]

278. That just means you have two honest and popular senators. I've heard of this problem

repeatedly but here's a link that explains what is going on. It only took me a few seconds to find it.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/08/23/770534/-The-Problem-of-the-Small-State-Senator

[Johonny]

105. But the House is capped so big state still unrepresented in house

since small population states still get 1 representative. So I think the logic is no convincingly settles. Since the US is no longer a collection of city-states, the way we create the congress is illogical. Just because it was last argued hundreds of years ago, doesn't mean their solution is the best solution for today.

[SlimJimmy]

339. Agree. IOW, the house is the peoples' representative, the Senate the more deliberative body.

As it was designed.

[Lasher]

3. It was intentionally set up this way in the Constitution.

And appropriately so. The smaller states don't want to be unfairly dominated by the larger states and this protects against such a thing. Without this precaution the 13 original colonies would not have agreed to form the United States.

[CreekDog]

5. so was slavery --that it was intentional is not a justification

giving one individual more vote than another is unacceptable in a democracy.

[banned from Kos]

14. We are not really a democracy. We are a republic.

Residents of states vote in a democratic fashion but are bound by national law (thankfully).

[Scootaloo]

88. You do know that's a right-wing blab, right?

A republic is a democracy. There's no conflict between the two concepts. "This isn't a democracy" is a favorite talking point of people who really have no interest in representative government, instead preferring a plutocratic elite; a Roman-style senate nobility, if you like.

[white_wolf]

89. Rule by a plutocratic elite is exactly what some people want.

Including some of U.S. founders. Which is why I tend to reject these appeals to authority like "the Framers intended it to be this way." Well of course they did, they were the plutocrats of their day.

[Scootaloo]

207. Ah yes, the Hamiltonians

They get very confused when you call 'em that by the way, like they're not sure if it's a compliment or an insult.

[FBaggins]

280. It is in no sense a "right-wing" blab.

A republic is a democracy.

There are republics that are not democracies and democracies that are not republics. We happen to live in a republican democracy... but it hardly matters.

The simple fact is that the terminology has changed over the decades, but whether you call it "republic" or "rutabaga", you can't from one side of your mouth say "we are a rutabaga" and with the other draw the conclusion "because of that we need to change our structure of government".

It's self-contradictory. Whatever you want to call our system, it does not now (nor has it ever) lived by the principal that a simple majority of people nationally should be able to govern. They do not and should not.

[Scootaloo]

293. Yes, it very much is

It is a statement used by the right - especially among Libertarians - to discredit the notion that "the people" should have any say whatsoever in how this country functions. it fits into their "the government is our enemy" meme. It is then often repeated by clueless people who want to sound educated, regardless of their political leanings.

There is no conflict between a "republic" and a "democracy."

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-democracy.htm

[FBaggins]

298. Repeating a falsehood doesn't make it any less false.

There is no conflict between a "republic" and a "democracy."

It's clear that the founders had a very different usage for the two words than how we often use them today, but pointing out the distinction in what the words meant at the time is hardly conservative or libertarian (and lets not even start on how silly it is to conflate libertarians with the right. They're not the same thing).

There can be no debate that the OP uses "democracy" to mean something very different from the way our country was structured. Pointing that out with the terminology that the founders used is not "blab" of any sort (let alone right-wing)

a statement used ...to discredit the notion that "the people" should have any say whatsoever in how this country functions

Which exhibits the same ignorance that the OP does. A "republic" is no less of "the people" than other "democratic" forms.

hp://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-democracy.htm

What an authoritative-looking source.

[Scootaloo]

300. Oh good lord

Yes, Libertarians are very much on the right.

I only converse with people who exist in reality. Adieu, good sir.

[FBaggins]

301. I guess US Govt wasn't the only course you failed?

Yes, Libertarians are very much on the right.

Sure... just like all the rest of the folks on the "right" who are opposed to military intervention, in favor of legalization of drugs, pro choice, pro lgbt, anti patriot act... etc.

Need I go on?

Perhaps I'm wrong about you failing the subjects. Perhaps you haven't gotten to them yet?

[white_wolf]

348. Libertarians are very much on the right.

They are for low taxes, no social safety net, free market capitalism.

[FBaggins]

351. Some are... and some are on the left.

Typically fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

Which is why conflating them with republicans is silly.

[white_wolf]

352. On economic issues American Libertarians are on the right.

They are left on social issues, but the vast majority of them put economics before social issues and vote for Republicans anyway. The only left libertarians are anarchists and it's clear from the context of this thread we weren't discussing anarchism, but American Ayn Rand-inspired libertarianism.

[FBaggins]

356. The structure of a democracy is a social issue...

...not an economic one.

Regardless... to the extent that they would differentiate between the Founders' usage of "democracy" and "republic", they are in no sense "right wing"... they are simply correct (which generally puts them in our camp, wouldn't you say?)

[LeftyMom]

29. To preserve slavery.

Don't forget that part.

[Bucky]

101. Actually, no.

The Senate certainly did protract out the life of non-compromise over slavery, but when the Constitution was written, the southern Framers were actually expecting the House to be the part of government that protected the South's interests--the south was more populous and was more closely politically aligned with the western territories where they expected new states to be formed.

The crass political calculus of the Senate was to protect the shipping interests of the "landless states"--meaning New England, New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland.

[CreekDog]

174. thank you

people forget how much of the government design we see is a result of trying to appease slaveowners.

some of these shackles were abandoned over the years, but not all.

[Egalitarian Thug]

230. Look at the further Amendments, when they were adopted, and what they do.

Most of them are simply updates and corrections of governmental process and It took 4 of them just to get most slavery out of that highly defective original prototype.

[CreekDog]

246. right.

but many here describe the document as something to be venerated, and, for its time, yes, but for 2012? no way.

it needs key reform, impossible though it may be to achieve, to simply give up on it because it's hard is bad...

but for some to instead say that, "no it's awesome in every way" and oppose democratic reforms is sad.

and that opposition will be the document's undoing, for it's ability to be a living document is what's allowed it (and US) to persist as we have.

[Egalitarian Thug]

277. It's an alpha release. It's the foundation that's just stable enough to fill most of

its functionality and serve as a starting point to finish primary development.

The religious disease has done us in. Instead of taking it for what it is, we've enshrined it in a mythology of divine inspiration and let it malfunction until it is now all but irrelevant.

[Scootaloo]

84. "Because constitution" isn't a valid argument

It's an appeal to authority. Yes the constitution does say this and that. Our job as alert citizens is to ask, "should we keep this? Is that still valid? What if we added something?"

Must we really worry about the "smaller" states being "dominated" by larger ones? Dominated how, in what fashion? What danger does California pose to North Dakota (neither of which existed when this concept was formed, incidentally)?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

91. You're correct that CA and ND didn't exist when this concept was formed

But they joined the United States under this concept, i.e., that each individual state would be equal in the eyes of the federal government, due to the makeup of the Senate.

As for larger states dictating to smaller states, no, it wouldn't be on an individual basis, as in your example. But do you believe that it would be right for 9 states to be able to mandate legislation for the other 41? At that point, what is the point of even having states?

[Scootaloo]

99. "What's the point of having states"

You know, that's actually a damn fine question.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

106. Well, I appluad you for actually stating what I've been wondering about

i.e., is the idea that some people just want to eliminate the states altogether?

[Scootaloo]

206. Well, is there a reason for having 'em?

I understand the need for regionalized administrative areas; we span a continent, plus some, you're going to need to form it into smaller chunks to run the place, that's just sense.

But the system of states that we have is just a little strange and strikes me as archaic. So, what's the argument for preserving the notion of nations-in-a-nation? Besides "because constitution"

[CBGLuthier]

328. Because blankians don't want to live like otherblankians.

Look, you want to start a new country go ahead. But this is called the UNITED STATES for a reason. May seem archaic and quaint but it is really a collection of States, each with their own peculiarities. It IS what we are and it would probably take a constitutional convention not merely a few amendments to make that kind of fundamental change and good luck with that process ever happening.

If we do take the CC route most likely the nation will not come out the other side intact. Which would probably be a good thing.

[Scootaloo]

335. So you have no logical reasoning for the existence of our system of states

and have to fall back to "BECAUSE!"

[FBaggins]

343. You not understanding/accepting a reason is not the same thing as a lack of same.

The mere fact that an answer to "why" starts with "because" does not mean that there is nothing more to the answer.

The answer to why we need states is the same as why the European Union still has countries... and why the UN isn't a world government.

But I'll give you a simple answer. It's because power comes from "we the people" and we the people overwhelmingly want it this way.

[Eksess]

309. Because Constitution?

Are you saying the Constitution is just a piece of paper that gets in the way?


The reason for all the freedoms we enjoy are inherently 'because Constitution'. The reason creationist bullshit got tossed out of some school systems is 'because Constitution'. Hell, the reason alcohol was outlawed for several years was 'because Constitution'.


But I do agree sorta. 'Because Constitution isn't a valid argument'. Because Constitution is the only argument.

[Scootaloo]

310. OUTRAGE! FIST-SHAKING! FLAG-WAVING!

"Why is X this way?"
"Because it is"

"Why is X this way?"
"Because I say so"

"Why is X this way?"
"Because it's in the Bible."

"Why is X this way?"
"Because it's in the constitution."

These are all exactly the same answer. And all four answers are worthless for actually providing an answer to the question. It's a glib dismissal of the question raised and nothing more. of course, here comes someone like you, to get irate about their appeal to authority being written off as fucking useless.

Yes, "it's in the constitution," but WHY is it in there? What's the point? what was the goal? What's the context? Is it still important to have there? Does it apply to our reality, more than two centuries later?

Laws must be regularly evaluated and updated to ensure they continue to have worth for the society bound by them. If we just jerk around squawking about "IT'S THE LAW!" without ever considering the worth of that law, then we're really no different from those authoritarian fucks on the right, are we?

[coalition_unwilling]

233. At the risk of a really bad pun, you are whitewashing history, as the issue that

drove the creation of the Senate in its current structure was SLAVERY. To wit, the slave states were worried they'd get muscled without some protection in the form of 2 senators per state.

[dsc]

8. It is literally impossible to address

no state can have its Senate vote reduced without its consent. We are sadly stuck with it.

[CreekDog]

10. we could add senators

or amend the constitution.

and no movement starts out as a slam dunk.

even impossible ideas are worth advocating for.

[pintobean]

12. But, bad ideas aren't

[CreekDog]

225. the current Senate composition is the bad idea here, wanting to make it fairer is the good idea

I'm on the right side of this.

In 100 years, your position will be the dinosaur position.

[pintobean]

267. Really?

Name the states that you think will concede all their power to the big states. It isn't going to happen.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/usconstitution/a/constamend.htm

[CreekDog]

268. does that mean I shouldn't try?

they pushed for Civil Rights before there were the votes to pass it.

was that bad idea? would you have been discouraging them?

[pintobean]

275. I don't equate the two.

Try all you want. I think it's pissing into the wind. There's no way small states are going to give their power away. Hell, the bigger states aren't going to want to give more power to the biggest.

[cali]

15. this one sucks.

I'd fight vigorously against it. Nice that I won't have to though.

[CreekDog]

20. what other country allocates things this way?

are we better and more democratic than such a nation?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

137. Canada n/t

[SickOfTheOnePct]

25. It isn't either or

You can't add Senators unless you amend the Constitution.

And no, I'm not in favor of smaller states being dictated to by larger states - that's why the Senate is important, IMO.

You stated that states aren't people, and of course, you're right. But then again, we aren't a democracy, we're a representative republic. Unless and until the Constitution is amended in radical fashion, the country is comprised of states, that along with individuals, have rights.

[CreekDog]

27. People are the source of power, not the states they reside in

what you're saying sounds reasonable to you, but by placing the power in the state based on geography and not population, it's inherently un-democratic.

the US Supreme Court said so!

[SickOfTheOnePct]

36. They didn't say so for the Senate

And why? Because it would be unconstitutional.

The very founding of the country is based on geography, i.e., the borders that make up the individual states. Had that not been the intent, state boundaries would have been eliminated, and there would have been no requirement for individual states to ratify the Constitution. You may well wish for the elimination of states, but that isn't going to happen unless the entire Constitution is thrown out and we start over again. The states are granted enormous power in the Constitution, and that isn't going to change in our lifetimes.

[CreekDog]

41. So? Did the constitution permit slavery? Did it permit people to be counted 3/5ths?

those things were constitutional for quite a while.

did that make them right?

does it make unfairness democratic now?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

47. Of course that didn't make them right

But it took amendments to address them, and it will take an amendment to change the makeup of the Senate.

While I agree that slavery and the 3/5 proposition were both wrong, I don't agree that the makeup of the Senate is wrong. Larger states should not have the power to mandate to smaller states, which is exactly what would happen under your scenario. IMO, the framers were brilliant to set up Congress the way they did, offering both proportional representation via the House, and acknowledging that each state, regardless of population, is equal in this country, via the Senate.

[CreekDog]

53. then why aren't states allowed to do this to protect rural counties?

small counties from being abused by larger counties?

why is that?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

58. Because the U.S Constitution doesn't tell them that they can?

You keep making this argument as though that is somehow going to change everyone's mind, and it simply won't. The U.S. Constitution didn't address how the states ran themselves, it addressed how the states would come together to form the nation. You don't have to like it, and you can certainly fight to change it, but your refusal to recognize that there is a reason for the way the Senate was formed does nothing to further your argument.

You want the small states to be overrun and dictated to by the larger states, thereby negating the entire notion that each state is equal and sovereign under the law. Under your scenario, we might as well do away with states altogether.

Like I said, not going to happen in our lifetimes.

[CreekDog]

80. I want a citizen in a small state to have the same power as other citizens

citizens in small states and citizens in large states should have the same voting power nationally.

right now they don't.

a voter in Los Angeles has far less influence on the US government than a voter in Des Moines.

that is not fair.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

86. Then what you are advocating is the elimination of the states n/t

[CreekDog]

125. No. Democratic countries have states and provinces and districts.

Canada for example. Its provinces have power.

Don't put words in my mouth.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

135. What is the point of having states if they are not seen as or treated equally at the federal level?

Under your plan, 9 states will able to dictate to and control the other 41.

[CreekDog]

163. no, my reform would put the people in charge

and it wouldn't be one state versus another.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

165. Then your goal is to abolish the federalist model n/t

[CreekDog]

168. No, federalism exists in Canada, for example

but the proportion of representation would be determined by the number of citizens, not the number of states.

that said, which is more important to you, Federalism or Democracy, if you could have only one of the two?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

173. You should take a few minutes to learn about Canada's Senate

Though they rarely do, they have the power to vote down laws passed by the House of Commons. And they are appointed by province, not by population.

The Canadian Senate is there to look out for regional interests...sound familiar?

As for my preference, I'm for the representative republic, the federalist model that we were founded under. If we're going to have 50 individual states, then those states need equal representation in the government, and that's the whole point of the Senate. Both houses of Congress have their purpose, one as the more direct representative of the citizens, and the other as the popularly elected representatives of the states themselves.

I have no interest whatsoever in a system where 9 or 10 populous states can pass laws that are to the detriment of smaller states.

[CreekDog]

249. if our Senate was the same as Canada's it would not be the problem that it is here

"The governor general summons and appoints each of the (currently) 105 members of senators on the advice of the prime minister,[40] while the (currently) 308 members of the House of Commons (Members of Parliament) are directly elected by eligible voters in the Canadian populace, with each member representing a single electoral district for a period mandated by law of not more than four years;[41] the constitution mandates a maximum of five years. Per democratic tradition, the House of Commons is the dominant branch of parliament, the Senate and Crown rarely opposing its will. The Senate, thus, reviews legislation from a less partisan standpoint, and the Crown provides the necessary Royal Assent to make bills into law. The Crown, acting on the advice of the prime minister, also summons, prorogues, and dissolves parliament in order to call an election, as well as reads the Throne Speech."

(source Wikipedia)

[FBaggins]

344. Now hold on a second...

...are you seriously putting that out there as MORE democratic than our system?

You really don't know what you're talking about, do you? You just assume that everyone else does it a better way... without even understanding how they actually do it.

Canada's senate is not only unelected, but they are also equally portioned out to the four regions of Canada (which do not have equal populations).

You asked at least once whether any other countries do things this way. Have you actually looked at any other countries?

[CreekDog]

346. My OP and thinking is that the unequal, undemocratic representation needs reform

the most straightforward way to reform is by having a Senate that is apportioned according to population.

but if the Senate is not to be reformed, then it is better that they take a lesser role, because their power doesn't originate from all citizens equally, but from some citizens with more voting power than other voting citizens. and that's wrong.

i don't know why you are wedded to an idea that is 200+ years old and one that not even half the original colonies supported.

i'm disagreeing with an idea that wasn't popular when it was thought of originally.

voting power should be according to ones numbers, not because one's geography gives them greater numbers than another's geography would give them.

[FBaggins]

354. The problem with that...

... is that it isn't "unequal" and it certainly isn't "undemocratic".

It's as if you're saying "we're vegetarians, and therefore it doesn't make sense to eat bananas because they have no protein". There isn't actually a connection. You can argue that bananas don't have enough protein, and others are free to disagree that there are more important dietary reasons to eat them... but you can't rationally say that it's because we're vegetarians.

i don't know why you are wedded to an idea that is 200+ years old and one that not even half the original colonies supported.

Because it made sense then and it makes sense today. You don't like it, not because of some valid structural concern, but because you aren't getting what you want from government and you think this would change the outcome.

i'm disagreeing with an idea that wasn't popular when it was thought of originally.

And you're wrong... but that hardly matters. The reason you've been getting overwhelming condemnation on the thread is not because it's a bad idea (though it is), but because you've got this ridiculous notion that there's some foundational universal priority that we all share (democracy) which itself demands the adjustment. That was, and remains, entirely wrong. Lots of entirely democratic countries have systems that are every bit as "unequal and undemocratic" by that standard.

Let's talk about a redesign for the House. So many of them are gerrymandered into automatic seats for one party or another. Those representatives aren't really as answerable to the voters as the competitive seats. Why not construct a system where a certain number of voters (regardless of geography) can elect someone to represent them? You get 250,000 teachers to vote for you (from all around the country) and you're a congressman. You're truly representing a viewpoint and only people who voted for you. There aren't tens of thousands of voters in your district who voted against you but are stuck with you... everyone gets to be represented by someone who actually matches their viewpoint. There would be pro-steel congressmen because steel workers got together and picked somone who truly represented them (and so on for any number of constituencies).

It would obviously be a far more representative democracy than what we have now, wouldn't it?

But let us not start the thread by implying that anyone who loves/understands democracy will naturally gravitate to this position. They won't... and shouldn't.

[SlimJimmy]

341. Correct, and I have no interest in nine or ten states deciding who the President will be

every four years. That's why I'm still in favor of the Electoral College.

I have no interest whatsoever in a system where 9 or 10 populous states can pass laws that are to the detriment of smaller states.

[CreekDog]

321. Not at all, and you're back to misleading people to try to win this argument

apparently you aren't convinced you can win this argument without lying about my positions and what I've said.

which means that you don't believe your arguments are sufficient, in and of themselves.

[Art_from_Ark]

319. Where do you get this idea that

"a voter in Los Angeles has far less influence on the US government than a voter in Des Moines."? Both voters are represented by two US Senators, and their respective local Congressperson. If anything, though, a voter in Des Moines has far less influence on Presidential elections, since his/her vote will only work to elect 7 electors to the Electoral College, provided his/her candidate wins the majority of the state's votes, while the Los Angeles voter has the potential to help his/her candidate win 55 electoral votes.

As for my own state, Arkansas, its 6 miniscule electoral votes almost always go for the Republican. So I have almost no chance to help affect the outcome of the state's Presidential vote.

[DonCoquixote]

103. so answer this

What proviso would you put in to keep big states from dominating small ones? Realize that without the Senate, the states that would win are Texas and Florida. If all the corporations have to do is secure Texas. Florida and some rightwingers in Orange County. Democracy will be in jeopardy. No bernie sabders or ted kennedy.

[CreekDog]

107. the constitution wouldn't allow laws that give money only to states with bigger populations

but theoretically, a reform amendment to address the senate could also address potential inequality.

[DonCoquixote]

117. er

No offense meant, but that is already happening. The reforms would have to come way before this could be considered.

[CreekDog]

122. What is happening already? Small states get more funding than large ones.

considering budget bills originate in the House, how is what you fear happening?

[Angleae]

96. You can't add senators without addiing states.

You can't just "add" senator like supreme court justices. The number of senators is specified in the consitution (2 per state - Article I, Section 3).

You can, theoretically, add states by splitting up the bigger ones. However that would take a majority vote of congress and consent of the states in question.

[CreekDog]

222. i didn't say they could be added legislatively, please try to keep up

I said "reform" is needed and the point of opening up this discussion was to discuss that reform.

[FBaggins]

253. Actually... you did.

You said "or"... which clearly implies that changing the constitution isn't the only option.

But of course it is.

[CreekDog]

254. no i didn't

but if you have to insist that I said what I didn't say and/or think what I didn't think --if that's all you've got as an argument, then that isn't much is it?

[FBaggins]

259. How ironic

"we could add senators or amend the constitution."

If you have to insist that what you said isn't what you said... then it isn't much of an argument.

And that was the point from the beginning. The "argument" is "we are 'x' type of country, yet we have 'y' form of government" is a self-defeating appeal to an authority that doesn't even exist.

[dsc]

123. sorry I was wrong

but it is still practically impossible given the fact that many states would be voting against interest.

[CreekDog]

224. Think about what we take for granted today, which was seen as impossible when it was first dreamed

gotta start somewhere.

[SlimJimmy]

381. Which would give a second House of Representatives. Damn this is getting tiresome.

[CreekDog]

384. No, it would not, the Senate has staggered terms and longer terms

adding more Senators could be done either at-large or by district within a state.

while there is no perfect solution, keeping what we have ensures an unfair and undemocratic allocation of voting power, allocating far less to individuals in one state than another.

if you are tired of it, you can leave the discussion.

[SlimJimmy]

387. I think I will. We've been around the block on this enough. Brick wall and all that.

if you are tired of it, you can leave the discussion.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

11. I disagree, it needs to stay the way it is

The House is the venue for one person, one vote. Keeping the Senate levels the playing field for small states.

[SlimJimmy]

382. Absolutely, the founding fathers never envisioned a system where the states (at large) would not be

represented. That's why they created the Senate.

[cali]

13. And those 9 states have proportional representation in the House

As someone else said, why even bother having a Senate if it's to be proportional. Just have one body. Get rid of the "saucer".

Our system is imperfect, but the composition of the Senate is not one of the larger problems with it. Why should small states be relegated to having virtually no say in national governance like YOU want?

[CreekDog]

16. because states are not people

why should 12% of the nation (Californians) have 2% of the Senate votes?

voters in Wyoming are more powerful, as individuals, they have more power than voters in California.

what's democratic about that?

[DonCoquixote]

112. what is Democratic

Is that Texas, Florida, California and New York cannot smash the Vermonts and Iowas to pieces. The Senate is a check against one group having most of the say, and being able to tell small states to go hang.

What proviso would you have so that someone in a small state does not get shoved?

I am not deaf to your concerns; the influence of some states has gotten too big, as a skilled Senator can tilt the lever. The left had Ted Kennedy, the Right had Jesse Helms, both of whom tilted the country despite not coming from large states.

However, I do not want to see a Nation where four states can pull the final lever, and I say this as someone from Florida, a small state that is now the forth largest, and soon to be the third. I do not want the crew of crazies we have in the house to have more influence.

[CreekDog]

118. So, you just tell a citizen in Los Angeles that their vote has to count less?

because, what? they would vote to nuke Vermont or Kentucky or something?

then don't let anybody vote, if that's what you're afraid of.

[DonCoquixote]

166. No

It means they can use the House to get their way, which they have a LOT more power with.

[CreekDog]

180. yeah but in the Senate you want that citizen of LA to count less than a citizen of Wyoming

if you defend the idea, you really have to own the idea.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

183. I'll own it

The Senate is there to offer equal representation to the STATES, not to the individual citizens.

And I'm all for that...if states don't have equal representation as states, then toss out the whole Constitution and start over.

Short of a revolution, not gonna happen, because smaller states are not going to give up their equal representation, and if they do, they're foolish.

[DonCoquixote]

210. and the senate

is not the whole of congress, but a half...

Yes, you get a smaller slice on one pie

and most of the slices of the other pie...

Unless you just want to toss whatever slice the small states have in the garbage, because this is the idea you are defending and owning

[CreekDog]

214. right some voters are great than others

the 37 million citizens of California have less power in congress, total, per person than the citizens of Wyoming.

do the math.

some people count more than others.

nevermind that this ends up representing white people greater than their numbers.

[DonCoquixote]

232. so does wyoming

get to complain they have less house members than California.
Does the House count for less than the senate?
do they count less than others?
Do the math.

[CreekDog]

242. if they had 37 million people they would have the same number of House members

and 2 senators, thus equal to California.

and if California had 558,000 people, they would have the same representation as Wyoming.

but when Wyoming has 600,000 in 30 years and California has 80 million, both will have 2 Senators and you will be saying this is fair.

and when those Californians decide they don't want to be part of an America that discounts their votes, your children will have to decide whether or not they have to send their kids to war to quelch the disturbances.

you can't identify an injustice and pretend it will go away.

i identified an injustice and it will not go away. scholars all know this weakness of this system. many of them point out that it's partially due to compromises made with slave states.

deal with this while you can reform it. when it's too late and reform doesn't work, it will tear the country apart.

slavery did and what happened still tears right now.

fix it before it does us in. the senate delayed a Civil Rights bill decade after decade, then weakened it. generations after us will know this legacy and they will wonder why we let it continue.

but instead you're defending it.

and it's not even equal or democratic, just an unfair relic of unfair representation, a House of Lords, but unlike theirs, ours is emboldened.

[DonCoquixote]

304. so you are saying having more house members

means nothing?, especially when the House is currently setting most of the agenda?

Curl yourself into a ball, nothing changes the fact that in the House, small states have nothing, and that were it not for the Senate, small states would be knocked aside.

Since you did threaten civil war, does this means that Vermont needs to invest in Nukes to keep California and Texas away?

[CreekDog]

305. I never said it meant nothing, the least you could do is argue with my positions

not make up ridiculous positions that you attribute to me because you aren't satisfied with arguing against my actual positions.

[DonCoquixote]

307. Your actual position is

That people in california are not as well represented as people in Wyoming, true/false
Second...if true, what does it mean that california has many more members of the house than Wyoming does?

this is the part where you either move the goalpost, or answer the question.

[DonCoquixote]

308. and since I hear the goalpost moving

You said;

"1 person doesn't equal one vote, 1 person in one state gets more representation than 1 person in another state --it simply depends which state they live in. "

So, what prevents Wyoming or Vermont from saying this same speech about California, with it's many more House members?

[CreekDog]

313. The goalpost didn't move, in my OP I asked for "reform" to address this imbalance

there are various ways to reform this and make it fairer.

and "democracy" means more people have more power than fewer people.

[oldhippie]

133. This is NOT the "United People of America" ......

It's the United STATES of America. Maybe that's for a reason?

[CreekDog]

134. if you think states are more important than people, then that's your priority

in this century, that is antiquated thinking.

[CreekDog]

287. thank you for correcting Abraham Lincoln

Last edited Fri Aug 10, 2012, 12:24 AM - Edit history (1)

he should have said, "government of the states, by the states, for the states"

perhaps you can work to have the Lincoln Memorial torn down.

his carelessness in saying "government of the people, by the people, for the people" is really a travesty.

[oldhippie]

288. Politicians say a lot of dumb things ....

Old "Honest Abe" had a couple of well known problems with the Constitution. He didn't seem to like it any more than you do.

[CreekDog]

289. he was supposed to like the part that allowed slavery?

wtf

[FBaggins]

292. You're really confused there.

"Democracy" in no way requires what you constantly imply in this thread. We are no less a government "of the people" because of our form of government.

Thus the very premise of the thread is flawed.

[LanternWaste]

281. I would suggest reading 'The Oxford Guide to the United States Government'

"what's democratic about that?"


I would suggest reading 'The Oxford Guide to the United States Government' for an in-depth and rather comprehensive response to your position-- which it duly and specifically addresses in chapter eight and again in chapter nine with much more than simply bumper-sticker responses.

[whopis01]

283. You have a good starting point, but are missing the bigger picture imo

If I live in a district that elects a republican representative - then I am not being fairly represented either. Even with representation being done entirely by population, it is possible (although not likely - but possible) for nearly 50% of the population to not have their voice fairly represented.

There is little democratic about any representative form of government. Certainly the house of representatives at least puts forth more of a facade of democracy than does the senate - but it falls as woefully short.

As you said elsewhere in the thread - 1 person, 1 vote - that is the only true democracy. Representation always takes the power away from the people.

[CreekDog]

18. one person in one state should have the same say as one in another state

that is democratic.

you are arguing for something other than democracy. sadly, you think because it's in the constitution, that it is by definition democratic.

[RobertEarl]

21. why?

Because two states with one-tenth the population can overrule California with ten times as many people. That ain't right.

Of course the political solution is that we make sure that these small states have senators that tell the corporations, tell the warmongers and tell the haters that no longer will they be unduly represented. The Democratic party should go all out and get the best senators we can find to win elections in all those small states.

[CreekDog]

28. exactly. it is not right.

it is unfair if you believe in equality among citizens.

[cali]

30. You mean like my state of Vermont?

We elect really good people- and not just to Congress. Our House and Senate are filled with intelligent, liberal democrats. Our guv is the most progressive guv in the country.

There is no point in even having a Senate if it's proportional representation. And in reality it doesn't work the way you claim.

[RobertEarl]

50. Right. It doesn't work.

That's the problem. Vermont is about the only small state that has any sense. The rest of them all have yahoos representing them. Why the Dems have not gone all out and gotten good people elected in all those other states makes no sense.

Maybe Vermont's secret is the near total landscape of verdant mountains?

[SlimJimmy]

349. I've said it elswhere in this thread, and I'll repeat it. The founders were absolutely brilliant

in their design of our government. Nothing needs to be changed.

[Hippo_Tron]

17. I'd be in favor of getting rid of the Senate period, or making it basically powerless

Pretty much every other western democracy has rendered their upper house legislatively powerless. There's really no need for such an institution in this day and age.

[CreekDog]

19. i agree.

if it is to be kept, then seats should be allocated proportionally.

I also think that House of Representatives should be increased so that people have more access to individual representatives.

[RobertEarl]

23. Right

One rep now reps close to 700,000 citizens. An impossible task.

There should be one rep for every 30,000 at most, said the first President.

As for doing business and voting they could do it much the same as we on DU commiserate. From home, via the tubes.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

26. A House of Representatives with 10,000 members?

You think it's a nightmare now...

[CreekDog]

38. maybe not 10,000 reps, but more than 435

are you unaware that it was increased steadily until the 1930's?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

43. No, I am not unaware of that fact

But you said 1 rep for every 30,000 citizens. That is untenable, so what would your proportion be?

[CreekDog]

45. I did not say 30000 citizens, please. Keep track of whom you are arguing.

don't put words in my mouth.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

49. Sorry, it was a different poster

Robert Earl.

Geez, lighten up.

[RobertEarl]

55. Yeah 30,000 per rep

Why not? All they really have power over is voting on an issue.

The rest of their job is raising money to get reelected. And if we had 10,000 reps the representation would be so much better,. You have something against better representation?

They could do most all their work over the internet. They wouldn't need offices in DC. They could convene every so often, but that would be easy. 10,000 people conventions are nothing.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

61. I have something against a 10,000 member House of Representatives

It's ludicrous, IMO.

[RobertEarl]

70. No it isn't. See, two can play that game.

George Washington - you might remember him - was a proponent of one rep for each 30,000.

If we had 10,000 we would see a broader representation of the people making laws in this country, and that could only mean better. More democracy. You consider more and better democracy to be ludicrous?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

74. Sure he did

With a population of ~3.9 million people, you're talking a House of ~130 reps. Big difference between 130 and 10,000.

I don't believe that we need to have such a riduculously large number of reps in order to have a better democracy.

[RobertEarl]

85. It is not ridiculous

It makes sense. One rep for 30,000 means the rep could actually discover what the constituents wanted.

Bribes to buy votes would be meaningless.

All the work could be done on the internet much the same way as DU operates. Of course, 15 years ago, the idea of a DU was considered ridiculous.

However, George didn't think 30,000 per was ridiculous.

[Hippo_Tron]

145. You're not going to win the argument that it ought to be proportional

The proportionality of the Senate is based on the idea that we're a union of 50 nations rather than one nation and I think that's completely ridiculous in this day and age. But there are still many many proponents of federalism, particularly at a moment when opinions of the federal government are at an all time low.

The better argument for abolishing the Senate is that it's an arcane institution based on the House of Lords, designed to represent the interests of the elites and not the people. Given how low peoples' opinions are of congress right now, I really think a movement to abolish the Senate altogether could gain some traction. Of course it would only save taxpayers a few pennies each year (if that), but nothing outrages people more than what they consider to be the excesses of congress.

[CreekDog]

154. i agree with both your points, but my feeling is that education is better if I aim directly at it

since there is almost no chance of changing it at the present moment, i can use my abilities to educate people as to the archaic nature of the Senate among democracies as well as it's appalling unfairness.

enough education will change things, in time.

[hfojvt]

22. Georgia is the 9th largest?

Last edited Mon Aug 6, 2012, 11:04 AM - Edit history (1)

Wow, I would not have guess that. And probably soon to be the 8th as it passes Michigan.

Now, look at the 9 smallest - just to increase the outrage.

Wyoming - 532,668
Vermont - 621,270
North Dakota - 641,481
Alaska - 686,293
South Dakota - 804,194
Delaware - 873,092
Montana - 967,440
Rhode Island - 1,050,788
Hawaii - 1,288,198
total - 7,465,424

about 2.4% of the US population, with the same representation as the top half.

Now, such an arrangement definitely offends (edit: "defends", wtf?) my democratic and fairness sensibilities, BUT, do we really want two legislative bodies that are just like the House? Is that one of our main problems in this country, that we don't have two legislative bodies just like the House? Because giving more senators to California, Texas, New York, Florida and Illinois is no more likely to produce a more progressive chamber than it does for the current House.

Further, it might be noted that in California, with it's 53 seats in the House has one Representative for every 711,168 people, whereas Representatives in Wyoming, Vt, ND, and Ak are mis-representing fewer people. My observation would be that the Senate, for all it's lack of fairness, has often been far more reasonable than the House.

[CreekDog]

24. the Senate would be different from the House, with its longer terms and staggered seating

only one third of seats would change each cycle, at most.

for example.

also, if by accident the Senate has seemed more reasonable, doesn't mean it was designed fairly.

for what it's worth, the Senate has blocked progressive reforms time after time. small states certainly impeded passage of civil rights laws, or at least, stronger ones. likewise for health care reform.

[cali]

31. It's a sily pipe dream. It'll never happen. dream on.

[CreekDog]

33. If your idea is right, then why can't individual states do it?

why can't a state set up it's Senate to make sure rural counties have as much power as urban ones?

do you even know why?

[cali]

40. No, I don't know why. I don't know that they can't.

In any case, what you want to do is change a fundamental building block of government that is rooted in the Constitution. Just about impossible to do. As I said, it's a pipe dream.

[CreekDog]

42. You're lecturing me and you don't know why??? Wow. The courts said it is unfair.

The practice which was common across the US was OUTLAWED.

Over 40 years ago, the US Supreme Court declared this type of apportionment unconstitutional for all other legislative bodies, be it at the state level or the US Congressional level. The other thing stopping them from applying it to the US Senate was that body's establishment in the Constitution. Unfair or not, because it's enumerated in the constitution, it continues, were it not, it would've been outlawed or changed in the name of equality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesberry_v._Sanders
The Court issued its ruling on February 17, 1964. This decision requires each state to draw its U.S. Congressional districts so that they are approximately equal in population.
Nationally, this decision effectively reduced the representation of rural districts in the U.S. Congress. Particularly, the Court held that the population differences among Georgia's congressional districts were so great as to violate the Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Carr
landmark United States Supreme Court case that retreated from the Court's political question doctrine, deciding that redistricting (attempts to change the way voting districts are delineated) issues present justiciable questions, thus enabling federal courts to intervene in and to decide reapportionment cases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._Sims
United States Supreme Court case that ruled that state legislature districts had to be roughly equal in population.

[cali]

57. No, I'm more excoriating your idea and ridiculing your pipe dream

than lecturing you. And states are not the federal government. Changing this is a pipe dream, like revoking the 2nd amendment. A waste of time.

[banned from Kos]

32. If Romney is elected you will be thankful that the Senate can impede

legislation.

Although admittedly Dems are not experts at impeding that the GOP is.

[CreekDog]

35. a fairer senate could still perform that function

but since this idea is theoretical at this point, it is likely decades away.

however, if we don't begin attempting a reform, it may never happen.

[Fumesucker]

52. Largest state east of the Mississippi river and the Atlanta metro area has over 5 million people..

About as many people in Atlanta as the entire state of Wisconsin..

[cali]

252. CA has 53 representatives. Vermont and Wyoming have 1 each

there's your proportional representation- in the most powerful chamber of the Congress. And yes, without doubt the House is more powerful than the Senate.

[hfojvt]

282. it's not even proportional there though

since each California Congressperson is representing 711,000 people and is no more powerful than the Wyoming Congressperson who is only representing 532,668 people. Voting as a bloc, California can certainly out-vote Vermont and Wyoming in the House, but they cannot out-vote the other 382 Representatives, and lately it seems like parties are voting as a bloc, not states, or even regions. One exception being the farm bill. Both Harkin and Grassley voted for it and Kennedy and Lautenberg (NJ) voted against it. That was in the Senate, but the same dynamic probably held in the House.

[jp11]

34. I'll be interested/concerned in this after we address the electoral college

and the numerous flaws in our voting system such as not counting votes, failing to do proper recounts or even keep decent records to facilitate a recount.

I'd also probably not be interested in this until money was removed as a significant part of elections.

[CreekDog]

37. Fully agree with that one.

The Electoral College is completely undemocratic.

It makes our country less democratic than others.

[elleng]

39. That's why we have the House.

Founders wrestled with it, and arrived at what we've got.

[CreekDog]

44. Founders wrestled with slavery and that's how we got that.

That's rationalization, not justification.

Founders wrestled with letting black people vote and counting them as full citizens.

And what did we get?

That it was done does not make it right.

[cali]

46. That comparison is so poor.

This has zip to do with slavery or oppression. It's a way to level the playing field so that small states- and there are quite a few, adding up to a significant portion of the population, have some voice in D.C. It's the opposite of oppression.

[CreekDog]

48. if it is so democratic, then why can't states do it within the states?

do you realize the basic topic of my idea is not crazy, but has been talked about by scholars and courts for decades?

[elleng]

51. My point, of course, is that they recognized the problems

likely to occur, and came up with a compromise. We here are affirming the problems they recognized 200 years ago.

You do recall the Bill of Rights, right?
Including the Second Amendment?

There is no perfect. We now are stuck with Citizens' United and Heller, and some seek to amend further.

[CreekDog]

59. the Senate was created to deal with that situation

which doesn't exist today.

today it mostly is an undemocratic element in our system, not a democratic one.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

65. Of course the situation still exists today

The whole point of the Senate was so that small states wouldn't be mandated to by larger states. Do you seriously believe that wouldn't be a problem today? Are you kidding?

States can't be considered equal if the only representation is population based.

[CreekDog]

131. You act like this concept is unheard of...are you aware that we are the oddball among democracies?

In France, did they outlaw small districts because Paris has lots of votes?

In Germany do they enslave farmers because Berlin and Munich hold so many voters?

In Canada is Alberta the poorest province because the largest cities are in Quebec and Ontario?

The constitution wouldn't even allow large states to effectively outlaw or bankrupt small states.

And your fear of this is allowing you to support saying that 37 million Californians and 25 million Texans get the same number of Senators as Wyoming and Alaska.

62 million people get four senators and a little over 1 million get the same!

[SickOfTheOnePct]

140. Yep, I am all for it

Because Wyoming and Alaska need someone looking out for the interests of Wyoming and Alaska, and no one from California or Texas is going to to do that.

[CreekDog]

178. why not? i'm a Californian who votes in the interest of Alaskans and Wyomans all the time

I want them to have a safety net, a protected environment, clean air to breathe, health care for all.

meanwhile, how do they vote when they have a chance to weigh in on those things for me?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

182. So in other words

You believe that residents of California know what's best for the people of Wyoming and Alaska. I'm sure they appreciate that.

What if the people in Wyoming and Alaska don't agree with your priorities for them? Shouldn't they have a say in the matter?

[CreekDog]

216. Since you can't argue without putting words into my mouth, you're done with me

I've explained my positions and my reasoning to you dozens of times in this thread, I've responded to numerous questions by you.

And still you persist in putting words into my mouth to create straw men to represent my arguments instead of actually arguing with what I said.

So you're done.

Just argue with someone else.

When you learn to argue fairly, I'll engage with you.

Now go argue like George W. Bush would ("why are Democrats against freedom?&quot , just do so without me as your foil.

[cali]

239. because you know nothing about local issues there or in my state of Vermont

[CreekDog]

241. i want equal power with you, we are both citizens but i have less share of congress

but you want more power for you individually than i have.

because you think this unfair setup is fair.

[cali]

270. waaah. poor people have far less representation than rich people

that's a lot more important. a lot more.

[limpyhobbler]

56. I support your idea

But one post on a web forum is the full extent of my support. I just can't picture how we could realistically achieve this goal of ending or reforming the Senate given our current political situation.

The amount of time and effort it would take to promote a Constitutional amendment like this would be better spent toward something else in my opinion, like getting money out of politics and ending corporate personhood. Those changes will make it easier to do things like what you are talking about.

http://movetoamend.org/

[CreekDog]

72. You have a point. But educating others on the issue is useful...

in time, if enough people understood, they would think about what being democratic means.

[libinnyandia]

62. And I remember reading somewhere that 20 states with approximately 10% of the total US

population have 40 Senators, enough to make the Senate unable to do much work.

[thelordofhell]

64. Any reason why you're completely omitting the House Of Representatives??

[CreekDog]

66. because it doesn't have this inherent unfairness

it is the one half of our representative branches that is democratically apportioned.

i'm focused on the other half.

"half fair" doesn't mean all "okey-dokey".

[thelordofhell]

79. There's nothing unfair about the Senate.......it has a very specific function

If the Senate were to be proportioned like you want it to.....by population (like the House is), then there would be nothing to get in the way of those 9 states allocating every single bit of funding to themselves and leave the other 51 states in forced abject poverty. If you don't think that would happen, then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.

[CreekDog]

87. No, because those smaller states would have half the Senate

and half the House.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

95. Right up until they bribed one or two small states to go along with them

"Here, vote with us, we'll give you a taste".

I've alluded to this a number of times, hoping that you might answer, but if you have, I didn't see it. So, I'll just ask outright - are you in favor of completely eliminating borders and individual states? If not, then do you believe that each individual state should be equal under the Constitution, regardless of population?

[CreekDog]

104. why hasn't that happened in Canada?

is that remote possibility the reason to tell half the population that they can't be trusted with equal voting power?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

108. Everyone in the U.S. does have equal voting power

It's called the House of Representatives.

You might as well get rid of individual states under your plan, because they will no longer be equal entities.

[CreekDog]

113. equal voting power in half the government? that's half, not all.

you need to stop thinking that the US Constitution defines or originates democracy.

what other democratic countries do this? what other countries with a Senate or bi cameral legislature give as much power to an unequal body as we do for ours? do you even know?

whatever you say about it, you can't say it's democratic. it's not.

you can argue it's better, you can argue it's smarter, but you can't argue it's fairer to individual citizens or more democratic for them.

it is less fair to the individual citizen, to give them more power according to their state and it is less democratic.

[Hippo_Tron]

153. Doesn't work like that with single-member districts

Each member has an incentive to get funding for their district, but not the rest of their state. The rest of the state's residents are not their constituents.

A congressman representing a rural district in California is probably more likely to form an alliance to secure funding for certain projects with representatives from Idaho and Wyoming than representatives from San Francisco and LA.

If we had a slate of congresspeople elected statewide in every state, yes I could see the incentive for the big states to try and dominate the small ones. But with single-member districts, you won't see that happening.

[patrice]

90. Half fair : Half not-fair, but do legislative processes give equal power to both halves?

So that their differences, fair:not-fair, are balanced out by equal power over what the whole produces?

I accept the points about the liabilities in how the Constitution was written and why, especially the effects of slave-holding.

Just experimenting with the idea that the Constitution is not static and neither are we. Now, I'm not going to claim that the differences in the Constitution now and the differences in the People now are anywhere near in sync, just wondering that if we regard the whole thing, i.e. the nation and its laws as a dynamic whole, isn't sync at least theoretically possible, especially if we were more deliberate in the developmental changes that we hope to see in civil knowledge and skills???

[deaniac21]

69. We need a new constitution.

The founding fathers were a bunch of rich, white douchebags.

[white_wolf]

93. I agree fully.

The only really decent one among them was Thomas Paine and he had nothing to do with the constitution and actually thought it was a pretty bad one.

[patrice]

100. Paine, btw, was a light to Howard Dean and was also part of what many Deanocrats were

responding to in 2004 even though many of us recognized the fact that "it was Kerry's turn".

[Nye Bevan]

148. Why don't you like John Adams?

A non-slave-owning, plain-spoken New Englander- seems pretty decent to me.

[deaniac21]

314. I'm a whiskey drinker.

[Art_from_Ark]

320. Those "douchebags" gave us the Bill of Rights

which was a remarkable accomplishment.

We do NOT need a new Constitution, since the right-wing would undoubtedly make a mockery of the whole process, and leave us with something worse than we had before.

[kurt_cagle]

92. The Senate

The reason for the existence of the Senate was to appease the southern landholders who were concerned that they would have less power in a monocameral government based upon population, and who would have otherwise balked at joining the union. Thus it was inherently undemocratic from the outset.

Now, personally, I like the idea of a Federal lottery. Every six years, anyone with a social security number and with no criminal record would be chosen at random from the United States, and offered the position. If they turn it down, then it goes to the next person chosen. If you are chosen as Senator, you have to relocate to the state in question, and spend a year becoming familiar with the issues, then you are allowed in the Senate for five years. At then end of that period, you get a month to debrief your replacement. Having served, you can't serve again.

Over a long enough period of time, you'll get a popular representational system, but it also means that your senator may very well come from a completely different region of the country and will be seeing the problems and strengths of a state with fresh eyes. It also means that they won't be beholden to special interests in that state to the same extent, and it will people besides lawyers turned politicians an opportunity to be actively involve in politics.

[Art_from_Ark]

286. You should reread your American history

At the Constitutional Convention, the so-called New Jersey ("small-state&quot Plan called for equal representation for each state. The so-called Virginia ("large-state&quot Plan called for proportional representation. The South actually favored the Virginia Plan. In the "Great Compromise", it was decided that there would be equal representation in the Senate to appease smaller states, most of which were in the North, and proportional representation in the House, to appease the larger states.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/greatcomp.htm

[patrice]

97. I accept these criticisms of the Constitution & our government, but wouldn't what to do about the

problem be more valid if it were addressed under more authentic, or at least as authentic as possible, conditions:

1. Protection of the vote by instant-run-off paper ballots, marked by hand, with an encrypted receipt/record of your vote, and counted in public on a national voting holiday that starts on a Friday and ends the following Tuesday.

2. Public campaign finance with full transparency.

3. Media reform that includes some form of fairness to all candidates at all levels, local and national.

[Bucky]

98. If you want a truly futile discussion, try to get four people to agree on a solution.

Specifically, get four people who care about this issue to discuss it and come to a unanimous decision on how to make up for this violation of one-man-one-vote.

Interestingly, the most important issues that would be decided differently in a Senate with greater representation (not even proportional) would be trade and environmental protection.

[marlakay]

102. When they made up the laws

They had no idea it would end up like this or they would have done something like the house that is due to population.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

110. If they're both going to be equal representation

Then what would be the point of even having the Senate? Or even having states, for that matter?

[Warpy]

111. you don't understand the purpose of the Senate.

Every state is represented by two Senators. They are there to represent the state as a political entity, not the population of that state. It's why they ratify treaties.

What needs to be done is increasing the size of the House to reflect population a little more directly. Representation has decreased as the population has grown but the number of representatives has stayed the same for so long.

[Adsos Letter]

121. +50

[CreekDog]

128. Why don't I understand it?

I understand it perfectly.

That you cannot fathom somebody disagreeing with you on this issue is a strike against your knowledge, not my own.

I have as much knowledge of this topic as you, perhaps more. Disagreement doesn't mean that I'm ignorant.

[morningfog]

132. Yet you ignore all the points the poster made, lol.

[CreekDog]

136. Your knowledge of government clearly doesn't go beyond the United States of America

I guess the rest of the world and examples of how democracies are governed is totally irrelevant to you.

Why? Because some old white guys, dead for 200+ years made some deals with slaveowners about how we are governed today?

Yeah well, no.

[morningfog]

139. You still aren't addressing the points made.

The House of Reps has as much power as the Senate in drafting legislation. The House is proportional delegation, which you seem to prefer.

You mention reform, but not with any specificity. What do you want? Only the House? A House and SEnate both proportional> Think about those options. THink of the horrible legislation the Senate has been able to stop.

I don;t care at all about "your knowledge". I am interested in the discussion and the points you choose to ignore.

[CreekDog]

141. ALL of the legislature should be based on equal representation, not half

Half fair is not the same as fair.

Other countries do not see our system as a fair way to allocate power among their citizens and they are correct.

One man, one vote is a concept enshrined in the democracy, but here, it only applies to half the legislative bodies.

Nevermind that our states are all FORCED by our courts to distribute representation equally by population, not geography.

[morningfog]

143. So, abolish the Senate?

Just the House and the President? Terrifying.

[CreekDog]

146. Did not say that, but then you want to win the argument by putting words into my mouth

maybe you should just argue with someone who is willing to let you lie about them.

[morningfog]

149. I've asked what your reform proposal is.

What is it? You say in the OP "Whether or not you think it's impossible to reform, doesn't mean that such reform isn't necessary and shouldn't be pursued."

What does that mean? Two Houses of Reps or no Senate? Or something else? Give me something to go on, I don't want to put words in your mouth.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

150. Then why not come out and answer this question?

If the Senate were changed to be proportional, what would be the point of even having the Senate? Why not go to a unicameral legislature?

Going to proportional representation in the Senate effectively eliminates the rights of smaller states to be equally representated AS states. Larger states would have all the say in treaties, confirmations, impeachment trials, anything at all. Such a system would destroy the federalist makeup of this country.

[sabbat hunter]

114. Those 9 states

also have a combined 223 members to the house of representatives. Which is slightly over half.

So in the lower house where they are supposed to have more 'power' they do.

Personally I wouldn't mind seeing an increase in the numbers in the House (which doesn't require an amendment), and smaller districts.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

144. I could go along with a reasonable increase in the number of Reps

At one time, don't remember when, there was a suggestion that representation in the House should be baselined at the population of the least populous state, then use that number to set all the other states. I think it would have brought the size of the House up to around 590, which is still a reasonable number.

[Bettie]

115. So, only the most populated states should have any say in government?

As it stands now, more populated states have a greater influence in the HoR, as those seats are apportioned based on population.

Each state, meanwhile, has two senators, to put each state on an equal footing there.

So, would you choose to have no senators for less populated states? Or would you simply add more Senators to give, for example, New York and California greater power within that body? If 9 states are the ones who deserve more senators, what then? Give those 9 states 50 senators and then work out which states don't get one at all?

I don't get why you think that it is unfair that within our government there are bodies with proportional AND equal representation.

Or do you simply believe that those of us in less-populated states don't count?

[Kaleva]

116. Despite an increase in population from 1980, Michigan has lost several Congressional seats

It's dropped from a high of 19 congressional districts down to 14.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

142. Sure, because other states have gained more than Michigan has n/t

[Kaleva]

201. So states like Michigan have less representation in the House then before.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

204. Yes, because the size of the House is capped at 435 n/t

[morningfog]

124. 2 houses. It is addressed in the House of Representatives. And in the Electoral College.

[CreekDog]

126. your example of fairness is the Electoral College?

seriously?

[morningfog]

130. My example was of proportional representation. I said nothing of fairness.

Proportional representation is found in the House and in the EC. Yuck it up, but your worries apply only to one half of one branch. Are you suggesting doing away with the Senate? You would prefer two Houses of Reps instead? Now, that is laughable. Just let that sink in for a minute.

[CreekDog]

172. you said the Electoral College was fair?

it is not.

the Electoral College gives people in some states more voting power than in others. Voters in big states have votes which count less towards the Presidency than voters in small states.

a voter in Los Angeles has less say in electing the president than a voter in Cheyenne, Wyoming.

that's not right.

[morningfog]

175. I said nothing on fairness. I said your complaint is unfounded.

Both the EC and the House are proportional. You seem to value that.

What I can't get from you is what you want. Two Houses? No Senate? Seriously, think about what legislation we would get from a House (or 2 House like) writing all the laws. Absolute nonsense and madness. I shudder at the thought.

[CreekDog]

176. the EC is not proportional to population, what are you talking about?

if you keep posting something incorrect, i can't move on to your other issue until you start posting the correct thing about the Electoral College.

if you keep saying the EC is proportional like the House, that's wrong. you need to correct this or the basis of your argument is based in your misunderstanding of your government.

we have to get that right before it makes any sense to continue.

[morningfog]

179. LOL. Your inability to move on is cute. The EC is, in part, propotional. Not entirely.

Can you move on now to the POINT OF YOUR OP? What reform do you propose?

In fact, forget everything I've said if you want, I don't care. But what "reform" are you proposing?

[CreekDog]

185. 50.9% percent of presidential voters get 46.6% of EC votes.

not fair. proportional, yes, in the same way 3/5ths was proportional representation when it was constitutional.

[morningfog]

186. Do you have a reform proposal?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

188. I've given up asking that question n/t

[CreekDog]

190. proportional representation in the Senate and popular vote elections for President

but those are just two ways to fix this. i'm open to other types of reforms if they are fairer than the current representation of the Senate and Electoral College.

unlike people who oppose any change, i refuse to think the current system is the best we can do.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

192. What is the point of two houses with proportional representation?

Why not just get rid of the Senate under your plan?

[CreekDog]

194. you asked me for my idea and i gave it to you

the senate wouldn't be as changeable as the House, because Senate terms are staggered, with only one third of seats up for election every two years. furthermore, the current six year terms could also serve as a stabilizer.

these checks and balances could still serve their purpose but unlike the current apportionment, could do so in a democratic allocation of votes, based on one person, one vote.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

187. It's well within the power of the states to change this

They could make the EC much more proportional than it is now. The fact that 48 out of 51 (since DC has EC representation) choose not to gives you some indication of how far your plan would go.

[valerief]

129. The electoral college part of their RACKET. nt

[CreekDog]

170. Yup, it sure is!

unequal representation there too!

[demosincebirth]

138. The "Wyoming" types states will never give up that power. Constitutional amendment? Never happpen

[SickOfTheOnePct]

147. Nope

Small states would be foolish to go along with this.

[CreekDog]

159. Appointed Senators voted to be elected by popular vote, that was a ceding of power

State legislatures voted to give up power to appoint senators to citizens.

the idea that it could never happen? not supported by history.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

162. The point you seem to be missing

Is that the move from appointed to elected Senators, while it eliminated the power of state legislatures, did not dilute the power of the individual states in the federal government. Your plan would eviscerate the power of the individual states, and no small state is going to voluntarily give up that power.

[cali]

237. That's right. We won't.

Though I'm from Vermont, not Wyoming.

[mrmpa]

151. You have to understand "representation"..........

Represenatives are there to represent the interests of citizens. Senators are elected to represent the interests of their state. The number of senators should not be revised at all.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

152. Might I suggest you take a brief moment to review our House of Representatives?

Done? Ok, good. Now rethink your premise for this argument.

What we would have are basically two identical Houses of Congress. Why? What would be the use?

In situations such a this particular political one were currently in, there would be no checks and balances. Just insanity reining supreme. Perhaps you forgot that each state, yes, even the blue ones, suffer from conservative districts. Thus the reason the Republicans currently hold the House of Represenatives.

Imagine the horrors which could, and likely would, result. That's the reason the Constitution limits each state to two senators.

[CreekDog]

157. You think the Senate is the only check and balance in the US Government? Laughable

the courts, the president, the longer terms of the Senate and its staggered terms are all checks and balances.

the disproportionate representation of the Senate is NOT the only check and balance.

why are you so confident you are correct when, to be honest, you don't really know what you're talking about?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

160. Still waiting to hear what your plan would be

First, what is the point of having a bicameral legislature if they are both set up the same way?

And second, how will the states be represented as equal entities under your plan?

[Lone_Star_Dem]

167. Oh! Aren't you simply charming this evening.

I'm sure you'll go far with your little campaign to restructure the US government with that delightful attitude.

Perhaps you should review the purpose of the US Senate before you take me to school, though. It is not now, nor was it ever, designed to be a representation of a state based on population. This was by design, not an oversight.

[CreekDog]

169. you lectured me first

and you lectured me without understanding the terms you were using.

it's fair to take you to task.

i didn't say you had a character flaw or that you were a bad person, i'm sure you are better, nicer and kinder than I am, probably smarter too!

but when you argued about checks and balances, you didn't do your homework and you made a really big mistake in describing them.

that's not my fault.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

181. No, you simply ignored what I said in favor of what you wanted to hear.

And you were rude about it too boot.

There is no reason for a US senate which would mirror the current House of Representatives. Which in essence is what you appear to be proposing.

You'd do better arguing against gerrymandering, and thus a more fair representation of populations, if you want to represent the people more justly.

Which brings up the question, how do you propose US senators are to be representative of the populations, in general, in theses large states which have been gerrymandered to the point of already leaving large populations of voters unrepresented in the US House of Representatives in your new system?

[CreekDog]

202. you said no checks and balances if the Senate was not allocated the way it is, which is wrong

and the US senate wouldn't mirror the US House, there are longer terms and staggered elections for those seats, making the institution quite different.

yet it would at least be democratic, which it is not.

the Senate is UNEQUAL. that is what you want. i can't help you there.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

208. You're dancing around my point. Poorly.

Address what I said. How do you propose to make this system fair with so many blocks of voters in these large states already gerrymandered to the point of not being represented?

On edit: I believe you mean well. This is simply a poorly thought out concept. There are real issues within our representation which you're either unaware of, or just choosing to ignore. This isn't the right fight. It isn't even a decent argument toward fair representation of the people.

[CreekDog]

215. Unlike you, I am not wedded to what Founders trying to compromise with slaveowners had to do

to create a nation out of disparate states.

that's 200+ years ago. this is now.

but what else do you believe? do you believe the nonsense about Texas having special dispensation to leave the union?

do they still teach that BS in schools there?

[Lone_Star_Dem]

219. Seriously? That's your defense of your premise?

Not only does it have nothing to do with anything I pointed out to you, the crux of it is infantile insults.

So goes political discussion on the internet I suppose. If a person can't make a reasoned argument to validate their point, they reduce them self to baseless insults.

[CreekDog]

220. i have posted more substance on this issue than you have here

i have posted more honest and accurate things about this issue than you have here.

look at your own posts. you started out with a completely erroneous description of checks and balances and now you're goading me for not posting enough information about the topic when i've posted far more than you and far more carefully thought out than you.

my premise is at the top of the thread and stated multiple times in this thread.

-court cases.

-the principle of one person and one vote being essential to democracy and representation.

-and an example of a violation of these principles in the composition of the US Senate.

if you want to reduce all my posts and thinking in this thread to one post, then that shows your unwillingness to give this discussion serious thought, serious study.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

223. Not in reply to me you've not.

For whatever reason you chose to address my valid point with no substance, and only insults.

Sometimes it's better just to say "I don't know" than to stoop to baseless insults. At least as far as credibility goes.

[CreekDog]

247. well pardon me, i didn't realize that i had to write everything especially for you

when i'm peppered by hundreds of questions, many similar to yours, that you refuse to acknowledge any other posts but those written directly to you.

shaking my head here.

you don't get any more personally written content to chew on. if you want to learn, you can read up on the issue itself, read my replies elsewhere, or read the very good posts from others throughout this thread.

if you only want to read what is written directly to you, then what you don't learn will be your own loss.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

226. It just dawned on me. You do realize Texas, the state you just bashed

...is also one of the states you propose to hand all this additional legislative power over to, don't you? How adorable.

[CreekDog]

227. only the power that their number of citizens rightfully should be granted

that instead has been allocated to others.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

229. Again. Their people are represented by the House of Reps

Again. Poorly due to excessive gerrymandering which you refuse to acknowledge or even address.

You're too funny, you know that? If you had a single care about fair representation, and not just an inane internet argument you'd at least pretend to listen to the well reasoned arguments here. Instead you ignore them, or insult their bearers.

I've got your number now. Sadly not until after having waded through this entire train wreck of a thread to get it, though.

Adios.

[SlimJimmy]

380. I came to the same conclusion.

Again. Poorly due to excessive gerrymandering which you refuse to acknowledge or even address.

You're too funny, you know that? If you had a single care about fair representation, and not just an inane internet argument you'd at least pretend to listen to the well reasoned arguments here. Instead you ignore them, or insult their bearers.

I've got your number now. Sadly not until after having waded through this entire train wreck of a thread to get it, though.

[taught_me_patience]

171. California is 60x bigger than Wyoming - completely and totally unfair representation

When the constitution was ratified, there was not that level of discrepancy between state populations. The constitution will never change... so the only solution is to break up the larger states. The current system is ridiculously unfair.

[rufus dog]

177. it does piss me off.

We have major counties bigger than numerous states and have the same number of Senators. Off the top of my head:
San Diego
Orange
Riverside
Los Angeles
Kern
Santa Clara
San Francisco
Alameda
San Mateo
Fresno
Sacramento
San Bernardino
San Louis Obispo
Ventura

All counties bigger than Wyoming, a few years ago I compared Orange County to the other states, and it has a larger population than 21 states.

[CreekDog]

193. Wyoming's 558,000 people have 2 senators

San Francisco's 805,000 people share 2 senators with California's 37 million people.

seems fairer to Wyoming than San Francisco.

[cali]

240. Look at it this way: Your state has something like 56 reps

My state of VT has one.

[CreekDog]

251. your vote counts more than mine

you seek to make it even more unfair.

you have two senators, you share them with the population of Vermont.

I share two senators with more than the population of Canada!

wtf.

[rufus dog]

311. exactly

The Reps are allocated based upon population so we have equal representation in the House. In the Senate big states are screwed. I have lived in Southern California for 25 years and have never had a Senator from this part of the state, home of 23,000,000 residents!

At least we have Democrats representing the state.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

184. This would be divine.

It'll never happen since these large states have too much power, but it would be divine.

[CreekDog]

199. yes, a California voter should count as much as a voter in Wyoming

but we in California have 1 senator for every 18.5 million people.

in Wyoming, those people have 1 senator for every 279,000 people.

so for half the government, we California's don't count for sh*t.

a voter is a voter is a voter, but not in the USA.

[crimson77]

235. How bought we meet in the middle.

Why don't we do it based on what states are costing us more then they are worth. Right now California takes in 1.50 for every dollar they give to the feds. They should probably have less of a say then say a well run state like Massachusetts who has its books in order. Of course I am being a dick for the sake of how silly this arguement is.

[CreekDog]

250. your figures are wrong. California loses more revenue than it gets in return

[taught_me_patience]

295. Cali actually gets $.77 return n/t

[crimson77]

297. The link I read.

http://californiabudgetbites.org/2010/01/19/does-california-get-its-%E2%80%9Cfair-share%E2%80%9D-of-federal-funds/

[Blue_In_AK]

189. This is why we have a House of Representatives.

It's called "checks and balances."

[CreekDog]

191. but the Senate makes some voters less powerful than others

dictatorship would also be a check and balance against democracy --but would it be a good idea?

[Lone_Star_Dem]

195. You're ignoring the House of Representatives again.

Their purpose is to represent the people. Theoretically anyway. That is not the job of the Senate. Their job is to represent the individual states not the populations which reside in said states.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

196. The individual states don't need representation

Because the big states all know what is best for the small states.

*sarcasm*

[Blue_In_AK]

294. That seems to be the suggestion.

In some respects, the small population states get really screwed. Alaska has only one lousy representative, the in-it-for-life crook Don Young, to represent the interests of this entire extremely diverse state. We have everything here from rural, hundreds of miles off the road Native villages that are still living a hunting and fishing subsistence lifestyle to very wealthy oil men who live in the urban areas. I'm not saying that other states don't have diverse populations, but they get to elect many more representatives, who are more likely to represent their particular interests.

And, of course, we only get three electoral votes, so presidential candidates don't even bother to campaign up here. The only time we see presidential campaign ads is on MSNBC and such...which may be somewhat of a blessing actually...but between the federal government and the oil companies, we're pretty much a resource colony.

[CreekDog]

197. what is the justification for half the elected government not representing the people equally?

there is none unless democracy is just only worth doing halfway.

i keep explaining this.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

198. And those of us that disagree with you

Keep explaining that the Senate is there to ensure that each state is equally represented. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

[CreekDog]

200. And DC gets no senators and no voting representatives in Congress, what of that?

you like that too? founders thought of that one too!

[SickOfTheOnePct]

203. No, I don't like it

But that is a completely different issue from eviscerating the equal representation of states in the Senate.

[ancianita]

340. A state is not a person. This country should be government of, by and for people.

States should be considered convenient, not rigid, entities for geographical interests governed by citizens. That citizens should coalesce around national projects makes this the 'united states', and there's no more better reason than proportionality to structure democracy on. Statism should count much less. I'm totally in agreement that the Senate should be restructured and House representation ratio should increase.The lottery idea for Senate service is a good one, too.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

205. No, you've explained nothing.

You keep ignoring the fact that the Senate represents the states interest and the House of Representatives the interest of the people.

Why would a smaller state be a part of the US if they had no hand in the political workings?

What you propose is a glorified 'might makes right' rule.

[CreekDog]

245. most of the Founding Fathers didn't want a senate like you defend

did you even know that?

between absentions and those who had no choice but to vote for it to appease either the small states or the slaveowning states, the Senate in this form was created.

how many of the 13 colonies voted for it? not even half.

you act like i'm blaspheming democracy or the Holy Grail or something.

i'm telling you something that you have clearly never even investigated.

get over your shock and study democracies around the world (and not the ones from 1787, the ones today)...see what the best of them have.

i've explained it a hundred ways by now.

when you say that i've explained nothing, that's completely ridiculous. this whole thread is a ton of explanations and re explanations.

and i could post links to paper after paper on the subject, but i'll bet you will not even acknowledge their academic credentials.

believing the Senate is fair is an article of faith for you, more than it ever was for most of the Founding Fathers.

do you think they would've created that today in today's circumstances? no way.

but go ahead, tell me i'm not arguing anything. tell me all my words are empty.

[FBaggins]

256. Doesn't matter. Because they DID want a country.

And they knew that this was the only way it would happen.

[CreekDog]

257. so it should remain? slavery was allowed, would you have opposed its abolition too...

because it was the only way it would happen?

why not only allow white, property owning males to vote? that's the only way it would've happened, right? no constitution if that had changed.

but if those things could be changed, why not this?

[FBaggins]

260. Yes it should remain.

but if those things could be changed, why not this?

Because they should have been changed... and this shouldn't.

The Senate is the single greatest protection against the tyranny of the majority. It is the defender against mob rule...

...but you want the mob.

[CreekDog]

264. the bill of rights is the defender against mob rule

The Senate is not.

[FBaggins]

276. Sorry. Wrong yet again.

The Bill of Rights protects individuals' rights against mob rule. It does not protect the nation from the bad policies the mob may set.

Nothing in the BoR defends us against a bad treaty. Nothing keeps the majority from putting a regressive tax system into place. Nothing keeps them from selling off national parks starting a war.

[mathematic]

209. Regional representation is an established and important form of representation

Populations increase and decrease. People move. Regional interests can transcend individual person based interests.

Here's an illustrative scenario.
Agricultural regions, by necessity, have low populations. (Some States with lots of agricultural land also have big cities but the actual agricultural land has low population densities). If representation was purely by population then these farm states would NEVER have a say in farm policy, for example. By the inherent nature of population densities in agricultural areas, they would lose the ability to influence policies that affect their region. Things like infrastructure development, agricultural laws, relief from extreme weather events, and trade law.

On the flip side, regions that naturally have high populations, like places that have historically been or currently are well-situated for trade (coasts, major rivers, etc), would have the opposite ability to influence policy that favors their regions.

While it's true that the people in a region will lean slightly or heavily on issues that are national, not just regional, as long as regional issues are important then regional representation is important.

You asked upthread what other nations use regional representation. Somebody mentioned Canada. Australia is another one. The principle, in general, is used all over the place. The EU uses it. The UN uses it. Even the Olympics use it.

[CreekDog]

228. the courts invalidated all these forms except for the US Senate

by the way.

[mathematic]

274. US courts invalidated CAN, AUS, and EU governments? Quite a bold claim.

Why don't you address how regional issues can be fairly decided without regional representation?

[Sgent]

213. This will NEVER change

its not only that you'd need a constitutional amendment -- but this is the one area that cannot be amended without the consent of the individual states.

So Alaska, Wyoming, and Rhode Island would have to individually agree to lose representation in the Senate. How could this ever happen?

[CreekDog]

218. State legislatures approved an amendment that took away their power to elect the senate

are you so sure it's not possible?

what if states threatened to leave the union over the issue, would it not change then?

what i think you need to consider is that what you take for granted will not always be, and what you take for granted was not always the case.

things change.

the problem with an unfair system that cannot be changed from within the system is that the system risks falling apart trying to preserve the unfairness.

but sometimes people come to their senses before that happens. hopefully our PTB will as well.

[cali]

255. Not in your lifetime. Not even if you're 18 and live to be 100.

it's absolutely nuts to think that small states will willingly capitulate on this issue.

[CreekDog]

258. I realize that. You realize the effect of this is to weaken the votes of minority voters...

in comparison to white voters.

the states that are underrepresented are less white than the states that have more representation.

this is going to be seen as a great unfairness, and by world standards of our peer nations, other wealthy democracies, Senate representation and the Electoral College is understood as an anachronism.

[crimson77]

234. No it really doesnt, it is fine the way it is.

Their will be a day when one side has all the power, in 30 years it could be the Dems. But for right now in about 6 months there is a very real possiblity that the Republicans will have all three branches of goverment and 2 to 3 supreme court nominations. Your going to want the bully pulpit of having enough senators to block those nominations.

[CreekDog]

243. What the senate was able to do to the Civil Rights Act was FINE?

it was most certainly not. and smaller states had more power than larger ones to block that act.

it's not fine.

[crimson77]

284. I am sorry you don't like the system

but in this country someone who lives in the lower east side of Manhattan has the same rights as someone in Meridan, Mississippi. You might not share their value but they have the same right to express them to. One of the biggest way to express those views is on election day.

[David__77]

236. The senate should be functionally abolished.

Whether it's possible to abolish it or not, it should be opposed conceptually. This is a unitary state, and its legislature should also be unitary, with equal representation for citizens. As it stands now, as a Californian, I have much less representation than most US citizens.

[CreekDog]

244. I don't think that's necessary, but a unicameral legislature would be fairer

...than what we have.

a proportional Senate is democratic too, but only if it is proportionally allocated according to one person one vote.

that said, there is nothing that says a Parliamentary system with a unicameral legislature, with constitutionally protected rights for minorities can't be as democratic or even more democratic than what the USA has right now.

this is what the status quo in this thread can't conceive of. that's what's disturbing. it's not that they know both ways and think this is better --from the replies, you can see that they really don't believe those other countries are as fair as ours.

i feel like by writing this OP, that i've broken some tenet of the faith that they have that America is better, our constitution is better and I blasphemed.

but i didn't. our constitution is growing older and older and it is so hard to change, that its fairnesses are almost a permanent fixture --even moreso when the most progressive among us won't acknowledge them.

don't know what to take from all this but it's nice to reason with someone else who sees the unfairness.

[JonLP24]

261. Slightly off-topic

I always found it interesting that the body that is the most representative has the least amount of power.

[cali]

262. The House has more power than the Senate.

The House controls the purse strings.

[CreekDog]

265. as an individual i want to have the same vote as you do, but i don't have that

and you insist on having more voting power than me.

in the long term, most people in the country will not stand for having some people have more power, individually, than others by dint of the state they live in.

and that this power just happens to be greater mostly among whiter states, is another cruel aspect of this.

[cali]

269. this has been explained to you ad nauseum so let me just finish our

little repartee on this topic:

Live with it. It's not gonna change not if you live far past your 4 score and 20. Get used to it. Actually employ your time on something you can change, instead of self-indulgent pipe dreams. You have 53 reps from your state. I have 1. States are represented by Senators. People by Reps. California, my native state, rightly has far more power in Congress than my tiny adopted state of Vermont. YOU want to relegate Vermont and states like it to having no power at all. If you think Vermonters- one of the smaller voting blocs but also the sanest- is EVER going to cede it's Constitutional right to have two Senators, you don't know anything about this state. It won't. Vermonters have been remarkably consistent and independent since before this was a nation. And no other small state will ever, ever, give up their rights except at gunpoint. So, short of shooting us all, you're stuck.

Bye, bye.

[Blue_In_AK]

296. Hear, hear, Cali.

[JonLP24]

266. The Senate

has way more exclusive powers.

[davidpdx]

271. I also disagree with you in terms of the fairness

The fact that each state has equal representation in the US Senate makes sense. The House is proportional. If you made both proportional the smaller states would have no say. I am from one of the relatively smaller states (although not the smallest of the small) Oregon. We have 2 US Senators and 5 US Representatives for a total of 7 member of Congress out of 537. What it sounds like you are proposing is the elimination of US Senators in smaller states. I'll tell you straight off I'd never agree to it.

As someone else said, the fight right now is to try to get back control of the House and keep control of the Senate so we can get more stuff done next year. That is where our focus should be.

[muriel_volestrangler]

272. "of the people, by the people, for the people" v. "states are people, my friend"

It is a question of whether you prefer Lincoln's vision of Americans being the fundamental building block of the USA, or Romney's assertion that corporate entities (in this case, the states, as set up by historical accident) have rights of their own.

A more perfect union would want to work towards giving the rights to the people, but you have to take baby steps (it's only been a bit over 200 years). Fix the electoral college first - that's the one that other countries laugh openly at.

And I'm quite aware that the House of Lords is also a national disgrace and joke. That's preserved by reactionary conservatives too.

[Skidmore]

273. I would not support amending the constitution for proportional representation.

The House is where representation is by proportion. I want some in put for my rural state in this system in which I also pay taxes and support the greater society.

BTW, some stellar ideas have come from rural states while some really bad ideas have come from states with large urban populations.

[jeff47]

302. So we in the more populous states should be pleased to pay for your rural state?

I realize that rural states being forgotten could be unpleasant.

But it's also unfair that populous states greatly subsidize rural states under our current system. This happens largely because the undemocratic nature of the Senate gives rural states power far beyond their population.

Why, exactly, should residents of populous states be pleased about this state of affairs and not try to reform it?

[Skidmore]

306. You in the more populous states are more than adequately represented in the House, where spending

bills originate. The Senate is intended as a safety mechanism to prevent large states from bulldozing right over rural states. We are part of the United States to and deserve the equal representation guaranteed us under the Constitution. It seems to me that you are saying that some are more equal than others.

[jeff47]

312. That's a lovely theory. The problem is reality.

Reality is rural states get lots more than populous states. So instead of working as a check against populous states, the Senate is giving rural states a lot more money and services.

Again, why should those of us in the populous states find this to be acceptable?
State...................$$ from Feds/$$ paid to feds
New Jersey.............0.61
Nevada..................0.65
Connecticut............0.69
New Hampshire........0.71
Minnesota..............0.72
Illinois....................0.75
Delaware................0.77
California................0.78
New York................0.79
Colorado.................0.81
(snip)
Kentucky................1.51
Virginia...................1.51
S. Dakota...............1.53
Alabama.................1.66
N. Dakota...............1.68
W. Virginia..............1.76
Louisiana................1.78
Alaska....................1.84
Mississippi...............2.02
New Mexico.............2.03
(Source: Taxfoundation.org)

Not 100% rural vs populous, but the trend is obvious. Your concerns about rural states being forgotten have been waaaaaay over-corrected.

The Senate is intended as a safety mechanism to prevent large states from bulldozing right over rural states.

No, the Senate is intended to represent the states. Originally, we were the United States, as in "The United States of America are located in North America". Note the plural. We were a collection of states, not a country. Thus it made sense to the founders to represent the states themselves, as opposed to the people.

One of the ground-shifting changes of the Civil War was to change from "The United States of America are..." to "The United States of America is...." We became more of a country instead of a collection of states. Thus state representation seems like an anachronism, just like the Electoral College.

When the constitution was written, there wasn't as large a difference in the population of the states. New York and Boston were "huge", but everywhere else was fairly similar.

We are part of the United States to and deserve the equal representation guaranteed us under the Constitution.

Yes. But why should you be more than equal via over-representation in the Senate? The House gives roughly equal representation. The Senate does not.

It seems to me that you are saying that some are more equal than others.

You are claiming rural states deserve more representation in the Federal government. Making them more equal. You should at least own up to it.

[hughee99]

323. The big states subsidize the small ones?

Nevada is pretty rural, and they get .65 cents back for every dollar they send to the federal government. The breakdown isn't exactly "big states pay for the small ones", it's the "rich" states pay for the poorer ones. Some small states are "rich" some large states are "poor". Large states like Ohio and Pennsylvania get slightly more back from the government than they pay in, while some smaller states like Massachusetts, Minnesota and Delaware are paying in more than they get back.

http://visualizingeconomics.com/2010/02/17/federal-taxes-paidreceived-for-each-state/#.UCKFvKOp0vk

[jeff47]

325. Go through the list at the bottom of the graphic

Don't confuse state size with population. My point is population, not physical size, since that's relevant to the "one man one vote" concept.

Of the 10 states that get the least back, 8 have a high population.
Of the 10 states that get the most back, 1 (VA) has a high population...in part of the state.

The existence of outliers does not invalidate the trend.

[hughee99]

331. Only 18 states don't get back more than they pay in.

Nevada, Connecticut, Oregon, Delaware, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island (who breaks even) are all in the bottom half by population. Another three, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Colorado are between 20th and 25th in population.

4 of the top 10 (by population) get more money back. 9 of the top 20 by population get more money back. 12 of the top 25 (by population) get more money back.

And according to the numbers (the ones from my link anyway, which appears to be from the same source as yours)
3 of the 10 states that get the least back are in the bottom 25 (Nevada, New Hampshire and Delaware),
3 of the 10 states that get the most are in the top 25 (Louisiana, Alabama and Virginia)

[jeff47]

358. When your goal is to prove small states are forgotten

You're gonna have to show them to be forgotten.

Your own stats demonstrate small states get more money than large states. And we're just talking taxes in/payments out here since those are the stats we're talking about. We're ignoring per-capita which would be a much better measure.

[hughee99]

359. I'm not trying to prove small states are being forgotten,

I'm just disputing that "the big states" pay for the small states. Only 18 states are paying for the surplus of the other 32. Population density is probably a better metric than raw population, because states like RI and DE, while not large populations, are more densely populated, though even this isn't a perfect fit either.

And as far as this idea that small states are unfairly legislating money away from the bigger ones, spending bills originate in the HOUSE where you have your proportional representation (sort of... well, it's much better than the Senate, anyway). In the House, the 10 largest states control 236 votes, which makes it pretty tough for the smaller states (even if all 40 band together) to take money from the large states against their will.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

299. I would get rid of the electoral college

and have PR

[alstephenson]

303. How about starting with a change in the Senate filibuster rules?

That would go a long way towards making things fairer.

[alarimer]

317. This is a bogus argument.

We have a bicameral legislature. In the House, representatives are proportioned by population, so bigger states have more. But the Senate was designed to allow smaller states to be equally represented. If we did things entirely by population, only California, New York and Texas would have any say at all in the way things are, because their delegations would be so much bigger. Now, since two of those states are blue, I wouldn't mind, but it still wouldn't be fair.

[CreekDog]

318. I'm not conceding to someone who doesn't know the definition of "bogus"

bogus: not genuine : counterfeit, sham

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bogus

might want to check the dictionary next time. disagreeing with you doesn't make my argument "bogus".

[FBaggins]

327. The word was used correctly.

The basic argument is "we're a democracy and therefore we shouldn't have (fill in the blank)".

As has been pointed out multiple times (and in multiple ways), this is a false argument. Democracy simply doesn't mean what you seem to think it means (and therefore questioning someone else's understanding of word definitions takes on a particularly humorous tint).

You can say "I don't like this system... I think it should be changed" and that's fine. You're entitled to your own opinion. What you can't do is claim that this is because it violates foundational american principles/values. Such an argument is, in fact, "bogus".

[Romulox]

322. The structure of the US Government was designed to *PROTECT SLAVEHOLDING STATES*. nt

[Jennicut]

324. I live in Connecticut and don't want Texas, Florida, etc. to control everything

just because they are bigger states. They already get more Representatives. You want them to have more Senators too?

[SlimJimmy]

342. Yes, according to the OP.

You want them to have more Senators too?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

326. I still cannot believe Rhode island is a state. What, their entire population

takes turns being mayor, governor, senator or congressman?

[cali]

332. The population of RI is larger than the population of VT, WY, ND, SD, AK, DE or MT

[ChairmanAgnostic]

334. I know, I was just joshin.

But it only has one road, and isn't even an island.

[hughee99]

333. Seven states, including our Biden's home state,

have smaller populations than Rhode Island. Rhode Island is second to only New Jersey in population density.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

383. By design...

...the federal government was devised to unify the individual states. The reason for each state being allocated 2 Senators is to ensure that all states had equal representation.

BTW, all legislation to spend money must originate in the House.

State legislators are representatives of the people directly.

[CreekDog]

385. By design, slavery was legal as was counting slaves as 3/5ths of a person

while not allowing them to vote.

all by design.

the MOST unconvincing argument is when you tell me that it is right because of what they thought at the time.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

386. the federal government...

...is designed to regulate the states not the citizens

[CreekDog]

389. So what? It doesn't anymore. What is the veneration for the compromises of a 200 year old idea?

the document is flawed having allowed slavery which turned into a constitutional crisis that culminated in a Civil War, and black people still weren't free for another century! In much of the country, a century after the Civil War, black people could not marry white people in many states!

stop venerating this document acting like it was designed perfectly from the start. it has many good elements and may have been the best that could be done in 1787, but it's flaws were visited upon the entire nation and especially on African Americans. to suggest it's the best we can do in 2012 is utter nonsense.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

391. beyond article V...

...the solution is another Constitutional Convention