Are smaller states overrepresented in the Senate? And if so, what should be do about it?

[theworldismine13]

Well, the two-senators-per-state thing was demanded by smaller states so that larger states wouldn't overwhelm them politically. The problem with that is that the population differences now are MUCH greater than they were then, so that system is significantly more anti-democratic than it was at the time. The disparity in voting power between states, at the time, might've been like 11-to-1 at max. Now it's easily six times that. At what point does "balancing out power" become "giving some voters way more power than others"?

And again, what might or might not have gotten Obama elected is irrelevant, the issue is what's fair.


That said, you shouldn't be under the impression that giving voters in small states power is necessarily beneficial to black people, or the country as a whole. If things weren't set up that way, slavery might have ended much sooner. Something like six or seven antislavery bills passed in the house in the 1800s (before the Civil War) and they all ended up dying in the Senate because sparsely populated southern states had a disproportionate amount of influence. Civil rights bills in the the mid-1900s were slow to pass for the same reason. So the idea that giving voters in rural states more voting power is somehow beneficial to black people is pretty unconvincing IMO, regardless of Obama.

But I digress, my base argument isn't even about picking a side, it's that it's undemocratic for some votes to count so much more than others. That would be my stance regardless of which political party might benefit from changing things. Fair is fair.

it depends on how you look at the united states

its fair if you consider the united states to be a federation of states, if you consider the united stated to be one big country with a unitary government then its definitely not fair

but the united states is not a democracy in the strict sense of the word, never has been, its a republic

thirdly, my point is that giving power to rural voters is neutral, sometimes its good sometimes its bad, that is why i brought up obama, the notion that we need to stop the white rural voter doesnt mean anything to me, im neutral about that

i think liberals have some kind of beef with rural white voters, but i personally dont, i dont support the liberal agenda, so to me its a wash, im glad immigration reform was stopped and there are other issues where i support the conservative side

you cant just pick and choose particular issues, states rights also stopped slavery from spreading , and the anti slavery laws not passing was not a flaw, the senate is suppose to slow down legislation by design, its not a flaw, the senate is a result of a federal system between very different states, any other system (where bigger states had most of the power)and the states that made up the united states might have been better off separating

in the end the civil war began because the south realized they where losing and the north was also blocking their laws, and lincoln put the executive against them, imo the system isnt great but worked as good as it could have, i think any other system and the united states would have ceased to exist

but anyways you have to show that its bad for the country as a whole, not just because you have beef with white rural voters and some particular legislation didnt pass even if its anti slavery legislation, that is to partisan, i think racist republicans have definitely abused filibustering but im not convinced that those abuses have invalidated the importance of balance between big and large states

 

[theworldismine13]

 

[acri1]

it depends on how you look at the united states

its fair if you consider the united states to be a federation of states, if you consider the united stated to be one big country with a unitary government then its definitely not fair

secondly the united states is not a democracy in the strict sense of the word, never has been, its a republic

thirdly, my point is that giving power to rural voters is neutral, sometimes its good sometimes its bad, that is why i brought up obama, the notion that we need to stop the white rural voter doesnt mean anything to me, im neutral about that

i think liberals have some kind of beef with rural white voters, but i personally dont, i dont support the liberal agenda, so to me its a wash, im glad immigration reform was stopped and there are other issues where i support the conservative side

you cant just pick and choose particular issues, states rights also stopped slavery from spreading , and the anti slavery laws not passing was not a flaw, the senate is suppose to slow down legislation by design, its not a flaw, the senate is a result of a federal system between very different states, any other system (where bigger states had most of the power)and the states that made up the united states might have been better off separating

in the end the civil war began because the south realized they where losing and the north was also blocking their laws, and lincoln put the executive against them, imo the system isnt great but worked as good as it could have, i think any other system and the united states would have ceased to exist

but anyways you have to show that its bad for the country as a whole, not just because you have beef with white rural voters and some particular legislation didnt pass even if its anti slavery legislation, that is to partisan, i think racist republicans have definitely abused filibustering but im not convinced that those abuses have invalidated the importance of balance between big and large states

It's not about having some sort of beef with white rural voters, regardless of how they vote I just think it's unfair for their votes to count more than mine. It'd be unfair even if I agreed with them on everything. IMO it's just conceptually unfair for a state with 600,000 people to have the same number of Senators as a state with 16 million people. That means that the Senate is inevitably going to prioritize the issues of rural voters over those of urban voters. That kind of thing means it's less representative of the country's composition as a whole than it would be otherwise.

I'll admit that I tend to think of the US more as one big country than a federation. It's technically both but I tend to think of it as a country first, so maybe that's why I find it unfair for certain people's votes to count more just because of where they live.

So my question is, what exactly is the benefit of rural voters having more influence? In modern times?

Seems to be that it's bad because, in addition to not really being representative of the country's demographics, it also makes it harder for any legislation to pass and contributes to the congressional gridlock we see these days. There could be legislation that 75% of the actual population of the country supports, but that would still not pass the Senate due to Senators from low-population states opposing it. It also means that smaller states usually get more funding/stimulus money per capita.


So the question I'd pose is - at what point would this situation become unfair? If there was a state with only 200,000 people, should that state still get two senators? What if it only had 30,000 people?

 

[theworldismine13]

It's not about having some sort of beef with white rural voters, regardless of how they vote I just think it's unfair for their votes to count more than mine. It'd be unfair even if I agreed with them on everything. IMO it's just conceptually unfair for a state with 600,000 people to have the same number of Senators as a state with 16 million people. That means that the Senate is inevitably going to prioritize the issues of rural voters over those of urban voters. That kind of thing means it's less representative of the country's composition as a whole than it would be otherwise.

I'll admit that I tend to think of the US more as one big country than a federation. It's technically both but I tend to think of it as a country first, so maybe that's why I find it unfair for certain people's votes to count more just because of where they live.

So my question is, what exactly is the benefit of rural voters having more influence? In modern times?

Seems to be that it's bad because, in addition to not really being representative of the country's demographics, it also makes it harder for any legislation to pass and contributes to the congressional gridlock we see these days. There could be legislation that 75% of the actual population of the country supports, but that would still not pass the Senate due to Senators from low-population states opposing it. It also means that smaller states usually get more funding/stimulus money per capita.


So the question I'd pose is - at what point would this situation become unfair? If there was a state with only 200,000 people, should that state still get two senators? What if it only had 30,000 people?

well basically yeah under federalism it is fair that a state with 600,000 people have the same number of senators as a state with 16 million, that is the whole point of a federation, cuz the logic is why would a state with 600,000 people join a country where it will have no say, giving small states equality in the senate was part of the compromise that created the united states in the first place

the benefit of having states is that the country called the united states exists, the fact that these over represented states are rural is not relevant, the issue is that they are states

it is not a design flaw that senators can stop legislation that 75% of the public wants, that is a feature of a republican government, see the video i posted, the united states is not a democracy it is a republic (theoretically), its really an oligarchy as we all know but thats a whole nother thread, in terms of political theory its a republic,

the question is not whether is its fair, the question is whether you want to change the united states government to be more unitarian and less federal and whether the rights of minorities will be respected more in a unitarian system


we live in racist society where we make up 12%, its not clear to me that what 75% of the public wants the public should get, and i live in cali where democrats have a super majority, and its whatever

so imo as far as black people are concerned i think its a wash, im not for it or against, im for getting rid of the electoral college though because its antiquated, im not convinced that the senate system is antiquated, like i said in the beginning i think the complaints about the senate is mostly from liberals who are mad cuz the so called "progressive agenda" is being blocked, like today when the min wage was blocked but i dont really care about the "progressive agenda" so it isnt that serious to me

i care about individual freedom and economic freedom, if you explain to me how a more unitarian government will increase individual rights (minority rights) and economic freedom then ill listen, but legislation being blocked or per capita funding is a weak argument imo

 

[714562]

thats what house of reps is for

I'm confused.

Why didn't this comment end the thread?

 

[unit321]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/03/11/us/politics/small-state-advantage.html

How do I put this in a non-offensive way... no-sh*t Sherlock. The founders of this country set up the House of Representatives based on population. Larger states would have more representatives, but the smaller states would have less representatives... and therefore, less representation. So to even things out, they created the Senate to have two senators from each state. That's like fizzifff grade knowledge. Fizziff!!!

 

[acri1]

How do I put this in a non-offensive way... no-sh*t Sherlock. The founders of this country set up the House of Representatives based on population. Larger states would have more representatives, but the smaller states would have less representatives... and therefore, less representation. So to even things out, they created the Senate to have two senators from each state. That's like fizzifff grade knowledge. Fizziff!!!

No shyt.

Nobody is asking for remedial history lessons, the question I posed is whether nor not this system is fair, not how it works.

 

[the cac mamba]

well then we would have to get rid of the senate because 'not the senate'=congress, right?

id get rid of the electoral college first

 

[BlvdBrawler]

The system is fine.

House of reps is in place for this reason.

Some things in the government are not a problem. This is one of those things.