Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sowelu]

Not all politicians in power should be selected by the same people at the same time.  You at least need to smear the terms out a bit.  It's really dangerous if you let the public choose EVERYONE all at once, because then all it takes is one real charismatic political movement...

The whole point of our political system is to enforce bureaucracy, to resist change, to make it as hard as possible to sneak something through overnight.

[Leafsnail]

1 senator per state...

So, uh, basically massively weight the balance of power towards smaller states?  I mean, that might be acceptable in a country with a reasonably even population spread, but the US is not like that at all.  I mean, 36 million people in California would receive the same representation as half a million people in Wyoming.

[Renault]

Again, how is having the Federal government create federal law and state legislatures create state laws a bad thing? Remember, states still do have a voice in Washington. The people of the states vote on them. What you're saying is that the legislatures don't have an input on federal law, and I don't think you've made a cogent argument for why they should. I'm from California, I can tell you for damn sure that state legislatures are not bastion against corruption and incompetence, to say the least.

...and before we get to into the states rights thing fully, lets remember thats not really a movement that has ever been particularly reflective of America's better values, to say the least.

[Sowelu]

1 senator per state...

So, uh, basically massively weight the balance of power towards smaller states?  I mean, that might be acceptable in a country with a reasonably even population spread, but the US is not like that at all.  I mean, 36 million people in California would receive the same representation as half a million people in Wyoming.

There is a VERY good reason we do that!  Each state was conceived to be a social experiment.  This state wants to legalize prostitution, that one wants to legalize pot, this one wants to have an income tax, the other one doesn't.  Because each state is supposed to have unique laws--it's *desirable* for each state to have their own laws, so that people can live under the state laws they choose--each state needs the same freedom as other states to determine their destiny.

[Renault]

You realize in practice, states rights in this century has pretty much only ever referred to segregation, right? The social experiment thing sounds good, but I think its important to remember that can have some terrible consequences.
And states still do have their own laws. The 17th amendment hasn't terribly damaged the whole federalist balance as much as you seem to think. Its been more a slow decline punctuated by dramatic expansions of federal power during crises. So, that should probably be your focus, not direct election of senators.

[Aqizzar]

1 senator per state...

So, uh, basically massively weight the balance of power towards smaller states?  I mean, that might be acceptable in a country with a reasonably even population spread, but the US is not like that at all.  I mean, 36 million people in California would receive the same representation as half a million people in Wyoming.

There is a VERY good reason we do that!  Each state was conceived to be a social experiment.  This state wants to legalize prostitution, that one wants to legalize pot, this one wants to have an income tax, the other one doesn't.  Because each state is supposed to have unique laws--it's *desirable* for each state to have their own laws, so that people can live under the state laws they choose--each state needs the same freedom as other states to determine their destiny.

Yeah, instead what happened is the least populous, most rural, most reactionary, one-sixth of the population elects half of the Senate, and get to dictate terms to everyone else.  California may want to legalize marijuana (or would, if stoners went to the polls), but it will always be subject to federal laws written by a body that gives equal weight to Montana's opinions on personal marijuana use.

[Leafsnail]

There is a VERY good reason we do that!  Each state was conceived to be a social experiment.  This state wants to legalize prostitution, that one wants to legalize pot, this one wants to have an income tax, the other one doesn't.  Because each state is supposed to have unique laws--it's *desirable* for each state to have their own laws, so that people can live under the state laws they choose--each state needs the same freedom as other states to determine their destiny.

That's not what I mean at all.  I am not talking about local government or the ability to set the laws of your state.

What I'm talking about is the ability to make your voice heard on a national level.  With the "one senator per state" system, a person in Wyoming essential has about 70 times as much say on federal issues as someone in California.

[nenjin]

What I'm talking about is the ability to make your voice heard on a national level.  With the "one senator per state" system, a person in Wyoming essential has about 70 times as much say on federal issues as someone in California.

Er, no. That's a fallacy unless you buy into the concept that representatives are perfect containers of the electorate's will. They're not. A person in Wyoming honestly has about as much say as an individual in California. What population impacts is the signal to noise ratio a senator has to deal with to discern what their district generally wants to have happen. (Assuming they're actually doing their job.) 

It's easier to gain national attention for one's issues that ever before. You may not do it within the confines of government, through your elected official, but new media and the fact traditional media will report anything now, means you have the biggest bully pulpit of all: the internet.

Even given that the largest districts in the US tend to vote democrat, I'm not enthused by proportional representation across the board in America, at this stage in time. We don't need any more excuses in this country to start forming power blocs.

[Leafsnail]

Er, no. That's fallacy is you buy into the concept that representatives are perfect containers of the electorate's will. They're not. A person in Wyoming honestly has about as much say as an individual in California. What population impacts is the signal to noise ratio a senator has to deal with to discern what they're district generally wants to have happen. (Assuming they're actually doing their job.)

It's not a fallacy, it's just a mathematical reality.

Let's say that, just theoretically, California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Georgia were all unanimously in favour of "Party X".  This would be a majority of the American populace.

However, if the other states voted for "Party Y" then Party X would be outnumbered 41 to 9 in the senate in spite of having roughly 50% of the popular vote.

So... it would mean that small states matter a LOT more in terms of public opinion.  Each person you please in Wyoming is much more important than each person you please in California, from a senate point of view.

[nenjin]

Let's say that, just theoretically, California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Georgia were all unanimously in favour of "Party X".  This would be a majority of the American populace.

Except that's not the case, ever. States that "go for party x or y" do so after a filtering of decisions at the state and local level. And like I said, rarely do legislators vote purely along those lines.

American is a mixed political system. You get your proportional representation in the electoral college. And all you'd be doing, by changing over to pure representation by population, is substitute your fear of being dominated by smaller states in political matters, to being beholden to the urban interests of the largest population sectors in the US. America always clucks about the value of "small town" opinions in our national character. That's preserved by giving them equal representation in the legislature. It promotes discussion and compromise, or should anyways, rather than most decisions being ruled by a select handful of senators.

Seriously, take your example, and flip it. 41 states can't out vote 9 states? What if they want to levy a national tax to support their urban infrastructure, saying that since more people live in cities, we have a national responsibility to support them?

Given the fact California has been damn near bankrupt for the last 5 years, that sounds like a ****ing terrible idea.

[Aqizzar]

And don't forget that Iowa is the first state to hold a Presidential Primary, followed immediately by New Hampshire, so any party trying to nominate an heir apparent has to worry about their opinions a bit above everyone else's too.

Obviously, when the Constitutional Convention sat around trying to square the circle, the thought they had a good idea by making two bodies with the two system, and they have to reach an agreement to make a law.  I think the problem is, vastly more power over the process of producing legislation has accumulated in the non-representative Senate, both due to its particular rules, and the simple fact that there's fewer of them.  That means more of the media's time to make their cases, and the Presidents time to negotiate with.

[Leafsnail]

Except that's not the case, ever. States that "go for party x or y" do so after a filtering of decisions at the state and local level. And like I said, rarely do legislators vote purely along those lines.

So there isn't a tendancy of smaller states to vote for a particular "party x"?  Really?

American is a mixed political system. You get your proportional representation in the electoral college. And all you'd be doing, by changing over to pure representation by population, is substitute your fear of being dominated by smaller states in political matters, to being beholden to the urban interests of the largest population sectors in the US. America always clucks about the value of "small town" opinions in our national character. That's preserved by giving them equal representation much greater representation in the legislature. It promotes discussion and compromise, or should anyways, rather than most decisions being ruled by a select handful of senators.

Well, yeah, it promotes "discussion and compromise" in that it hands much more voting power to certain people.

Britain used to have it very, very extremely (constituencies with as few as zero actual residents).

Seriously, take your example, and flip it. 41 states can't out vote 9 states? What if they want to levy a national tax to support their urban infrastructure, saying that since more people live in cities, we have a national responsibility to support them?

Given the fact California has been damn near bankrupt for the last 5 years, that sounds like a ****ing terrible idea.

And such a system doesn't allow the opposite to happen?

[Renault]

For whats its worth, page 9 of this painfully dense document (http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/fas-09.pdf) sort of demonstrates the power of the senate. The states that receive the most per capita federal aid are all quite rural. And if you look at earmarks per capita, ( http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/wdc/state_earmarks/index.html ) its pretty much the same trend. So while you can't entirely attribute it to inherent bias in the system, it does appear rural states have at least a significant ability to influence federal funding.

[nenjin]

Well that and the fact that just about anyone can get elected to the House of Representatives. The House cranks out crazy legislation, the Senate moderates that legislation into something the "in the camera" politicians can sell to their constituents.

And it makes sense. The House of Reps is huge, debate is chaotic and the lack of interest by the public in what the House of Reps is up to gives them a lot more freedom to propose things without fear of a backlash.

The Senate is (well it used to be anyways) calmer, with fewer talking heads supposedly resulting in more focused debate. Unfortunately, both houses have been hijacked by grandstanding and obstructionism these days, from both parties The House was always that way, but now the Senate is increasingly becoming that way too.

Bottomline though, the responsibility has always rested with the American public. Their representatives doing things like calling the president a liar in the middle of his speech, embezzling and cheating their way to riches (Hi Rangel), seeking gay sex in a bathroom while claiming to support family values.....Americans have to care enough about this shit not to re-elect the same people to office. It's easy to blame the system for producing these people, but when we see them in the legislature year after year, doing the same shit, we have no one to blame but ourselves. I'm not going all Tea Party here, but there's honestly a level of behavior we SAY we expect out of politicians, but fail to hold them accountable for. Particularly when the objectionable thing they're doing is bound to something we DO want. 

Case in point. If you want to say the president should be the most moral person in the country, the last three sitting presidents all should not have held office. If you say you don't want your representatives to be held hostage by the process, a large chunk of the current democratic senators should be shown the door. If you say you just want your reps to get something done, to fix the fucking mess we're in, damn near all the Republicans that survived their election challenge should be thrown out on their asses.

And such a system doesn't allow the opposite to happen?

A bridge to nowhere is not the same as linking the entire national budget to the mega budgets of the largest states and cities, who also tend to run the biggest deficits and spend the most in one sitting. I'm not about to sign up for subsidizing California's run away fucking debt, or to pay for another 30 palm trees to be planted in a goddamn desert.

So there isn't a tendancy of smaller states to vote for a particular "party x"?  Really?

When that's how the representation shook out, yes. It's funny you're all about your own rights as they pertain to your state, while ignoring that other states came to their beliefs along the exact same route. Their beliefs are sovereign, even if you don't agree with them. Thus their states overall political identity is sovereign, no matter how backasswards it seems to you.

Well, yeah, it promotes "discussion and compromise" in that it hands much more voting power to certain people.

Again. You act as though you're politically marginalized now, in a system where YOU may get more voting power than your actually "deserve." Yet you want to politically marginalize someone else to fix that. That's pretty much textbook politics.

[Aqizzar]

And such a system doesn't allow the opposite to happen?

A bridge to nowhere is not the same as linking the entire national budget to the mega budgets of the largest states and cities.

So there isn't a tendancy of smaller states to vote for a particular "party x"?  Really?

When that's how the representation shook out, yes. It's funny you're all about your own rights as they pertain to your state, while ignoring that other states came to their beliefs along the exact same route. Their beliefs are sovereign, even if you don't agree with them. Thus their states overall political identity is sovereign, no matter how backasswards it seems to you.

You disprove your second rebuttal with the first.  The problem isn't different states having their own political character over their own laws.  It's some states having more power over federal law, y'know effecting all states, than other states, for no better reason than geographical accident.  I don't give a damn what backasswards laws Wyoming inflicts on its own people.  I do have a problem with Wyoming inflicting its backasswards laws on me, because Wyoming's Senators form part of a political alliance of rural states who numerically outnumber everything else.