Summations Only

No, I think having the same number of Senators from each state is a mistake - it's an enormous status quo bias, it gives far too much power to sparsely-populated rural states, and it winds up focusing about 70% of the Federal government's time on rural communities inhabited only by less than 20% of Americans.54% of Americans are represented by the same 20 Senators; a different set of 20 Senators represent as few as 3% of Americans. But that apportionment of the Senate is right there in the Constitution.I think we should get rid of states, too. We should actually unite the States of America, dissolve all state boundaries. If local issues are, well, an issue then municipalities can address them, with municipalities receiving funding from the federal government. I live in Lincoln. There's little reason to believe that there's something the same about the issues that affect both me and my friend who lives out in Kearney that isn't also the same as the issues that affect my parents up in Morris, Minnesota. So there's no reason I can conceive of that there should be a government that represents me and my friend but not also my parents or anybody else in the United States.If it matters to me here in Lincoln, and it matters to rural Nebraskans too, then it probably matters to rural Minnesotans and Iowans and Virginians and Californians, too. Get rid of states, they have no purpose. Government is either of highly local concern or so distant to our concerns that it may as well be in Washington, where at least they can get the Federal Reserve to print some money.

That makes sense, but in practice we've often see the Senate behaving more statesman-like and pushing far more reasonable legislation than does the rabble in the House. There are some problems with the Senate, but I'd be hard-pressed to believe that giving more power to the House of Representatives would be a great idea.I might support changes to make government democratic, but I'd likely want a bill of rights about double the size of the current ten amendments.

The purpose of the Senate was to assure that the less populated states and areas also got represented.It is doing that well.

Uh, no, in practice I think we've seen the exact opposite - we've seen the House push forward on the agenda ratified by the American people, and we've seen the Senate refuse to do anything but business as usual. The notion that the Senate represents the "comity of statesmanship" is risibly incorrect in an age when Obama can't staff major government offices because individual Senators can hold the nomination process hostage to special interests. What's "statesman-like" about that?Everybody complains that Obama couldn't deliver the public option - complains, in fact, that he was never for it in the first place - but they forget that not only did the House pass Obama's public option health care bill, but that they did it in the space of about six weeks. They passed a trillion-dollar stimulus. They passed a carbon tax.The Senate is where legislation - even legislation overwhelmingly supported by the American people - goes to die. If you think the purpose of a legislature is to not legislate, then I suppose the Senate looks pretty good to you. But we're faced with real problems, have been for years, and in every case the Senate is the number one obstacle to solving them, because in the Senate, one guy from Montana has the same political influence and representation as 2,000 residents of major US cities.

They're already represented by the House. Why should people who live a minority, government-subsidized lifestyle be afforded such disproportionate overrepresentation?What's the merit in representing land areas? Your justification makes no sense.

Perhaps it makes no sense to you but it makes sense to those who live in the less populated areas.The goal of an effective plan of government is to make sure that government, when it comes to passing laws and assessments, is inefficient and can only move slowly.

I suspect that I can provide a counterexample for every example that you can provide.Yes it is true that the Senate has rules that often prevent anything from getting done, while the HR operates more democratically in that respect. But the short election cycles in the House seem to lead to constant showboating, pandering, and electioneering and little incentive to compromise. Yes they did. But I seem to recall that the Senate got on board with the health care bill much more quickly than did the House. I would suggest that the problem with the Senate has generally not been that the guy from Montana has undue influence. The problems are more often caused by the Senate rules that allow a minority of Senators to obstruct legislation that would easily pass.

Consider it from the point of view of the drafters of the Constitution. The first session of the House had around 64 members. The representatives from the 4 largest states, Virgina, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and New York or Maryland, totaled 32. Why would the smaller states be willing to join in a union where four states could control everything?Whatever faults the system has now, and I acknowledge that there are faults, these faults were not obvious at the time the Constitution was ratified.

Oh, I'm sure it's in your interest but what about what's fair? Why should you be so overrepresented, jar? You complain frequently about the "tyranny of the majority" but isn't tyranny of an elite minority even worse? Why? If laws can be easily passed, they can be easily repealed. The only reason you're concerned about it being "too easy" to pass laws is your fear that once passed, they cannot easily be reversed.But laws are reversed by laws. If a program is destructive or unpopular, a government that reacts swiftly to the will of the people as expressed by elections can end the program. In countries where laws are more easily passed, "bipartisanship by alternation" is the pattern that emerges, not legislative tyranny.Fundamentally, you're arguing for a government where elections don't matter, where it's just a matter of rearranging the deck chairs. What kind of democracy is that?

How so? The House can't block legislation. There's no House filibuster. They vote up or down on direct votes. And again, this doesn't comport with the reality. It's the House where compromise happens, where the sausage gets ground, where elections result in a dramatic change in the legislative agenda to conform with the wishes of the American people. It's the Senate that is the home of constant showboating and pandering (see "The Cornhusker Kickback"). It's the Senate where a 52-48 party line vote in favor of a bill is a failure.If it's really the short election cycles that bother you, we can fix that. But the problems with Congress are strictly the problems with the Senate; strictly with the notion that half of Americans deserve less representation than a select group of 3%. Isn't there kind of a movement about that, right now? Your recollection is in error. This is absolutely not what happened.

Oh, I agree. But things that make sense in 1790 in an agrarian nation of thirteen states may not make sense for a highly urbanized, technical nation of 50 states.

Slow and difficult govenment doesn't require a disproportionate Senate, though. You can acheive the same thing by replacing your 19th century election system with a proportional parliamentary system. Single party government is often difficult under such a system, totally impossible in many countries, and a system of compromises and fragile coalitions that collapse over controversial issues becomes standard.Parliamentary systems only tend to produce strong governments who can do whatever they want when it's coupled with a backwards electoral system, like in the UK; or at times of overwhelming consensus, like during Sweden's long period of majority Socialist government or the current disastrous backlash against the Socialists in Hungary.

Correct, I do not agree that every governmental decision should be determined by its popularity.People can have whatever opinions they want.

I'm sorry but you just seem to be making stuff up again as usual.No where have I suggested a tyranny of an elite minority so that is simply another irrelevancy.The Senate is but one part of a Bicameral Legislature.The Legislature is but one of three branches of our government.There is no way under the current Constitution to implement a parliamentary system.And I do not believe that the general population in the US is capable creating anything better until the education of at least two generations of voters is totally changed.

This seems to be your go-to accusation when you're caught out saying something whose implications you didn't consider. No matter. Nowhere did I suggest that you did. I'm simply asking you to explain:

quote:

---

Perhaps it makes no sense to you but it makes sense to those who live in the less populated areas.

---

I actually do live in a "less populated area", jar, so that's just another one of your ignorant assumptions about me. And no, it doesn't make any sense to me that the residents of Nebraska or any other less populated state should be overrepresented by perhaps as much as 1800% compared to the residents of cities. Your words, you explain them, since you hate it so much when I try to unpack your cryptic nonsense. Yes, I believe I mentioned that. You might try to read a little closer than you've been doing. And, what? You don't believe that it has anything to do with how we enormously overrepresent a small number of Americans statistically least likely to be well-educated; statistically less likely to be employed; statistically lower in incomes than the rest of the country; and statistically more likely to be drug users?Naw - couldn't possibly be related.