Ruled by the small state and small town elite ?

[otago]

Strange system the US senate system, a state like South Dakota has a population of around six hundred thousand yet sends the same number of Senators as California.
You have a gang of six all of whom seem to be against any public option and who seem to have the power to stop it, yet the states they are from make up less than 3% of the population.

Does the USA need a change in it's political system to where all votes are equal regardless of of them being urban or rural so it can become a Democracy ?
Or is the average American happy with the fact that voters in states with small populations can be the tail that wags the dog ?

Do those low population states get much money from the larger populated states' taxpayers ?

 

[J-man]

Imo, it's not so strange. This is deliberately done to protect the smaller states. Otherwise the big states could make all the decisions. The electoral college is in proportion to population.

 

[Grisu]

That's pretty much the point of a two chamber system, isn't it?

Switzerland has a similar system: there's the Ständerat where every canton gets 2 representatives irregardless of size (canton of uri with a population of 30k has the same number as the canton of zürich with roughly 1.3M). Then there's the Nationalrat where the number of representatives depends on population.

The idea behind is that the population-rich cantons don't marginalize the smaller cantons when it comes to voting. They still hold more sway through their much larger number of representatives in the large chamber.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

I think it's pretty much indefensible from a small-d democratic perspective. Maybe it made sense two hundred years ago when there was still some federalism left in America, but it's irrelevant to anything now.

In practice, congressmen voting in a national legislature with wildly varying numbers of constituents just results in making it easier for special interests to buy Senators. It's almost impossible to outweigh a California Senator's 36,000,000 constituents, but a little money goes a long way when you're trying to buy someone who represents Montana's 900,000.

Cleo

 

[Cutlass]

If you look at the history of it, it was necessary to do it that way for the states to agree to form a country in the first place. It's one of those compromises that democracy from time to time requires. It won't be done away with. Because the concern of the small states being overwhelmed still exists.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

If you look at the history of it, it was necessary to do it that way for the states to agree to form a country in the first place. It's one of those compromises that democracy from time to time requires. It won't be done away with. Because the concern of the small states being overwhelmed still exists.

I know the Constitution couldn't have passed without it, but it's irrelevant now. It can't possibly be amended out, since you'll always get more small states to oppose it. But they'll be opposing it purely out of anti-democratic self-interest. I still think the Senate's an awful, awful legislative body.

Cleo

 

[IglooDame]

That's pretty much the point of a two chamber system, isn't it?

QFT.

But a link as to how six US Senators are blocking the other ninety-four would be very helpful.

 

[Grisu]

Out of interest: How large is the population of the 25 smaller states compared to the 25 larger ones?

 

[Cutlass]

I know the Constitution couldn't have passed without it, but it's irrelevant now. It can't possibly be amended out, since you'll always get more small states to oppose it. But they'll be opposing it purely out of anti-democratic self-interest. I still think the Senate's an awful, awful legislative body.

Cleo

Well I can't really disagree with that. It is pretty worthless. But we're stuck with it.

 

[IglooDame]

I think it's pretty much indefensible from a small-d democratic perspective. Maybe it made sense two hundred years ago when there was still some federalism left in America, but it's irrelevant to anything now.

In practice, congressmen voting in a national legislature with wildly varying numbers of constituents just results in making it easier for special interests to buy Senators. It's almost impossible to outweigh a California Senator's 36,000,000 constituents, but a little money goes a long way when you're trying to buy someone who represents Montana's 900,000.

Cleo

Are you speaking of media market advertising costs? Because no matter the number of constituents, it's still the principle of winning half+1 of them (assuming your standard R vs D election). Now of course it is cheaper to flood North Dakotan media markets with advertising coverage than it is to do the same in Californian markets. That said, I wonder if there's any rough data on the tendency of Senators to be bought by lobbyists depending on the populations (or general election campaign price tags) of their home states.

 

[IglooDame]

Out of interest: How large is the population of the 25 smaller states compared to the 25 larger ones?

I couldn't say offhand, but I recall figuring out one time that in a presidential election campaign someone could come in third in the popular vote and still win, or in a 2-way race could theoretically win with somewhere under one-third of the popular vote. As a practical matter I do favor the Maine-Nebraska adjustment to the Electoral College system, or doing away with the Electoral College in favor of instant-runoff or something similar.

 

[bhsup]

To those of us who still believe in federalism, it's great. Remember, this is a union here in these United States of America (look at the first two words of that name, eh) of 50 sovereign States bound together under a Federal, not national government.

Yeah, some people blow that off, but in doing so they blow off the Constitution.

 

[really]

I wouldn't mind seeing something similar for the EU.

 

[Cutlass]

Out of interest: How large is the population of the 25 smaller states compared to the 25 larger ones?

Very. Without adding up the numbers, Connecticut has a little under 10% of the population of California. 20 states have a population smaller than Connecticut. It goes from nearly 37 million to little over 1/2 million. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population

 

[bhsup]

In fact, I would throw out there for consideration that I would LOVE it if the electoral college were overhauled to give each State 1 vote for President.

 

[Rashiminos]

But of course. Minority protections in a republican government that tends toward democracy, but tries to avoid mob rule (think of the protesters who are shutting down debate).

 

[uppi]

That's pretty much the point of a two chamber system, isn't it?

Switzerland has a similar system: there's the Ständerat where every canton gets 2 representatives irregardless of size (canton of uri with a population of 30k has the same number as the canton of zürich with roughly 1.3M). Then there's the Nationalrat where the number of representatives depends on population.

Except for six cantons, that have been screwed by history and get only one representative

But, yes, for federalism to work one needs a federal body where the states get approximately equal influence. Without that, federalism will soon die (at least in practice).

The issue that the value of the vote is different by state could be solved by not voting for senators at all, but let them be controlled by the state governments. That way they really would represent the interest of the state.

 

[Arwon]

I wouldn't mind seeing something similar for the EU.

That's kinda the point of the EU Council.

 

[woody60707]

In practice, congressmen voting in a national legislature with wildly varying numbers of constituents just results in making it easier for special interests to buy Senators. It's almost impossible to outweigh a California Senator's 36,000,000 constituents, but a little money goes a long way when you're trying to buy someone who represents Montana's 900,000.

Cleo

That won't fix the main problem of our lobbing system buying congressmen. What really is the real problem.

 

[classical_hero]

Many countries have this sort of house of review, so if you attack the US, then you have to attack the many other countries that do so also. Obviously you want to find fault in everything the Americans do,