No, that's malapportionment, and it's also very common in federations for the upper house to serve as a house of review got the states, provinces, cantons, etc, meaning they have equal or similar representation each, regardless of population.
The Tipping Point
- Thread starter hobbsyoyo
- Start date
No, that's malapportionment, and it's also very common in federations for the upper house to serve as a house of review got the states, provinces, cantons, etc, meaning they have equal or similar representation each, regardless of population.
Ok but why the hell would land area ever be considered a factor like this? Dirt doesn't vote.
If dirt chooses to disenfranchise itself, that's dirt's problem.
Already addressed.
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
With Republicans gaining ground in the Senate it looks like the wave of judicial appointments will continue and reshape our politics for generations. The odds we're terrible for the Democrats in the Senate to begin with but they didn't even manage to hold which is troubling.
In any case these judges will go right on pushing a hard right agenda that will bleed over into elections via gerrymandering and voter suppression efforts that the courts will green light.
I think maybe the slow motion coup hit a road bump last night but I don't think we've managed to stop it yet.
In any case these judges will go right on pushing a hard right agenda that will bleed over into elections via gerrymandering and voter suppression efforts that the courts will green light.
I think maybe the slow motion coup hit a road bump last night but I don't think we've managed to stop it yet.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Not really. You've explained why the system may be preferred by small states, but that explanation applies to low-population, low-area states like Rhodes Island or Delaware as much as to low-population, high-area states like Wyoming or Montana. Land area doesn't have any self-evident role in the rationale given.
If anything, it actively confuses the issue, because we're left trying to explain why high-population, high-area states like Texas and California are treated as if they fulfilled only one of those criteria. If two senators is right for dense little Massachusetts and it's right for big, empty Wyoming, then vast, heavily-populated Texas should have, what, like seven or eight senators?
(What are we defining as "high population", anyway? Virginia is five times as populous as Idaho, but California is five times as populous as Virginia. Idaho in turn is three times as populous as Wyoming. The scale breaks down pretty quickly. It's not immediately clear that "big state" and "small state" really describes much more than the self-perception of its residents.)
Last edited:
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
Big state/small state is actually just a reference to population. The whole conversation about dirt representation is entertaining, but not connected to reality.
Issues with the US Senate are probably more to do with how many pointless small states there are, in some cases drawn to balance the spread of slavery (what a proud legacy) and in at least the case of the Dakotas, an explicit pitch for extra senators. The low population rectangle states are not really natural units, and there's also a few others like Delaware and Vermont which have really tenuous claims to having a reason to exist. Contrast with Alaska and Hawaii (or Tasmania, or Tierra Del Fuego) which are clear natural units of administration and representation, for instance.
Many other federations have a couple of Wyomings (Tasmania, Prince Edward Island, Bremen, Acre, Santa Cruz, Colima, Goa, Perlis, German Belgium) but I don't think there's many other federations with so many, especially among those where the upper house is a strong counterweight to the lower house.
Many other federations have a couple of Wyomings (Tasmania, Prince Edward Island, Bremen, Acre, Santa Cruz, Colima, Goa, Perlis, German Belgium) but I don't think there's many other federations with so many, especially among those where the upper house is a strong counterweight to the lower house.
Last edited:
It would be rather simple to adjust the Senate in such a way that both the 2 senators per state principle (for the reasons mentioned by many) as the popular vote would both be represented.
For sake of simplicity to explain that: assume that all senators would be chosen in one election.
If the senators vote would be 47 Dem's and 53 GOP AND the popular vote would be 52% Dem's and 48% GOP....
You have to add 8 Dem senators for a total of 108 senators in the Senate to comply with both objectives, or give the chairman of the party those extra votes (so that there 108 votes and 100 senators).
If it would be done by extra senators: where these 8 senators come from is a detail, but they could be chosen by the party, or one extra per state starting with the biggest states in population downward (of people that lost)
Because the Senate elections is one third of the seat, it is a bit more complicated, because you have to use the popular votes of the other elections added to the popular vote of the actual election as basis for that adjust.
For sake of simplicity to explain that: assume that all senators would be chosen in one election.
If the senators vote would be 47 Dem's and 53 GOP AND the popular vote would be 52% Dem's and 48% GOP....
You have to add 8 Dem senators for a total of 108 senators in the Senate to comply with both objectives, or give the chairman of the party those extra votes (so that there 108 votes and 100 senators).
If it would be done by extra senators: where these 8 senators come from is a detail, but they could be chosen by the party, or one extra per state starting with the biggest states in population downward (of people that lost)
Because the Senate elections is one third of the seat, it is a bit more complicated, because you have to use the popular votes of the other elections added to the popular vote of the actual election as basis for that adjust.
I heard a piece on the news last night that the Democrats are screwing up by not focusing more on voting rights/access when they have control. Meanwhile the Republicans, fully aware of their shrinking electorate are always looking for ways to enhance the power of their minority.
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
Yeah vote suppression by various means have been a national, coordinated strategy of Republicans since at least 2008. It flew under everyone's radar until most of the damage was done. Well it didn't fly under everyone's radar but the people in charge at the DNC seemed to have been especially inept about it.
Generally Democratic leadership seems to be inept almost as a rule, no matter what stage they are on. When Wisoncin attempted to recall Walker the Dems put up the guy who just lost to Walker to run against him again. That was remarkably stupid and helped lend Walker an air of invicibility that Tuesday night showed to be a farce.
I wouldn't put it past them to run Hillary again, tbh.
Broken_Erika
Play with me.
Hillary is probably running again. "We" aren't running her again. She will lose in the primaries this time.
I've heard rumours of her running, but the more I hear rumours, the less I believe them. The only person who could benefit from Hillary running is Trump.
Lexicus
Deity
Lexicus
Deity
Nah, if she runs and loses whoever wins will have mad street cred from slaying the dragon that is her. I just hope her uncritical supporters can internalize the arguments they bombarded us Bernie supporters with endlessly in 2016 and come out to vote even if they believe the Democratic candidate is seriously flawed. We'll see though; the centrist Democrats seem to only like compromising with the Republicans, and seem to prefer that to the leftish parts of their own party.
This woman was stupid enough to compare her to Cersei Lannister. Donald Trump stupidly compared himself to the Night King recently. Now you're invoking a dragon-slayer. Can we just ignite some Wildfire up in this b*tch already? Give the country to Justin Trudeau, he's the closest thing to Dakingindanorf I can think of.
Lexicus
Deity
I mean I was doing so fully aware of the overwrought-ness of the metaphor, but the fact is that many people who don't like her really don't like her and I honestly think that if she's in the primary and loses whoever beats her will get a boost from people who hate Hillary and are grateful.
