I would argue the way we do the Senate is even more egregious. Every state has 2 Senators which makes zero sense. So of course the tiny red states like Wyoming and Montana get as much political power as California. Honestly if it wasn't for this and the electoral college then the Republicans would never hold power again. Which is why it will never change.
The House remaining at 435 members for over a century is a bigger problem. The US was built on the concept that the interests of both individuals AND states should be represented at the Federal level. Obviously done by loosely tying House members to the population, Senate members to states, and the Presidency to a combination of both. Except the power of the population in smaller states is heavily skewed because the number of House members has remained fixed at 435 and because electoral votes are varied based on number of Representatives and not Senators. This results in the issue you're describing more than Senate representation.
If you adjust the number of House members upwards, then electoral votes will more closely align with popular vote.
It's to keep their interests in the game. Except that's not the reality at all. They can hijack the entire nation's progress by holding out, and the gop has formed a voting bloc including your Dakotas and Montanas.
There was only supposed be one Dakota. It was split by the GOP (back when they were more progressive but still pro-business) to get more electoral votes.
I understand your complaint, but I don't think abolishing the Senate will really work. I think it's more likely that we can increase the size of the House of Representatives. Fundamentally, the House of Representatives is supposed to represent the people, but at its current size, it does a very bad job. You cannot tell me that a representative can engage with, and understand the complaints of, an average of 700,000 citizens in their district. It's just not possible.
If we fixed this issue, it would also help balance the electoral college to more accurately represent the popular vote.
I realize it's still a small chance: any change that disfavors Republicans will be heavily fought against. But there's a chance, unlike getting rid of the Senate, or removing their power to vote in the electoral college, etc.
It makes sense and serves a legitimate purpose. If Wyoming didn’t get a seat at the table, why would they want to be a part of the union?
You can argue that it’s not fair, but there is logic behind the way congress is structured. Electoral “fairness” was prioritized less so than limiting the dangers of an unchecked majority.
It makes sense and serves a legitimate purpose. If Wyoming didn’t get a seat at the table, why would they want to be a part of the union?
Probably due to the massive influx of tax dollars that they (and literally every other red state except Texas) get for how little they pay. Montana is financially insolvent and massively subsidized by the people they hate so much. The blue states and urbanites with productive jobs.
But this gives states agency, not the people who live in them. You could just divide Wyoming in two and then make the exact same arguments you're making now.
That logic doesn't follow nearly as much these days. If Wyoming only got a representative proportion of seats at the table, they wouldn't abandon all the federal funding the US offers them. The real problem is that they have no incentive to vote to change the system to proportional representation. The Senate only really existed because the founding fathers only intended land owners to vote initially, and they wanted the land owners within to have more power. From it's inception the US electoral system prioritized wealth and land over people.
If the senate didn’t exist, the constitution would have never been signed by the less populous states. I’m not arguing that it’s fair or a perfect system, just refuting OPs claim that it “makes zero sense”.
If Wyoming didn’t get a seat at the table, why would they want to be a part of the union?
They... Do get a seat at the table. They just get a proportional seat at the table. Why is that considered "not getting a seat at the table"? You can flip this around and say if California doesn't get their fair share of federal power why would they want to be part of the union?
Electoral “fairness” was prioritized less so than limiting the dangers of an unchecked majority.
What danger??? That the majority of the population gets what it wants? What about the danger of a minority getting what they want and the majority not getting that? If you can either choose to have the majority or the minority get what they want, why would you ever pick the latter???
It’s works like the EU, smaller countries get equal representation as the larger ones so they aren’t steamrolled. States with the most population shouldn’t get to dictate the rest just because they have more people.
If decisions made at the federal level were decided by a strictly proportional vote, Wyoming would have effectively 0 influence over the result. As in 1 vote out of 435 as seen in the house of reps. Keep in mind this is for federal policy, which has an equal impact for all 50 states. Does it not make sense to allow Wyoming a seat at the table when making policy that impacts its citizens just as heavily as the citizens of California, even if there are fewer of them? Keep in mind that California has far more influence in other areas of the federal government, as well as their own state government to make policy in.
The citizens of Wyoming have vastly different interests than the citizens of California, New York, and even Texas. It makes sense to give states like Wyoming a larger voice than their population size dictates. It may be unfair and it’s by no means a perfect system, but there is at least a reason for it.
Ok, so if statehood is all that matters, let's split California into 10 states. It's not even that outrageous, each state would still be more populous than Wyoming and none of the states would be that small land wise. Now California has 10x the Senate votes despite having the exact same amount of people and land. Does that make any sense? The other person said it's giving landmass a vote, but it's not even doing that. It's giving entirely arbitrary separations of land votes. The same amount of land can get double the votes if it's split. Why should north and south Dakota get double the representation than Dakota did?
If decisions made at the federal level were decided by a strictly proportional vote, Wyoming would have effectively 0 influence over the result. As in 1 vote out of 435 as seen in the house of reps. Keep in mind this is for federal policy, which has an equal impact for all 50 states
This all continues to ignore that relatively nobody actually lives in Wyoming.
You keep invoking it like their statehood alone somehow elevates their importance beyond the people who reside in it. It's like we are counting land mass as being something worth enforcing in proportional representation.
That’s entirely the point of the senate and the EC.
A single suburb of LA has more people living in it than the entire state of Wyoming. Think of how easy it is for the wildly different needs of the people of WY to get drowned out by the larger populations.
Think of it like this - will the people of LA, NYC, Boston, etc. remember to fund the fish and wildlife agency of WY come election season? Or will those dollars get sent to the public transport projects in the cities?
I understand how big populations would dominate small ones on a federal level. It makes sense, because big populations have more fucking people who have needs to be met.
We have state governments to help cater to people in specific states. Wyoming has a state government which can tailor itself to their needs.
Ok so the federal government can be ran by popular vote because each state has their own government. Now Wyoming doesn’t get to vote on federal policy or budget (1 out of 500 is not a vote), and now doesn’t get any federal funding. Why would Wyoming want to stay in the union? If your familiar with history, you’ll recall that we’ve already fought a war over taxation without representation. 1 out of 500 is not representation.
The US is a 50 state republic, not a 6 state republic that other states reside next to. If this is what your are advocating for, you might as well advocate for a 2nd civil war and a new constitution. Because that’s what it’ll take to implement direct democracy like you are describing.
Now Wyoming doesn’t get to vote on federal policy or budget (1 out of 500 is not a vote)
Again, why would they be entitled to disproportionate representation just because they are a state? What is the specific reasoning here, given it's not just Wyoming being subsidized this way...it's every single empty rural state being given this boost and collectively dominating our federal government.
Like, this is clearly not about Wyoming "getting a say" in our federal government. It's about rural, authoritarian conservatives wanting to essentially control the federal government as a minoritarian coalition. Making it like "oh poor little Wyoming" is pretty ignorant of the actual situation...the problem is that little Wyoming can muck up the entire federal government in a country where the majority of people live in urban metro areas.
Why should rural conservatives have so much control over the lives of Americans living in our cultural and economic hubs?
I agree with this. Presidential I kind of get actually in a way that some sort of weighing happens, because otherwise why would a small state ever vote if it counts for zero. But the senate is supposedly more actions affecting people’s daily lives not just a National Direction/ideas like a president. I’m wording this so poorly, but tldr I agree with you the senate thing is worse.
You'd also need to reform the voting system to a tiered or waterfall system to allow for minor parties to get votes that they can give to parties to create a majority, this means that a minor party can have some say.
Currently both of your party options are extremely conservative and 100% capitalist meaning they will find ways to extract surplus value from the country (and people) and give it to corporations. The Dems are the better choice of course but it's important to remember that two companies own everything in the shelves, the housing market, research, tech, pharma, and your politicians. Meaning we can't stop giving them money and they keep using it to influence policy everywhere.
if no candidate manages to get a majority in the electoral collage (could happen if there are 3 candidates or if its a tie) the house of representatives decides the race. It happened in 1824 when Jackson got the most votes both in the popular vote as well as in the electoral collage but the house choose to vote for Adams instead
Th electorial college is the only way anyone wins. It dictates the entire course of presidential campaigns. It's why Republicans and Democrats spend so much time in battleground states, and not trying to peel off voters in states that are solidly on one side.
Maybe the popular vote numbers would still look the same in a completely different system. But that's an assumption based on pretty close to nothing but imagination.
It's only reason why there are battleground states. If there were no electoral college, every voter would be equally important, in which case the popular vote would favor democrats even higher than it does today, since there is little motivation for people in Net York, California, Illinois, etc. to go vote. The educated, high GPD states vote overwhelmingly blue everytime.
Yes, exactly. In a popular vote system, the political landscape would be completely different. Pretending that everything would be the same except the counting method is just silly.
I didn't say it was a good system. I said it's silly to assume the popular vote, or pretty much anything else, would look the same in a popular vote system.
If you wanna win the presidency you need the support of the states not necessarily the people of the country as a whole. It's The United States of America, Not the United People of America.
509
u/midnightgirlj May 26 '23
more like "the electoral college is the only way we win" majority