In 20 years, half the population of the USA will live in just eight states

[Goodheart]

Sorry if this has already been discussed.

70% of Americans will live in 15 states, which means that 30% of our citizens will get to choose 70 of our Senators.

Those 30% will be older and whiter than the rest of the population.

Now, I have no native animus towards older white persons, being one myself, but it really, really bothers me that somebody's vote in Wyoming is worth eight or nine times as someone's in California. It's bullshit. The original constitutional intent (to bring the slave states into the fold) has long outlived its usefulness.

[link:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/07/12/in-about-20-years-half-the-population-will-live-in-eight-states/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9210e1c0487a&wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1|]

[flamin lib]

1. It's been plain to me that "one man one vote" has long since gone

by the wayside. My subdivision of THE has a larger population than Idaho and and Montana combined yet they get 4 senators while I share my 2 with a population 10x theirs.

That's just wrong.

[Glorfindel]

7. What's a "subdivision of THE"? Just curious.

[flamin lib]

24. Dam auto complete! That should be DFW as in Dallas/Ft Worth.

[oberliner]

2. What are you proposing?

[world wide wally]

3. How about equal representation?

[PJMcK]

51. That's called "The House of Representatives"

The Senate was designed as a counterweight to more populist states.

Sorry if that was obvious.

[world wide wally]

52. But that is NOT equal.

Wyoming gets 1 representatives for every 579,000 people and Calofornia gets one for every 735,000.
Not equal. When you equate places like North Dakota, South. Dakota and so forth, and compare them to New York, Mass, and Illinois, it just gets more out of whack

[world wide wally]

57. I am talking about the house (Also reflected in the electoral college.

EVERY state has two senators

[world wide wally]

68. enough to make every vote equal across the country

[world wide wally]

71. E Q U A L representation.

It's not a difficult concept

[world wide wally]

73. Better at one given point than permanently

[Goodheart]

4. I propose a constitutional amendment to abolish the electoral college

and the Senate, too, for that matter.

[irisblue]

17. Why the Senate? thx

[Recursion]

32. Because it overrepresents people in less populous states

If half of the population lives in 8 states, they get to elect 16 Senators. The other half of the population gets to elect 34 Senators. That can't go on forever.

[PJMcK]

54. Your suggestion throws the pendulum in the opposite direction

By abolishing the Senate, you would make more populous states more powerful than less populous ones. I know, "one man, one vote." But that's not how the Founding Fathers designed our country.

A different solution would be to abolish the States and make the entire nation's elections country-wide. But then we'd need an entirely new constitution because our country is organized as a Federation of States.

Without a doubt, I agree with you that we have a flawed system. The Electoral College has failed in its expected responsibility and it should go. But nothing like these issues we're discussing will happen with the current partisanship of our politics.

[Recursion]

61. Congratulations: you have begged the question (nt)

[oberliner]

22. Why would smaller states vote in favor of such an amendment?

[Recursion]

33. Because we'll stop paying for their bridges and roads if they don't (nt)

[Amishman]

45. Nah, that would never pass the senate

There isn't a direct federal legislative solution to this as political bodies do not willingly relinquish power.

Honestly I see devolving more control to the states as the only way to mitigate the current unwieldy and uneven power of the federal government.

[hack89]

70. How do you nullify the political power of the senators from the smaller states

Considering they would be a majority in the Senate?

[Recursion]

77. The filibuster, and the House

Last edited Thu Jul 26, 2018, 08:07 AM - Edit history (1)

The Senate manages to be anti-majoritarian in multiple ways, which can be to our advantage.

[hack89]

84. Gridlock and conflict as a form of government

A libertarian's wet dream.

[Quemado]

26. +1

Yes to both of you suggestions

plus

reduce the difficulty to amend the Constitution.

[NoMoreRepugs]

5. Senators and Representatives based on the same methodology...

...population, seems to be very democratic. After all, aren't they supposed to represent the public?

[Volaris]

10. The number of senators is not based on population,

And no they are not supposed to represent 'The People' (see the post downthread)

[NoMoreRepugs]

18. I am aware California has 2 senators.

[Glorfindel]

6. We'd be better off with a House of Lords, like the UK

The US Senate and the Electoral College are about as undemocratic as it is possible to be. I'd like to see both of them abolished, but it will never happen.

[roamer65]

8. There won't be a USA in 20 years.

Given global climate change, politics differences and population shifts, the map is going to change.

Only hope the republic has at survival is some sort of devolution.

[Quemado]

27. I agree - several states will eventually secede

If:

In 20 years, half the population of the USA will live in just eight states, and


70% of Americans will live in 15 states, which means that 30% of our citizens will get to choose 70 of our Senators.


This is a formula for secession.

[Volaris]

9. Senators are not constitutionally duty bound to represent the interests

Of the people who live in their 'districts'. Their purpose is to represent the interest of the STATE GOVERNMENTS they represent, to the institution of the Federal Government.

I'm in no way saying the current crop is any good at it, or even understands that concept.

But I'll say this: as PISSED as I was at senator Ben Nelson for holding his vote on the ACA until he got his STATES medicare paid for in its entirety, he did EXACTLY as his job description required of him, and he made a case for what was in the best interest of his STATE.

What needs adjusting is the power balance between the House and Senate, and a quite large increase in the number of House Members...I think that would go a long way to addressing the issues you raise.

[Misterfer]

11. The House represents the people. The Senate represents the states

Senators were elected by the state legislatures until the 17th Amendment allowed direct voting.

[roamer65]

12. Very true.

The United States has never been a democracy, it is a constitutional republic.

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. If you want states varying with population fairly represented, use a square root power of voting

That is, if state A has 16 times the population of state B, it should have a vote worth 4 times that of B. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_method .

That is, admittedly, for a single delegate from a state, so the state's vote can't be split. If you insist on keeping 2 delegates for each state, a new calculation would need to be done. But if you think the idea is to represent a state, not people, then you should be happier with a single senator per state anyway - why would a single entity need two representatives?

With the California:Wyoming population ratio about 68:1, this would give the California senator just over 8 times the voting power of the Wyoming one.

This would mean that the largest 16 states (with 68% of the population) could form a majority if they all banded together, or, conversely, the smallest 35, with 34%.

[muriel_volestrangler]

39. Why do you think arbitrarily-sized artificial entities need "representation"?

Why is a state represented, and not a profession? Or an age group? Or a national park? Most states were created by the US government. Like national parks.

Maybe Lake Michigan needs a couple of senators. It's entirely in the USA. Why does land need representation?

Or is it because states have populations, and the US government is, ideally, "of the people, for the people, by the people", and not for territories.

[muriel_volestrangler]

60. What is the point of a state, if not its people?

How can it have "interests" that aren't those of the population?

A state's size, and sometimes existence, is an accident of history. It's silly to let that fix political power in stone. Or at least very undemocratic. Nostalgia shouldn't be the basis of power.

[muriel_volestrangler]

64. Why does the state government - which you seem to equate with the state - need representation?

It's just a small group of people with certain jobs.

I don't understand why you're talking about rural populations when it's your claim that senators shouldn't be representing populations. You want them to represent organizations, ie states.

[tinrobot]

46. Whatever. Still doesn't mean it is fair.

[tinrobot]

50. Why? Because math.

When 50% of the people are only represented by 16% of the Senators, that simply isn't fair.

Yes, I know, state's rights, founding fathers, constitution, etc... etc...

Still doesn't make it fair. I have no solution to the problem, but we may have to think of one eventually.

[tinrobot]

62. The senate isn't the body that represents the people.

That's certainly true.

[2naSalit]

85. +1

I'm okay with this arrangement.

[DFW]

13. If my wife and I are still alive, I won't be one of them.

So far, she doesn't want to move to the USA, and I'm done with commuting Dallas-Düsseldorf.

Besides, I warned her--life without her is inconceivable for me, so if she dies before I do, I'll kill her.

[Garrett78]

15. That article is what ultimately led to me starting this thread:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210904606

[many a good man]

16. When the Constitution was written

95% lived on farms. States were more like small independent nations. People identified more with the state in which they lived than with the US of A.

Now it is the complete opposite yet we have not adjusted. The divide is not state versus state but urban versus rural. It is time for our government to start reflecting reality.

[hack89]

19. It will never happen though

those other 42 states will never vote for the constitutional amendment that would be needed to change things.

As a citizen of the the smallest state I certainly would not vote for change.

[mythology]

21. This. There is no incentive for small states to change

But also I generally see people complaining and listing California and a deep red state. Nobody mentions Texas and Rhode Island or Hawaii.

[Crunchy Frog]

75. Never is a long time.

Eventually things will reach a breaking point and the current system will become unsustainable.

[hack89]

83. That does not mean an orderly transition to a better system.

The opposite is more likely

[hack89]

20. All you need to do is convince the other 42 states to commit political suicide

by passing the constitutional amendment needed to change things.

[stevenleser]

28. I wonder what will happen if the EC keeps choosing Far right nutjobs for Prez and the 30% keep

choosing far right nutjobs for senate.

I can easily see the situation eventually degenerating to an ultimatum from the majority population states saying pass the amendment or we will secede.

It may not happen in our lifetimes, but eventually people get sick of not getting the government for which they voted.

[hack89]

31. Look at which resulting "country" will have the agricultural land and the natural resources

How would this new country with that huge population feed itself?

How do you form a viable country when few of the most populous states are contiguous?

[stevenleser]

35. Those are all definitely challenges. You can also talk about the reverse...

How do you maintain a viable country after losing 95% of your service sector, your equity exchanges, your deepwater ports and 95% of your coast?

Plenty of countries without farmland feed themselves. Where would all that food produced by the center of the country go? The most likely place for them to sell it is the 70% of the former population. Exporting it would be more expensive to anyone consuming it.

[dmr]

38. Especially since they wouldn't have the ports in which to ship abroad

Yup, it would become mighty expensive.

[Act_of_Reparation]

42. ...except to the entire Gulf Coast and southern Atlantic.

Or are you banking on Texas, Georgia, and Florida flipping to our side of the fence?

[Blue_true]

66. Except for the agriculture point, good points.

I seriously believe that we are better off breaking up into two seperate, one land mass, one ocean and part of the Gulf countries, a blue country and a red country. Adults 18 and over choose their country. Kids that have to follow adults get one chance to choose after becoming a childless adult. After 18 and 1 month, no more choosing by kids.

On agriculture. Canada supplies a large amount of produce for some states. The produce is grown inside with excellent quality. Precise grow lights allow 3-5 annual "harvests" instead on 1. The facilities also allow efficient use of any type of energy, particularly wind and solar. So, the technologically advanced blue country will feed itself just fine.

[NewJeffCT]

23. definitely something to worry about

but, some of the smaller states include reliably blue Rhode Island, Delaware, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine and Hawaii. Not to mention, blue Oregon and blue Connecticut probably not going to be on that list of the top 15.

And, swing states like Colorado, Minnesota, Wisconsin, New Mexico, Nevada

[unitedwethrive]

25. Not going to happen. We already know what the repugs choose when asked to put Democratic principles

over their party.

[stevenleser]

29. See my #28 above. nt

[beachbum bob]

30. I wouldn't be concern on where people be living 20 years from now...

Look at 100 years ago, 50 years ago, 25 years ago...factor in climate change, water shortages and we will see flight back to northern states and ill take odds of 25 blue states holding their own politically.

[Kaleva]

34. Well, they are not "our Senators".

The Senators represent the states that elect them.

What form of government would you like us to adopt as you want the the current, federal form we have now.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

37. We could replace the Senate with a House of Lords

This upper house could be filled from the offspring of rich families. Given their implied upbringing in the spirit of noblesse oblige, our welfare would be in safe hands.

It seems to work elsewhere.

[Crunchy Frog]

76. It would at least be more honest than the current system.

[Recursion]

78. It doesn't have to be the wealthy; it can just be technocrats

I'm actually kind of a fan of that idea, though I can obviously see the ways it could go horribly wrong.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

82. Technocrat? Look no further than MI governor, Rick Snyder

Formerly ran a computer maker. Now we are a "work for less" (Right-to-Work) state.

Facebook's Zuckerberg, Oracle's Ellison are two more who I would not want in office.

FWIW, I was only kidding about the "house of lords" idea.

[GulfCoast66]

41. If we can change things Willy nilly then just switch systems

I would prefer a parliamentary system anyway. As long as we found a way to keep the Bill of Rights

And I think you underestimate the leverage the high population states will have.

They will totally control of the House of representatives and all spending bill start there. The only thing keeping 15 to 20 states from being Third World countries is government spending. Threaten to cut that off and they’ll come around pretty quick.

In addition I would not write off all the states from ever electing Democratic senators.

[dumbcat]

43. It sounds like you want a Democracy

I doubt that will happen here.

I think it more likely that the Republic will fracture into several smaller entities. But not in my lifetime.

[LanternWaste]

44. Although I know civics is still taught in the public school system

I'm beginning to think that many DUers skipped class and smoked a joint under the bleachers instead.

Here are a few basic (very basic... easy reading-- very easy to the point only Waldo is missing, so fewer excuses to predicate conclusions on feelings rather than evidence and numbers) primers on not merely how, but why (and 'why' seems to be where everyone's screwing up).

The Politics of Size: Representation in the United States by Rosemarie Zagarri

Representation and Reality by Hilary Putnam

Diversity in Democracy: Minority Representation in the United States by Gary Segura



My dream is that people learn beyond the 30-second spots of Wikipedia when discussing topics such as this. But as it's only a dream, I tend to expect the disinformation, urban myths and serious lack of basic-- grade school basic-- information this thread contains)

[tinrobot]

47. This inequity also affects the Supreme Court and judges (since the Senate has to approve)

Which means 30% of the people have a 70% voice in our judicial system.

How in the world is that fair?

(it's NOT)

[Captain Stern]

59. This, again?

I get it.

The folks that live in the states that have smaller populations, essentially have each of their individual votes carry more weight in Presidential elections than the folks that live in states that have larger populations. That's because the amount of Electoral votes each state has is determined by it's amount of Senators and Representatives..and each State gets TWO , and only TWO, Senators..no matter how may people live in the state. And that also means that the states with smaller populations get as much say in the Senate as states with larger populations........unfair! sad! (an orange colored dope might say).

That was the deal when each of the states signed up. As things stand, states can't opt out of that deal (It was tried before, and ended badly).

However, we individuals have complete freedom of movement within our country. If we live in a state with a really large population, and it's causing us a lot of heartache that our individual vote isn't counting as much as someone else's is that lives in a state with a smaller populaton.....we can fucking move.

It's true..it really is. You can actually pack all of your shit up, and move from state to state, and (in most cases) you won't even be questioned at the border. You can go from being an under-represented California voter to an over-represented Wyoming voter in one day.

[TomSlick]

67. The Connecticut Compromise which resulted in each State, irrespective of size, having two senators

was the "Great Compromise" that allowed for the States to agree on a Constitution.

I agree that Wyoming having the same number of Senators as California is grossly undemocratic, however, there is no hope for a constitutional amendment since the Connecticut Compromise is specifically protected by Article V of the Constitution which requires the unanimous consent of all the states to alter.

I suppose it is possible that the Constitution could be thrown out and we start again in another constitutional convention. Of course, if we open that Pandora's box, there is no way to predict what will come out.

This time, better the devil we know.

[lapfog_1]

79. I don't have a "fix" to suggest

but I know that the majority will not long suffer the tyranny of the minority.

I know that my vote (for Senator) counts 67 times LESS than the voter in Wyoming.
67 times...

I don't think the founding fathers ever imagined that the various states would be THIS imbalanced as to population.

[SunSeeker]

80. K & R

[Recursion]

81. The Roman system keeps intriguing me

Last edited Thu Jul 26, 2018, 05:56 PM - Edit history (1)

The Senate was composed of anyone who had stood for a magistracy in the city. It was dominated by the Patricians but there were quotas in place to ensure roughly half of the body was Plebian.

Contrary to a lot of popular belief, it had zero legislative power. It could not pass a single law. It could issue instructions to the consuls and other magistrates, and it could issue recommendations to the popular assemblies.

The popular assemblies had all the actual legislative power. They could pass laws binding on all Romans (when assembled as tribes in the forum) and could confer military command on individuals (when assembled as centuries on the Field of Mars outside the city). Interestingly to me, the Patricians (who dominated the Senate) were barred from participation in the popular assemblies. The assemblies' magistrates (the tribunes) also had the power to stop any public proceedings anywhere in the city, through the "veto" (literally "I forbid" ) .