Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

In about 20 years, half the population will live in eight states

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 65 posts

Re: In about 20 years, half the population will live in eight states

#31

Post by Semirhage »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #30
8note wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what's democratic about states being guaranteed representation? democracy is about people having a say, not abstract entities

Funny, the comment I was replying to asserts that only states get representation in the US, not people. Technically, the US is not a true democracy. Our state's speak for us and our state's represent us. This is how a presidential candidate can get less than a majority vote and still be president. There is a term for it -- maybe republic -- but I'm not that awake and can't quite put my finger on it.

Indirectly federated republic.

Re: In about 20 years, half the population will live in eight states

#33

Post by pseudalopex »

Apocryphon wrote: post #32

How is it that only three of the states are named?

There are diagrams. I guess nobody thought about accessibility.

50%: California, Illinois, Florida, Georgia, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas

20%: Arizona, Colorado, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio, Virginia, Washington

Re: In about 20 years, half the population will live in eight states

#34

Post by scarface74 »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #27
dannypgh wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only entities that are guaranteed representation are states. It's not obvious that statehood maps to any other demographic attribute over time. It made sense the ensure states felt they had some guaranteed level of representation in order to get the states to agree to enter, or remain in, the union. But now that it's established precedent that states cannot leave the Union (at least without Congress) it's not cle…

I'm trying to comply with HN guidelines and not be snarky here, but, to my ears, that sounds an awful lot like "Now that the states are the bitches of the federal government, they don't need a voice at all." And that doesn't remotely sound like a democratic system to me. It sounds pretty tyrannical.

Knowing the history and the current makeup of the south outside of large metropolitan areas like Atlanta, “states rights” should frighten anyone who is any type of minority.

Re: In about 20 years, half the population will live in eight states

#35

Post by DoreenMichele »

scarface74 wrote: post #34
DoreenMichele wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm trying to comply with HN guidelines and not be snarky here, but, to my ears, that sounds an awful lot like "Now that the states are the bitches of the federal government, they don't need a voice at all." And that doesn't remotely sound like a democratic system to me. It sounds pretty tyrannical.

Knowing the history and the current makeup of the south outside of large metropolitan areas like Atlanta, “states rights” should frighten anyone who is any type of minority.

Well, I don't know what you mean. Perhaps you could explain your reasoning a bit?

Re: In about 20 years, half the population will live in eight states

#36

Post by jadell »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #17

The House and the Senate will be weighted to two largely different Americas. So, in some sense, the system works? The whole point of having two different federal bodies based on different criteria is to try to ensure that minority populations or different demographic details of different states don't leave any population utterly without representation and a voice. The intent is that they will be forced to hash out th…

And that made sense when the Senate was the representation of the states' desires and most states chose their Senators at the state legislature level. The system as set up so that that the people chose their Representatives directly, and the states chose their Senators at a state level. Now, thanks to the 17th Amendment, Senators AND Representatives are chosen by popular vote. So the initial reasoning behind splitting the two house of Congress is basically moot.

Realistically, if we went back to allowing state legislatures to choose their Senators, Republicans would have an essentially permanent 60-70+ seat veto- and filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

Re: In about 20 years, half the population will live in eight states

#37

Post by jadell »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #35
scarface74 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Knowing the history and the current makeup of the south outside of large metropolitan areas like Atlanta, “states rights” should frighten anyone who is any type of minority.

Well, I don't know what you mean. Perhaps you could explain your reasoning a bit?

"States' rights" is used as a dogwhistle in the United States for supporting legally protected racial, sexual, and religious discrimination.

[edit] In many political circles. In the antebellum era of US history it was used to excuse and defend slavery, and later, Jim Crow laws and segregation. There is a legitimate need for states to protect their rights, but that's not how the phrase has been used historically.

Re: In about 20 years, half the population will live in eight states

#38

Post by DoreenMichele »

jadell wrote: post #36
DoreenMichele wrote: post #17

The House and the Senate will be weighted to two largely different Americas. So, in some sense, the system works? The whole point of having two different federal bodies based on different criteria is to try to ensure that minority populations or different demographic details of different states don't leave any population utterly without representation and a voice. The intent is that they will be forced to hash out th…

And that made sense when the Senate was the representation of the states' desires and most states chose their Senators at the state legislature level. The system as set up so that that the people chose their Representatives directly, and the states chose their Senators at a state level. Now, thanks to the 17th Amendment, Senators AND Representatives are chosen by popular vote. So the initial reasoning behind splittin…

Although you may have a valid criticism of the change in mechanism, I would not agree that the change makes it outright moot. The Senate still allows each state the same number of votes as any other state for that body. The House allots a varying number of representatives based on population. This was done intentionally so that larger/more populous states can't simply ignore smaller states. It preserves the voice of smaller states to some degree. It was intended to balance concerns and make sure that neither a demographic majority nor a demographic minority was at the mercy of the other.

Re: In about 20 years, half the population will live in eight states

#39

Post by scarface74 »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #35
scarface74 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Knowing the history and the current makeup of the south outside of large metropolitan areas like Atlanta, “states rights” should frighten anyone who is any type of minority.

Well, I don't know what you mean. Perhaps you could explain your reasoning a bit?

Jim Crow laws, laws against “miscegenation” (interracial marriage), anti-sodomy laws that make non heterosexual sex between consenting adults illegal. All of those are examples of laws that were just struck down by the federal government within the last 50-60 years.

Re: In about 20 years, half the population will live in eight states

#40

Post by jadell »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #38
jadell wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that made sense when the Senate was the representation of the states' desires and most states chose their Senators at the state legislature level. The system as set up so that that the people chose their Representatives directly, and the states chose their Senators at a state level. Now, thanks to the 17th Amendment, Senators AND Representatives are chosen by popular vote. So the initial reasoning behind splittin…

Although you may have a valid criticism of the change in mechanism, I would not agree that the change makes it outright moot. The Senate still allows each state the same number of votes as any other state for that body. The House allots a varying number of representatives based on population. This was done intentionally so that larger/more populous states can't simply ignore smaller states. It preserves the voice of…

I agree with you that the Senate is not moot, as far as the need for giving individual states a voice. It's power has shifted, though, from making sure that more populous states could not ride roughshod over less populous, to the opposite of that. Less populous states can now ignore more populous states (in the Senate at least) because the Senate is more directly representing the people than it is the state. In essence, 100k people in a midwestern state have the same voting power as 1mil people in a coastal state. Additionally, Senators now have to worry about campaigning directly to the people instead of the legislatures, which makes them more subject to the whims of the people rather than their expected job of representing the states. The Senate is now just another House of Representatives, except an individual Senator has extremely outsized voting power compared to the number of people who elected them.
Post reply on HN