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

51–60 of 65 posts

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

#51

Post by TheCoelacanth »

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.

Democracy means rule by the people, not rule by the states. How is giving states power in any way democratic?

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

#52

Post by TheCoelacanth »

DanAndersen wrote: post #14
_bxg1 wrote: post #2

I've never understood why the number of congressmen per state wasn't purely based on population. Why does land get voting rights?

(I assume you're referring to the Senate and not the House, which does do somewhat population-based apportionment) The two-assembly structure exists because it was a compromise to not give the densely-populated states all the power in the new Republic. Crucially , this sort of compromise was important because it helped the less-populated states get on board with the whole "federal government" concept without fearing…

The original 13 states plus Vermont and Texas should have that option because it would be going back on the deal with those states when they voluntarily joined the country. The other states should not because they were created by act of Congress out of territory that was already part of the US. There was never any deal made with those states.

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

#53

Post by TheCoelacanth »

johnc1231 wrote: post #11
_bxg1 wrote: post #2

I've never understood why the number of congressmen per state wasn't purely based on population. Why does land get voting rights?

I don't believe there's any better reason than wanting the small population states to sign the Constitution in the 1780s. And maybe also an attempt to protect the needs of people like farmers from being ignored, since they would live in low population states compared to urban professionals. Not saying it's a good idea.

It was definitely not created to protect the interests of farmers. The vast majority of the population worked in agriculture at that point, so they wouldn't have needed any special protection.

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

#54

Post by RichKatz »

dannypgh wrote: post #19
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…

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…

This discussion of federalism, while interesting, probably ought to be accompanied by a discussion of A) what many people believe are the horrible effects of this and B) in the words of Paul Simon to "measure what we've lost." What we have lost is THE public Internet. The Internet on which companies who started from Y-combinators exist was a public Internet. It could be argued that it still is. There are at least 2 or 3 good arguments first the federal executive branch can't actually "destroy" the public Internet as a matter of policy, but that it ought to require an act of Congress. ARPANet came from an Act of Congress itself.

Which may mean that all these acts to "give it away" to ISPs can be legally challenged.

From the states point of view, ISPs operate on several public easements. These probably give state and local governments the authority to regulate.

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

#55

Post by growtofill »

anothergoogler wrote: post #23
growtofill wrote: post #13

"half of the _US_ population" would be more accurate title.

"half of the _US_ _human_ population" would be an even more accurate title.

I would imply “human” when “states” are mentioned. My issue is I was expecting an article about world’s population (not much interested in US domestical problems).

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

#56

Post by hackeraccount »

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #51
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.

Democracy means rule by the people, not rule by the states. How is giving states power in any way democratic?

It's not. Democracy has problems though. The Bill Of Rights is undemocratic. It says that there are some things you can't do even if you can get 50% +1 of the population to agree to it. Federalism is undemocratic when the States interact with the Federal government but the upside is that it's harder a majority to run roughshod over the minority.

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

#57

Post by hackeraccount »

ende wrote: post #44
aclimatt wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct. However one of the key differences is that when the Republic was established, per the Constitution, States' Rights were a primary aspect of legislation. The federal government had very little power and very few laws compared to today. Most laws existed on a state-by-state basis. The USA of the late 1700s was really more like the EU than it is today. And that's why New Hampshire needed senators. New Hampshire…

“most laws in the US are now enacted on a federal level” That’s simply not factually true.

Factually false but effectively true? I understand what's trying to be gotten at with the statement but it's not exactly laws per se. It's more a power dynamic but quantifying that is a bit tricky.

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

#58

Post by dannypgh »

hackeraccount wrote: post #56
TheCoelacanth wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Democracy means rule by the people, not rule by the states. How is giving states power in any way democratic?

It's not. Democracy has problems though. The Bill Of Rights is undemocratic. It says that there are some things you can't do even if you can get 50% +1 of the population to agree to it. Federalism is undemocratic when the States interact with the Federal government but the upside is that it's harder a majority to run roughshod over the minority.

Democracy is rule by the people. That is not the same as majority rule. Consensus-based decision making (including wiser approaches like consensus-minus-1) requires supermajorities to make decisions, but that does not make them undemocratic...

Likewise the amended constitution limits the ability of the Congress to pass certain laws, without amending the constitution first.

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

#59

Post by dannypgh »

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.

But, why? This transfers power to the less populous states and away from the more populous states. What's the point in doing so?

The current system creates incentives for states to split in two. What's the point of that? Why is it correct that Rhode Island and Connecticut are two states, and California is one state? It strikes me as an accident of history the number of states we have. It makes sense if states have a real choice about being in the union (as otherwise the small states wouldn't go for it) but without that, what do the big states get out of it?

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

#60

Post by nickthemagicman »

malcolmgreaves wrote: post #46
nickthemagicman wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The nice thing about states rights is that there were actually states to fight it. Think if slavery had been sanctioned on a federal level?

It was sanctioned at the federal level for nearly 100 years.

It was never ever sanctioned. It just wasn't not sanctioned.
Post reply on HN