In about 20 years, half the population will live in eight states
washingtonpost.com
In about 20 years, half the population will live in eight states
1–10 of 65 posts
Re: In about 20 years, half the population will live in eight states
#2I've never understood why the number of congressmen per state wasn't purely based on population. Why does land get voting rights?
Re: In about 20 years, half the population will live in eight states
#3One more article that treats demographics as destiny politically. Apparently we're not individuals, we're easily predictable by sex, age, and race, and representation isn't fair unless cities determine all policies. That this blatant race baiting, sexist, agist logic always seems to come out in articles with an anti-Republican spin should tell you all you need to know.
Re: In about 20 years, half the population will live in eight states
#4I've never understood why the number of congressmen per state wasn't purely based on population. Why does land get voting rights?
It's not about land as I understand it but about securing equal representation in the Senate between the republic's constituent states. The House reflects the population, the Senate secures the rights of the smaller states in the face of overwhelming population elsewhere.
Re: In about 20 years, half the population will live in eight states
#5I've never understood why the number of congressmen per state wasn't purely based on population. Why does land get voting rights?
Compromise. When the Constitution was drawn up, there was already a large disagreement about this. The North was more densely populated than the South. It would have meant that North would have dictated all the policies.
The South had an agricultural industry that was reliant (at least they believed it was reliant) on the horrid practice of slavery.
The Civil War settled the issue of slavery, and probably was the best time to try and rebalance the Senate. So now we’re stuck, and why would any of these less populated states give up power?
Re: In about 20 years, half the population will live in eight states
#6I've never understood why the number of congressmen per state wasn't purely based on population. Why does land get voting rights?
...it is. The House of Representatives seats are based purely upon population which is determined by a census every 10 years. The Senate is redundant because of the 17th Amendment but its original purpose was to represent the individual State governments separately from the populace.
Re: In about 20 years, half the population will live in eight states
#7I think the complaint about the Senate having a different makeup than the House begs the question - why even have two houses in Congress? The original Constitution had State governments choose their Senators and the House was the "People's". The 17th Amendment changed that, so now we have the People choosing two different houses of Congress based on two different ways of dividing up the population, which leads to these complaints.
Re: In about 20 years, half the population will live in eight states
#8I've never understood why the number of congressmen per state wasn't purely based on population. Why does land get voting rights?
Originally the State governments directly chose their Senators. So you had a house for the States and a house for the People. The 17th Amendment brought about the situation we have today.
Re: In about 20 years, half the population will live in eight states
#9I've never understood why the number of congressmen per state wasn't purely based on population. Why does land get voting rights?
The argument I've heard is that politicians wouldn't bother campaigning or making improvements to any of the states with low population. It's political welfare.
Re: In about 20 years, half the population will live in eight states
#10I've never understood why the number of congressmen per state wasn't purely based on population. Why does land get voting rights?
Compromise. When the Constitution was drawn up, there was already a large disagreement about this. The North was more densely populated than the South. It would have meant that North would have dictated all the policies. The South had an agricultural industry that was reliant (at least they believed it was reliant) on the horrid practice of slavery. The Civil War settled the issue of slavery, and probably was the bes…
Looking back, from a systems perspective (not necessarily the view taken at the time), the Senate was created to represent the structure of government. They were supposed to be the old party hacks from each state that were sent to DC to help architect and fix the architecture of the federal government. Their interest was in the system, in the political structure and operation of the government, not making the folks back home happy with their votes. They were more like judges. Our own little homegrown aristocracy.
Looked at it that way, it makes sense that each state should have an equal number of representatives. After all, the federal system was supposedly created and maintained by the states. But after the Civil War flipped that around, and the 17th amendment called for the direct election of senators, they were really mis-configured for the job. As many people point out, now they're just direct representatives of the people, only with a mission created from the old ways of doing things. So why are they elected like this again?
As you say, we're stuck with it now. The only way to answer the criticism of giving states equal senators is to use an argument that is no longer valid. [Insert long discussion here about how nobody wanted a democracy in the U.S. It was never a goal and it was feared by the founders]