I understand your sentiment - but we do live in a democratic republic, not a pure democracy. To achieve your wish we'd need to eliminate all legislatures and live by ballot measure alone. Do you really think this is viable given the complexity of our society and limited citizen time and intellect to understand relevant issues?
I agree that republican democracy is favorable to direct democracy, in that it frees the average citizen of the need to be well-versed and well-informed regarding numerous matters of civic interest.
But we shouldn't conflate this justification with the side effect of having disproportionate representation for different segments of the population. Yes, to some extent this will happen in a republic, and the Senate was indeed constructed as it was so that the interests of smaller states would not be overwhelmed by those of larger states. Yet I'm not sure the founders envisioned a 70-to-1 ratio between the populations of the largest and smallest states. Furthermore, they envisioned the Senate being more "detached" from the ear-to-the-ground politics of the House (hence the six year terms). The Senate was to be the more distinguished and "deliberative" body, and one more inclined to put politics aside when appropriate. They hoped that political parties would not come to dominate the Senate, and that it would value its own institutional authority and prerogatives over shared political goals with the executive. That is why they were given the task of advice and consent to Supreme Court nominees (and conducting impeachment trials). Needless to say, while at times the Senate has approached this ideal, it is far from it today.
Note: the Electoral College was constructed to preserve slavery: Finkelman, "The proslavery origins of the Electoral College," Cardoza Law Review 23 (4) 2002.
I agree with your points. Here's a thought. Rather than adding DC and Puerto Rico as states, how about splitting California north/south possibly coast and central/mountain, along with Texas into 3-4 blocks? While one can't easily 10x the population of WY, one can segment the larger states. This would decrease the 70-1 ratio.
I'm not opposed to breaking up California and Texas, but seeing it as an alternative to adding Puerto Rico and DC as states is somewhat problematic.
Firstly, from an idealistic standpoint. As much as any of us might see these things in terms of political advantage for one party or the other (and I'm not going to deny that would be a significant part of my motivation and/or concern), ultimately I think we all understand that, ethically speaking, the interests of the people of these states and regions, specifically their rights to demand representation, must have primacy.
Much as I want to add DC and Puerto Rico as states to balance out things in the Senate, I wouldn't support any attempts to do so without the support of a clear majority of their people. To that end, support is overwhelming in DC, and nowadays there appears to be majority support in Puerto Rico (though we'll find out more in the November election).
As far as breaking up California and Texas, public support is questionable, and even if people agreed on doing so in principle to gain better Senate representation, I'm skeptical about finding agreement on how exactly to partition them. California has been subject to numerous such proposals in recent years, largely by frustrated conservatives and venture capitalist Tim Draper (his most recent attempt in California was a referendum which was slated for the 2018 ballot before being pulled by the California Supreme Court for review). As for Texas, there hasn't been any serious talk about it for a long time.
However, even with clear "consent of the governed", we still do have to deal with the practical issue of getting any proposal through Congress. Political scheming aside, to some extent you'd have to sell this to the public. And one would have to think that while adding PR and DC would likely be viewed as a matter of simple fairness to the average American (and not really worth bickering over in any case), breaking up our two largest states, the electoral bulwarks of our respective political parties, could potentially generate controversy to rival the filling of a Supreme Court vacancy.
No, I do not think our citizens are any less able that Western European citizens. And I believe that the popular vote should determine who gets to be president. Our current system is not working. Living in California I feel cheated!
People tend to want to change the rules not on principle or consideration of long-term consequences, but rather when they believe that doing so is in their current favor. The best recent example is Maj. Leader Reid removing the filibuster for federal court judges believing (mistakenly) that Democrats would control the senate and presidency for a long time to come. Here we are with Trump/McConnell having appointed/confirmed 218 new federal judges.
Some of the latest progressive thinking is to (a) eliminate the electoral college; (b) eliminate the senate filibuster completely; (c) admit 2 new state to effectively pack the senate; and (d) pack the court.
This thinking is buttressed by belief in the inevitable tide ("we're on the right side of history") and faith in perpetual growing democratic majorities. If history is any teacher, it took barely 1 election cycle (in 2010 and 2016) to dispel this thinking, yet people persist in these beliefs.
Do you really belief that this sort of thing is prudent - when the possible retaliation could be, for example, the segmenting of Texas into 10 new states? Or the further packing of the court?
PS: you shouldn't feel cheated living in California (as regards election of the president) because CA's electoral college count is proportionate of CA to national population.
Yes, this is part of "American Exceptionalism". I would rather live in a full democracy...
I understand your sentiment - but we do live in a democratic republic, not a pure democracy. To achieve your wish we'd need to eliminate all legislatures and live by ballot measure alone. Do you really think this is viable given the complexity of our society and limited citizen time and intellect to understand relevant issues?
I agree that republican democracy is favorable to direct democracy, in that it frees the average citizen of the need to be well-versed and well-informed regarding numerous matters of civic interest.
But we shouldn't conflate this justification with the side effect of having disproportionate representation for different segments of the population. Yes, to some extent this will happen in a republic, and the Senate was indeed constructed as it was so that the interests of smaller states would not be overwhelmed by those of larger states. Yet I'm not sure the founders envisioned a 70-to-1 ratio between the populations of the largest and smallest states. Furthermore, they envisioned the Senate being more "detached" from the ear-to-the-ground politics of the House (hence the six year terms). The Senate was to be the more distinguished and "deliberative" body, and one more inclined to put politics aside when appropriate. They hoped that political parties would not come to dominate the Senate, and that it would value its own institutional authority and prerogatives over shared political goals with the executive. That is why they were given the task of advice and consent to Supreme Court nominees (and conducting impeachment trials). Needless to say, while at times the Senate has approached this ideal, it is far from it today.
Note: the Electoral College was constructed to preserve slavery: Finkelman, "The proslavery origins of the Electoral College," Cardoza Law Review 23 (4) 2002.
I agree with your points. Here's a thought. Rather than adding DC and Puerto Rico as states, how about splitting California north/south possibly coast and central/mountain, along with Texas into 3-4 blocks? While one can't easily 10x the population of WY, one can segment the larger states. This would decrease the 70-1 ratio.
I'm not opposed to breaking up California and Texas, but seeing it as an alternative to adding Puerto Rico and DC as states is somewhat problematic.
Firstly, from an idealistic standpoint. As much as any of us might see these things in terms of political advantage for one party or the other (and I'm not going to deny that would be a significant part of my motivation and/or concern), ultimately I think we all understand that, ethically speaking, the interests of the people of these states and regions, specifically their rights to demand representation, must have primacy.
Much as I want to add DC and Puerto Rico as states to balance out things in the Senate, I wouldn't support any attempts to do so without the support of a clear majority of their people. To that end, support is overwhelming in DC, and nowadays there appears to be majority support in Puerto Rico (though we'll find out more in the November election).
As far as breaking up California and Texas, public support is questionable, and even if people agreed on doing so in principle to gain better Senate representation, I'm skeptical about finding agreement on how exactly to partition them. California has been subject to numerous such proposals in recent years, largely by frustrated conservatives and venture capitalist Tim Draper (his most recent attempt in California was a referendum which was slated for the 2018 ballot before being pulled by the California Supreme Court for review). As for Texas, there hasn't been any serious talk about it for a long time.
However, even with clear "consent of the governed", we still do have to deal with the practical issue of getting any proposal through Congress. Political scheming aside, to some extent you'd have to sell this to the public. And one would have to think that while adding PR and DC would likely be viewed as a matter of simple fairness to the average American (and not really worth bickering over in any case), breaking up our two largest states, the electoral bulwarks of our respective political parties, could potentially generate controversy to rival the filling of a Supreme Court vacancy.
No, I do not think our citizens are any less able that Western European citizens. And I believe that the popular vote should determine who gets to be president. Our current system is not working. Living in California I feel cheated!
People tend to want to change the rules not on principle or consideration of long-term consequences, but rather when they believe that doing so is in their current favor. The best recent example is Maj. Leader Reid removing the filibuster for federal court judges believing (mistakenly) that Democrats would control the senate and presidency for a long time to come. Here we are with Trump/McConnell having appointed/confirmed 218 new federal judges.
Some of the latest progressive thinking is to (a) eliminate the electoral college; (b) eliminate the senate filibuster completely; (c) admit 2 new state to effectively pack the senate; and (d) pack the court.
This thinking is buttressed by belief in the inevitable tide ("we're on the right side of history") and faith in perpetual growing democratic majorities. If history is any teacher, it took barely 1 election cycle (in 2010 and 2016) to dispel this thinking, yet people persist in these beliefs.
Do you really belief that this sort of thing is prudent - when the possible retaliation could be, for example, the segmenting of Texas into 10 new states? Or the further packing of the court?
PS: you shouldn't feel cheated living in California (as regards election of the president) because CA's electoral college count is proportionate of CA to national population.