Smaller States Find Outsize Clout Growing in Senate

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I take my last post back; only Floridians, New Yorkers, Californians, and Texans should have a voice in American politics....

[Bandit3 the Worker]

We need to ban gerrymandering and make it illegal for corporations to fund political campaigns.

[Donerail]

I take my last post back; only Floridians, New Yorkers, Californians, and Texans should have a voice in American politics....

I strongly oppose your stance in regards to New Yorkers, Californians, and Texans.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I love how everyone is ignoring California's 50 Congressmen, compared to Vermonts one Congressman. The Senate and House counterbalance one another. The real reform needed is getting rid of the House's gerrymandering.

They were designed to balance each other, yes, but that was long ago when the differences in population were not this dramatic, and when the size of the House would grow increasingly with time. Since we've capped House size (which is, by the way, the Republican Party's doing), and gerrymandered districts more viciously than ever (from a system, again, passed by the Republicans in 1929), the balance is no longer effective.

I would prefer no Senate at all, ideally, but the House being restricted to a capped membership number is one of the biggest immediate problems we could at least realistically solve if we wanted to.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I love how everyone is ignoring California's 50 Congressmen, compared to Vermonts one Congressman. The Senate and House counterbalance one another. The real reform needed is getting rid of the House's gerrymandering.

They were designed to balance each other, yes, but that was long ago when the differences in population were not this dramatic, and when the size of the House would grow increasingly with time. Since we've capped House size (which is, by the way, the Republican Party's doing), and gerrymandered districts more viciously than ever, the balance is no longer effective.

I would prefer no Senate at all, ideally, but the House being restricted to a capped membership number is one of the biggest immediate problems we could at least realistically solve if we wanted to.

I was unaware that the House size is capped. The current balance of power is fair if somewhat flawed, and should be kept however. The population increase of urban areas does not mean Vermont should have any less influence in the Senate.

[Sbane]

Yes I feel the power coursing through my veins! Other than the fact that Rutland got 4 times the money that the New York county did, I really don't feel bad that we have 2 senators just like New York. That's the way it's designed in the constitution, New York has 27 representatives, we have 1, that's also the way the constitution designed it.

Again, this says nothing about the moral validity and/or social utility of this system.

"That's the way we always did" is not an argument.

The small states like Vermont would get screwed over if it was just the house of representatives. I mean give me a break, Peter Welsh would be our only voice in that system. One house that is delegated according to population, and one house where every state has the same say in matters.

Man, I just feel the power just pumping through my veins right now, with these 2 amazing senators I have!

You have better ones than Matt, at least

Bandit has arguably the worst Senate delegation; Matt has arguably the best.

I actually like Patrick Leahy, he is a supporter of gay rights, environmental protection, and better education, also a very likeable guy, have you noticed him in the last two batman movies? Bernie Sanders (sorry I'm not a socialist), but at least he supports those same issues I support.

Why should every state have the same voice, if one state has 20 times the population than another?

We'd get passed by on everything. We already do in some cases, Northern New England is the only region in the U.S. without a high priority corridor designation. We don't have any major east-west interstates, because we aren't guaranteed federal funding for the interstate. The region once passed a resolution for one, and it was struck down by the federal transportation department. Just because we don't have as many people doesn't mean we aren't as important.

Yeah, but on the other hand California doesn't get the funding it needs to properly serve its population's transportation needs. The Los Angeles area should get much more support in the building of freeways and local rail. Interstate 5 should be made 6 laned between Los Angeles and San Francisco. Does Vermont even have enough vehicular traffic to justify a east-west interstate? Interstate 5 on the other hand is chock full of cars and trucks every Friday and Sunday. Not to mention the feds don't even provide any support to service the people of Fresno, Bakersfield, Visalia, Merced and Modesto, who all put together make up a population in excess of 2 million. I think people in smaller states get much more support in their transportation needs than those in cities and big states do.

[bgwah]

Washington is home to just over 2% of the U.S. population, so I suppose I have just the right number of Senators...

[Antonio the Sixth]

Washington is home to just over 2% of the U.S. population, so I suppose I have just the right number of Senators...

Unfortunately, WA is growing faster than the country, so you'll get more and more underrepresented.

[King]

I don't mind the Senate being this way.

However, we need to expand the size of the House.   We've been at 435 for one hundred years now.    A single Representative stood for 215,000 people then; 725,000 now.  We need to expand to 1000 members in the House.

The more districts, the more difficult gerrymandering and lobbying becomes. 

Expanding the Senate to 150 and giving each state a Senate race every election would be good, too, but not as necessary as the House expansion.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The Senate is suppose to be like that by design.

That doesn't make it right.

Right is a subjective consideration. If your priority is ensuring the most representation for the popular will possible then fine. If you desire to check that based of a realization that the popular will can be flawed at times, then it is in fact the best approach.

The flaw is your assumption that the undemocratic representation of the US Senate is somehow better than a good representation. Total nonsense.

The Senate is suppose to provide an outlet for the representation of a State's viewpoints and to serve as a needed check on the potential excesses of the popular democratic majority. That is not a flawed view, it is a view that recognizes that populist impulses can be both wrong and dangerous to a democratic system when it is not checked with a competing interesting. I for one agree with Lincoln that both Douglas and Cass were wrong on Popular Sovereignty, perhaps you do not. But it is the same idea, that you cannot simply trust a democracy to the popular will alone and expect it to not degrade and move towards a tyranny, if not for all then for some certainly.

"Good representation" is a completely subjective determination. I think one state, one vote is a good representation of state's viewpoints in the Senate, just as much as I think one man, one vote is a good representation of the popular will in the House of Represenatives. Which is the purpose that each body serves. To the extent that the latter is not the case, makes the argument for the Wyoming rule or some other such reform to fix that problem.

Perhaps the problem here is that my concern is not primarily fixated on the free flow of gravy and pork from the Federal Government, whereas that is not the case for some in this thread.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I don't mind the Senate being this way.

However, we need to expand the size of the House.   We've been at 435 for one hundred years now.    A single Representative stood for 215,000 people then; 725,000 now.  We need to expand to 1000 members in the House.

The more districts, the more difficult gerrymandering and lobbying becomes. 

Expanding the Senate to 150 and giving each state a Senate race every election would be good, too, but not as necessary as the House expansion.

Selling it is difficult. I remember one time trying to sell the Wyoming rule to a middle aged person in my class once and the throught of adding more Congresspeople made her eyes glaze over and that is just 675 members. At the very least that should resolve the OMOV issue with the current distribution of seats.

[King]

I don't mind the Senate being this way.

However, we need to expand the size of the House.   We've been at 435 for one hundred years now.    A single Representative stood for 215,000 people then; 725,000 now.  We need to expand to 1000 members in the House.

The more districts, the more difficult gerrymandering and lobbying becomes. 

Expanding the Senate to 150 and giving each state a Senate race every election would be good, too, but not as necessary as the House expansion.

Selling it is difficult. I remember one time trying to sell the Wyoming rule to a middle aged person in my class once and the throught of adding more Congresspeople made her eyes glaze over and that is just 675 members. At the very least that should resolve the OMOV issue with the current distribution of seats.

A candidate who is willing to explain it and can get it to happen.  The anger people have with the Congress could translate into support.  835 seats would give even Wyoming and Vermont at least two Representatives. 

[Antonio the Sixth]

However, we need to expand the size of the House.   We've been at 435 for one hundred years now.    A single Representative stood for 215,000 people then; 725,000 now.  We need to expand to 1000 members in the House.

The more districts, the more difficult gerrymandering and lobbying becomes. 

Amen to this.

[Donerail]

I love how everyone is ignoring California's 50 Congressmen, compared to Vermonts one Congressman. The Senate and House counterbalance one another. The real reform needed is getting rid of the House's gerrymandering.

They were designed to balance each other, yes, but that was long ago when the differences in population were not this dramatic, and when the size of the House would grow increasingly with time. Since we've capped House size (which is, by the way, the Republican Party's doing), and gerrymandered districts more viciously than ever (from a system, again, passed by the Republicans in 1929), the balance is no longer effective.

To continue off of this: back when the system was created the size difference between the largest and smallest states was 11:1. Now it's 66:1, and the disparity will only continue to grow.

[Sopranos Republican]

However, we need to expand the size of the House.   We've been at 435 for one hundred years now.    A single Representative stood for 215,000 people then; 725,000 now.  We need to expand to 1000 members in the House.

The more districts, the more difficult gerrymandering and lobbying becomes.  

Amen to this.

I could support this.

Yes I feel the power coursing through my veins! Other than the fact that Rutland got 4 times the money that the New York county did, I really don't feel bad that we have 2 senators just like New York. That's the way it's designed in the constitution, New York has 27 representatives, we have 1, that's also the way the constitution designed it.

Again, this says nothing about the moral validity and/or social utility of this system.

"That's the way we always did" is not an argument.

The small states like Vermont would get screwed over if it was just the house of representatives. I mean give me a break, Peter Welsh would be our only voice in that system. One house that is delegated according to population, and one house where every state has the same say in matters.

Man, I just feel the power just pumping through my veins right now, with these 2 amazing senators I have!

You have better ones than Matt, at least

Bandit has arguably the worst Senate delegation; Matt has arguably the best.

I actually like Patrick Leahy, he is a supporter of gay rights, environmental protection, and better education, also a very likeable guy, have you noticed him in the last two batman movies? Bernie Sanders (sorry I'm not a socialist), but at least he supports those same issues I support.

Why should every state have the same voice, if one state has 20 times the population than another?

We'd get passed by on everything. We already do in some cases, Northern New England is the only region in the U.S. without a high priority corridor designation. We don't have any major east-west interstates, because we aren't guaranteed federal funding for the interstate. The region once passed a resolution for one, and it was struck down by the federal transportation department. Just because we don't have as many people doesn't mean we aren't as important.

Yeah, but on the other hand California doesn't get the funding it needs to properly serve its population's transportation needs. The Los Angeles area should get much more support in the building of freeways and local rail. Interstate 5 should be made 6 laned between Los Angeles and San Francisco. Does Vermont even have enough vehicular traffic to justify a east-west interstate? Interstate 5 on the other hand is chock full of cars and trucks every Friday and Sunday. Not to mention the feds don't even provide any support to service the people of Fresno, Bakersfield, Visalia, Merced and Modesto, who all put together make up a population in excess of 2 million. I think people in smaller states get much more support in their transportation needs than those in cities and big states do.

It wouldn't just be for Vermont. Most of the proposals ran from the Maine-New Brunswick border through New Hampshire and Vermont and into New York. There were actually three interstates being talked about, one from Albany, NY through Southern Vermont and So. New Hampshire to Portland, Maine. One from Lake George, NY through central VT and NH to I think Augusta. And the one I mentioned through far Upstate New York through Northern Vermont and New Hampshire all the way to the Maine-New Brunswick border. It would help us have a route to get to the Midwest far more quickly, and to some Canadian cities for trade.

[Indy Texas]

Smaller states are usually also shrewd enough to keep their senators in office for really long periods of time so that they have a lot of seniority. Robert Byrd, Ted Stevens, Patrick Leahy, Orrin Hatch, Daniel Inouye, Thad Cochran...

[Zioneer]

Smaller states are usually also shrewd enough to keep their senators in office for really long periods of time so that they have a lot of seniority. Robert Byrd, Ted Stevens, Patrick Leahy, Orrin Hatch, Daniel Inouye, Thad Cochran...

It's weird though, because to me, it doesn't seem like Hatch does all that much with his seniority. Same with Cochran. I know the others either lead on issues or are kings of pork, but Hatch doesn't seem to have brought much to Utah or brought any issues to the forefront.

[Indy Texas]

Smaller states are usually also shrewd enough to keep their senators in office for really long periods of time so that they have a lot of seniority. Robert Byrd, Ted Stevens, Patrick Leahy, Orrin Hatch, Daniel Inouye, Thad Cochran...

It's weird though, because to me, it doesn't seem like Hatch does all that much with his seniority. Same with Cochran. I know the others either lead on issues or are kings of pork, but Hatch doesn't seem to have brought much to Utah or brought any issues to the forefront.

Cochran always makes sure MS gets taken care of. In fact he probably does a better job of it because he doesn't rant about big government while doing so, and doesn't stick his name on every airport and turnpike he gets money for like Byrd did.

[Zioneer]

Smaller states are usually also shrewd enough to keep their senators in office for really long periods of time so that they have a lot of seniority. Robert Byrd, Ted Stevens, Patrick Leahy, Orrin Hatch, Daniel Inouye, Thad Cochran...

It's weird though, because to me, it doesn't seem like Hatch does all that much with his seniority. Same with Cochran. I know the others either lead on issues or are kings of pork, but Hatch doesn't seem to have brought much to Utah or brought any issues to the forefront.

Cochran always makes sure MS gets taken care of. In fact he probably does a better job of it because he doesn't rant about big government while doing so, and doesn't stick his name on every airport and turnpike he gets money for like Byrd did.

My point on Hatch still stands though. I can't name really anything in relation to Utah that he's done. He doesn't even involve himself in state party politics.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Fortunately, Article V: Amending the Constitution, ends with the following clause

You must be logged in to read this quote.