Opinion of the Reynolds v. Sims Decision

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm not "assuming" anything, you degenerate edgelord, I'm making a statement on what ought to be. Whether one combination of outcomes is plausible or not is irrelevant to its righteousness.

Neither am I defending the SCOTUS as an institution, which is an absolute abomination in many respects (but of course, a broken clock etc.).

[Virginiá]

The whole benefit of bicameralism is to represent competing interests, balance those interests and ensure that a compromise is reached so that everyone comes out ahead and no one is left screwed and wanting to leave.

If both chambers represent and are dominated by the same interests than they serve no purpose and one of them should be abolished.

If one chamber has less members that are also elected at different intervals with different term lengths, then that still serves a similar purpose as the US Senate, no? Sure, they are still population-based districts as opposed to say, representing counties, but the smaller chamber with longer-serving members can still serve a somewhat similar purpose, in that they are less affected by the rapidly changing public mood. Whether they are more "prestigious" and whether they act as a filter on a more reactionary lower chamber is not guaranteed, though.

Either way, I get what you're saying, but I don't think it lacks a purpose entirely. I still like it, personally.

[Kingpoleon]

I agree with Jbrase, shua and MarkD.

They went too far when they applied to both houses of the state legislatures.

Is there no limit you find too extreme? Is a 1000-1 advantage too extreme for you?

The whole benefit of bicameralism is to represent competing interests, balance those interests and ensure that a compromise is reached so that everyone comes out ahead and no one is left screwed and wanting to leave.

If both chambers represent and are dominated by the same interests than they serve no purpose and one of them should be abolished.

If a state desires to have two chambers though the upper house should not be based on population, but instead counties like the US Senate is based on the states. The US constitution guarantees the preservation of a republican form of gov't to the states, and that was violated here, because this is a small r republican institution, counterpoised to the small d democratic institution that is the more popular chamber.

At the same time I have called for massive increases in the size of population based chambers like the Cube Root Rule for US House, an end to gerrymander and some form of public financing of campaigns.

I am someone who thinks these institutions were meant to serve a purpose and each one should serve that purpose to the maximum extent possible. The House should represent the people as best as is possible, and the Senate should represent the interests of the states (I do support popular election of Senators so don't misinterpret me here), and those state's in turn should be perfectly free to copy the US Constitution's Article I design completely.

Reynolds vs. Sims is the 1960's Supreme Court basically saying "no you cannot copy Article I, because the US Constitution's Article I violates the implied spirit of the 14th Amendment, but we cannot do anything about because those damned founding fathers made it require unanimous consent to alter that part of Article I". 

Reynolds is one of the worst examples of judicial overreach out there.

'

I can't agree with you at all. The difference is that the structure of the Senate is not bound by the 14th Amendment.

Furthermore, I cannot agree because counties are illogical creations. There are far too many and they make no sense. If counties should be allowed full representation in state senates, urban counties should be allowed to divide themselves as fit to secure adequate representation. If something needs to change, it's the fact that too many states still have bicameral legislatures. I still don't understand why so many states haven't moved beyond the antiquated system of the 1700s.

Because the antiquated system of the 1700s is better that subjecting an entire State to the whims of a City comprising 1/100th of the area of a State.

The oceans should have a majority of the vote, TBH.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The ironic thing, as Clarence Thomas has noted, are those who defend "one person, one vote" as an absolute principle, but then in terms of allocation of representatives want to base it on total population rather than on voting-eligible population.  Perhaps such a person could insist that non-citizens should have the vote, but to give the vote to an infant is an absurdity.

[kyc0705]

I agree with the decision. Legislative districts should be drawn to represent people, not geographic boundaries. This is also why I'm baffled by the U.S. Senate, and what purpose the states-over-voters principle serves in a modern, developed nation. Not everybody is a farmer anymore.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So does a situation where 4,092,459 people (Harris County, Texas) have the same representation as 82 people (Loving County, Texas) sound fair?

As long as they have proportional representation in the lower house of the TX legislature, yes, it is fair that they have the same vote in the State Senate.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The whole benefit of bicameralism is to represent competing interests, balance those interests and ensure that a compromise is reached so that everyone comes out ahead and no one is left screwed and wanting to leave.

If both chambers represent and are dominated by the same interests than they serve no purpose and one of them should be abolished.

If one chamber has less members that are also elected at different intervals with different term lengths, then that still serves a similar purpose as the US Senate, no? Sure, they are still population-based districts as opposed to say, representing counties, but the smaller chamber with longer-serving members can still serve a somewhat similar purpose, in that they are less affected by the rapidly changing public mood. Whether they are more "prestigious" and whether they act as a filter on a more reactionary lower chamber is not guaranteed, though.

Either way, I get what you're saying, but I don't think it lacks a purpose entirely. I still like it, personally.

No because the most populous area of a given state will by definition dominate any chamber that is districted proportional to population.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I'm not "assuming" anything, you degenerate edgelord, I'm making a statement on what ought to be. Whether one combination of outcomes is plausible or not is irrelevant to its righteousness.

Neither am I defending the SCOTUS as an institution, which is an absolute abomination in many respects (but of course, a broken clock etc.).

I would note that Slavery, Jim Crow and Indian Removal, were all cases of majoritarian fiat exacting its will on the minority population. Unchecked democracy scares me just as much as an unchecked dictator.

Democracy is not some pure good. Democracy is only as good or evil as the people it represents. It also only as selfish, greedy and demanding as the people it represents.

That is why the whole purpose of bicameralism exists to balance out competing greediness and force a compromise. If both chambers are dominated by the same group, the balance is lost, and one group's greed runs wild and tramples upon everyone else. That is the road to anarchy and disunity, because not everyone has a seat a table.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I can't agree with you at all. The difference is that the structure of the Senate is not bound by the 14th Amendment.

And thank god for that, else Justices Brennan, Warren and Douglas would have nuked the Senate as well.

Furthermore, I cannot agree because counties are illogical creations. There are far too many and they make no sense. If counties should be allowed full representation in state senates, urban counties should be allowed to divide themselves as fit to secure adequate representation. If something needs to change, it's the fact that too many states still have bicameral legislatures. I still don't understand why so many states haven't moved beyond the antiquated system of the 1700s.

You still don't get the point. The very point one chamber being "un-democratic" is for there to be a counter balance to the more populous and "democratic" chamber. This small d democracy ubber alles mindset fails to understand human history and human nature, almost as much as Marxists or the Anarcho-Libertarians do.

[politicallefty]

You still don't get the point. The very point one chamber being "un-democratic" is for there to be a counter balance to the more populous and "democratic" chamber. This small d democracy ubber alles mindset fails to understand human history and human nature, almost as much as Marxists or the Anarcho-Libertarians do.

As far as Republicans go, I've long felt you've been one of the most reasonable. Most counties were not drawn based on any reasonable basis that exists in this century. I actually could conceivably get behind your notion of a bicameral legislature in some states (although I think most large states should have unicameral legislatures). An unbalance is one thing, but those that want Reynolds overturned tend to want the return of legislatures with 1000-1 ratios. That's not overturning Reynolds. It's the outright denial of a democratic republic to the voters.

[mencken]

I'm not "assuming" anything, you degenerate edgelord,

Thank you for your civility.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Could you clarify what you mean? Are you saying that world democratic government would be a noble goal if it were not implausible at the given moment, or that you would not mind submitting to the general will of a planet for whom the majority of the population is accustomed to autocracy, or something else entirely?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Care to elaborate? Is the lack of democracy in selecting judges one of your complaints?