Eric does a good job of teaching in MinnPost The House, the Senate and the historical reasons for (un)equal representation
Of course I support the 2 Senators per state rule, so good thing it is pretty well set in stone.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
30 comments:
Each state has two senators because it gave southern states a de facto veto power over attempts to abolish slavery.
--Hiram
I think Eric's summary is much more thorough, pragmatice and accurate.
"When it came to appeasing the small states, the drafters had to go one step further to ensure them that they would not be overwhelmed by the big states. It’s where this post started. The framers agreed to make the guarantee of equal power in the Senate beyond even the reach of the amendment process.
The small states were giving up a lot to go along with the Constitution, and they simply had to be reassured that the new, much more powerful national government wouldn’t become the instrument by which the smalls would be dominated by the bigs.
To modern eyes, this reassurance to the small states looks pretty undemocratic. Why should the weight of the 42 smaller states be so very, very much greater in the Senate than the weight of the eight biggest? The answer is (or was): To get the deal done."
Though I do wonder what folks who disapprove of this solution would have preferred?
Should a few of the "big" colonies have gone it alone?
I wonder how that would have turned out?
Eric didn't ask what small states needed to be appeased about.
There are certainly alternate forms of government, but each has their problems. It's another field of human endeavor in which there is a perfect solution that pleases everyone. Our constitution is flawed in a number of important ways, and that's way our model of government is usually rejected by new countries drafting constitutions of their own.
Our constitution as drafted in 1787 was a failure. The central problem was the failure of the founders to deal definitively with the issue of slavery. The direct result was the Civil War, the most disastrous set of events in American history. As envisioned in 1787, the states were seen my many as quasi independent. You can see that in the history of the time where someone like Robert Lee felt a loyalty to Virginia in a way nobody feels a loyalty to say, Wisconsin, today. It was the Civil War that caused a fundamental change in the way we understand what the United States of America.
--Hiram
I guess I disagree. The Constitution was:
- negotiated by the member states
- all of them joined
- with all of them supporting the unsteady new country
- the British were prevented from taking back control
- the country then survived the civil war
And now the USA is the wealthiest, strongest and most influential country in the world...
If that is "failure" I am curious what you see as success.
Remember my view, for the USA to be successful we need all regions supporting the laws and government. Not just those folks who choose to live in the urban areas.
The question is how can we create policies and platforms that we all can support?
The central issue in Philadelphia in 1787 as it was up until the Civil War was slavery. Everything revolved around it.
I see the Civil War as evidence of a failed system, the worst war in our history. England without a constitution to protect it was able to rid itself of slavery quite peacefully.
We aren't the regional nation we once were we have the internet now, and before that we had airplanes and before that we had trains. None of these things were envisioned by the founders.
We can't create policies that everyone supports. We can't even create policies a consensus supports. We can't even put the person who wins the election in the White House. This is why our country is failing. This is why our system is rejected by other nations.
--Hiram
Hiram,
I am sure the founding Fathers had a lot on their minds beyond slavery...
TC Compromise
Major Debates
Of course we are still a "regional nation", that is why the "regions" vote differently. They are regions... (ie an area or division, especially part of a country or the world having definable characteristics but not always fixed boundaries.)
The person who "won the election" is in the White House. The rules are very clear in this game. Do you cheat at board games because you think the rules aren't correct?
Now how can the Democrats change so they are palatable to more regions... That is the question.
Winning Is Everything But Still Not Enough
I am sure the founding Fathers had a lot on their minds beyond slavery...
Sure, but slavery was what was central. Acceptance of slavery was what the constitution hinged on. It was the central issue for America during the first 80 years of history. And it was slavery that ultimately destroyed the constitutional framework, the founders attempted to create in 1787.
Why did the framers back away from the promises and assurances about liberty so defiantly asserted in the Declaration of Independence written only eleven years earlier?
==Hiram
In 1994, Newt Gingrich and the "Contract for America" Republicans won the national House vote by 7 points, flipped 54 seats and took a sizable majority.
In 2018, if Democrats win the national House vote by 7 points, it only *might* be enough to flip the 25 seats necessary for Dems to take control.
Laurie,
Strange pointless tribal link.
Hiram,
We will need to disagree.
Sean,
It is too bad the DEMs can not find a message that resonates with more regions of the country... Maybe in time...
your frequent anti democracy comments have gotten to be extremely annoying. I am not surprised that you could not understand the danger of the current GOP being in control that was described in my link.
John favors the current system because it is producing results he likes. If it were Republicans in the position Democrats are today, he'd be running around with his hair on fire talking about how terrible things were.
Sean,
The good news about being on the fence is that I can find things to like no matter which party is in charge...
I don't remember writing about how terrible things were when Obama was in charge. Here is a link to G2A 2009...
Laurie,
Show me a democratic country with the population and regional differentiation who is doing as well as the USA...
I have been to India and they sure are not. And the EU certainly has it's share of issues.
Please remember that Germany is only about the size of MN and WI.
"I don't remember writing about how terrible things were when Obama was in charge."
That's not what I'm referring to.
it is because of your seat on the right that you are such a strong supporter of minority rule and cannot see what a travesty the GOP has become
Sean and Laurie,
Let's remember that I am:
- pro-Birth Control
- pro-Sex Education
- pro-LGBT rights as long as they don't trounce on religious freedoms,
- fine with somewhat progressive taxation
- was for the corp tax cut and against the personal tax cut
- pro-balanced budget / anti-debt
- pro kid's rights
- etc
As I said, I will find things to like and dislike whoever is in control.
Laurie or Sean,
Again. Who of equal size and complexity is doing it better?
And don't name some postage stamp sized country like Norway...
We are not one of those countries... We are HUGE and DIVERSE in many ways...
Is that how you approach your job? Well, nobody's doing any better, so we can sit on our hands?
We have a problem in this society. We are ruled by a minority party that is actively seeking to disenfranchise voters. We can do better. We should demand more.
You like the results because it agrees with your ideology. But the process is terrible. And when the chickens come home to roost in a few years, you'll be lamenting that you missed a bipartisan chance to fix it.
We will need to disagree.
Sure, but the fact of the Civil War is an objective truth. And it's also a fact that without a final disposition of the problem in 1787, the politics of the nation revolved around slavery for the next 80 years before it collapsed altogether. It's really hard to imagine a worse outcome.
--Hiram
Actually benchmarking is a key part of process improvement.
Now which "ideology" is that? The one where each region / state of our country should have a voice?
What chickens am I looking for?
Hiram,
I would say letting the British take control because we were divided could possibly have been worse.
"Now which "ideology" is that? "
Your Republican ideology. If Republicans had won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College 2x, you wouldn't be so sanguine about the situation. If it were Republicans that faced the prospect of earning millions more votes in House elections this fall but still not retaking control of the chamber, you wouldn't be shrugging your shoulders.
"What chickens am I looking for?"
When Democrats take back control of government, which could happen as soon as 2020, they are going to be incentivized to go further than Republicans did on a whole host of issues from the legislative filibuster to statehood for D.C. and Puerto Rico to campaign finance reform, etc. And if Mueller finds that there were Trump campaign shenanigans with Russia, there's going to be a strong move among Democrats to court-pack to undo the damage done by Trump in the judicial realm.
I would say letting the British take control because we were divided could possibly have been worse.
Our relations with the British in 1787 of the era were complex. There were many Americans who believed we gave up too much in the Treaty of the Paris. As we know, all deals can be criticized and certainly there was no shortage of Trump equivalents back then, eager to criticize deals with England. But no, I don't think there was much of a chance of a return of British government in 1787. On the other hand there was no shortage of rationales and euphemisms back then, which could be used to take away attention from the conventions failure to deal with slavery.
For myself, I am not that interested in gerrymandering. It's Republicans who favor it, and aware of nefarious aspects, are trying to make a both sides do it case, years before it seems even necessary.
--Hiram
Speaking of Which
Comparing a few scattered instances of Democratic shenanigans to the widespread, systematic nonsense Republicans have pulled is just precious. It's always fascinating how it's up to Democrats to turn the other cheek, too, and not up to Republicans to pull back the reins on their excesses. (Democrats have also, incidentally, run for years on impartial line-drawing -- it's in the 2016 platform!)
I have no idea who is better or worse...
I just thought it was interesting that a Left leaning site like Daily Beast had that article.
"I just thought it was interesting that a Left leaning site like Daily Beast had that article."
Matt Lewis is a well-known conservative columnist. (But that's how the media world works -- left-leaning publications often publish a range of opinions. But you'll never see the Weekly Standard publish a Paul Krugman column.)
I don't know... I would think the National Review may...
It sounds like he may not be too far right. Maybe like David Brooks?
Post a Comment