NY Times: US Constitution Gives Small States TOO Much Power

Monday, March 11, 2013

... the power of the smaller states is large and growing. Political scientists call it a striking exception to the democratic principle of "one person, one vote." Indeed, they say, the Senate may be the least democratic legislative chamber in any developed nation.

Posted by roadrunner22 at 09:33 PM | 48 COMMENTS | permalink | Comment on This Entry |

Front Page
Breaking News
Comments
Flagged Comments
User Blogs
Write a Blog Entry
Create a Poll
Edit Account
Weekly Digest
Stats Page
RSS Feed
Back Page

Subscriptions

Read the Retort using RSS.

RSS Feed

Author Info

roadrunner22

Joined 2013/01/03
Visited 2013/05/24

Status: user

Hush-Hush - GUN murders down 40%, GUN crime down 70% (14 comments) ...

CNN's Anchor now receptive to TeaParty values? (43 comments) ...

Benghazi Whistleblowers Identified (59 comments) ...

lackey NYT helps Obama walk-back Chemical WMD "RED-LINE" (55 comments) ...

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Personal attacks, profanity, abusive conduct and expressions of prejudice are not allowed. If you have comments about site moderation, contact the site publisher in email.

"small states need to fall in line with NY and Cal or be left in the dust"

Texas is an anomoly

#1 | Posted by roadrunner22 at 2013-03-11 09:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

Lie-brals have peripheral vision disability. One man, one vote is not what the Constitution defined for the federal government. In fact, the House was the sole one man, one vote wing of government at the time.
I hope Delaware, Rhode Island and such begin to hammer the point they are entitled to equal standing with any other state.

#2 | Posted by Diablo at 2013-03-11 09:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

#1 Diablo, obviously "you get it"

Libs can never "get it" ...
they are all about FORCING un-natural behavior & ideology onto other folks, then blaming someone else because in all recorded history lib ideology just brings failure & misery

#3 | Posted by roadrunner22 at 2013-03-11 09:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

Texas is an anomoly

It's also an anomaly. It used to sell Amalie. But it just wasn't as good as it was supposed to be.

#4 | Posted by madscientist at 2013-03-11 09:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's not just small states, it's an opportunity for ignorance to have power.

#5 | Posted by danni at 2013-03-11 10:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's not just small states, it's an opportunity for ignorance to have power.

#5 | Posted by danni

you are perfectly welcome to be ruled by your "betters"... and, we are perfectly willing to let you, as not everyone is suited for liberty
we have come to recognize that some have genetic predisposition to be dependent on others

perhaps in few generations some of your lineage will adapt to the liberty concept, meanwhile you can extol to them the benefits of having a ruling class dominate you

#7 | Posted by roadrunner22 at 2013-03-11 11:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

No kidding. I've been saying this for years. The U.S. Senate is a joke, and an obvious violation of the principle of one man, one vote.

#8 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-11 11:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's friggin' absurd that some empty patch of frozen dirt like North Dakota or Alaska has the same number of U.S. Senate votes as Cali, NY, Florida, etc.

#9 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-11 11:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's friggin' absurd that some empty patch of frozen dirt like North Dakota or Alaska has the same number of U.S. Senate votes as Cali, NY, Florida, etc.

#9 | Posted by nullifidian

so why not simply propose a States Convention to amend that part of the Constitution?
(and other parts not to your liking)

#10 | Posted by roadrunner22 at 2013-03-11 11:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

"so why not simply propose a States Convention to amend that part of the Constitution? "

Yeah, I think I will simply propose that the U.S. Senate [...]. Keep your day job.

#11 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-11 11:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

"perhaps in few generations some of your lineage will adapt to the liberty concept, meanwhile you can extol to them the benefits of having a ruling class dominate you"

Now tell us how you believe in liberty and all that stuff. From your own mouths comes the truth of what those who pretend to believe in "small government and liberty" really believe in. Your post serves up the truth of who and what you are. All I can say is whew?????? You're sick!

#12 | Posted by danni at 2013-03-11 11:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

You're sick!

#12 | Posted by danni

Well said. This guy is some kind of neo-capitalist loon.

#13 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-11 11:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

Each of these small states entered the union freely and could of course leave it freely if their voting power were weakened.

#14 | Posted by manuesstonedar at 2013-03-11 11:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

#12, apologies danni, I favor "Constitutional Gvt, NOT small Gvt

apologies II, it'll likely take longer that a few generations to work that subservient gene out of your DNA if it can be done at all
don't despair, you did nothing wrong, you're just wired to require a Master

#15 | Posted by roadrunner22 at 2013-03-12 12:09 AM | Reply | Flag:

If the small states have too much power, wouldn't the government then have way too much power?

#16 | Posted by HeuristicGratis at 2013-03-12 09:30 AM | Reply | Flag:

Bill Maher talks about this quite often, his suggestion....low population states should get only one Senator. They would still have their voice, still even have more representation than citizens of high population states but it would reduce the unfairness a bit.

#17 | Posted by danni at 2013-03-12 09:43 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Lie-brals have peripheral vision disability. One man, one vote is not what the Constitution defined for the federal government. In fact, the House was the sole one man, one vote wing of government at the time.
I hope Delaware, Rhode Island and such begin to hammer the point they are entitled to equal standing with any other state."

This just proves you don't get the point being made. Nobody is saying the Senate is un-Constitutional. They're say its un-Democratic.

Why should Deleware and Rhode Island have the same representation in the Senate as Texas? As far as the Senate is concerned, 1 person in Wyoming has the representation of 66 Californians. That's not democratic. Its not even close.

This is about equal representation, which boils down to math. Has nothing to do with ideology and libruls and "America F___ Yeah!". Not every discussion needs to be dumbed down to party talking points.

#18 | Posted by Sully at 2013-03-12 10:01 AM | Reply | Flag:

One point that is seldom discussed is that the Senate acts as a buffer against a tyranny of the majority. Let's be honest, sometimes the majority is just dumb (Prohibition, anyone?) It prevents the populous states from indiscriminately imposing their will on the smaller states. Beliefs, values, and norms differ across regions and even across state borders. Our Constitution recognizes this and allows for a mechanism to prevent large populous states from imposing rules and regulations at a federal level on the small states.

Let's say the nation was divided among small state/large state lines (as it kinda was in the 1700's). If this were the case, the small states would never, EVER get a chance to have their voices heard. Yeah, they'd still have representation, but the vote would always be against them as the more populous states would beat 'em every time. The majority would win every time. The Constitution recognizes that this would not be ideal and allows a venue - the Senate - for small states to have a real voice, real representation, and a real impact on national matters.

#19 | Posted by bartimus at 2013-03-12 12:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

That's why the founders called it a republic vs democracy.

#20 | Posted by Dalton at 2013-03-12 12:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

As stated earlier. Have someone propose an amendment and see how far it gets.

#21 | Posted by Dalton at 2013-03-12 12:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

Why should Deleware and Rhode Island have the same representation in the Senate as Texas?

#18 | POSTED BY SULLY AT 2013-03-12 10:01 AM | FLAG:

Because in our federalist nation, there is no difference between Rhode Island/Delaware and Texas/California. Each is an entity charged with responsibilities to the people that live within its borders.

1 man, 1 vote works for the House because the house is about representation for the people. The Senate originally didn't represent "the people" directly. It was designed as a body to ensure that states didn't trample other states rights or interfere in their sphere of influence.

#22 | Posted by bartimus at 2013-03-12 12:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

Thank goodness for the small states. There must be some connection (Texas excepted) between large states and lunacy. For some reason large states (Texas excepted) attract all the loons, cons, and low-lives. Long live the small states; may you forever be a thorn in the side of large government.

#23 | Posted by matsop at 2013-03-12 12:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

First off, there is a deceptive term being used in the article: "small states". The author isn't speaking of the small states...he's talking about the states with low population and could have distilled his entire article into "densely populated urban cesspools deserve the ability to force their way of thinking on everyone else".

I particularly enjoyed the part about rural Washington County, NY. The problem is not that Vermont gets more money per capita...it's that NYC is a black hole that sucks money away from the rest of the largely rural population of The Empire State.

#24 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2013-03-12 01:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

This guy and so many libs on this thread just don't get it. This country was structured as a federalist country. A central government with limited federal powers leaving the states and municipalities largely to govern as they see fit. The Senate was created as a check on the more Democratic (also known as "mob rule") House of Representatives. It was thought that the Senators would represent the interests of the state in which they reside. The "unfairness" of this structure would be far less an issue if the Federal government restrained itself to only those powers enumerated to it in the Constitution. The founders and the people were greatly concerned about States' rights, so much so that the Constitution was ammended in the Bill of Rights to reflect that.

It's not just small states, it's an opportunity for ignorance to have power.

#5 | Posted by danni

I would have thought liberals would love Federalism. You despise almost all Republicans and certainly despise about 98% of Conservative and/or Republican governance. If the federal government were limited to its enumerated powers to horrible effect of said policies would be considerably diminished. Then you could reside in a state that put into practice all of the liberal policies you favor and life would be grand.

I don't understand why liberals despise federalism.

#25 | Posted by JeffJ at 2013-03-12 04:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

"This guy and so many libs on this thread just don't get it. This country was structured as a federalist country."

How does he not get it?

Its not a democratic system.

Putting the name "federalist" on it doesn't make it any more democratic or really explain why it is sensible for that matter.

Why would people in more populous states be content with a system that counts them as lesser citizens than citizens in more populous states?

"Because its a federalist system" is not a good answer to that question.

Why should I care what its called? It sucks.

#26 | Posted by Sully at 2013-03-12 04:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Why would people in more populous states be content with a system that counts them as lesser citizens than citizens in more populous states?"

Crap. You know what I mean....

Unless you're in Wyoming or Alaska or Rhode Island, the Federalist system as we implemented it sucks. People in the small or sparse states are super citizens and people in populous states are 2nd class.

If you want to say give states more power over their own people and only their own people, fine. I like that.

But the Senate affects everyone and is therefore unfair by any objective measure.

#27 | Posted by Sully at 2013-03-12 04:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

My memory is that via the Senate a Rhode Island resident has 10X + the power of a resident in Texas.

#28 | Posted by Tor at 2013-03-12 04:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

Its not a democratic system.

That's a good thing.

True Democracies suck.

#29 | Posted by JeffJ at 2013-03-12 04:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

Sully,

Let me state it differently.

The House of Representatives has exactly what you are clamoring for: Census-based representation. The Senate was put in place as a check against mob-rule so that more populous states couldn't stick-it to small states.

That's a good thing IMO. Checks and balances.

#30 | Posted by JeffJ at 2013-03-12 04:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The House of Representatives has exactly what you are clamoring for: Census-based representation. The Senate was put in place as a check against mob-rule so that more populous states couldn't stick-it to small states.

That's a good thing IMO. Checks and balances."

The Electoral College is another horrible system that is meant to stop "tyranny of the majority" type abuses.

We should probably just split up into 7-12 countries, to be honest. Democracy is a good system on a small scale.

It sucks on a large scale and that's why these crappy "checks" are put into place. When the cure is as bad as the sickness, there's a problem.

#31 | Posted by Sully at 2013-03-12 05:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

Maybe people living "rural lifestyles" should file to have themselves recognized as a minority with its own distinct culture. Then liberals would be forced to go out of their way to pander to them like they do every other minority.

#32 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2013-03-12 06:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

Adam Liptak ....."He thinks".

So what? It's is absolutely irrelevant what he thinks. Pound sand!!

#33 | Posted by DavetheWave at 2013-03-12 06:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

The Electoral College is another horrible system that is meant to stop "tyranny of the majority" type abuses.

We should probably just split up into 7-12 countries, to be honest. Democracy is a good system on a small scale.

It sucks on a large scale and that's why these crappy "checks" are put into place. When the cure is as bad as the sickness, there's a problem.

#31 | Posted by Sully at 2013-03-12 05:19 PM

That's kind of what the Founders did. A very limited Federal government with clearly defined powers. The 10th defers all powers not enumerated to the states. The problem is that for the last 100 years or so the federal government has been usurping powers that were never given to it. It was a good political system that no longer exists.

To the peanut gallery (not you Sully): I am NOT clamoring for a return to slavery or any other BS strawman you feel included to assign. I am strictly talking about the structure of our federal government and it's relationship to the states. That is it.

#34 | Posted by JeffJ at 2013-03-12 06:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Then you could reside in a state that put into practice all of the liberal policies you favor and life would be grand."

But what happened in the past was the poor from Red states moved to NY, California, etc. I remember back before welfare reform poor folks in various states would choose where they were going to go because of the amount of welfare available in those states. Lots moved to NY or California. For your idea to work we'd have to be seperate nations so that the low tax red states wouldn't just push all their poor out to be taken care of by us in the libera utopias.

#35 | Posted by danni at 2013-03-12 06:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

"We should probably just split up into 7-12 countries, to be honest. Democracy is a good system on a small scale."

Definitely. A half-dozen bioregional states, including the Pacific Coast Republic, the Republic of New England, The Cactus Republic, The Slave Republic, etc., would be a great start.

#36 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-12 06:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

#35 | Posted by danni

Actually, it would force those liberal Utopias to be much smarter about how they structure and administer their safety net programs. Perhaps certain programs have a 'waiting period' for eligibility. Example: One must be a resident of the state for at least 2 years before becoming eligible to receive x-benefit. Same concept as means-testing certain benefits.

Serioulsy, liberals should love federalism.

#37 | Posted by JeffJ at 2013-03-12 06:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

The Florida Keys already call themselves the Conch Republic. I love that country.

#38 | Posted by danni at 2013-03-12 06:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

#36 | Posted by nullifidian

How about just rolling the Federal government's powers back to those enumerated in the Constitution and have the 50-states govern as they see fit? 50 choices is a lot better than 7.

#39 | Posted by JeffJ at 2013-03-12 06:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

The Florida Keys already call themselves the Conch Republic. I love that country.

#38 | Posted by danni

Conch rocks! It's delicious and the shell makes for a great blowhorn.

#40 | Posted by JeffJ at 2013-03-12 06:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

If you're in favor of limited government, you should favor partitioning the U.S. into smaller Republics based on bioregions. If you're in favor of imperialism, you won't like that idea. The so-called federalists want limited government AND imperialism.

#41 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-12 06:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

#41 | Posted by nullifidian

How about reverting back to the original construct of this country?

#42 | Posted by JeffJ at 2013-03-12 07:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

Partitioning America: A Bioregional Approach
kerryg.hubpages.com

#43 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-12 07:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

"How about reverting back to the original construct of this country?"

Slavery? Black people having 3/5ths of the rights of human? No thanks. We don't need to have our political system dominated by a bunch of dead white slave owners that didn't even have email. Screw that.

Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.
Thomas Jefferson (on reform of the Virginia Constitution)

#44 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-12 07:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

"the Conch Republic. "

Sounds good. New Mexico could be the capital of the Chipotle Republic.

#45 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-12 07:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned or not as I refuse to continue reading the garbage posts above.

The senate was established to grant all states equality regardless of size or population. The House was established in order to provide a voice for the people and is why states like california, michigan, texas, florida... get so many more delegates.

Stimulus distribution unfair? Factor it on the delegates in the house that are population based, not the delegates in the senate that are state based.

You can't be stupid and then complain when things don't work out. well, okay, you can be stupid and complain, but it just ends up making you seem stupid.

#46 | Posted by ClownShack at 2013-03-12 07:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

..the power of smaller states has always been an issue - historically these were non-industrialized slave states. The carrot to ratify the consititution was the senate (whose members were appointed and not elected directly) and the electoral college.

To say their power is "growing" is to misread the facts; recent gerrymandering by the repukes gave them an edges in the House that would not exist otherwise...but changing demographics make this a tenuous foundation on which to build a party's future...the shift is happening and it is moving in a direction that will continue to erode this short term-advantage.

California is a great example of where this strategy will ultimately end up for the repukes. In CA, they put all their eggs into a nativist strategy (Props 187, 209...etc), embraced by their party whole-heartedly as a drowning man embraces a boat anchor. Now their party is decimated - representative districts can no longer be gerrymandered as they were in the past - and the "safe" repuke districts are not giving them any edge. Demonrats (ht to some wingnut...) control both assembly and senate...and the governor's mansion.

...and as a result CA is on their way to solving budget problems created by the repukes....and nobody is looking to elect any repuke to any CA statewide office. In response, CA repukes - just like their national counterparts, think it is a messaging problem and not a policy problem - continue to embrace the nativist/elitist position - to their continuing detriment...

...look to the CA repukes as a bell weather for change in this attitude...it will happen there first if it happens all...

...but I would not hold my breath...

...LOL...

#47 | Posted by 1EyedMan at 2013-03-12 07:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Because its a federalist system" is not a good answer to that question.

Why should I care what its called? It sucks.
#26 | Posted by Sully

if you took the time to understand "federalism" concept you'd likely feel different

#48 | Posted by roadrunner22 at 2013-03-12 09:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

The first amendment gives large news organizations like the NY Times to much power.
Something should be done about this.

#49 | Posted by Whizzo at 2013-03-13 09:03 AM | Reply | Flag: