You are right, mavis. The "population" thing is covered by the House of Representatives, as anyone who passed 8th grade Civics should know, and after every census, districts can be redrawn to better fit the population. *stares at Mr. Nodwick*
Yes -- although the House no longer represents the people on the level it was originally intended. We no longer seat one Representative for every 30,000 people. The number has been fixed at 435 ... mostly, I suspect, so that they don't have to remodel the Capitol building.
Coming from the largest state in population (California), it's one of those things that really kinda ticks me off. Even though we have the largest number of representatives, I don't believe they can accurately represent all of the varying needs of our state, because of the immense number of people each has to represent. I'm sure that's a problem for a lot of the other large-population states as well.
Yeah, too many don't remember that's why the senate is per state, so the populous states like New York and Viginia didn't get to have their way over the little states like Delaware. They'd just fought a war because they hadn't felt represented in the mother country. If both houses were by population then that check on the larger states would be gone.
Since the House is already very lopsided in favor of 'larger' states, as is the electoral college and deciding of the presidency, the larger states have plenty of say, far more than the founding fathers probably intended. Read a bit about the Federalist papers, even if just in wiki before you gripe. Because a lot of the founding fathers' fears have come to pass at one time or another and smaller states have much more difficulty getting things done or even any attention for things that will hit larger states eventually too.
"Yeah, too many don't remember that's why the senate is per state, so the populous states like New York and Viginia didn't get to have their way over the little states like Delaware
( ... )
I'm currently reading the Federalist Papers. (; Finished the section on the House of Representatives two days ago. According to the Federalist Paperrs, we are supposed to have one representative for each 30,000 people. In California, each representative represents over 600,000 people.
That's not what the framers of the Constitution intended. But then, I do not think our Founding Fathers had even an inkling of how large some of our populations might become.
That said -- it's a very substantial difference from the original intent, and I really do not believe that all of these people are being well-represented at a national level.
Currently, California receives 78 cents of every dollar we are taxed at the federal level. We pay a high level of federal taxes because we are taxed on our wealthy people -- and we have a lot of those. However, we also have a disproportionate amount of poverty, if cost of living is taken into account
( ... )
If California receives 78 cents of every dollar, what do all the other states get of theirs? That actually seems rather high to me, as that means less than a quarter of every dollar goes to little things like defense and the federal system itself.
No, the Founding Fathers never conceived the mass of population that would be the United States. As slow as Congress is to get anything useful done now with 435 reps, we'd have something like more than ten thousand people in Congress if the scaling had not changed! How much would possibly get done then? Scaling was necessary to attempt to keep things from grinding to a total halt.
Being well represented at a national level is a whole other kettle of fish, and depends on the ethics and skill at negotiation of those elected. That isn't really part of the rules, but changing custom that shifts with the generations.My comment started and to me still represents an objection to making both houses based on population. The founding fathers were trying to balance the interests of short term/
( ... )
"Taken to the extreme, if a couple of smaller states were found to have the important "bleem" resource, the larger states could effectively railroad the smaller ones out of existence completely
( ... )
How about a somewhat more reasonable hypothetical. A law is drafted that impacts the emissions on "vehicles." Urban dwellers who mostly drive cars or have ready access to public transportation like the law... It doesn't have a huge negative impact on them, and green is good.
However, rural dwellers, who more frequently use trucks and other large vehicles at work (i.e. to haul things or cover rough terrain) are punished more harshly. Due to an oversight when the bill was drafted, tractors and other heavy machinery are extremely harshly punished.
In a strictly population based system, there is no check to prevent such a law from passing. If places like LA and NY are in favor of the law, it takes an extremely unified front from the rural states to overturn it. If a few of the borderline states decide to side with the urban point of view, then the rural areas will likely have no recourse.
It does benefit the most people. However, the relative benefit to the many is minor while the impact to the few is much larger.
I got the 78 cents number from a speech the Governator made last week. I have not done serious investigation into the subject, but this seems like it might be the place to go for the details.
I'm uncertain as to whether the military money is wrapped up in those numbers or not. Thing is, we have a huge military presence here in SoCal, so if the military money is wrapped into that, that might actually make sense. The military is a huge part of the San Diego economy.
As slow as Congress is to get anything useful done now with 435 reps, we'd have something like more than ten thousand people in Congress if the scaling had not changed!
My objection is not so much that the scaling has changed, as how the scaling has changed. At this point, each large-population states' representatives are representing as many as 20% more people apiece than low-population states. To use the largest example, California, as we mentioned, has one rep for each 697,389 people. Wyoming, on the other hand, has one rep for its population of approximately 544,207
( ... )
The change I would like to see in the system is a return to the United STATES of America, as opposed to the United States of AMERICA, if that makes any sense. I would like substantially less federal government, and I'd like them to get back to the only things they're pretty much permitted by the Constitution -- running the military and ensuring responsible inter-state commerce. I think a lot more responsibility needs to go back to the states.
And I really think that ideally, chopping up some of the larger states and some of the cities in the larger states would be much more effective. People self-govern better in smaller groups, because it's easier to keep an eye on who's being responsible and ethical and who isn't, and deal with the problems as they arise. It's also easier for smaller governments to be more flexible and responsive to change and sudden needs.Three questions on this
( ... )
But then what would I know - I'm british.
Reply
Reply
Coming from the largest state in population (California), it's one of those things that really kinda ticks me off. Even though we have the largest number of representatives, I don't believe they can accurately represent all of the varying needs of our state, because of the immense number of people each has to represent. I'm sure that's a problem for a lot of the other large-population states as well.
Reply
Since the House is already very lopsided in favor of 'larger' states, as is the electoral college and deciding of the presidency, the larger states have plenty of say, far more than the founding fathers probably intended. Read a bit about the Federalist papers, even if just in wiki before you gripe. Because a lot of the founding fathers' fears have come to pass at one time or another and smaller states have much more difficulty getting things done or even any attention for things that will hit larger states eventually too.
Reply
Reply
That's not what the framers of the Constitution intended. But then, I do not think our Founding Fathers had even an inkling of how large some of our populations might become.
That said -- it's a very substantial difference from the original intent, and I really do not believe that all of these people are being well-represented at a national level.
Currently, California receives 78 cents of every dollar we are taxed at the federal level. We pay a high level of federal taxes because we are taxed on our wealthy people -- and we have a lot of those. However, we also have a disproportionate amount of poverty, if cost of living is taken into account ( ... )
Reply
No, the Founding Fathers never conceived the mass of population that would be the United States. As slow as Congress is to get anything useful done now with 435 reps, we'd have something like more than ten thousand people in Congress if the scaling had not changed! How much would possibly get done then? Scaling was necessary to attempt to keep things from grinding to a total halt.
Being well represented at a national level is a whole other kettle of fish, and depends on the ethics and skill at negotiation of those elected. That isn't really part of the rules, but changing custom that shifts with the generations.My comment started and to me still represents an objection to making both houses based on population. The founding fathers were trying to balance the interests of short term/ ( ... )
Reply
Reply
However, rural dwellers, who more frequently use trucks and other large vehicles at work (i.e. to haul things or cover rough terrain) are punished more harshly. Due to an oversight when the bill was drafted, tractors and other heavy machinery are extremely harshly punished.
In a strictly population based system, there is no check to prevent such a law from passing. If places like LA and NY are in favor of the law, it takes an extremely unified front from the rural states to overturn it. If a few of the borderline states decide to side with the urban point of view, then the rural areas will likely have no recourse.
It does benefit the most people. However, the relative benefit to the many is minor while the impact to the few is much larger.
Reply
I'm uncertain as to whether the military money is wrapped up in those numbers or not. Thing is, we have a huge military presence here in SoCal, so if the military money is wrapped into that, that might actually make sense. The military is a huge part of the San Diego economy.
As slow as Congress is to get anything useful done now with 435 reps, we'd have something like more than ten thousand people in Congress if the scaling had not changed!
My objection is not so much that the scaling has changed, as how the scaling has changed. At this point, each large-population states' representatives are representing as many as 20% more people apiece than low-population states. To use the largest example, California, as we mentioned, has one rep for each 697,389 people. Wyoming, on the other hand, has one rep for its population of approximately 544,207 ( ... )
Reply
And I really think that ideally, chopping up some of the larger states and some of the cities in the larger states would be much more effective. People self-govern better in smaller groups, because it's easier to keep an eye on who's being responsible and ethical and who isn't, and deal with the problems as they arise. It's also easier for smaller governments to be more flexible and responsive to change and sudden needs.Three questions on this ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment