U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Do you favour division of the 4 most populous states in 8 states & the merger of the 8 least pop
YES 2 16.67%
NO 10 83.33%
Voters: 12. You may not vote on this poll

 
 
Old 02-17-2010, 03:36 PM
 
Location: between Ath,GR & Mia,FL...
2,574 posts, read 2,035,261 times
Reputation: 327

Advertisements

As we all know well,the difference in pop between the 4 biggest & the 8 smallest states is huge...

The Constitution regards the Senate as a mechanism of balance between the states,it did not anticipate such a huge differentiation in population.
Today we have 2 Sens for CA ( 38m citizens ) & 2 Sens for WY ( 700K citizens).

Such a discrepancy is completely antidemocratic.

We can retain the same number of Senators & the same Senate rules,if we divide the 4 biggest states,CA,NY,TX,FL in 8 new states,
say North & South for each...
& merge the 8 smallest ( it is boring to try to find exactly which ones are so...) in 4...

Thus the Senate would be more democratic,less undemocratic...

Even considering the balance of powers,between red & blue,it will roughly remain the same as today...


What do u think ..?
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-17-2010, 03:40 PM
 
Location: Houston, TX
1,418 posts, read 1,900,536 times
Reputation: 1494
Quote:
Originally Posted by harrymiafl View Post
As we all know well,the difference in pop between the 4 biggest & the 8 smallest states is huge...

The Constitution regards the Senate as a mechanism of balance between the states,it did not anticipate such a huge differentiation in population.
Today we have 2 Sens for CA ( 38m citizens ) & 2 Sens for WY ( 700K citizens).

Such a discrepancy is completely antidemocratic.

We can retain the same number of Senators & the same Senate rules,if we divide the 4 biggest states,CA,NY,TX,FL in 8 new states,
say North & South for each...
& merge the 8 smallest ( it is boring to try to find exactly which ones are so...) in 4...

Thus the Senate would be more democratic,less undemocratic...

Even considering the balance of powers,between red & blue,it will roughly remain the same as today...


What do u think ..?
I think it actually is an interesting idea, and you are probably right- it would make for much more fair elections.
But it will NEVER happen- so what's the point?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2010, 03:45 PM
 
Location: between Ath,GR & Mia,FL...
2,574 posts, read 2,035,261 times
Reputation: 327
I voted yes...

A simple idea,makes sense & corrects that huge antidemocratic gap between states...

No more equalisation between 38 mil Californians & ...700K Wyomingans...
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2010, 03:51 PM
 
Location: Tyler, TX
15,210 posts, read 18,490,880 times
Reputation: 8052
Quote:
Originally Posted by harrymiafl View Post
Such a discrepancy is completely antidemocratic.
If we lived in a democracy, then I'd agree that it's a problem. But since we live in a republic, and the "problem" you point out isn't a problem at all, I have to disagree. It's exactly why the founders designed the system of government the way they did.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2010, 03:55 PM
 
Location: Tyler, TX
15,210 posts, read 18,490,880 times
Reputation: 8052
Quote:
Originally Posted by harrymiafl View Post
A simple idea
It's not simple at all. The economic and political ramifications alone would be staggering.

Quote:
Originally Posted by harrymiafl View Post
No more equalisation between 38 mil Californians & ...700K Wyomingans...
Why shouldn't they be equal? They're each one state out of fifty. Each of the 50 states has equal representation at the senate level in the federal government. What's the problem?

BTW, there's already representation based on population at the federal level. Have you ever heard of the House of Representatives?

I think you should read up on our system of government before making such insane suggestions in public. I'm no expert on the subject, but at least I know the basics. You should, too, if you're going to be starting threads like this.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2010, 03:57 PM
 
Location: between Ath,GR & Mia,FL...
2,574 posts, read 2,035,261 times
Reputation: 327
Well,democracy is the ideal,a Republic is ...halfway there...

Even with such a proposal,the small states will still have legislative privilege...

As for the founding fathers,they were not gods,their theories can be challenged & certainly they didn't face or anticipate a 38 to 0.7 ratio of differentiation between states...

Also,I don't like your attitude & if u don't like my thread,u can post elsewhere...
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2010, 04:01 PM
 
Location: Sierra Vista, AZ
16,162 posts, read 21,101,198 times
Reputation: 8340
The founding fathers never meant the Seate to be democratic. I was supposed to represent the governments of the States. There was no election of Senators until the 17th Amendment
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2010, 04:05 PM
 
Location: San José, CA
3,485 posts, read 5,936,295 times
Reputation: 3840
Quote:
Originally Posted by harrymiafl View Post
Well,democracy is the ideal,a Republic is ...halfway there....
So, you're a rabid anti-constitutionalist, eh?

The Founding Fathers never wanted a democracy, and in fact, state quite clearly that the U.S. was to be a Republic.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2010, 04:05 PM
 
Location: Tyler, TX
15,210 posts, read 18,490,880 times
Reputation: 8052
Quote:
Originally Posted by harrymiafl View Post
Well,democracy is the ideal,a Republic is ...halfway there...
In your opinion... I don't give much weight to that, though, as you obviously have very little understanding of how our government works.

Pure democracy is mob rule, and any pure democracy is guaranteed to fail.

Quote:
Originally Posted by harrymiafl View Post
Also,I don't like your attitude & if u don't like my thread,u can post elsewhere...
If you don't want your ideas criticized, then don't post them.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2010, 04:20 PM
 
Location: between Ath,GR & Mia,FL...
2,574 posts, read 2,035,261 times
Reputation: 327
Oh,the...people are a...mob..?

These attitudes smell fascism...

I say power to the people,not to...elites...

As for those founding fathers,they expressed their times...Now it is ...2010,not 1776...
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top