Submitted by Pecners t3_zuajkb in Washington
andthedevilissix t1_j1jil0c wrote
Reply to comment by bernyzilla in A population density map of Washington by Pecners
The reason that the Senate is 2 for every state instead of by population is because the USA was formed as an alliance between independent states who didn't want to give up their autonomy and didn't want to empower a central government.
Why would a small population state with lots of natural resources join the union if it meant they'd never have a say in anything as a state?
To think about it another way, imagine another reality where California and most of the north eastern states were full of people who thought Trump was awesome and senate seats were awarded via population just like the house, would a liberal WA benefit from being part of a union where WA would never have a meaningful say vs. the pro-Trump states? If no matter what the states with the most population could set the agenda for everyone else, like deciding to build a wall on WA's border with Canada and because WA has a small population compared to CA or NY we'd never be ablet o say "no"...wouldn't it feel pointless and shitty that people thousands of miles away from WA could steamroll the people who live here and do stuff in our state we didnt' like?
bernyzilla t1_j1jqxah wrote
Yes, a liberal Washington would still benefit greatly from being in the union. Mutual defense, disaster support, commerce, etc. Each day does get a say in the politics of the country as a whole, But that say should be based on population rather than land area. Land area is one of 100 arbitrary divisions that you could use to influence politics. The only fair way is each person gets one vote.
And if the majority of Americans were pro-Trump supporters, and they voted to build the wall between Washington and Canada, It would annoy me but I would be okay with it because that's how democracy works. Individual parts have to compromise for the greater whole. But I would only be okay with it if it was actually Democratic, If more people believed a certain way or voted that way then fine. I believe in democracy even when the majority doesn't agree with me.
How do you think black people feel being steamrolled by a plurality of white Americans? Women outnumber men in America, But men have a hundred times the political influence. How do you think women feel? Why does the only group that gets extra votes is rural people? It's an outdated arbitrary division and should be abolished.
And it's not like rural Life is even that different. When the county was founded, a factory worker from a city would be totally lost in the country. A rural farmer would equally be lost in the city. But most people in rural areas have jobs similar to people in urban areas. It's not like urban people are factory workers and raw people are farmers anymore. The number of independent farms and ranches has plummeted 40 years. Now people in the middle of nowhere work at the same restaurants and offices, eat at the same fast food chains, watch the same TV, drive the same cars, etc as people living in a city. It's an arbitrary distinction that should not be The basis of perverting democracy. Each individual should get one vote.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments