http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/03/11/us/politics/small-state-advantage.html?_r=0

There are no words for the depth of this stupidity.

3/11/2013 6:35:28 PM

wow, ouch

they did a much better job when they called for increasing the size of the house, which is a good idea
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/24/opinion/24conley.html

3/11/2013 6:50:53 PM

^^ A larger percentage of the population lives urban areas now than back in the late 1700's

Considering that's changed maybe it's something worth revisiting.

3/11/2013 8:17:15 PM

that's what the house is for

3/11/2013 8:18:52 PM

unless you're seeing more than i am, i don't see where they made any factual errors. i don't see any claims on that page that this is an unusual, unexpected or let alone somehow fraudulent state of affairs.

my guess is that they made that page so that its readers would better understand elementary US civics

3/11/2013 8:29:58 PM

I'm trying to understand why living in a larger or smaller city/district should give you any more (or less) of a say concerning how a person 3,000 miles away lives their life.

3/11/2013 8:37:44 PM

Quote :

"i don't see where they made any factual errors. i don't see any claims on that page that this is an unusual, unexpected or let alone somehow fraudulent state of affairs."

How about where they describe this state of affairs as "over representation" in a legislative body which was established to represent the individual states, not the population.

3/11/2013 8:42:47 PM

^^I'm trying to understand why living in a rural state should give you a greater proportion of electoral power than living in an urbanized state.

3/11/2013 8:48:13 PM

Wait, I missed something. What is incorrect about the thing?

Quote :

"that's what the house is for"

Yeah, it's a good thing that senate doesn't get to vote on laws. Oh wait...

3/11/2013 8:48:36 PM

it IS over-representation.

intentionally, as we all do and should know

nowhere did they suggest otherwise.

3/11/2013 8:54:29 PM

The graphic doesn't prove their assertion in the subtitle

Quote :

" The Small-State Advantage in the United States Senate The Constitution has always given states with small populations a lift, but the scale of the gap has grown in recent decades. "

No where does it show any sort of "gap scaling" over time. Whatever the fuck scaling is supposed to mean in this case.

Not to mention that the senates whole point is to provide this sort of "protection" to smaller state.

3/11/2013 8:58:14 PM

Quote :

"The graphic doesn't prove their assertion in the subtitle"

true. i don't see what's so confusing about the term "scale" though

[Edited on March 11, 2013 at 9:08 PM. Reason : i'm curious now though. gonna go look up some numbers]

3/11/2013 9:08:16 PM

Quote :

"Yeah, it's a good thing that senate doesn't get to vote on laws. Oh wait..."

it has to clear both, duh. do i need to post the schoolhouse rock video?

edit:
here is a non-singing version:
http://kids.clerk.house.gov/grade-school/lesson.html?intID=17
http://votesmart.org/education/how-a-bill-becomes-law

senate represents state, house (is supposed to) represent people. we need to increase the size of the house though, we haven't in too long.


[Edited on March 11, 2013 at 9:10 PM. Reason : .]

3/11/2013 9:08:52 PM

well that was pure snark

The thing I don't get is the obvious and extreme stupidity referenced in the OP. That seems really unsubstantiated. No one has claimed the numbers are wrong, and we all already understand the point.

3/11/2013 9:58:06 PM

Population representation of the 10 smallest states in
1970: 2.365%
1980: 2.449%
1990: 2.403%
2000: 2.286%
2010: 2.638%

Population representation of the 10 largest states in
1970: 45.147%
1980: 46.244%
1990: 45.584%
2000: 45.891%
2010: 46.633%

Population representation gap between the 10 smallest states and the 10 largest states
1970: 42.782%
1980: 43.795%
1990: 43.181%
2000: 43.605%
2010: 43.9945%

So yes, at least in the last 50 years, the gap between representation in the Senate for the set of low population states and high population states has generally widened.

3/11/2013 10:02:02 PM

The Senate has always held the country back. Slavery, duh.

3/11/2013 10:37:06 PM

it's their constitutional right to hold us back

3/11/2013 10:41:49 PM

Quote :

"The thing I don't get is the obvious and extreme stupidity referenced in the OP. That seems really unsubstantiated. No one has claimed the numbers are wrong, and we all already understand the point."

The "point" is what's stupid, the senate isn't supposed to represent the interests of the people. Comparing the number of senators per person is as valid as comparing the number of senators per convicted felon, Starbucks customer or Labrador.

Or put another way, by the same logic, more populous states are "over represented" in the house, because that same 1/4 of the population, comprising 16 states has a mere 60 representatives, or just 14% the electoral power, while the 3 more populous states with 1/4 of the population have a combined 116 representatives in the house, for a total 27% of the electoral power.

Perhaps more interesting than that though (assuming I didn't screw p my math, which is possible running on 2 hrs of sleep) is that apparently the middle populous states with 50% of the population comprise 59% of the electoral power. Clearly those states are the ones with over representation.

3/11/2013 10:59:54 PM

Quote :

"Perhaps more interesting than that though (assuming I didn't screw p my math, which is possible running on 2 hrs of sleep) is that apparently the middle populous states with 50% of the population comprise 59% of the electoral power. Clearly those states are the ones with over representation."

that thought crossed my mind as well

3/11/2013 11:31:36 PM

aka gerrymandered all to fuck. aka Republicans. aka the fucking problem.

3/11/2013 11:37:32 PM

States rights is an antiquated concept

3/11/2013 11:39:08 PM

Hey, rights in general are an antiquated concept. Who needs liberty when you have enlightened technocrats? People are too fucking stupid to know what's good for them, but surely they'll elect people that are wise enough to make good decisions for society as a whole.

3/12/2013 12:28:30 AM

^ it's up to the smart people to convince the dumb people who to elect.

That's the only way democracy can work.

3/12/2013 2:26:14 AM

Quote :

"Comparing the number of senators per person is as valid as comparing the number of senators per convicted felon, Starbucks customer or Labrador."

As a technicality, I believe this would qualify as a strawman.

Why are the current state boundaries (and corresponding senate representation) better than this:



It's circular logic to say YES, the senate accomplishes equal representation per state - because the entity of a state is a political construction. I could make up some other noun, distribute it how I like, create an "equal representation" house, and claim great victory because we have equal representation per whatever this invented noun is.

3/12/2013 8:37:43 AM

Quote :

"aka gerrymandered all to fuck"

gerrymandered districts are our biggest obstacle to progress. Fewer and fewer districts have any competition, which creates situations where our representatives are selected via primaries which results in our representatives moving further and further apart. Increasing the number of representatives in the House is the best chance that we have of shaking this up and being able to get anything done.

3/12/2013 10:03:47 AM

Quote :

"^ it's up to the smart people to convince the dumb people who to elect. That's the only way democracy can work."

Then it can't work.

3/12/2013 10:23:20 AM