BadTux is arguing that, because of shifting populations in coming decades, that the US is headed for a tyranny of the minority, as 70% of the population will reside in fifteen states. The depopulated states will have seventy Senators, the populated states only thirty.
Click on the link and read his post. Then come back.
While I agree that having 30% of the people control 70% of the Senate is a problem, I don't think it is as dire as BadTux posits.
First, keep in mind that seats in the House of Representatives are awarded to states based on their population. If 70% of the population lives in fifteen states, those states will have 305 seats in the House or Representatives.
Second, votes in the Electoral College are assigned to each state by the number of Congressmen, plus the number of Senators. The populous states will, therefor, have 335 electoral votes.
Third, almost every state chooses their electors on a "winner take all" basis statewide. If that holds true, then the voters in the cities will have a huge say in who becomes the President.
So the battle for the presidency in the future will be fought in states where there are large urban populations.
In short, the depopulated states will control the Senate, but that's all they'll control. They can fulfil the role of obstructionists, but they won't be able to move the needle much in their direction.
This is not a new problem. The Senate was set up so that the agrarian (and slave owning) Southern states would not get cut out of things. The entire point of the "three-fifths compromise" was to ensure that the South wasn't marginalized in the House. Jim Crow was a means to do even better; for African-Americans counted as full people for determining apportionment, but White Christian Terrorists ensured that they could not vote.
Despite the efforts of Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump to bring back Jim Crow, that's not going to happen. the pendulum will swing away from them and the Party of Trump.
No Use Crying Over Milk That’s Bad At Math
1 hour ago
3 comments:
Same thing occurred to me - *they* control the Senate, we control the house and the Presidency. The catch is, can we do without a Federal Judiciary? Now that Mitch McConnell has set the standard, it doesn't seem likely that a Senate controlled by right-wing extremists will hold hearings on *any* judge that would be acceptable to the rest of us. So, Supreme Court ties of 0-0 after 30-40 yrs? Likewise, if the Senate just refuses to approve anything, while holding the US' credit rating hostage with every budget, a future as the world's largest failed state seems likely.
I agree, and have another point to raise. I, myself, am an example of the population flight to the cities, and would like to point out one aspect of large cities that holds true wherever they are located. They tend to be liberal.
My friend Sara lives in Huntsville, Alabama, and while she wishes there was access to Medicaid to help her pay for the PT she needs on her broken right arm (she is a violinist, so it impacts her ability to make a living) she notes that overall, Huntsville is a liberal place.
So as more and more of the population migrates to the cities, the pendulum swing will gradually be biased in one direction. Demographics will have a similar pressure, as we are already a majority-minority country below the age of about ten, and will be for all children by next year.
I live in a majority-minority state, in a diverse city and neighborhood, and won't be willingly leaving any time soon. It's a good place to live, and we all seem to like it here. We are arguably the most liberal district in the country (hello Barbara Lee!) and everyone I know owns firearms. I guess what I'm saying about it is don't believe the scary propaganda, we're just normal people living normal lives.
That said, I'm not a big fan of the representation of acres instead of people in the senate, and I really believe we need to do something about the way political campaigns are financed and regulated, but I'm a long, long, way from giving up the fight to improve the way our government works.
There is a new generation coming into their own politically right now, and while they will make the same mistakes that always get made in the entry level of politics, they, especially the women among them, seem to have a much more hands-on approach than I or my cohort ever did.
As depressing as things look right now, I can't help but be encouraged by the 20,000 female candidates seeking office at every level of government this year, and the 30 point gender gap in recent polling.
Driftglass said on the podcast yesterday that Todd Akin may be vindicated here, that women's bodies may after all have a way of "shutting the whole thing down", namely voting and running for office.
So short version, yes, I believe it's a problem, but no, I don't believe we've passed the tipping point to permanent tyranny just yet.
Perhaps we might be well served to get up and try to do something about it, and right away.
-Doug in Oakland
It isn't the end of the world, but the Senate has a special role in approving appointments, judges, justices, and treaties. They are a veto point that can overrule the House and the president.
Post a Comment