Frances E. Lee, a political scientist at the University of Maryland, said the problem was as real as the solution elusive, adding that she and other scholars have tried without success to find a contemporary reason to exempt the Senate from the usual rules of granting citizens an equal voice in their government. “I can’t think of any way to justify it based on democratic principles,” Professor Lee said.
१३ मार्च, २०१३
"The disproportionate power enjoyed in the Senate by small states is playing a growing role in the political dynamic..."
The equal representation of the states in the U.S. Senate is really old news, so what's this about? Large states have grown more than small states in recent years. And large states have become "more urban and liberal," with smaller states "remaining rural and conservative."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
११४ टिप्पण्या:
One more reason to limit the power of the federal government.
The Senate is based on anti-democratic principles. How can she not know that? Oh I forgot, she knows that she just ignores it for political expediency.
All is proceeding as the Founders had foreseen.
Typical democrat, wants to change the rules the instant it doesn't fit what she wants. Even if she proposed or rejected the same rule changes previously.
Easy solution: abolish the states. Everyone wins, right?
“I can’t think of any way to justify it based on democratic principles,”
Yeah, but can you justify it based on republican principles?
Come on, give it a try! I think you can do it!
Libruls want one big country run from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. It has been their dream since they fell in love with that librul wet dream of a TV show called The West Wing.
Oh yeah, Texas is sure liberal. And Sarah Palin's home state too. And Georgia too (the largest State East of the Mississippi.)
Really the Senate is supposed to be the State Government's representative, not "the peoples" representatives which already exists over in the House of Representatives.
So is she saying that we disband the Senate?
James Madison:
"In this spirit it may be remarked, that the equal vote allowed to each State is at once a constitutional recognition of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual States, and an instrument for preserving that residuary sovereignty."
Is it irony that she has written a book entitled 'Beyond Ideology: Politics, Principles, and Partisanship in the U. S. Senate'?
Irony is dead, the internet killed it.
Can I assume he wishes to void the First, Second, Ninth & Tenth Amendments?
Forget it, Jake. It's the New York Times.
for the left, the Constitution is always an obstacle to be overcome.
Which is partly why we should repeal the Amendment which changed how Senators are elected.
But leftists would never go for that.
Which is partly why we should repeal the Amendment which changed how Senators are elected.
But leftists would never go for that.
Weird how the Senate--biased toward rural conservatives and all that--is controlled by the Dems, while the House--the bastion of popular representation of the sort favored by the NYT--is controlled by the Repubs.
“I can’t think of any way to justify it based on democratic principles,”
Maybe because it's based on federalist principles? I thought smart people were more nuanced that we great unwashed.
The existing system allows the smaller states to get more pork than they would otherwise get if they had proportionate representation. Wealth congregates in the big states--New York, California, Florida, Texas--and I would have thought that those who want to spread the wealth around would like a check against that phenomenon.
"Indeed, [political scientists] say, the Senate may be the least democratic legislative chamber in any developed nation."
Have they forget about the House of Lords?
The NYT's shock at the relative amount of fed funds going to VT and NY for road maintenance was hilarious.
NYT's solution: Make the Senate more the House.
Easy solution: Let the states pay for their own damn road repairs.
Chip S., I had the same thought. One of the classic "reasons" for the differential systems in the House and Senate is that the Senate was thought more stable, more careful, less uppity, and that those characteristics would help tamp down the uppity, careless, hyper-political House.
That's what we were taught in school, anyway, back when they still taught how the founders arrived at this form of legislature. It doesn't seem to have worked out that way.
Maybe those of us who live in rural states (and rural areas) don't need a bunch of big city metro sexuals making our laws and telling us how to live.
If you want to ride hot emotions to fast legislation a “saucer that cools the tea” just gets in the way.
Democratic principals are way overrated. 50% of the people are below average, and 50% of the rest have little wisdom. Most people are not fit to govern others. Hell, what percentage are barely fit to govern themselves?
Wealth congregates in Connecticut and Vermont where the NYC and Boston rich guys live.
Lets get rid of their Senators first. They are socialists anyway.
the Senate was thought more stable, more careful, less uppity, and that those characteristics would help tamp down the uppity, careless, hyper-political House.
This is still true. It's just that now what it means to be uppity is to be a Tea Partier.
She can't find a contemporary reason.
That nasty old Constitution is more than 100 years old and stuff, and none of her friends can understand why we are still stuck with what those silly old men thought back then.
The comparison to the House of Lords is apt. All of the deep thinking seems to be coming from the House these days. Paul Ryan presents a budget; Jackie Speier pushes for Internet retail tax reform. Like 'em or hate 'em, at least they seem to be trying. Meanwhile, Harry Reid, John McCain, Mitch McConnell, and their crowd are small thinkers, mostly jockeying for position in front of the camera.
We can justify the senate using exactly the same logic that we use to justify the UN General Assembly, where every dictator gets a vote, regardless of how many people each oppresses.
I guess that the UN is outside the knowledge of a political science professor....
Funny how all this power and wealth accruing to small states never seemed to get to Rhode Island.
Maybe the real difference isn't between small states and big states but between states run by idiots and those not.
“I can’t think of any way to justify it based on democratic principles,” Professor Lee said.
The stupid professor never studied history, never understood we are a democratic Republic, not a democracy. The Founders were more afraid of mob rule, the tyranny of the majority. That is why we're not like Europe. That's why the stupid professor, a liberal Euro-wannabe could not understand the geniuses of the dead white guys.
Our complete failure in teaching American civics rears its ugly head. We are called the United States of America for a reason. That title wasn't the result of writers block. Its right there in the name. Boy, PHDs aren't what they used to be.
There has just got to be some 'principle' that would also urban politicians to oppress and exploit rural folks. That would be 'democracy', I suppose. Aka, mob rule.
Paddy O said...
Easy solution: abolish the states. Everyone wins, right?
Abolish the Fed, everyone wins.
The States, specifically the original 13, were sovereign states. They joined together to form a Union.
Come to think of it why do countries which have a few hundred thousand people entitle to a vote in the UN, as much "representation" as China which has a billion+ people? Canada which is 1/10 the size of the US has as many vote as the US?
The 17th Amendment blurred the original intent of the Senate. Senators were supposed to be elected by their state legislatures and not by direct popular vote. Oh, and Senators were supposed to represent their State's interests as opposed to gun or gay rights.
? while the House--the bastion of popular representation of the sort favored by the NYT--is controlled by the Repubs.
Repubs control the House even after receiving over a million less votes. Neat trick!
If I took the factual points in this article as fact, I would very quickly conclude that large states wish to pass laws that affect all states, while small states wish to limit that excess of power.
Maybe next week these experts can address the strange concept of the tyranny of the majority.
even after receiving over a million less votes. Neat trick!
Bloomberg is currently buying a Representative in Chicago, Illinois, but garage pines for the day New Yorkers can select the politicians from Wisconsin too.
Another irony is the drive of the liberals quoted in the article to shunt political power into the swamp where democratic representation is most diffused.
If you believe in the democratic principles exemplified by one person one vote, then you should believe in local power.
Unless you're an opportunistic hack.
The British had a term for this sort of thing: rotten boroughs.
We could make Senate representation proportional, or we could start merging the rotten-borough states. Or both. "Verhampshire" has a nice ring to it.
What's it about?
The Times griping that New York and California can't just run the entire country automatically.
If I took the factual points in this article as fact...
then you would, as you know, be making a mistake.
Here are some actual facts, as of the last year for which I could find data easily:
Ratio of population, NY/VT: 31
Ratio of federal grants, NY/VT: 28
So, not exactly the picture painted by the Times' one anecdote.
Or we could break up the larger population states into several smaller states (for example we could have North, South, Central, and East California). That would solve many of the representation and voting issues.
The more these statists gnash their teeth about how their quest for power is stymied, the more elegant and brilliant is the Constitution.
Repubs control the House even after receiving over a million less votes. Neat trick!
Keep that in mind the next time you're about to call the Repubs stupid.
Of course, you might also consider that your data basically reflect the Obama campaign's vaunted GOTV skills.
How does everybody like the idea of equally-sized states, readjusted every 10 years? Imagine the protracted battles that would result!
The reason this woman can't see a reason for it is... she's in the majority.
So what does she care?
The reason for the difference in the Senate and House representation is the same as it ever was, even more-so perhaps. The whole POINT is to protect the minority population of a vast, diverse nation, from getting steamrolled by the big guys.
A *liberal* should be all for that.
But they're not.
Well, the Senate and the electoral college are the two features of our constitutional framework that differentiate the US from more unitary states, like France. The Supreme Court's power of judicial review of federal statutes used to be a third, but the Europeans have moved closer to us on that one, with the UK's new Supreme Court, Germany's Constitutional Court and even France's Cour de Cassation exercising powers that in some ways mimic American style judicial review.
Not really a surprise that lefties prefer the European (mostly French) approach to democracy, rather than the American idea. But they don't seem to notice that the European approach is becoming more American, and in all events is having serious problems of its own. I don't just mean the serial crises flowing from the crazy idea of having a monetary union without fiscal union, but also the serial separatist movements within states that can arise when the ideas of participatory democracy and equality-above-all merge and take over. The break-up of Czechoslovakia and the continuing problems in Spain are just two examples of that.
Nothing more democratic than secretly drawing up ward lines strictly for brute political power, taking a vow of secrecy to never reveal details about the new wards and lie to the public if necessary, and when your sued and ordered to produce all the relevant documents, leave out the damaging documents.
"Oh, you want the computers too? Uh, sorry, we can't find them!"
We are a republic, not a democracy.
Can these people be this dumb? They're all for the little guy, except when they're not.
You meant with a capital D, right Garage?
strictly for brute political power
If you weren't such a relentless advocate of brute political power as long as it's projected in ways you like, I might give a enough of a fuck to wonder what you were talking about.
The only way to restrain the exercise of brute political power is to limit the power of the government. The guy your state's capital is named after understood this. Why can't you?
Sam L. said...
How does everybody like the idea of equally-sized states, readjusted every 10 years?
Nah. How about if the Electoral College representation of a state becomes greater then 5% of the total Electoral College, then the state divides into 3?
Damn Constitution
And Georgia too (the largest State East of the Mississippi.)
Only if you ignore TOTAL area and exclude Minnesota for not being ENTIRELY east of the Mississippi (Otherwise Georgia is 5th). But go ahead and flatter yourself, Georgians. You've worked hard to carve something prestigious out those statistics!
@ garage
"Obama control the White House even after receiving over a million less votes. Neat trick!"
FTFY
Shorter NYT:
We could just implement our socialist paradise if those goldstein, er, small states were out of the way.
News to NYT, we live in a Republic, not a Democracy; if we can keep it.
@ Sam L.
"How does everybody like the idea of equally-sized states, readjusted every 10 years? Imagine the protracted battles that would result!"
Only if the loser gets Chicago.
And no throwing the fight by Illinois either!
We could do away with the states and replace them with the federal judicial districts. It's almost what we do anyway. Each district has its own version of the constitution that is only valid within it's borders.
If you weren't such a relentless advocate of brute political power as ...blah blah blah
You got nothing. Quelle surprise.
Excellent use of irony.
Those small, rural and conservative states like New Jersey and Delaware.
If only we could establish another body of government that was based on the State's population.........oh wait!
Those stupid rural people from small states need to stop making it hard for the smart people from big urban centers to run the country. Don't they see that the smart people who take money from the general economy and spread it around to buy votes want populations more concentrated? That stupid constitution is always in the way. Why can't those retards see we need to be more like Europe? At least we are matching their economic growth rates now. Progress!
@ Calypso Facto... Dare one of you North Western Territory newbies insult an Original founding Colony?
That insult could start a war between the States and not one in which the US NEWS and World Report ranks the winner. But this time we are going to hire that Norwegian guy Heg as our free agent.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems like just another attempt to change something because they don't understand it in the first place.
According to my understanding, the whole point was for the large states not to be able to run roughshod over the small states. Also, the Senate was originally appointed by the State legislatures, not a popular vote.
So we abolished the first principle (State representation), and now we want to abolish the second principle (protection for the minority) because it's not turning out the results that are desired.
Seems like they think very highly of themselves, don't they?
Perfect... there must be somthing wrong.
Damn those big, urban liberal states like Texas and Alaska always trying to change things to hurt those smale, rural, conservative states like Rhode Island.
When she says small, she means Conservative.
And, if this woman's really a Poli Sci broad at MD, they really need to upgrade their program.
bpm4532 said...
Can these people be this dumb? They're all for the little guy, except when they're not.
Think Choom. All he knows is what they told him in the faculty lounge.
Repubs control the House even after receiving over a million less votes. Neat trick!
Yet they won far more districts. Odd. I guess winning a ton of votes in machine districts is meaningful of...something.
Didn't see Republican poll workers arrested for voting 6 times.
The reason for the difference in the Senate and House representation is the same as it ever was, even more-so perhaps. The whole POINT is to protect the minority population of a vast, diverse nation, from getting steamrolled by the big guys.
A *liberal* should be all for that.
Not when the minority are white guys. Death to the them all. Of course, leftists keep forgetting the lack of melanin in their skin.
In other news, Supreme Court always seems to get the last say, complains district court.
"Indeed, [political scientists] say, the Senate may be the least democratic legislative chamber in any developed nation."
How about Canada?
Prince Edward Island has one senator for every 34,000 population, while British Columbia has one for every 690,000. That's a bit less than the US extremes of population disproportion — but Canadian Senators aren't elected or even chosen by the provinces, they're appointed to their life (well, now, "life or until age 75") terms by the Prime Minister.
I mean, it's not like this is some obscure little country; we have some 3,000 miles of border with them, and Senate reform has been a major issue in the country for 30 years.
Haven't we always had a 30% against the Constitution from the founding? Why is this news to Ann?
Small government --------->New court filing: Documents were deleted from GOP redistricting computers <--------Small government
"Frances E. Lee, a political scientist at the University of Maryland, said the problem was as real as the solution elusive"
Problem? PROBLEM?
The Senate is fundamentally anti-Democratic, anti-mob rule.
Democrats argue that the proportion in the Senate does not represent the true will of the people. The problem if you decide how many Senate seats based on population then then you might as well get rid of it. It's already called the House of Representatives. Of course back in the 70s-80s when the Democrats had HUGE majorities in the Senate there was no complaining from pointy-headed intellectuals.
garage: "Repubs control the House even after receiving over a million less votes. Neat trick!"
How did those evil republicans "force" those innocent political waifs knows as democrats from congregating in extraordinarily high percentages in the cities?
LOL
We deleted the files on those state computers because of our small government principles!
@ garage
"vos terebravisse me. vos es perforare me. instes perforare me."
garage: "Small government --------->New court filing: Documents were deleted from GOP redistricting computers <--------Small government."
LOL
OMGeleventy!!11!!
Now we'll never know that district lines would have yielded a dem majority!!!
LOL
This is one of the more laughable attempts to highjack a thread which clearly and irrefutably demonstrates a lefty intellectual's fundamental lack of understanding regarding how our government was constructed and why.
garage, your ability to invert plain meaning is occasionally staggering.
The argument for limiting the scope of government does not derive from the belief that Republican politicians are pure of heart. It derives from the axiom that power corrupts.
But on the specific subject of drawing the lines for voting districts, how can you possibly be shocked to find that political parties try to draw those lines so as to maximize their chances of winning the most districts? That degree of apparent naivete isn't appropriate for someone your age.
only Republicans are corrupt.
/garage mahal
The solution isn't "evasive"; the solution is obvious. Return the federal government to its original enumerated powers and let the states resume responsibility for the rest.
But on the specific subject of drawing the lines for voting districts, how can you possibly be shocked to find that political parties try to draw those lines so as to maximize their chances of winning the most districts?
I'm not shocked whatsoever. I would be shocked if Walker & Co. didn't do what they did in their redistricting power grab. It certainly isn't democratic though, [the topic of this post], and it has nothing to do with small and limited government. To the contrary. Everything we've seen in this state is consolidation of central power and taking power away from local governments. And conservatives love it.
We all know what a "fighter" garage is against all that "centralized" political power!
LOL
"garage" is what happens to you when you barely scrape your way out of high school.
Everything we've seen in this state is consolidation of central power and taking power away from local governments. And conservatives love it.
Brace yourself for a shock: Many of the commenters here have a frame of reference that extends beyond WI.
Just like the post that this thread is about.
“I can’t think of any way to justify it based on democratic principles,” Professor Lee said.
Fen's Law.
Professor Lee doesn't believe in democratic principles. But she knows if she cloaks her attempt to illegally and illicitly centralize power to the Left in the right terms in her lecture, she might get some low-information supporters.
I'm not shocked whatsoever. I would be shocked if Walker & Co. didn't do what they did in their redistricting power grab. It certainly isn't democratic though, [the topic of this post], and it has nothing to do with small and limited government. To the contrary. Everything we've seen in this state is consolidation of central power and taking power away from local governments. And conservatives love it.
Fen's Law again.
garage mahal doesn't believe there is anything wrong with consolidation of power, nor does he believe conservatives love it.
He's just doing the liberal "lecture" thing again.
"garage" is what happens to you when you barely scrape your way out of high school.
Copping a riff from another commenter as dimwitted as you. Strong stuff bra!
The increasingly pathetic garage: "
Copping a riff from another commenter as dimwitted as you. Strong stuff bra!"
LOL
First off moron, the slang term for brother (used by our island pals) is "brah", not bra (which is what women wear, or Costanza's dad from Seinfeld).
As a lily-white landlocked moron, such as yourself, I really don't expect you to know that.
But then, we really don't expect you to know much of anything.
Which is why your are the perfect little lefty foot soldier.
You sure do know how to follow directives.
As to "dimwitted", I would recommend you keep your nose out of the thesaurus as it will only get you in trouble.
Why are district lines movable anyway?
To even out actual population per representative?
Why not just lay down a grid and be done with it?
Because then heavily populated areas wouldn't get enough representatives. Right?
So make movable lines and then allow gerrymandering for good causes (instead of just laying down a smaller grid) because it's so very important for minorities to get walled off in order that they have a majority in at least those small places. Right?
So what happened in Wisconsin? Are the district lines even more ridiculous than they ever were, all wound about and twisted? Or are the district lines less convoluted and it's the results that are unacceptable?
Because complaining that the district lines are manipulated in someone else's favor is not a complaint that the district lines are manipulated. Complaining that the new lines work in Republican's favor is not an argument that district lines should not be drawn with favor in mind. It could well be a complaint that borders drawn to purposely favor Democrats have been fixed and the Democrats can no longer get away with drawing district lines with their own political priorities in mind.
"she and other scholars have tried without success to find a contemporary reason to exempt the Senate from the usual rules of granting citizens an equal voice in their government."
You would think a political science professor would know that the Senate was never intended to grant citizens an equal voice in their government. This is a symptom of the sickness in our "intellectuals."
Which is why your are the perfect little lefty foot soldier..
I suppose it didn't dawn on you that you haven't made one comment relevant to the thread and you're doing exactly what you're accusing me of doing. There is a word for that, but I doubt someone as thick skulled as you could put it together.
garage: "I suppose it didn't dawn on you that you haven't made one comment relevant to the thread and you're doing exactly what you're accusing me of doing."
Drago (3/13/13, 2:13 PM): "This is one of the more laughable attempts to highjack a thread which clearly and irrefutably demonstrates a lefty intellectual's fundamental lack of understanding regarding how our government was constructed and why."
A direct comment on the author of the piece that was under discussion.
Thanks for playing garage.
I suggest a GED refresher course might be in your best interest.
garage: "There is a word for that, but I doubt someone as thick skulled as you could put it together."
LOL
Your continued attempt to make yourself "feel better" about where your life has taken you is to attack others in precisely those areas where you are the weakest.
LOL
Too sad, really.
As for further commentary on this particular posting of Ann's, there really is no need to read anything further than Nathan Alexanders posts at 2:57pm and 2:59pm.
Those sum up the situation quite nicely.
I'm sorry you missed those.
Quelle surprise.
The Senate, and the Constitution as a whole, were set up not to implement democratic principles, but to protect us from the evils of democracy, which James Madison summed up as "a faction which is a majority"—situations where a group that contained over 50% of voters felt entitled to act in its own interest at the expense of the interest of the whole society and the rights of individuals. It's all there in the Federalist. If Professor Lee does not understand that, I can't see her as competent to teach political science; if political scientists generally do not understand it, that casts doubt on the intellectual legitimacy of the entire field.
The NYT never seems to allow commenting on articles like this.
I assume they know they'll get their ass kicked hard.
This Professor Lee seems to be infected with Barbie brains. I bet she can't do math either.
Damn, another thread pointing out liberals wanting to undermine the constitution. Another thread garage tries to hijack to deflect from the obvious statist tendencies in the federal government and liberals in particular. Another thread where garage humiliates himself.
Note to Garage: most of the people who want small government don't want republicans in charge either. We want the federal government to go back to what it was supposed to do which are the enumerated powers in the constitution. We don't like republicans much either. But it is hard for a leftist drone like you to understand a point of view that is so foreign to you. Stop being a drone. Start trying to comprehend what others are saying rather than humming with your fingers in your ears and repeating what your masters gave you.
Presenting the 4th congressional district,Illinois.
Note,no democrats were harmed in the production of this district.
Puédale dice Geraldo Mandero?
These kind of NYT articles/opinion pieces are boring and predictable. When the Senate, or the Filibuster, helps the Republicans stop Democrat legislation NYT writes how terrible these "Undemocratic" institutions are thwarting the "will of the majority". What about one man one vote, they wail.
However, when the Senate, or Filibuster, helps the Democrats stop Republican legislation the New York Times changes 180 degrees and deems them a great thing. A bulwark against the "Tyranny of the Majority"; thank Darwin for the founding fathers.
The New York Times is a hypocritical joke. You're a fool if you take anything they write seriously.
Another thread garage tries to hijack to deflect from the obvious statist tendencies in the federal government and liberals in particular.
No, just pointing out the undemocratic and lawlessness of the GOP in my own state when it comes to equal representation. Nobody cares, worry not.
Garage... Are you complaining because the other guy got to do what Democrats do and you don't like the results?
Not that you've proven that Republicans gerrymandered, only that the result was in Republican favor. If the districts were formerly gerrymandered to, for example, wall off minorities or other ethnic groups in order to manufacture a local majority on the theory that white people can not represent black people and black people can not represent white people... well... boo hoo to you.
Fixing Democrat shenanigans is not a crime.
We are a union of states, not a common body politic.
Addendum to the 17th amendment?
Thus completing the destruction.
As a representative democratic institution, the Senate fails.
As a check on government power, it succeeds.
That's what it's supposed to do.
Shorter Garage: It is bad when republicans do the same things as democrats. Give them all more power.
Low information voting at its best.
I am sure Frances Lee can also not justify Capitalism, Family and many other "institutions" on the basis of democracy. Once the Obama fever is over -- wonder all these hand wringers will be focusing on the tyranny of the majority once a conservative POTUS comes to power.
The House of Representatives is too small. Wikipedia numbers, census 2010. Wyoming- 563,626 50 States- 308,143,815.
Wikipedia says there are 435 congresscritters fixed by law. The law can be changed- the U.S. should have 547 congresscritters.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा