Small States, the Role of the US Senate, the size of the US House and a Parliamentary System
First, let me be clear that I'm not seeking a discussion about the likelihood of major systemic change, though I think having such discussions can plant the seeds that one day take root (and I don't see any harm in considering these matters). Nor am I looking for information about how the framers may have felt about these issues back when the country was a much, much different place. I'm really just seeking 2018-based opinions regarding the questions below.
I'll break this up into 4 parts:
1) Whenever there's talk of getting rid of the electoral college or making Congress (specifically the US Senate) proportional, people express a concern that small states would lose their voice or political power.
How exactly/specifically would small states be harmed? Is it primarily a matter of federal funding? Would it not be better to have laws ensuring fair/proportional federal funding for each state than to have voters in small states having a grossly outsized influence on the makeup of the US Senate and a grossly outsized influence on who becomes POTUS?
- - - - - - - - - -
2) Regarding the role of the US Senate, as opposed to the role of the US House: Why does a state or territory (as opposed to people within that state) need representation? What exactly does it mean to represent a state? And is that really what US Senators do? In theory, Kamala Harris represents the territory or state known as California and not the people of California, but does she? Again, what does that mean exactly? Does she represent the state's natural resources, its bodies of water and mountains, its arbitrary border, its roads and bridges? Even if she does, isn't she representing those things on behalf of the people?
Senators certainly talk about representing people in the same way Representatives do, so I'm not sure they got the memo.
- - - - - - - - - -
3) In another thread, someone posted this link: https://thirty-thousand.org
Every district is supposed to have approximately the same number of people, but - in reality - there's a fair amount of variance. Controlling that variance becomes more difficult as the population grows. If 2 districts within a state that differ in size by 50,000 people were made to be equal in size, that could potentially make a difference in which US House candidate wins each respective seat.
Do you support a substantial increase in the number of districts? If so, why? If not, why not? Even if every district had the same number of people, would it not be best to have fewer people per Representative? Currently, the 435 districts average more than 700,000 people each.
- - - - - - - - - -
4) What do you all think about going to a parliamentary system?
= new reply since forum marked as read
