Does the US need to be fundamentally transformed?

[Phillip V]

The idea of both those institutions is to prevent large, populous states from running roughshod over smaller, less populous states (i.e., California doesn't want to store nuclear waste on it's soil, so we'll just use our massive voting power to put it all in Idaho). 

But as it stands now over two centuries of development, the Senate is heavily weighed towards states with heavy rural populations.  Kansas or Wyoming has as much swag as New York or New Jersey.  A far cry from the population distribution of 1787.

Here are population estimates used in 1787: http://www.dcte.udel.edu/hlp/resources/newnation/pdfs/PopEstim.pdf

[Neil]

The idea of both those institutions is to prevent large, populous states from running roughshod over smaller, less populous states (i.e., California doesn't want to store nuclear waste on it's soil, so we'll just use our massive voting power to put it all in Idaho). 

But as it stands now over two centuries of development, the Senate is heavily weighed towards states with heavy rural populations.  Kansas or Wyoming has as much swag as New York or New Jersey.  A far cry from the population distribution of 1787.

There were still plenty of states with tiny populations back then.  The largest 50% of the states had 75% of the population.  The Senate is working as designed, except perhaps with respect to the fillibuster.

[CountDeMoney]

Here are population estimates used in 1787: http://www.dcte.udel.edu/hlp/resources/newnation/pdfs/PopEstim.pdf

lol, 158 slaves in New Hampshire.  Poor bastards.

[CountDeMoney]

There were still plenty of states with tiny populations back then.  The largest 50% of the states had 75% of the population.  The Senate is working as designed, except perhaps with respect to the fillibuster.

For 13 states, it worked.  For 50 states, not so much.

[Ed Anger]

Here are population estimates used in 1787: http://www.dcte.udel.edu/hlp/resources/newnation/pdfs/PopEstim.pdf

lol, 158 slaves in New Hampshire.  Poor bastards.

948 in RI. All Timmays.

MASSA! THEY BE A NEW INVENTION! BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH

[Neil]

There were still plenty of states with tiny populations back then.  The largest 50% of the states had 75% of the population.  The Senate is working as designed, except perhaps with respect to the fillibuster.

For 13 states, it worked.  For 50 states, not so much.

I suppose I could see that, but only becuase that's more individual Senators to be bribed.  I doubt your treasonous founders had that in mind when they were setting it up though.  At any rate, the solution would be to go to 1 senator per state.

[garbon]

The idea of both those institutions is to prevent large, populous states from running roughshod over smaller, less populous states (i.e., California doesn't want to store nuclear waste on it's soil, so we'll just use our massive voting power to put it all in Idaho). 

Would that actually happen?  Anyway the system is a little odd because it let's you say that the voices of citizens in Idaho should have a great deal more power than those in California in that particular arena.

[Neil]

The idea of both those institutions is to prevent large, populous states from running roughshod over smaller, less populous states (i.e., California doesn't want to store nuclear waste on it's soil, so we'll just use our massive voting power to put it all in Idaho). 

Would that actually happen?  Anyway the system is a little odd because it let's you say that the voices of citizens in Idaho should have a great deal more power than those in California in that particular arena.

Except it's not odd, because that's the entire point of the Senate.  The states are supposed to stand equal in the Senate, while the people stand equal in the House.

[Martinus]

The idea of both those institutions is to prevent large, populous states from running roughshod over smaller, less populous states (i.e., California doesn't want to store nuclear waste on it's soil, so we'll just use our massive voting power to put it all in Idaho). 

Would that actually happen?  Anyway the system is a little odd because it let's you say that the voices of citizens in Idaho should have a great deal more power than those in California in that particular arena.

Except it's not odd, because that's the entire point of the Senate.  The states are supposed to stand equal in the Senate, while the people stand equal in the House.

I think the point is that after over 200 years of the union, perhaps it's about time to get rid of the federalism.

[Neil]

I think the point is that after over 200 years of the union, perhaps it's about time to get rid of the federalism.

Then that's a stupid point, as different states and regions still have different interests.  The entire point of a Senate is to balance those interests, and that's something that the House is incapable of doing, and the executive won't.

For a country as large and as varied as the US, federalism is the only real option.

[Darth Wagtaros]

Yes, into Voltron.

Vehicle or lion though?

[OttoVonBismarck]

Part of the issue with the U.S., is a few minor changes (not even as far reaching as mine) would probably improve things like legislative gridlock--but there is such a massive resistance in this country to any sort of altering of the actual framework of government that it's a total non-starter. I wouldn't want to adopt France's "new constitution every time the sun rises" policy since the 18th century, but there is a legitimate problem when you become so entrenched in a 223 year old document that you're totally unwilling to even think of altering any of the core parts of it.

[Tonitrus]

That's what amendments are for.

[garbon]

Except it's not odd, because that's the entire point of the Senate.  The states are supposed to stand equal in the Senate, while the people stand equal in the House.

Which strikes me as a bit silly given that we've states whose total population would be about the size of a city in most other states.  Irresponsible granting of statehood.

[Phillip V]

Except it's not odd, because that's the entire point of the Senate.  The states are supposed to stand equal in the Senate, while the people stand equal in the House.

Which strikes me as a bit silly given that we've states whose total population would be about the size of a city in most other states.  Irresponsible granting of statehood.

What should the state admission requirements have been?