Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Bugsarecool2 t1_j3atiyt wrote

Reply to comment by pdxf in [OC] Relative Share of Representation in the US Congress Compared to Lowest Represented State Leaves Montana with 80% More Representation in the House. by SexyDoorDasherDude

This was the only way the larger states could convince the smaller states to join in the union. One would not want to live in Nevada and have every vote on federal level be decided by Florida. I understand a pure democracy is simple and seems fair but we have a representative democracy with some complexities like this and it is by design.

3

pdxf t1_j3cxaut wrote

I don't question that it's by design, but I can question if there are better designs available -- designs that optimize for a greater overall level of happiness for the citizens of a society. It seems suspect from the get-go -- if that's the only way the larger states could convince the smaller states to join, perhaps that's red flag on the overall premise.

If you could actually design a system from the ground-up, would you actually give some people a larger voice based purely on the number of people who live around them? Seems less than ideal.

0

Yacobeam t1_j3dcr2a wrote

The needs of Texas are different than the need of Vermont. You should not disregard the needs of Vermont just because Texas is larger.

1

pdxf t1_j3dgi08 wrote

Sure, I agree completely. But it doesn't necessarily follow that the needs of the citizens of a state are disregarded by giving everyone's voice the same weight.

I get what you're saying, but that's the result of how our government is set up, and not inherently a result of giving everyone an equal vote.

It could of course easily be argued that currently the needs of the citizens of the larger states are being disregarded at the preference for the smaller states).

** Edited for clarity

1