The Senate...Wyoming vote 67 times more powerful than California's etc

We're too big to be a democratic republic?

Really, what changed is we had a civil war after which the central government took a more primary role as the primary governing body and the sovereignty and powers of the states were subrogated to the feds. So now we think of ourselves as Americans first and Texans second, when in the mid-19th century it'd more often be the opposite. Maybe it was inevitable, civil war or no. But now people, especially liberals, see these vestiges of state sovereignty as anachronistic and vestigial. But I still like state sovereignty. I think the problem of having one populous state dominate over the interests of 12 others is the same as one populous state dominating 49 others. Likewise, one populous state needing to temper what they want because of the interests of 12 or 49 others is also still the same. Scale hasn't changed the dynamic. We're built for the state to be the primary governing unit. If it's not the primary unit and we change the Senate and the EC to reflect that, there are many other changes also to be made to deconstruct this state-based paradigm.

 

Is the state based paradigm even pragmatic in the modern economy where families during their lifetimes now live in multiple states and there is so much interstate commerce?

States should have more power in understanding where public tax revenue should go as states independently would have a better idea what public services and infrustrcture need to be properly funded in their state but states have the independent power to determine statues such as gay marriage or abortion laws just doesn't make sense in the modern age.

 

It might not be pragmatic. But like so many other thorns in our sides, it's written in the Constitution. We basically can't get rid of it until the entire country collapses.

 

That looks familiar.

 

I misspoke. I should not have suggested direct democracy as it was not what I was implying.

 

Eliminating the absurd and illogical Electoral College needs to be the priority if we’re talking about major structural change.

Each state having two senators, thus preventing the tyranny of the majority (aka the central argument for those attempting to defend the EC), actually bolsters the argument for eliminating it. Yet another reason why there’s no real logical basis for choosing our President this way.

 

nicely done

 

The Senate is designed to be slow.

I do think we should gut the filibuster though. That wasn't intended in the Constitution but has been the greatest tool obstructing civil rights and by extension the States Rights conflicts since our nation's inception.

This does mean the nation will swing harder and faster but it does kill the Slow Moving Do Nothing Beast argument that gives one more excuse for non voters to rationalize their apathy.

 

I don;t think it is a good to change this ratio. The UK has a massive number of representatives. I think 800 in the upper and 600 in the lower for 65 million population. Our waste of money in election dollars would increase insanely.