• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    1
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    The idea of larger and smaller states is effectively dead. We’re a centralized country and the only thing going on right now is the states that have made life too shitty for people to stay are holding the rest of the country hostage.

    It was a great idea in 1792. But not in 1992.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      2
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      I don’t think that’s true at all. I’m not one of those, “states rights,” guys that believes that every state should decide who gets basic human rights, but I do think there are tons of ways larger states could use their outsized power against smaller states. The one that comes to mind is nuclear waste storage, which was a huge fight in the 80s that required a lot of negotiation. Imagine if New York, Texas, California, Pennsylvania, and Florida just got together with and decided Montana just had to manage it all.

      Also, considering the western states have a much higher percentage of federal land than eastern states, their communities are much more likely to get screwed by the federal government. If I lived in Utah, where the vast majority of the land in my state is under federal control, I would certainly want more than 3 out of 435 Representatives in the federal government.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        19 months ago

        You’re forgetting that under this proposal we balance the House of Representatives with a national proportional representation legislature. And we can certainly uncap the house of representatives. So the “small” states can easily form a caucus in either chamber.

        That said. Nuclear storage is actually a great issue to bring up. We’re going to need to store it somewhere and that place needs very specific things. Using the Senate as a NIMBY method so hard it doesn’t get stored anywhere is the perfect example of the dysfunction inherent in the Senate.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          2
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          I mean, that’s not really how I’d describe the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, and you’re not really addressing how this body would lessen the impact of NIMBYism. It seems like, if anything, it would be easier for largest states to caucus together and dictate what they don’t want in their backyards. You’re also not addressing why it’s fair for states who already control less than 50% of the land within their borders to have even less influence over those lands. It’s certainly an interesting proposal, but I still think you’re throwing the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to the Senate’s check on high density states.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            1
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            That’s because the baby is dead. Trying to protect the empty states is a noble idea. But they’ve engaged in such bad faith we cannot continue to allow it. Instead 3/4 of Americans are forced to bow down to their demands. The majority of which have nothing to do with their land. Guns, healthcare, work safety, Unions, education, and the bedroom are all flipped on their head because of a minority.

            You’re so worried about a tyranny of the majority, you’re letting a tyranny of the minority happen.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              29 months ago

              Well, I think we’re at the point where we have to agree to disagree, but I appreciate you sharing your thoughts. I’d never heard of some of the ideas you’d brought up before, it certainly given me some new things to look into.