Hacker News Reader

Comment by unlinked_dll | Hacker News Reader

Governor Newsom refers to California as a "nation state" about once a week, in case the author was wondering. He's used that language quite often.

I'm totally ok with it, so long as the Federal government remains impotent and balks at California's efforts to manage itself, while simultaneously being run by the party of "states rights." Purely in spite of the lack of leadership and outright derision for our needs as a state, regardless of being home to over a tenth of the population and being our breadbasket and technological power house.

I know not all Californians agree on everything, but I think we can all come together and recognize that we do have to look out for our state as if it was an independent nation these days. Because the Feds aren't going to help us when we need it, just tax us and tell us we can't have proportional representation.

View on HN

California has proportional representation in the House of Representatives.

California used to have proportional and geographic representation internally in a bicameral state legislature. Then came the Supreme Court's one man one vote ruling. Now southern California has pure proportional representation and gets all the fresh water it demands from northern California, environmental concerns be damned.

Be careful what you wish for.

this isn't true. Since the house has been capped, it hasn't grown or hasn't been redistributed based on population changes. A person in Wymoing has more representation than a person in California.

No, they're right. We have 53/435 (12.18%) of the House, which is roughly equal to our proportion of the total population (40mm/330mm, 12.12%, numbers will change with the census).

The "at least one" rep has a bigger impact on some of the medium/small size states. My point was more on the senate/electoral college.

jackfoxy's second paragraph was referring to the California House, not the US House. You're disagreeing with something he didn't say.

I don't agree with that categorization of water issues in CA, but that's off topic.

And having proportional seating in the House isn't particularly meaningful, when it takes both the Senate and the Presidency to drive policy. Dirt doesn't vote, and frankly I don't see any argument for less than proportional representation that isn't predicated on the notion that some people are more equal than others. Any weighting of the voices can be done in the debate forum, but at the ballot box the only fair way to distribute power is equally. That goes for all levels of our representative democracy.

No system is perfect, it's just about making one that's more perfect. And I would strongly argue that our bicameral government designed by slave owners 250 years ago has both been continuously eroded (they never planned for the Executive and Congress to be in cahoots!), and could be drastically improved by expanding on the 9th/10th amendments and being reformed into a unicameral legislature and abolishing the electoral college.

> frankly I don't see any argument for less than proportional representation that isn't predicated on the notion that some people are more equal than others

Consider two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. That's why the Senate exists.

Good thing we're not sheep or wolves. That's why I alluded to Orwell. The pigs from Animal Farm are a better metaphor.

The senate doesn't exist to protect the will of sheep at the hands of wolves. It exists because 250 years ago, the edit: New Jersey delegation wasn't willing to relinquish its equal power at the Constitutional Convention to a state like Virginia. Its never been about sheep and wolves, it's been about the political power of a political class that sought to concentrate as much of it as possible for themselves at the expense of others.

If you want a better way to look at it, it's a dozen wolves convincing a dozen sheep that the wolves should have twice the voting power on dinner because they have a bigger grazing area.

> concentrate as much of it as possible for themselves at the expense of others

I.e. sheep and wolves.

How does the senate stop the strong from trampling the weak? Who are the strong and who are the weak? Are African Americans weak? Are poor people weak? How do the delineations of state lines interact or align with boundaries of power?

If there's a proposal that Nevada should be the nuclear dump site of the nation, how would the structure of the house or senate stop that kind of thing? What if Nevada is just a trading item between two powerful parties? What does the constitution even say about this?

Now we are seeing a situation where California flexes its economic capacity during an international emergency. What are other states supposed to do in light of that? It's either a central force steps in to stop logistical contest based on morally and strategically questionable context (which state has more money), or...? What about the structure of congress speaks to this?

What Gavin Newsom is implying here, IMO, is that there's responsibility (and thus power) being left on the table. Due to this vacuum, even Jeff Bezos or Jack Ma could step in. What about the structure of congress speaks to this?

> Who are the strong and who are the weak?

The states with more population have more votes in the House, meaning they are the strong. The Senate stops Florida and California from eating Rhode Island for dinner.

It's not more complicated than that.

> If there's a proposal that Nevada should be the nuclear dump site of the nation, how would the structure of the house or senate stop that kind of thing? What if Nevada is just a trading item between two powerful parties? What does the constitution even say about this?

> What Gavin Newsom is implying here, IMO, is that there's responsibility (and thus power) being left on the table. Due to this vacuum, even Jeff Bezos or Jack Ma could step in. What about the structure of congress speaks to this?

And how do the delineations of American states align to the delineations of the most salient lines of power in the US, such as money? How does it provide balance?

> how would the structure of the house or senate stop that kind of thing?

All states have equal power in the Senate regardless of their population size.

I just talked about a scenario where the negotiation is between two parties and the proposal is a national site for nuclear waste in Nevada. And that's not a very nationally energizing issue, so that wouldn't even be a very interesting priority to be traded on.

I then talked about a scenario where during an international emergency its money that talks, even Jack Ma's money. What does having equal senate votes matter here?

We seem to be safeguarding some old boundary that fails to negotiate with the real lines of power. Party and Money.

The Senate exists to preserve slavery and other interests of the colonial aristocracy. This is basic history.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas%E2%80%93Nebraska_Act

California's our breadbasket? Um, no. Salad bowl, perhaps, but that's not the same thing...

I wish there was a better method for deducting state taxes from federal, especially with Trumps repeated "States should handle this problem on their own" stance when 85% of my taxes are going to federal govt.

If 85% of your taxes are going to the federal government, you don't live in California.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com