Hacker News Reader

Comment by dane-pgp | Hacker News Reader

> Why would lower-population states reduce their own representation power?

That is why the supporters of this amendment (and similar approaches like the NPVIC) should be prepared to settle for a compromise which preserves the disproportionate power of the lower-population states.

In fact, such a compromise was proposed in 1950, with the bipartisan Lodge-Gossett Amendment[0]. The idea behind it was that the electors in each state would have to vote proportionally to the popular vote within that state while not changing the number of electors granted to each state.

Because of the small number of electors in some states, rounding issues can be quite significant in some situations, and I believe the proposal required fractional electoral voters, representing a tenth of a percent of the state popular vote.

[0] https://www.fairvote.org/past_attempts_at_reform

View on HN

In 1979 it got close without compromise.

I'm quite against compromise here. The productive parts of the country need to unlearn helplessness and get tough of we can't get a real democracy.

DC Statehood can help with the senate votes despite being a small state too.

I agree that it's possible to compromise too much, but it's not 1979 any more, and I don't think you should be encouraging any side to "get tough" and unilaterally rewrite the Constitution. Also, you're going to need to add a lot more new states than just DC to get a two-thirds majority in the senate.

I don't have much attachment to the union. If a bunch of states want to secede or, more realistically, set up alternative currencies so they can have some monetary and fiscal sovereignty, that's fine with me.

The ironic thing is the places who keep talking about seceding being the answer are the places that can’t make it on their own: the rural areas that are dependent on federal funding to survive! Look up the State Of Jefferson for a laugh.

I say for fun let’s let rural America secede into its own country and see which country “cries uncle” first. I know who I bet on.

> The productive parts of the country need to unlearn helplessness

  Thats so reductive. the "productive" parts of the country are completely dependent on the "unproductive" ones for anything that isnt software or finance.

The unproductive parts of the country (let’s not use euphemisms: call them Red States) are in general net recipients of funding from the federal government and the Blue States are net providers. The hated “coastal elites” are literally propping up flyover country. Who is dependent on who?

Yes, but as a counterpoint that was due to offshoring of the domestic manufacturing base which was due to the setup of the international monetary system in 1971/1974 as well as a whole slew of policy decisions which made labor-intensive manufacturing businesses less profitable as a whole in the U.S. because of the necessity of running fiscal deficits and a strong dollar; so the red states were basically sacrificed in the grand scheme of things, not by their own volition.

You're talking about a few states up near the great lakes. And for the record, I'm not sure I'm counting those as the unproductive parts.

There are plenty of other red states which were never industrial. Your Wyomings and, Missisippis, etc.

It's reductive but true. Large parts of the country are tax burdens when we look at the big numbers. For example, California and Oregon make a profit for the USA, while Mississippi and Alabama are more expensive to operate than they return in tax revenue.

This pattern also emerges on a county-by-county level within states. For example, Oregon and Washington are bisected by the Cascades, and the eastern counties are much poorer than the western counties and depend on the profits made in the west.

This uneven burden is an important ingredient in explaining why it's not just rural folks resenting city folks, but also city folks resenting rural folks. It is not fun to know that one's tax dollars are disproportionately funding welfare for folks who politically desire to see one's way of life burnt down because it's immoral or wasteful or simply not as sexist and racist as in the past.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com