Hacker News Reader

But don't you end up with tyranny of the minority? Small states, that fit a very niche demographic, end up being pivotal in decisions that affect the lives of millions of Americans, often due to the intense lobbying that is targeted at these senators.

What you call a 'tyranny of the minority' is in fact an equal representation of classes... that the rural proletariat is represented in government rather than yielding all decisions to the urban bourgeoisie. The American form of government was designed specifically to ensure a balance of interests rather than allowing one class to run roughshod over the other. It's a design feature, and a good one at that, no matter how much it distresses imperialists who'd prefer to simply dictate the course of affairs to the working class.

"What you call a 'tyranny of the minority' is in fact an equal representation of classes..."

Arbitrary geographical lines don't define classes. Every state has both rural and urban segments. Is the "rural proletariat" of California better represented than the "urban bourgeoise" of Rhode Island in this system? It's an 18th century compromise where the justifications where invented after the fact. This seems to be true for a lot of things about the founding of the United States. Lots of mythology around the motives of the founding fathers and their supposedly great designs that don't really hold up to any scrutiny.

> Arbitrary geographical lines don't define classes.

No, but urbanization does, and some states are more suitable to dense settlement than others.

> Lots of mythology around the motives of the founding fathers and their supposedly great designs that don't really hold up to any scrutiny.

Likewise the jabs aimed at the founding fathers by people who have an obvious axe to grind (namely an imperialist one). You'll forgive me if I prefer not to reject constitutionalism because it conflicts with someone's preferred method of exploitation.

It’s not. Rural voters work the same types of jobs that their urban counterparts do. Rural doesn’t mean agriculture because that is a tiny fraction of the workforce. Poor rural voters work the same jobs that poor urban voters do (largely service or manufacturing).

The urban “bourgeoisie” isn’t big enough to dictate anything as a voting bloc, but the “equal representation of classes” angle is a great way to justify suppressing urban political representation.

> Rural voters work the same types of jobs that their urban counterparts do.

Really? I don't know many people working in the tech industry or high finance that live in suburbia or out in the country... DO YOU?

This is just an excuse to disenfranchise people who refuse to vote your way, and it's disgusting.

Lol, tech and finance is not the majority of workers anywhere, even in San Francisco or New York.

In rural and urban areas, the split between service and manufacturing is pretty similar. Obviously, agriculture makes a bigger contribution but not by much.

What are you talking about suburbia? The suburbs of every major city are full of white collar workers in high finance, or tech. Even in New York, people commute from Westchester or Greenwich to their finance jobs in Manhattan. Most of the tech industry in Silicon Valley is literally in the suburbs. What a weird thing to say.

Which is why states have the ability to pass most legislation at the state level, such as minimum wage or labor laws.

unfortunately such situations often degenerate into a tyranny of the minority, the UK house of lords as a mechanism for the aristocracy to keep holding power with a veneer of democracy is a good example, which is why it has steadily lost political legitimacy through time.

I don't think there is good evidence that the senate has in fact made the USA stronger as a nation, the only thing I have ever seen on the topic is how it theoretically might be the case, but history has shown it to long be a blocker of reforms that end up happening anyways, with a great deal more political bullshit than necessary.

I'd argue Joe Manchin (Democratic Senator of West Virginia) has single-handedly changed an eye-watering $3.5 trillion dollar spending bill into what appears to be a slightly less eye-watering $1.5 trillion package. The lower number (and thus lower taxes) makes it much more acceptable to a broader fraction of US society. Assuming the bill passes, it's an example of compromise working (but within negotiations of a single party).

The key thing is if one party wants to be able to pass the larger number without that pivotal vote, they need to appeal to a greater fraction of society and win more seats so they don't require that particular vote.

Well, that first of all depends on whetehr the budget cut is a good thing for the US and the world. From what I understand, this package is about fighting the climate change and investing into infrastructure and economy. Yes, government spending always bears the risk of taxes, but the idea behind government spending is to get neccessary things done. As an outsider, it is not obvious to me, that this resistance was a good thing. Neither for the US nor the world, as we are facing an existential crisis.

Also, as the sums are spent over many years, the numbers appear higher than they might be. Like people calculating how much money it costs to replace every single car in a country with an electric car. That numer is eye-watering too. What often isn't told, is that this amount of money is spent on new cars in the same time frame anyway. Choosing an electric instead of a combustion engine car the next time you buy a new car has actually little extra cost.

And you should sum up just the military budget in the same time frame :)

> Compared to the House of Representatives which has 4 year terms, and half up for reelection every 2 years.

BTW, terms for Representatives are two years; the entire House stands for election every even-numbered year.