Mike’s posterous

Garry Tan, co-founder of Posterous, lamented this evening that his rights were being deminished because states have equal representation in the Senate. He thinks it's unfair and that the 200+ year old constition that created the system may lack relevance today.

I thought it would be fun to carry the debate over to Posterous. I like Garry and would have enjoyed being in the bar having this back and forth over a beer but this will have to do.

First, the reason why states have equal representation in the Senate:

1. The United States is a union of States, not citizens, each of which has its own constitution and elected goverment. When you were granted admission into the union you were given two seats at the table. BTW: Garry's point about things that were set down in the olden days no longer being applicable might be true of California having so much political power. We admitted the state into the union back in 1850, maybe we should rethink that proposition and split it into a bunch of smaller states. Why not? I mean, my state Massachusetts was at the table to start this whole deal. I let you in the club and now you want to talk smack about your rights? How about you focus on running your state before you start running your mouth?
2. As Garry mentioned, to protect minority rights. Avoid heavily populated states from forcing less populated states to abide by their will.
3. The Senate ratifies or rejects treaties. Kind of a big deal for a state to have the power to bind other states who may have fewer people but just as much if not more at stake in the outcome.

And then there's the other stuff:

1. So, you have a state that occupies more land mass, has an artificially inflated population due to lax imigration, and a federally subsidized mass irrigation project that made once unihabitable land (Southern CA) livable. What does that mean? If people in Arkansas start breeding like crazy over the next 20 yrs are you going to give up one of your Senate seats to them?
2. Is population the only criteria worthy of consideration? What about intellectual contribution? New England has 4 Ivy League schools and MIT to boot but our states are small. Should this resource be underrepresent just because another state has figured out how to have more people within its borders? What about states with abundant natural resources? Should the people who live there be at the mercy of CA?
3. Doesn't an equal distrution of Senate seats offer a check and balance within the legistlative branch? Congressional terms only last 2 years. Any jackass can get elected to Congress. Have you seen some of the meatheads in the House?

Loading mentions Retweet