Both of these comments show a pretty glaring ignorance of how the government worked prior to 17A, when Senators weren't elected by popular vote. Prior to that they were "elected" by state legislatures.
Why is that important? Put a little more crudely, and with a lot of hand-waving generalization, Senators aren't supposed to represent people in a district, they're supposed to represent the interests of their state as a whole. They're not just "Representatives but Bigger," they're something else entirely.
So the fact that "but disproportionate representation!!1" is even an argument belies the lack of understanding about why the system was set up that way in the first place. It has nothing to do with rural or urban but that's a great "I don't like Republicans" dog whistle. The needs of Wyoming are different than the needs of Kansas, which are different than the needs of Upstate NY (even considered in isolation from NYC) and a representative body concerned primarily with the interests of a state protects those needs better than one Senator covering several states would be able to.
> the fact that "but disproportionate representation!!1" is even an argument belies the lack of understanding about why the system was set up that way in the first place.
Your reply belies a lack of bothering to read before making a hostile rant.
I literally just said the situation involves "a join-up bribe from 237 years ago", and I don't see how any minor-amendment-citer such as yourself could have missed the meaning, namely: Smaller states were granted disproportionate influence on federal policy, via the Senate, as an inducement to get their state-legislatures to ratify the federal constitution.
That decision involved sacrificing democratic principles and ethics in favor of reaching a deal. The same tradeoff occurred with the infamous "3/5ths compromise." One of those two thankfully became moot, and it's high time we got around to fixing the other.
_________
> a representative body concerned primarily with the interests of a state
You have provided absolutely nothing to justify giving some states disproportionate influence on federal policy which affects all states.
At best, you've provided an argument for reverting the 17th Amendment and changing how senators are chosen. That is orthogonal to how many senators a State has.
_________
> > Anyone who says it's "to protect the rural areas" or whatever is talking nonsense.
> that's a great "I don't like Republicans" dog whistle.
LOL, this is one of those times when the indignant response is an indirect admission. Yes, it is nonsense, and yes, you disproportionately see it from Republicans.
Kind of like when a context-free "Nazis=Bad" sign leads someone to complain that the sign is hostile to their party.
_________
> pretty glaring ignorance of how the government worked prior to 17A
A pedantic non-sequitur:
1. How senators are chosen is orthogonal to how many exist.
2. Only tangentially related to "gerrymandering" if you mean that the state legislators' boundaries were gerrymandered. If anything, 17A change made gerrymandering less relevant.
> Smaller states were granted disproportionate influence on federal policy
This shows you're thinking about population which is irrelevant. Wyoming is a state and California is a state and as states they have equal weight in how their federal government is run. There are 50 equal states, regardless of how their populations differ.
That was literally the only point I was making, was that decrying disproportionate representation based on a population:Senator ratio has nothing to do with how the Senate operates. California gets the same number of Senators as Wyoming because each state gets two Senators.
Jeez, what does a normative statement need to do to get a drink around here!?
> you're thinking about population which is irrelevant. [...] There are 50 equal states, regardless of how their populations differ.
Imagine it's 1915 and you're campaigning for women's rights to vote, and and somebody says: "You're thinking about population which is irrelevant. Women can't vote, regardless of how many there are."
I think you'd be pretty frustrated at such an obtuse dismissal.
Why is that important? Put a little more crudely, and with a lot of hand-waving generalization, Senators aren't supposed to represent people in a district, they're supposed to represent the interests of their state as a whole. They're not just "Representatives but Bigger," they're something else entirely.
So the fact that "but disproportionate representation!!1" is even an argument belies the lack of understanding about why the system was set up that way in the first place. It has nothing to do with rural or urban but that's a great "I don't like Republicans" dog whistle. The needs of Wyoming are different than the needs of Kansas, which are different than the needs of Upstate NY (even considered in isolation from NYC) and a representative body concerned primarily with the interests of a state protects those needs better than one Senator covering several states would be able to.