Orathaic - we are not a democracy as has been pointed out. It isn't one voice one vote on anything except the president and even that is iffy. When our nation was founded, only landowners (not even sharecroppers) had a vote. And considering that Alaska has two senate seats, the same as New York or California, I would say Alaska's citizens get a disproportinately large voice in the Senate. alaska's population is less than 800,000. By comparison, the greater Cincinnati metropiltan area has over 2.1 million people and we are only 27th on the list of recognized metropolitan regions in the US. In fact, the top 70 metropolitan regions in the US as of 2010 are each bigger than the entire state of Alaska. So they have a senate seat per 400,000 people and California has one per 18 million people. Wyoming, the smallest state, even smaller than DC by population, has a senator for every 285,000 people. To give California the same voice would require CA to have roughly 120 Senators in Congress.

And you may say "well that's why we have the house of representatives" and it is better but still off. CA has 53 reps and WY 1. Still not the 60 to 1 population difference.

No, you need to stop thinking the US is a democracy and each person has an equal vote because we aren't and we don't and we were never intended to be. I'm sure these fine points are glossed over in Ireland's educational system with regards to world history (hell, unless you take some more advanced classes in the states, US history glosses over these inconvenient facts), but they are facts nonetheless.

So why does each state only have two Senators regardless of population?

Tell us about that Electoral College thing? What's up with that?

The idea of protecting states rights was that each state should have an equal voice, so the Senate was formed with all states having equal representation preventing things like California running roughshod over Wyoming. And originally, the House was intended to protect personal rights and truly have equal representation for all the people (I think the original was to be a Representative per 20,000 or something like that with a provision for increasing as needed).

As far as the electoral college, there was a time before mas communication when local votes were cast and a representative sent to cast a vote for that group, with the option to change that vote should something have come up enroute (like it was discovered the candidate had withdrawn or had commited some crime and wa sno longer eligible) so the College was created and the members given leeway to vote their conscience and the conscience of the people they represented if they felt situation had changed.

That is only the upper house (and what the advantage of a bicameral legislature is beyond me) In the house of representatives where alaska gets one seat and california gets 57...

Your point is taken, what once was only allowed for landowners is now in the hands of multi-billion dollar corporations. The amount of power is the same, who it is spread to has changed.

The question is what SHOULD be.

And no, the finer points are not lost on me (though the irish education system is not how i found out). I'm aware of the comparison between proportional representation and direct elections in a first past the post type, and also how the US differs by state (Louisiana is unique among U.S. states in using a system for its state and local elections similar to that of modern France. All candidates, regardless of party affiliation, ran in a nonpartisan blanket primary (or "jungle primary") on Election Day. -wiki)

This is closer to proportional representation... And something which improves a two-party system by allowing multiple members of the same party to compete with each other...

I'm aware that in the EU (where we have similar voting rules) Luxembourg had 1 vote for many year, but it made no difference because 1 vote could never break any possible combination of other countries... ei it would NEVER matter what way Luxembourg voted because without their vote the decision would be the same... That's like the question of Alaska's 1 seat in congress never making a difference.

My point is what democracy SHOULD be; freedom and liberty and guns; what does it mean to be American if corporations hold 80% of the power.

A Corporate democracy?

Would it not be cheaper for the corporations to sit directly on committees and have their number of votes in the upper/lower house be dependant on the amount of tax they pay (at least encouraging them to report all their profits and not avoid tax) Then you can have a more transparent corporate democracy, with a second house of the people.

I mean, the corporations would save money on lobbying, so they'd be more efficient...

'As far as the electoral college, there was a time before mas communication when local votes were cast and a representative sent to cast a vote for that group, with the option to change that vote should something have come up enroute'

So upon stating this i presume you believe some reform is, if not necessary, at least timely.

@Ora - Yes, I do. In the current information age, electing the President should be one voice, one vote. And representatives in the house should be districted across state lines especially as metropolitan regions cross state lines. So, for instance, instead of northern Kentucky having one or two members in the house and southeast Indiana having one, all of greater Cinci would have the districts redrawn and those districts may cross state and county lines. They would be as equal in size as possible so that representative would represent that region and not be beholden to the state capital in some way because they are the "Representative from Ohio" or some bullshit. Instead they would be "The Representative from Grreater Cincinnati" and those kinds of regions aren't usually even beholden to the mayor of the core city within them as they cross municipalites and townships and counties that way. They are truly a regional/district representative for the people of that district in that region.

@ Draugnar..then are you also in favor of disbanding the Senate?

Why even have district boundaries? Elect house members based on political lines. This would give every party a chance a getting their own representative. Base house seat assignment on the percentages each party gets in the general election.

No, I'm not in favor of disbanding the Senate. I think States rights need to be protected and the Senate is the only place where that happens. The House is for the People and the Senate is for the States. The Executive branch is for the Federal government and SCOTUS is for the protection of all rights and the unity in accord with the Constitution. I really think all 3 branches are needed and both houses of the Legislative serve their purpose. Without the Senate, the people of Alaska or Wyoming or even DC itself would have litte to no voice when compared to the regions like SanFrancisco.

And no, doing away with districts would be bad. The people in a region need someone to represent their region. so districts are important. I just think having districts be cut up by state is stupid as places like Chicago, St Louis and Cincinnati may technically be in their respective states, but their metro regions cross state lines.

So who would determine districting?

I didn't say I had all the details worked out. :-) But presumably just as the states currently do it with a bipartisan commitee, there would be regional commitees. But I don't know exactly how.

Hey, I'm just a software developer/geek/code head. I'm not supposed to know everything.

But of you do away with districts you also take away incentive to change votes based on government contracts in a given district (this kind of corruption exists in Ireland to some degree)

You equally take away responcibility for things which go wrong at a district level.

It is not blamed on a partiular politician from the district... Whereas if she votes against a measure knowing it will go through anyway the district can believe they are powerless and become disenfranchised, while the politician 'representing' the district remains popular...

I do agree that national government (of the people) should be elected at a national level (by the people)

While there may be a need to keep state representatives in place...

There is no "may be" about the need to keep state representation in place. Our country is a collective government of many smaller governments, much like the USSR of old, and each of those states should have a voice. Take away state level representation and you disenfranchise the people of a state. It would be like the EU saying there would be no more representation for each country, but a populace only vote of all representatives from across all countries. then the smaller countries like Malta or Luxemburg would be disenfranchised by the powerhousexs like Germany, France, and Italy.

The unfortunate reality is that lobbyists have enormous control in Washington. Luckily, for the moment, Google et al interests align with users. So I'm very happy to hear about this new lobbying effort. But let's not forget who they're really looking out for.

No, i think you'll find that for the moment Google Et al's interests merely find themselves opposed to the interests of the entertainment industry lobbiests.

And if these corporations are to have continued success they will be forced to push their own agenda. Which may please their current customers... but only as an aside.

They are interested in their means of exploiting personal information of their users (advertising) while the entertainment industry is still interested in monopolizing creative content (and perhaps promoting it) - a monopoly which the massive rise in internet use has threatened.

They don't care about a small time public radio station in seattle, but if that could become a national or even international hit outside of their control the entire industry will become decentralized. Control returning to the content creators, aswell as monetary reward...

It is fortunate, at the moment that google et al, have their own business model to worry about. Even if our privacy is invaded in the process. (you don't have to blindly give your information away to facebook, google, and twitter, but you do... well i do at least...)

Meanwhile, back to the not topic: the EU is less like a super-state (as the USSR and USA are) it is more like a super-national entity. A collection of states, whereas there is actually some sense of national pride and patriotism in the US for the country as a whole...

Very different i think; while the USSR was always a Russian empire by another name. Being the largest most populous state in the Union, it would not surprise me if many people thought that the R stood for Russia.

In that case there was national pride for Russians in Russia. Even if Ukraine also had some... most all of the eastern block countries cared more about their own national sovereignty than the Socialist internationalism that the USSR attempted to represent.

If there had been a true international movement then surely the USSR would have negotiated a merger with the PRC - but this would have eroded the power of Russia with the massively populous China, and turned both empires into mere vassals to a larger international movement...

The EU is the closest thing we have to an international block made up of national units which each retain their national pride yet collaborate effectively - with perhaps the one exception of the Eurozone's continuing crisis.

So yes, in the EU's case, the Union barely even pretends to be democratic at this level. And i for one approve of this situation.

In place of a American style president, we have a 27 person commision, and it is only empowered to regulate specific issues which are delegated to it. (defence being on thing which the nations have refused to collectivise, although outside of the EU there is a North Atlantic Treaty organisation for mutual defence... as some American forum members may well be aware...)

@Draug, finally, re-arranging the congressional districts to better represent the people, and keeping the senate as a representative of the states is fine and good. (though i would still suggest a system which allows more variety in candidates, promoting independants and extreme left/right candidates without compromising the ability of either party to actually win a given seat)

But What of the corporate lobbying? Could their influence be normalized by banning corporate donations and lobbying while incorporating a third house representing their interests more directly (and perhaps transparently)??

Don't underestimate the identities of "States" in the USA.

Really? I think Texas would like to think it can secede from the Union, but apart from that while each has it's own local identity and affiliations I believe they are all far more committed to the Union (and if the civil war is anything to go by, they have no choice) than say the United Kingdom is to the European Union...

Just to compare... I'd guess that within the UK Scotland and Wales are pretty firmly entrenched, as is Quebec within Canada, but i doubt any state within the US has an active movement to secede or gain any further political independence.

So, do i underestimate?

Everybody is moving to Texas. We can't afford to let them go. Austin picked up how many seats in Congress in the last census, 4 or 5?