Saturday, December 22, 2007

Small states

Another responder writes that I " gave short shrift, if any, to the reasons for the elements of the "hard-wired" constitution you find unacceptable. The Electoral College, in addition to the Senate, was set up to balance the densely-populated states against the sparse-populated ones, and I doubt that split has changed. You seem to want a democracy, which was precisely what could not be accepted by all the people putting the constitution together."

First, as an historical matter, the writer is absolutely correct: The Constitution never would have been written and then ratified in 1787 had the Connecticut Compromise not given the small states disproportionate power in the Senate. But the same can be said about compromises with slaveowners. These were both necessary given the political circumstances of the moment. Delaware was prepared to walk out, with some other small states--Rhode Island never even bothered to show up in Philadelphia--and torpedo th eConvention. Madison in fact was despondent about the Connecticut Compromise and even gave brief thought to leaving the Convention, but he (correctly) decided that achieving even a flawed Constitution was better than no Constitution and the high probability of a "United States" that would very shortly divided itself into three countries along the Atlantic seaboard.

So the question is why we, 220 years later, should feel so in thrall to a compromise reached on raw political grounds. We certainly wouldn't feel any similar commitment to the compromises on slavery, nor, to take a modern example, should those of us who support the United Nations feel committed to maintain support for a veto system in the Security Council that can be explained only by reference to the particular "great powers" that won World War II.

I'm not so antagonistic to small states as I might sound. BUT, I see no good reason for giving them extraordinarily disproportionate power in the 21st century, power that they use, as any political scientists, including Madison, would predict to line the pockets of their constituents while being relatively disregardful of the needs of the overwhelming number of Americans who live in larger states and big cities. If we were talking about "ordinary" affirmative action (which, I should say, I tend to support, although with some reluctance), we would be talking about quite marginal benefits, e.g., the use of race or ethnicity as a "tie breaker." No one would suggest, though, giving his/her "favorite" ethnic or racial group 50 times the voting power of majority whites.

There is a long and commendable tradition in the US of concern about "tyranny of the majority," and the Senate is often defended as a barrier against that. But we should recognize that one can also have de facto "tyranny of the minority," which is another way of referring to an indefensible status quo that is basically entrenched because the Constitution makes it next to impossible to engage in fundamental reform.

7 Comments:

Blogger Mark Graber said...

I am wondering whether states are (almost) as much of a constitutional problem as small states. Localism may have many virtues, but presumably a democracy would decide a) what problems are best decided at a local level and b) what the relevant localities ought to be. A good deal of the polarization in the national congress may be explained by the practice of electing all national officials in local elections and that practice is likely to remain, even if states are represented entirely by population.

December 22, 2007 2:47 PM  
Blogger Brett said...

"If we were talking about "ordinary" affirmative action (which, I should say, I tend to support, although with some reluctance), we would be talking about quite marginal benefits, e.g., the use of race or ethnicity as a "tie breaker." No one would suggest, though, giving his/her "favorite" ethnic or racial group 50 times the voting power of majority whites."

That's probably a bad comparison, since in the U of M case, it was found that for certain ranges of SAT scores, the "favorite" racial group was... 50 times more likely to be admitted than members of other groups with the same qualifications. That's the reality of affirmative action, all the rhetoric about breaking ties aside.

December 22, 2007 7:55 PM  
Blogger jsalvati said...

Mark,
"but presumably a democracy would decide a) what problems are best decided at a local level and b) what the relevant localities ought to be." This seems like a really bad assumption, but if it were true, however, wouldn't democracy at the local level be good at deciding when things would be better handled at a higher level?

December 22, 2007 10:17 PM  
Blogger mulp said...

If you think the Senate giving power to the small states is demonstrated by the disproportionate money flowing to them, I think you are wrong. The reason appears to be more a result of the relative poverty of these states and the lower taxes paid to the Federal government.

And the desire to preserve this poverty class in the then less populous south caused them to vote against Nixon's welfare reform that included a negative income tax that would have transferred much more money from the high population rich states to low population poorer states.

December 24, 2007 8:32 AM  
Blogger Gene Wine said...

This post has been removed by the author.

January 4, 2008 9:45 AM  
Blogger Gene Wine said...

In 1787 the small states feared being overwhelmed by the larger ones. Now, however, that fear is no longer legitimate, because the parties control everything, and the parties are in all states.

January 4, 2008 9:53 AM  
OpenID veryolive said...

First, if the disproportionate power of the small states was included in the original constitution to discourage small states from refusing to participate - what makes us think they would readily accept a modern day retraction of this power? Sure, the political parties that exist today replace a great deal of political loyalty that people placed in their state before parties were born. But, they do NOT replace state loyalty. Just as Graber indicates localism is still alive and well- Americans still feel a certain loyalty to their state and their state representatives- even if that Rep is of a different party affiliation. While eliminating states may seem practical state loyalty that exists would never accept it - it would also directly threaten to impose a tyranny of the majority upon the nation. Parties are in all states, BUT they don't yet control EVERYTHING.

Also in response to Mulp, Yes it may be true that smaller states have lower total income however; generally larger socio-economic disparities exist within large states; in large states the income GAP is wider. Average income is not always a fair indicator. Impoverished and disenfranchised inhabitants of metropolitan cities make up a substantial US population. Should their needs be valued below the needs of the rural poor who may be wealthier "on average" simply because they are not living side by side with multi-millionaires?

I agree that small states are unfairly overrepresented; however, I do not have a solution that would appease small states and fairly represent the diverse population in large states.

April 13, 2008 1:04 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home