As we all learned, the founders had to settle the important topic of representation. The Virginia plan of course, was the "large state" plan that had a bicameral legislature based on proportional representation. The New Jersey plan created a unicameral with each state, possessing only one vote. A long lost provision gave Jersey the right to stink up New York at will. 
Yes, a compromise was fashioned out, but let's pretend that never happened. In principle, which plan was the superior plan and why?
Who cares if small states are outnumbered all the time? People move and representation can shift based on geographical trends. If boondock states like Kansas and North Dakota want a greater say-perhaps they should be more open and encouraging of growth. That, or we should make them into giant federal nature preserves. Where the people are, is where the greater majority of representation should be-period. Representation should be based on where people live without special privileges for those who happen to live in the boonies.
Questions for debate:
1.)Which was the superior plan and why?
2.)If small states are outnumbered and can't get their way in lawmaking, why should the majority of people in a given area be punished?
3.)Why shouldn't areas that have a higher concentration of people, not hold an advantage over the issues of the day?
Yes, a compromise was fashioned out, but let's pretend that never happened. In principle, which plan was the superior plan and why?
Who cares if small states are outnumbered all the time? People move and representation can shift based on geographical trends. If boondock states like Kansas and North Dakota want a greater say-perhaps they should be more open and encouraging of growth. That, or we should make them into giant federal nature preserves. Where the people are, is where the greater majority of representation should be-period. Representation should be based on where people live without special privileges for those who happen to live in the boonies.
Questions for debate:
1.)Which was the superior plan and why?
2.)If small states are outnumbered and can't get their way in lawmaking, why should the majority of people in a given area be punished?
3.)Why shouldn't areas that have a higher concentration of people, not hold an advantage over the issues of the day?
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Sep 4 2007, 10:08 PM) 
Questions for debate:
1.)Which was the superior plan and why?
2.)If small states are outnumbered and can't get their way in lawmaking, why should the majority of people in a given area be punished?
3.)Why shouldn't areas that have a higher concentration of people, not hold an advantage over the issues of the day?
1.)Which was the superior plan and why?
2.)If small states are outnumbered and can't get their way in lawmaking, why should the majority of people in a given area be punished?
3.)Why shouldn't areas that have a higher concentration of people, not hold an advantage over the issues of the day?
New Jersey's. The current fad is to talk about turning our Republic into a mob rule democracy. Let's do away with the Electoral College, sometimes it goes against the majority. I mean who the Hell do those Fly Over States think they are? People of Alabama are stupid! Who do those hicks think they are voting?
You know not too long ago if you put it to a vote Slavery would still be legal. Heck, who knows, it might still be legal if not for a few uppity people who didn't know they shouldn't have rights.
Humans tend to want to be near water. You know, oceans, rivers, Great Lakes. Should only those with water front property make the decisions for the rest of us?
The truth is, of course, areas with higher concentrations of humans ALREADY have more representation in the way of the House Of Representatives and Electoral College votes. But that isn't enough? Well no, the people clammoring for mob rule have been out of power for quite some time and it's largely possible that they could be completely out of power in less than 2 years - so quick change all the rules. We know we have two big states with very large concentrations of humans who agree with us! And if we have to we'll give Texas back to Mexico!
If you look at New York State as a state and color the disctricts Red & Blue, New York is a Red State - well except for the bright blue part called Manhattan - who, BTW has had two Republican Mayors in a row. (OK, OK they aren't terribly good Republicans.) So by your reasoning why should the rest of New York have to suffer by voting habits of Manhattanites?
But maybe you're onto something. Let's put things to mob rule votes! How do you suppose prayer in school will pan out in a straight up vote? Abortion? Taxes? Gay Marriage? Affirmative Action? If you suspect those topics would go Blue in a straight 51% winnder takes all vote in the United States you're sorely mistaken.
Maybe it's best to leave things as they are. Devil you know; you know?
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Sep 4 2007, 09:08 PM)
Yes, a compromise was fashioned out, but let's pretend that never happened. In principle, which plan was the superior plan and why?
Who cares if small states are outnumbered all the time? People move and representation can shift based on geographical trends. If boondock states like Kansas and North Dakota want a greater say-perhaps they should be more open and encouraging of growth. That, or we should make them into giant federal nature preserves. Where the people are, is where the greater majority of representation should be-period. Representation should be based on where people live without special privileges for those who happen to live in the boonies.
Questions for debate:
1.)Which was the superior plan and why?
2.)If small states are outnumbered and can't get their way in lawmaking, why should the majority of people in a given area be punished?
3.)Why shouldn't areas that have a higher concentration of people, not hold an advantage over the issues of the day?
Who cares if small states are outnumbered all the time? People move and representation can shift based on geographical trends. If boondock states like Kansas and North Dakota want a greater say-perhaps they should be more open and encouraging of growth. That, or we should make them into giant federal nature preserves. Where the people are, is where the greater majority of representation should be-period. Representation should be based on where people live without special privileges for those who happen to live in the boonies.
Questions for debate:
1.)Which was the superior plan and why?
2.)If small states are outnumbered and can't get their way in lawmaking, why should the majority of people in a given area be punished?
3.)Why shouldn't areas that have a higher concentration of people, not hold an advantage over the issues of the day?
Well, one has to balance the will of the majority with the rights of the minority... including states. And the compromise does that. It forces a majority vote on both pure population and member states of the union, therefore we have an even majority in both aspects. It is a hybrid system from the beginning, a mix of a loose confederacy and a unitary government. Although is shifts from one side to the other... it is not prone to radical shifts.
That... and to get rid of the equal representation in the senate, you would have to have a unanimous ratification of the amendment.
QUOTE(Article V)
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Emphasis mine.
Apparently they thought ahead when they wrote this.
To me, Paterson's plan submitted on behalf of New Jersey was not a workable plan for the new Constitution, but it brilliantly leveraged negotiation from the larger states. Neither Congressional system of those two plans would have been superior to the compromise plan. A unicameral legislature is too prone to change too quickly. And the Virginia Plan had the representatives of the upper house elected by the members of the lower house.
The Connecticut compromise, submitted by another small state gave states enough power to allow for a super-majority of the 13 states to ratify.
The think the Great or Connecticut Complromise found a great checks and balance system in our national government and in the federal system between the states and the national government. Therefore I find the New Jersey plan to be the effective device for making the founders worrk past Madison's plan, keep its best parts, but also make a more perfect union of the states.
The Connecticut compromise, submitted by another small state gave states enough power to allow for a super-majority of the 13 states to ratify.
The think the Great or Connecticut Complromise found a great checks and balance system in our national government and in the federal system between the states and the national government. Therefore I find the New Jersey plan to be the effective device for making the founders worrk past Madison's plan, keep its best parts, but also make a more perfect union of the states.
If the choice was between the Virginia Plan versus the New Jersey plan, the New Jersey plan is superior. Such a plan had been in effective and it was working. Ideas tend to be regional. Having more ideas is good. Regions should be represented. Proportional representation gives political power to cities. People from cities are less self sufficient. Hence they have a narrower view of the world. Proper governance excels when a broader view of the world is employed.
I would echo BaphometsAdvocate's point that total reliance on proportional representation is no more than mob rule, where dense populations bully all other regions.
I would echo BaphometsAdvocate's point that total reliance on proportional representation is no more than mob rule, where dense populations bully all other regions.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.