Perhaps this makes me a terrible person, but I sometimes half hope to see things like this go through. The people of Alaska asked for this, and it will be interesting to see if they like getting what they asked for. The main reason it's only "half-hope" rather than fully hoping is that the damage from this will still affect people who didn't vote in favor of it. Those kids at the university deserve a better education than they'll get presuming the cut is allowed to stand.
Alternately, if I'm wrong about the value of austerity, and these deep cuts do allow the economy of Alaska to grow, that would also be interesting to learn. Previous recent experiments in this approach, particularly Kansas', don't seem to encourage much hope. But I'd be a fool to believe that you can take budgetary changes and trailing economic results in isolation. The system is far more complicated than that.
Well, kind of. I know this is more of a meta-question about government and democracy, etc., but this was a unilateral action by one elected official:
> Gov. Mike J. Dunleavy shocked the state last month by using a veto to cut much deeper, taking away $130 million more from the system that gave him his master’s degree.
If you vote for a budget hawk, he wins, and then he does budget hawk things, in my book, that's getting what you asked for. It's true that you don't get to choose the exact shape of what you are getting, but you do get to choose the general direction. The people know or should know that, and vote accordingly.
It would be different if, for example, they voted for a tax and spend Democrat and then, when elected, that official had made deep budget and tax cuts.
There's "budget hawk things" and there's "burning down the university to make a point." He was offered deep cuts by the University itself: "Mr. Johnsen, fearing that the governor might not stomach the Legislature’s plan, met with Mr. Dunleavy in late May and quietly provided him with a written plan that he regarded as a drastic alternative: A $49 million reduction spread over several years, with significant cuts to personnel and “a reduced capacity to serve our students and our state.”"
This was much more than the legislature passed and budget-hawkish enough for him to claim victory. Instead he just went nuclear and zeroed out $130 million with no warning. That's beyond ordinary budget hawkery and into batshit land.
145,000 people voted for this governor, 125,000 people voted for his opponent. Now all of those people are going to be impacted by these huge cuts to the university system. "They voted for this" ignores that many people voted against it and will be harmed nonetheless.
Sorry, but that's how democracy works. Do you have any suggestions for a political system that somehow lets a minority of voters get the executive they want while the majority simultaneously gets the executive they want? It just isn't feasible to have different executives, with different agendas and budgetary goals, running the same region. Maybe if the two groups of people want to move to separate sides of the state and split the state, they could be happy, but that's not realistic; most likely the two different groups of voters are all living among each other.
On problem with saying “that red state asked for it; let them see how they like it when their kids are starving on the streets (since they will also vote against welfare)” is that the US counts votes in a way that means, as more people flee your conservative hell-hole to find work, the remaining people’s votes count more and more.
Demographic projections say that the senate will be controlled by < 20% of the US population later this century.
Make no mistake about it, western democracy (and our economy / way of life) is under attack by an increasingly fringe minority.
You talk as if this were an unforeseen consequence of the way our legislature is set up. It is not. Giving the people who live in sparsely populated areas an equal voice with those who live in densely populated areas is the whole point of the Senate. It was designed to work this way and it is doing exactly what it was meant to do.
Ironically enough, rural areas in Alaska vote blue and its the urban areas that vote red. So in this case it’s the urban area majority imposing their will on the less dense areas.
Yes, and they are white (like my Ketchikan born/raised mom), while the Aleuts who we took the land and the resources from in the first place live in small villages and towns. At any rate, it is just ironic how rural over representation is a right to be granted only when it’s red.
I don't think the disparity was expected and doubt the founders would conclude that sparsely populated states with very little economy should lead an entire branch. This is certainly not working.
Had to look up the stats on this. Around the time the constitution was written, about 5% of the US population lived in cities. It's over 80% today. I think the intent of having the Senate represent the states equally regardless of population was a good one, but the massive shift in demographics over the last 200 years probably merits a different approach.
I don't think going strictly by population density is the best approach either, though - that's a good way to completely alienate millions of Americans. Remember that the two branches of Congress were setup like this to force urban and rural communities to work together and compromise. The problem now is that tribalism has become so rampant on both sides that compromise no longer really happens.
What was the economy difference between founding states? I don't care about rural urban divide. I care about states that can effectively be purchased by a rich individual having same say as states with country sized economies. At the time of founding individual states were bringing something to the table.
We could look at state-level GDP as one measure, but I don't think it's as clear-cut as you think - see [1]. There's a significant amount of money in farming, livestock, and manufacturing, which tend to cluster in "cheap" states. I think you make a good point about concentration of wealth at the state level, though. There's probably a case to be made that rural states are more susceptible to control by a few individuals/corporations that make up large segments of the state's economic output. It's worth noting that economic inequality is usually higher in states with bigger economies, though [2].
How about representation proportional to economic activity instead of the quantity of state-ness being one or zero? With guaranteed representation of at least one seat, so the representation turns out to be slightly skewed against the powerhouses. Also note that Puerto Rico and Washington DC earn their seat by virtue of having enough economic activity, rather than by default.
"Seats" is senate seats per state; "rep" is proportion of total representation; "econ" is proportion of total economic activity.
I picked 150 for the total number of seats to make the rep vs. econ gap narrower, but not so much as to make the poorest 25 completely irrelevant.
state seats rep econ
---------------------------------
California 20 13.3% 14.5%
Texas 12 8.0% 8.7%
New York 11 7.3% 8.2%
Florida 7 4.7% 5.1%
Illinois 6 4.0% 4.2%
PA OH }- 5 6.7% 7.1%
NJ GA WA MA NC }- 4 18.7% 19.5%
VA MI }
MD CO MN TN IN }- 3 10.0% 9.2%
AZ WI MI CT LA }- 2 10.7% 10.7%
OR SC AL }
KY OK IA UT KS }
NV DC AK NE MS }
PR NM HI NH WV }- 1 16.7% 12.5%
ID DE ME RI ND }
AK SD MO WY VT }
island terr. }- 0 0.0% 0.1%
---------------------------------
Total 150
The first number column is "seats per state".
The second number column is "combined percentage of representatives" - PA and OH each have 5 representatives, so combined they have (5+5)/150 = 6.7% of the representation.
The third column is, I presume, the percentage of economic activity (GDP?) totaled among those states.
Economic activity would be a bad choice to tie to representation from perverse incentives. It would encourage outright sabotaging other states to preserve power when it would be more optimal to go with national net economic output instead of "best for my region". Essentially the same issues as regulatory capture but worse. It is also why auctioning off positions of power for fundraising would be a terrible idea - it encourages the biggest vested interest to buy it up and exploit it at the cost of everyone else.
It doesn't have to be a good choice; it just has to be better than "two per state, no matter what".
The perverse incentive there encourages secession, state-splitting, endless intractable battles over Puerto Rican statehood or DC representation, and engineering politics at the state level to influence interstate migrations based partly on political views on national issues.
I.e. Colorado decriminalizes recreational cannabis, and Alabama recriminalizes abortion. Lefties are incentivized to move from AL to CO, and righties the reverse. Everybody who voted Doug Jones leaves for literally greener pastures, and mall-menace Roy Moore wins the seat.
(Anecdotally, one of my co-workers is moving to Denver, and I have realized I am envious.)
It further incentivizes politically competitive states to do anything for just 0.1% of the vote, because that might just be the margin that gets you all the power, for six whole years, on election day.
But is the degree of inequality a foreseen consequence?
20% of citizens controlling 1/3 or 2/3 of the federal government is not a healthy republic, especially when the 20% have views that are so far from average. It's not like they're a representative 20%.
But is the degree of inequality a foreseen consequence?
No. Originally, the ratio of Senator to constituents and Representative to constituents was much closer to 1:1 than what we have now.
While there isn't any easy way to fix the imbalance in the Senate (short of adding/splitting states), we can fix the House and Electoral College by simply increasing the size of the House (easy button would be to peg the size of a district to the population of the smallest state).
Well its a great design if your goal is to make sure agrarian slave-state get to keep their slaves. Less so in a country with ideologically coherent (as opposed to regional) parties that control all branches of govt.
At what point does it stop making sense? We exist on a continuum somewhere between states having equal population on one side and 1 person per state and 1 state with everyone else on the other. It feels like we're moving toward the latter. Especially since the way the senate rules are structured it only takes 20.5 low population states to block everything.
The same time the 3/5 compromise and the other parts of the original design of the Constitution designed to preserve unity by assuring slave states that the greater voting population of the free states wouldn't lead to abolition stopped making sense, about 150 years ago.
But the power structure it set up is self perpetuating, so it doesn't matter that it stopped making sense; the people that benefit from it will always protect it and find a way to rationalize it.
Land doesn't vote. Those people should have an equal voice -- that's a democracy I can get behind whole-hog. They don't. They have an immensely outsized voice based entirely on geographical distance to one another.
Proximity to your fellow citizens shouldn't lessen your voice, yet here we are.
And anything designed to be that antidemocratic should be recognized as such, and those of us who do care about democracy should be fighting and organizing every day to disband it and replace it with something fair.
"The other was intended to represent the states to such extent as they retained their sovereignty except for the powers expressly delegated to the national government. The Senate was thus not designed to serve the people of the United States equally." [1]
Clearly this is the result, and I've heard this argument before, yet I haven't seen any solid references that this was an explicit design choice by the founders to balance interests of sparse/rural states against dense/urban states.
Can anyone point to any particular references in founders' documents or authoritative historians showing how this was designed as a specific feature and not a side-effect, e.g., of simply trying to treat states equally at a time when they may not have been as dissimilar (e.g., seems that having fewer people in the entire state of WY than in a single borough of NYC is far more imbalanced than the 1780s)?
"The equality of representation in the Senate is another point, which, being evidently the result of compromise between the opposite pretensions of the large and the small States, does not call for much discussion. If indeed it be right, that among a people thoroughly incorporated into one nation, every district ought to have a PROPORTIONAL share in the government, and that among independent and sovereign States, bound together by a simple league, the parties, however unequal in size, ought to have an EQUAL share in the common councils, it does not appear to be without some reason that in a compound republic, partaking both of the national and federal character, the government ought to be founded on a mixture of the principles of proportional and equal representation. But it is superfluous to try, by the standard of theory, a part of the Constitution which is allowed on all hands to be the result, not of theory, but "of a spirit of amity, and that mutual deference and concession which the peculiarity of our political situation rendered indispensable.'' A common government, with powers equal to its objects, is called for by the voice, and still more loudly by the political situation, of America. A government founded on principles more consonant to the wishes of the larger States, is not likely to be obtained from the smaller States. The only option, then, for the former, lies between the proposed government and a government still more objectionable. Under this alternative, the advice of prudence must be to embrace the lesser evil; and, instead of indulging a fruitless anticipation of the possible mischiefs which may ensue, to contemplate rather the advantageous consequences which may qualify the sacrifice.
In this spirit it may be remarked, that the equal vote allowed to each State is at once a constitutional recognition of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual States, and an instrument for preserving that residuary sovereignty. So far the equality ought to be no less acceptable to the large than to the small States; since they are not less solicitous to guard, by every possible expedient, against an improper consolidation of the States into one simple republic.
Another advantage accruing from this ingredient in the constitution of the Senate is, the additional impediment it must prove against improper acts of legislation. No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then, of a majority of the States. It must be acknowledged that this complicated check on legislation may in some instances be injurious as well as beneficial; and that the peculiar defense which it involves in favor of the smaller States, would be more rational, if any interests common to them, and distinct from those of the other States, would otherwise be exposed to peculiar danger. But as the larger States will always be able, by their power over the supplies, to defeat unreasonable exertions of this prerogative of the lesser States, and as the faculty and excess of law-making seem to be the diseases to which our governments are most liable, it is not impossible that this part of the Constitution may be more convenient in practice than it appears to many in contemplation."
Your comments contain truth but no wisdom. "Works as originally designed" is not the same as achieving either the desired goals (either for the past or for today).
But you know that. You have a history of being an intellectually dishonest little troll. So just fuck off.
The point of the senate has nothing to do with giving people in sparsely populated areas the same vote. At the time, there wasn’t the same dichotomy created by people living in cities.
The purpose of giving every state two senators is so that the states, as distinct sovereign entities, each have the same representation in the senate. It doesn’t matter how many people live there.
> The purpose of giving every state two senators is so that the states, as distinct sovereign entities, each have the same representation in the senate. It doesn’t matter how many people live there.
This piece of information seems to be skipped by almost every high school civics class. Senators were never supposed to represent the people, they were supposed to represent the state governments. The whole purpose of Senators having longer terms than the House and being elected by each state's legislature instead of a direct election was to insulate the Senate (and by extension, Congress) from populism.
Repealing the 17th amendment today would probably a bad idea for a number of reasons but the direct-election of the Senate certainly shifted a lot of power away from the state governments and to the GOP/DNC in a way that was never intended by the Founders.
Exactly. It gives, and is meant to give, sparsely populated states an equal voice to the more populous states. The GP was talking in terms of red states versus blue states, and I was here assuming that context.
>It was designed to work this way and it is doing exactly what it was meant to do.
This reminds me of the MCAS system on the 737MAX: the software there worked perfectly, and did exactly what it was designed to do as it flew those two planes straight into the ground with over 300 passengers.
> You talk as if this were an unforeseen consequence of the way our legislature is set up. It is not.
It kind of is; the real purpose was to give places that disenfranchised large number of residents who weren't untaxed Indians (that is, slave states) additional voting power in the Senate, House, and Electoral College. Creating a reward for policies so bad they encourage voting citizens to emigrate, while in line with the generally perverse design, was not really the focus.
The ironic thing here is the presumedly Republican majority (of voters) voting for a guy promising what amounts to a monetary handout. But are typically vehemently opposed to government handouts?
I feel like this irony is at the core of the modern Republican party (witness the fact that more ideologically consistent libertarian types have basically found themselves ignored in the post-Trump era).
The cynical way of looking at this (and IMO supported by the popularity of Trump's rhetoric) is that most on-the-ground Republicans aren't actually opposed to government handouts, they're just worried that government handouts are mostly going to the wrong people - groups outside of their circle of empathy. Unfortunately, this often seems to be largely defined by race...
Whether or not this is a good strategy depends on how much damage will be caused and whether the subject is likely to actually make the connection between their choice and the harm it caused.
A parenting analogy may be in order. Once I stopped my then 2yr old from walking over some broken glass, to her loud objection. It would have been stupid to allow even such impermanent injuries as bloody cuts on her feet in order to "teach her a lesson" that she would not actually have learned.
In today’s economy, selling your university system for scrap is a horribly damaging move even for a well-populated state with a diverse economy. In Alaska it could be fatal.
The problem with your parenting analogy is that we live under democratic systems, where the voters get to choose how to run things (indirectly, by electing representatives). The voters are all adults. If they want to do something utterly stupid, who's supposed to step in and stop them? Any person doing so would be acting in an anti-democratic manner; usually we deride such systems of government as "authoritarian". So unless there's some benevolent aliens that you're counting on to step in and save us from ourselves, it comes down to democracy vs. authoritarianism: do we let the voters choose to shoot themselves in the foot, or do we give all the power to some person or elite cabal and let them do what they think is best?
I do agree that ruining your state university system is a bad move long-term, but if that's what the voters want, if you support democracy, you have to give it to them.
A representative democracy, which is what we have, is a good middle ground.
If the governor had campaigned on gutting the university in particular to achieve his goal, rather than on a vague promise of "more $" I might be more inclined to agree with you. As it is I think the responsible thing to do is for the legislature to override him on this if possible until the next election.
How exactly did the voters think the governor was going to make "more $"? Create it out of thin air? The voters got exactly what they voted for, and most likely they voted for legislators with the same views as the governor.
You're right though: it is a pretty good middle ground. It results in a state/nation that operates more or less according to the wishes of its citizens. The citizens of Alaska want bigger oil dividends and don't care about university education, so that's exactly what they're getting. Of course, this doesn't mean the citizens are getting what's best for them, but they're getting what they think is best, and if that means disaster for them in the future, it's their own fault.
> How exactly did the voters think the governor was going to make "more $"?
They probably had no coherent picture of how that would happen, specific benefits with vague sacrifices is a pretty standard approach to political messaging.
Yes, but it's the voters' responsibility to understand this. They have no one to blame but themselves. Remember, we're adults now, we aren't children in a playground where we can call for adults to set things right when we screw up. The voters have the ultimate power to choose who runs the government, so the results are their own responsibility.
> Yes, but it's the voters' responsibility to understand this
Perhaps, but “X was responsible for understanding that this would be the consequence” and “X was aware that this would be the consequence and actively preferred it” are very different claims.
I never claimed that all voters (for that candidate at least) would know beforehand exactly what actions s/he would take once in office. But it is their responsibility to know what they're voting for, and if they're stupid enough to believe vague or impossible campaign promises, that's entirely on them.
The voting population of Alaska is comprised of adults. Not children to be parented.
The structure of power between federal gov and states is explicitly designed to give states the freedom to experiment with different policies (the whole "Laboratories of democracy" thing).
You think this cut will do lots of damage. The voting population in Alaska (or their duly elected representatives) believe otherwise.
Given that there's no magic ball to tell you how this will work out, it's blatantly un-democratic to claim you know better than the voters.
Instead we get to watch what happens to a university system when you cut the operating budget in half with little warning and no planning.
---
My hypothesis is that it's going to go badly, but I'm not sure by any means. It could be that these drastic cuts force the university system to trim real administrative fat, it could force them to be creative with purchasing and contracting to cut costs. It could have no real impact whatsoever.
Unfortunately these institutions take a long time to build and a short time to destroy.
How will we know what changes take place in the health of an individual working in the various dangerous occupations common in Alaska (logging, fishing, oil, and mining) over the course of 10 years. It takes 10 years to find out!
How can workers demand payment for the true hazards they face if they don't know the hazards they face? Who benefits from ignorance?
The one thing I have not seen mentioned here at all is that a great portion of the cost of Universities is now being consumed by administrative personnel. It is possible that this will force the university to be more cost conscious without a great decrease in the quality of their education offered.
I get the sense that the comments here equate a reduction in budget to annihilation of higher education. I find this to be a bit extreme as there needs to be a reasonable conversation about the cost of that education and what resources and personnel are really required to deliver it and are the students/society really getting value for their money at current prices.
there are two countervailing forces to them "learning their lesson" : memory is short and this fact that you allude
>But I'd be a fool to believe that you can take budgetary changes and trailing economic results in isolation. The system is far more complicated than that.
is exploited by those with a vested interest to place blame elsewhere
This would require more detailed analysis. Did the people really ask for it? Does the election system in Alaska result in a government with a connection to public sentiment?
I live in a heavily gerrymandered state, so it's not even clear what it means to say that we have an elected government.
The way I heard it described, the annual payout will increase, where as that money now goes towards social programs primarily aimed at children and families. So while that money will be in citizen's pockets, it likely won't get spent in a manner that will benefit society long term.
... the poster you quote was saying the money will go into pockets instead of safety nets and this is likely for the worse. The statements are already reconciled.
The phrasing might have been a bit confusing, and this could lead one to think there was a conflict, but this was an agreement post.
That is still a huge cut to UA. The quality of education and research will be severely hurt by that cut. Many of the education programs do not make money and that is fine because they provide an important service to the state. That is creating smart people who work in AK rather than leaving AK forever
There is a lot of fat to cut. The US spends almost twice as much per student on tertiary education per student, and about 2.6% of GDP in tertiary education, compared to the OECD average of 1.5%.
Not to mention that tertiary education funding is regressive. It tends to help those who are already relatively well off.
That is unfortunatly true but with that cut it will not only be the fat that is cut but also a lot of the meat. UA is already struggling and it needs help. The way to fix is that is not to cut funding from it. A better solution that I heard would be to hold a mass audit of some kind to figure out what people are actually useful.
UA provides an essential service to the state which is basically making and keeping smart people in AK. without UA there would be a severe brain drain and that would really hurt the economy.
One final point UA is NOT a for profit institution and that effects the dynamics of the university. There is not as much pressure to nickel and dime people as one would think.
I actually live in Alaska. I'm quite concerned about how the NY Times portrayed this.
While I don't agree with all of the cuts to the University or the budget as a whole, the way this is being portrayed is interesting.
If veto holds, and the cuts to the University take effect, Alaska will still spend 3 times as much per student than the average state. Yes, you heard that correct, Alaska will still contribute 3 times as much in state funding, per student, to their college students than the average state in the lower 48. Going to college for in state residents is one of the lowest tuition rates in the nation for a state school.
Secondly, it didn't get mentioned that Alaska has one University system. There are an amazing amount of redundancies in the system that could eliminated for greater efficiencies and savings.
Lastly, it rarely gets mentioned that the UA system has a huge amount of administrative overhead costs. I attended the UA system and there always seems to be quadruple the administrative staff to actually teaching/research going on.
The last thing I would say is that the State legislatures did a very poor job of overspending while oil prices were good and then when the price of oil dropped, boom!, we had a deficit.
Better fiscal restraint and spending prior to the price of oil dropping would have saved a lot of his heartache.
Not to mention that Alaska is dependent on oil for its current existence and once fossil fuel use is eliminated, this state will lose 75% of its residents.
Another interpretation of your exact data is that this great amount of funding paid off, it educated you and attracted talented people to University of Alaska.
UA is a decent University System, but not more than that.
In fact, a few months ago, the University of Alaska Anchorage lost accreditation for their teacher program. Yes, you read that correctly. The largest University in Alaska lost their accreditation for a program that is one of the most needed in the state.
Getting people to teach in Alaska is a major issue for obvious reasons, and the largest university in the state did such a poor job that they lost their ability to graduate licensed teachers.
I actually don't agree with the severity if the cut, but the University System in Alaska is known for overspending and the massive amount of administrative jobs that don't go into the education of young minds.
I wouldn't blindly apply it to this situation, but I can at least see the logic of just stopping doing something that isn't working.
For the specific situation, maybe a program that paid off student loans for anyone with some period of service (lots of teachers outside of AK) would be a better way to spend the money than unconditionally throwing it at a failing program?
Worth pointing out that the money from the cuts goes to the Alaska Permanent Fund dividends at about $3,000 per year (instead of $1,600). Each permanent resident gets that every year. It's about a third of the universal basic income proposals ($10,000).
Unusual to have such a stark trade off between a progressive program and the ballooning cost of education.
Hard to feel bad for any higher-ed institutions nowadays. It's clear that degrees are essentially signaling that's captured by outrageously bloated, rent-seeking institutions. I'm completely sympathetic to the idealism that colleges are vital institutions of education, but there's something systemically wrong with college price, criminally so, and the issue isn't just "we're not spending enough."
UA is nothing like a corporation it is tied to the state. Yes it has quite a bit of waste but fundamentally the institutions goal is to do research and to educate
Fundamentally the goal of UA is to survive and grow, like all other organizations. If research and education furthers that goal, then that's what it'll attempt to do - but if bloat and cost disease further that goal expect to see those too.
Not always. UA is composed of many sub groups. They usually have little to do with each other. Some of these groups are very wastefull and just try to further their existance. But a large portion of the groups are actually concerned with doing things in the real world. I do not want to give specific examples but I have plenty of experience with people that actually want to do good things in the world at UA.
95 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 73.2 ms ] threadAlternately, if I'm wrong about the value of austerity, and these deep cuts do allow the economy of Alaska to grow, that would also be interesting to learn. Previous recent experiments in this approach, particularly Kansas', don't seem to encourage much hope. But I'd be a fool to believe that you can take budgetary changes and trailing economic results in isolation. The system is far more complicated than that.
Well, kind of. I know this is more of a meta-question about government and democracy, etc., but this was a unilateral action by one elected official:
> Gov. Mike J. Dunleavy shocked the state last month by using a veto to cut much deeper, taking away $130 million more from the system that gave him his master’s degree.
It would be different if, for example, they voted for a tax and spend Democrat and then, when elected, that official had made deep budget and tax cuts.
This was much more than the legislature passed and budget-hawkish enough for him to claim victory. Instead he just went nuclear and zeroed out $130 million with no warning. That's beyond ordinary budget hawkery and into batshit land.
Demographic projections say that the senate will be controlled by < 20% of the US population later this century.
Make no mistake about it, western democracy (and our economy / way of life) is under attack by an increasingly fringe minority.
Ha! Imposing their will?
I don't think going strictly by population density is the best approach either, though - that's a good way to completely alienate millions of Americans. Remember that the two branches of Congress were setup like this to force urban and rural communities to work together and compromise. The problem now is that tribalism has become so rampant on both sides that compromise no longer really happens.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_Gini_co...
"Seats" is senate seats per state; "rep" is proportion of total representation; "econ" is proportion of total economic activity.
I picked 150 for the total number of seats to make the rep vs. econ gap narrower, but not so much as to make the poorest 25 completely irrelevant.
The perverse incentive there encourages secession, state-splitting, endless intractable battles over Puerto Rican statehood or DC representation, and engineering politics at the state level to influence interstate migrations based partly on political views on national issues.
I.e. Colorado decriminalizes recreational cannabis, and Alabama recriminalizes abortion. Lefties are incentivized to move from AL to CO, and righties the reverse. Everybody who voted Doug Jones leaves for literally greener pastures, and mall-menace Roy Moore wins the seat.
(Anecdotally, one of my co-workers is moving to Denver, and I have realized I am envious.)
It further incentivizes politically competitive states to do anything for just 0.1% of the vote, because that might just be the margin that gets you all the power, for six whole years, on election day.
20% of citizens controlling 1/3 or 2/3 of the federal government is not a healthy republic, especially when the 20% have views that are so far from average. It's not like they're a representative 20%.
No. Originally, the ratio of Senator to constituents and Representative to constituents was much closer to 1:1 than what we have now.
While there isn't any easy way to fix the imbalance in the Senate (short of adding/splitting states), we can fix the House and Electoral College by simply increasing the size of the House (easy button would be to peg the size of a district to the population of the smallest state).
The same time the 3/5 compromise and the other parts of the original design of the Constitution designed to preserve unity by assuring slave states that the greater voting population of the free states wouldn't lead to abolition stopped making sense, about 150 years ago.
But the power structure it set up is self perpetuating, so it doesn't matter that it stopped making sense; the people that benefit from it will always protect it and find a way to rationalize it.
Proximity to your fellow citizens shouldn't lessen your voice, yet here we are.
And anything designed to be that antidemocratic should be recognized as such, and those of us who do care about democracy should be fighting and organizing every day to disband it and replace it with something fair.
"The other was intended to represent the states to such extent as they retained their sovereignty except for the powers expressly delegated to the national government. The Senate was thus not designed to serve the people of the United States equally." [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate
Can anyone point to any particular references in founders' documents or authoritative historians showing how this was designed as a specific feature and not a side-effect, e.g., of simply trying to treat states equally at a time when they may not have been as dissimilar (e.g., seems that having fewer people in the entire state of WY than in a single borough of NYC is far more imbalanced than the 1780s)?
"The equality of representation in the Senate is another point, which, being evidently the result of compromise between the opposite pretensions of the large and the small States, does not call for much discussion. If indeed it be right, that among a people thoroughly incorporated into one nation, every district ought to have a PROPORTIONAL share in the government, and that among independent and sovereign States, bound together by a simple league, the parties, however unequal in size, ought to have an EQUAL share in the common councils, it does not appear to be without some reason that in a compound republic, partaking both of the national and federal character, the government ought to be founded on a mixture of the principles of proportional and equal representation. But it is superfluous to try, by the standard of theory, a part of the Constitution which is allowed on all hands to be the result, not of theory, but "of a spirit of amity, and that mutual deference and concession which the peculiarity of our political situation rendered indispensable.'' A common government, with powers equal to its objects, is called for by the voice, and still more loudly by the political situation, of America. A government founded on principles more consonant to the wishes of the larger States, is not likely to be obtained from the smaller States. The only option, then, for the former, lies between the proposed government and a government still more objectionable. Under this alternative, the advice of prudence must be to embrace the lesser evil; and, instead of indulging a fruitless anticipation of the possible mischiefs which may ensue, to contemplate rather the advantageous consequences which may qualify the sacrifice.
In this spirit it may be remarked, that the equal vote allowed to each State is at once a constitutional recognition of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual States, and an instrument for preserving that residuary sovereignty. So far the equality ought to be no less acceptable to the large than to the small States; since they are not less solicitous to guard, by every possible expedient, against an improper consolidation of the States into one simple republic.
Another advantage accruing from this ingredient in the constitution of the Senate is, the additional impediment it must prove against improper acts of legislation. No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then, of a majority of the States. It must be acknowledged that this complicated check on legislation may in some instances be injurious as well as beneficial; and that the peculiar defense which it involves in favor of the smaller States, would be more rational, if any interests common to them, and distinct from those of the other States, would otherwise be exposed to peculiar danger. But as the larger States will always be able, by their power over the supplies, to defeat unreasonable exertions of this prerogative of the lesser States, and as the faculty and excess of law-making seem to be the diseases to which our governments are most liable, it is not impossible that this part of the Constitution may be more convenient in practice than it appears to many in contemplation."
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed62.asp
But you know that. You have a history of being an intellectually dishonest little troll. So just fuck off.
The purpose of giving every state two senators is so that the states, as distinct sovereign entities, each have the same representation in the senate. It doesn’t matter how many people live there.
This piece of information seems to be skipped by almost every high school civics class. Senators were never supposed to represent the people, they were supposed to represent the state governments. The whole purpose of Senators having longer terms than the House and being elected by each state's legislature instead of a direct election was to insulate the Senate (and by extension, Congress) from populism.
Repealing the 17th amendment today would probably a bad idea for a number of reasons but the direct-election of the Senate certainly shifted a lot of power away from the state governments and to the GOP/DNC in a way that was never intended by the Founders.
Exactly. It gives, and is meant to give, sparsely populated states an equal voice to the more populous states. The GP was talking in terms of red states versus blue states, and I was here assuming that context.
This reminds me of the MCAS system on the 737MAX: the software there worked perfectly, and did exactly what it was designed to do as it flew those two planes straight into the ground with over 300 passengers.
It kind of is; the real purpose was to give places that disenfranchised large number of residents who weren't untaxed Indians (that is, slave states) additional voting power in the Senate, House, and Electoral College. Creating a reward for policies so bad they encourage voting citizens to emigrate, while in line with the generally perverse design, was not really the focus.
There's a perceived culture war by people who live in rural america and your comment projecting it onto the purpose of the Senate is proof of that.
The cynical way of looking at this (and IMO supported by the popularity of Trump's rhetoric) is that most on-the-ground Republicans aren't actually opposed to government handouts, they're just worried that government handouts are mostly going to the wrong people - groups outside of their circle of empathy. Unfortunately, this often seems to be largely defined by race...
A parenting analogy may be in order. Once I stopped my then 2yr old from walking over some broken glass, to her loud objection. It would have been stupid to allow even such impermanent injuries as bloody cuts on her feet in order to "teach her a lesson" that she would not actually have learned.
In today’s economy, selling your university system for scrap is a horribly damaging move even for a well-populated state with a diverse economy. In Alaska it could be fatal.
I do agree that ruining your state university system is a bad move long-term, but if that's what the voters want, if you support democracy, you have to give it to them.
If the governor had campaigned on gutting the university in particular to achieve his goal, rather than on a vague promise of "more $" I might be more inclined to agree with you. As it is I think the responsible thing to do is for the legislature to override him on this if possible until the next election.
You're right though: it is a pretty good middle ground. It results in a state/nation that operates more or less according to the wishes of its citizens. The citizens of Alaska want bigger oil dividends and don't care about university education, so that's exactly what they're getting. Of course, this doesn't mean the citizens are getting what's best for them, but they're getting what they think is best, and if that means disaster for them in the future, it's their own fault.
They probably had no coherent picture of how that would happen, specific benefits with vague sacrifices is a pretty standard approach to political messaging.
Perhaps, but “X was responsible for understanding that this would be the consequence” and “X was aware that this would be the consequence and actively preferred it” are very different claims.
The voting population of Alaska is comprised of adults. Not children to be parented.
The structure of power between federal gov and states is explicitly designed to give states the freedom to experiment with different policies (the whole "Laboratories of democracy" thing).
You think this cut will do lots of damage. The voting population in Alaska (or their duly elected representatives) believe otherwise.
Given that there's no magic ball to tell you how this will work out, it's blatantly un-democratic to claim you know better than the voters.
Instead we get to watch what happens to a university system when you cut the operating budget in half with little warning and no planning.
---
My hypothesis is that it's going to go badly, but I'm not sure by any means. It could be that these drastic cuts force the university system to trim real administrative fat, it could force them to be creative with purchasing and contracting to cut costs. It could have no real impact whatsoever.
How will we know what changes take place in the health of an individual working in the various dangerous occupations common in Alaska (logging, fishing, oil, and mining) over the course of 10 years. It takes 10 years to find out!
How can workers demand payment for the true hazards they face if they don't know the hazards they face? Who benefits from ignorance?
I get the sense that the comments here equate a reduction in budget to annihilation of higher education. I find this to be a bit extreme as there needs to be a reasonable conversation about the cost of that education and what resources and personnel are really required to deliver it and are the students/society really getting value for their money at current prices.
>But I'd be a fool to believe that you can take budgetary changes and trailing economic results in isolation. The system is far more complicated than that.
is exploited by those with a vested interest to place blame elsewhere
I live in a heavily gerrymandered state, so it's not even clear what it means to say that we have an elected government.
Alaska is nothing like the rest of the country, that should be clear.
> it likely won't get spent in a manner that will benefit society long term.
I don't understand how you reconcile these two statements. Social safety nets benefit society long term.
The phrasing might have been a bit confusing, and this could lead one to think there was a conflict, but this was an agreement post.
Prediction: The most customer-unfriendly trimming will come first.
The governor is explicitly making this cut in order to increase the oil revenue dividend for residents to $3K per year.
Not to mention that tertiary education funding is regressive. It tends to help those who are already relatively well off.
What makes that an opinion? Seems like conjecture more than anything.
UA provides an essential service to the state which is basically making and keeping smart people in AK. without UA there would be a severe brain drain and that would really hurt the economy.
One final point UA is NOT a for profit institution and that effects the dynamics of the university. There is not as much pressure to nickel and dime people as one would think.
I actually live in Alaska. I'm quite concerned about how the NY Times portrayed this.
While I don't agree with all of the cuts to the University or the budget as a whole, the way this is being portrayed is interesting.
If veto holds, and the cuts to the University take effect, Alaska will still spend 3 times as much per student than the average state. Yes, you heard that correct, Alaska will still contribute 3 times as much in state funding, per student, to their college students than the average state in the lower 48. Going to college for in state residents is one of the lowest tuition rates in the nation for a state school.
Secondly, it didn't get mentioned that Alaska has one University system. There are an amazing amount of redundancies in the system that could eliminated for greater efficiencies and savings.
Lastly, it rarely gets mentioned that the UA system has a huge amount of administrative overhead costs. I attended the UA system and there always seems to be quadruple the administrative staff to actually teaching/research going on.
The last thing I would say is that the State legislatures did a very poor job of overspending while oil prices were good and then when the price of oil dropped, boom!, we had a deficit.
Better fiscal restraint and spending prior to the price of oil dropping would have saved a lot of his heartache.
Not to mention that Alaska is dependent on oil for its current existence and once fossil fuel use is eliminated, this state will lose 75% of its residents.
Just my two cents.
In fact, a few months ago, the University of Alaska Anchorage lost accreditation for their teacher program. Yes, you read that correctly. The largest University in Alaska lost their accreditation for a program that is one of the most needed in the state.
Getting people to teach in Alaska is a major issue for obvious reasons, and the largest university in the state did such a poor job that they lost their ability to graduate licensed teachers.
Maybe you can help me understand this, but how is the solution to cut funding further by 41%?
Competitive pressures are required.
For the specific situation, maybe a program that paid off student loans for anyone with some period of service (lots of teachers outside of AK) would be a better way to spend the money than unconditionally throwing it at a failing program?
Without it, the move seems pretty extreme. Knowing that 3x is being spent puts things in a much different light.
I wish NYT had reported more evenly. I feel sort of like they tried to skew people's thinking, beyond the pale.
Unusual to have such a stark trade off between a progressive program and the ballooning cost of education.