Just a guess, but I would imagine overrepresentation is what it took to get the smaller less populous states an incentive to join the Union.
If my understanding is correct, had the New Jersey plan won out, we would have a single Senate (no House of Reps) with equal representation (if the Republic survived up to this day with that type of Government). https://www.crf-usa.org/black-history-month/the-constitution-and-slavery
At least they were able to find a compromise relatively quickly and without violence. In Argentina it took decades of civil war between Unitarios and Federales, before they finally came up with a representation system for the provinces that pretty much mirrors that of the United States.
On the other hand, the bicameral nature of the Congress grew from the same seed as the three-fifths compromise, none of which ultimately prevented the unpleasantness that occurred between 1861 and 1865.
Not that what I'm about to say would happen, but it's kinda interesting to think about what the Senate would look like as its own big state/pop oriented vs. small state/equal sovereign oriented compromise. Currently, <18% of the population lives in small states that could in theory vote as a bloc and control the Senate. If Senate seats were based purely on population, 18% of the states (9) could in theory control the Senate. Large states would seek to maximize the theoretical minimum population in the small states needed to control the Senate. Small states would seek to maximize the number of large states required to do the same. In an ideal world, those percentages (percent of population in x smallest states vs. % of states making up the y largest states) needed for either to get control would be the same. 5 minutes of Excel on a rainy day keeping my kid on task for her book report show how skewed this is under the current system. If every state starts at two seats, allocating additional seats based upon apportionment standards, here are the states with more than 2: 12 seats: CA 9 seats: TX 6 seats: FL and NY 4 seats: IL, OH 3 seats: GA, MI, NC, NJ, and VA That would leave 34% of the population in the 35 smallest states with the same power as the 34% of the states that comprise the largest states. Just puts numbers on how skewed this really is.
Biden would come across as a master statesman, because sometimes his next sentence follows from the previous one.
I am a bit puzzled by that sort of statements. Say what you want about Joe, he can be confusing at times, but he at least knows what he is talking about. He is not a bumbling idiot. I would bet my bottom dollar vs El Douche. He cleaned Paul Ryan's clock a few years ago after Obama fumbled badly vs Romney.
I was agreeing with you. My intended point was that Joe doesn't have to do very much at all to look polished and articulate next to Trump, and Joe certainly can do that much, even if he has slipped noticeably.
I'd agree with both of you. Although that's a very low bar Joe is forced to meet. I'm willing to bet the majority of P&CE posters, with a month of debate/speaking+issue boot camp, could defeat Trump in a debate.
Was that you who was talking about Democrats and wokeness? If so, and if you don't have an allergy to Bill Maher... \
Welcome to front runner status Elizabeth. https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/10/24/elizabeth-warren-wants-to-remake-american-capitalism The top bar is what she would raise if she gets 100% of her new taxes. The second bar is what her programs would cost, so they are covered. Her problem is the 3rd bar, so far she has no plan on how to cover that increase in government spending. https://www.economist.com/briefing/...-many-plans-would-reshape-american-capitalism
Yes, but there will be $$$$$$$ not spent by companies and employees for the current private-insurance system. Those dollars will go back in the U.S., although where they will go is a good question. Higher corporate profits won't be of much help to people outside of shareholders.
I'll be honest. I haven't understood any discussions of single-payer economics. This article is typical. It cites an annual cost of "over $3 trillion" for Warren's nationalized health care plan. Say what? The U.S. spent $3.6 trillion on health care in 2017. Two thirds of that came from Medicare, Medicaid, and out-of-pocket payments from consumers. So Warren's plan only needs to replace $1.2 trillion. The remaining $2.4 trillion is already being paid by a combination of the government and the populace -- the very entities that are allegedly on the hook for that "over $3 trillion" in annual costs. Somebody is crazy, and this time it's not me.
Obvious indeed but not sure why you expect better from the Economist though. They have showed their hands a long time ago.
I can't find an author to that article. Something I've noticed recently about The Economist: a signed article is likely to be solid. An unsigned article is likely to be hacky. It's like the difference between the Wall Street Journal's actual reporting, and it's editorial page.
Well, how about Barack Obama then? Barack Obama challenges 'woke' culture https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50239261
I hate how these comments are being presented without any context even when it's fairly obvious what he was saying.
Correct, but to pay for the program that money needs to be captured by the government, Sanders will tax some of it by increasing the payroll tax. Warren has so far not said anything about how is she going to tax that money, because she probably assumes that may not be popular.
The economist does not give authors of their article (they may in a few recurring segments). https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2013/09/04/why-are-the-economists-writers-anonymous I remember is college a teacher gave me shit for using the economist as a reference with out the author information. I was, but it is the economist, the most trusted news magazine around the world.
As the NYT wrote, not entirely disapprovingly, she has a veteran politician's ability to dodge the difficult questions.