There are fundamental structural problems with the US government. We all know that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 2% in the most recent election, but under the rules in place she lost the election. There are other problems.
Consider the following point raised by E.J. Dionne in the Washington Post:
Compounding the minority government problem is the United States Senate, where each state has two members. California, with a population of 39,144,818, has the same representation as Wyoming, with a population of 586,107 — a ratio of 67-to-1. At the first census in 1790, the population ratio between the smallest and largest states was only 13-to-1.
Furthermore, the largest and wealthiest states (California, New York, etc.) disproportionately fund the Federal government through tax revenue. Yet the structure of the Federal government prevents the citizens of those states from being represented fairly. Blue states are more likely to be “donor” states in terms of revenue going to the federal government vs. federal dollars received. Bottom line is that blue states are subsidizing red states.
If Kansas wants to “starve the beast” and keep voting in yahoos that slash everything and give tax breaks to millionaires, hey, let them. Maybe at some point they’ll realize they’ve been had. If people in Alabama wants the “freedom” to die of cancer because they didn’t have health insurance, knock yourself out.
What to do about it?
If current patterns persist it wouldn’t surprise me to see Democrats calling for a smaller Federal government. Not because they don’t believe government has a role in people’s lives, but rather because at least state governments can better represent the people in those states. Lower federal taxes and raise state taxes perhaps?
The ideal scenario would be to have a more representative Federal government. But given that the Constitution makes significant changes to the government practically impossible, I think this is where things are headed.
