Historically, the British House of Lords at least approximated representation based on wealth (albeit somewhat indirectly) and various other arrangements existed to guarantee the political power of the aristocracy who, before industrialization, were the wealthy.
This is not a very popular thing to do because it’s anathema to the normative basis of democracy (one person, one vote). If one believes that the wealthy deserve increased de jure political representation, then why have a democracy at all and not some sort of oligarchy? And, of course, democratic systems de facto do give the wealthy extra power via various channels.
if you really believe in one person one vote, then bicameraity is crazy. people in small states have vastly more power per person than in big states in the US
Bicameral systems can respect one person one vote, and they even do in the 49 states with bicameral legislatures.
The US Senate is a weird kludge that was necessary to secure support for the constitution. No one would arrive at it from first principles.
The best argument you can make for the Senate is that it’s necessary to protect vulnerable minorities (residents of small states). And democracies tend to trade off in various ways to protect vulnerable minorities at the expense of democratic purity (e.g., via constitutional provisions). That’s a pretty silly argument so far as it goes but does have a little more historical punch. You can’t make it for a hypothetical system with a chamber to protect the interests of the rich who are very obviously not a vulnerable minority at all. And there’s a much higher level of normative repugnance to “we’ve got to look out for the rich” than for most other groups you can fill in the blank with there.
what’s the point of having a second chamber if you’re going to apportion it by population as well? afaict, this is a historical oddity due to states copying the federal system but then getting squished by Reynolds v Sims, at which point it would have been really annoying to abolish the state senate. all the countries I can think of with a bicameral legislature (US, Canada, UK, Germany) have one of the chambers apportioned by something other than population.
There’s countries that use equal-population districts for both houses, but at that point it feels like the bicameralism is just copied from the US without strong reasoning (e.g. Italy, Japan, South Korea).
Sure, as I said it’s approximate and there are exceptions.
But entry into the peerage also wasn’t closed off, and sufficient wealth was a fairly common pathway. Get wealthy enough, make a few connections or well-placed donations, and you’d wind up in the House of Lords (e.g., the Rothschilds or William Lever—the “lever” in Unilever).
Historically, the British House of Lords at least approximated representation based on wealth (albeit somewhat indirectly) and various other arrangements existed to guarantee the political power of the aristocracy who, before industrialization, were the wealthy.
This is not a very popular thing to do because it’s anathema to the normative basis of democracy (one person, one vote). If one believes that the wealthy deserve increased de jure political representation, then why have a democracy at all and not some sort of oligarchy? And, of course, democratic systems de facto do give the wealthy extra power via various channels.
if you really believe in one person one vote, then bicameraity is crazy. people in small states have vastly more power per person than in big states in the US
Bicameral systems can respect one person one vote, and they even do in the 49 states with bicameral legislatures.
The US Senate is a weird kludge that was necessary to secure support for the constitution. No one would arrive at it from first principles.
The best argument you can make for the Senate is that it’s necessary to protect vulnerable minorities (residents of small states). And democracies tend to trade off in various ways to protect vulnerable minorities at the expense of democratic purity (e.g., via constitutional provisions). That’s a pretty silly argument so far as it goes but does have a little more historical punch. You can’t make it for a hypothetical system with a chamber to protect the interests of the rich who are very obviously not a vulnerable minority at all. And there’s a much higher level of normative repugnance to “we’ve got to look out for the rich” than for most other groups you can fill in the blank with there.
what’s the point of having a second chamber if you’re going to apportion it by population as well? afaict, this is a historical oddity due to states copying the federal system but then getting squished by Reynolds v Sims, at which point it would have been really annoying to abolish the state senate. all the countries I can think of with a bicameral legislature (US, Canada, UK, Germany) have one of the chambers apportioned by something other than population.
There’s countries that use equal-population districts for both houses, but at that point it feels like the bicameralism is just copied from the US without strong reasoning (e.g. Italy, Japan, South Korea).
It’s certainly possible but very weird/pointless. IMO it’s not clear what the point is since the two houses will be effectively the same.
There were wealthy merchants that weren’t aristocrats even before the industrial revolution really started.
Sure, as I said it’s approximate and there are exceptions.
But entry into the peerage also wasn’t closed off, and sufficient wealth was a fairly common pathway. Get wealthy enough, make a few connections or well-placed donations, and you’d wind up in the House of Lords (e.g., the Rothschilds or William Lever—the “lever” in Unilever).