You cannot claim that people in NY State and California are oppressed, since their revealed preferences show them wanting to remain part of the federation. If people were unhappy with the current structure, you would see large and vibrant independence movements, whereas in actual fact those movements are a tiny fringe.
Despite its many problems, the US is one of the most prosperous, peaceful, and stable regions in the history of the world.
Without the Senate, the US simply wouldn’t exist (the smaller states wouldn’t have agreed to it), and North America would by now be a few dozen independent, competing, conflicting countries. It’s hard to imagine how that would be more stable than the current situation.
By the way, larger groups agreeing to give disproportionate power to smaller groups, in order to keep their union or federation together, happens all the time. Examples off the top of my head include Canada (where Quebec is massively overrepresented in the federal parliament), the UK (where England is the only constituent entity without its own legislature), Bosnia (whose three main ethnic groups split the Presidency equally despite having 50%/30%/15% of the population), and I’m sure there are many other examples...
The Bosnian example is particularly forceful, as this superficially “unfair” deal ended the bloodiest war in European history since WW2, in which more than 100,000 people died.
>their revealed preferences show them wanting to remain part of the federation
All of them? 20% of California is still 4.5 million people.
>America would by now be a few dozen independent, competing, conflicting countries
1. that is not proven. alternatives could have been chosen.
2. just because the Senate made sense among several mostly equal population states does not mean it makes sense today.
>Canada (where Quebec is massively overrepresented in the federal parliament)
And they have their own party. You cannot honestly believe that is an ideal situation.
>UK (where England is the only constituent entity without its own legislature)
The Scottish National Party exists, as do unionist and separatist terrorists in Northern Ireland.
>Bosnia (whose three main ethnic groups split the Presidency equally despite having 50%/30%/15% of the population)
Just because that makes sense for a young democracy does not mean it makes sense in California, a state with high cultural value given to equal voice and representation.
>this superficially “unfair” deal ended the bloodiest war in European history since WW2
Are you threatening war if California asserts its natural rights to self-governance? Unionization under threat of violence is not unionization. It is slavery.
Despite its many problems, the US is one of the most prosperous, peaceful, and stable regions in the history of the world.
Without the Senate, the US simply wouldn’t exist (the smaller states wouldn’t have agreed to it), and North America would by now be a few dozen independent, competing, conflicting countries. It’s hard to imagine how that would be more stable than the current situation.
By the way, larger groups agreeing to give disproportionate power to smaller groups, in order to keep their union or federation together, happens all the time. Examples off the top of my head include Canada (where Quebec is massively overrepresented in the federal parliament), the UK (where England is the only constituent entity without its own legislature), Bosnia (whose three main ethnic groups split the Presidency equally despite having 50%/30%/15% of the population), and I’m sure there are many other examples...
The Bosnian example is particularly forceful, as this superficially “unfair” deal ended the bloodiest war in European history since WW2, in which more than 100,000 people died.