[kortilla]

This is a boring trope. Whether it’s a group of United States or a single State is a debate as old as the country. You’re going to need really compelling reasons for states to give up their representation and participate in the state vote required to amend the constitution to remove their rights.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

> states to give up their representation

> their rights

You talk about states as if they are people. But they are not. States are a fiction invented by people (and let's be honest, by rich and powerful people), and so they can be torn down by people (likely not the rich and powerful).

"State representation" and "states' rights" are not compelling to most people, other than via some vague appeal to "isn't it great that New Mexico can do one thing and Maine can do something else?", which by itself does not require "state representation" or the current ideas of "states' rights".

[kortilla]

States are organizations of people. Boosted representation isn’t compelling to people who don’t care, but the people in smaller states do care. It means more fed govt consideration when it comes to regulatory decisions and funding.

Your post of “bUt thEYre nOt pEOple” is pointless. When people talk about the rights of governments nobody is saying that the government is a person.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

If federal rules provide some version of equal treatment, then "boosted representation" for small states is about nothing but a desire for local power.

There's no reason for smaller states to get less money per capita for schools, or less money per mile for US highways, or less money per million dollars of damage from a natural disaster. And indeed, they do not, because we have historically believed in fairness.

However, the idea that the 300k residents of Wyoming should be able to exert outsize power of regulatory decisions just because "they are a state" is anti-democratic. We put the things we don't want majoritarian decisions on into the constitution; the rest is up for a vote, and a handful of people shouldn't be able to veto the decision of the many just because they happen to be clustered in one place.

[Qwertious]

It was a valid debate back when travelling to the capitol took months by horse. Nowadays everyone uses services from other states on a daily basis, and possibly work in another state (with WFH) on a daily basis. It's pretty darn clear that the USA simply could not exist as a bunch of separate states anymore.

And frankly, states are already giving up their representation in the current system. If you're not a swing state, you're irrelevant. If you live in a populated state, you have a second-class vote.

If the USA had a modern voting system and anyone proposed the current pile of junk, they would be laughed out of the room.

[kortilla]

> And frankly, states are already giving up their representation in the current system. If you're not a swing state, you're irrelevant.

You’re talking about presidential elections, which are a tiny slice of the picture. Wyoming has 2 senators and so does California. That’s huge for Wyoming.

> It was a valid debate back when travelling to the capitol took months by horse. Nowadays everyone uses services from other states on a daily basis, and possibly work in another state (with WFH) on a daily basis. It's pretty darn clear that the USA simply could not exist as a bunch of separate states anymore.

None of this is relevant because crossing states to work has been a thing since the founding of the country. The only meaningful difference between the founding and now is the massive expansion of the duties of the federal government

[consteval]

> None of this is relevant because crossing states to work has been a thing since the founding of the country

Obviously not to the same degree.

The thing is if your business is multi-state, which is almost all of them, you need to comply to the lowest common denominator.

So no, states don't really have much of any autonomy. Companies these days are globalized and multi-national, let alone multi-state. That ship sailed.