|
Jack Rakove
Appearing in Jsmelle Bouie's column was a great way to start what was a momentous weekend for me--meaning that I spent Friday afternoon and all of Saturday at a conference called the Rakoviad which was organbized by a couple of my former students and a younger colleague (effectively my replacement) to honor my work. I'm still floating over the whole weekend.
But the point in question that Bouie is discussing is somerthing I have written extensively about over the years. It deals with this basic question: does residence in a small (less populous) state or a large (more popukous) one define our essentialm interests and preferences as voters. The short answer, which (like a lot of my work) is basically Madisonian in nature, is (drum roll) NO. One never votes on the basis of the piopukousness of the state iwhere one lives, but one may well vote on the basis of the size and nature of the community in which one resides. That is why Madison was militantly opposed to the idea that each state deserved an equal vote in the Senate. The only time when one votes on the basis of the size of one's state is when one is voting on rules of voting. At the communal level, as Bouie argues, the differences that really matter are thise distinguishing urban, suburban, and rural communities, complemented and reinforced by the demographic of these communities (meaning their racial, ethnic, religious characteristics, or increasingly, their net levels of education.
I hope this clarifies the point. Far from saying that the states exist to protect the rights of indivuals, I would follow the classic Madison argument that the worse kinds of majorities are far more likely to form at the state rather than the national level. Think Jim Crow legislation for the best example.
|
