As touched on in the article, what an utter disaster that's going to be for representation in the senate. If we don't fix this soon, there's going to be no way to fix it (if it's even fixable...
As touched on in the article, what an utter disaster that's going to be for representation in the senate. If we don't fix this soon, there's going to be no way to fix it (if it's even fixable now), considering constitutional amendment requires two thirds of the states or two thirds of the senate, which is the same damn problem.
The big state/small state paradigm is seriously dated. For all that the framers worried about it, back when the constitution was written, the populations of the thirteen states were pretty close. In the first congress, the most populous state, Virginia, had only ten representatives compared to the one representative had by the smallest states, Delaware and Rhode Island, and all the rest of the states had 3-8. Today, the ratio of biggest to smallest states is 53-1, that ratio is underrepresentative (California would have 68 representatives if every member of the house represented the same number of people), and it's growing. Fully half of the states have five or fewer representatives, making them proportionally smaller than the smallest two states when the constitution was written, in spite of representing a near majority in the senate.
Unless we're gonna start merging unpopulous states, the senate badly needs a redesign to reflect American urbanization. What I'd propose is making it a party list proportional system, where senators are apportioned based on the popularity of the parties; i.e. if the Democrats get 55% of the vote and the Republicans get 45%, the Democrats get 55 seats and the Republicans 45.
We're stuck with the Constitutional two-senator geographic allocation, barring very consequential amendments. I'm not totally unhappy that the U.S. has bicameral government, since the longer terms...
We're stuck with the Constitutional two-senator geographic allocation, barring very consequential amendments. I'm not totally unhappy that the U.S. has bicameral government, since the longer terms for Senators protect them somewhat from acting as instantaneous weathervanes voting by the passions of the moment, in perpetual campaign mode.
The original Constitution was designed to ensure minority rule in a slave-holding Republic [which is why Supreme Court appointments of "originalists" are horrifying]. Attempts to fix the Constitution through amendment continue to founder due to the elevation of territorial sovereignty and property rights over human rights.
The principle of "one citizen, one equally-weighted vote" has never been foundational at the federal level. Right now, we have defacto city-states forming, where governance at the local level matters far more to the daily lives of residents than what's taking place in Washington. And at the local level, the parties' policies are very different in practice from the national party ideologies. There are big-city mayors, Republican, Democratic, Socialist, who have far more experience of foreign diplomacy, practical policy design and implementation, complex public projects, budget management and direct democracy than the vast majority of rural state governors or congresspeople.
I'm aware we'd need an amendment. That's why it's vital we start pushing for it before the population gap reaches the levels predicted in the article, but considering we couldn't even get...
I'm aware we'd need an amendment. That's why it's vital we start pushing for it before the population gap reaches the levels predicted in the article, but considering we couldn't even get something as simple as the ERA passed, I'm not hopeful.
I absolutely agree with you on the constitution. A lot of the ideals of the framers were admirable, but let's be frank, it's a quarter of a millennium old document written by slaver-aristocrats before the industrial revolution. Even if the authors' intentions were entirely pure (they weren't), it would be well overdue for a rewrite. As is, I think the only reason it's stuck around so long is a combination of the fact that it set up a government that's fairly easy for powerful people and groups to manage, and the sort of cult of personality that's grown around the thing.
That was a really good read, but I wish it was a bit more concise. The eight states that mentioned are fairly obvious. Especially California and Texas. So this isn't that far-fetched.
That was a really good read, but I wish it was a bit more concise. The eight states that mentioned are fairly obvious. Especially California and Texas. So this isn't that far-fetched.
As touched on in the article, what an utter disaster that's going to be for representation in the senate. If we don't fix this soon, there's going to be no way to fix it (if it's even fixable now), considering constitutional amendment requires two thirds of the states or two thirds of the senate, which is the same damn problem.
The big state/small state paradigm is seriously dated. For all that the framers worried about it, back when the constitution was written, the populations of the thirteen states were pretty close. In the first congress, the most populous state, Virginia, had only ten representatives compared to the one representative had by the smallest states, Delaware and Rhode Island, and all the rest of the states had 3-8. Today, the ratio of biggest to smallest states is 53-1, that ratio is underrepresentative (California would have 68 representatives if every member of the house represented the same number of people), and it's growing. Fully half of the states have five or fewer representatives, making them proportionally smaller than the smallest two states when the constitution was written, in spite of representing a near majority in the senate.
Unless we're gonna start merging unpopulous states, the senate badly needs a redesign to reflect American urbanization. What I'd propose is making it a party list proportional system, where senators are apportioned based on the popularity of the parties; i.e. if the Democrats get 55% of the vote and the Republicans get 45%, the Democrats get 55 seats and the Republicans 45.
We're stuck with the Constitutional two-senator geographic allocation, barring very consequential amendments. I'm not totally unhappy that the U.S. has bicameral government, since the longer terms for Senators protect them somewhat from acting as instantaneous weathervanes voting by the passions of the moment, in perpetual campaign mode.
The original Constitution was designed to ensure minority rule in a slave-holding Republic [which is why Supreme Court appointments of "originalists" are horrifying]. Attempts to fix the Constitution through amendment continue to founder due to the elevation of territorial sovereignty and property rights over human rights.
The principle of "one citizen, one equally-weighted vote" has never been foundational at the federal level. Right now, we have defacto city-states forming, where governance at the local level matters far more to the daily lives of residents than what's taking place in Washington. And at the local level, the parties' policies are very different in practice from the national party ideologies. There are big-city mayors, Republican, Democratic, Socialist, who have far more experience of foreign diplomacy, practical policy design and implementation, complex public projects, budget management and direct democracy than the vast majority of rural state governors or congresspeople.
I'm aware we'd need an amendment. That's why it's vital we start pushing for it before the population gap reaches the levels predicted in the article, but considering we couldn't even get something as simple as the ERA passed, I'm not hopeful.
I absolutely agree with you on the constitution. A lot of the ideals of the framers were admirable, but let's be frank, it's a quarter of a millennium old document written by slaver-aristocrats before the industrial revolution. Even if the authors' intentions were entirely pure (they weren't), it would be well overdue for a rewrite. As is, I think the only reason it's stuck around so long is a combination of the fact that it set up a government that's fairly easy for powerful people and groups to manage, and the sort of cult of personality that's grown around the thing.
That was a really good read, but I wish it was a bit more concise. The eight states that mentioned are fairly obvious. Especially California and Texas. So this isn't that far-fetched.
North Carolina ousting Ohio though? I thought that was pretty surprising.
North Carolina is very popular especially up by Raleigh-Durham and Charlotte.
https://realestate.usnews.com/places/north-carolina/raleigh-durham