I agree with a lot of the problems as outlined in the piece, like the difference between the most valuable votes and the least valuable being way, way too big, territories and citizens being...
I agree with a lot of the problems as outlined in the piece, like the difference between the most valuable votes and the least valuable being way, way too big, territories and citizens being unrepresented, and the constitution being too hard to change.
I disagree completely with several others, including several of the proposed possible solutions and the "problems" they wish to address actually being problems.
One of the largest flaws of the piece is that it's completely US-centric. Proposals like this one should look at all the other solutions the world has tested since the oldest surviving written constitution was adopted in the last 18th century. Why not pick the best parts of all the things that do work well when you've got your microstates to push amendments?
Three main points:
I believe in a balance between population-based and geographical representation. To me this proposal goes -from today's extreme of "geography-trumps-all" to the opposite extreme of "population-trumps-all". Two-speed countries/unions, where rural populations are simply ignored for populous cities are not something that works well.
This whole proposal still doesn't deal with the greatest unfairness of the US electoral system: Winner takes all in first-past-the-post districts. Your vote is literally wasted and gains zero representation if your gal doesn't get the seat.
Other countries solve this with leveling seats or multi-candidate districts. Those ways of organization sometimes incorporate literal formulas balancing population and geography as objective. Design still leaves room for "winner-bonuses" to ensure ruling coalitions have stable majorities to ensure stable governance if one wishes for that.
The modern US president has outsized power and remains largely unaccountable to the electorate. When you're changing the constitution to rebalance democracy, why would one not redistribute more of that power to Congress? When the President can largely just ignore the majority in Congress on a host of issues anyway, how much can fixing the voting system really help if you don't fix the balance between the three branches of government so that triangle of shared power is more equilateral?
The plan is to make the area known as Washington DC into 127 micro states and a few federal buildings, then hold a new Constitutional Convention, and ratify whatever with the overwhelming DC...
The plan is to make the area known as Washington DC into 127 micro states and a few federal buildings, then hold a new Constitutional Convention, and ratify whatever with the overwhelming DC majority. According to Harvard Law Review, it holds up legally as states can be of any size, and the creation of states has been politically influenced in the past, and it ends on the conclusion that the system we have is just as unequal and patchworked together out of legal logic, but it works better for the powers that be so that is why it stays.
I agree with a lot of the problems as outlined in the piece, like the difference between the most valuable votes and the least valuable being way, way too big, territories and citizens being unrepresented, and the constitution being too hard to change.
I disagree completely with several others, including several of the proposed possible solutions and the "problems" they wish to address actually being problems.
One of the largest flaws of the piece is that it's completely US-centric. Proposals like this one should look at all the other solutions the world has tested since the oldest surviving written constitution was adopted in the last 18th century. Why not pick the best parts of all the things that do work well when you've got your microstates to push amendments?
Three main points:
Other countries solve this with leveling seats or multi-candidate districts. Those ways of organization sometimes incorporate literal formulas balancing population and geography as objective. Design still leaves room for "winner-bonuses" to ensure ruling coalitions have stable majorities to ensure stable governance if one wishes for that.
The plan is to make the area known as Washington DC into 127 micro states and a few federal buildings, then hold a new Constitutional Convention, and ratify whatever with the overwhelming DC majority. According to Harvard Law Review, it holds up legally as states can be of any size, and the creation of states has been politically influenced in the past, and it ends on the conclusion that the system we have is just as unequal and patchworked together out of legal logic, but it works better for the powers that be so that is why it stays.
I think it's interesting.