Democratic Reform of the United States government...

[Solon]

That's a small 'd' BTW, sometimes we bring up debates like whether the US is a Democracy or a Republic(its both, Republic in Form, Democracy in Function, nominally anyways), others about general governmental reform, mostly as intellectual excersizes to conceptionalize how such reforms can be carried out. In the spirit of other posts that talk about needed reforms, let me bring out my ideas about how the government should be structured and formed. I'll separate it out into 3 distinct areas, the first are reforms that can be brought about without the need for a constitutional amendment, the second requires a constitutional amendment, and the third are more radical reforms.

First are the "easy" reforms, simply put, we need a House of Representatives that represent us. Unlike what we are told, guess what, the Districting system now in place has NO mention in the Constitution. The Constitution only set forth to say that the states can set up the system as they see fit, as long as it kept to the obscenely low(by today's standards) 1 rep for every 30,000 citizens. This means a state could set up a system of At-Large Proportional Representation if it wanted to, through state law. There is one little thing that Congress did to prevent that however, setting the limit on Representatives and Senators to 535 Reps and Senators. This is unreasonable for a country that claims to uphold democracy.

To give an idea of what I mean by this, since this "standard" has been in place, we have added two states to the country, and as a consequence of this action by Congress almost a Century ago, other states lost representatives as a result, because the total number had to stay in place, while at the same time, new senators and representatives were elected for the two new states. This is reprehensable, why they set it at an abritrarily low number I don't know, but I don't see a justification for it, and there is nothing in the Constitution about it. In fact it should be Unconstitutional, because its a blatant violation of the 10th Amendment, however the Supreme Court refuses to hear cases about it because of Separation of Powers, that's ironic, don't you think?

This brings about interesting consequences, in addition to gerrymandering, which is hard as hell to prove, we have entire sections of the country that are unrepresented because the are the 49% in those districts. Back when the country was formed, most people would live and die in the same town, so I'm sure that the first creators of the districting system knew it made sense. However, in today's modern society, we are much more mobile, and have a much denser population, in five years I lived in 3 different congressional districts, had to register 3 times to vote in those districts. Yet, I have to ask why? Isn't it enough that I registered the first time, and I'm still a citizen of the country? Having to go in with 3 bills and an updated driver's license is rather annoying after a while. This probably contributes to our low voter turnout as well.

Solutions to this can be rather benign, if we could actually get the political will to do it. For one, it would be bi-partisan, there are Republican Minorities in Democratic districts, as well as the reverse. Term it as fair representation and maybe something will happen, without even having the need for a Constitutional Amendment.

Second proposal, requiring a Constitutional Amendment, abolish the EC, it simply makes no sense nowadays, and because of the problems mentioned in number one, its getting to the point where there is a disconnect between the citizens and the election of the EC. As Bush obviously represents, you can lose the popular vote, and win the EC, excepting the behavior of the Supreme Court of course. While that election was technically close, with "only" about 500,000 people putting Gore over the top, the margin could have been much larger, and the Presidency still handed to Bush, this of course excludes the abborent behavior and disenfranchisement activities of the GOP in Florida and elsewhere.

Third proposal, I think they require one or more Constitutional Amendments, at least in one case. However, first things first Puerto Rico should be granted statehood, and if not that, a Commonwealth status that gives them some representation. I'm thinking of a "peliminary" statehood of sorts, give them representatives that can actually vote in the House, but no Senators until they vote for full fledged Statehood. We could say the same for the other Territories as well as Washington D.C. The Capital is a special case, but should be represented, at least in the House, proportional to their population of course. The same for the U.S. Virgin Islands and the Territories in the Pacific, give them the same peliminary statehood if they don't meet the population requirements, or consolidate them, either way.

What do you think?

[shraby]

1. Something that might help

even out the equation a bit is changing the committee rules. When both houses have a one party majority as it does now, the committees will be chaired by the minority party.
As it stands, none of the committees can make anyone to account for any wrongdoings because the majority won't let them which has led to some grevious actions, i.e. Ashcroft refusing to turn over memos, the military not investigating the higher ups, and on and on ad infinitum.

[chicagojoe]

2. Changes in lobby rules are needed, as well.

[adwon]

3. Questions

I didn't understand your first proposal.

I disagree with abolishing the Electoral College. The likely result is that the parties will work on piling up even larger majorities in the regions where they are already dominant. The net result is even more regionalization of the parties. The sole beauty of the Electoral College is that it forces candidates to go hunting for votes in states that are outside their domain. This is a good thing.

Puerto Rico has consistently voted against statehood. I see no reason to coerce them into it via the amendment process. I also see no reason to grant them voting representation until they do approve statehood. If the various territories choose a loose affiliation with the US, that is their right.

As for DC, it was not meant to be state, nor should it ever be. The whole point of using land that wasn't state controlled was to prevent one state or the other from exercising undue influence over the federal government.

[Solon]

5. Sorry, wasn't entirely clear there...

The first proposal was rather long, so I'll be brief here. First, abolish the artificial constraint on the size of Congress, then set a proper ratio that is relatively fixed nationwide, the 1/30,000 number in the Constitution is too low, however, there is no practical reason not to increase the ratio to let's say 1/100,000 or 200,000. Next is to work state by state to abolish the districting system, replacing it with an at-large system of their choice, state by state as is their Federal Constitutional Power.

Second, your comment on the Electoral College is inaccurate to a large extent. In my state, the Democratic Party wrote it off as a "Red" state even though it was a 51-49 state. Whoever gets the 51 percent gets ALL the electoral votes, how is that not regionalization? Either reform it to be proportional in the allotment of the EC votes or eliminate it, its archaic and unnecessary in today's world. How much time did either candidate spend in Wyoming again? Rhode Island?

On your third argument, I didn't say coerce them into becoming a state, but granting them a provisional status that can give them a voting member in Congress but not in the Senate.

I never said make DC a state, I said give the citizens that live their representation in Congress, plain and simple, it's either that or exempt them from Federal Taxes, no taxation without representation after all.

[adwon]

19. Hmm

I've often wondered about changing the constituents per representative ratio. I'm not sure what the correct number would be, though. Currently, it's about 600k to a district (I think). 100k to a district would mean a House of 2610 representatives (assuming I'm right about the 600k). Call me crazy, but 2610 representatives seems a bit much.

Allocating electoral votes proportionally I could get behind. I'm not sure, but I think that would need to be done on a state by state basis.

Ok, here's my problem with abolishing it completely. With the current system, candidates do tend to ignore their own safe states. They really have no incentive to campaign in them because whether they get 51% or 100%, they still get the same amount of electoral votes. A complete removal of the electoral college would seem to encourage candidates to run back to those safe areas and boost their returns. After all, if one party usually wins a given state by at least 10 points, it's likely safe to assume that the party has the potential to gain a larger margin. Democrats would be more likely to concentrate on big coastal states like NY and CA in order to get out the maximum amount of voters. Republicans would scour rural areas through the South and Midwest to do the same. What incentive would either party have to challenge outside its region?

The guarantee of state sovereignty comes from the Senate. 26 states, representing less than 1/4 of the population, can block any damn legislation they choose (topic for another thread). The House is simply too big for a small state to make its presence felt. It seems like such an amendment would be coercive in effect because it give little benefit in exchange for the responsibility that comes with being a state.

Giving DC representation is making DC a state. Even if you don't call it a state, it gets the power of a state. As it stands, oversight for DC rests with Congress. True, the residents of DC don't get to vote for voting members of Congress, but what practical effect would giving them voting representation have? Zip. Further, if DC is to be a state in all but name, it would also have to acquire quite a bit of sovereignty over the territory. Presumably, if the DC government didn't like a particular vote in Congress, they could express displeasure by shutting off the water in the Capital. Likely? I'd call it a toss up.

[Solon]

21. You contradicted yourself there...

The guarantee of state sovereignty comes from the Senate.

I never said that DC should be given Senators, only Representatives, and according to the Constitution, Representatives represent citizens, not states. That argument is moot, I said a "special" status that is removed from statehood but allows them some voting members in congress. Either they are Citizens or they are not, all other considerations are simply window dressing, at the very least, exempt them from all federal taxes, otherwise, one of the reasons for the American Revolution was for naught to begin with. DC grew to be more than a Capital city, but a city of simple residents, people who, up until the '60s had no right to vote in any federal elections, they are without representation, I simply offered a solution to that that can be tenable to all the other states.

They would not be a state in everything but name, they would be Citizens with voting representatives in the House, that is all.

[Wilms]

4. kick n/t

[welshTerrier2]

6. your "reforms" don't address the biggest problem

money has totally corrupted our democratic institutions ... while "wonky" efforts at controlling financial abuses of our democracy are worth trying (e.g. campaign finance reform, lobbyist disclosures, etc), i'm skeptical they will ultimately bring about the reforms we need ...

so, the most important understanding one must have in trying to bring about democratic reform of the US government is the need to put restrictions on wealth ... no citizen should be allowed to acquire enough wealth that he or she would be financially able to corrupt the democratic processes of government ...

until corporations and the stockholders who control them are reigned in, there will be no democracy ...

[Solon]

7. We agree to a certain extent...

I was more or less talking about "structural" reforms more than systematic reforms. But to address your point, Campaign Finance Reform is an issue, a simple one to, too much money corrupts the democratic system. Regulating Corporations, for instance, should be simple, destroy the legal "precedent" of corporate personhood and then give regulatory bodies like the SEC actual teeth against Corporations that violate the law. Revoking Charters should be a power of not only State AGs but also of the SEC, FDA, EPA, and other bodies on a national level. They should also have the power to forbid foriegn businesses that violate our laws here from doing business within the country, and to hell with the WTO.

To address campaigns and private sponsorship, confine all donations from private individuals to 1,000 dollars. Make it illegal to have any organization donate money to political parties at all, whether for profit corporations or non profit orgs. At the same time, make it a law that air time on the major networks must be set aside for political campaigns of any political party that has demonstrated a 5%+ turnout in elections. These types of actions may require Constitutional Amendments, but they are needed to make a more equitable system for all citizens of the country.

[welshTerrier2]

8. fine for starters ...

i'm really skeptical that any reforms short of restricting wealth will ultimately succeed ... i have no idea what "maximum wealth" should be ... let's say maybe $1 million ... or $2 million ... that's it though ... i'm afraid that "money will out" (i.e. it will find its way into our democratic institutions) unless it's restricted ...

i'm all for giving the reforms you proposed a fair chance to work ... but if i'm right and big money will always be able to purchase a piece of our government, more draconian measures will ultimately be needed ...

[Solon]

11. Perhaps a tie in with how much a Corporate CEO can make...

compared to their lowest paid worker? Let's say at 30 times the pay of their janitors, or something equivalent?

[Lexingtonian]

9. I disagree

About the only thing in that list that is a non-temporary problem is the lack of direct representation given D.C. residents. This actually could be resolved by creating a legal fiction of D.C. residents north of the Potomac being Maryland residents, Virginia residents south of the Potomac as concerns federal representation. Historically, the problem derives from D.C. being a small town, really, of no significant account in any economic or population sense up to the Civil War. These days it's a city defined by the federal bureaucracy required to run a country of 330+ million citizens and inhabitants of occupied countries and territories, plus the descendents of the postwar shantytowns of soldiers and freed slaves.

I think 435 House Reps constitute a sufficiently representative cross-section of American society. Any increase in their number only diminishes the average caliber of human being in that august assembly further toward the national mean. It needs to be a stage not utterly defined by persistent mediocrity (which is what representative democracy is, at heart) but sufficiently select that the heros are larger than life and the villains are truly garish.

The Electoral College is no fun to watch in very close two person races. It works wonderfully when there are significant third and fourth candidates, though. Not that I think regionality will really ever become a strong cultural political force again, but the EC does settle elections definitively. The present era of close elections will end in another cycle or two- there will be 55-45 and 60-40 outcomes again, and the EC will look quaint rather than problematic.

Puerto Rico is socially disjointed from and historically and culturally not part of the continental American society- it's a Caribbean society and its fate is determined by its being part of that community. Incorporating Ontario south of and east-west line drawn through Barrie, or the coast of British Columbia would be far more logical, culturally and historically speaking. But it's not important- we're headed toward a federation encompassing North America and at least the Caribbean not too far in the future anyway, to which NAFTA and economic integration was the first step. At this point Canadian sovereignty is an increasingly tenuous fact, with the economic elites already long ignoring all the distinctions nationalistic people on both sides of the border insist on. The question is only the rate of accommodation and federation, not the facts of it. That the U.S. is the big brother in the relationships involved, there's nothing that can change that fact much in the foreseeable future.

Your gripe about reregistering is basically a complaint about the whole procedural apparatus of elections, and that in turn is due to the way the major parties have up to the present never wanted the machinery to slip completely out of their power- that would have been a kind of unilateral disarmament in the low standard of democratic competition that has existed.

By and large you're upset with the conditions of the past, which cannot be revised and edited, and the present, which is that of a civil war about acceptance of the Modern condition in which the power and violence exerted is psychological and financial rather than physical. Simple folk don't vote because voting doesn't change the political environment or the actual balance of power- it only reflects it, and they are the people who make it so by yielding to strength of influence. What is at stake in elections of the present- changing or not changing the rationale(s) by which government operates- is not something they really understand, so they rely (too) greatly on what certainties they have about what they don't like.

[Solon]

10. We would have to agree to disagree I'm afraid...

First, on the legal fiction suggestion regarding DC residents. I can see problems with that, for one, where would the congressional district line be drawn, and how would citizens of a non-state qualify for the elections? Also, at the same time, would the citizens in these fictional districts qualify to run for office as representatives in their respective "states"? I would imagine this would require, not only a Constitutional Amendment to the Federal, but two state Constitutions as well. Not only that, but at the same time, you would complicate a situation unnecessarily. DC is a special case, they already have reps in the House, but they are forbidden from voting on any bill, why not simply let them have a vote?

On your second point, I have no idea how you can think that having 435 reps represents the cross section of the United States, that's laughable, to put it bluntly. Back when it was set at where it is today, we had a third or less of the population we have today, right now 435 reps represent about 330 million citizens, but a decade down the road, it will be 400 million, then 500 million, then probably almost a billion, will 435 reps represent us at all by then?

To give an example of this problem, as of right now, the political parties are divided up like so, Republicans: 232 (53%) Democrats: 202 (46%) Independent: 1, however the Country as a whole is about 50/50 in actual political disparities. That makes the House have a represent ital disparity of about 9%, and with a fixed number of representatives in addition to a growing population, that only means the disparity will grow. I don't know, precisely what you mean by "heros" and "villians", nor do I understand the "mediocrity" remark. I'm concerned about fair representation in government, for all citizens, regardless of economic situation, race, or politics. I would gladly give up both the heros and the villians to have true representation for all citizens, otherwise, we are just nationals without representation. Is that really acceptable?

As far as Puerto Rico and the other remarks after it, that's a "pie in the sky" ideology if I ever heard of one. At best we may have an economic unity, to the detriment of all parties except for a few corporations, but further than that and I strongly doubt it. Canada is belligerent due to Bush's actions, most of the rest of the smaller nations as well as Mexico are suspicious, and NONE of them would enter such a unity, especially an EU type with us due to our belligerence to them. At this point in time, that is impossible to contemplate unless we end up overthrowing every national government from Arctic to Barbados.

Regarding the procedures, true its an annoyance, but also an example of our flawed electorial system as well. It is a system that ensures that two parties will almost always dominate, and that is a problem, plain and simple. In addition to that, I'm not so much as upset at the past as in seeing the historical problems that have occurred because of our problems in having a system that is at best, flawed, in how they represent us as citizens of the country. I simply put forth suggestions as to how to remedy the problems inherent in our system, without rewriting the entire Constitution.

This is a civil war between the "simple folk" and the financial and political institutions they have so little control over. At this point in time, this is leading to a great disconnect between what the people want and what the government does. Part of the problem is not so much the perception of powerlessness that citizens have in this country, but the fact of powerlessness that we have. In many places in this country, we have citizens that will not vote because it literally will not make a difference, and they aren't Greens either.

[Lexingtonian]

16. well, no.

First, on the legal fiction suggestion regarding DC residents.... why not simply let them have a vote?

Why imagine that it's that complicated? Divvy up north-of-Potomac DC as if it were a part of Maryland, ignoring the technical border, for piety's sake have some part of each such district contain some amount of Maryland soil and residents, and there's nothing to wrangle about for people who aren't in a hurry to wrangle. It requires only Congress ceding that to Maryland and likewise to Virginia.

On your second point, I have no idea how you can think that having 435 reps represents the cross section of the United States...then probably almost a billion, will 435 reps represent us at all by then?

I don't see why not. The U.S. is past its point of maximal ethnic segregation and beginning to integrate. Religion, gender, sexual preference, age, and to a limited extent class are already represented fairly adequately. I don't see any meaningful improvement involved in some further inflation of numbers. And U.S. population is expected to peak at 600 million in 2050, if you must know.

To give an example of this problem, as of right now, the political parties are divided up like so, Republicans: 232 (53%) Democrats: 202 (46%) Independent: 1, however the Country as a whole is about 50/50 in actual political disparities. That makes the House have a represent ital disparity of about 9%, and with a fixed number of representatives in addition to a growing population, that only means the disparity will grow.

The problem isn't those partisan disparities. You're seeing the effects of lack of political consensus of voters and institutional biases in favor of incumbents. A party that wants substantial change must prove its case, not have a slight predominance of the evidence in its favor. Like it or not, voters work according to the standards of criminal trials when dealing with conservative politicians.

I don't know, precisely what you mean by "heros" and "villians", nor do I understand the "mediocrity" remark. I'm concerned about fair representation in government, for all citizens, regardless of economic situation, race, or politics. I would gladly give up both the heros and the villians to have true representation for all citizens, otherwise, we are just nationals without representation. Is that really acceptable?

Are you saying those 435 people are somehow disconnected from society, and acting on alien influences alone? No, of course not. They're politicians, which means a kind of surfing and rowing on the waves of public opinion. As for your interests not being taken as most important, it's not because these people don't realize what yours are. Nor is it a conspiracy. It's that grassroots opinion is disorganized, temporary, emotional, unwilling to do work, small, and usually lacking in principle. The lobbying groups are not.

As far as Puerto Rico and the other remarks after it, that's a "pie in the sky" ideology if I ever heard of one. At best we may have an economic unity, to the detriment of all parties except for a few corporations, but further than that and I strongly doubt it. Canada is belligerent due to Bush's actions, most of the rest of the smaller nations as well as Mexico are suspicious, and NONE of them would enter such a unity, especially an EU type with us due to our belligerence to them. At this point in time, that is impossible to contemplate unless we end up overthrowing every national government from Arctic to Barbados.

Well, I speak from having been involved in such things in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. You entertain the common illusion about such things- that things are all what they appear to be. The people who rule don't see the world as you do, with nationalist blinkers, or imagine that George Bush represents any interests far beyond his own and those of his buddies. The reasons they fight and the reasons they agree with each other are not articulated well in the newspapers.

Regarding the procedures, true its an annoyance, but also an example of our flawed electorial system as well. It is a system that ensures that two parties will almost always dominate, and that is a problem, plain and simple.

No, it's the solution when there's something worth fighting about. Third Parties are people who are AWOL in the real arguments of their society.

In addition to that, I'm not so much as upset at the past as in seeing the historical problems that have occurred because of our problems in having a system that is at best, flawed, in how they represent us as citizens of the country. I simply put forth suggestions as to how to remedy the problems inherent in our system, without rewriting the entire Constitution.

Sure. But you feel compelled to list all these symptoms and yet are not able to figure out the disease. The fact of the matter is that all these are not new ideas. And the system itself would be working on them if it weren't engaged in a more fundamental debate.

All these solvable, but unsolved, political arrangement problems of this country are that way ultimately because a large part of the society prefers that rather than have Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, on which almost all the issues turn Constitutionally, accepted and enforced as the core political principle. To do so would de-privilege them in some way, be it as men, as white people, as 'Christians', as wealth possessors, and so forth which at this moment in time strikes them as a more important matter. That's the meaning of the Privileges and Immunities Clause, the Due Process Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause to them.

This is a civil war between the "simple folk" and the financial and political institutions they have so little control over. At this point in time, this is leading to a great disconnect between what the people want and what the government does. Part of the problem is not so much the perception of powerlessness that citizens have in this country, but the fact of powerlessness that we have. In many places in this country, we have citizens that will not vote because it literally will not make a difference, and they aren't Greens either.

I don't disagree about the facts, but the civil war I mean is among the people themselves. The financial powers and horrid politicians are the exploiters of the situation, of the way the people prefers to fight with each other rather than against the exploitation. At heart this is about Americans wanting government to prop up privileged classes of people, or not to. It's an argument about ending the social and economic order created by colonialism and the Settlement.

[Solon]

17. heh, first time I ever been called a nationalist...

that's funny, I'm not even a patriot. But onto the points.

First on DC, again, seems simple, however, politically, that type of arrangement may be untenable, with conflicts involving "undue" influence over the federal Government by Maryland and Virginia. Whether this actually happens or not is not the point, obviously, just the perception is enough to kill such an idea, why do you think it took a Constitutional Amendment to give them an independent Electoral Vote for President in the first place? Compromises, always, compromises, and this is simply another one, one that would be tenable for all the current states, and also, hopefully, tenable for the citizens of DC.

The U.S. is past its point of maximal ethnic segregation and beginning to integrate. Religion, gender, sexual preference, age, and to a limited extent class are already represented fairly adequately.

OK, show me where there are 52 African Americans, 43 Atheistic/Non-theistic members, equal number of Homosexuals, and about half the members of the House are female, and I'll tell you about a bridge I'm selling in Brooklyn. That is a ridiculous argument, the facts don't add up unfortunately, and to be honest, they wouldn't be rectified immediately under any reform plan. However, at this time, under the current status quo, it won't improve by any significant factor anytime in the future. Even given the coming demographic changes, we will no doubt have a series of gerrymandering problems nationwide to try to permanently disenfranchise large groups of people. At least with the tentative solution I put forth, that wouldn't happen.

As far as the integration comment, let me ask, why are ex-urbs being built so quickly again? Oh, that's right, White Flight Part Deux (TM).

Also, I never said this was a conspiracy, don't term it like that, for one, it is more fundemental than that. For two, a conspiracy requires people that are consciously trying to disenfranchise people through the status quo. Aside from those caught at gerrymandering or other types of fraud, voter intimidation, and such, no conspiracy exists. Its a systematic problem, one that is beyond the parties, at most its people simply agreeing with the way the system is set up now, simply because it has always been that way.

As for this comment:

Well, I speak from having been involved in such things in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. You entertain the common illusion about such things- that things are all what they appear to be. The people who rule don't see the world as you do, with nationalist blinkers, or imagine that George Bush represents any interests far beyond his own and those of his buddies. The reasons they fight and the reasons they agree with each other are not articulated well in the newspapers.

This I'm amused by, for one, I never claimed that everything is as it seems. There is but one constant in the world of politics, with few exceptions, that, in the case of democratic countries, politicians want to keep their seats as long as legally possible. The exceptions are lame ducks, such as GWB, but that is besides the point.

I wasn't talking about leaders, but about the citizens, unlike with the current president of this country, many of these leaders still have to face the citizens at election time, or their parties do, and the people in these countries DO have these types of concerns. If you were the PM of Canada, would it be wise to ignore both your party and the citizens who voted for it to abide by some one else's namely the United States, demands? Of course not, to do so risks your position as leader, as well as the hold of your party on power in general. This holds true for all governments in the world that have to face such things. Does this stop them from doing stupid actions against the people's will? No, but they pay the consequences for it, don't they? Look to Spain for an example of that.

It's even worse in some other Latin American and Caribbean countries, the reason is obvious as well. We have a bad rep in most of them, well deserved, I might add, and any designs on them that involves the United States is going to be viewed with suspicion, that much is plain. Any leader in these countries will and have faced stiff competition from political rivals, and in some cases have to worry about their own lives as a result of agreeing with the United States on anything.

I do agree with your last statement to a large extent, divide and conquer is the way to prop up the status quo. This is part of the reason why I wanted to prompt this discussion. I do not address the disease in this discussion, I simply was pointing out some problems with the system that was set in place over 200 years ago and is now becoming inadequet. Basically that problem is concentration of power, such as incumbancy preference, as you pointed out and I forgot, or the confinement of members in Congress. The disconnect I'm talking about is largely due to the fact that Representatives now represent far more people in a district than before, yes they have to pay attention, at least a little bit, to their constituency, however, they also have more of them to listen to, too many in fact. This makes them less responsive to the needs of the citizenry, and as a result, disconnected from them. Its much easier to "listen" to 100,000 people than to listen to over 600,000 like right now.

[Lexingtonian]

18. very funny....

conflicts involving "undue" influence over the federal Government by Maryland and Virginia. Whether this actually happens or not is not the point, obviously,

No, that's an argument about police powers, not powers involved in representation.

OK, show me where there are 52 African Americans,

You're talking quotas, as if adequate and proper representation of interests required them. That's pretty silly. Do schizophrenics and Alzheimer and epileptic patients, who make up 3% of the population, require people with those diseases to represent them? Do you have to be a chicken to know how to deal well with eggs? And if you had quota sorts of representation, would you also insist that they behave according to what the pollings show their ethnic communities support? Should there be 25 white Nazis and KKKers in the U.S. Congress, to 'properly' represent white Americans's views? Presently the U.S. Congress has Jewish American members in rather remarkable excess of their percentage of the population- do you think we should hold a raffle to decide which ones should resign, or a poker game? What about millionaires? What about a quota for Walmart employees, or McDonald's workers? How about felons- should it be 0, 1, or 2 murderers, and maybe it would be best to take one from death row? What about people in insane asylums? Or illegal immigrants? Divorcees? Amputees? Left handers? Tatoo wearers? Herpes sufferers?

To be blunt, the system has to, and does, reflect the constituents as well as the face of the elites and powers to the country and its districts. The power and wealth of American society lies in its corporate formulation- communities, businesses, churches and other voluntary associations, agencies/organizations. If a district is all GM factories, to represent it properly means to represent the workers' interests as well as the owners' interests as well as management's interests, and that without regard to the actual number of people who are owners and managers. That is not democratic, properly speaking; it's something more sophisticated. That is why your 'democratic' scheme is naive, let alone the quota kind.

As far as the integration comment, let me ask, why are ex-urbs being built so quickly again? Oh, that's right, White Flight Part Deux (TM).

I never said integration was complete, only that segregation is in decline. You know, I prefer dialogue to just watching you monologue. The distinction is that I would feel you are actually listening to what I say and replying to it....

It's much easier to "listen" to 100,000 people than to listen to over 600,000 like right now.

Much as I'd like to believe that, I don't.

[Solon]

20. No I'm not talking about quotas....

You were the one that claimed that Congress represents an adequete cross-section of American society, I simply used those numbers to disabuse you of that notion. You also conviently ignored the Gerrymandering problem I brought up, even though it has been evident that it is a problem. When a party is in power in any state around the census, they try to draw the lines to favor their party over the competition, this may seem like normal politics as always, however, think about the consequences to such actions. Representatives do not have to represent every constituent in their districts now, many don't and its common for them to ignore the ones who don't matter. If a Republican legislature draws districts so that blacks have a minority of 40% to ensure victory, why would any of the reps from those districts care about their black constituents?

I disagree entirely with the statement that reps have to represent their constituents as well as the elites and others. I have not seen that evident in today's world, it is a rare thing to have a rep who cares about all their constituents and not just a comfortable majority that they already represent because of an abritrarily drawn line.

As far as integration and segregation, its true that race relations are slightly better today, but just barely. I'm just talking about the repeat of what happened 30-40 years ago with White Flight, we're in the second stage of that, because, regardless of what you think, it is a rarety today to see truly integrated neighborhoods around most places in the country. Is it better than half a century ago, yes, but only nominally. Instead of laws forbidding this or that for a group of people, you have informal rules, or "cultural" rules on such things. We have some neighborhoods in areas that are wonderfully integrated, and we have others where as soon as African Americans start moving in, "For Sale" signs pop up all over the neighborhood.

I have seen the racism prevelent in society first hand, I'm a White Boy who's two best friends are Black and Philipino while growing up in the 1980's. I have not lived in the times when integration took place in schools, instead I have lived in the time after, the aftermath of that social reform. I believe that race relations have improved, however, I also know that this is due to no small amount of bloodshed and tears of others before me. People talk about race problems as if they are in the past, yet go to the nearest Ghetto, and you would know that that is an illusion that is trying to be swept under the rug by today's politicians.

To get back to DC, I have no clue as to what you are talking about with police powers. I'm talking about politics and the perception of favortism, not a fact of it, practical or otherwise. Politics isn't always rational, as we have seen time and time again. Besides, here is another point, DC has about a little over 500,000 citizens, which means, if given ONE district for representation, we are talking about one rep with today's system. That means some district in some state in some other part of the country would have to merge with another, and a rep in that state is lost. Let's say that your suggestion took place, they simply extend the adjacent congressional district lines in Maryland and Virginia to "represent" DC residents. Splitting them up in this manner gives them permenant minority status in any districts formed, how is that an improvement over what they have now?

[Lexingtonian]

22. this is turning into a waste of time

You were the one that claimed that Congress represents an adequete cross-section of American society, I simply used those numbers to disabuse you of that notion.

You disabuse me of the notion that you understand what 'representation of interests' means. I'll counterclaim that Congress could in practice function perfectly well with zero women and zero non-whites and zero gay people in its ranks. I'll counterclaim that Congress could represent an adequate cross-section of American society by having one woman, one gay person, one black person, and one Latino person in it- or even less.

Would it be uncomfortable? Yes. Would it be wrong? Not if people elected such a membership, given alternatives.

You also conviently ignored the Gerrymandering problem I brought up, even though it has been evident that it is a problem.

Why not actually understand what you're talking about, before you try to advance it as a rhetorical point? As a matter of fact, I do live in a state utterly gerrymandered (for Democrats) and where the term was invented. You are conflating different kinds of gerrymanders; in fact, it's hard to strictly define what a gerrymander is- it bleeds over into the political advantages of incumbency. In fact, being represented by an incumbent, or by a freshman, or by a person from the minority party in the district can be argued to amount to improper and inadequate representation. Illinois being represented in the Senate by a black man could be argued to be the same. California being represented in the Senate by two elderly Jewish-American women could be seen likewise.

You can't make the process yield some ideal set of people. It doesn't happen.

it is a rare thing to have a rep who cares about all their constituents

It's called 'elections'. One side wins, the opposition loses and gets to try again after a set period. Elections turn on the interests involved.

its true that race relations are slightly better today, but just barely

Things are getting better all the time. You refuse to accept how bad, relative to the present, things really were- simply because they never made a public appearance doesn't mean the resentments and racism weren't there: they were just kept hidden, these were the people who didn't cause scenes in public and simply avoided public notice of their views. In 1990, 23 years after Loving v Virginia was decided- forcing the last few states to legalize interracial marriage-, public polling first showed that a majority of Americans accepted legalization of interracial marriage. I remember that in the part of the country where I lived, interracial relationships and marriages (locally that meant mostly white-Asian ones) became publicly acceptable enough over a rather short period- around 1982 they became visible in public places, and in 1984 or 1985 only elderly people remarked on any of it anymore.

To get back to DC, I have no clue as to what you are talking about with police powers.

The reason the District of Columbia was created was so that federal officials would not be harassed or influenced by the exercise of state-level powers against them by their host states, which amounts to coercion. The only realistic coercive powers a state could exercise against federal officialdom are control of conduct or taxations, i.e. laws, and it would take police enforcement or lack of enforcement to achieve the coercive effect.

The powers of the House of Representatives amount to taxation and spending matters, all other powers it exercises are derivatives of that power. An average House Rep has a small portion of this 'power of the purse', which in practice amounts to less power over the administration of civic and criminal law enforcement in D.C. than being a citizen activist.

Thus the distinction. There is no meaningful clash of jurisdictions and powers, as you assert, on examination.

Let's say that your suggestion took place, they simply extend the adjacent congressional district lines in Maryland and Virginia to "represent" DC residents. Splitting them up in this manner gives them permenant minority status in any districts formed, how is that an improvement over what they have now?

Well, you'd have to adjust things so that similar amounts of residents are in all MD and VA districts. And with 435 House Reps, the influence exerted by individual DC citizens amounts to as much as that of individual citizens anywhere else in these states.

Improvement...there isn't any, strictly speaking, to the average citizen. That's the bottom line reason why no one cares whether DC gets House Reps of whatever form as long as House funding is apportioned in some reasonable measure. That's why only people on Internet fora and lots of time on their hands think it's anywhere on the list of important things for the U.S. government to deal with.

[hughee99]

12. Isn't the question of Puerto Rico statehood

in the hands of Puerto Ricans? Isn't this a better way to do it than for non-Puerto Ricans to "decide" that it should have statehood, or commonwealth status? The price for their ability to choose is representation. Until they decide, they don't have full representation. DC is a little different, because they do not have this choice, and something should be done to provide them full national representation.

[Solon]

13. That's pretty much what I'm talking about...

Allow their people to have representation in the Federal Government, but not representation as a state unless they vote on it, keep the Commonwealth Status if that is their wish, but some representation is better than none. Given the negotiations, they could simply have their single non-voting rep, be given a vote in the House.

[hughee99]

14. I thought they already had a single non-voting rep?

Luis Fortuno

ON EDIT. Sorry, I see what you're saying.

[Solon]

15. Yep, that's the guy...

Give him the vote equal to all other representatives of citizens of the country. However, since they aren't a state, they wouldn't get 2 senators unless they vote on it.