We need to break the power of the rural states

[krispos42]

Removing the filibuster would be nice but I don't think it's enough. It's just not enough when the smallest 25 states have the same power at the 25 largest states. Those low-population states have 15% of the nation's population!

I'd like to see a Constitutional amendment passed that limited the number of representatives a state could have to 12, and that states that got that 13th representative would be forced to split up by the next Census or have all of their representatives turned into non-voting delegates instead. In other words, the populous states would divide into smaller, roughly equally-populous entities as needed to prevent under-representation in the Senate.

If this were to happen, California would be dissolved into 5 smaller states, as it currently has 53 representatives. Texas (33), Florida (25), and New York (29) would break up into 3 smaller states, and Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, North Carolina, and New Jersey would split up into 2 states each.

At the end of the day we'd wind up with 67 states and 134 Senators. The heavily-populated sections of the country would get more representation in the Senate and the Electoral College., diluting but not eliminating the disproportional influence of the low-population states.

It would even work out nicely in the canton of the flag... 5 rows of 7 stars alternating with 4 rows of 8 stars.


Yeah, yeah, I know it will never happen. But it's nice to think and wonder about. A fresh start every decade or two as a new state joins the Union with new ideas and fresh energy...

Must be nice to see. There hasn't been a new state added to the Union in over 50 years now, after all. All of my life, plus about 20 years.

[KharmaTrain]

1. Let's Party Like Its 1789...

Proportional representation was one of the biggest sticking points during the Constitutional Convention. The brilliant compromise was our present bi-cameral system where the House represented by population and the Senate by thte states. The House has generally been the powerbase of the urban while the Senate was more widespread. It's ebbed and flowed...and a lot depends on the people who represent those areas. These days we have two polarized parties...especially the rushpublicans whose lock-step voting blocs have destroyed a lot of the give and take the founders were hoping would take place. This gives more power to those who play in the middle...as votes on each side negate one another, it gives a lot of power to those who can tip a vote one way or another.

We're seeing real dysfunction in the Senate where "protocol" and lots of money has corrupted its ability to compromise and work in the national good. Legislation from the House languishes if its controversial...and the few things they do do are done with a lot of acrimony and long and bitter debates. It's easy to fault poor leadership, but both leaders are pressured from the special interests and their party hierarchy that drives the divide further.

BTW...if you look at Texas, one of the conditions for their admission to the union was the option to divide into several states...and with the goofy succession talk by Perry and the previous gerrymandering, that may one day be a possibility.

One last thing...revising or adding new states would require this dysfunctional Congress to act. For the past 50 years the District of Columbia has been trying to get some representation and the partisan divides have blocked it. So there's some stuff to ponder...

Cheers...

[kentauros]

2. A simpler and easier to implement solution would be proportional representation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation

[krispos42]

3. We're a pretty varied country on several levels, so I don't particulary mind district voting...

...But modern technology has let vast numbers of people live together in much smaller areas than previously imagionable. The state of Kentucky, for example, now contains the entire population of the Unites States circa 1790.

If we could add in instant runoff voting, to get diversity in politics, and combine that with continually renewing our state boundries as the population expands, I think we might well get better governance.

For example, all of California's 37 million people are now suffering under the strain of Proposition 13 and the budgetary crisis it has caused. Breaking up California into 5 states (four new ones and a much smaller original) would give those new states a chance to begin fresh.

[kentauros]

5. I'm all for IRV and doing something about preventing the gerrymandering of districts.

I'm not knowledgeable enough about having "soft" borders for the states to really comment on it. I do know that it would be difficult to implement for the simple reason that too many people would be against it, mainly due to holding onto "tradition". I'd like to see us get rid of the dollar bill, the penny and maybe the nickel, but traditionalists won't allow anything that sensible...

[krispos42]

7. I've thought recently that the best way to prevent jerrymandering...

...would be to say that a congressional district can only be defined geographically by 6 lines, where a line is either a straight line between two points or a section of a river or lake, or an oceanic shoreline.

And I'd like to see some currency depreciation so that the penny was worth something again by 2100 AD!

[Union Yes]

4. I'd rather see the Senate abolished and operate under a unicameral legislation instead.

But I agree it's time for change.

knr

[Selatius]

6. I think things would shift to the left if there were a robust Public Option for federal elections.

As it stands, it's preferable for a lot of politicians to forgo any public financing of their campaigns because of the limited amount of money they receive and the restrictions placed upon them. They are simply outspent by their opponents.

If there were a very competitive alternative, a public option if you will, then I think you would quickly find politicians would rather do that instead. It frees up their time to glad-hand and meet voters, rather than spend all their time courting donors and throwing 500 dollar/plate dinners with the affluent. Arizona and Maine already implemented forms of voluntary public financing, and it's been a success in both states.

Another two suggestions I'd make are as follows:

1. People should be given the power, invoked through formal petitions, to challenge an act passed by Congress. This would serve as another check on power, especially on controversial bills.

2. People should be given the power to recall sitting legislators starting half-way through their terms. Imagine being able to recall Joe Lieberman in 2009 instead of waiting for his six-year term to expire in 2012.

Ultimately, in the end, I believe we are fighting against the tide of history. All good things eventually come to an end. We are stuck with the current system until the end because I cannot fathom these proposals being able to pass as constitutional amendments. The hurdles are just too high to cross.

As a result, I feel that at some point in the future, regretfully so, that we may have to seriously entertain the idea of dissolving the union, peacefully if at all possible. A house divided against itself cannot stand.

[krispos42]

8. I like public financing, too, although getting corporate money out of elections would be a giant...

...step forward, But the Supremes just put a bullet in that idea.

All because of a missing word in the 14th Amendment. :-(

[krispos42]

9. And in related news, ThinkProgress has produced a map...

...if the boundries of the states were re-drawn to reflect approximately equal population for each one.

Looks like I'd be in the State of St. Croix!



http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2010/01/imagine-if.php

[crispini]

29. Damn! Dallas gets its own state!

I'll take that.

Oklahoma won't be very pleased about that Spanish name they've slapped on there, though!

[crispini]

30. FYI, here's the original source

http://www.fakeisthenewreal.org/reform/

if you want to see it larger...

[jpak]

10. What were those Founding Fathers thinking?

Senate = 2 from each state

House = each state represented by population

A president with limited powers?

An independent judiciary?

A "Constitution"????????

The Horror

:rofl:

[krispos42]

12. A hundred thousand people per square mile I think was beyond their comprehension

I'm not saying the original system wasn't reasonable, I'm saying it needs updating. That's why we have an amendment process, after all.


I'm suggesting a way to keep senators more in touch with their constituants.

[JVS]

11. Gut crop subsidies. Then see how much they like big government.

[anonymous171]

16. That is a better idea. nt

[JVS]

17. And we have the power to do it.

[krispos42]

21. Well, it's always amused me that the states with the most anti-government people...

...are the states that get back more from the Treasury than they put in.


There are exceptions, of course, but by and large it's true.

[JVS]

22. How about how the people who cry about "men with guns" coming to get their tax money..

but drool all over themselves when it there is an opportunity to pay respect to cops and soldiers. Who the fuck do these fucking shitheads think the people they were bitching about coming to get the tax money were? At the very least are these professions not on the fat public payroll they hate?

[XemaSab]

43. Word

n/t

[SoCalDem]

13. Too late for that one..n/t

[treestar]

14. the cities in those states are blue

and they aren't even huge cities.

So maybe we need to move into those states.

Look at Iowa - improving already.

Nebraska has a good economy. More people moving in = bigger cities and more blue-ness.

[KamaAina]

15. You're absolutely right

Small-state senators like Bernie Sanders and Pat Leahy really suck compared to big-state ones like Dianne Feinstein and Bill Nelson.

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[Hippo_Tron]

18. Western Europe and Canada have basically powerless Upper Houses

Bicameralism and the US Senate were inspired by Britain's House of Lords. But subsequently Britain has stripped the House of Lords of most of its power.

[Tim01]

19. City people are ignorant about everything rural.

No way do I want city people making all the decisions about the rural areas.


Typical scenario is where the city people move out to the country, and then complain about the country stuff they now have to put up with, and try to pass laws to get rid of the country stuff they moved into. It would be the same thing on a much larger scale.

[Ex Lurker]

20. your correct observations will fall on deaf ears here

judging from the posts, DU is overwhelmingly urban/suburban. Most are ignorant of rural life and issues, and have shown little desire to learn.

[tammywammy]

23. +1 n/t

[Dappleganger]

39. Not to mention buying up our farmland and jacking up real estate...

then sticking it to us w/higher personal property taxes, ugh!

[Tim01]

44. Your farm would be a lot more sophisticated with a bunch of houses on it.

And more useful.
:sarcasm:

[zorahopkins]

24. Unicameral Legislature Would Work

Let's just have a unicameral (one house) legislature where each representative has one vote.

Isn't there some state that has this already?

We don't really NEED two "houses" in Congress, do we?

[krispos42]

25. I think we probably do to keep the populous states from screwing the big empty states

Otherwise, stuff like Yucca Mountain will happen everyplace.


We just need to fix the disparity between the big states and the empty states.

[treestar]

36. Nebraska - don't they have a unicameral legislature?

[kudzu22]

26. You're assuming that all five new Californias

will be blue. You could end up with one blue and four reds, depending on how the boundaries are drawn.

[krispos42]

28. I figure three "blue" state and two red.

One based around San Fransisco and two coastal SoCal types, one of those based around LA. One red inland one in the rural farming area beween the Pacific Ocean and Nevada, and one red-leaning state centered around San Diego.

Figure 3 RW senators, 5 or six left-wingers, and 1 or two moderates of either party.


Maybe.

[XemaSab]

42. This is a naive assessment

Depending on how you slice it, you could easily strangle the VERY liberal north coast, or totally overwhelm the "swing" area of Sacramento by pairing them with conservative areas that would vote for the far-right every time. Also, you'd have to watch out for the Arnold curse, where you get a middle-of-the-road politician just because the far right and the far left cancel each other out. You might also get some real fascists in there from the Valley who would make Jesse Helms look like Barbara Boxer.

The "best" way to gerrymander it would be to have a coastal North State (from Del Norte to Marin including Trinity, Lake, and Napa), an inland North State (down to just south of Yuba City), an east-west swath from the Bay Area to Tahoe (including Davis, Sacramento, and Stockton), a Central Coast state (from Santa Cruz and San Benito south to Ventura), an inland Central California state (from just south of Stockton down to the Tehachapis with Mono and Inyo), coastal Southern California (from LA to San Diego), and an inland Southern California state (of San Bernardino, Riverside, Imperial, and east San Diego counties). The capitols would possibly be Santa Rosa or Ukiah, Chico or Redding, Sacramento, San Luis Obispo, Fresno, LA, and Palm Springs.

This would give you 7 states, 3 of which would be fascist, and 4 of which would be very liberal. The problem is that 2 of the fascist states would control a lot of the state's resources and natural beauty. Also (and not coincidentally), 2 of the fascist states would have only one university apiece. Would the rest of the states really want to live next to redneckistan?

[krispos42]

46. The people of California would decided how to slice it

Presumebly, the state assembly would either do it directly, or there would perhaps be some kind of ad hoc committee or board appointed or elected to hammer out the boundries. A variety of different systems could be used: Drawing state boundries along existing congressional district borders, or along county boundries, or from scratch by using geographical and population information to determine them. Then the proposed boarders would be voted on by the Assembly or the people directly.


So it could be gerrymandered either way, I suppose. However I think the critical thing is that each new state would be able to start fresh with the state government and state laws. This is the chance for things like instant runoff voting, marriage equality, corporate controls, and proportional electoral college allocations to be set in the state constitution.

[The Straight Story]

27. or give the feds less power and let states make of their own decisions (nt)

[reformist]

31. Or, thousands of liberals could move en masse to WY, AK, ND, etc.

[hfojvt]

32. I have done this a number of times

the fact is that we have more Democratic Senators in the smallest states. The Dakotas are split our way 3-1 (used to be 4-0, perhaps will soon be 2-2) New Hampshire, Delaware, Montana (not that Baucus is a huge liberal). Connecticut is the 29th largest.

[krispos42]

38. But it makes a lot of ConservaDems, which helps nobody.

They may be Dems, but they are conservative/corporatist, so that means that low-population states have an unreasonably high conservative influence on the nation as a whole.


The 41 Republicans in the Senate (or soon to be in the Senate) represent only about 37% of the population. Throw in the 5 or 6 ConserveaDems and the bias is probably even more apparant, althougt I haven't run the numbers on that. But a lot of those ConserveaDems are from, say, Iowa or South Dakota or Nebraska.

[hfojvt]

41. conservadems

you mean like George McGovern (SD), Tom Harkin (Iowa), Sheldon Whitehouse (Rhode Island #43 in size), Bernie Sanders (from the 49th largest state)?

or conservadems like DiFi or Herb Kohl from the 20th largest state. Is Nelson from Florida (4th largest) more conservative than his twin brother from Nebraska? Evam Bayh is from a fairly populous state and your plan would give more representation to places like Texas and Missouri (which used to be represented by Kit Bond and Jim Talent). 34 of California's 53 representatives are Democrats, but 19 of them are Republicans. Give them more representatives in the Senate and there would bound to be more Republican representation rather than our current 2-0 advantage.

[deaniac21]

33. I don't beleive in the founding fathers or the constitution either.

[depakid]

34. Your sarcasm (and the blind worship it implies) shackles you to an archaic, 18th Century system

that's grown dysfunctional, preventing the nation from solving pressing problems in the 21st Century- not just in a timely manner- but in any manner that will prevent you decline into third world status.

There's a reason why successful nations around the world haven't emulated it.

[krispos42]

37. "I'd like to see a Constitutional amendment passed..."

Which, last time I checked, constitutional. :-)

[MellowDem]

35. Destroy the Senate!!!

That's my solution, at least.

[Dappleganger]

40. I'd imagine...

that comments such as the OP is offering would get him/her-self tarred and feathered by the Founding Fathers. ;)

[LWolf]

45. No, thanks.

Rural people are also citizens.


Our voice counts, too.

[krispos42]

47. Speaking as a rural resident, I agree.

But our votes shouldn't count for so much more. We need enough votes to counter urban ignorance and/or exploitation of rural areas, but not enough to exploit urban areas in turn.

[reformist]

48. In Defense of the Senate.

While I agree it is hardly democratic in nature, I think it's important that the Senate does allow certain regional viewpoints and economic sectors to be represented that would be overwhelmed otherwise by the urban vote. Without the Senate, would farming & fishing & mining interests be represented at all?