Time for modifying apportionment - Page 2

TragicMonkey · 21st December 2020, 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

You could cut the Senate in half though.

I wouldn't, but I can't say I'd shed a lot of tears if someone else did that.

pgwenthold · 21st December 2020, 03:24 PM

Is there anything that says a congressional district has to be completely within a single state?

OK, North and South Dakota each have two senators, but maybe they could have a single representative?

acbytesla · 21st December 2020, 03:50 PM

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

Is there anything that says a congressional district has to be completely within a single state?

OK, North and South Dakota each have two senators, but maybe they could have a single representative?

Each State must have a minimum of one representative.

acbytesla · 21st December 2020, 03:51 PM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

I wouldn't, but I can't say I'd shed a lot of tears if someone else did that.

It would take a Constitutional Amendment however.

TragicMonkey · 21st December 2020, 04:00 PM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

It would take a Constitutional Amendment however.

I thought only people in books named their swords?

acbytesla · 21st December 2020, 04:14 PM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

I thought only people in books named their swords?

I don't pick up the reference. Huh?

Cain · 21st December 2020, 04:32 PM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

You could cut the Senate in half though.

This would be a terrible idea. Then states become outright fiefdoms, further raising the prestige and status of being a US Senator. I would not mind going in the other direction. Let's have thousands of Senators.

Quote:

You could also change/limit its authority.

Yes, and this would probably be the best route. Just limit it to basically a ceremonial office. I've mentioned earlier admitting city-states (Mexico City gets three senators in a system modeled after ours).

Quote:

It's also arguable that you could abolish the Senate in a two step process. First by amending the equal suffrage shield. Then by abolishing the Senate. But I get it's difficult if not almost impossible.

I've heard this proposal as well, and I wonder what Constitutional scholars have to say. It strikes me as dirty pool. If Article V applied to a few things, I would understand, but it only applies (currently) to one thing, which makes it that much more obnoxious.

acbytesla · 21st December 2020, 04:44 PM

Originally Posted by Cain

This would be a terrible idea. Then states become outright fiefdoms, further raising the prestige and status of being a US Senator. I would not mind going in the other direction. Let's have thousands of Senators.

Yes, and this would probably be the best route. Just limit it to basically a ceremonial office. I've mentioned earlier admitting city-states (Mexico City gets three senators in a system modeled after ours).

I've heard this proposal as well, and I wonder what Constitutional scholars have to say. It strikes me as dirty pool. If Article V applied to a few things, I would understand, but it only applies (currently) to one thing, which makes it that much more obnoxious.

I'm just talking. The Senate is so unbelievably undemocratic. Adding more Senators is as troublesome as cutting them in half. But cutting them in half would address the EC issue somewhat. But if we are going to pass a Constitutional Amendment, just abolishing the EC would be easier than dealing with the Senate.

I'm in favor of eliminating the States or combining States so instead of 50 we have ten or five. We have different states because Great Britain created 13 separate colonies. We created States with blinders. I've spent a lot of time (too much) reimagining the structure of our government. We built mistakes on top of mistakes. What worked in 1789 hardly works today. And unfortunately the founders made the Constitution too hard to modify.

slyjoe · 21st December 2020, 04:56 PM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

I'm just talking. The Senate is so unbelievably undemocratic. Adding more Senators is as troublesome as cutting them in half. But cutting them in half would address the EC issue somewhat. But if we are going to pass a Constitutional Amendment, just abolishing the EC would be easier than dealing with the Senate.

I'm in favor of eliminating the States or combining States so instead of 50 we have ten or five. We have different states because Great Britain created 13 separate colonies. We created States with blinders. I've spent a lot of time (too much) reimagining the structure of our government. We built mistakes on top of mistakes. What worked in 1789 hardly works today. And unfortunately the founders made the Constitution too hard to modify.

I think I agree mostly with this. The Constitution is too hard to modify. But I am also in favor of NOT makling it TOO easy. It's a tough balancing act, with no ideal solution I can see.

In the states, there is generally a simple referendum to modify the state's constitution (or in fact to make laws). I don't know of anything like that at the national level currently.

acbytesla · 21st December 2020, 05:05 PM

Originally Posted by slyjoe

I think I agree mostly with this. The Constitution is too hard to modify. But I am also in favor of NOT makling it TOO easy. It's a tough balancing act, with no ideal solution I can see.

In the states, there is generally a simple referendum to modify the state's constitution (or in fact to make laws). I don't know of anything like that at the national level currently.

Every State has different rules. So unless you know each State's founding document I'm not sure this is universally true. I'd bet it isn't.

psionl0 · 21st December 2020, 09:52 PM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

It is up to the States. But that is because of the wording of the 1929 Reapportionment Act.

Hmmm. Although the constitution clearly leaves the makeup of the EC to the states, it is disquietenly quiet about who has the authority to make laws for electoral divisions in each state.

Maybe an MMP system is possible after all.

slyjoe · 22nd December 2020, 08:21 AM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Every State has different rules. So unless you know each State's founding document I'm not sure this is universally true. I'd bet it isn't.

You are correct - it's not universally true. Ballotpedia has info on initiatives and referendums.

https://ballotpedia.org/States_with_..._or_referendum

dudalb · 22nd December 2020, 01:48 PM

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Wouldn't, "No gerrymandering, please!" be sufficient?

Yes.
Bitter fact is both parties rage against Gerrymandering when they are out of power but use it when they are power.GOP are the worst offenders now simply because they have a majority of the state legislatures. Dems can be just as outrageous in Gerrymandering as the GOP. California is an example. It was the Democratic legislature gerrymandering that borught about the intiatiive that pretty much ending gerrymandering in California. A non partisan panel of judges draw up the dristricts, and the races have become much more competitive.
Problem I have with the "reform" is that it would reduce the Small Population States ot total helplessness . I agree that they have too much power now, but I don't want to reduce them to total helplessness.
I get the feeling, also, that acbytesla does not like Federalism very much, and wants an all
powerful central government. I don't.

acbytesla · 22nd December 2020, 02:01 PM

Originally Posted by dudalb

Yes.
Problem I have with the "reform" is that it would reduce the Small Population States ot total helplessness . I agree that they have too much power now, but I don't want to reduce them to total helplessness.
I get the feeling, also, that acbytesla does not like Federalism very much, and wants an all
powerful central government. I don't.

I'm not sure it would, There is this myth that rural farm states would be ignored. Having seen what has happened in Washington, Oregon and California, I see little evidence that rural areas in these States are ignored.

As for Federalism I can see the benefits and the drawbacks. Especially as it is practiced today. There are definitely benefits to "local" government. But we have too many layers of government. City laws and administration. County laws and administration, State laws and administration as well as Federal laws and administration. Too much duplication, a lot of divide and conquer. I think we could eliminate at least one layer.

JoeMorgue · 22nd December 2020, 02:06 PM

Originally Posted by dudalb

Problem I have with the "reform" is that it would reduce the Small Population States ot total helplessness .

Okay this is always the excuse and it makes... absolutely... no... sense.

"Small Population States" would not be helpless, they just wouldn't have extra power just because they are "states."

The ~570,000 people who live in Wyoming should have the EXACT SAME power in the government, electing the President, and over my life as the ~570,000 people who live in Albuquerque.

Should the city of Albuquerque get two Senators? No? Of course not, that's crazy. Then why the **** should the state of Wyoming? It's the same number of people. They don't get to count more because they are spread out. LAND DOESN'T VOTE PEOPLE DO! Why is this concept so hard?

And I've never got an answer. "Because they are states" isn't an answer, it's circular. "Because the Constitution says so" isn't an answer, it's an evasion.

acbytesla · 22nd December 2020, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Okay this is always the excuse and it makes... absolutely... no... sense.

"Small Population States" would not be helpless, they just wouldn't have extra power just because they are "states."

The ~570,000 people who live in Wyoming should have the EXACT SAME power in the government, electing the President, and over my life as the ~570,000 people who live in Albuquerque.

Should the city of Albuquerque get two Senators? No? Of course not, that's crazy. Then why the **** should the state of Wyoming? It's the same number of people. They don't get to count more because they are spread out. LAND DOESN'T VOTE PEOPLE DO! Why is this concept so hard?

And I've never got an answer. "Because they are states" isn't an answer, it's circular. "Because the Constitution says so" isn't an answer, it's an evasion.

How about this is the deal the founders made?

I'd love to do something about the undemocratic Senate but without a full scale Constitutional convention, it ain't going to happen. This is why I have refocused on more fair representation in the House which doesn't require a 2/3rds majority in Congress and a 3/4 of State legislatures to approve.

In 1929 the leaders saw the power of the cities rising and changed apportionment. Time to change it back. Enough of each of Wyoming's 578,000 citizens having the same power of each of 53 districts of 750K citizens in California.

BobTheCoward · 22nd December 2020, 02:34 PM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

How about this is the deal the founders made?

I'd love to do something about the undemocratic Senate but without a full scale Constitutional convention, it ain't going to happen. This is why I have refocused on more fair representation in the House which doesn't require a 2/3rds majority in Congress and a 3/4 of State legislatures to approve.

In 1929 the leaders saw the power of the cities rising and changed apportionment. Time to change it back. Enough of each of Wyoming's 578,000 citizens having the same power of each of 53 districts of 750K citizens in California.

New york state has more rural voters than wyoming has voters.

acbytesla · 22nd December 2020, 03:02 PM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

New york state has more rural voters than wyoming has voters.

So does a lot of States.

CapelDodger · 22nd December 2020, 03:29 PM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Okay. And?

The problem is how do we get people who have an unfair amount of power to volunteer to give it up?

A credible threat of an even less attractive outcome than surrendering some of it.

CapelDodger · 22nd December 2020, 03:36 PM

Originally Posted by dudalb

Yes.
Bitter fact is both parties rage against Gerrymandering when they are out of power but use it when they are power.GOP are the worst offenders now simply because they have a majority of the state legislatures. Dems can be just as outrageous in Gerrymandering as the GOP. California is an example. It was the Democratic legislature gerrymandering that borught about the intiatiive that pretty much ending gerrymandering in California. A non partisan panel of judges draw up the dristricts, and the races have become much more competitive.

The fact that that happened suggests that Democratic Party supporters disapproved of the policy, and the party was sensitive to that. I doubt it would be easy to find a Republican counterpart.

CapelDodger · 22nd December 2020, 03:51 PM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

New york state has more rural voters than wyoming has voters.

Wyoming probably has more cows.

acbytesla · 22nd December 2020, 03:54 PM

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

Wyoming probably has more cows.

More than twice as many.

CapelDodger · 22nd December 2020, 04:00 PM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

As for Federalism I can see the benefits and the drawbacks. Especially as it is practiced today. There are definitely benefits to "local" government. But we have too many layers of government. City laws and administration. County laws and administration, State laws and administration as well as Federal laws and administration. Too much duplication, a lot of divide and conquer. I think we could eliminate at least one layer.

It's that diffusion of power, and the jealous protection of it, that I see as the US's best defence against fascism. Heaven knows it needs one.

CapelDodger · 22nd December 2020, 04:20 PM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

More than twice as many.

And just as relevant

.

I'm sure you're fully conversant with the negotiation of the Constitution, and the need to assure each State that its particular interests would be equally represented in government, protected from the democratic mob that would otherwise vote itself free beer and make the cash-earning plantation states pay for it. It's simply too foundational to change. With a reasonable amount of good faith it works : without you get a Civil War and whatever this is.

acbytesla · 22nd December 2020, 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

And just as relevant

.

I'm sure you're fully conversant with the negotiation of the Constitution, and the need to assure each State that its particular interests would be equally represented in government, protected from the democratic mob that would otherwise vote itself free beer and make the cash-earning plantation states pay for it. It's simply too foundational to change. With a reasonable amount of good faith it works : without you get a Civil War and whatever this is.

Yes.

Remember, it was Shay's rebellion which was a major factor that led to the abandonment of the Articles of Confederation and the new Constitution.

acbytesla · 22nd December 2020, 04:40 PM

Originally Posted by CapelDodger

It's that diffusion of power, and the jealous protection of it, that I see as the US's best defence against fascism. Heaven knows it needs one.

It certainly made a difference here in 2020. I just think we could do some streamlining and refinement. Our government was created in agrarian times with entirely different situations.

21st December 2020, 03:21 PM	#41
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 59,523	Originally Posted by acbytesla You could cut the Senate in half though. I wouldn't, but I can't say I'd shed a lot of tears if someone else did that.
	__________________ You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.

21st December 2020, 03:24 PM	#42
pgwenthold Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 20,134	Is there anything that says a congressional district has to be completely within a single state? OK, North and South Dakota each have two senators, but maybe they could have a single representative?
	__________________ "As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets

21st December 2020, 03:50 PM	#43
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 28,323	Originally Posted by pgwenthold Is there anything that says a congressional district has to be completely within a single state? OK, North and South Dakota each have two senators, but maybe they could have a single representative? Each State must have a minimum of one representative.
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. .

21st December 2020, 03:51 PM	#44
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 28,323	Originally Posted by TragicMonkey I wouldn't, but I can't say I'd shed a lot of tears if someone else did that. It would take a Constitutional Amendment however.
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. .

21st December 2020, 04:00 PM	#45
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 59,523	Originally Posted by acbytesla It would take a Constitutional Amendment however. I thought only people in books named their swords?
	__________________ You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.

21st December 2020, 04:14 PM	#46
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 28,323	Originally Posted by TragicMonkey I thought only people in books named their swords? I don't pick up the reference. Huh?
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. .

21st December 2020, 04:32 PM	#47
Cain Straussian Join Date: May 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 14,280	Originally Posted by acbytesla You could cut the Senate in half though. This would be a terrible idea. Then states become outright fiefdoms, further raising the prestige and status of being a US Senator. I would not mind going in the other direction. Let's have thousands of Senators. Quote: You could also change/limit its authority. Yes, and this would probably be the best route. Just limit it to basically a ceremonial office. I've mentioned earlier admitting city-states (Mexico City gets three senators in a system modeled after ours). Quote: It's also arguable that you could abolish the Senate in a two step process. First by amending the equal suffrage shield. Then by abolishing the Senate. But I get it's difficult if not almost impossible. I've heard this proposal as well, and I wonder what Constitutional scholars have to say. It strikes me as dirty pool. If Article V applied to a few things, I would understand, but it only applies (currently) to one thing, which makes it that much more obnoxious.
	__________________ April 13th, 2018: Ranb: I can't think of anything useful you contributed to a thread in the last few years.

21st December 2020, 04:44 PM	#48
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 28,323	Originally Posted by Cain This would be a terrible idea. Then states become outright fiefdoms, further raising the prestige and status of being a US Senator. I would not mind going in the other direction. Let's have thousands of Senators. Yes, and this would probably be the best route. Just limit it to basically a ceremonial office. I've mentioned earlier admitting city-states (Mexico City gets three senators in a system modeled after ours). I've heard this proposal as well, and I wonder what Constitutional scholars have to say. It strikes me as dirty pool. If Article V applied to a few things, I would understand, but it only applies (currently) to one thing, which makes it that much more obnoxious. I'm just talking. The Senate is so unbelievably undemocratic. Adding more Senators is as troublesome as cutting them in half. But cutting them in half would address the EC issue somewhat. But if we are going to pass a Constitutional Amendment, just abolishing the EC would be easier than dealing with the Senate. I'm in favor of eliminating the States or combining States so instead of 50 we have ten or five. We have different states because Great Britain created 13 separate colonies. We created States with blinders. I've spent a lot of time (too much) reimagining the structure of our government. We built mistakes on top of mistakes. What worked in 1789 hardly works today. And unfortunately the founders made the Constitution too hard to modify.
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. . Last edited by acbytesla; 21st December 2020 at 04:48 PM.

21st December 2020, 04:56 PM	#49
slyjoe Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Near Harmonica Virgins, AZ Posts: 2,567	Originally Posted by acbytesla I'm just talking. The Senate is so unbelievably undemocratic. Adding more Senators is as troublesome as cutting them in half. But cutting them in half would address the EC issue somewhat. But if we are going to pass a Constitutional Amendment, just abolishing the EC would be easier than dealing with the Senate. I'm in favor of eliminating the States or combining States so instead of 50 we have ten or five. We have different states because Great Britain created 13 separate colonies. We created States with blinders. I've spent a lot of time (too much) reimagining the structure of our government. We built mistakes on top of mistakes. What worked in 1789 hardly works today. And unfortunately the founders made the Constitution too hard to modify. I think I agree mostly with this. The Constitution is too hard to modify. But I am also in favor of NOT makling it TOO easy. It's a tough balancing act, with no ideal solution I can see. In the states, there is generally a simple referendum to modify the state's constitution (or in fact to make laws). I don't know of anything like that at the national level currently.
	__________________ "You have done nothing to demonstrate an understanding of scientific methodology or modern skepticism, both of which are, by necessity, driven by the facts and evidence, not by preconceptions, and both of which are strengthened by, and rely upon, change." - Arkan Wolfshade

21st December 2020, 05:05 PM	#50
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 28,323	Originally Posted by slyjoe I think I agree mostly with this. The Constitution is too hard to modify. But I am also in favor of NOT makling it TOO easy. It's a tough balancing act, with no ideal solution I can see. In the states, there is generally a simple referendum to modify the state's constitution (or in fact to make laws). I don't know of anything like that at the national level currently. Every State has different rules. So unless you know each State's founding document I'm not sure this is universally true. I'd bet it isn't.
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. .

21st December 2020, 09:52 PM	#51
psionl0 Skeptical about skeptics Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E Posts: 17,017	Originally Posted by acbytesla It is up to the States. But that is because of the wording of the 1929 Reapportionment Act. Hmmm. Although the constitution clearly leaves the makeup of the EC to the states, it is disquietenly quiet about who has the authority to make laws for electoral divisions in each state. Maybe an MMP system is possible after all.
	__________________ "The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

22nd December 2020, 08:21 AM	#52
slyjoe Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Near Harmonica Virgins, AZ Posts: 2,567	Originally Posted by acbytesla Every State has different rules. So unless you know each State's founding document I'm not sure this is universally true. I'd bet it isn't. You are correct - it's not universally true. Ballotpedia has info on initiatives and referendums. https://ballotpedia.org/States_with_..._or_referendum
	__________________ "You have done nothing to demonstrate an understanding of scientific methodology or modern skepticism, both of which are, by necessity, driven by the facts and evidence, not by preconceptions, and both of which are strengthened by, and rely upon, change." - Arkan Wolfshade

22nd December 2020, 01:48 PM	#53
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sacramento Posts: 50,334	Originally Posted by angrysoba Wouldn't, "No gerrymandering, please!" be sufficient? Yes. Bitter fact is both parties rage against Gerrymandering when they are out of power but use it when they are power.GOP are the worst offenders now simply because they have a majority of the state legislatures. Dems can be just as outrageous in Gerrymandering as the GOP. California is an example. It was the Democratic legislature gerrymandering that borught about the intiatiive that pretty much ending gerrymandering in California. A non partisan panel of judges draw up the dristricts, and the races have become much more competitive. Problem I have with the "reform" is that it would reduce the Small Population States ot total helplessness . I agree that they have too much power now, but I don't want to reduce them to total helplessness. I get the feeling, also, that acbytesla does not like Federalism very much, and wants an all powerful central government. I don't.
	__________________ Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty. Robert Heinlein. Last edited by dudalb; 22nd December 2020 at 01:52 PM. Reason: MANDERING

22nd December 2020, 02:01 PM	#54
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 28,323	Originally Posted by dudalb Yes. Problem I have with the "reform" is that it would reduce the Small Population States ot total helplessness . I agree that they have too much power now, but I don't want to reduce them to total helplessness. I get the feeling, also, that acbytesla does not like Federalism very much, and wants an all powerful central government. I don't. I'm not sure it would, There is this myth that rural farm states would be ignored. Having seen what has happened in Washington, Oregon and California, I see little evidence that rural areas in these States are ignored. As for Federalism I can see the benefits and the drawbacks. Especially as it is practiced today. There are definitely benefits to "local" government. But we have too many layers of government. City laws and administration. County laws and administration, State laws and administration as well as Federal laws and administration. Too much duplication, a lot of divide and conquer. I think we could eliminate at least one layer.
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. .

22nd December 2020, 02:06 PM	#55
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 30,721	Originally Posted by dudalb Problem I have with the "reform" is that it would reduce the Small Population States ot total helplessness . Okay this is always the excuse and it makes... absolutely... no... sense. "Small Population States" would not be helpless, they just wouldn't have extra power just because they are "states." The ~570,000 people who live in Wyoming should have the EXACT SAME power in the government, electing the President, and over my life as the ~570,000 people who live in Albuquerque. Should the city of Albuquerque get two Senators? No? Of course not, that's crazy. Then why the **** should the state of Wyoming? It's the same number of people. They don't get to count more because they are spread out. LAND DOESN'T VOTE PEOPLE DO! Why is this concept so hard? And I've never got an answer. "Because they are states" isn't an answer, it's circular. "Because the Constitution says so" isn't an answer, it's an evasion.
	__________________ Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question." Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..." Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate." Last edited by JoeMorgue; 22nd December 2020 at 02:15 PM.

22nd December 2020, 02:30 PM	#56
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 28,323	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue Okay this is always the excuse and it makes... absolutely... no... sense. "Small Population States" would not be helpless, they just wouldn't have extra power just because they are "states." The ~570,000 people who live in Wyoming should have the EXACT SAME power in the government, electing the President, and over my life as the ~570,000 people who live in Albuquerque. Should the city of Albuquerque get two Senators? No? Of course not, that's crazy. Then why the **** should the state of Wyoming? It's the same number of people. They don't get to count more because they are spread out. LAND DOESN'T VOTE PEOPLE DO! Why is this concept so hard? And I've never got an answer. "Because they are states" isn't an answer, it's circular. "Because the Constitution says so" isn't an answer, it's an evasion. How about this is the deal the founders made? I'd love to do something about the undemocratic Senate but without a full scale Constitutional convention, it ain't going to happen. This is why I have refocused on more fair representation in the House which doesn't require a 2/3rds majority in Congress and a 3/4 of State legislatures to approve. In 1929 the leaders saw the power of the cities rising and changed apportionment. Time to change it back. Enough of each of Wyoming's 578,000 citizens having the same power of each of 53 districts of 750K citizens in California.
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. .

22nd December 2020, 02:34 PM	#57
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 20,258	Originally Posted by acbytesla How about this is the deal the founders made? I'd love to do something about the undemocratic Senate but without a full scale Constitutional convention, it ain't going to happen. This is why I have refocused on more fair representation in the House which doesn't require a 2/3rds majority in Congress and a 3/4 of State legislatures to approve. In 1929 the leaders saw the power of the cities rising and changed apportionment. Time to change it back. Enough of each of Wyoming's 578,000 citizens having the same power of each of 53 districts of 750K citizens in California. New york state has more rural voters than wyoming has voters.

22nd December 2020, 03:02 PM	#58
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 28,323	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward New york state has more rural voters than wyoming has voters. So does a lot of States.
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. .

22nd December 2020, 03:29 PM	#59
CapelDodger Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Cardiff, South Wales Posts: 25,058	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue Okay. And? The problem is how do we get people who have an unfair amount of power to volunteer to give it up? A credible threat of an even less attractive outcome than surrendering some of it.
	__________________ It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898) God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150

22nd December 2020, 03:36 PM	#60
CapelDodger Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Cardiff, South Wales Posts: 25,058	Originally Posted by dudalb Yes. Bitter fact is both parties rage against Gerrymandering when they are out of power but use it when they are power.GOP are the worst offenders now simply because they have a majority of the state legislatures. Dems can be just as outrageous in Gerrymandering as the GOP. California is an example. It was the Democratic legislature gerrymandering that borught about the intiatiive that pretty much ending gerrymandering in California. A non partisan panel of judges draw up the dristricts, and the races have become much more competitive. The fact that that happened suggests that Democratic Party supporters disapproved of the policy, and the party was sensitive to that. I doubt it would be easy to find a Republican counterpart.
	__________________ It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898) God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150

22nd December 2020, 03:51 PM	#61
CapelDodger Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Cardiff, South Wales Posts: 25,058	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward New york state has more rural voters than wyoming has voters. Wyoming probably has more cows.
	__________________ It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898) God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150

22nd December 2020, 03:54 PM	#62
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 28,323	Originally Posted by CapelDodger Wyoming probably has more cows. More than twice as many.
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. .

22nd December 2020, 04:00 PM	#63
CapelDodger Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Cardiff, South Wales Posts: 25,058	Originally Posted by acbytesla As for Federalism I can see the benefits and the drawbacks. Especially as it is practiced today. There are definitely benefits to "local" government. But we have too many layers of government. City laws and administration. County laws and administration, State laws and administration as well as Federal laws and administration. Too much duplication, a lot of divide and conquer. I think we could eliminate at least one layer. It's that diffusion of power, and the jealous protection of it, that I see as the US's best defence against fascism. Heaven knows it needs one.
	__________________ It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898) God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150

22nd December 2020, 04:20 PM	#64
CapelDodger Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Cardiff, South Wales Posts: 25,058	Originally Posted by acbytesla More than twice as many. And just as relevant . I'm sure you're fully conversant with the negotiation of the Constitution, and the need to assure each State that its particular interests would be equally represented in government, protected from the democratic mob that would otherwise vote itself free beer and make the cash-earning plantation states pay for it. It's simply too foundational to change. With a reasonable amount of good faith it works : without you get a Civil War and whatever this is.
	__________________ It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898) God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150

22nd December 2020, 04:36 PM	#65
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 28,323	Originally Posted by CapelDodger And just as relevant . I'm sure you're fully conversant with the negotiation of the Constitution, and the need to assure each State that its particular interests would be equally represented in government, protected from the democratic mob that would otherwise vote itself free beer and make the cash-earning plantation states pay for it. It's simply too foundational to change. With a reasonable amount of good faith it works : without you get a Civil War and whatever this is. Yes. Remember, it was Shay's rebellion which was a major factor that led to the abandonment of the Articles of Confederation and the new Constitution.
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. .

22nd December 2020, 04:40 PM	#66
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 28,323	Originally Posted by CapelDodger It's that diffusion of power, and the jealous protection of it, that I see as the US's best defence against fascism. Heaven knows it needs one. It certainly made a difference here in 2020. I just think we could do some streamlining and refinement. Our government was created in agrarian times with entirely different situations.
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. .