Submit your comments on this article |
Home Front: Politix |
Harvard Law Review paper suggests radical proposal that divides D.C. into 127 new states to eliminate Electoral College |
2020-01-19 |
Remember, Noted 'The people should not tolerate a system that is manifestly unfair; they should instead fight fire with fire, and use the unfair provisions of the Constitution to create a better system.' As it stands, every state has two senators that carry votes equally. However, the issue is that voters in less-populated states have more influence over what happens in Congress than those in more-populated states. Pennsylvania delegate James Wilson noted: 'Can we forget for whom we are forming a government? Is it for men, or for the imaginary beings called states?' However, according to the report, 'States do not have interests independent of the people who live in them, so equal numbers of people ought to be entitled to an equal number of representatives.' And the problem of unequal representation seems to get worse. There are more Americans living in larger states, yet are at a disadvantage in terms of federal representation. Data predicts that by 2040, 40 percent of the population will like in just five states. Half of the population will be represented by just sixteen senators and the other by eighty-four. For the first time ever, nearly half of the bills and nominations passing the Senate were supported by senators representing less than half of the population ‐ this is where the proposal comes into play. 'An 'easier' way to amend the Constitution would be for Congress to admit a large number of new states whose congressional representatives would reliably ally with the existing majority in sufficient numbers to propose and ratify new amendments fixing the problem of unequal representation,' reads the document. Because Congress can admit new states with a simple majority, this would provide a more attainable political threshold.' |
Posted by:Besoeker |
#13 I'd be for excommunication of D.C. |
Posted by: JohnQC 2020-01-19 15:50 |
#12 Dang, not the Bee. |
Posted by: gorb 2020-01-19 13:02 |
#11 #1 this was a paper in the Harvard Law Review, not something advocated by the University a lot of goofy stuff comes out of the various Law Review articles around the country Today's nutty proposal in an academic journal is tomorrow's policy. |
Posted by: charger 2020-01-19 12:55 |
#10 Amen P2K, but Franklin’s admonition,”...a Republic. If you can keep it” looms larger all the time! |
Posted by: NoMoreBS 2020-01-19 12:26 |
#9 Even notice that these types never grasp the title "United STATES of America", not the Peoples Democratic Republic of.... It was a union of states from the very beginning. |
Posted by: Procopius2k 2020-01-19 11:56 |
#8 The Congress has spent the country into bankruptcy. The country has not gone insolvent because the Fed prints more money to cover the shortfall. Rearranging the furniture is not going to do anything to improve the Feral Government. You have a dysfunctional group of people in congress. Change will only start from within the individual. Better realize that the the bankrupt govt will not save you. |
Posted by: Alaska Paul 2020-01-19 10:08 |
#7 Will Rogers once said that our country is run by a bunch of people who should not be trusted with a box of matches Sadly, since then it has only gotten worse |
Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2020-01-19 09:34 |
#6 Heading properly amended per #1. |
Posted by: Besoeker 2020-01-19 08:27 |
#5 I wouldn't trust these clowns to balance my checkbook, never mind this lefty wet dream. Why not 2,000 states to make it as absurd as possible? 'The people should not tolerate a system that is manifestly unfair...' Sorry to hurt your widdle feelings, bunky, but what you call 'unfair' is what we call 'Democrats losing elections'. |
Posted by: Raj 2020-01-19 07:52 |
#4 Any new plan to somehow level the power of a vote or state or politician would require 3 things to work: no migration between states, no illegal immigration, no crooked politicians or courts. None of those 3 are ever going to happen so let’s try and play by the existing rules that worked reasonably well for 235+ years |
Posted by: Airandde 2020-01-19 07:37 |
#3 'An 'easier' way to amend the Constitution would be for Congress to admit a large number of new states If New York State and California were divided in thirds... But upstate and western New York would vote very differently than the New York City area, and ditto if California were broken up. I could get behind that proposal. The system was originally designed so that the population gets equal representation in the cleverly named House of Representatives; the purpose of the Senate, representing the states, is to exert sensible control over the people’s enthusiasms so that the president needn’t go over there. a lot of goofy stuff Clearly. But one wouldn’t expect the Daily Mail to recognize what is plain to an American. |
Posted by: trailing wife 2020-01-19 06:26 |
#2 "There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them."___George Orwell |
Posted by: Mercutio 2020-01-19 06:16 |
#1 this was a paper in the Harvard Law Review, not something advocated by the University a lot of goofy stuff comes out of the various Law Review articles around the country |
Posted by: lord garth 2020-01-19 04:11 |