Divide States to Democratize the Senate

cawacko said:
A liberal NYU law professor's solution to other liberals complaining about representation in the Senate.



Divide States to Democratize the Senate

A constitutionally sound fix to a vexing political problem.


‘No State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate,” declares Article V of the Constitution, which lays out the amendment process. A Californian has only 1/65th the representation of a Wyoming resident in the upper chamber. That’s undemocratic, but there’s no way around Article V.

Or is there? Article IV provides that “new States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union”—including from the territory of an existing state, if its legislature consents. Five states were created in this manner: Vermont from New York (1791), Kentucky from Virginia (1792), Tennessee from North Carolina (1796), Maine from Massachusetts (1820) and West Virginia from Virginia (1863).

Drawing on that tradition, a Democracy Restoration Act could grant blanket consent to populous but underrepresented states to go forth and multiply to restore the Senate’s democratic legitimacy.

Section 1 of the act would provide that whenever the decennial census identifies states with populations that exceed that of the least populous state by more than, say, 20 to 1, each of those largest states would have the option of dividing in half. Section 2 would condition the creation of any such state on the consent of the residents of both halves of the original state.

If, using the 2010 census, we set the trigger at 20 to 1, the six states exceeding 12 million people—California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania and Illinois—with about 41% of America’s inhabitants, could split, yielding 12 new senators and dramatically reducing the Senate’s structural inequality. If we set the trigger at 10 to 1, 19 states with more than 70% of the U.S. population could generate 38 senators. Go all the way to 6 to 1—the ratio between the largest and smallest states when the Constitution was ratified—and 29 states yield 58 senators.

Given current political reality, such an effort to restore democracy to the Senate would likely attract more Democratic than Republican support. But it wouldn’t necessarily advantage either party. Bifurcating Texas and Florida would probably generate Democratic gains, with Georgia and Ohio up next; but splitting California, New York and Illinois could open up opportunities for Republicans. Once state boundaries were locked into place, Senate gerrymandering would become almost impossible. The future is unpredictable, but it would be determined by democratically legitimate institutions.

My fix wouldn’t be easy. Realistically, the Democratic Party would have to gain a Senate majority and the presidency under the existing, stacked system. Political leaders and residents in the underrepresented states would have to be willing to shake up the status quo to take advantage of the increased political power offered by creating new states. That means agreeing on fair boundaries, working out the problems of bifurcating (like liability for debts), and providing for joint administration of certain programs, possibly via interstate compacts.

The important thing is there’s a constitutional way to rescue the Senate from its current undemocratic condition.

Mr. Neuborne has taught law at New York University since 1972.


https://www.wsj.com/articles/divide-states-to-democratize-the-senate-1542672828?mod=hp_opin_pos2
Click to expand...

How many states would Cali turn into?
I have heard 4 would be best for your varying populations.
 
why is everyone assuming that if you carve a lib'rul city into a separate state it would result in two lib'rul states.....many states are like Michigan.....create a new state of Detroit and you would have a lib'rul Detroit and a conservative Michigan......
 
anatta said:
You miss the point that the problem is a do nothing Congress,not how it's represented.
Click to expand...

The congress is not "do-nothing." This one is dominated by Republicans and conservatives...but it is not an easy job to govern an entity as diverse and large as the US.

But if you want to think you could do better...get elected an do it. I'd vote for you.



would more representatives mean legislation gets done? no.
Click to expand...

I do not know...and neither do you. But more equal representation WOULD mean that there is more equal representation.


And I'm not going to reiterate the fact anymore that as sovereign entities, the states get a voice as well
Click to expand...

Fuck that idea.

It was necessary in order to establish the Union.

It no longer is necessary...and it is inherently unfair to the people.

Each individual in Wyoming gets a huge advantage in the House of Representatives; the Senate; and the Electoral College.

If you are not able to see and acknowledge that fact...

...then you cannot. Being smart enough to see and acknowledge stuff like that is not a requirement for citizenship...or for posting in this forum.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
why is everyone assuming that if you carve a lib'rul city into a separate state it would result in two lib'rul states.....many states are like Michigan.....create a new state of Detroit and you would have a lib'rul Detroit and a conservative Michigan......
Click to expand...

Yup.

Liberals can’t even run most of the big cities—or CA, and they want to run the whole country. Thanks, but no thanks. The Red States are the only thing keeping the whole country from going down the crapper.
 
archives said:
That's not true, Wyoming, with a population of 563,767, gets three electoral votes, which works out to something like 188,000 citizens per electoral vote. A State as California has 39,776,830 people yet has only fifty five electoral votes, roughly close to 700,000 Californians for each electoral vote. And there are four other red states in Wyoming's position
Click to expand...

California and Wyoming get two votes in the senate as intended.......their citizens get a representative for every equal numbered group of people, as intended......it is true that California gets more representatives and electoral votes than they should because they count people who are not citizens......that problem will be corrected after the 2020 census.....
 
Rune said:
What you talkin bout Frank?
Click to expand...

What are you asking?

Do you actually think they do?

New Jersey is a "population center." New Jersey is THE most populated state by area.

Our 9,000,000 citizens are represented in the House by 12 Representatives.

Wyoming has less than 590,000 people...and those 590,000 people are represented in the House by 1 Representative.

If New Jersey had one Representative for each 590,000 people...we would have 15 or 16 Representatives.

We do NOT get MORE representation in the House per capita...WE GET LESS.
 
Darth Beto Omar said:
Yup.

Liberals can’t even run most of the big cities—or CA, and they want to run the whole country. Thanks, but no thanks. The Red States are the only thing keeping the whole country from going down the crapper.
Click to expand...

The fucking Red states are the one driving us into the crapper. The blue states send money to the red states via the federal government because the only way the red states are able to stay in business is to leach off the blue states.
 
Frank Apisa said:
There is no other way...without a constitutional amendment.

Larger population states HAVE GOT TO SPLIT...or smaller population states must be amalgamated.

Here in New Jersey...the North and South are like different states already. We even root for different sports teams.

New Jersey could easily divide into THREE states...North Jersey, Middle Jersey and South Jersey...each with about 3,000,000 people.

The costs would be enormous. The idea of three state legislatures sucks.

But if several of the large states declare intentions of doing so...it might bring the others to consciousness. Maybe it could set the stage for a Constitutional amendment getting the Senate into greater population parity.

Making the Electoral College more equitable is a much easier thing to do.
Click to expand...

Never happen.

Maybe leftists should try to broaden their appeal instead of always wanting to change the rules when things don’t go their way

Funny leftists only talk of these things when they lose
 
Frank Apisa said:
The fucking Red states are the one driving us into the crapper. The blue states send money to the red states via the federal government because the only way the red states are able to stay in business is to leach off the blue states.
Click to expand...

Then go back to the original intent of the Constitution. Do that and you won’t have this problem.

You create the scenario for which you complain about. Get the irony Frankie? No? Oh well
 
Frank Apisa said:
What are you asking?

Do you actually think they do?

New Jersey is a "population center." New Jersey is THE most populated state by area.

Our 9,000,000 citizens are represented in the House by 12 Representatives.

Wyoming has less than 590,000 people...and those 590,000 people are represented in the House by 1 Representative.

If New Jersey had one Representative for each 590,000 people...we would have 15 or 16 Representatives.

We do NOT get MORE representation in the House per capita...WE GET LESS.
Click to expand...

12 times as much is still more especially since NONE of the rest of the country wants what the armpit of the country wants.
 
Frank Apisa said:
The congress is not "do-nothing." This one is dominated by Republicans and conservatives...but it is not an easy job to govern an entity as diverse and large as the US.

But if you want to think you could do better...get elected an do it. I'd vote for you.





I do not know...and neither do you. But more equal representation WOULD mean that there is more equal representation.




Fuck that idea.

It was necessary in order to establish the Union.

It no longer is necessary...and it is inherently unfair to the people.

Each individual in Wyoming gets a huge advantage in the House of Representatives; the Senate; and the Electoral College.

If you are not able to see and acknowledge that fact...

...then you cannot. Being smart enough to see and acknowledge stuff like that is not a requirement for citizenship...or for posting in this forum.
Click to expand...

Neither is acknowledging that the founders warned against ‘rule of mob’, apparently.
 
I Love America said:
Never happen.

Maybe leftists should try to broaden their appeal instead of always wanting to change the rules when things don’t go their way

Funny leftists only talk of these things when they lose
Click to expand...

Actually...they talk about them when they are winning also...because it is the right thing to do.

Have someone explain what "the right thing to do" to you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top