Krispy Kreme primitive wants to remodel Congress

[franksolich]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7541824

Oh my.

krispos42   (1000+ posts)        Fri Jan-22-10 05:03 AM
THE KRISPY KREME PRIMITIVE
Original message
 
We need to break the power of the rural states

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  (1000+ posts)        Fri Jan-22-10 05:24 AM
Response to Original message
 
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...

krispos42   (1000+ posts)        Fri Jan-22-10 05:45 AM
THE KRISPY KREME PRIMITIVE
Response to Reply #2

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  (1000+ posts)      Fri Jan-22-10 06:01 AM
Response to Reply #3
 
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   (1000+ posts)        Fri Jan-22-10 12:48 PM
THE KRISPY KREME PRIMITIVE
Response to Reply #5

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!

Selatius (1000+ posts)      Fri Jan-22-10 06:04 AM
franksolich's FAVORITE PRIMITIVE
Response to Original message

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.

jpak  (1000+ posts)      Sun Jan-24-10 03:35 PM
Response to Original message
 
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

treestar  (1000+ posts)        Sun Jan-24-10 03:47 PM
Response to Original message
 
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  (1000+ posts)        Sun Jan-24-10 03:48 PM
Response to Original message
 
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.

Tim01  (1000+ posts)      Sun Jan-24-10 04:07 PM
Response to Original message
 
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.

I don't think the primitives have thought this all the way through.

The primitives have thought this to a desired conclusion, and then stopped thinking.

[NHSparky]

Hmmmmm...doesn't it take a Constitutional Amendment to pull something like that off, DUmmies?

And doesn't it take 3/4 of the states to ratify an amendment?

So basically you're telling me at least 38 states are going to go along with this shit?

Lamest.  Post.  EVER.

[BlueStateSaint]

Hey, neighbor, . . .

Tim01  (1000+ posts)      Sun Jan-24-10 04:07 PM
Response to Original message
 
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.

'Fess up.  This is your mole, ain't it? 

[Oceander]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7541824

Oh my.

I don't think the primitives have thought this all the way through.

The primitives have thought this to a desired conclusion, and then stopped thinking.

Oh silly, silly conservative, dontcha know, liberals don't think in the first place! 

[The Village Idiot]

1. People should be given the power, invoked through formal petitions, to challenge an act passed by Congress

Yes, because nobody ever heard of courts.

[Oceander]

1. People should be given the power, invoked through formal petitions, to challenge an act passed by Congress

Oh, boy, the primitives don't know what they're asking for on this one.  We conservatives would lo-o-o-o-o-o-ve that sort of power.

Y'know, it's funny, but for all that the primitives and liberals accuse us conservatives of being grasping, evil greedy SOBs, they are particularly clueless about how much trouble we "SOBs" could make for them with all the sweeping discretionary powers they keep wanting to give Obama.

[miskie]

The system was designed the way it was to prevent the larger states from dictating 100% of policy -- But, you're Liberals. The rules are only good when you benefit from them, but need to be changed when someone else does. And the funny thing is that you usually end up punching yourselves in the face every time you change what doesn't suit you at that moment.

Take, for example... Massachusetts.

If your idiot Democrat buddies who controlled the legislature at the time didn't fear a Romney appointee if Kerry won the presidency, there would be no Scott Brown today.

Thats right, idiots.

YOU did this to YOURSELVES.

On second thought, Yes, keep messing with the clockwork gears that run the country. It can only do conservatives good when you get caught in those very gears and end up ground into paste.

[franksolich]

Of all the "models" the primitives proposed, no matter how many times I add up the numbers, they always result in.....more Republican senators and congressmen.

[jukin]

On one hand we have a unique collection of highly intelligent people coming together and creating the longest lasting democracy the world has ever seen by writing the Constitution and on the other hand we have a hand full of self aggrandizing, drug addled, leaches on society, that have a hard time remembering what day it is.

Your choice.

[BlueStateSaint]

On one hand we have a unique collection of highly intelligent people coming together and creating the longest lasting democracy the world has ever seen by writing the Constitution and on the other hand we have a hand full of self aggrandizing, drug addled, leaches on society, that have a hard time remembering what day it is.

Your choice.

But, you have to remember that the latter group considers itself the former group . . .

[GOBUCKS]

At the end of the day we'd wind up with 67 states and 134 Senators.

So finally we know how the jug-eared muslim came up with his strange count of states during the campaign. And we thought it was just because they don't teach civics or American history in Indonesian madrassas.

[thundley4]

I seems like limiting the power of conservatives is catching on with liberals.

Imagine If
Via James Fallows, an effort to redraw the United States into jurisdictions with more-or-less equal populations that still reflects the ancestry of existing borders:

ThinkProgress

[The Village Idiot]

I seems like limiting the power of conservatives is catching on with liberals.
 ThinkProgress

not even close

[USA4ME]

krispos42

Yeah, yeah, I know it will never happen.

Then why bring it up?

The only good thing is you're wasting time doing nothing.  If not for this, you'd be out molesting your neighbors.

.

[Specbid]

If we split up the country like the op suggested, the 'rats would probably never win another presidential election. Someone please dig up that map that shows the vote by county. Vast majority of red. California would basically be all red if one took out the cities. Similar with New York. If the 'rats didn't have California, say hello to republican presidents...

[miskie]

thats what I see also - the big urban areas are isolated out, making any liberal victory nationally unlikely ever again.

[Randy]

But, you have to remember that the latter group considers itself the former group . . .

just add deluded to Jukins list