Asymmetrical Information

Not all of Sabato's ideas are bad, but proposing things like changing the balance of power between large population states and small ones are simply not possible given the constitution we have. It really detracts from the better ideas when you propose totally impossible ones.

This is why we need to institute a JV Congress. Then people could argue this stuff to their heart's content.

Dozens more Senators? Hundreds more Representatives?

Any time someone's answer to a problem is: more politicians, I have to wonder about their sanity.

Mandatory service?

Any time someone's answer is forced servitude, I have to question their humanity.

Yes to the balanced budget amendment, line item veto, and term limits for members of Congress. Bollocks to the rest.

Jane_Galt: We're "not going to do" $LIBERTARIAN_IDEA_X either, so why are we even bothering to talk about it, right?

oh, c'mon... if we are going to re-write the constitution, shouldn't we just go to direct democracy? we could do it like american idol or something...

About the question of taxes please enter your choice on the pin pad:
A. please raise them.
B. please raise only my neighbors.
C. lower them, I don't need government services.
D. Taxes? we don' need no stinkin' taxes...

we elect a starlet's toy poodle president and the universe implodes from the shock...

Yes to the expansion of Federal representatives. The Districts are too big; raise the # of districts and reapportionment gets a lot easier.

Yes to the expansion of Federal representatives. The Districts are too big; raise the # of districts and reapportionment gets a lot easier.

Can't even keep 435 of them in line these days, to the tune of multiple simulatneous corruption investigations some weeks, and you see only a rosy side of adding more?

I like the fact that the overly-populus states can't force their warped attitudes on the rest of the country. If you like that kind of thinking, just allow California to have a government, and we'll just do whatever they do there.

Kind of Frightening, neh?

By the way, that'd probably be a toy chihuahua, given today's slide to the South...

Who needs constitutional amendments to change the system? All you need is to get the living constitution to breathe in the right direction... that's way easier.

I'm sure 5 sufficiently creative justices can interpret the 14th amendment due process guarantee to require different #s of senators by state. Living constitutions are fun that way :)

Anonymouse: I do see the downside of it, but couldn't you give me the upside? At the very least, there'd be a dilution of power. Yes, there'd be more funny business, but a populace would have a better shot at replacing him, tii.

There's 1 representative to 693,000 people. I think that's silly. I'd say that 1 representative to 200K would be more reasonable, but even that's absurd.

Up the number of representatives and all I get is a bigger piece of a weaker politician.

How about devolving power from Washington to the separate states where assembly reps and state senators are already closer to the people?

That's an idea that actually doesn't require changing the constitution. Though it might now.

I've a radical suggestion for anyone concerned with the federal government being too removed from the voters and/or too much concentration of power: Federalism.

Get the federal government to butt out and let the states take care of more stuff.

Presto!

No constitutional ammendments required -- just return some sanity to the interpretation of the commerce clause.

You're welcome.

Mycin
(not holding my breath)

If the larger states want more representation in the Senate, divide into smaller states. You get more senators, and smaller state governments to boot. (The latter being an added bonus that may exceed the benefit of the better per capita Senate representation)

If the larger states want more representation in the Senate, divide into smaller states.

Northern California would take that idea home to meet the parents, given the chance. Unfortunately for them, the bulk of the population is in the central and southern portions of the state, and said population has no interest in giving up a pristine watershed.

From a federalism perspective, partitioning the larger states makes a lot of sense given how divided the country is politically along urban/rural lines. Partition would also reduce opportunity for gerrymandering in the house by reducing the number of house districts per state and by making each state more homogenous.

(I'm not anony-mouse, always Anon. E.)

The 17th Amendment was, IMO, the most significant step away from federalism.

It took away the states' real leash on the federal gov's power.

Saddenz.

Article IV section 3 of the Constitution says Congress would have to approve of splitting any large state, as well as the state's legislature:

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

Tho I seem to remember that Texas joined the Union with the option of splitting into four states at a future date.

But why stop with the large states? Rhode Island divides quite neatly in two. If we ended up with, say, 435 states, we could keep the House of Representative the same size, and have over 800 Senators! Not to mention 1300 electoral votes!

And we could hope that with that many reps, they'd never get anything done. Probably in vain, but we could hope.

"Tho I seem to remember that Texas joined the Union with the option of splitting into four states at a future date."

We have the right to divide into 5 total states. There was some agitation about this in the late 70s and early 80s when the "all bidness" was getting kicked around in Congress.

You don't need a constitutional amendment to break up the states to a more reasonable size. That's an internal state matter. They just break up and send the two, four, six, eight, ten, twelve, or fourteen extra Senators to Washington.
The problem is that the Imperial Presidency gives too much power to the Democrats for them to break up the large states and their presidential voting blocks that determine that the Democrats will always win a Presidential election. That's because a state with a Democratic majority like California gets all those Republican voters and votes them in the Electoral College, kind of the way the Southern Whites vote the Southern Black population in the Electoral College.
I mean, the last time the Republicans won a Presidential election was in 1988, right? You think that's going to change with California, the Rust Belt, the Northeast, Florida, and the Northwest all voting Democratic?
And Texas is about to become majority Hispanic, especially if the Republican work amnesty becomes the Democratic citizenship amnesty.

loan home california equity apply

loan home california equity apply