Code: Select all
AL AK AZ AR CA CO CT DE FL GA HI ID IL IN IA KS KY LA ME MD MA MI MN MS MO
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Constitution --- --- --- --- 5 1 --- 3 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 6 8 --- --- --- ---
1790 --- --- --- --- --- --- 7 2 --- 2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 9 11 --- --- --- ---
1800 --- --- --- --- --- --- 6 2 --- 4 --- --- --- --- --- --- 5 --- --- 8 10 --- --- --- ---
1810 --- --- --- --- --- --- 7 2 --- 6 --- --- --- --- --- --- 10 --- --- 9 12 --- --- --- ---
1820 3 --- --- --- --- --- 6 2 --- 7 --- --- 1 3 --- --- 12 3 6 9 11 --- --- 2 ---
1830 6 --- --- --- --- --- 6 2 --- 10 --- --- 3 7 --- --- 14 4 8 9 12 --- --- 3 3
1840 12 --- --- 2 --- --- 6 2 --- 14 --- --- 9 14 --- --- 16 7 10 9 15 4 --- 8 8
1850 16 --- --- 4 --- --- 7 2 2 18 --- --- 17 20 4 --- 20 10 12 12 20 8 --- 12 14
1860 19 --- --- 9 8 --- 9 2 3 21 --- --- 34 27 13 --- 23 14 13 14 25 15 3 16 24
1870 20 --- --- 10 11 --- 11 3 4 24 --- --- 51 34 24 7 26 14 13 16 29 24 9 17 34
1880 25 --- --- 16 17 4 12 3 5 31 --- --- 61 39 32 20 33 19 13 19 36 33 16 23 43
1890 30 --- --- 23 24 8 15 3 8 37 --- --- 76 44 38 29 37 22 13 21 45 42 26 26 54
1900 37 --- --- 26 30 11 18 4 11 44 --- 3 97 50 45 29 43 28 14 24 56 48 35 31 62
1910 43 --- --- 31 48 16 22 4 15 52 --- 7 113 54 44 34 46 33 15 26 67 56 41 36 66
1920 47 --- 7 35 68 19 28 4 19 58 --- 9 130 59 48 35 48 36 15 29 77 73 48 36 68
1930 53 --- 9 37 113 21 32 5 29 58 --- 9 152 65 49 38 52 42 16 33 85 97 51 40 73
1940 57 --- 10 39 138 22 34 5 38 62 --- 11 158 69 51 36 57 47 17 36 86 105 56 44 76
1950 61 --- 15 38 212 26 40 6 55 69 --- 12 174 79 52 38 59 54 18 47 94 127 60 44 79
1960 65 5 26 36 314 35 51 9 99 79 13 13 202 93 55 44 61 65 19 62 103 156 68 44 86
1970 69 6 35 38 399 44 61 11 136 92 15 14 222 104 57 45 64 73 20 78 114 178 76 44 94
1980 78 8 54 46 474 58 62 12 195 109 19 19 229 110 58 47 73 84 23 84 115 185 82 50 98
1990 81 11 73 47 595 66 66 13 259 129 22 20 228 111 56 50 74 84 25 96 120 186 87 51 102
2000 89 13 103 53 677 86 68 16 320 164 24 26 248 122 59 54 81 89 25 106 127 199 98 57 112
2010 96 14 128 58 745 101 71 18 376 194 27 31 256 130 61 57 87 91 27 115 131 198 106 59 120
Average
MT NE NV NH NJ NM NY NC ND OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN TX UT VT VA WA WV WI WY Total District
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ----- Size
Constitution --- 3 4 --- 6 5 --- --- --- --- 8 1 5 --- --- --- --- --- 10 --- --- --- --- 65 --------
1790 --- --- --- 4 5 --- 9 11 --- --- --- --- 12 2 7 --- --- --- --- --- 19 --- --- --- --- 100 35,820
1800 --- --- --- 5 5 --- 15 12 --- --- --- --- 15 2 9 --- 3 --- --- 4 20 --- --- --- --- 125 40,059
1810 --- --- --- 5 6 --- 24 14 --- 6 --- --- 20 2 10 --- 7 --- --- 5 22 --- --- --- --- 167 40,184
1820 --- --- --- 5 6 --- 29 14 --- 12 --- --- 22 2 11 --- 9 --- --- 5 20 --- --- --- --- 200 46,941
1830 --- --- --- 5 6 --- 38 15 --- 19 --- --- 27 2 12 --- 13 --- --- 6 21 --- --- --- --- 251 50,027
1840 --- --- --- 6 7 --- 48 15 --- 30 --- --- 34 2 12 --- 17 --- --- 6 20 --- --- --- --- 333 50,080
1850 --- --- --- 6 10 --- 62 17 --- 40 --- --- 46 3 13 --- 20 4 --- 6 22 --- --- 6 --- 453 50,007
1860 --- --- --- 7 13 --- 77 20 --- 47 --- 1 58 4 14 --- 22 12 --- 6 24 --- --- 16 --- 613 50,023
1870 --- 3 1 6 18 --- 87 21 --- 53 --- 2 70 4 14 --- 25 16 --- 7 24 --- 9 21 --- 762 50,021
1880 --- 9 1 7 23 --- 101 28 --- 64 --- 4 86 6 20 --- 31 32 --- 7 30 --- 12 26 --- 987 50,022
1890 3 21 1 8 29 --- 120 32 4 73 --- 6 105 7 23 7 35 45 --- 7 33 7 15 34 --- 1236 50,039
1900 5 21 1 8 38 --- 145 38 6 83 --- 8 126 9 27 8 40 61 6 7 37 10 19 41 2 1492 50,005
1910 8 24 2 9 51 --- 182 44 12 95 33 13 153 11 30 12 44 78 7 7 41 23 24 47 3 1822 50,005
1920 11 26 2 9 63 7 207 51 13 115 41 16 174 12 34 13 47 93 9 7 46 27 29 53 4 2105 50,011
1930 11 28 2 9 81 8 252 63 14 133 48 19 192 14 35 14 52 116 10 7 48 31 35 59 5 2445 50,016
1940 11 26 2 10 83 11 270 71 13 138 47 22 198 14 38 13 58 128 11 7 54 35 38 63 5 2620 50,002
1950 12 26 3 11 97 14 296 81 12 159 45 30 210 16 42 13 66 154 14 8 66 48 40 69 6 2997 50,015
1960 13 28 6 12 121 19 336 91 13 194 47 35 226 17 48 14 71 192 18 8 79 57 37 79 7 3571 50,003
1970 14 30 10 15 143 20 365 102 12 213 51 42 236 19 52 13 78 224 21 9 93 68 35 88 7 4049 50,001
1980 16 31 16 18 147 26 351 118 13 216 61 53 237 19 62 14 92 285 29 10 107 83 39 94 9 4518 50,002
1990 16 32 24 22 155 30 360 133 13 217 63 57 238 20 70 14 97 340 34 11 124 97 36 98 9 4962 50,001
2000 18 34 40 25 168 36 379 161 13 227 69 68 246 21 80 15 114 417 45 12 142 118 36 107 10 5617 50,000
2010 20 37 54 26 176 41 387 191 13 231 75 77 254 21 92 16 127 503 55 13 160 134 37 114 11 6162 50,007
Code: Select all
AL AK AZ AR CA CO CT DE FL GA HI ID IL IN IA KS KY LA ME MD MA MI MN MS MO
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Constitution --- --- --- --- 5 1 --- 3 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 6 8 --- --- --- ---
1790 --- --- --- --- --- --- 7 2 --- 2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 9 11 --- --- --- ---
1800 --- --- --- --- --- --- 6 2 --- 4 --- --- --- --- --- --- 5 --- --- 8 10 --- --- --- ---
1810 --- --- --- --- --- --- 7 2 --- 6 --- --- --- --- --- --- 10 --- --- 9 12 --- --- --- ---
1820 3 --- --- --- --- --- 6 2 --- 7 --- --- 1 3 --- --- 12 3 6 9 11 --- --- 2 ---
1830 6 --- --- --- --- --- 6 2 --- 10 --- --- 3 7 --- --- 14 4 8 9 12 --- --- 3 3
1840 12 --- --- 2 --- --- 6 2 --- 14 --- --- 9 14 --- --- 16 7 10 9 15 4 --- 8 8
1850 16 --- --- 4 --- --- 7 2 2 18 --- --- 17 20 4 --- 20 10 12 12 20 8 --- 12 14
1860 19 --- --- 9 8 --- 9 2 3 21 --- --- 34 27 13 --- 23 14 13 14 25 15 3 16 24
1870 20 --- --- 10 11 --- 11 3 4 24 --- --- 51 34 24 7 26 14 13 16 29 24 9 17 34
1880 25 --- --- 16 17 4 12 3 5 31 --- --- 61 39 32 20 33 19 13 19 36 33 16 23 43
1890 30 --- --- 23 24 8 15 3 8 37 --- --- 76 44 38 29 37 22 13 21 45 42 26 26 54
1900 37 --- --- 26 30 11 18 4 11 44 --- 3 97 50 45 29 43 28 14 24 56 48 35 31 62
1910 43 --- --- 31 48 16 22 4 15 52 --- 7 113 54 44 34 46 33 15 26 67 56 41 36 66
1920 47 --- 7 35 68 19 28 4 19 58 --- 9 130 59 48 35 48 36 15 29 77 73 48 36 68
1930 53 --- 9 37 113 21 32 5 29 58 --- 9 152 65 49 38 52 42 16 33 85 97 51 40 73
1940 57 --- 10 39 138 22 34 5 38 62 --- 11 158 69 51 36 57 47 17 36 86 105 56 44 76
1950 61 --- 15 38 212 26 40 6 55 69 --- 12 174 79 52 38 59 54 18 47 94 127 60 44 79
1960 65 5 26 36 314 35 51 9 99 79 13 13 202 93 55 44 61 65 19 62 103 156 68 44 86
1970 69 6 35 38 399 44 61 11 136 92 15 14 222 104 57 45 64 73 20 78 114 178 76 44 94
1980 78 8 54 46 474 58 62 12 195 109 19 19 229 110 58 47 73 84 23 84 115 185 82 50 98
1990 81 11 73 47 595 66 66 13 259 129 22 20 228 111 56 50 74 84 25 96 120 186 87 51 102
2000 89 13 103 53 677 86 68 16 320 164 24 26 248 122 59 54 81 89 25 106 127 199 98 57 112
2010 96 14 128 58 745 101 71 18 376 194 27 31 256 130 61 57 87 91 27 115 131 198 106 59 120
Average
MT NE NV NH NJ NM NY NC ND OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN TX UT VT VA WA WV WI WY Total District
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ----- Size
Constitution --- 3 4 --- 6 5 --- --- --- --- 8 1 5 --- --- --- --- --- 10 --- --- --- --- 65 --------
1790 --- --- --- 4 5 --- 9 11 --- --- --- --- 12 2 7 --- --- --- --- --- 19 --- --- --- --- 100 35,820
1800 --- --- --- 5 5 --- 15 12 --- --- --- --- 15 2 9 --- 3 --- --- 4 20 --- --- --- --- 125 40,059
1810 --- --- --- 5 6 --- 24 14 --- 6 --- --- 20 2 10 --- 7 --- --- 5 22 --- --- --- --- 167 40,184
1820 --- --- --- 5 6 --- 29 14 --- 12 --- --- 22 2 11 --- 9 --- --- 5 20 --- --- --- --- 200 46,941
1830 --- --- --- 5 6 --- 38 15 --- 19 --- --- 27 2 12 --- 13 --- --- 6 21 --- --- --- --- 251 50,027
1840 --- --- --- 6 7 --- 48 15 --- 30 --- --- 34 2 12 --- 17 --- --- 6 20 --- --- --- --- 333 50,080
1850 --- --- --- 6 10 --- 62 17 --- 40 --- --- 46 3 13 --- 20 4 --- 6 22 --- --- 6 --- 453 50,007
1860 --- --- --- 7 13 --- 77 20 --- 47 --- 1 58 4 14 --- 22 12 --- 6 24 --- --- 16 --- 613 50,023
1870 --- 3 1 6 18 --- 87 21 --- 53 --- 2 70 4 14 --- 25 16 --- 7 24 --- 9 21 --- 762 50,021
1880 --- 9 1 7 23 --- 101 28 --- 64 --- 4 86 6 20 --- 31 32 --- 7 30 --- 12 26 --- 987 50,022
1890 3 21 1 8 29 --- 120 32 4 73 --- 6 105 7 23 7 35 45 --- 7 33 7 15 34 --- 1236 50,039
1900 5 21 1 8 38 --- 145 38 6 83 --- 8 126 9 27 8 40 61 6 7 37 10 19 41 2 1492 50,005
1910 8 24 2 9 51 --- 182 44 12 95 33 13 153 11 30 12 44 78 7 7 41 23 24 47 3 1822 50,005
1920 11 26 2 9 63 7 207 51 13 115 41 16 174 12 34 13 47 93 9 7 46 27 29 53 4 2105 50,011
1930 11 28 2 9 81 8 252 63 14 133 48 19 192 14 35 14 52 116 10 7 48 31 35 59 5 2445 50,016
1940 11 26 2 10 83 11 270 71 13 138 47 22 198 14 38 13 58 128 11 7 54 35 38 63 5 2620 50,002
1950 12 26 3 11 97 14 296 81 12 159 45 30 210 16 42 13 66 154 14 8 66 48 40 69 6 2997 50,015
1960 13 28 6 12 121 19 336 91 13 194 47 35 226 17 48 14 71 192 18 8 79 57 37 79 7 3571 50,003
1970 14 30 10 15 143 20 365 102 12 213 51 42 236 19 52 13 78 224 21 9 93 68 35 88 7 4049 50,001
1980 16 31 16 18 147 26 351 118 13 216 61 53 237 19 62 14 92 285 29 10 107 83 39 94 9 4518 50,002
1990 16 32 24 22 155 30 360 133 13 217 63 57 238 20 70 14 97 340 34 11 124 97 36 98 9 4962 50,001
2000 18 34 40 25 168 36 379 161 13 227 69 68 246 21 80 15 114 417 45 12 142 118 36 107 10 5617 50,000
2010 20 37 54 26 176 41 387 191 13 231 75 77 254 21 92 16 127 503 55 13 160 134 37 114 11 6162 50,007
Code: Select all
U.S. Population Rule
--------------- ----
3,000,000 to 4,000,000 # of Representatives = 100
4,000,000 to 8,000,000 Max. District Size = 40,000
8,000,000 to 10,000,000 # of Representatives = 200
10,000,000 to infinity Max. District Size = 50,000
Code: Select all
Census: Reps x Avg. Dist.
------ ---- ----------
1790: 100 x 36,674
1800: 126 x 40,000
1810: 168 x 40,000
1820: 200 x 46,941
1830: 252 x 50,000
1840: 300 x 55,588
1850: 380 x 60,000
1860: 439 x 70,000
1870: 500 x 76,231
1880: 600 x 82,285
1890: 689 x 90,000
1900: 747 x 100,000
1910: 829 x 110,000
1920: 900 x 116,970
1930: 1000 x 122,288
1940: 1008 x 130,000
1950: 1100 x 136,268
1960: 1200 x 148,799
1970: 1300 x 155,734
1980: 1400 x 161,362
1990: 1460 x 170,000
2000: 1561 x 180,000
2010: 1622 x 190,000
Code: Select all
=MAX(ROUNDUP(B2/((ROUNDUP(SQRT((B2/1000000)+1),0)+1)*10000),0),(ROUNDUP(SQRT((B2/1000000)+1),0)-2)*100)
Code: Select all
CA = 196
TX = 132
NY = 102
FL = 99
IL = 68
PA = 67
OH = 61
MI = 52
GA = 51
NC = 50
NJ = 46
VA = 42
WA = 35
MA = 34
IN = 34
AZ = 34
TN = 33
MO = 32
MD = 30
WI = 30
MN = 28
CO = 26
AL = 25
SC = 24
LA = 24
KY = 23
OR = 20
OK = 20
CT = 19
IA = 16
MS = 16
AR = 15
KS = 15
UT = 15
NV = 14
NM = 11
WV = 10
NE = 10
ID = 8
HI = 7
ME = 7
NH = 7
RI = 6
MT = 5
DE = 5
SD = 4
AK = 4
ND = 4
VT = 3
WY = 3
Code: Select all
U.S. Population Rule
--------------- ----
3,000,000 to 4,000,000 # of Representatives = 100
4,000,000 to 8,000,000 Max. District Size = 40,000
8,000,000 to 10,000,000 # of Representatives = 200
10,000,000 to infinity Max. District Size = 50,000
Code: Select all
Census: Reps x Avg. Dist.
------ ---- ----------
1790: 100 x 36,674
1800: 126 x 40,000
1810: 168 x 40,000
1820: 200 x 46,941
1830: 252 x 50,000
1840: 300 x 55,588
1850: 380 x 60,000
1860: 439 x 70,000
1870: 500 x 76,231
1880: 600 x 82,285
1890: 689 x 90,000
1900: 747 x 100,000
1910: 829 x 110,000
1920: 900 x 116,970
1930: 1000 x 122,288
1940: 1008 x 130,000
1950: 1100 x 136,268
1960: 1200 x 148,799
1970: 1300 x 155,734
1980: 1400 x 161,362
1990: 1460 x 170,000
2000: 1561 x 180,000
2010: 1622 x 190,000
Code: Select all
=MAX(ROUNDUP(B2/((ROUNDUP(SQRT((B2/1000000)+1),0)+1)*10000),0),(ROUNDUP(SQRT((B2/1000000)+1),0)-2)*100)
Code: Select all
CA = 196
TX = 132
NY = 102
FL = 99
IL = 68
PA = 67
OH = 61
MI = 52
GA = 51
NC = 50
NJ = 46
VA = 42
WA = 35
MA = 34
IN = 34
AZ = 34
TN = 33
MO = 32
MD = 30
WI = 30
MN = 28
CO = 26
AL = 25
SC = 24
LA = 24
KY = 23
OR = 20
OK = 20
CT = 19
IA = 16
MS = 16
AR = 15
KS = 15
UT = 15
NV = 14
NM = 11
WV = 10
NE = 10
ID = 8
HI = 7
ME = 7
NH = 7
RI = 6
MT = 5
DE = 5
SD = 4
AK = 4
ND = 4
VT = 3
WY = 3
It seems to me that after the House reached 200 Representatives, there would always be one Representative for every fifty thousand persons. Am I reading it wrongly?Bill of Rights wrote:Article the first... After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons. (emphasis added)
It seems to me that after the House reached 200 Representatives, there would always be one Representative for every fifty thousand persons. Am I reading it wrongly?Bill of Rights wrote:Article the first... After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons. (emphasis added)
Bill of Rights wrote:Article the first... After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons. (emphasis added)
You are almost right. There would have been a minimum of 100 Representatives after the 1790 census, a maximum of 40,000 per district after the 1800 & 1810 censuses, a minimum of 200 Representatives after the 1820 census, and a maximum of 50,000 per district after the 1830 through 2010 censuses. While the 1820 census total was high enough that the House would have reached 200 Representatives, it was still lower than (200 x 50,000).]]>Pseudolus wrote:It seems to me that after the House reached 200 Representatives, there would always be one Representative for every fifty thousand persons. Am I reading it wrongly?
Bill of Rights wrote:Article the first... After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons. (emphasis added)
You are almost right. There would have been a minimum of 100 Representatives after the 1790 census, a maximum of 40,000 per district after the 1800 & 1810 censuses, a minimum of 200 Representatives after the 1820 census, and a maximum of 50,000 per district after the 1830 through 2010 censuses. While the 1820 census total was high enough that the House would have reached 200 Representatives, it was still lower than (200 x 50,000).]]>Pseudolus wrote:It seems to me that after the House reached 200 Representatives, there would always be one Representative for every fifty thousand persons. Am I reading it wrongly?
Certainly her point about employing “new practices and tools” to facilitate deliberation in a scaled-up House of Representatives applies to the whole body as well as to their various committees and subcommittees.Over the past five years, I’ve chaired three large task forces, including one on civic education, as well as the American Academy of Arts and Sciences’ commission on the future of democracy that motivates these columns. Each had a minimum of three co-chairs. We used this triumvirate structure to get a diversity of perspective into the leadership. We also built bigger task forces than in a past era, again to optimize for inclusion of the full range of relevant viewpoints. We operated a committee of 40 where the number would have been set at 20 in another era.
As we shifted to these scaled-up forms of operation, we introduced new tools. They included digital discovery tools such as instant polls and word clouds to bring a range of viewpoints to the surface, breakout groups and structured deliberations to make progress on specific questions, and rapid prioritization exercises with sticky notes on wall boards.
These are small examples, but the point is that a host of new practices and tools are being developed as people learn how to carry out the work of deliberation in larger and more diverse committees. In 1929, people might have thought it wasn’t possible to do good work with an assembly of more than 435 people. But now, nearly 100 years later, much more is possible.
Certainly her point about employing “new practices and tools” to facilitate deliberation in a scaled-up House of Representatives applies to the whole body as well as to their various committees and subcommittees.Over the past five years, I’ve chaired three large task forces, including one on civic education, as well as the American Academy of Arts and Sciences’ commission on the future of democracy that motivates these columns. Each had a minimum of three co-chairs. We used this triumvirate structure to get a diversity of perspective into the leadership. We also built bigger task forces than in a past era, again to optimize for inclusion of the full range of relevant viewpoints. We operated a committee of 40 where the number would have been set at 20 in another era.
As we shifted to these scaled-up forms of operation, we introduced new tools. They included digital discovery tools such as instant polls and word clouds to bring a range of viewpoints to the surface, breakout groups and structured deliberations to make progress on specific questions, and rapid prioritization exercises with sticky notes on wall boards.
These are small examples, but the point is that a host of new practices and tools are being developed as people learn how to carry out the work of deliberation in larger and more diverse committees. In 1929, people might have thought it wasn’t possible to do good work with an assembly of more than 435 people. But now, nearly 100 years later, much more is possible.
I don't know enough about this to have an informed opinion, but it doesn't seem like doing away with the VRA, in modern times, would have any practical consequence.seax wrote: By the way did you know the Supreme Court is leaning toward doing away with the 'Voters Rights Act'?
I don't know enough about this to have an informed opinion, but it doesn't seem like doing away with the VRA, in modern times, would have any practical consequence.seax wrote: By the way did you know the Supreme Court is leaning toward doing away with the 'Voters Rights Act'?
Let's say: The issues addressed at the national level are not supposed to be local issues... but, as you know, the federal government intrudes locally in so many ways.]]>TheTrucker wrote:The issues addressed at the national level are not local issues and are supposed to be color blind.
Let's say: The issues addressed at the national level are not supposed to be local issues... but, as you know, the federal government intrudes locally in so many ways.]]>TheTrucker wrote:The issues addressed at the national level are not local issues and are supposed to be color blind.
Right. I believe this change will require an amendment convention as provided for by Article V of the Constitution (to put forth the undefective version of "Article the first" as originally proposed by the House for the Bill of Rights).SlyRyder wrote:I have no faith whatsoever that the national Republicans and Democrats (bipartisan power elite, somesavvysooner's phrase, i like it) would ever amend the US Constitution to do anything meaningful to dilute their power.
That might make for an interesting protest, but would otherwise be futile because it would give those states proportionally too many Reps (since all states would not be participating) and so would not be allowed to proceed. However, if we can get enough states so motivated, then we should be able to force an amendment convention.SlyRyder wrote:But what if seven or eight states (13 states would be ideal) actually attempted to just send reps according to the 1 to 30,000 ratio .....
Right. I believe this change will require an amendment convention as provided for by Article V of the Constitution (to put forth the undefective version of "Article the first" as originally proposed by the House for the Bill of Rights).SlyRyder wrote:I have no faith whatsoever that the national Republicans and Democrats (bipartisan power elite, somesavvysooner's phrase, i like it) would ever amend the US Constitution to do anything meaningful to dilute their power.
That might make for an interesting protest, but would otherwise be futile because it would give those states proportionally too many Reps (since all states would not be participating) and so would not be allowed to proceed. However, if we can get enough states so motivated, then we should be able to force an amendment convention.SlyRyder wrote:But what if seven or eight states (13 states would be ideal) actually attempted to just send reps according to the 1 to 30,000 ratio .....
100% correct. I tell my friends that this is for Right Wing Kooks, Left Wing Loons, everyone in between, and those who don't know where they are. This is one issue on which all patriotic Americans can unite.paxmath wrote:I will be brief for now and state that a crucial strategy to get this started is to not label this as conservative. (Why would a good liberal oppose having a greater voice?)
If you have not already, please read the 15 Questions & Answers on TTO's home page, the introduction to "Article the first", and Walter Williams' article "Political Monopoly Power". And be prepared for well-intended objections from people who can't yet see outside the artificial political construct we've been living in (defined by the political duopoly and 435). I like to compare it to "The Matrix" in that people will have to decide if they want to keep living in the delusion (blue pill) or move outside of the artificial construct (the red pill).]]>paxmath wrote:I look forward to being educated further on this issue and working with fellow Americans pursue this to its conclusion.
100% correct. I tell my friends that this is for Right Wing Kooks, Left Wing Loons, everyone in between, and those who don't know where they are. This is one issue on which all patriotic Americans can unite.paxmath wrote:I will be brief for now and state that a crucial strategy to get this started is to not label this as conservative. (Why would a good liberal oppose having a greater voice?)
If you have not already, please read the 15 Questions & Answers on TTO's home page, the introduction to "Article the first", and Walter Williams' article "Political Monopoly Power". And be prepared for well-intended objections from people who can't yet see outside the artificial political construct we've been living in (defined by the political duopoly and 435). I like to compare it to "The Matrix" in that people will have to decide if they want to keep living in the delusion (blue pill) or move outside of the artificial construct (the red pill).]]>paxmath wrote:I look forward to being educated further on this issue and working with fellow Americans pursue this to its conclusion.
Being somewhat educated myself, at elitist institutions, I certainly don't intend to alienate that group. As it turns out, nothing about "Article the first" of the Bill of Rights is taught in the Universities, and that is where the story of oligarchy in America begins. There has never been a scholarly book or paper written about the very first amendment proposed in our Bill of Rights! (Except for the report that I wrote - link.)803sccdantes wrote:... but it does come across as a little fearful of educated, elitest-type people-
Well said! How can we do that? TTO has no budget, and we depend on grass roots efforts, such as by people like you. This is truly a non-partisan we the people movement.]]>803sccdantes wrote:That said, I think it would be a good idea to try and get this idea passed around in colleges and other educational institutions. Most younger voters would likely be open to the idea. As a law student, I've mentioned the idea to several of my friends who have also been open to the idea. I think if we're able to focus on the idea that this will allow a greater voice across the board for every point of view- something that's stifled today in Congress.
Being somewhat educated myself, at elitist institutions, I certainly don't intend to alienate that group. As it turns out, nothing about "Article the first" of the Bill of Rights is taught in the Universities, and that is where the story of oligarchy in America begins. There has never been a scholarly book or paper written about the very first amendment proposed in our Bill of Rights! (Except for the report that I wrote - link.)803sccdantes wrote:... but it does come across as a little fearful of educated, elitest-type people-
Well said! How can we do that? TTO has no budget, and we depend on grass roots efforts, such as by people like you. This is truly a non-partisan we the people movement.]]>803sccdantes wrote:That said, I think it would be a good idea to try and get this idea passed around in colleges and other educational institutions. Most younger voters would likely be open to the idea. As a law student, I've mentioned the idea to several of my friends who have also been open to the idea. I think if we're able to focus on the idea that this will allow a greater voice across the board for every point of view- something that's stifled today in Congress.
I respect your view, but I disagree. I've summarized my views here: http://forum.thirty-thousand.org/viewto ... ?f=16&t=20 (feel free to respond there).oldfriend wrote:Once a convention is convened there is no way to limit the discussion to representation.
90%+ of them are.oldfriend wrote:My representative is arrogant beyond belief.
The number of Electors equals the number of federal Representatives plus the number of Senators plus 3 (for DC). Therefore, if we had enough Reps, the Electoral College vote would always equal the popular vote. Please read these links:oldfriend wrote:I surmised (but I may be mistaken), that the electoral college count would remain the same whether this scheme comes to pass or not,
That's exactly what I want to do. I have thought through the story those videos should tell, but I don't have the skills, time or budget to implement. TTO needs someone to donate their time & services in this area.oldfriend wrote:Maybe some entertaining youtube videos could work (do any exists?).
Of course, changing the law would be wonderful and we can all agree on that. However, I do not believe that these Congressmen will ever agree to subdivide their massive fiefdoms. Should we try to persuade them? Yes! But consider all the resistance you've encountered with the Representatives on this issue. At best, they would increase their numbers by two or three, and tell you to be a good federal subject and go home.oldfriend wrote:...but I don't agree with a Constitutional convention or amendment. It's just a law. Let's just see if we can change it! Ask candidates as they run and bring the message back here! Try to get on local radio call ins! Maybe this site could create a legal petition that could be circulated.
That is exactly how I feel.oldfriend wrote: People need hope. This is the only one we have!
Agree!oldfriend wrote:As for state governments, I would think that perhaps some see the state legislatures as the training grounds for federal positions in Congress and the largess that that provides. I don't think they would be interested in diluting the payoffs. We need to pressure those in Congress now.
I respect your view, but I disagree. I've summarized my views here: http://forum.thirty-thousand.org/viewto ... ?f=16&t=20 (feel free to respond there).oldfriend wrote:Once a convention is convened there is no way to limit the discussion to representation.
90%+ of them are.oldfriend wrote:My representative is arrogant beyond belief.
The number of Electors equals the number of federal Representatives plus the number of Senators plus 3 (for DC). Therefore, if we had enough Reps, the Electoral College vote would always equal the popular vote. Please read these links:oldfriend wrote:I surmised (but I may be mistaken), that the electoral college count would remain the same whether this scheme comes to pass or not,
That's exactly what I want to do. I have thought through the story those videos should tell, but I don't have the skills, time or budget to implement. TTO needs someone to donate their time & services in this area.oldfriend wrote:Maybe some entertaining youtube videos could work (do any exists?).
Of course, changing the law would be wonderful and we can all agree on that. However, I do not believe that these Congressmen will ever agree to subdivide their massive fiefdoms. Should we try to persuade them? Yes! But consider all the resistance you've encountered with the Representatives on this issue. At best, they would increase their numbers by two or three, and tell you to be a good federal subject and go home.oldfriend wrote:...but I don't agree with a Constitutional convention or amendment. It's just a law. Let's just see if we can change it! Ask candidates as they run and bring the message back here! Try to get on local radio call ins! Maybe this site could create a legal petition that could be circulated.
That is exactly how I feel.oldfriend wrote: People need hope. This is the only one we have!
Agree!oldfriend wrote:As for state governments, I would think that perhaps some see the state legislatures as the training grounds for federal positions in Congress and the largess that that provides. I don't think they would be interested in diluting the payoffs. We need to pressure those in Congress now.
And in none of the previous cases has the court been asked to provide a specific remedy as it has this time. To dance away from this based on it being a "political question" is also erroneous in that we have an assault on "republican government" perpetrated by two powerful political parties. To say that the courts cannot intervene is like saying the law can't break up a protection racket. It could be that the courts are corrupt or that the people arguing the case are not citing article 4-4 and all the other ammo they have. I don't like the invisibility of Westberry v. Sanders and Aricle IV section 4. Looks like an intentional muff to me.]]>Supremes wrote:In reaching its landmark decision, the Supreme Court noted that Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution declares that representatives shall be chosen "by the People of the several States" and shall be "apportioned among the several States...according to their respective Numbers...." These words, the Court held, mean that "as nearly as practicable one man's vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another's."
And in none of the previous cases has the court been asked to provide a specific remedy as it has this time. To dance away from this based on it being a "political question" is also erroneous in that we have an assault on "republican government" perpetrated by two powerful political parties. To say that the courts cannot intervene is like saying the law can't break up a protection racket. It could be that the courts are corrupt or that the people arguing the case are not citing article 4-4 and all the other ammo they have. I don't like the invisibility of Westberry v. Sanders and Aricle IV section 4. Looks like an intentional muff to me.]]>Supremes wrote:In reaching its landmark decision, the Supreme Court noted that Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution declares that representatives shall be chosen "by the People of the several States" and shall be "apportioned among the several States...according to their respective Numbers...." These words, the Court held, mean that "as nearly as practicable one man's vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another's."
The whole concept of the "political question" doctrine is that certain types of assaults on republican government are only properly dealt with by branches other than the courts. You can argue that it's a poor design of government, but it would seem to flow irresistibly from the notion of separation of powers.TheTrucker wrote:In particular Wendelken cited Wesberry v. Sanders in which we see the following:
And in none of the previous cases has the court been asked to provide a specific remedy as it has this time. To dance away from this based on it being a "political question" is also erroneous in that we have an assault on "republican government" perpetrated by two powerful political parties. To say that the courts cannot intervene is like saying the law can't break up a protection racket. It could be that the courts are corrupt or that the people arguing the case are not citing article 4-4 and all the other ammo they have. I don't like the invisibility of Westberry v. Sanders and Aricle IV section 4. Looks like an intentional muff to me.Supremes wrote:In reaching its landmark decision, the Supreme Court noted that Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution declares that representatives shall be chosen "by the People of the several States" and shall be "apportioned among the several States...according to their respective Numbers...." These words, the Court held, mean that "as nearly as practicable one man's vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another's."
The whole concept of the "political question" doctrine is that certain types of assaults on republican government are only properly dealt with by branches other than the courts. You can argue that it's a poor design of government, but it would seem to flow irresistibly from the notion of separation of powers.TheTrucker wrote:In particular Wendelken cited Wesberry v. Sanders in which we see the following:
And in none of the previous cases has the court been asked to provide a specific remedy as it has this time. To dance away from this based on it being a "political question" is also erroneous in that we have an assault on "republican government" perpetrated by two powerful political parties. To say that the courts cannot intervene is like saying the law can't break up a protection racket. It could be that the courts are corrupt or that the people arguing the case are not citing article 4-4 and all the other ammo they have. I don't like the invisibility of Westberry v. Sanders and Aricle IV section 4. Looks like an intentional muff to me.Supremes wrote:In reaching its landmark decision, the Supreme Court noted that Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution declares that representatives shall be chosen "by the People of the several States" and shall be "apportioned among the several States...according to their respective Numbers...." These words, the Court held, mean that "as nearly as practicable one man's vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another's."
I would have to disagree. The Constitution expressly says that "Representatives . . . shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers." U.S. CONST. art. I, § 2, cl. 3. Congress has the power "[t]o make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution . . . all . . . powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." Id. § 8, cl. 18. This language has consistently been interpreted as vesting in Congress the authority to determine the size of the House of Representatives from the very earliest days of the nation. See Act of Jan. 14, 1802, ch. 1, 2 Stat. 128. The behavior of early Congresses is taken as strong evidence of what the original understanding of the Constitution's meaning was between people who were closer to the bargaining process that led to its creation. See McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 27 (1892) ("[W]here there is ambiguity or doubt [in the meaning of constitutional language], or where two views may well be entertained, contemporaneous and subsequent practical construction are entitled to the greatest weight."); cf. Murray’s Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co., 59 U.S. (18 How.) 272, 279–80 (1856) ("[A] legislative construction of the constitution, commencing so early in the government, when the first occasion for [a] manner of proceeding arose, continued throughout its existence, and repeatedly acted on by the judiciary and the executive, is entitled to no inconsiderable weight upon the question whether the proceeding adopted by it was 'due process of law.'").TheTrucker wrote:
This "pronouncement" simply is _WRONG_ . Nowhere in the Constitution as amended and interpreted by previous court decrees is a "decision to limit the Hose of Representatives to 435 members ... expressly committed to the discretion of the Congress". The Congress was _NOT_ originally bound by the words of the 14th amendment concerning equal protection under the law. And they are _NOW_. Those words in the 14th amendment actually enforce what was intended in the first place and is now rightfully cited in cases during the 60's.
Until 1922-29 what was "irresistibly flowing" was the the enlargement of the House in respect of increasing population and respect for maintaining a rational size of electoral districts. The one breach of this "flowing" prior to 1922 occurred in 1842 after the Whig party wrested the reigns of power from the Democrats.HouseSizeWonk wrote: Although not specifically tested in the courts, this power of Congress was recognized in Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 539, 619 (1842): "[Congress] has, on various occasions, exercised powers which were necessary and proper as means to carry into effect rights expressly given, and duties expressly enjoined thereby. The end being required, it has been deemed a just and necessary implication, that the means to accomplish it are given also; or, in other words, that the power flows as a necessary means to accomplish the end. Thus, for example, although the constitution has declared, that representatives shall be apportioned among the states according to their respective federal numbers; and for this purpose, it has expressly authorized congress, by law, to provide for an enumeration of the population every ten years; yet the power to apportion representatives, after this enumeration is made, is nowhere found among the express powers given to congress, but it has always been acted upon, as irresistibly flowing from the duty positively enjoined by the constitution.""
1842, 1922, and 1929 illustrate that the two party system is incompatible with the intent of the founders and that the courts must intervene to arrest this failure. Examining Federalist 10 should illustrate the understanding of the founders and nowhere is there any evidence that the founders anticipated the destructive nature of the two current political parties. The great latitude afforded the Congress in determining the complement of the House was predicated upon the smallness of the nation under the current compass of government and the great unknowns of expansion and the deep divide over the issue of slavery. With such a foreseeable future the congress was granted every option to deal with the tumultuous events that were predicted to transpire. That time has passed and the union is currently sound with all the uninhabited lands currently settled. The founders did not anticipate that the Congress would abuse this power to insulate and isolate itself from the people.HouseSizeWonk wrote: Moreover, in Whelan (which is quoted in this thread), the District Court did an extensive review of the Philadelphia Convention to conclude that "Congress was given considerable flexibility in determining the actual number of representatives so long as the total did not exceed one representative for every 30,000 inhabitants."
I will not argue "poor design". I will argue that the courts are the only remedy and that separation of powers exists for this very purpose. The Congress has had ample opportunity to address the issue and has failed.HouseSizeWonk wrote: As for the equal protection argument: personally, I find it unconvincing because it is inconsistent with the Equal Protection Clause, which requires only that "No State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1 (emphasis added). Semantically, this is not a restriction on the federal government at all. The courts have resisted this reading, by (for example) holding that segregated schools in the District of Columbia were unconstitutional in Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954) for the same equal protection reasons that they were found unconstitutional in Kansas in Brown v. Bd. of Educ., 347 U.S. 483 (1954). That has pretty consistently been followed since then, although the current Court is significantly more conservative than earlier Courts.
The whole concept of the "political question" doctrine is that certain types of assaults on republican government are only properly dealt with by branches other than the courts. You can argue that it's a poor design of government, but it would seem to flow irresistibly from the notion of separation of powers.TheTrucker wrote:In particular Wendelken cited Wesberry v. Sanders in which we see the following:
And in none of the previous cases has the court been asked to provide a specific remedy as it has this time. To dance away from this based on it being a "political question" is also erroneous in that we have an assault on "republican government" perpetrated by two powerful political parties. To say that the courts cannot intervene is like saying the law can't break up a protection racket. It could be that the courts are corrupt or that the people arguing the case are not citing article 4-4 and all the other ammo they have. I don't like the invisibility of Westberry v. Sanders and Aricle IV section 4. Looks like an intentional muff to me.Supremes wrote:In reaching its landmark decision, the Supreme Court noted that Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution declares that representatives shall be chosen "by the People of the several States" and shall be "apportioned among the several States...according to their respective Numbers...." These words, the Court held, mean that "as nearly as practicable one man's vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another's."
And you are entitled to your opinion. I obviously do not share it for the reasons I have given.HouseSizeWonk wrote: I think it is wrong to say that this specific remedy has never been sought; in Whelan, the petitioner sought an order compelling Congress to increase to something like 10,000 members (based on a compelled 30,000:1 ratio). And it was (properly, in my view) shot down; this is just not something that the courts should involve themselves in.
As I have said. A misinterpretation of the words of the Constitution does not set precedent and eternal law. Montana is clearly being denied a "republican form of government" as that phrase has been defined in the court cases since 1960. Disproportionate representation was fond to be unconstitutional because it is central to the nature of a "republican form of government". And the words of A4S4 are very hard to misconstrue. The words do not say that the federal government will force the state governments to be "republican". It says that the Feds will "guarantee to every state in the union a republican form of government." And the Feds ain't doin' it.HouseSizeWonk wrote: The Guaranty Clause is plainly inapplicable in this situation. First, it is not a guarantee that the federal government will be "republican," only that the federal government "shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." U.S. CONST. art. IV, § 4 (emphasis added).
And this has to do with what the Feds can do WITHIN the states and runs counter to what they DID do within the states to boot.]]>HouseSizeWonk wrote: Moreover, the Supreme Court has made it clear that it does not consider this clause actionable in court. In another important separation of powers case, it said that, "as the United States guarantee to each State a republican government, Congress must necessarily decide what government is established in the State before it can determine whether it is republican or not. And when the senators and representatives of a State are admitted into the councils of the Union, the authority of the government under which they are appointed, as well as its republican character, is recognized by the proper constitutional authority. And its decision is binding on every other department of the government, and could not be questioned in a judicial tribunal." Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. (7 How.) 1, 42 (1849). The Supreme Court similarly refused to entertain a challenge to a State referendum on Guaranty Clause grounds. Pac. States Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Oregon, 223 U.S. 118 (1912).
I would have to disagree. The Constitution expressly says that "Representatives . . . shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers." U.S. CONST. art. I, § 2, cl. 3. Congress has the power "[t]o make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution . . . all . . . powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." Id. § 8, cl. 18. This language has consistently been interpreted as vesting in Congress the authority to determine the size of the House of Representatives from the very earliest days of the nation. See Act of Jan. 14, 1802, ch. 1, 2 Stat. 128. The behavior of early Congresses is taken as strong evidence of what the original understanding of the Constitution's meaning was between people who were closer to the bargaining process that led to its creation. See McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 27 (1892) ("[W]here there is ambiguity or doubt [in the meaning of constitutional language], or where two views may well be entertained, contemporaneous and subsequent practical construction are entitled to the greatest weight."); cf. Murray’s Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co., 59 U.S. (18 How.) 272, 279–80 (1856) ("[A] legislative construction of the constitution, commencing so early in the government, when the first occasion for [a] manner of proceeding arose, continued throughout its existence, and repeatedly acted on by the judiciary and the executive, is entitled to no inconsiderable weight upon the question whether the proceeding adopted by it was 'due process of law.'").TheTrucker wrote:
This "pronouncement" simply is _WRONG_ . Nowhere in the Constitution as amended and interpreted by previous court decrees is a "decision to limit the Hose of Representatives to 435 members ... expressly committed to the discretion of the Congress". The Congress was _NOT_ originally bound by the words of the 14th amendment concerning equal protection under the law. And they are _NOW_. Those words in the 14th amendment actually enforce what was intended in the first place and is now rightfully cited in cases during the 60's.
Until 1922-29 what was "irresistibly flowing" was the the enlargement of the House in respect of increasing population and respect for maintaining a rational size of electoral districts. The one breach of this "flowing" prior to 1922 occurred in 1842 after the Whig party wrested the reigns of power from the Democrats.HouseSizeWonk wrote: Although not specifically tested in the courts, this power of Congress was recognized in Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 539, 619 (1842): "[Congress] has, on various occasions, exercised powers which were necessary and proper as means to carry into effect rights expressly given, and duties expressly enjoined thereby. The end being required, it has been deemed a just and necessary implication, that the means to accomplish it are given also; or, in other words, that the power flows as a necessary means to accomplish the end. Thus, for example, although the constitution has declared, that representatives shall be apportioned among the states according to their respective federal numbers; and for this purpose, it has expressly authorized congress, by law, to provide for an enumeration of the population every ten years; yet the power to apportion representatives, after this enumeration is made, is nowhere found among the express powers given to congress, but it has always been acted upon, as irresistibly flowing from the duty positively enjoined by the constitution.""
1842, 1922, and 1929 illustrate that the two party system is incompatible with the intent of the founders and that the courts must intervene to arrest this failure. Examining Federalist 10 should illustrate the understanding of the founders and nowhere is there any evidence that the founders anticipated the destructive nature of the two current political parties. The great latitude afforded the Congress in determining the complement of the House was predicated upon the smallness of the nation under the current compass of government and the great unknowns of expansion and the deep divide over the issue of slavery. With such a foreseeable future the congress was granted every option to deal with the tumultuous events that were predicted to transpire. That time has passed and the union is currently sound with all the uninhabited lands currently settled. The founders did not anticipate that the Congress would abuse this power to insulate and isolate itself from the people.HouseSizeWonk wrote: Moreover, in Whelan (which is quoted in this thread), the District Court did an extensive review of the Philadelphia Convention to conclude that "Congress was given considerable flexibility in determining the actual number of representatives so long as the total did not exceed one representative for every 30,000 inhabitants."
I will not argue "poor design". I will argue that the courts are the only remedy and that separation of powers exists for this very purpose. The Congress has had ample opportunity to address the issue and has failed.HouseSizeWonk wrote: As for the equal protection argument: personally, I find it unconvincing because it is inconsistent with the Equal Protection Clause, which requires only that "No State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1 (emphasis added). Semantically, this is not a restriction on the federal government at all. The courts have resisted this reading, by (for example) holding that segregated schools in the District of Columbia were unconstitutional in Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954) for the same equal protection reasons that they were found unconstitutional in Kansas in Brown v. Bd. of Educ., 347 U.S. 483 (1954). That has pretty consistently been followed since then, although the current Court is significantly more conservative than earlier Courts.
The whole concept of the "political question" doctrine is that certain types of assaults on republican government are only properly dealt with by branches other than the courts. You can argue that it's a poor design of government, but it would seem to flow irresistibly from the notion of separation of powers.TheTrucker wrote:In particular Wendelken cited Wesberry v. Sanders in which we see the following:
And in none of the previous cases has the court been asked to provide a specific remedy as it has this time. To dance away from this based on it being a "political question" is also erroneous in that we have an assault on "republican government" perpetrated by two powerful political parties. To say that the courts cannot intervene is like saying the law can't break up a protection racket. It could be that the courts are corrupt or that the people arguing the case are not citing article 4-4 and all the other ammo they have. I don't like the invisibility of Westberry v. Sanders and Aricle IV section 4. Looks like an intentional muff to me.Supremes wrote:In reaching its landmark decision, the Supreme Court noted that Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution declares that representatives shall be chosen "by the People of the several States" and shall be "apportioned among the several States...according to their respective Numbers...." These words, the Court held, mean that "as nearly as practicable one man's vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another's."
And you are entitled to your opinion. I obviously do not share it for the reasons I have given.HouseSizeWonk wrote: I think it is wrong to say that this specific remedy has never been sought; in Whelan, the petitioner sought an order compelling Congress to increase to something like 10,000 members (based on a compelled 30,000:1 ratio). And it was (properly, in my view) shot down; this is just not something that the courts should involve themselves in.
As I have said. A misinterpretation of the words of the Constitution does not set precedent and eternal law. Montana is clearly being denied a "republican form of government" as that phrase has been defined in the court cases since 1960. Disproportionate representation was fond to be unconstitutional because it is central to the nature of a "republican form of government". And the words of A4S4 are very hard to misconstrue. The words do not say that the federal government will force the state governments to be "republican". It says that the Feds will "guarantee to every state in the union a republican form of government." And the Feds ain't doin' it.HouseSizeWonk wrote: The Guaranty Clause is plainly inapplicable in this situation. First, it is not a guarantee that the federal government will be "republican," only that the federal government "shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." U.S. CONST. art. IV, § 4 (emphasis added).
And this has to do with what the Feds can do WITHIN the states and runs counter to what they DID do within the states to boot.]]>HouseSizeWonk wrote: Moreover, the Supreme Court has made it clear that it does not consider this clause actionable in court. In another important separation of powers case, it said that, "as the United States guarantee to each State a republican government, Congress must necessarily decide what government is established in the State before it can determine whether it is republican or not. And when the senators and representatives of a State are admitted into the councils of the Union, the authority of the government under which they are appointed, as well as its republican character, is recognized by the proper constitutional authority. And its decision is binding on every other department of the government, and could not be questioned in a judicial tribunal." Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. (7 How.) 1, 42 (1849). The Supreme Court similarly refused to entertain a challenge to a State referendum on Guaranty Clause grounds. Pac. States Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Oregon, 223 U.S. 118 (1912).
Flaws in the Constitution resulting from issues not anticipated by the Founders are not properly "fixed" by the courts. They are fixed by the Amendment process.TheTrucker wrote:1842, 1922, and 1929 illustrate that the two party system is incompatible with the intent of the founders and that the courts must intervene to arrest this failure. Examining Federalist 10 should illustrate the understanding of the founders and nowhere is there any evidence that the founders anticipated the destructive nature of the two current political parties. The great latitude afforded the Congress in determining the complement of the House was predicated upon the smallness of the nation under the current compass of government and the great unknowns of expansion and the deep divide over the issue of slavery. With such a foreseeable future the congress was granted every option to deal with the tumultuous events that were predicted to transpire. That time has passed and the union is currently sound with all the uninhabited lands currently settled. The founders did not anticipate that the Congress would abuse this power to insulate and isolate itself from the people.
That's assuming it's an issue that must be addressed. You feel it is. I feel it is. But just because that's our opinion doesn't make it an issue that must be addressed. If what you discuss is what you mean by "separation of powers," you have a very different concept of it than that suggested by the Constitution and articulated by the courts. The notion of "separation of powers" is that certain acts are legislative, executive, and judicial in character. Separated powers necessarily mean that certain decisions are vested only in one or another of the branches.TheTrucker wrote:I will not argue "poor design". I will argue that the courts are the only remedy and that separation of powers exists for this very purpose. The Congress has had ample opportunity to address the issue and has failed.
The phrase "republican form of government" has not been defined in any court cases since 1960. Since Luther, the Supreme Court has said that a "republican form of government" is whatever Congress says it is. The Court fastidiously avoided invoking the Guaranty Clause in the 1960s apportionment cases, precisely because it was uninterested in challenging that precedent. The Court in Baker, in fact, said that "the claim pleaded here neither rests upon nor implicates the Guaranty Clause, and that its justiciability is therefore not foreclosed by our decisions of cases involving that clause." Reynolds didn't so much as cite it.TheTrucker wrote:As I have said. A misinterpretation of the words of the Constitution does not set precedent and eternal law. Montana is clearly being denied a "republican form of government" as that phrase has been defined in the court cases since 1960. Disproportionate representation was fond to be unconstitutional because it is central to the nature of a "republican form of government". And the words of A4S4 are very hard to misconstrue. The words do not say that the federal government will force the state governments to be "republican". It says that the Feds will "guarantee to every state in the union a republican form of government." And the Feds ain't doin' it.
To be honest, I'm not sure what you mean by this.]]>TheTrucker wrote:And this has to do with what the Feds can do WITHIN the states and runs counter to what they DID do within the states to boot.
Flaws in the Constitution resulting from issues not anticipated by the Founders are not properly "fixed" by the courts. They are fixed by the Amendment process.TheTrucker wrote:1842, 1922, and 1929 illustrate that the two party system is incompatible with the intent of the founders and that the courts must intervene to arrest this failure. Examining Federalist 10 should illustrate the understanding of the founders and nowhere is there any evidence that the founders anticipated the destructive nature of the two current political parties. The great latitude afforded the Congress in determining the complement of the House was predicated upon the smallness of the nation under the current compass of government and the great unknowns of expansion and the deep divide over the issue of slavery. With such a foreseeable future the congress was granted every option to deal with the tumultuous events that were predicted to transpire. That time has passed and the union is currently sound with all the uninhabited lands currently settled. The founders did not anticipate that the Congress would abuse this power to insulate and isolate itself from the people.
That's assuming it's an issue that must be addressed. You feel it is. I feel it is. But just because that's our opinion doesn't make it an issue that must be addressed. If what you discuss is what you mean by "separation of powers," you have a very different concept of it than that suggested by the Constitution and articulated by the courts. The notion of "separation of powers" is that certain acts are legislative, executive, and judicial in character. Separated powers necessarily mean that certain decisions are vested only in one or another of the branches.TheTrucker wrote:I will not argue "poor design". I will argue that the courts are the only remedy and that separation of powers exists for this very purpose. The Congress has had ample opportunity to address the issue and has failed.
The phrase "republican form of government" has not been defined in any court cases since 1960. Since Luther, the Supreme Court has said that a "republican form of government" is whatever Congress says it is. The Court fastidiously avoided invoking the Guaranty Clause in the 1960s apportionment cases, precisely because it was uninterested in challenging that precedent. The Court in Baker, in fact, said that "the claim pleaded here neither rests upon nor implicates the Guaranty Clause, and that its justiciability is therefore not foreclosed by our decisions of cases involving that clause." Reynolds didn't so much as cite it.TheTrucker wrote:As I have said. A misinterpretation of the words of the Constitution does not set precedent and eternal law. Montana is clearly being denied a "republican form of government" as that phrase has been defined in the court cases since 1960. Disproportionate representation was fond to be unconstitutional because it is central to the nature of a "republican form of government". And the words of A4S4 are very hard to misconstrue. The words do not say that the federal government will force the state governments to be "republican". It says that the Feds will "guarantee to every state in the union a republican form of government." And the Feds ain't doin' it.
To be honest, I'm not sure what you mean by this.]]>TheTrucker wrote:And this has to do with what the Feds can do WITHIN the states and runs counter to what they DID do within the states to boot.
All of that depends on subjective assessments of what the marginal value is of one extra representative as opposed to the marginal value of his (or her) salary and contribution to the "noise." The Court will never, ever, ever second guess a congressional determination on those grounds. See, for example, Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., 348 U.S. 483 (1955), in which the Court hypothesized what the State of Oklahoma's thinking might have been in passing the statute.]]>803sccdantes wrote:3. I would argue the arguments about cacophonous chamber, reducing salary payouts, etc. aren't even legitimate arguments. Nearly every other republican country in the industrialized world has more representatives in their lower house than the USA. Furthermore, each Congressman has a staff of around 20 right now because they are constantly in meetings, campaigning, meeting with constituents, etc. By expanding the House, it would lessen the workload on every Congressman and thus he would need less staff. In any event, the Congress did not perform any study or examine any authoritative work when it passed the 1929 statute. When it comes down to it, the 1929 law was passed because of a political deadlock that had to be broken. It'd be hard to argue they were worried about these problems when Congress didn't even take the time to have a study done on this- especially when this dispute was pending for nearly 10 years.
In any event, even if it got to the Supreme Court, I doubt it would actually overturn the 1929 apportionment law. I think practical issues would take precedence over legal issues. Forcing Congress to somehow develop a new formula for thousands of elections would be a nightmare-and the Court would be blamed for the chaos. While I think the Court should overturn the law, the chances of that actually happening are slim to none. Of course people probably said the same thing about Brown v. Board of Education before it came out- so who knows.
All of that depends on subjective assessments of what the marginal value is of one extra representative as opposed to the marginal value of his (or her) salary and contribution to the "noise." The Court will never, ever, ever second guess a congressional determination on those grounds. See, for example, Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., 348 U.S. 483 (1955), in which the Court hypothesized what the State of Oklahoma's thinking might have been in passing the statute.]]>803sccdantes wrote:3. I would argue the arguments about cacophonous chamber, reducing salary payouts, etc. aren't even legitimate arguments. Nearly every other republican country in the industrialized world has more representatives in their lower house than the USA. Furthermore, each Congressman has a staff of around 20 right now because they are constantly in meetings, campaigning, meeting with constituents, etc. By expanding the House, it would lessen the workload on every Congressman and thus he would need less staff. In any event, the Congress did not perform any study or examine any authoritative work when it passed the 1929 statute. When it comes down to it, the 1929 law was passed because of a political deadlock that had to be broken. It'd be hard to argue they were worried about these problems when Congress didn't even take the time to have a study done on this- especially when this dispute was pending for nearly 10 years.
In any event, even if it got to the Supreme Court, I doubt it would actually overturn the 1929 apportionment law. I think practical issues would take precedence over legal issues. Forcing Congress to somehow develop a new formula for thousands of elections would be a nightmare-and the Court would be blamed for the chaos. While I think the Court should overturn the law, the chances of that actually happening are slim to none. Of course people probably said the same thing about Brown v. Board of Education before it came out- so who knows.
Montana said that the formula Congress uses to divvy up the seats between the States is not a political question (the Huntington-Hill Method, as opposed to say, the Hamilton Method). It did not hold that the issue of the size of the House is not a political question. And, I am quite certain that it is.803sccdantes wrote:
I think we can address this several ways-
1. This case was only about gerrymandering, not apportionment. If you look at the history of the Court, it has taken distinctions even slighter than the difference between gerrymandering and apportionment and come out in opposite ways-ways you never would have thought would have been possible since the facts and the rules seemed so similar. However, the Court has used every so slight distinctions to rule the way it wants to. Furthermore, in Montana, the Court said it was free to review Congressional apportionment methods and that that was not a political question- and that the public was well served in being able to challenge the apportionment on different grounds.
All of that depends on subjective assessments of what the marginal value is of one extra representative as opposed to the marginal value of his (or her) salary and contribution to the "noise." The Court will never, ever, ever second guess a congressional determination on those grounds. See, for example, Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., 348 U.S. 483 (1955), in which the Court hypothesized what the State of Oklahoma's thinking might have been in passing the statute.803sccdantes wrote:3. I would argue the arguments about cacophonous chamber, reducing salary payouts, etc. aren't even legitimate arguments. Nearly every other republican country in the industrialized world has more representatives in their lower house than the USA. Furthermore, each Congressman has a staff of around 20 right now because they are constantly in meetings, campaigning, meeting with constituents, etc. By expanding the House, it would lessen the workload on every Congressman and thus he would need less staff. In any event, the Congress did not perform any study or examine any authoritative work when it passed the 1929 statute. When it comes down to it, the 1929 law was passed because of a political deadlock that had to be broken. It'd be hard to argue they were worried about these problems when Congress didn't even take the time to have a study done on this- especially when this dispute was pending for nearly 10 years.
In any event, even if it got to the Supreme Court, I doubt it would actually overturn the 1929 apportionment law. I think practical issues would take precedence over legal issues. Forcing Congress to somehow develop a new formula for thousands of elections would be a nightmare-and the Court would be blamed for the chaos. While I think the Court should overturn the law, the chances of that actually happening are slim to none. Of course people probably said the same thing about Brown v. Board of Education before it came out- so who knows.
Montana said that the formula Congress uses to divvy up the seats between the States is not a political question (the Huntington-Hill Method, as opposed to say, the Hamilton Method). It did not hold that the issue of the size of the House is not a political question. And, I am quite certain that it is.803sccdantes wrote:
I think we can address this several ways-
1. This case was only about gerrymandering, not apportionment. If you look at the history of the Court, it has taken distinctions even slighter than the difference between gerrymandering and apportionment and come out in opposite ways-ways you never would have thought would have been possible since the facts and the rules seemed so similar. However, the Court has used every so slight distinctions to rule the way it wants to. Furthermore, in Montana, the Court said it was free to review Congressional apportionment methods and that that was not a political question- and that the public was well served in being able to challenge the apportionment on different grounds.
All of that depends on subjective assessments of what the marginal value is of one extra representative as opposed to the marginal value of his (or her) salary and contribution to the "noise." The Court will never, ever, ever second guess a congressional determination on those grounds. See, for example, Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., 348 U.S. 483 (1955), in which the Court hypothesized what the State of Oklahoma's thinking might have been in passing the statute.803sccdantes wrote:3. I would argue the arguments about cacophonous chamber, reducing salary payouts, etc. aren't even legitimate arguments. Nearly every other republican country in the industrialized world has more representatives in their lower house than the USA. Furthermore, each Congressman has a staff of around 20 right now because they are constantly in meetings, campaigning, meeting with constituents, etc. By expanding the House, it would lessen the workload on every Congressman and thus he would need less staff. In any event, the Congress did not perform any study or examine any authoritative work when it passed the 1929 statute. When it comes down to it, the 1929 law was passed because of a political deadlock that had to be broken. It'd be hard to argue they were worried about these problems when Congress didn't even take the time to have a study done on this- especially when this dispute was pending for nearly 10 years.
In any event, even if it got to the Supreme Court, I doubt it would actually overturn the 1929 apportionment law. I think practical issues would take precedence over legal issues. Forcing Congress to somehow develop a new formula for thousands of elections would be a nightmare-and the Court would be blamed for the chaos. While I think the Court should overturn the law, the chances of that actually happening are slim to none. Of course people probably said the same thing about Brown v. Board of Education before it came out- so who knows.
Well, the next best thing to being non-partisan, relative to this forum, is to be anti-partisan.TheTrucker wrote:... I spend lots of time shouting toward the left wing moonbats trying to make them understand that most of the issues they claim to care about...
...The right wing (the rightards) have the same exact disease in that they know if they did not protect every seat and vote as a monolith then they would be unable to have effect on matters.
Exactly so.TheTrucker wrote:It seems to me that this group should concentrate on strategy.
I would like to caution everyone that the use of the term "democracy" can confuse the debate. As you know, as a republic we are a representative democracy, not a democracy in the strict sense. There is only a "democracy", so to speak, within each congressional district, as we democratically elect our Representative. Although, how democratic is that process when the candidates are pre-selected by one or two parties (and the special interests)? Speaking of "democracy" vs. republic, etc., here's a video that I like (I don't know its origin).TheTrucker wrote:It seems to me that this group should concentrate of strategy. How do we incite the LEFT to DEMAND democracy. To try to incite the RIGHT ( the believers in patriarchical government) to enhance democracy would seem to be futile.
Because of their devotion to statism, neither political party will support a meaningful increase in representation. Forget the political parties. IMO, no more than 20% of the public is truly committed to a political party. The parties only serve the parties.]]>TheTrucker wrote:The Democrats can, right now, fix this pig with a decent reapportionment law. The Republican party can't stop them.
Well, the next best thing to being non-partisan, relative to this forum, is to be anti-partisan.TheTrucker wrote:... I spend lots of time shouting toward the left wing moonbats trying to make them understand that most of the issues they claim to care about...
...The right wing (the rightards) have the same exact disease in that they know if they did not protect every seat and vote as a monolith then they would be unable to have effect on matters.
Exactly so.TheTrucker wrote:It seems to me that this group should concentrate on strategy.
I would like to caution everyone that the use of the term "democracy" can confuse the debate. As you know, as a republic we are a representative democracy, not a democracy in the strict sense. There is only a "democracy", so to speak, within each congressional district, as we democratically elect our Representative. Although, how democratic is that process when the candidates are pre-selected by one or two parties (and the special interests)? Speaking of "democracy" vs. republic, etc., here's a video that I like (I don't know its origin).TheTrucker wrote:It seems to me that this group should concentrate of strategy. How do we incite the LEFT to DEMAND democracy. To try to incite the RIGHT ( the believers in patriarchical government) to enhance democracy would seem to be futile.
Because of their devotion to statism, neither political party will support a meaningful increase in representation. Forget the political parties. IMO, no more than 20% of the public is truly committed to a political party. The parties only serve the parties.]]>TheTrucker wrote:The Democrats can, right now, fix this pig with a decent reapportionment law. The Republican party can't stop them.
This issue is divisive in that Liberals view the latter day Republican use of the word "republic" as an attempt to mark out a difference between a constitutional representative democracy and a constitutional republic in order to impugn the virtues of democracy in any form. If there is a difference between a constitutional representative democracy and a constitutional republic it is that the latter can be extended to include state based fascist oligarchy while the former cannot. More importantly, the right employs the suggestion that modern democracy is BOTH anarchist (mod rule democracy) and statist (collectivist) at the same time. The right never seem to be bothered by this internal contradiction. But none of what the right may or may not do is actually relevant to the chosen strategy. IN THIS venue I am not interested in a right left war except as suits the advancement of our mutual goals.(This republicanism of the 1780's was not in principle different from what in Britain and America by mid-nineteenth century was generally called representative democracy. The founders would not have been opposed to modern connotations of the word "democracy", nor would they have used the word "republic" to mark out a distinction from those connotations. In scorning "democracy", eighteenth-century theorists had in mind Aristotle's picture of a heedless, emotional, manipulated populace that would still be denigrated by most modern democratic theorists).
This issue is divisive in that Liberals view the latter day Republican use of the word "republic" as an attempt to mark out a difference between a constitutional representative democracy and a constitutional republic in order to impugn the virtues of democracy in any form. If there is a difference between a constitutional representative democracy and a constitutional republic it is that the latter can be extended to include state based fascist oligarchy while the former cannot. More importantly, the right employs the suggestion that modern democracy is BOTH anarchist (mod rule democracy) and statist (collectivist) at the same time. The right never seem to be bothered by this internal contradiction. But none of what the right may or may not do is actually relevant to the chosen strategy. IN THIS venue I am not interested in a right left war except as suits the advancement of our mutual goals.(This republicanism of the 1780's was not in principle different from what in Britain and America by mid-nineteenth century was generally called representative democracy. The founders would not have been opposed to modern connotations of the word "democracy", nor would they have used the word "republic" to mark out a distinction from those connotations. In scorning "democracy", eighteenth-century theorists had in mind Aristotle's picture of a heedless, emotional, manipulated populace that would still be denigrated by most modern democratic theorists).
Reality is more complicated than this. Many small states know they are screwed by the small number of Representatives, especially Montana which currently has 71% of the representatives that their total population would entitle them, so they are shortchanged by 30%! BTW, to your other point, many of the small states are "blue" (check the wiki map from the last election).TheTrucker wrote: As such it is not possible to get 3/4ths of the states to ratify an amendment that would decrease the power of the voters of Wyoming or the power the less populous states gain by keeping representation at a minimum.
You may be right that an amendment will never happen, but that is the solution that I most favor. And the amendment we need was already proposed by the House of Representative on August 24, 1789 (to become the defective "Article the first"), but if you want to promote an alternative solution then that's great. As unlikely as an amendment may be,I believe that necessary legislation is even less likely, because the oligarchic Congress will ever oppose increasing the number of fiefdoms by more than a token few. In contrast, an amendment need not originate from Congress, but could be proposed by amendment conventions in three-fourths of the state. However, it makes sense for supporters of enlarged representation to pursue all possible remedies.]]>TheTrucker wrote:As the amendment will never happen...
Reality is more complicated than this. Many small states know they are screwed by the small number of Representatives, especially Montana which currently has 71% of the representatives that their total population would entitle them, so they are shortchanged by 30%! BTW, to your other point, many of the small states are "blue" (check the wiki map from the last election).TheTrucker wrote: As such it is not possible to get 3/4ths of the states to ratify an amendment that would decrease the power of the voters of Wyoming or the power the less populous states gain by keeping representation at a minimum.
You may be right that an amendment will never happen, but that is the solution that I most favor. And the amendment we need was already proposed by the House of Representative on August 24, 1789 (to become the defective "Article the first"), but if you want to promote an alternative solution then that's great. As unlikely as an amendment may be,I believe that necessary legislation is even less likely, because the oligarchic Congress will ever oppose increasing the number of fiefdoms by more than a token few. In contrast, an amendment need not originate from Congress, but could be proposed by amendment conventions in three-fourths of the state. However, it makes sense for supporters of enlarged representation to pursue all possible remedies.]]>TheTrucker wrote:As the amendment will never happen...
They have not completed the census yet. I don't know anything about a "Permanent Reapportionment Act of 2009" -- is that something that exists or something you're advocating?TheTrucker wrote:...the proposed NEW "Permanent Reapportionment Act of 2009"
TheTrucker wrote: As such it is not possible to get 3/4ths of the states to ratify an amendment that would decrease the power of the voters of Wyoming or the power the less populous states gain by keeping representation at a minimum.
Yes! It is more complicated than that. It has more to do with BOTH population and population density with Montana and a couple of others being outliers. Senatorial districts (the entire state) show a very clear correlation between population and population density taken together correlating with being BLUEness.JEQuidam wrote:Reality is more complicated than this. Many small states know they are screwed by the small number of Representatives, especially Montana which currently has 71% of the representatives that their total population would entitle them, so they are shortchanged by 30%! BTW, to your other point, many of the small states are "blue" (check the wiki map from the last election).
TheTrucker wrote:As the amendment will never happen...
Your preference is irrelevant to the realities. This picture illustrates the fallacy of a Convention of the States as the same fallacy in expecting the states to ratify such an amendment. You will never get the required 2/3rds or 3/4ths majority in a Constitutional Convention of all the states that would be required to report such an amendment out of the convention any more than you can get such an amendment past the red states even if the Congress reported it out. The Red states will block any such action no matter how you do it. It is highly unlikely that you would be able to get more than half.JEQuidam wrote:You may be right that an amendment will never happen, but that is the solution that I most favor. And the amendment we need was already proposed by the House of Representative on August 24, 1789 (to become the defective "Article the first"), but if you want to promote an alternative solution then that's great. As unlikely as an amendment may be,I believe that necessary legislation is even less likely, because the oligarchic Congress will ever oppose increasing the number of fiefdoms by more than a token few. In contrast, an amendment need not originate from Congress, but could be proposed by amendment conventions in three-fourths of the state. However, it makes sense for supporters of enlarged representation to pursue all possible remedies.
They have not completed the census yet. I don't know anything about a "Permanent Reapportionment Act of 2009" -- is that something that exists or something you're advocating?TheTrucker wrote:...the proposed NEW "Permanent Reapportionment Act of 2009"
TheTrucker wrote: As such it is not possible to get 3/4ths of the states to ratify an amendment that would decrease the power of the voters of Wyoming or the power the less populous states gain by keeping representation at a minimum.
Yes! It is more complicated than that. It has more to do with BOTH population and population density with Montana and a couple of others being outliers. Senatorial districts (the entire state) show a very clear correlation between population and population density taken together correlating with being BLUEness.JEQuidam wrote:Reality is more complicated than this. Many small states know they are screwed by the small number of Representatives, especially Montana which currently has 71% of the representatives that their total population would entitle them, so they are shortchanged by 30%! BTW, to your other point, many of the small states are "blue" (check the wiki map from the last election).
TheTrucker wrote:As the amendment will never happen...
Your preference is irrelevant to the realities. This picture illustrates the fallacy of a Convention of the States as the same fallacy in expecting the states to ratify such an amendment. You will never get the required 2/3rds or 3/4ths majority in a Constitutional Convention of all the states that would be required to report such an amendment out of the convention any more than you can get such an amendment past the red states even if the Congress reported it out. The Red states will block any such action no matter how you do it. It is highly unlikely that you would be able to get more than half.JEQuidam wrote:You may be right that an amendment will never happen, but that is the solution that I most favor. And the amendment we need was already proposed by the House of Representative on August 24, 1789 (to become the defective "Article the first"), but if you want to promote an alternative solution then that's great. As unlikely as an amendment may be,I believe that necessary legislation is even less likely, because the oligarchic Congress will ever oppose increasing the number of fiefdoms by more than a token few. In contrast, an amendment need not originate from Congress, but could be proposed by amendment conventions in three-fourths of the state. However, it makes sense for supporters of enlarged representation to pursue all possible remedies.
TheTrucker wrote:The "Reapportionment Act of 1929" preceded the 1930 census and set forth the law that would reapportion the house in 1931 and subsequent 10 year cycles.
TheTrucker wrote:The "Reapportionment Act of 1929" preceded the 1930 census and set forth the law that would reapportion the house in 1931 and subsequent 10 year cycles.
That's a very interesting point. Michael Warnken (http://californiacommonwealth.com/) has made this same argument previously, namely: we should continue the ratification of Article the first (in its defective state) and then go to the courts to have its obviously intended meaning reinstated. Its intended meaning being that shown on the left hand side (below) before being made defective by changing the word "less" to "more.TheTrucker wrote:If you wish to pursue a Constitutional solution you would be much better off using the current unamended document and citing "equal protection under the law" to the extend it is allowed by "thirty thousand" as a Constitutional challenge in the courts. If you were to gain prominent headlines and notoriety with it then the chances for "Article the First" or a new "Article the First" would be greatly enhanced. ... It may me possible to scare the **** out of everyone with the possibility of a Supreme Court mandated House size of 10k.
That's a very interesting point. Michael Warnken (http://californiacommonwealth.com/) has made this same argument previously, namely: we should continue the ratification of Article the first (in its defective state) and then go to the courts to have its obviously intended meaning reinstated. Its intended meaning being that shown on the left hand side (below) before being made defective by changing the word "less" to "more.TheTrucker wrote:If you wish to pursue a Constitutional solution you would be much better off using the current unamended document and citing "equal protection under the law" to the extend it is allowed by "thirty thousand" as a Constitutional challenge in the courts. If you were to gain prominent headlines and notoriety with it then the chances for "Article the First" or a new "Article the First" would be greatly enhanced. ... It may me possible to scare the **** out of everyone with the possibility of a Supreme Court mandated House size of 10k.
I agree it seems perfectly sensible that congressional districts be equipopulous, but I don't see how it is a constitutional imperative.JEQuidam wrote:With respect to the intrastate application of one person one vote, I believe that the Supreme Court found that within the 14th amendment to the Constitution. You can debate it all you want, but there is it. In any case, it seems perfectly sensible to require all the congressional districts to have the same population size relative to the U.S. House.
I do wonder if it makes sense to impose that requirement on the upper houses of state legislatures. Why not, for example, allow two Senators for each county? That would provide a more senatorial Senate, IMO. But given that reality, it seems to me that the state houses might as well become unicameral (like Nebraska), but I digress.
I agree it seems perfectly sensible that congressional districts be equipopulous, but I don't see how it is a constitutional imperative.JEQuidam wrote:With respect to the intrastate application of one person one vote, I believe that the Supreme Court found that within the 14th amendment to the Constitution. You can debate it all you want, but there is it. In any case, it seems perfectly sensible to require all the congressional districts to have the same population size relative to the U.S. House.
I do wonder if it makes sense to impose that requirement on the upper houses of state legislatures. Why not, for example, allow two Senators for each county? That would provide a more senatorial Senate, IMO. But given that reality, it seems to me that the state houses might as well become unicameral (like Nebraska), but I digress.
I still have no idea what Adam is talking about. Since when does 'equal' mean anything other than 'equal'?HouseSizeWonk wrote:It rests on "the constitutionally frail tautology that 'equal' means 'equal,'" as the younger Justice Harlan very appropriately noted.
I still have no idea what Adam is talking about. Since when does 'equal' mean anything other than 'equal'?HouseSizeWonk wrote:It rests on "the constitutionally frail tautology that 'equal' means 'equal,'" as the younger Justice Harlan very appropriately noted.
Contrary to your opinion, though, the Supreme Court does indeed have the "say" on this and, barring an amendment to the contrary, one person, one vote is the constitutional law of the land.HouseSizeWonk wrote:Who is to say which system is more "democratic"? Who is to say which set of compromises strikes the appropriate balance? Certainly not the Supreme Court of the United States, IMO.
Contrary to your opinion, though, the Supreme Court does indeed have the "say" on this and, barring an amendment to the contrary, one person, one vote is the constitutional law of the land.HouseSizeWonk wrote:Who is to say which system is more "democratic"? Who is to say which set of compromises strikes the appropriate balance? Certainly not the Supreme Court of the United States, IMO.
There are arguments beyond those, and as I quoted previously, "Diluting the weight of votes because of place of residence impairs basic constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment just as much as invidious discriminations based upon factors such as race" (Reynolds v. Sims). There is no reason why that principle should not apply interstate as well as intrastate. There is no plausible rationale to grant citizens in some states much greater political power than the citizens of other states. Of course, we could debate this forever. As it turns out, this will likely be decided by the Supreme Court, probably later this year, as the plaintiffs are repealing Clemons et al. v. U.S. Department of Commerce et al.HouseSizeWonk wrote:And it is simply wrong to say that "there is no justification for permitting disparities in the congressional district sizes from state to state" because of the Supreme Court's intrastate districting precedents.
Really? So based on whatever their "value judgment" may be, could Congress set the total number of Representatives at 200? At 100? At 51? If not, then why not?]]>HouseSizeWonk wrote:Moreover, the Constitution expressly gives Congress the power to set the size of the chamber and make the value judgment of whether one or more additional seats are worth either their financial cost or the effects on cohesion and an orderly chamber.
There are arguments beyond those, and as I quoted previously, "Diluting the weight of votes because of place of residence impairs basic constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment just as much as invidious discriminations based upon factors such as race" (Reynolds v. Sims). There is no reason why that principle should not apply interstate as well as intrastate. There is no plausible rationale to grant citizens in some states much greater political power than the citizens of other states. Of course, we could debate this forever. As it turns out, this will likely be decided by the Supreme Court, probably later this year, as the plaintiffs are repealing Clemons et al. v. U.S. Department of Commerce et al.HouseSizeWonk wrote:And it is simply wrong to say that "there is no justification for permitting disparities in the congressional district sizes from state to state" because of the Supreme Court's intrastate districting precedents.
Really? So based on whatever their "value judgment" may be, could Congress set the total number of Representatives at 200? At 100? At 51? If not, then why not?]]>HouseSizeWonk wrote:Moreover, the Constitution expressly gives Congress the power to set the size of the chamber and make the value judgment of whether one or more additional seats are worth either their financial cost or the effects on cohesion and an orderly chamber.
In my opinion, it doesn't matter that the disparity originates in the Congress and not in the States. According to the wording of the 14th Amendment, "no State shall...enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"; meaning, even if Congress has the authority to write a federal law that breaks the one-man-one-vote principle, it would be unconstitutional for the States to enforce that federal law. Ergo, it seems it may be unconstitutional for the States to send Representatives to Congress in such numbers as to violate the one-man-one-vote principle in relation to the citizens of the entire (according to the wording of the 14th Amendment) United States.HouseSizeWonk wrote:The 14th Amendment, by its own terms, applies only to the States ("No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.") But the inter-State disparities in congressional districts are not caused by the States; they are caused by Congress in setting the size of the chamber.
In my opinion, it doesn't matter that the disparity originates in the Congress and not in the States. According to the wording of the 14th Amendment, "no State shall...enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"; meaning, even if Congress has the authority to write a federal law that breaks the one-man-one-vote principle, it would be unconstitutional for the States to enforce that federal law. Ergo, it seems it may be unconstitutional for the States to send Representatives to Congress in such numbers as to violate the one-man-one-vote principle in relation to the citizens of the entire (according to the wording of the 14th Amendment) United States.HouseSizeWonk wrote:The 14th Amendment, by its own terms, applies only to the States ("No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.") But the inter-State disparities in congressional districts are not caused by the States; they are caused by Congress in setting the size of the chamber.
OK. That's not a cause that I'm interested in, primarily because I believe that they reached the correct conclusion (though perhaps not using the correct reasoning). The explanation for my belief is too long for today, but it relies upon the intent of the apportionment clause of Section 2 of the Constitution with respect to how representation and taxation were to be apportioned. Another reason is the Founders' concern about "rotten boroughs". I respect your point of view on this matter, but I accept that "one person, one vote" is a constitutional principle.HouseSizeWonk wrote:A constitutional amendment or a recognition that the Reynolds line of cases was wrongly-decided, which is what I am arguing for. It is not unheard of for the Supreme Court to overrule itself. Reynolds and its ilk were wrongly-decided. Yet another example of Chief Justice Warren deciding that it was his job to "fix" America via judicial fiat.
There are arguments beyond those, and as I quoted previously, "Diluting the weight of votes because of place of residence impairs basic constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment just as much as invidious discriminations based upon factors such as race" (Reynolds v. Sims). There is no reason why that principle should not apply interstate as well as intrastate. There is no plausible rationale to grant citizens in some states much greater political power than the citizens of other states. Of course, we could debate this forever. As it turns out, this will likely be decided by the Supreme Court, probably later this year, as the plaintiffs are repealing Clemons et al. v. U.S. Department of Commerce et al.HouseSizeWonk wrote:And it is simply wrong to say that "there is no justification for permitting disparities in the congressional district sizes from state to state" because of the Supreme Court's intrastate districting precedents.
Really? So based on whatever their "value judgment" may be, could Congress set the total number of Representatives at 200? At 100? At 51? If not, then why not?HouseSizeWonk wrote:Moreover, the Constitution expressly gives Congress the power to set the size of the chamber and make the value judgment of whether one or more additional seats are worth either their financial cost or the effects on cohesion and an orderly chamber.
OK. That's not a cause that I'm interested in, primarily because I believe that they reached the correct conclusion (though perhaps not using the correct reasoning). The explanation for my belief is too long for today, but it relies upon the intent of the apportionment clause of Section 2 of the Constitution with respect to how representation and taxation were to be apportioned. Another reason is the Founders' concern about "rotten boroughs". I respect your point of view on this matter, but I accept that "one person, one vote" is a constitutional principle.HouseSizeWonk wrote:A constitutional amendment or a recognition that the Reynolds line of cases was wrongly-decided, which is what I am arguing for. It is not unheard of for the Supreme Court to overrule itself. Reynolds and its ilk were wrongly-decided. Yet another example of Chief Justice Warren deciding that it was his job to "fix" America via judicial fiat.
There are arguments beyond those, and as I quoted previously, "Diluting the weight of votes because of place of residence impairs basic constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment just as much as invidious discriminations based upon factors such as race" (Reynolds v. Sims). There is no reason why that principle should not apply interstate as well as intrastate. There is no plausible rationale to grant citizens in some states much greater political power than the citizens of other states. Of course, we could debate this forever. As it turns out, this will likely be decided by the Supreme Court, probably later this year, as the plaintiffs are repealing Clemons et al. v. U.S. Department of Commerce et al.HouseSizeWonk wrote:And it is simply wrong to say that "there is no justification for permitting disparities in the congressional district sizes from state to state" because of the Supreme Court's intrastate districting precedents.
Really? So based on whatever their "value judgment" may be, could Congress set the total number of Representatives at 200? At 100? At 51? If not, then why not?HouseSizeWonk wrote:Moreover, the Constitution expressly gives Congress the power to set the size of the chamber and make the value judgment of whether one or more additional seats are worth either their financial cost or the effects on cohesion and an orderly chamber.
You emphasize what Article V of the Constitution says. But I don't know why that matters any more or less than what Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation said. And Article XIII (requiring unanimous consent for ratifying amendments) was ignored by Article VII of the U.S. Constitution (ratification of 9 out of 13 makes it effective as between the 9; did that mean they seceded from the "perpetual" union?). I don't understand why it's "specious" to say it could happen again.]]>JEQuidam wrote:The wording of Article V of our Constitution is explicit and unequivocal: an Amendment Convention can only propose amendments and, furthermore, said proposals can become amendments only if they are subsequently affirmed by ¾ of the states! The Founders knew what they doing when they worded Article V. We also know that the Founders and Framers would have never wanted to provide for a "constitutional convention" as they were deeply opposed to another convention (because they believed that they had already drafted the best possible Constitution in Philadelphia). Remember, our Constitution was proposed on Sept. 17, 1787, and was not finally ratified until June 21, 1788 (at which time Virginia, New York, North Carolina and Rhode Island still had NOT affirmed it). So the acceptance of that constitution was quite uncertain for at least nine months, during which time they did have reason to be concerned about the possibility of another constitutional convention undoing their great work.
With respect to re-writing our Constitution, I sincerely believe that we should focus our concern on the damage that is being done by Congress (which seems to regard itself as a standing convention for the purpose of redefining the Constitution). That is a real and present danger, not an imaginary one. If only Congress were as bound in its actions as would be an Article V Amendment Convention. That is, imagine if the laws passed by Congress then required the approval of ¾ of the states' legislatures; I believe that the net effect would be greatly beneficial for the country. The only people who should be afraid of an Amendment Convention are the congressmen who wish to preserve their monopoly on amending the Constitution.
You emphasize what Article V of the Constitution says. But I don't know why that matters any more or less than what Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation said. And Article XIII (requiring unanimous consent for ratifying amendments) was ignored by Article VII of the U.S. Constitution (ratification of 9 out of 13 makes it effective as between the 9; did that mean they seceded from the "perpetual" union?). I don't understand why it's "specious" to say it could happen again.]]>JEQuidam wrote:The wording of Article V of our Constitution is explicit and unequivocal: an Amendment Convention can only propose amendments and, furthermore, said proposals can become amendments only if they are subsequently affirmed by ¾ of the states! The Founders knew what they doing when they worded Article V. We also know that the Founders and Framers would have never wanted to provide for a "constitutional convention" as they were deeply opposed to another convention (because they believed that they had already drafted the best possible Constitution in Philadelphia). Remember, our Constitution was proposed on Sept. 17, 1787, and was not finally ratified until June 21, 1788 (at which time Virginia, New York, North Carolina and Rhode Island still had NOT affirmed it). So the acceptance of that constitution was quite uncertain for at least nine months, during which time they did have reason to be concerned about the possibility of another constitutional convention undoing their great work.
With respect to re-writing our Constitution, I sincerely believe that we should focus our concern on the damage that is being done by Congress (which seems to regard itself as a standing convention for the purpose of redefining the Constitution). That is a real and present danger, not an imaginary one. If only Congress were as bound in its actions as would be an Article V Amendment Convention. That is, imagine if the laws passed by Congress then required the approval of ¾ of the states' legislatures; I believe that the net effect would be greatly beneficial for the country. The only people who should be afraid of an Amendment Convention are the congressmen who wish to preserve their monopoly on amending the Constitution.
Let's focus on this aspect first, then we can return to any other points you think I missed. Even relative to the excerpt you provide above, did they not meet that requirement? That is, that "such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State"? Granted, the "agreed to in a Congress" was more tacit than explicit, but certainly the new Constitution was "confirmed by the legislatures of every State". And bear in mind that the term "alteration" is ambiguous, unlike Article V's "amendment".HouseSizeWonk wrote:This seems like a spectacular assertion. In what way was the Philadelphia Convention not bound by the provisions of an existing constitution? The Articles of Confederation were the existing constitution! And they clearly provided: "[T]he Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State."
Let's focus on this aspect first, then we can return to any other points you think I missed. Even relative to the excerpt you provide above, did they not meet that requirement? That is, that "such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State"? Granted, the "agreed to in a Congress" was more tacit than explicit, but certainly the new Constitution was "confirmed by the legislatures of every State". And bear in mind that the term "alteration" is ambiguous, unlike Article V's "amendment".HouseSizeWonk wrote:This seems like a spectacular assertion. In what way was the Philadelphia Convention not bound by the provisions of an existing constitution? The Articles of Confederation were the existing constitution! And they clearly provided: "[T]he Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State."
]]>The gain will be substantial. Although it seems that permitting the states to propose amendments is a small thing, especially because ratification would still require three-fourths of the states to agree, it would shift the power calculus—and create a potential for action that the president, Congress and courts could never ignore as they consider the proper boundaries of their own authority.
Moreover, the effort to enable the states to check Washington's power would provide a constructive outlet for much of the growing anger—specially evident in phenomena such as the "tea party" movement—toward the political elites of both parties. It is not a partisan proposal and is difficult to oppose. The purpose is to move significant authority closer to the electorate, but in a measured, "conservative" manner that is in no sense "populist."
]]>The gain will be substantial. Although it seems that permitting the states to propose amendments is a small thing, especially because ratification would still require three-fourths of the states to agree, it would shift the power calculus—and create a potential for action that the president, Congress and courts could never ignore as they consider the proper boundaries of their own authority.
Moreover, the effort to enable the states to check Washington's power would provide a constructive outlet for much of the growing anger—specially evident in phenomena such as the "tea party" movement—toward the political elites of both parties. It is not a partisan proposal and is difficult to oppose. The purpose is to move significant authority closer to the electorate, but in a measured, "conservative" manner that is in no sense "populist."
Now that you point that out, I hadn't thought about it because (from my perspective) that amendment has already been drafted! It was proposed by the House of Representatives on August 24, 1789 (see page 6 of "Taking Back Our Republic"). I believe that for many people, it will be more credible to start with what was intended as the first amendment in the Bill of Rights, rather than starting anew. Do you disagree? (I'm not opposed to creating an area in the forum for this discussion if you think it necessary.)]]>Pseudolus wrote: Why isn't there a topic where we debate the wording and debate the realistic nature of jumping immediately from 435 to 6000+ Representatives?
Now that you point that out, I hadn't thought about it because (from my perspective) that amendment has already been drafted! It was proposed by the House of Representatives on August 24, 1789 (see page 6 of "Taking Back Our Republic"). I believe that for many people, it will be more credible to start with what was intended as the first amendment in the Bill of Rights, rather than starting anew. Do you disagree? (I'm not opposed to creating an area in the forum for this discussion if you think it necessary.)]]>Pseudolus wrote: Why isn't there a topic where we debate the wording and debate the realistic nature of jumping immediately from 435 to 6000+ Representatives?
Now that you point that out, I hadn't thought about it because (from my perspective) that amendment has already been drafted! It was proposed by the House of Representatives on August 24, 1789 (see page 6 of "Taking Back Our Republic"). I believe that for many people, it will be more credible to start with what was intended as the first amendment in the Bill of Rights, rather than starting anew. Do you disagree? (I'm not opposed to creating an area in the forum for this discussion if you think it necessary.)Pseudolus wrote: Why isn't there a topic where we debate the wording and debate the realistic nature of jumping immediately from 435 to 6000+ Representatives?
Now that you point that out, I hadn't thought about it because (from my perspective) that amendment has already been drafted! It was proposed by the House of Representatives on August 24, 1789 (see page 6 of "Taking Back Our Republic"). I believe that for many people, it will be more credible to start with what was intended as the first amendment in the Bill of Rights, rather than starting anew. Do you disagree? (I'm not opposed to creating an area in the forum for this discussion if you think it necessary.)Pseudolus wrote: Why isn't there a topic where we debate the wording and debate the realistic nature of jumping immediately from 435 to 6000+ Representatives?
Agreed, I think this forum should be specifically focused on only the Apportionment Amendment. But I also think we need a topic thread dedicated to a debate about its new wording. Let's get that thread going!JEQuidam wrote:Not to discourage you, but this probably isn’t the best forum for engaging in discussion on a wide ranging list of possible amendments.
Agreed again. However, I do think different states will be attracted to different amendments; so having a list and then breaking it into sections for petition (almost like having separate organization who pursue solely only one of the amendments from the list like TTO does) is the best way, in my current opinion, to get real and widespread traction about an Amendment Convention. Obviously, states without a large population are going to be against an Apportionment Amendment and thus will always be un-supportive of an Amendment Convention to debate solely that one amendment. If, on the other hand, that state without a large population wanted an Amendment Convention for its own separate reason and knew that that reason would at least be discussed at said Amendment Convention, then I believe the smaller states would risk supporting an Amendment Convention--hoping that they could pass the amendment that serves their own interests while that blocking those amendment that hurts their power. Once the various states agree to an Amendment Convention for their separate and own interests, I believe there would be a tug and pull ultimately resulting in compromises such as: "If you support mine, I'll support yours." And thus, more than one amendment would be passed and likely none of them would be passed without the existence of the others.JEQuidam wrote:The problem with promoting a list of amendments is that many people will, in my opinion, view them as a bundle and reject them en masse if they don’t like one or two of them.
Agreed, I think this forum should be specifically focused on only the Apportionment Amendment. But I also think we need a topic thread dedicated to a debate about its new wording. Let's get that thread going!JEQuidam wrote:Not to discourage you, but this probably isn’t the best forum for engaging in discussion on a wide ranging list of possible amendments.
Agreed again. However, I do think different states will be attracted to different amendments; so having a list and then breaking it into sections for petition (almost like having separate organization who pursue solely only one of the amendments from the list like TTO does) is the best way, in my current opinion, to get real and widespread traction about an Amendment Convention. Obviously, states without a large population are going to be against an Apportionment Amendment and thus will always be un-supportive of an Amendment Convention to debate solely that one amendment. If, on the other hand, that state without a large population wanted an Amendment Convention for its own separate reason and knew that that reason would at least be discussed at said Amendment Convention, then I believe the smaller states would risk supporting an Amendment Convention--hoping that they could pass the amendment that serves their own interests while that blocking those amendment that hurts their power. Once the various states agree to an Amendment Convention for their separate and own interests, I believe there would be a tug and pull ultimately resulting in compromises such as: "If you support mine, I'll support yours." And thus, more than one amendment would be passed and likely none of them would be passed without the existence of the others.JEQuidam wrote:The problem with promoting a list of amendments is that many people will, in my opinion, view them as a bundle and reject them en masse if they don’t like one or two of them.
I understand your point, but here is why it's not moot: many people labor under the misconception that Article V of the Constitution authorizes some sort of "constitutional convention" when it fact it does no such thing. This misperception is fostered by propaganda and hysteria and it needs to be overcome before we will see any progress towards getting the states to call an Article V amendment convention.Pseudolus wrote:Isn't the whole concern over a new Constitution being created from an Amendment Convention somewhat moot?
Now that you point that out, I hadn't thought about it because (from my perspective) that amendment has already been drafted! It was proposed by the House of Representatives on August 24, 1789 (see page 6 of "Taking Back Our Republic"). I believe that for many people, it will be more credible to start with what was intended as the first amendment in the Bill of Rights, rather than starting anew. Do you disagree? (I'm not opposed to creating an area in the forum for this discussion if you think it necessary.)Pseudolus wrote: Why isn't there a topic where we debate the wording and debate the realistic nature of jumping immediately from 435 to 6000+ Representatives?
I understand your point, but here is why it's not moot: many people labor under the misconception that Article V of the Constitution authorizes some sort of "constitutional convention" when it fact it does no such thing. This misperception is fostered by propaganda and hysteria and it needs to be overcome before we will see any progress towards getting the states to call an Article V amendment convention.Pseudolus wrote:Isn't the whole concern over a new Constitution being created from an Amendment Convention somewhat moot?
Now that you point that out, I hadn't thought about it because (from my perspective) that amendment has already been drafted! It was proposed by the House of Representatives on August 24, 1789 (see page 6 of "Taking Back Our Republic"). I believe that for many people, it will be more credible to start with what was intended as the first amendment in the Bill of Rights, rather than starting anew. Do you disagree? (I'm not opposed to creating an area in the forum for this discussion if you think it necessary.)Pseudolus wrote: Why isn't there a topic where we debate the wording and debate the realistic nature of jumping immediately from 435 to 6000+ Representatives?
Take a look at the 2010 census:Presidential elections would heavily favor more populous states
Take a look at the 2010 census:Presidential elections would heavily favor more populous states
Take a look at the 2010 census:Presidential elections would heavily favor more populous states
Take a look at the 2010 census:Presidential elections would heavily favor more populous states
I have considered it, but that's all. It is a good idea to anticipate that eventuality.803sccdantes wrote:I was just wondering if anyone has considered forming a PAC?
I have considered it, but that's all. It is a good idea to anticipate that eventuality.803sccdantes wrote:I was just wondering if anyone has considered forming a PAC?
This is a good example. I have long wanted to promote this to state legislators. They are in the best position to quickly grasp the various benefits of representational enlargement (of the U.S. House). There are several ways to promote this cause to state legislators, including a direct mail campaign. Here's my point: this is something that could easily be done by TTO if we could afford it (as it is education and outreach, not lobbying for specific legislation). In support of such an effort, it is more likely that donations would be made to TTO (tax deductible) than to a PAC (not tax deductible).bwatson wrote: For what it is worth, I once spoke with a respected state level representative (WA) about it and I was not laughed at. In fact, he leaned forward.
A PAC's total budget would depend on what activities it would be expected to engage in, which takes us back to my first question. We would want to identify activities that the PAC would engage in (that TTO cannot), as well as determine the feasibility of raising money in support of those activities.]]>bwatson wrote:The question is, how much would it cost to form a sustainable PAC?
This is a good example. I have long wanted to promote this to state legislators. They are in the best position to quickly grasp the various benefits of representational enlargement (of the U.S. House). There are several ways to promote this cause to state legislators, including a direct mail campaign. Here's my point: this is something that could easily be done by TTO if we could afford it (as it is education and outreach, not lobbying for specific legislation). In support of such an effort, it is more likely that donations would be made to TTO (tax deductible) than to a PAC (not tax deductible).bwatson wrote: For what it is worth, I once spoke with a respected state level representative (WA) about it and I was not laughed at. In fact, he leaned forward.
A PAC's total budget would depend on what activities it would be expected to engage in, which takes us back to my first question. We would want to identify activities that the PAC would engage in (that TTO cannot), as well as determine the feasibility of raising money in support of those activities.]]>bwatson wrote:The question is, how much would it cost to form a sustainable PAC?
I have two questions. First, what would we expect a PAC to do that Thirty-Thousand.org, which is a 501(c)(3), cannot do? I'm not asking that question as a challenge; instead, I'm only trying to understand the expectations. I realize that Thirty-Thousand.org ("TTO") cannot lobby in support of specific legislation nor make campaign donations, but there is much that TTO can do.bwatson wrote:I am in favor of both of these ideas, an annual meeting and forming a PAC.
This is a good example. I have long wanted to promote this to state legislators. They are in the best position to quickly grasp the various benefits of representational enlargement (of the U.S. House). There are several ways to promote this cause to state legislators, including a direct mail campaign. Here's my point: this is something that could easily be done by TTO if we could afford it (as it is education and outreach, not lobbying for specific legislation). In support of such an effort, it is more likely that donations would be made to TTO (tax deductible) than to a PAC (not tax deductible).bwatson wrote: For what it is worth, I once spoke with a respected state level representative (WA) about it and I was not laughed at. In fact, he leaned forward.
A PAC's total budget would depend on what activities it would be expected to engage in, which takes us back to my first question. We would want to identify activities that the PAC would engage in (that TTO cannot), as well as determine the feasibility of raising money in support of those activities.bwatson wrote:The question is, how much would it cost to form a sustainable PAC?
I have two questions. First, what would we expect a PAC to do that Thirty-Thousand.org, which is a 501(c)(3), cannot do? I'm not asking that question as a challenge; instead, I'm only trying to understand the expectations. I realize that Thirty-Thousand.org ("TTO") cannot lobby in support of specific legislation nor make campaign donations, but there is much that TTO can do.bwatson wrote:I am in favor of both of these ideas, an annual meeting and forming a PAC.
This is a good example. I have long wanted to promote this to state legislators. They are in the best position to quickly grasp the various benefits of representational enlargement (of the U.S. House). There are several ways to promote this cause to state legislators, including a direct mail campaign. Here's my point: this is something that could easily be done by TTO if we could afford it (as it is education and outreach, not lobbying for specific legislation). In support of such an effort, it is more likely that donations would be made to TTO (tax deductible) than to a PAC (not tax deductible).bwatson wrote: For what it is worth, I once spoke with a respected state level representative (WA) about it and I was not laughed at. In fact, he leaned forward.
A PAC's total budget would depend on what activities it would be expected to engage in, which takes us back to my first question. We would want to identify activities that the PAC would engage in (that TTO cannot), as well as determine the feasibility of raising money in support of those activities.bwatson wrote:The question is, how much would it cost to form a sustainable PAC?
We're not ready for that. Our numbers are too few for any type of credible meeting. Look how few are participating in this forum. Consider how difficult it is for people to understand the need for representational enlargement. You must be finding this as you discuss this with others. The common reaction is "I hate politicians, why would I want more? "803sccdantes wrote: but some sort of meeting- even if an online Skype meeting or whatever could be an important step for making people feel like we're actually taking a small step towards the ultimate goal ....
We're not ready for that. Our numbers are too few for any type of credible meeting. Look how few are participating in this forum. Consider how difficult it is for people to understand the need for representational enlargement. You must be finding this as you discuss this with others. The common reaction is "I hate politicians, why would I want more? "803sccdantes wrote: but some sort of meeting- even if an online Skype meeting or whatever could be an important step for making people feel like we're actually taking a small step towards the ultimate goal ....
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse [sic] three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse [sic] three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.
That is correct. The Constitution requires only that the minimum population size of a congressional district be 30,000. The need for smaller congressional districts rests upon many other arguments which are outlined in "Taking Back Our Republic" which can be downloaded from this page. Please read that, especially section 3.CurtisNeeley wrote:The text does not in any way require one per 30,000.
That is correct. The Constitution requires only that the minimum population size of a congressional district be 30,000. The need for smaller congressional districts rests upon many other arguments which are outlined in "Taking Back Our Republic" which can be downloaded from this page. Please read that, especially section 3.CurtisNeeley wrote:The text does not in any way require one per 30,000.
I understand your concerns and respect your views, but I'm optimistic that we can make such a transition relatively quickly.Pseudolus wrote: ...jumping immediately from 435 to 6000 doesn't make sense
I do not have any hope they will be willing to increase their numbers at all, except perhaps to an inconsequential extent. This change will be forced upon them either by a victory in the court (in order to achieve one person one vote), or by an amendment proposed out of an Article V convention.]]>Pseudolus wrote: ...and I doubt highly any House would reduce their power and effectiveness in such a dramatic way.
I understand your concerns and respect your views, but I'm optimistic that we can make such a transition relatively quickly.Pseudolus wrote: ...jumping immediately from 435 to 6000 doesn't make sense
I do not have any hope they will be willing to increase their numbers at all, except perhaps to an inconsequential extent. This change will be forced upon them either by a victory in the court (in order to achieve one person one vote), or by an amendment proposed out of an Article V convention.]]>Pseudolus wrote: ...and I doubt highly any House would reduce their power and effectiveness in such a dramatic way.
Your optimism isn't going to sell such a radical plan to millions of Americans. We need clear cut answers to very real concerns.JEQuidam wrote:I understand your concerns and respect your views, but I'm optimistic that we can make such a transition relatively quickly.Pseudolus wrote: ...jumping immediately from 435 to 6000 doesn't make sense
So you're basically saying that if a Representative doesn't have legislative pull or clout or likability outside of the debate room, then his/her ideas will never be brought to the table since open public debate will become a thing of the past. That sounds like a really great way of ignoring ideas that might seem crazy at first glance. You know the kind of ideas I'm talking about. Crazy sounding ideas that might otherwise actually have merit. Ideas--and this sounds really crazy, I know--but ideas like: increasing the size of the House of Representatives by 1380% in a single year from 435 members to 6000.JEQuidam wrote:You ask how they will "successfully debate and negotiate bills once there are so many representatives". You may not be aware of this, but that debate and negotiation currently takes place in committee rooms, back rooms, hallways and elsewhere. There is no longer a deliberative process of the larger body (and if you don't believe me, I can recommend several books for you to read).
Get interested in it. And fast. If ever we convince the powers that be to expand their numbers, the first question will be: to what size? Most will suggest small changes. But if someone has the political cojones to propose something as radical as a 1380% increase and someone else has the audacity to take the suggestion seriously, then the next question will be: how would that work? And when the response back is simply a symphony of crickets, then the idea will never be brought up again.JEQuidam wrote:I realize that some will want to discuss transition concepts. That is a fair topic but, at this time, I'm just not very interested in it.
Your optimism isn't going to sell such a radical plan to millions of Americans. We need clear cut answers to very real concerns.JEQuidam wrote:I understand your concerns and respect your views, but I'm optimistic that we can make such a transition relatively quickly.Pseudolus wrote: ...jumping immediately from 435 to 6000 doesn't make sense
So you're basically saying that if a Representative doesn't have legislative pull or clout or likability outside of the debate room, then his/her ideas will never be brought to the table since open public debate will become a thing of the past. That sounds like a really great way of ignoring ideas that might seem crazy at first glance. You know the kind of ideas I'm talking about. Crazy sounding ideas that might otherwise actually have merit. Ideas--and this sounds really crazy, I know--but ideas like: increasing the size of the House of Representatives by 1380% in a single year from 435 members to 6000.JEQuidam wrote:You ask how they will "successfully debate and negotiate bills once there are so many representatives". You may not be aware of this, but that debate and negotiation currently takes place in committee rooms, back rooms, hallways and elsewhere. There is no longer a deliberative process of the larger body (and if you don't believe me, I can recommend several books for you to read).
Get interested in it. And fast. If ever we convince the powers that be to expand their numbers, the first question will be: to what size? Most will suggest small changes. But if someone has the political cojones to propose something as radical as a 1380% increase and someone else has the audacity to take the suggestion seriously, then the next question will be: how would that work? And when the response back is simply a symphony of crickets, then the idea will never be brought up again.JEQuidam wrote:I realize that some will want to discuss transition concepts. That is a fair topic but, at this time, I'm just not very interested in it.
Some of those arguments have been made, but they do need to be bolstered and better assembled. Here's an example of one such argument: “Freedom and Legislative District Sizes”.Pseudolus wrote: Thirty-Thousand.org must answer the complaints of its critics who claim such an increase would result in ineffectual governance where the House accomplishes nearly nothing.
Some of those arguments have been made, but they do need to be bolstered and better assembled. Here's an example of one such argument: “Freedom and Legislative District Sizes”.Pseudolus wrote: Thirty-Thousand.org must answer the complaints of its critics who claim such an increase would result in ineffectual governance where the House accomplishes nearly nothing.
I do realize that's not what you're saying; but I'm suggesting it is a very real outcome, especially as time progresses.JEQuidam wrote:I hope you realize that is not what I’m saying. What I asserted was that a larger House of Representatives will operate fundamentally the same way it does today: Bills will be generated by committees to be voted upon by the larger body. The larger body will determine who is on those committees.Pseudolus wrote: So you're basically saying that if a Representative doesn't have legislative pull or clout or likability outside of the debate room, then his/her ideas will never be brought to the table since open public debate will become a thing of the past.
Agreed.JEQuidam wrote:By the way, I don’t measure the quality of a legislature by how many bills it passes.
I appreciate your optimism and may even be persuaded to agree with you on everything, but at the same time our critics will claim they can't be expected to believe on blind faith alone that such a large body can be effective. And I'm inclined to agree with that argument as well.JEQuidam wrote:Forgive me my “optimism”, but I have faith that a federal House comprised of several thousand of my fellow citizens will effectively manage to pass that legislation which is truly essential to the continued viability and success of our Republic.
I do realize that's not what you're saying; but I'm suggesting it is a very real outcome, especially as time progresses.JEQuidam wrote:I hope you realize that is not what I’m saying. What I asserted was that a larger House of Representatives will operate fundamentally the same way it does today: Bills will be generated by committees to be voted upon by the larger body. The larger body will determine who is on those committees.Pseudolus wrote: So you're basically saying that if a Representative doesn't have legislative pull or clout or likability outside of the debate room, then his/her ideas will never be brought to the table since open public debate will become a thing of the past.
Agreed.JEQuidam wrote:By the way, I don’t measure the quality of a legislature by how many bills it passes.
I appreciate your optimism and may even be persuaded to agree with you on everything, but at the same time our critics will claim they can't be expected to believe on blind faith alone that such a large body can be effective. And I'm inclined to agree with that argument as well.JEQuidam wrote:Forgive me my “optimism”, but I have faith that a federal House comprised of several thousand of my fellow citizens will effectively manage to pass that legislation which is truly essential to the continued viability and success of our Republic.
So very true. That's a healthier way for me to look at it. And will help when drafting Amendment language, since the more flexible details can be handled elsewhere rather than in the Amendment itself.]]>JEQuidam wrote:It would be far more beneficial to demonstrate that these problems [of enlargement implementation and operation] are solvable (as multiple solutions are available) rather than attempting to architect a detailed solution. Therefore, the more solutions that are proposed for consideration, the better.
So very true. That's a healthier way for me to look at it. And will help when drafting Amendment language, since the more flexible details can be handled elsewhere rather than in the Amendment itself.]]>JEQuidam wrote:It would be far more beneficial to demonstrate that these problems [of enlargement implementation and operation] are solvable (as multiple solutions are available) rather than attempting to architect a detailed solution. Therefore, the more solutions that are proposed for consideration, the better.
So very true. That's a healthier way for me to look at it. And will help when drafting Amendment language, since the more flexible details can be handled elsewhere rather than in the Amendment itself.JEQuidam wrote:It would be far more beneficial to demonstrate that these problems [of enlargement implementation and operation] are solvable (as multiple solutions are available) rather than attempting to architect a detailed solution. Therefore, the more solutions that are proposed for consideration, the better.
So very true. That's a healthier way for me to look at it. And will help when drafting Amendment language, since the more flexible details can be handled elsewhere rather than in the Amendment itself.JEQuidam wrote:It would be far more beneficial to demonstrate that these problems [of enlargement implementation and operation] are solvable (as multiple solutions are available) rather than attempting to architect a detailed solution. Therefore, the more solutions that are proposed for consideration, the better.
I assume you're referring to what I suggested in Section 6 (above).]]>Pseudolus wrote:We also might want to include language granting representation based on citizenship populations, rather than inhabitant populations...
I assume you're referring to what I suggested in Section 6 (above).]]>Pseudolus wrote:We also might want to include language granting representation based on citizenship populations, rather than inhabitant populations...
Actually, the language of the Senate's version was a little simpler and they proposed a district size of exactly 60,000 (once the total population reached a certain level)."Pseudolus wrote:Though, I still do question why the number 50,000 was chosen versus 40,000 or 60,000 or any other random number. What is the significance of 50,000?
Actually, the language of the Senate's version was a little simpler and they proposed a district size of exactly 60,000 (once the total population reached a certain level)."Pseudolus wrote:Though, I still do question why the number 50,000 was chosen versus 40,000 or 60,000 or any other random number. What is the significance of 50,000?
I think it is possible to sometimes be blinded by science, and to allow the perfect (if there is one) to be the enemy of the good. The Founders were wise and I think us not wiser than they.Pseudolus wrote: Does 50,000 work significantly better than 60,000 or vice-versa? If so, why? Is there another number that would work even better than both of them?
Yes, that would work as well.Pseudolus wrote: Also could the Apportionment Amendment language be as simple as:
- There shall be a minimum of two Representatives for every State and no less than one Representative for every [blank] Citizens enumerated by each State.
I think it is possible to sometimes be blinded by science, and to allow the perfect (if there is one) to be the enemy of the good. The Founders were wise and I think us not wiser than they.Pseudolus wrote: Does 50,000 work significantly better than 60,000 or vice-versa? If so, why? Is there another number that would work even better than both of them?
Yes, that would work as well.Pseudolus wrote: Also could the Apportionment Amendment language be as simple as:
- There shall be a minimum of two Representatives for every State and no less than one Representative for every [blank] Citizens enumerated by each State.
This is discussed in "Taking Back Our Republic". It is reasonable to expect that the committee system (which proposes legislation and conducts investigations) would continue to operate as it does today. The several hundred Reps who actively serve on committees could continue to meet in DC, just as they do now, and/or utilize virtual meetings. And I believe that the several thousand other Reps who do not actively serve on committees should work from their home districts, where we can keep an eye on them, and where they can be properly petitioned by their constituents. We will expect those Reps to read the legislation proposed out of committee before they vote on it, and be available to discuss it with their constituents, who are now surrounding them. That would certainly be a radical improvement.Green_TZM wrote:4. How will bills be introduced?
Regarding pensions for life, I don't believe the Reps should have that now! So that really is a separate issue regardless of the number of Reps. IMO, their pensions should NOT be any better than for those who serve in the military. As I understand it, one has to serve in the military for at least 20 years to be eligible to receive a pension that is a percentage of their basic pay. They have to serve 40 years for their pension to equal 100% of their basic pay. I cannot fathom why our Reps should receive a better arrangement than the folks who put themselves in mortal danger, especially given the Reps' high compensation levels. I actually have no objections to their high pay, especially if it helps attract the best among us away from their primary occupations, but their pensions have become quite excessive.Green_TZM wrote:5. Will we pay pensions for life?
For a case study, I would start by comparing the state legislatures of CA and NH (read Freedom and Legislative District Sizes to see why). The reality is that the legislators will have to determine exactly how to implement this. All of these administrative and logistical challenges are clearly resolvable, and they can best be resolved by those we elect to represent us, and who will actually have to perform that job.]]>Green_TZM wrote:6. Can someone just tell a plausible story of how this COULD work?
This is discussed in "Taking Back Our Republic". It is reasonable to expect that the committee system (which proposes legislation and conducts investigations) would continue to operate as it does today. The several hundred Reps who actively serve on committees could continue to meet in DC, just as they do now, and/or utilize virtual meetings. And I believe that the several thousand other Reps who do not actively serve on committees should work from their home districts, where we can keep an eye on them, and where they can be properly petitioned by their constituents. We will expect those Reps to read the legislation proposed out of committee before they vote on it, and be available to discuss it with their constituents, who are now surrounding them. That would certainly be a radical improvement.Green_TZM wrote:4. How will bills be introduced?
Regarding pensions for life, I don't believe the Reps should have that now! So that really is a separate issue regardless of the number of Reps. IMO, their pensions should NOT be any better than for those who serve in the military. As I understand it, one has to serve in the military for at least 20 years to be eligible to receive a pension that is a percentage of their basic pay. They have to serve 40 years for their pension to equal 100% of their basic pay. I cannot fathom why our Reps should receive a better arrangement than the folks who put themselves in mortal danger, especially given the Reps' high compensation levels. I actually have no objections to their high pay, especially if it helps attract the best among us away from their primary occupations, but their pensions have become quite excessive.Green_TZM wrote:5. Will we pay pensions for life?
For a case study, I would start by comparing the state legislatures of CA and NH (read Freedom and Legislative District Sizes to see why). The reality is that the legislators will have to determine exactly how to implement this. All of these administrative and logistical challenges are clearly resolvable, and they can best be resolved by those we elect to represent us, and who will actually have to perform that job.]]>Green_TZM wrote:6. Can someone just tell a plausible story of how this COULD work?
A link would be awesome to fit on a sticker - however, thirty-thousand.org is too big. I checked out 30k.us , it is up for bid on godaddy at $1200.00. Does anyone have this kind of money? The final sticker design would be:803sccdantes wrote:d3teur wrote:I think we need a viral campaign, to just get the idea out there.
I like the 435? idea. It'd also be helpful to have a link or reference to the website so people can look it up themselves after seeing it and wondering what the heck it meant.
A link would be awesome to fit on a sticker - however, thirty-thousand.org is too big. I checked out 30k.us , it is up for bid on godaddy at $1200.00. Does anyone have this kind of money? The final sticker design would be:803sccdantes wrote:d3teur wrote:I think we need a viral campaign, to just get the idea out there.
I like the 435? idea. It'd also be helpful to have a link or reference to the website so people can look it up themselves after seeing it and wondering what the heck it meant.
]]>Subject: The Bill of Rights Congressional Apportionment Amendment is ratified by vote of the states.
Hi,
I signed a petition to Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker, Secretary of Commerce, David Ferriero, Archivist of the United States, and 3 others which says:
"We, the petitioners request that the Congress stand up for the Congressional Apportionment Amendment and ask that the Department of Commerce present the ratified Congressional Apportionment Amendment to Congress and take its place as the 28th amendment to the Constitution. Once that happens, we request the proper number of Representatives be seated in the House of Representatives per this amendment. One Representative for every 50,000 people per District in the United States of America. Stand for One, Stand for All."
Will you sign this petition? Click here:
http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/the-bi ... by=9079921
Thanks!
]]>Subject: The Bill of Rights Congressional Apportionment Amendment is ratified by vote of the states.
Hi,
I signed a petition to Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker, Secretary of Commerce, David Ferriero, Archivist of the United States, and 3 others which says:
"We, the petitioners request that the Congress stand up for the Congressional Apportionment Amendment and ask that the Department of Commerce present the ratified Congressional Apportionment Amendment to Congress and take its place as the 28th amendment to the Constitution. Once that happens, we request the proper number of Representatives be seated in the House of Representatives per this amendment. One Representative for every 50,000 people per District in the United States of America. Stand for One, Stand for All."
Will you sign this petition? Click here:
http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/the-bi ... by=9079921
Thanks!
Forum rules
As elsewhere in the TTO forum, no harangues, scurrilities, chicanery or mongering is permitted. However, repartees and irreverence is tolerated as long as they are not fatuous. Those who fail to abide by these rules may be subject to objurgation.
Forum rules
As elsewhere in the TTO forum, no harangues, scurrilities, chicanery or mongering is permitted. However, repartees and irreverence is tolerated as long as they are not fatuous. Those who fail to abide by these rules may be subject to objurgation.
Explaining the need for smaller congressional districts, as well as the fascinating history of Article the first, could best be done via a series of compelling short videos that have the qualities necessary to go "viral" in a busy ADD world. However, those have to be professionally produced, not homemade or rinky dink. To get that done, we need an experienced video producer who personally understands & supports representational enlargement and is willing to produce these videos at a discounted price.conestogawagonman wrote:we might seek out a gifted cartoonist or animator to tell the story.
Long ago (in internet time) I suddenly needed an avatar for a discussion forum posting. A recent portrait of me by my then 5-year-old daughter seemed sufficient for that purpose, and it is more flattering than a photograph would be!conestogawagonman wrote:I daresay the idea has already been suggested by Mr. Quidam’s thumbnail portrait.
conestogawagonman wrote:...this website remains the cheapest, the best, and the most effective way to reach out and educate the public. Spread the word about the forgotten first article of the Bill of Rights, and tell others about this website.
Explaining the need for smaller congressional districts, as well as the fascinating history of Article the first, could best be done via a series of compelling short videos that have the qualities necessary to go "viral" in a busy ADD world. However, those have to be professionally produced, not homemade or rinky dink. To get that done, we need an experienced video producer who personally understands & supports representational enlargement and is willing to produce these videos at a discounted price.conestogawagonman wrote:we might seek out a gifted cartoonist or animator to tell the story.
Long ago (in internet time) I suddenly needed an avatar for a discussion forum posting. A recent portrait of me by my then 5-year-old daughter seemed sufficient for that purpose, and it is more flattering than a photograph would be!conestogawagonman wrote:I daresay the idea has already been suggested by Mr. Quidam’s thumbnail portrait.
conestogawagonman wrote:...this website remains the cheapest, the best, and the most effective way to reach out and educate the public. Spread the word about the forgotten first article of the Bill of Rights, and tell others about this website.
I hope I read this as it was intended. But it certainly seems very wrong headed in that we don't "vote" for the indicated reasons but, instead, for those who will represent us in dealing with the administrators of the insurance system. And we do this because we do not have the time to devote to watching the administrators ourselves. We have our own "pursuit of happiness" to look after. We want the administrators to insure that we have the freedom and liberty to do that through the use of force if necessary. And we want our representatives to act as our _agent_ in this matter in insuring the administrators do their job. We will be busy planting corn or whatever else we do in pursuit of our own destinies. We will not have to waste our time guarding the barn.Oxtobox wrote:The civilian is trained to believe voting is relevant to liberty (self-rule). So, he abdicates his self-rule in the hopes that another individual (consolidator of great power - abdication) will then turn around and grant self-rule back; rather than, follow study human behavior wherein once benefitted twice returned we seek to empower another rather than ourselves in the hopes he will return our power.
The "Party" currently does control the members by virtue of funding and by virtue of gerrymandering and by virtue of "plumbs" on the committees and other means as well. What we wish to do is to insure that the party cannot determine who will represent us by virtue of these sorts of controls. By making the constituencies as small as 30k people, the representative _MUST_ represent the constituents or the representative will be _EASILY_ removed in spite of all the TV ads the party can buy. In this endeavor we are assisted by technology better than ever before. We can see exactly how our supposed "representative" is comporting himself/herself on a real time basis at our convenience. The representative will stand for re-election every 2 years and woe be to the one who does not represent. The salary of $170k a year is desired by many and they will be watching like hawks for the current representative to mess up.]]>Oxtobox wrote:The Politician is easier to figure out. The "senior" politician (the non-term limit career politician) controls the war chest, special committee appointments, post political career in lobbying, and thus the senior contol the votes of "junior politicians."
----What makes this possible is the civilian abdicator
I hope I read this as it was intended. But it certainly seems very wrong headed in that we don't "vote" for the indicated reasons but, instead, for those who will represent us in dealing with the administrators of the insurance system. And we do this because we do not have the time to devote to watching the administrators ourselves. We have our own "pursuit of happiness" to look after. We want the administrators to insure that we have the freedom and liberty to do that through the use of force if necessary. And we want our representatives to act as our _agent_ in this matter in insuring the administrators do their job. We will be busy planting corn or whatever else we do in pursuit of our own destinies. We will not have to waste our time guarding the barn.Oxtobox wrote:The civilian is trained to believe voting is relevant to liberty (self-rule). So, he abdicates his self-rule in the hopes that another individual (consolidator of great power - abdication) will then turn around and grant self-rule back; rather than, follow study human behavior wherein once benefitted twice returned we seek to empower another rather than ourselves in the hopes he will return our power.
The "Party" currently does control the members by virtue of funding and by virtue of gerrymandering and by virtue of "plumbs" on the committees and other means as well. What we wish to do is to insure that the party cannot determine who will represent us by virtue of these sorts of controls. By making the constituencies as small as 30k people, the representative _MUST_ represent the constituents or the representative will be _EASILY_ removed in spite of all the TV ads the party can buy. In this endeavor we are assisted by technology better than ever before. We can see exactly how our supposed "representative" is comporting himself/herself on a real time basis at our convenience. The representative will stand for re-election every 2 years and woe be to the one who does not represent. The salary of $170k a year is desired by many and they will be watching like hawks for the current representative to mess up.]]>Oxtobox wrote:The Politician is easier to figure out. The "senior" politician (the non-term limit career politician) controls the war chest, special committee appointments, post political career in lobbying, and thus the senior contol the votes of "junior politicians."
----What makes this possible is the civilian abdicator
I am constantly amazed at the nonsense we believe because we don't question the myths we were taught in school.The advantage of our current system is that each citizen has a specific representative who is supposed to be representing them in Washington – an individual who they can meet and talk to and complain to and vote for or against every two years. It is a good design, and one which has held up fairly well over time.
I am constantly amazed at the nonsense we believe because we don't question the myths we were taught in school.The advantage of our current system is that each citizen has a specific representative who is supposed to be representing them in Washington – an individual who they can meet and talk to and complain to and vote for or against every two years. It is a good design, and one which has held up fairly well over time.
Attachments
Attachments
Yes, that's right. Keep testing phrases and explanations. The subject is complicated and anything that makes it easier to understand is helpful.Paul wrote:I'm okay if people ask questions and don't understand immediately, I just don't want to use something that they immediately reject
Oh yeah. Well, I wrote that way back in December 2007. You can definitely see how my terminology has evolved since then. I certainly agree with your point that "enlarging the House" fails to convey the true objective.]]>
Yes, that's right. Keep testing phrases and explanations. The subject is complicated and anything that makes it easier to understand is helpful.Paul wrote:I'm okay if people ask questions and don't understand immediately, I just don't want to use something that they immediately reject
Oh yeah. Well, I wrote that way back in December 2007. You can definitely see how my terminology has evolved since then. I certainly agree with your point that "enlarging the House" fails to convey the true objective.]]>
Yes that is correct...I believe you can specify which forums to include into that list.JEQuidam wrote:To ensure I understand, "Recent Topics" is not a forum, but sort of a virtual forum. That is, all those topics actually reside in their respective forums, but are highlighted in "Recent Topics", is that right?
OK, those seem like good mods! I don't know what would trigger a "moderator needed" event, but that's a good thing to anticipate.Administrator wrote: FYI, I installed the following modifications all of which can be found at phpbb.com
Prime Links (makes external links open in a new browser window)
Moderator Needed (will state if a topic or post is either reported or is waiting approval by a moderator)
Last post topic title (shows the topic title of a topic that has had the most recent post on the main page of the forum).
OK, that's an example of why we needed an expert level guy to do this (as opposed to me). I would not have thought of that, although I was wondering today if this is already slowing down. Is there a way to ascertain if TTO's host provider can handle the bandwidth of even a dozen people using this forum? (This is on a shared server.)]]>Administrator wrote:FYI, you need to be careful in the number and amount of modifications that are installed as, generally, the load on the server increases (either on the database or php wise) everytime a modification is installed.
Yes that is correct...I believe you can specify which forums to include into that list.JEQuidam wrote:To ensure I understand, "Recent Topics" is not a forum, but sort of a virtual forum. That is, all those topics actually reside in their respective forums, but are highlighted in "Recent Topics", is that right?
OK, those seem like good mods! I don't know what would trigger a "moderator needed" event, but that's a good thing to anticipate.Administrator wrote: FYI, I installed the following modifications all of which can be found at phpbb.com
Prime Links (makes external links open in a new browser window)
Moderator Needed (will state if a topic or post is either reported or is waiting approval by a moderator)
Last post topic title (shows the topic title of a topic that has had the most recent post on the main page of the forum).
OK, that's an example of why we needed an expert level guy to do this (as opposed to me). I would not have thought of that, although I was wondering today if this is already slowing down. Is there a way to ascertain if TTO's host provider can handle the bandwidth of even a dozen people using this forum? (This is on a shared server.)]]>Administrator wrote:FYI, you need to be careful in the number and amount of modifications that are installed as, generally, the load on the server increases (either on the database or php wise) everytime a modification is installed.
Paul, I like the signatures, but you've made a good argument that I can't refute. What would be the best reason for keeping the signatures?Paul wrote:Disallow signatures. Especially in a forum where we are trying to bring diametrically opposed...
That seems like a good suggestion.Paul wrote:Remove post count in topic replies.
I don't know what that is. I started reading a Wiki description of it, but then my dog interrupted with a demand for attention. Can you explain basically what the vBulletin does? (I assume we would need a bigger community to even take advantage of it anyway.)]]>Paul wrote:I don't know if anyone here has any real preference, but pretty much all of my favorite forums run vBulletin,
Paul, I like the signatures, but you've made a good argument that I can't refute. What would be the best reason for keeping the signatures?Paul wrote:Disallow signatures. Especially in a forum where we are trying to bring diametrically opposed...
That seems like a good suggestion.Paul wrote:Remove post count in topic replies.
I don't know what that is. I started reading a Wiki description of it, but then my dog interrupted with a demand for attention. Can you explain basically what the vBulletin does? (I assume we would need a bigger community to even take advantage of it anyway.)]]>Paul wrote:I don't know if anyone here has any real preference, but pretty much all of my favorite forums run vBulletin,
Agree.Paul wrote:Can we increase the number of posts viewed on each page?
OKPaul wrote:Can we change the name of the 'General Benefits to the Citizenry' to just 'General Benefits'?
This is exactly what concerns me. Maybe I could argue that having the government impose cost controls on the price of toilet paper relates to TTO, then we're fighting over that issue rather than focusing on enlarging representation. On the other hand, all that sort of discussion is probably not preventable.Paul wrote:...but what would be nice would be an acceptable place to talk about lots of different things and how they relate to TTO.
That forum will focus on the questions related to Article the first of the Bill of Rights. Anyone who is not familiar with that subject should read this article. I'll make that clearer upon re-organizing the site. My assumption is that few will be participating in this forum who are not somewhat initiated to the subject. (It's not like this is a forum devoted to American Idol.)Paul wrote:I think that 'Article the first of the Bill of Rights' is too confusing and looks like a discussion on the 1st Amendment. How about 'What the Founders Envisioned' or something like that?
Are you saying to change the name from "Comments & Suggestions Regarding the Development of this Forum"? If so, that's sounds like a good idea.]]>Paul wrote:How about changing the name of this forum to 'TTO Website and Forum Discussion'. I think all forums are for comments & suggestions, plus we can open the discussion up to the rest of the site, which is something that needs just as much, if not more, assistance.
Agree.Paul wrote:Can we increase the number of posts viewed on each page?
OKPaul wrote:Can we change the name of the 'General Benefits to the Citizenry' to just 'General Benefits'?
This is exactly what concerns me. Maybe I could argue that having the government impose cost controls on the price of toilet paper relates to TTO, then we're fighting over that issue rather than focusing on enlarging representation. On the other hand, all that sort of discussion is probably not preventable.Paul wrote:...but what would be nice would be an acceptable place to talk about lots of different things and how they relate to TTO.
That forum will focus on the questions related to Article the first of the Bill of Rights. Anyone who is not familiar with that subject should read this article. I'll make that clearer upon re-organizing the site. My assumption is that few will be participating in this forum who are not somewhat initiated to the subject. (It's not like this is a forum devoted to American Idol.)Paul wrote:I think that 'Article the first of the Bill of Rights' is too confusing and looks like a discussion on the 1st Amendment. How about 'What the Founders Envisioned' or something like that?
Are you saying to change the name from "Comments & Suggestions Regarding the Development of this Forum"? If so, that's sounds like a good idea.]]>Paul wrote:How about changing the name of this forum to 'TTO Website and Forum Discussion'. I think all forums are for comments & suggestions, plus we can open the discussion up to the rest of the site, which is something that needs just as much, if not more, assistance.
You are correct (again). There are two users with URL user names. I'll contact them and ask them to provide an alternative name. Maybe there is a way to prevent that in the future. Can I communicate that as a rule when people register?]]>Paul wrote:Jeff, I'd like to recommend not allowing people to use their URL's as usernames.
You are correct (again). There are two users with URL user names. I'll contact them and ask them to provide an alternative name. Maybe there is a way to prevent that in the future. Can I communicate that as a rule when people register?]]>Paul wrote:Jeff, I'd like to recommend not allowing people to use their URL's as usernames.
<snicker> OK Paul, as you say.Paul wrote: We do not micromanage the forum...<snip>
You would be LUCKY to have me.Paul wrote: We would be happy to have you,<snip>
My site promotes freedom, a concept you're unclear on.Paul wrote: However, our site is not for you to use to surreptitiously promote your site.
Maybe not. I still like J.E. Quidam's ideas. Your attitude sucks though. You remind me of the nose-in-the-air Objectivists.Paul wrote: We are well aware that we probably will not radically influence the political landscape <snip>
Yeah, you're clear. You and the other handful of users feel free to stamp your feet and hold your collective breath until you turn blue. That'll show us!Paul wrote: And to be very, very clear. We are not about bringing down the U.S. government and we do not promote, encourage, or other wise endorse anarchy, anarcho-capitalism, or any of their brethren.
I repeat here for your viewing pleasure:Paul wrote: Jeff, I'd like to recommend not allowing people to use their URL's as usernames. Maybe our resident phpBB expert can help out with the settings for that. I think it's just fine to include website links in people's profiles. I also get concerned that someone may 'spoof' a URL to make fun of it - like creating a changedotorg profile and making snide posts intended to aggravate that site's real supporters.
Yeah sure whatever.Paul wrote: We do not micromanage the forum.
I had requested in an email that my username be changed. But I think I'll bid you ado and let you duke it out among yourselves.Paul wrote: For changing usernames I believe there is a way in phpBB to manually change someone's username or to request they change their username before making any further posts.
<snicker> OK Paul, as you say.Paul wrote: We do not micromanage the forum...<snip>
You would be LUCKY to have me.Paul wrote: We would be happy to have you,<snip>
My site promotes freedom, a concept you're unclear on.Paul wrote: However, our site is not for you to use to surreptitiously promote your site.
Maybe not. I still like J.E. Quidam's ideas. Your attitude sucks though. You remind me of the nose-in-the-air Objectivists.Paul wrote: We are well aware that we probably will not radically influence the political landscape <snip>
Yeah, you're clear. You and the other handful of users feel free to stamp your feet and hold your collective breath until you turn blue. That'll show us!Paul wrote: And to be very, very clear. We are not about bringing down the U.S. government and we do not promote, encourage, or other wise endorse anarchy, anarcho-capitalism, or any of their brethren.
I repeat here for your viewing pleasure:Paul wrote: Jeff, I'd like to recommend not allowing people to use their URL's as usernames. Maybe our resident phpBB expert can help out with the settings for that. I think it's just fine to include website links in people's profiles. I also get concerned that someone may 'spoof' a URL to make fun of it - like creating a changedotorg profile and making snide posts intended to aggravate that site's real supporters.
Yeah sure whatever.Paul wrote: We do not micromanage the forum.
I had requested in an email that my username be changed. But I think I'll bid you ado and let you duke it out among yourselves.Paul wrote: For changing usernames I believe there is a way in phpBB to manually change someone's username or to request they change their username before making any further posts.
Yeah well not surprisingly, my first inclination was to say bad things about yo momma or ....Paul wrote:Well, Mr. halebobbdotcom, I can see that you are a man of peace and humility. I would like to encourage you to continue on your path of enlightenment elsewhere.
Yeah well not surprisingly, my first inclination was to say bad things about yo momma or ....Paul wrote:Well, Mr. halebobbdotcom, I can see that you are a man of peace and humility. I would like to encourage you to continue on your path of enlightenment elsewhere.
Thanks for the analysis. I didn't know what to make of that column. I appreciate your critical examination. Of course, it's wishful thinking that there is a easy way to overturn the 17th Amendment.HouseSizeWonk wrote:The "Devvy" piece suffers from the disadvantage of not making any sense...
Thanks for the analysis. I didn't know what to make of that column. I appreciate your critical examination. Of course, it's wishful thinking that there is a easy way to overturn the 17th Amendment.HouseSizeWonk wrote:The "Devvy" piece suffers from the disadvantage of not making any sense...
What do you think?]]>Section 1.
The seventeenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Section 2.
If Vacancies in the representation of any State in the Senate happen by failure of the Legislature of such State, the Executive authority of such State may make temporary Appointments until the Legislature of such State fills such Vacancies.
Section 3.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
What do you think?]]>Section 1.
The seventeenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Section 2.
If Vacancies in the representation of any State in the Senate happen by failure of the Legislature of such State, the Executive authority of such State may make temporary Appointments until the Legislature of such State fills such Vacancies.
Section 3.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
Moreover, your proposed solution to this wrongly perceived problem invites two far greater problems:Paul wrote:My suggestion is to have the state legislators appoint senators for indefinite terms. This way they can appoint a new senator at any time and gridlock will not cause a gap in representation. I would suggest something like this:
Each state's legislature shall appoint 2 senators through the method and place of their choosing. The senators shall be sworn in by the state legislature and serve until the date and time their replacements are sworn in.
Moreover, your proposed solution to this wrongly perceived problem invites two far greater problems:Paul wrote:My suggestion is to have the state legislators appoint senators for indefinite terms. This way they can appoint a new senator at any time and gridlock will not cause a gap in representation. I would suggest something like this:
Each state's legislature shall appoint 2 senators through the method and place of their choosing. The senators shall be sworn in by the state legislature and serve until the date and time their replacements are sworn in.
What do you think?Section 1.
The seventeenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Section 2.
If Vacancies in the representation of any State in the Senate happen by failure of the Legislature of such State, the Executive authority of such State may make temporary Appointments until the Legislature of such State fills such Vacancies.
Section 3.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
What do you think?Section 1.
The seventeenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Section 2.
If Vacancies in the representation of any State in the Senate happen by failure of the Legislature of such State, the Executive authority of such State may make temporary Appointments until the Legislature of such State fills such Vacancies.
Section 3.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
Please note: if the Vacancy occurs during the Recess of the Legislature of the State, the Constitution does not mandate a temporary Appointment by the Executive of the State; it merely gives the Executive the option of temporary Appointment. So too, the language of my proposed amendment does not mandate a Vacancy always be filled; it merely provides, in a very similar manner, an additional alternative so that the State need not be forced to go without representation.U.S. Constitution Article I, Section 3. wrote:The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six Years; ...and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.
Reconsidering the only two options when a Vacancy might occur (i.e. either the State's Legislature is in session or not in session) and reconsidering the only two options for filling a Vacancy while the State's Legislature is in session (i.e. the State's Legislature either succeeds in filling the Vacancy or does not), it seems pretty clear how "failure of the Legislature of such State" is to be defined. In fact, I'd go so far as to conclude that there cannot be any debate on the definition of "failure of the Legislature of such State"; for either the State's Legislature has filled or has failed to fill the Vacancy, regardless of the ongoing reasons for the failure. Any debate would not affect the only two possible outcomes, therefore I see no reason why you believe "the key is how you define 'failure of the Legislature of such State.'"HouseSizeWonk wrote:I think the key is how you define "failure of the Legislature of such State."
Please note: if the Vacancy occurs during the Recess of the Legislature of the State, the Constitution does not mandate a temporary Appointment by the Executive of the State; it merely gives the Executive the option of temporary Appointment. So too, the language of my proposed amendment does not mandate a Vacancy always be filled; it merely provides, in a very similar manner, an additional alternative so that the State need not be forced to go without representation.U.S. Constitution Article I, Section 3. wrote:The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six Years; ...and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.
Reconsidering the only two options when a Vacancy might occur (i.e. either the State's Legislature is in session or not in session) and reconsidering the only two options for filling a Vacancy while the State's Legislature is in session (i.e. the State's Legislature either succeeds in filling the Vacancy or does not), it seems pretty clear how "failure of the Legislature of such State" is to be defined. In fact, I'd go so far as to conclude that there cannot be any debate on the definition of "failure of the Legislature of such State"; for either the State's Legislature has filled or has failed to fill the Vacancy, regardless of the ongoing reasons for the failure. Any debate would not affect the only two possible outcomes, therefore I see no reason why you believe "the key is how you define 'failure of the Legislature of such State.'"HouseSizeWonk wrote:I think the key is how you define "failure of the Legislature of such State."
Please note: if the Vacancy occurs during the Recess of the Legislature of the State, the Constitution does not mandate a temporary Appointment by the Executive of the State; it merely gives the Executive the option of temporary Appointment. So too, the language of my proposed amendment does not mandate a Vacancy always be filled; it merely provides, in a very similar manner, an additional alternative so that the State need not be forced to go without representation.U.S. Constitution Article I, Section 3. wrote:The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six Years; ...and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.
My point is that they may not see it as a "failure." The Legislature may see it as a "success," because they'd rather have nobody hold the seat at all than someone they oppose. Your language is "If Vacancies . . . happen by failure of the Legislature of such State," but the Legislature may not consider it a failure that the seat is vacant -- it may be a triumph! Indeed, any time gridlock prevents the seat from being filled, that's exactly what the Legislature wants: each side would rather nobody have the seat than the unsatisfactory office-holder. Moreover, if the Legislature hasn't elected someone as of the first day of the congressional session, is that a "failure"? Or are they just taking their time? If a natural disaster or some other catastrophe prevents the Legislature from meeting at all, does that mean that the vacancy has happened "by failure of the Legislature"?Pseudolus wrote:Point 3:
Reconsidering the only two options when a Vacancy might occur (i.e. either the State's Legislature is in session or not in session) and reconsidering the only two options for filling a Vacancy while the State's Legislature is in session (i.e. the State's Legislature either succeeds in filling the Vacancy or does not), it seems pretty clear how "failure of the Legislature of such State" is to be defined. In fact, I'd go so far as to conclude that there cannot be any debate on the definition of "failure of the Legislature of such State"; for either the State's Legislature has filled or has failed to fill the Vacancy, regardless of the ongoing reasons for the failure. Any debate would not affect the only two possible outcomes, therefore I see no reason why you believe "the key is how you define 'failure of the Legislature of such State.'"HouseSizeWonk wrote:I think the key is how you define "failure of the Legislature of such State."
As noted above, my primary concern is with the issue of construing a vacancy to the Legislature's "failure." As soon as you introduce a causality component, you give lawyers something to argue about. I'd rather have the language simply focus on the fact of the vacancy itself, regardless of the cause. My point was only that I think it'd be better to change as little as possible. My language imperfectly expressed what I had in mind, though; the proviso I intended should have read something like: "Provided, That, in addition to the Executive authority's power to make temporary appointments in the case of a vacancy occurring while that State's Legislature is in recess, the legislature of any State may empower the Executive authority thereof to make temporary appointments to fill vacancies occurring at any other time, until such time as the legislature shall fill the vacancy."Pseudolus wrote:Point 4:Point 5:
- Furthermore, I believe your proposed changes actually create more reasons for argument (i.e. the gridlocked State Legislature now can additionally argue about whether or not to defer to the Executive, which obviously those of a different political party will not want to do) and provide the gridlocked Legislature an inherent excuse to remain in gridlock (i.e. better to leave the Vacancy than to allow their Executive to appoint a candidate potentially harmful to one side's views).
Considering my proposed language has all the benefits of your language plus more and considering it has none of the drawbacks of your language, I see no reason to adjust the proposed amendment's language at this time. If my reasoning is unsound, please correct me.
- Moreover, all the benefits your language makes over the pre-17th Amendment Constitution are already included in my original proposed language (i.e. there is the inclusion of the additional safety valve proviso, and the State's Legislature still is accountable for why they could not make a Appointment), except my language additionally provides that the Executive along with the Legislature be accountable for the ongoing Vacancy.
Please note: if the Vacancy occurs during the Recess of the Legislature of the State, the Constitution does not mandate a temporary Appointment by the Executive of the State; it merely gives the Executive the option of temporary Appointment. So too, the language of my proposed amendment does not mandate a Vacancy always be filled; it merely provides, in a very similar manner, an additional alternative so that the State need not be forced to go without representation.U.S. Constitution Article I, Section 3. wrote:The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six Years; ...and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.
My point is that they may not see it as a "failure." The Legislature may see it as a "success," because they'd rather have nobody hold the seat at all than someone they oppose. Your language is "If Vacancies . . . happen by failure of the Legislature of such State," but the Legislature may not consider it a failure that the seat is vacant -- it may be a triumph! Indeed, any time gridlock prevents the seat from being filled, that's exactly what the Legislature wants: each side would rather nobody have the seat than the unsatisfactory office-holder. Moreover, if the Legislature hasn't elected someone as of the first day of the congressional session, is that a "failure"? Or are they just taking their time? If a natural disaster or some other catastrophe prevents the Legislature from meeting at all, does that mean that the vacancy has happened "by failure of the Legislature"?Pseudolus wrote:Point 3:
Reconsidering the only two options when a Vacancy might occur (i.e. either the State's Legislature is in session or not in session) and reconsidering the only two options for filling a Vacancy while the State's Legislature is in session (i.e. the State's Legislature either succeeds in filling the Vacancy or does not), it seems pretty clear how "failure of the Legislature of such State" is to be defined. In fact, I'd go so far as to conclude that there cannot be any debate on the definition of "failure of the Legislature of such State"; for either the State's Legislature has filled or has failed to fill the Vacancy, regardless of the ongoing reasons for the failure. Any debate would not affect the only two possible outcomes, therefore I see no reason why you believe "the key is how you define 'failure of the Legislature of such State.'"HouseSizeWonk wrote:I think the key is how you define "failure of the Legislature of such State."
As noted above, my primary concern is with the issue of construing a vacancy to the Legislature's "failure." As soon as you introduce a causality component, you give lawyers something to argue about. I'd rather have the language simply focus on the fact of the vacancy itself, regardless of the cause. My point was only that I think it'd be better to change as little as possible. My language imperfectly expressed what I had in mind, though; the proviso I intended should have read something like: "Provided, That, in addition to the Executive authority's power to make temporary appointments in the case of a vacancy occurring while that State's Legislature is in recess, the legislature of any State may empower the Executive authority thereof to make temporary appointments to fill vacancies occurring at any other time, until such time as the legislature shall fill the vacancy."Pseudolus wrote:Point 4:Point 5:
- Furthermore, I believe your proposed changes actually create more reasons for argument (i.e. the gridlocked State Legislature now can additionally argue about whether or not to defer to the Executive, which obviously those of a different political party will not want to do) and provide the gridlocked Legislature an inherent excuse to remain in gridlock (i.e. better to leave the Vacancy than to allow their Executive to appoint a candidate potentially harmful to one side's views).
Considering my proposed language has all the benefits of your language plus more and considering it has none of the drawbacks of your language, I see no reason to adjust the proposed amendment's language at this time. If my reasoning is unsound, please correct me.
- Moreover, all the benefits your language makes over the pre-17th Amendment Constitution are already included in my original proposed language (i.e. there is the inclusion of the additional safety valve proviso, and the State's Legislature still is accountable for why they could not make a Appointment), except my language additionally provides that the Executive along with the Legislature be accountable for the ongoing Vacancy.
My point is that they may not see it as a "failure." The Legislature may see it as a "success," because they'd rather have nobody hold the seat at all than someone they oppose. Your language is "If Vacancies . . . happen by failure of the Legislature of such State," but the Legislature may not consider it a failure that the seat is vacant -- it may be a triumph! Indeed, any time gridlock prevents the seat from being filled, that's exactly what the Legislature wants: each side would rather nobody have the seat than the unsatisfactory office-holder. Moreover, if the Legislature hasn't elected someone as of the first day of the congressional session, is that a "failure"? Or are they just taking their time? If a natural disaster or some other catastrophe prevents the Legislature from meeting at all, does that mean that the vacancy has happened "by failure of the Legislature"?Pseudolus wrote:Reconsidering the only two options when a Vacancy might occur (i.e. either the State's Legislature is in session or not in session) and reconsidering the only two options for filling a Vacancy while the State's Legislature is in session (i.e. the State's Legislature either succeeds in filling the Vacancy or does not), it seems pretty clear how "failure of the Legislature of such State" is to be defined. In fact, I'd go so far as to conclude that there cannot be any debate on the definition of "failure of the Legislature of such State"; for either the State's Legislature has filled or has failed to fill the Vacancy, regardless of the ongoing reasons for the failure. Any debate would not affect the only two possible outcomes, therefore I see no reason why you believe "the key is how you define 'failure of the Legislature of such State.'"
My point is that they may not see it as a "failure." The Legislature may see it as a "success," because they'd rather have nobody hold the seat at all than someone they oppose. Your language is "If Vacancies . . . happen by failure of the Legislature of such State," but the Legislature may not consider it a failure that the seat is vacant -- it may be a triumph! Indeed, any time gridlock prevents the seat from being filled, that's exactly what the Legislature wants: each side would rather nobody have the seat than the unsatisfactory office-holder. Moreover, if the Legislature hasn't elected someone as of the first day of the congressional session, is that a "failure"? Or are they just taking their time? If a natural disaster or some other catastrophe prevents the Legislature from meeting at all, does that mean that the vacancy has happened "by failure of the Legislature"?Pseudolus wrote:Reconsidering the only two options when a Vacancy might occur (i.e. either the State's Legislature is in session or not in session) and reconsidering the only two options for filling a Vacancy while the State's Legislature is in session (i.e. the State's Legislature either succeeds in filling the Vacancy or does not), it seems pretty clear how "failure of the Legislature of such State" is to be defined. In fact, I'd go so far as to conclude that there cannot be any debate on the definition of "failure of the Legislature of such State"; for either the State's Legislature has filled or has failed to fill the Vacancy, regardless of the ongoing reasons for the failure. Any debate would not affect the only two possible outcomes, therefore I see no reason why you believe "the key is how you define 'failure of the Legislature of such State.'"
The difference being that my language attempted to require the Legislature to create a pre-commitment strategy, not an ad hoc "we consider this time a failure and this time a success" approach to determining whether the Executive has authority to make an appointment.Pseudolus wrote:Honestly, I think this is a non-issue. Because if such a ludicrous scenario played out (an admittedly rare, if not unfathomable occurrence), then--in order for the Executive to be stripped of his/her power to make temporary Appointments--the Supreme Court would have to rule that the U.S. Constitutional language of "by failure of the Legislature" is subject to the interpretation of that State's Legislature, which would mean that the Legislature has the option of allowing the Executive to make a temporary Appointment or can refrain from granting the Executive such authority, which is exactly the type of language you proposed when you re-wrote the amendment. So, no matter how the Supreme Court rules, we're still in a great position; because either way, both the Executive and the Legislature have to answer for why they didn't take the option of a temporary Appointment.
So again, what's your concern? I really don't get it.
The difference being that my language attempted to require the Legislature to create a pre-commitment strategy, not an ad hoc "we consider this time a failure and this time a success" approach to determining whether the Executive has authority to make an appointment.Pseudolus wrote:Honestly, I think this is a non-issue. Because if such a ludicrous scenario played out (an admittedly rare, if not unfathomable occurrence), then--in order for the Executive to be stripped of his/her power to make temporary Appointments--the Supreme Court would have to rule that the U.S. Constitutional language of "by failure of the Legislature" is subject to the interpretation of that State's Legislature, which would mean that the Legislature has the option of allowing the Executive to make a temporary Appointment or can refrain from granting the Executive such authority, which is exactly the type of language you proposed when you re-wrote the amendment. So, no matter how the Supreme Court rules, we're still in a great position; because either way, both the Executive and the Legislature have to answer for why they didn't take the option of a temporary Appointment.
So again, what's your concern? I really don't get it.
Since the State Legislatures are voting on behalf of their State and not themselves, selection of U.S. Senators is not like a normal vote where majority wins. Each State Legislature has and had their own rules for how their U.S. Senators would be chosen.Pseudolus wrote:Please look into history because State Legislatures often could not agree whom they would choose as their U.S. Senator and thus their U.S.Senate seat would often remain vacant at crucial times where votes were needed by the nation at large. Since the State Legislatures are voting on behalf of their State and not themselves, selection of U.S. Senators is not like a normal vote where majority wins. Each State Legislature has and had their own rules for how their U.S. Senators would be chosen. Altering those rules so that a decision could be made that half of the Legislature is against wouldn't be satisfactory and may even be shortsighted. Gridlock happened regularly. In some states more than others.USeagle wrote:I have never understood that argument "gridlocking the State", we would not have gridlock if the Senators were elected by the Legislature, just as we (the soverigen) elect the Representatives of our States. We are not appointing a member to SCOTUS... we are deligating our soverign rights to a higher level thru our State Legislatures; who are acting on our behalf.
Since the State Legislatures are voting on behalf of their State and not themselves, selection of U.S. Senators is not like a normal vote where majority wins. Each State Legislature has and had their own rules for how their U.S. Senators would be chosen.Pseudolus wrote:Please look into history because State Legislatures often could not agree whom they would choose as their U.S. Senator and thus their U.S.Senate seat would often remain vacant at crucial times where votes were needed by the nation at large. Since the State Legislatures are voting on behalf of their State and not themselves, selection of U.S. Senators is not like a normal vote where majority wins. Each State Legislature has and had their own rules for how their U.S. Senators would be chosen. Altering those rules so that a decision could be made that half of the Legislature is against wouldn't be satisfactory and may even be shortsighted. Gridlock happened regularly. In some states more than others.USeagle wrote:I have never understood that argument "gridlocking the State", we would not have gridlock if the Senators were elected by the Legislature, just as we (the soverigen) elect the Representatives of our States. We are not appointing a member to SCOTUS... we are deligating our soverign rights to a higher level thru our State Legislatures; who are acting on our behalf.
This is where we part ways…. The State Legislators are not voting on behalf of that State ……they should be voting on behalf of the constituents in that district that elected them. In turn, these entire districts represent the State!Pseudolus wrote:Since the State Legislatures are voting on behalf of their State and not themselves.
This is where we part ways…. The State Legislators are not voting on behalf of that State ……they should be voting on behalf of the constituents in that district that elected them. In turn, these entire districts represent the State!Pseudolus wrote:Since the State Legislatures are voting on behalf of their State and not themselves.
I would assume that each state would prudently put in place a stop-gap measure to ensure that recalls are not commonplace; be it by super-majority, or executive concurrence, or whatever means they choose.JEQuidam wrote:That being said, it may be prudent for a super-majority vote to be required, or the recall is not effected until the replacement Senator is approved by the state legislature.
I would assume that each state would prudently put in place a stop-gap measure to ensure that recalls are not commonplace; be it by super-majority, or executive concurrence, or whatever means they choose.JEQuidam wrote:That being said, it may be prudent for a super-majority vote to be required, or the recall is not effected until the replacement Senator is approved by the state legislature.
I can't fathom another solution. To me, it's a pregnant/not-pregnant thing. Either one wants the Senators elected in a popular election, or return to having the state legislatures select them. I have faith that the state legislatures could select well-qualified Senators 95%+ of the time, but nothing is perfect! And we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good!Paul wrote:I am also not in favor of repealing the amendment, but rather recognizing that the solution to the problem it attempted to resolve was worse than the problem itself, ...
I can't fathom another solution. To me, it's a pregnant/not-pregnant thing. Either one wants the Senators elected in a popular election, or return to having the state legislatures select them. I have faith that the state legislatures could select well-qualified Senators 95%+ of the time, but nothing is perfect! And we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good!Paul wrote:I am also not in favor of repealing the amendment, but rather recognizing that the solution to the problem it attempted to resolve was worse than the problem itself, ...
Additionally, a governor appointed candidate will always be a member of the same party as the governor. However, a senator appointed by a legislator will not necessarily only be a member of the one party.]]>Paul wrote:I think the better way to repair this problem would have been to provide competition to the legislators that also guarantees someone to be elected to office. For example, if by a certain date the legislator has not elected a senator, then the responsibility will irrevocably be moved to the newly elected members of the House. Before these members can be sworn in for their upcoming term, they must elect a senator. Obviously the senator would be one of the congressmen, and the transfer of the power from the state legislator to the federal representatives will not be in the general interests of anyone at the state level, so it is highly unlikely that a state would ever allow this to happen, and if it did, the person most likely to be elected would be someone recently elected to a federal office.
Additionally, a governor appointed candidate will always be a member of the same party as the governor. However, a senator appointed by a legislator will not necessarily only be a member of the one party.]]>Paul wrote:I think the better way to repair this problem would have been to provide competition to the legislators that also guarantees someone to be elected to office. For example, if by a certain date the legislator has not elected a senator, then the responsibility will irrevocably be moved to the newly elected members of the House. Before these members can be sworn in for their upcoming term, they must elect a senator. Obviously the senator would be one of the congressmen, and the transfer of the power from the state legislator to the federal representatives will not be in the general interests of anyone at the state level, so it is highly unlikely that a state would ever allow this to happen, and if it did, the person most likely to be elected would be someone recently elected to a federal office.
Claude, that is an excellent idea. Is that your invention or do you know if it has been previously advocated?claudevms wrote:I would like to see senators from the several states be suggested for service by the Governor of a state with advise and consent of the state senate. ....
Claude, that is an excellent idea. Is that your invention or do you know if it has been previously advocated?claudevms wrote:I would like to see senators from the several states be suggested for service by the Governor of a state with advise and consent of the state senate. ....
Additionally, a governor appointed candidate will always be a member of the same party as the governor. However, a senator appointed by a legislator will not necessarily only be a member of the one party.Paul wrote:I think the better way to repair this problem would have been to provide competition to the legislators that also guarantees someone to be elected to office. For example, if by a certain date the legislator has not elected a senator, then the responsibility will irrevocably be moved to the newly elected members of the House. Before these members can be sworn in for their upcoming term, they must elect a senator. Obviously the senator would be one of the congressmen, and the transfer of the power from the state legislator to the federal representatives will not be in the general interests of anyone at the state level, so it is highly unlikely that a state would ever allow this to happen, and if it did, the person most likely to be elected would be someone recently elected to a federal office.
Additionally, a governor appointed candidate will always be a member of the same party as the governor. However, a senator appointed by a legislator will not necessarily only be a member of the one party.Paul wrote:I think the better way to repair this problem would have been to provide competition to the legislators that also guarantees someone to be elected to office. For example, if by a certain date the legislator has not elected a senator, then the responsibility will irrevocably be moved to the newly elected members of the House. Before these members can be sworn in for their upcoming term, they must elect a senator. Obviously the senator would be one of the congressmen, and the transfer of the power from the state legislator to the federal representatives will not be in the general interests of anyone at the state level, so it is highly unlikely that a state would ever allow this to happen, and if it did, the person most likely to be elected would be someone recently elected to a federal office.
Additionally, a governor appointed candidate will always be a member of the same party as the governor. However, a senator appointed by a legislator will not necessarily only be a member of the one party.Paul wrote:I think the better way to repair this problem would have been to provide competition to the legislators that also guarantees someone to be elected to office. For example, if by a certain date the legislator has not elected a senator, then the responsibility will irrevocably be moved to the newly elected members of the House. Before these members can be sworn in for their upcoming term, they must elect a senator. Obviously the senator would be one of the congressmen, and the transfer of the power from the state legislator to the federal representatives will not be in the general interests of anyone at the state level, so it is highly unlikely that a state would ever allow this to happen, and if it did, the person most likely to be elected would be someone recently elected to a federal office.
Additionally, a governor appointed candidate will always be a member of the same party as the governor. However, a senator appointed by a legislator will not necessarily only be a member of the one party.Paul wrote:I think the better way to repair this problem would have been to provide competition to the legislators that also guarantees someone to be elected to office. For example, if by a certain date the legislator has not elected a senator, then the responsibility will irrevocably be moved to the newly elected members of the House. Before these members can be sworn in for their upcoming term, they must elect a senator. Obviously the senator would be one of the congressmen, and the transfer of the power from the state legislator to the federal representatives will not be in the general interests of anyone at the state level, so it is highly unlikely that a state would ever allow this to happen, and if it did, the person most likely to be elected would be someone recently elected to a federal office.
I consider this from the point of the opposition. What arguments will they use against us? I think one that they would use is the original purpose of the 17th amendment, which was to prevent states from being under-represented in the Senate. My understanding is that this was happening leading up to the Civil War because there were so many contentious issues and state legislators were so divided that neither side would allow a senator to be elected. That is why I propose that the senators serve indefinite terms at the pleasure of the legislator. Nobody wanted to see TARP passed, so what I think would have happened was the instant that bill came up for a vote, a number of state legislators would have voted on and swore in (something they can do locally) new senators, then informed the old senators to return to whatever it was they did before public life. This is an asset.]]>Putting aside that question for a moment, what I'm wondering is, given how difficult it would be to repeal the 17th, would it be easier to simply repeal it, or to repeal it with some additional set of requirements on how the Senators are to be selected by each state? As a practical matter, I believe it would be easier to simply repeal it without all the additional baggage of agreeing on a mandatory selection system. If so, it would be better to get it repealed than it never being repealed because of disagreement over the perfect selection process!
I consider this from the point of the opposition. What arguments will they use against us? I think one that they would use is the original purpose of the 17th amendment, which was to prevent states from being under-represented in the Senate. My understanding is that this was happening leading up to the Civil War because there were so many contentious issues and state legislators were so divided that neither side would allow a senator to be elected. That is why I propose that the senators serve indefinite terms at the pleasure of the legislator. Nobody wanted to see TARP passed, so what I think would have happened was the instant that bill came up for a vote, a number of state legislators would have voted on and swore in (something they can do locally) new senators, then informed the old senators to return to whatever it was they did before public life. This is an asset.]]>Putting aside that question for a moment, what I'm wondering is, given how difficult it would be to repeal the 17th, would it be easier to simply repeal it, or to repeal it with some additional set of requirements on how the Senators are to be selected by each state? As a practical matter, I believe it would be easier to simply repeal it without all the additional baggage of agreeing on a mandatory selection system. If so, it would be better to get it repealed than it never being repealed because of disagreement over the perfect selection process!
]]>The Senate was meant to protect states as distinct governments with independent powers. State legislatures are part of those governments. Thus, in pursuing their self-interest, they will tend to seek to protect (even enhance) the political power of the states.
…
Importantly, whereas the Founders desired the Senate to be a body more rational, cool, and distant from popular passions, the House’s two-year terms and direct selection by the voters would reflect the people’s more knee-j.erk responses. Of course, gut reactions can prove rash, dangerous, and often damaging to both public good and individual rights. The Senate’s more stoic and thoughtful poise would not result merely from its six-year term but also from the distance state legislative selection created between it and the people. State legislatures would be more likely to pick on the bases of knowledge and virtue rather than mere popularity — hence, the reason the Senate holds special powers the House doesn’t in confirming judicial nominees and ratifying treaties.
…
Right now, our country suffers from states overpowered by the national government and a Congress that’s both weak and feckless against bureaucracies, courts, and presidents alike. The 17th Amendment surely isn’t the sole culprit in the development of these woes, but it’s certainly not helping. Its anniversary is no cause for celebration.
]]>The Senate was meant to protect states as distinct governments with independent powers. State legislatures are part of those governments. Thus, in pursuing their self-interest, they will tend to seek to protect (even enhance) the political power of the states.
…
Importantly, whereas the Founders desired the Senate to be a body more rational, cool, and distant from popular passions, the House’s two-year terms and direct selection by the voters would reflect the people’s more knee-j.erk responses. Of course, gut reactions can prove rash, dangerous, and often damaging to both public good and individual rights. The Senate’s more stoic and thoughtful poise would not result merely from its six-year term but also from the distance state legislative selection created between it and the people. State legislatures would be more likely to pick on the bases of knowledge and virtue rather than mere popularity — hence, the reason the Senate holds special powers the House doesn’t in confirming judicial nominees and ratifying treaties.
…
Right now, our country suffers from states overpowered by the national government and a Congress that’s both weak and feckless against bureaucracies, courts, and presidents alike. The 17th Amendment surely isn’t the sole culprit in the development of these woes, but it’s certainly not helping. Its anniversary is no cause for celebration.
]]>Madison wrote: Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.
]]>Madison wrote: Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.
Context is required here in that Madison was defending federal congressional districts of 30 thousand while state legislative districts were max of 5000 people. But the inference is that US Congressional districts should be much larger than state legislative districts. That does not seem to be the case in California.]]>Madison wrote:By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representatives too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests; as by reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these, and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects. The federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures.
Context is required here in that Madison was defending federal congressional districts of 30 thousand while state legislative districts were max of 5000 people. But the inference is that US Congressional districts should be much larger than state legislative districts. That does not seem to be the case in California.]]>Madison wrote:By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representatives too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests; as by reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these, and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects. The federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures.
Do not be mislead by Fuax Noise and Rasmussen. And do not let yourself be too carried away with this CNN deal either. Most of this sentiment has been stirred up by the Tea Baggers and is the worst form of mob rule democracy. And it is this sort of incitement to riot that makes many people want to reduce the representation and embrace authoritarianism. Fear is a two edged sword.]]>According to CNN poll numbers released Sunday, Americans overwhelmingly think that the U.S. government is broken - though the public overwhelmingly holds out hope that what's broken can be fixed.
Do not be mislead by Fuax Noise and Rasmussen. And do not let yourself be too carried away with this CNN deal either. Most of this sentiment has been stirred up by the Tea Baggers and is the worst form of mob rule democracy. And it is this sort of incitement to riot that makes many people want to reduce the representation and embrace authoritarianism. Fear is a two edged sword.]]>According to CNN poll numbers released Sunday, Americans overwhelmingly think that the U.S. government is broken - though the public overwhelmingly holds out hope that what's broken can be fixed.
According to CNN poll numbers released Sunday, Americans overwhelmingly think that the U.S. government is broken - though the public overwhelmingly holds out hope that what's broken can be fixed.
According to CNN poll numbers released Sunday, Americans overwhelmingly think that the U.S. government is broken - though the public overwhelmingly holds out hope that what's broken can be fixed.
Do we have any idea why, after the discovery of the error and subsequent failure of the first amendment, the Framers didn't correct the amendment's wording and resubmit it for a new vote?]]>JEQuidam wrote:Had the wording of Article the first not been sabotaged in the waning hours of the first Congress, it would have been ratified and our beautiful republic would not be in the peril it is today.
Do we have any idea why, after the discovery of the error and subsequent failure of the first amendment, the Framers didn't correct the amendment's wording and resubmit it for a new vote?]]>JEQuidam wrote:Had the wording of Article the first not been sabotaged in the waning hours of the first Congress, it would have been ratified and our beautiful republic would not be in the peril it is today.
Rasmussen poll: New Low: 17% Say U.S. Government Has Consent of the Governed (August 7, 2011)]]>Only eight percent (8%) believe the average member of Congress listens to his or her constituents more than to their party leaders. ... Eighty-four percent (84%) think the average congressman listens to party leaders more than the voters they represent. ... Fifty-five percent (55%) of the Political Class, on the other hand, feel the government does have the consent of the governed.
Rasmussen poll: New Low: 17% Say U.S. Government Has Consent of the Governed (August 7, 2011)]]>Only eight percent (8%) believe the average member of Congress listens to his or her constituents more than to their party leaders. ... Eighty-four percent (84%) think the average congressman listens to party leaders more than the voters they represent. ... Fifty-five percent (55%) of the Political Class, on the other hand, feel the government does have the consent of the governed.
Are you saying that the only way to change this (so that only citizens are counted) would be through a constitutional amendment? So if Congress did enact such a law, SCOTUS may rule that law to be unconstitutional?HouseSizeWonk wrote:The apportionment figure must include illegal aliens and other noncitizens due to constitutional imperative. ...
Are you saying that the only way to change this (so that only citizens are counted) would be through a constitutional amendment? So if Congress did enact such a law, SCOTUS may rule that law to be unconstitutional?HouseSizeWonk wrote:The apportionment figure must include illegal aliens and other noncitizens due to constitutional imperative. ...
Are you saying that the only way to change this (so that only citizens are counted) would be through a constitutional amendment? So if Congress did enact such a law, SCOTUS may rule that law to be unconstitutional?HouseSizeWonk wrote:The apportionment figure must include illegal aliens and other noncitizens due to constitutional imperative. ...
Are you saying that the only way to change this (so that only citizens are counted) would be through a constitutional amendment? So if Congress did enact such a law, SCOTUS may rule that law to be unconstitutional?HouseSizeWonk wrote:The apportionment figure must include illegal aliens and other noncitizens due to constitutional imperative. ...
Paul, that would be a great graph! In fact, that's such a good idea, I wouldn't be surprised if somebody already did it.The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position.
Paul, that would be a great graph! In fact, that's such a good idea, I wouldn't be surprised if somebody already did it.The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position.
One delegate shall be elected from each hsien, municipality, or area of equivalent status. In case its population exceeds 500,000, one additional delegate shall be elected for each additional 500,000.
One delegate shall be elected from each hsien, municipality, or area of equivalent status. In case its population exceeds 500,000, one additional delegate shall be elected for each additional 500,000.
Yes, that's why we're making money mostly irrelevant via small districts. It's also why many of us separately support a repeal of the 17th Amendment.FiddlerBob wrote:Politicians are heavily pressured to "follow the money" and tend to serve whoever provides it.
Really? So if I run for office and all my friends and family happen to live outside my gerrymandered district, none of them can support my dream so that I can simply let voters know I exist? Get real. This would be awful. The solution to authoritarian problems is rarely the creation of more authoritarian law. Anyone from anywhere should be allowed to donate and help publicize campaigns. Donations should be transparent, but we should not put additional limits on charity and freedom.FiddlerBob wrote:A politician should be allowed to accept donations only from individual citizens who reside within his constituency.
This detail is a minor financial one that does not need to be in the Constitution. People like their Constitution clean and simple, not muddied with minutia. Eliminating "Golden Parachutes" is as simple as electing Representatives via small Congressional districts and forcing them to change the law. If they don't vote as they were elected to do, the small district's constituents will easily and quickly not re-elect them; and with such short terms in the House and the Representative's desire for re-election, the "Golden Parachute" law would be changed relatively quickly for all future Representatives.]]>FiddlerBob wrote:Further, elected officials are paid well enough to provide for their own retirement programs and health care. Eliminate their "Golden Parachutes" and a lot of other perks and we'll get more patriots and fewer parasites in office.
Yes, that's why we're making money mostly irrelevant via small districts. It's also why many of us separately support a repeal of the 17th Amendment.FiddlerBob wrote:Politicians are heavily pressured to "follow the money" and tend to serve whoever provides it.
Really? So if I run for office and all my friends and family happen to live outside my gerrymandered district, none of them can support my dream so that I can simply let voters know I exist? Get real. This would be awful. The solution to authoritarian problems is rarely the creation of more authoritarian law. Anyone from anywhere should be allowed to donate and help publicize campaigns. Donations should be transparent, but we should not put additional limits on charity and freedom.FiddlerBob wrote:A politician should be allowed to accept donations only from individual citizens who reside within his constituency.
This detail is a minor financial one that does not need to be in the Constitution. People like their Constitution clean and simple, not muddied with minutia. Eliminating "Golden Parachutes" is as simple as electing Representatives via small Congressional districts and forcing them to change the law. If they don't vote as they were elected to do, the small district's constituents will easily and quickly not re-elect them; and with such short terms in the House and the Representative's desire for re-election, the "Golden Parachute" law would be changed relatively quickly for all future Representatives.]]>FiddlerBob wrote:Further, elected officials are paid well enough to provide for their own retirement programs and health care. Eliminate their "Golden Parachutes" and a lot of other perks and we'll get more patriots and fewer parasites in office.
Yes, that's why we're making money mostly irrelevant via small districts. It's also why many of us separately support a repeal of the 17th Amendment.FiddlerBob wrote:Politicians are heavily pressured to "follow the money" and tend to serve whoever provides it.
Yes, that's why we're making money mostly irrelevant via small districts. It's also why many of us separately support a repeal of the 17th Amendment.FiddlerBob wrote:Politicians are heavily pressured to "follow the money" and tend to serve whoever provides it.
*In Search of Self-GovernanceScott Rasmussen wrote:Political activists routinely snicker about the fact that most Americans can’t even name their own representative in Congress. To political junkies, who view these elected politicians as princes or petty monarchs, this is a sure sign of public ignorance. From a different perspective, it’s a bit like not knowing the names of the cool kids in junior high school.
But, like junior high school students worried about hanging with the cool kids, political activists are so wrapped up in their own world that they miss a very basic point – there’s no reason that most people should know who represents their districts in Congress. It might help in a game of Trivial Pursuit, but what difference does it make in the real world?
Knowing the name of your District’s rep in Congress is certainly not going to give you any influence over how that person acts or votes. Unless you’re a close friend, lobbyist, or big donor, they’re not going to pick up the phone when you call.
And if you need help from a Congressional office, you don’t need to know your Congressman’s name. Congress has set up a web service where you can enter your zip code and they’ll connect you with the appropriate office staff. All legislators are happy to help, especially since their constituent services are paid for by taxpayers.
What about elections and voting? Well, about 90% of Americans live in Congressional Districts specifically designed to avoid competitive races and offer no meaningful choice to voters. Incumbents like it that way. But, if there’s no meaningful choice, knowing the name of your representative doesn’t matter even on Election Day.
Activists from both political parties like to discourage talk about the way elections are essentially rigged for one party or the other. They tend to trot out the tired cliché that “voters hate Congress but love their own Congressman.” They intentionally overlook the obvious contradiction that people can’t love their elected officials if they don’t know their name. Deep down they know the truth. Legislators win reelection for the same reasons that casinos make money: they write the rules.*
*In Search of Self-GovernanceScott Rasmussen wrote:Political activists routinely snicker about the fact that most Americans can’t even name their own representative in Congress. To political junkies, who view these elected politicians as princes or petty monarchs, this is a sure sign of public ignorance. From a different perspective, it’s a bit like not knowing the names of the cool kids in junior high school.
But, like junior high school students worried about hanging with the cool kids, political activists are so wrapped up in their own world that they miss a very basic point – there’s no reason that most people should know who represents their districts in Congress. It might help in a game of Trivial Pursuit, but what difference does it make in the real world?
Knowing the name of your District’s rep in Congress is certainly not going to give you any influence over how that person acts or votes. Unless you’re a close friend, lobbyist, or big donor, they’re not going to pick up the phone when you call.
And if you need help from a Congressional office, you don’t need to know your Congressman’s name. Congress has set up a web service where you can enter your zip code and they’ll connect you with the appropriate office staff. All legislators are happy to help, especially since their constituent services are paid for by taxpayers.
What about elections and voting? Well, about 90% of Americans live in Congressional Districts specifically designed to avoid competitive races and offer no meaningful choice to voters. Incumbents like it that way. But, if there’s no meaningful choice, knowing the name of your representative doesn’t matter even on Election Day.
Activists from both political parties like to discourage talk about the way elections are essentially rigged for one party or the other. They tend to trot out the tired cliché that “voters hate Congress but love their own Congressman.” They intentionally overlook the obvious contradiction that people can’t love their elected officials if they don’t know their name. Deep down they know the truth. Legislators win reelection for the same reasons that casinos make money: they write the rules.*
Which is precisely what the "Repeal Amendment" is intended to do! There are no perfect solutions, there are only better solutions. Representational enlargement, repealing the 17th, the "Repeal Amendment" are all compatible solutions that would improve our republic.dogtired wrote:We don't need new laws so much as we need getting rid of the bad ones.
Which is precisely what the "Repeal Amendment" is intended to do! There are no perfect solutions, there are only better solutions. Representational enlargement, repealing the 17th, the "Repeal Amendment" are all compatible solutions that would improve our republic.dogtired wrote:We don't need new laws so much as we need getting rid of the bad ones.
The more I think about it, the more I think I like it! I do believe there is more than "one practical difficulty", however. I really think that one of the main hurdles in making this a viable debate in the public square is that people will initially be apprehensive about the sheer size, and the logistical problems entailed. By keeping the majority at home, within their district, and bifurcating the responsibilities of the House, I think you kill multiple birds with a single stone. You lessen collusion and corruption, you make representatives more accessible, and solve the problem of where to put 6,000 bodies.jrb16915 wrote:There is one practical difficulty with the thirty-thousand.org proposed structure. Even 435 representatives is a lot of cooks stirring the legislative pot, 10,000 would be pretty unwieldy. I suggest leaving the Senate as is, but dividing the duties of the house between two tiers. The first tier would be similar in size to the current house. That group would be strictly limited to drafting legislation and advocating for it but would have no votes. They would be located in Washington as they are now. The second group would be the larger group 6k to 10k depending on whether you want 30k citizens per rep or 50k citizens per rep. This number would grow with the population. This group would not be located at home and would strictly be limited to voting on legislation.
The more I think about it, the more I think I like it! I do believe there is more than "one practical difficulty", however. I really think that one of the main hurdles in making this a viable debate in the public square is that people will initially be apprehensive about the sheer size, and the logistical problems entailed. By keeping the majority at home, within their district, and bifurcating the responsibilities of the House, I think you kill multiple birds with a single stone. You lessen collusion and corruption, you make representatives more accessible, and solve the problem of where to put 6,000 bodies.jrb16915 wrote:There is one practical difficulty with the thirty-thousand.org proposed structure. Even 435 representatives is a lot of cooks stirring the legislative pot, 10,000 would be pretty unwieldy. I suggest leaving the Senate as is, but dividing the duties of the house between two tiers. The first tier would be similar in size to the current house. That group would be strictly limited to drafting legislation and advocating for it but would have no votes. They would be located in Washington as they are now. The second group would be the larger group 6k to 10k depending on whether you want 30k citizens per rep or 50k citizens per rep. This number would grow with the population. This group would not be located at home and would strictly be limited to voting on legislation.
The Luddites have already lost this battlesbozich wrote:I am wary of leaning too hard on technology...
The Luddites have already lost this battlesbozich wrote:I am wary of leaning too hard on technology...
But there will be regional differences in regard to both the entrée options and the choice of candidates! A district (or a restaurant) in Manhattan would have very different candidates (or entrées) than a restaurant in the San Fran bay area or down here in Georgia.Pseudolus wrote:For example, if we're all at dinner together and can only voice one opinion for one dish meant to be served family style among us, Duverger's Law holds true. If I truly want to order (a) osso bucco, but believe osso bucco has a snowball's chance in hades of winning the vote over something as mainstream as (b) pizza or (c) pasta. Then I'm less likely to vote for (a) osso bucco, because I want my vote to matter in a close race between (b) pizza versus (c) pasta. Therefore, I'm no longer going to vote sincerely for (a) in the choice of dinner but instead will choose the less desirable, but more palatable between (b) and (c). Hence, pizza and pasta are now examples of Duverger's Law in effect at something even as small as the dinner table.
But there will be regional differences in regard to both the entrée options and the choice of candidates! A district (or a restaurant) in Manhattan would have very different candidates (or entrées) than a restaurant in the San Fran bay area or down here in Georgia.Pseudolus wrote:For example, if we're all at dinner together and can only voice one opinion for one dish meant to be served family style among us, Duverger's Law holds true. If I truly want to order (a) osso bucco, but believe osso bucco has a snowball's chance in hades of winning the vote over something as mainstream as (b) pizza or (c) pasta. Then I'm less likely to vote for (a) osso bucco, because I want my vote to matter in a close race between (b) pizza versus (c) pasta. Therefore, I'm no longer going to vote sincerely for (a) in the choice of dinner but instead will choose the less desirable, but more palatable between (b) and (c). Hence, pizza and pasta are now examples of Duverger's Law in effect at something even as small as the dinner table.
I wonder if NH has any state laws mandating party affiliation in order to get onto the ballot; that is a problem in many states which helps to maintain the political duopoly.Pseudolus wrote:Indeed the regional menus may change (though this is highly doubtful considering NH's General Court has legislative districts as small as 3,000ppl. and yet still has not one third party candidates in office--instead only Republicans and Democrats)
In this case I have the data, which was carefully developed. The two-party phenomenon did not really arise until some time after the "Civil War". See this chart: Political Party Composition of the House. Note that it's a percentage chart, and the "N/A" in the earlier years are federal Representatives with no party affiliation.]]>Pseudolus wrote:This was a problem that existed (though it wasn't yet fully understood) even in our Founders' time of small Congressional districts...
I wonder if NH has any state laws mandating party affiliation in order to get onto the ballot; that is a problem in many states which helps to maintain the political duopoly.Pseudolus wrote:Indeed the regional menus may change (though this is highly doubtful considering NH's General Court has legislative districts as small as 3,000ppl. and yet still has not one third party candidates in office--instead only Republicans and Democrats)
In this case I have the data, which was carefully developed. The two-party phenomenon did not really arise until some time after the "Civil War". See this chart: Political Party Composition of the House. Note that it's a percentage chart, and the "N/A" in the earlier years are federal Representatives with no party affiliation.]]>Pseudolus wrote:This was a problem that existed (though it wasn't yet fully understood) even in our Founders' time of small Congressional districts...
Given that voting methodology has been studied in nearly every country throughout history, I'm quite certain there's been more than enough research on this topic--though I'm not certain the wealth of research will prove conclusively convincing to us on either supposition (even if we had the time to review it all).JEQuidam wrote:Pseudolus, there may not be enough data available to establish a firm proof for your views or mine. We have dueling suppositions. We have both raised several questions worthy of academic scrutiny.
Given that voting methodology has been studied in nearly every country throughout history, I'm quite certain there's been more than enough research on this topic--though I'm not certain the wealth of research will prove conclusively convincing to us on either supposition (even if we had the time to review it all).JEQuidam wrote:Pseudolus, there may not be enough data available to establish a firm proof for your views or mine. We have dueling suppositions. We have both raised several questions worthy of academic scrutiny.
I did not assert that New Hampshire's anti-minority party laws "disproves" Duverger's theory! Instead, I was pointing out that NH's barrier to new political parties reasonably explains why there are only Democrats and Republicans in their state legislature. Perhaps if such barriers did not exist then there would still only be Democrats and Republicans in the NH legislature, but few people believe that would be so (and I certainly don't).Pseudolus wrote:Ballot access is merely a red-herring in disproving Duverger.
Having studied Duverger's Law a bit, I can assure you without a doubt that there is an overwhelming body of data to prove conclusively your supposition or mine; we only need to pour through that data to discover the truth. It's exactly the magnitude of the data that causes me to be unable to tell you conclusively which is the correct supposition (yours or mine), because I haven't yet been able to sift through so much information. People need not run through their own thought experiments to reach a conclusion, they merely need to review the well-documented experiments of others.JEQuidam wrote:I suspect that the Duverger effect does not become noticeable until the average district size reaches a certain level, and thereafter it becomes increasingly applicable as the districts grow larger. However, in the absence of an adequate body of data to conclusively prove your supposition or mine, I think people will have to run their own thought experiments in order to reach a conclusion.
I did not assert that New Hampshire's anti-minority party laws "disproves" Duverger's theory! Instead, I was pointing out that NH's barrier to new political parties reasonably explains why there are only Democrats and Republicans in their state legislature. Perhaps if such barriers did not exist then there would still only be Democrats and Republicans in the NH legislature, but few people believe that would be so (and I certainly don't).Pseudolus wrote:Ballot access is merely a red-herring in disproving Duverger.
Having studied Duverger's Law a bit, I can assure you without a doubt that there is an overwhelming body of data to prove conclusively your supposition or mine; we only need to pour through that data to discover the truth. It's exactly the magnitude of the data that causes me to be unable to tell you conclusively which is the correct supposition (yours or mine), because I haven't yet been able to sift through so much information. People need not run through their own thought experiments to reach a conclusion, they merely need to review the well-documented experiments of others.JEQuidam wrote:I suspect that the Duverger effect does not become noticeable until the average district size reaches a certain level, and thereafter it becomes increasingly applicable as the districts grow larger. However, in the absence of an adequate body of data to conclusively prove your supposition or mine, I think people will have to run their own thought experiments in order to reach a conclusion.
What the frick is this?! Didn't I expressly say above that I believe Duverger's Law begins taking affect the moment there are three voters? Would you also explain to a returning Christopher Columbus that the humans he met in New World don't actually exist because people can't live in the ocean? He's not claiming they live in the ocean!JEQuidam wrote:Allow me to make the hypothetical more extreme. Imagine that we had 1-person districts; in other words, a "direct democracy" relative to legislative matters. ... In this case, it is manifestly clear that we would not have a party system since each of us elect ourselves to participate (or not).
...
Now let's create 2-person districts. There are only two of you; for example, the two adults who head a household, or two roommates. There obviously will not be a party-affiliation requirement in order to choose which of you will be the Representative. You'll flip coins, take turns, or whatever.
First off, I find it completely disrespectful for you to toss nonchalantly aside ALL political science, psychological, and mathematical study on voting methodology for the past 60 years post-Duverger without any real research or understanding into what makes Duverger's "principle" accepted as Law according to everyone else who has studied it. UGH!JEQuidam wrote:You can't possibly believe that when there are three of you, or four, or five, that it will become inevitable that all of you suddenly become Republicans or Democrats, unless you think people are mindless robots (I don't). Within your tiny district, a majority of you will simply vote for the person who is the most likely to reliably represent your values and interests. As I said above, I have no doubt that this state of party-irrelevance will hold true for 10, 100, and much larger districts. We can debate where Duverger's Principle begins to take effect, and at what point it becomes "law".
What the frick is this?! Didn't I expressly say above that I believe Duverger's Law begins taking affect the moment there are three voters? Would you also explain to a returning Christopher Columbus that the humans he met in New World don't actually exist because people can't live in the ocean? He's not claiming they live in the ocean!JEQuidam wrote:Allow me to make the hypothetical more extreme. Imagine that we had 1-person districts; in other words, a "direct democracy" relative to legislative matters. ... In this case, it is manifestly clear that we would not have a party system since each of us elect ourselves to participate (or not).
...
Now let's create 2-person districts. There are only two of you; for example, the two adults who head a household, or two roommates. There obviously will not be a party-affiliation requirement in order to choose which of you will be the Representative. You'll flip coins, take turns, or whatever.
First off, I find it completely disrespectful for you to toss nonchalantly aside ALL political science, psychological, and mathematical study on voting methodology for the past 60 years post-Duverger without any real research or understanding into what makes Duverger's "principle" accepted as Law according to everyone else who has studied it. UGH!JEQuidam wrote:You can't possibly believe that when there are three of you, or four, or five, that it will become inevitable that all of you suddenly become Republicans or Democrats, unless you think people are mindless robots (I don't). Within your tiny district, a majority of you will simply vote for the person who is the most likely to reliably represent your values and interests. As I said above, I have no doubt that this state of party-irrelevance will hold true for 10, 100, and much larger districts. We can debate where Duverger's Principle begins to take effect, and at what point it becomes "law".
I understand game theory. I understand there is "politics" whenever you have three or more people. It seems to me that we are talking past each other because you are discussing microeconomic principles and I'm discussing macroeconomics, so to speak.Pseudolus wrote:Example: There are three of us (JEQ, Pseudolus, and DogTired) and three dinner options (pasta, steak, salad). JEQ sincerely wants pasta; Pseudolus sincerely wants steak; DogTired sincerely wants salad...
I understand game theory. I understand there is "politics" whenever you have three or more people. It seems to me that we are talking past each other because you are discussing microeconomic principles and I'm discussing macroeconomics, so to speak.Pseudolus wrote:Example: There are three of us (JEQ, Pseudolus, and DogTired) and three dinner options (pasta, steak, salad). JEQ sincerely wants pasta; Pseudolus sincerely wants steak; DogTired sincerely wants salad...
JEQuidam wrote:I only meant that an amendment is required for any changes to the voting method relative to federal elections, not local elections. The alternative methods referenced in your initial post, or the "several rounds of voting" method mentioned by dogtired, would require an amendment to be implemented for federal elections. It's not even possible to implement term limits on federal representatives without an amendment. And if a solution requires an amendment to be implemented then I'm not really interested in discussing it, because (I believe) it would be a futile effort, even if I thought they were good ideas (which I don't).
For someone "not interested" in talking about an amendment, it seems you keep bringing it up. Let it go! No one else is speaking of an amendment in this thread but you!JEQuidam wrote:I was just commenting that: I'm generally not interested in discussing solutions that would require an amendment, such as multiple runoffs, term limits etc.
That's perhaps true, no argument; but how are you going to get Congress to increase the House first, hmmm? You're trying to swallow a freakin' whale! You know the duopoly of Congress is going to fight to keep their numbers small; it's in their interest to do so (because it increases their power and maintains their controlling duopoly). It'll first take massive simultaneous national support to increase 435 Reps; and how are you first going to get that massive simultaneous national support? It'll be about as difficult as passing a Constitutional Amendment (which I know you love to hate to discuss).JEQuidam wrote:Even if there would be, as you said above, "two-party dominance in individual districts", even tiny districts, that does not mean it would be the same two parties nationwide! In a liberal district near San Fran, there might be 2-party domination by the Greens and the Democrats. In a conservative district in Georgia, it might be the Constitution Party and the Republicans. In another district in Texas it might be Libertarians vs. the Constitution Party. In a small district in Wisconsin, it might be the Progressive Party vs. the Socialists. None of that would concern me, because the result would be a diversity of parties and independents in the federal legislature.
Exactly! That's the only reason this method is worth discussing: because it can be implemented on a micro-scale! We don't need massive simultaneous national support like we would with House enlargement. We don't need a Constitutional Amendment like we would in the Senate. We only need to persuade one small local district once. That's a reachable goal!JEQuidam wrote:It seems to me that we are talking past each other because you are discussing microeconomic principles and I'm discussing macroeconomics, so to speak.
JEQuidam wrote:I only meant that an amendment is required for any changes to the voting method relative to federal elections, not local elections. The alternative methods referenced in your initial post, or the "several rounds of voting" method mentioned by dogtired, would require an amendment to be implemented for federal elections. It's not even possible to implement term limits on federal representatives without an amendment. And if a solution requires an amendment to be implemented then I'm not really interested in discussing it, because (I believe) it would be a futile effort, even if I thought they were good ideas (which I don't).
For someone "not interested" in talking about an amendment, it seems you keep bringing it up. Let it go! No one else is speaking of an amendment in this thread but you!JEQuidam wrote:I was just commenting that: I'm generally not interested in discussing solutions that would require an amendment, such as multiple runoffs, term limits etc.
That's perhaps true, no argument; but how are you going to get Congress to increase the House first, hmmm? You're trying to swallow a freakin' whale! You know the duopoly of Congress is going to fight to keep their numbers small; it's in their interest to do so (because it increases their power and maintains their controlling duopoly). It'll first take massive simultaneous national support to increase 435 Reps; and how are you first going to get that massive simultaneous national support? It'll be about as difficult as passing a Constitutional Amendment (which I know you love to hate to discuss).JEQuidam wrote:Even if there would be, as you said above, "two-party dominance in individual districts", even tiny districts, that does not mean it would be the same two parties nationwide! In a liberal district near San Fran, there might be 2-party domination by the Greens and the Democrats. In a conservative district in Georgia, it might be the Constitution Party and the Republicans. In another district in Texas it might be Libertarians vs. the Constitution Party. In a small district in Wisconsin, it might be the Progressive Party vs. the Socialists. None of that would concern me, because the result would be a diversity of parties and independents in the federal legislature.
Exactly! That's the only reason this method is worth discussing: because it can be implemented on a micro-scale! We don't need massive simultaneous national support like we would with House enlargement. We don't need a Constitutional Amendment like we would in the Senate. We only need to persuade one small local district once. That's a reachable goal!JEQuidam wrote:It seems to me that we are talking past each other because you are discussing microeconomic principles and I'm discussing macroeconomics, so to speak.
Code: Select all
State Seats Population Ratio State Seats Population Ratio
Alabama 7 +0 4779736 682819 Alaska 1 +0 710231 710231
AmerSamoa 0 +0 65628 0 Arizona 9 +0 6392017 710224
Arkansas 4 +0 2915918 728979 California 53 +0 37593222 709306
Colorado 7 +0 5029196 718456 Connecticut 5 +0 3574097 714819
Delaware 1 +0 900877 900877 Florida 27 +0 18801310 696344
Georgia 14 +0 9687653 691975 Guam 0 +0 178430 0
Hawaii 2 +0 1360301 680150 Idaho 2 +0 1567582 783791
Illinois 18 +0 12830632 712812 Indiana 9 +0 6483802 720422
Iowa 4 +0 3046355 761588 Kansas 4 +0 2853118 713279
Kentucky 6 +0 4339367 723227 Louisiana 6 +0 4533372 755562
Maine 2 +0 1328361 664180 Maryland 8 +0 5773552 721694
Massachusetts 9 +0 6547629 727514 Michigan 14 +0 9883640 705974
Minnesota 8 +0 5303925 662990 Mississippi 4 +0 2967297 741824
Missouri 8 +0 5988927 748615 Montana 1 +0 999243 999243
Nebraska 3 +0 1826341 608780 Nevada 4 +0 2700551 675137
NewHampshire 2 +0 1316470 658235 NewJersey 12 +0 8791894 732657
NewMexico 3 +0 2059179 686393 NewYork 27 +0 19378102 717707
No.MarinaIsl 0 +0 88662 0 NorthCarolina 13 +0 9535483 733498
NorthDakota 1 +0 672591 672591 Ohio 16 +0 11536504 721031
Oklahoma 5 +0 3751351 750270 Oregon 5 +0 3831074 766214
Pennsylvania 18 +0 12702379 705687 PuertoRico 0 +0 3725789 0
RhodeIsland 2 +0 1052567 526283 SouthCarolina 7 +0 4625364 660766
SouthDakota 1 +0 814180 814180 Tennessee 9 +0 6346105 705122
Texas 36 +0 25145561 698487 USTerritories 0 +0 442545 0
USVirgin 0 +0 109825 0 Utah 4 +0 2763885 690971
Vermont 1 +0 625741 625741 Virginia 11 +0 8001024 727365
Washington 10 +0 6724540 672454 WashingtonDC 0 +0 601723 0
WestVirginia 3 +0 1852994 617664 Wisconsin 8 +0 5686986 710873
Wyoming 1 +0 600456 600456
Represented Persons = 308532682, Total Seats = 435, US Ratio = 709270
Max is Montana at 999243, Min is RhodeIsland at 526283
Max/Min = 1.899
Code: Select all
State Seats Population Ratio State Seats Population Ratio
Alabama 163 +156 4779736 29323 Alaska 24 +23 710231 29592
AmerSamoa 0 +0 65628 0 Arizona 218 +209 6392017 29321
Arkansas 100 +96 2915918 29159 California 1283 +1230 37593222 29301
Colorado 172 +165 5029196 29239 Connecticut 122 +117 3574097 29295
Delaware 31 +30 900877 29060 Florida 642 +615 18801310 29285
Georgia 331 +317 9687653 29267 Guam 0 +0 178430 0
Hawaii 46 +44 1360301 29571 Idaho 54 +52 1567582 29029
Illinois 438 +420 12830632 29293 Indiana 221 +212 6483802 29338
Iowa 104 +100 3046355 29291 Kansas 97 +93 2853118 29413
Kentucky 148 +142 4339367 29320 Louisiana 155 +149 4533372 29247
Maine 45 +43 1328361 29519 Maryland 197 +189 5773552 29307
Massachusetts 223 +214 6547629 29361 Michigan 337 +323 9883640 29328
Minnesota 181 +173 5303925 29303 Mississippi 101 +97 2967297 29379
Missouri 204 +196 5988927 29357 Montana 34 +33 999243 29389
Nebraska 62 +59 1826341 29457 Nevada 92 +88 2700551 29353
NewHampshire 45 +43 1316470 29254 NewJersey 300 +288 8791894 29306
NewMexico 70 +67 2059179 29416 NewYork 661 +634 19378102 29316
No.MarinaIsl 0 +0 88662 0 NorthCarolina 325 +312 9535483 29339
NorthDakota 23 +22 672591 29243 Ohio 394 +378 11536504 29280
Oklahoma 128 +123 3751351 29307 Oregon 131 +126 3831074 29244
Pennsylvania 434 +416 12702379 29268 PuertoRico 0 +0 3725789 0
RhodeIsland 36 +34 1052567 29237 SouthCarolina 158 +151 4625364 29274
SouthDakota 28 +27 814180 29077 Tennessee 217 +208 6346105 29244
Texas 858 +822 25145561 29307 USTerritories 0 +0 442545 0
USVirgin 0 +0 109825 0 Utah 94 +90 2763885 29403
Vermont 21 +20 625741 29797 Virginia 273 +262 8001024 29307
Washington 230 +220 6724540 29237 WashingtonDC 0 +0 601723 0
WestVirginia 63 +60 1852994 29412 Wisconsin 194 +186 5686986 29314
Wyoming 21 +20 600456 28593
Represented Persons = 308532682, Total Seats = 10529, US Ratio = 29303
Max is Vermont at 29797, Min is Wyoming at 28593
Max/Min = 1.042
Code: Select all
State Seats Population Ratio State Seats Population Ratio
Alabama 21 +14 4779736 227606 Alaska 3 +2 710231 236743
AmerSamoa 0 +0 65628 0 Arizona 29 +20 6392017 220414
Arkansas 13 +9 2915918 224301 California 168 +115 37593222 223769
Colorado 23 +16 5029196 218660 Connecticut 16 +11 3574097 223381
Delaware 4 +3 900877 225219 Florida 84 +57 18801310 223825
Georgia 43 +29 9687653 225294 Guam 0 +0 178430 0
Hawaii 6 +4 1360301 226716 Idaho 7 +5 1567582 223940
Illinois 57 +39 12830632 225098 Indiana 29 +20 6483802 223579
Iowa 14 +10 3046355 217596 Kansas 13 +9 2853118 219470
Kentucky 19 +13 4339367 228387 Louisiana 20 +14 4533372 226668
Maine 6 +4 1328361 221393 Maryland 26 +18 5773552 222059
Massachusetts 29 +20 6547629 225780 Michigan 44 +30 9883640 224628
Minnesota 24 +16 5303925 220996 Mississippi 13 +9 2967297 228253
Missouri 27 +19 5988927 221812 Montana 5 +4 999243 199848
Nebraska 8 +5 1826341 228292 Nevada 12 +8 2700551 225045
NewHampshire 6 +4 1316470 219411 NewJersey 39 +27 8791894 225433
NewMexico 9 +6 2059179 228797 NewYork 87 +60 19378102 222736
No.MarinaIsl 0 +0 88662 0 NorthCarolina 43 +30 9535483 221755
NorthDakota 3 +2 672591 224197 Ohio 52 +36 11536504 221855
Oklahoma 17 +12 3751351 220667 Oregon 17 +12 3831074 225357
Pennsylvania 57 +39 12702379 222848 PuertoRico 0 +0 3725789 0
RhodeIsland 5 +3 1052567 210513 SouthCarolina 21 +14 4625364 220255
SouthDakota 4 +3 814180 203545 Tennessee 28 +19 6346105 226646
Texas 113 +77 25145561 222527 USTerritories 0 +0 442545 0
USVirgin 0 +0 109825 0 Utah 12 +8 2763885 230323
Vermont 3 +2 625741 208580 Virginia 36 +25 8001024 222250
Washington 30 +20 6724540 224151 WashingtonDC 0 +0 601723 0
WestVirginia 8 +5 1852994 231624 Wisconsin 25 +17 5686986 227479
Wyoming 3 +2 600456 200152
Represented Persons = 308532682, Total Seats = 1381, US Ratio = 223412
Max is Alaska at 236743, Min is Montana at 199848
Max/Min = 1.185
Code: Select all
State Seats Population Ratio State Seats Population Ratio
Alabama 7 +0 4779736 682819 Alaska 1 +0 710231 710231
AmerSamoa 0 +0 65628 0 Arizona 9 +0 6392017 710224
Arkansas 4 +0 2915918 728979 California 52 -1 37593222 722946
Colorado 7 +0 5029196 718456 Connecticut 5 +0 3574097 714819
Delaware 1 +0 900877 900877 Florida 26 -1 18801310 723127
Georgia 14 +0 9687653 691975 Guam 0 +0 178430 0
Hawaii 2 +0 1360301 680150 Idaho 2 +0 1567582 783791
Illinois 18 +0 12830632 712812 Indiana 9 +0 6483802 720422
Iowa 4 +0 3046355 761588 Kansas 4 +0 2853118 713279
Kentucky 6 +0 4339367 723227 Louisiana 6 +0 4533372 755562
Maine 2 +0 1328361 664180 Maryland 8 +0 5773552 721694
Massachusetts 9 +0 6547629 727514 Michigan 14 +0 9883640 705974
Minnesota 7 -1 5303925 757703 Mississippi 4 +0 2967297 741824
Missouri 8 +0 5988927 748615 Montana 1 +0 999243 999243
Nebraska 3 +0 1826341 608780 Nevada 4 +0 2700551 675137
NewHampshire 2 +0 1316470 658235 NewJersey 12 +0 8791894 732657
NewMexico 3 +0 2059179 686393 NewYork 27 +0 19378102 717707
No.MarinaIsl 0 +0 88662 0 NorthCarolina 13 +0 9535483 733498
NorthDakota 1 +0 672591 672591 Ohio 16 +0 11536504 721031
Oklahoma 5 +0 3751351 750270 Oregon 5 +0 3831074 766214
Pennsylvania 18 +0 12702379 705687 PuertoRico 5 +5 3725789 745157
RhodeIsland 2 +0 1052567 526283 SouthCarolina 6 -1 4625364 770894
SouthDakota 1 +0 814180 814180 Tennessee 9 +0 6346105 705122
Texas 35 -1 25145561 718444 USTerritories 0 +0 442545 0
USVirgin 0 +0 109825 0 Utah 4 +0 2763885 690971
Vermont 1 +0 625741 625741 Virginia 11 +0 8001024 727365
Washington 9 -1 6724540 747171 WashingtonDC 1 +1 601723 601723
WestVirginia 3 +0 1852994 617664 Wisconsin 8 +0 5686986 710873
Wyoming 1 +0 600456 600456
Represented Persons = 312860194, Total Seats = 435, US Ratio = 719218
Max is Montana at 999243, Min is RhodeIsland at 526283
Max/Min = 1.899
Code: Select all
State Seats Population Ratio State Seats Population Ratio
Alabama 7 +0 4779736 682819 Alaska 1 +0 710231 710231
AmerSamoa 0 +0 65628 0 Arizona 9 +0 6392017 710224
Arkansas 4 +0 2915918 728979 California 53 +0 37593222 709306
Colorado 7 +0 5029196 718456 Connecticut 5 +0 3574097 714819
Delaware 1 +0 900877 900877 Florida 27 +0 18801310 696344
Georgia 14 +0 9687653 691975 Guam 0 +0 178430 0
Hawaii 2 +0 1360301 680150 Idaho 2 +0 1567582 783791
Illinois 18 +0 12830632 712812 Indiana 9 +0 6483802 720422
Iowa 4 +0 3046355 761588 Kansas 4 +0 2853118 713279
Kentucky 6 +0 4339367 723227 Louisiana 6 +0 4533372 755562
Maine 2 +0 1328361 664180 Maryland 8 +0 5773552 721694
Massachusetts 9 +0 6547629 727514 Michigan 14 +0 9883640 705974
Minnesota 8 +0 5303925 662990 Mississippi 4 +0 2967297 741824
Missouri 8 +0 5988927 748615 Montana 1 +0 999243 999243
Nebraska 3 +0 1826341 608780 Nevada 4 +0 2700551 675137
NewHampshire 2 +0 1316470 658235 NewJersey 12 +0 8791894 732657
NewMexico 3 +0 2059179 686393 NewYork 27 +0 19378102 717707
No.MarinaIsl 0 +0 88662 0 NorthCarolina 13 +0 9535483 733498
NorthDakota 1 +0 672591 672591 Ohio 16 +0 11536504 721031
Oklahoma 5 +0 3751351 750270 Oregon 5 +0 3831074 766214
Pennsylvania 18 +0 12702379 705687 PuertoRico 0 +0 3725789 0
RhodeIsland 2 +0 1052567 526283 SouthCarolina 7 +0 4625364 660766
SouthDakota 1 +0 814180 814180 Tennessee 9 +0 6346105 705122
Texas 36 +0 25145561 698487 USTerritories 0 +0 442545 0
USVirgin 0 +0 109825 0 Utah 4 +0 2763885 690971
Vermont 1 +0 625741 625741 Virginia 11 +0 8001024 727365
Washington 10 +0 6724540 672454 WashingtonDC 0 +0 601723 0
WestVirginia 3 +0 1852994 617664 Wisconsin 8 +0 5686986 710873
Wyoming 1 +0 600456 600456
Represented Persons = 308532682, Total Seats = 435, US Ratio = 709270
Max is Montana at 999243, Min is RhodeIsland at 526283
Max/Min = 1.899
Code: Select all
State Seats Population Ratio State Seats Population Ratio
Alabama 163 +156 4779736 29323 Alaska 24 +23 710231 29592
AmerSamoa 0 +0 65628 0 Arizona 218 +209 6392017 29321
Arkansas 100 +96 2915918 29159 California 1283 +1230 37593222 29301
Colorado 172 +165 5029196 29239 Connecticut 122 +117 3574097 29295
Delaware 31 +30 900877 29060 Florida 642 +615 18801310 29285
Georgia 331 +317 9687653 29267 Guam 0 +0 178430 0
Hawaii 46 +44 1360301 29571 Idaho 54 +52 1567582 29029
Illinois 438 +420 12830632 29293 Indiana 221 +212 6483802 29338
Iowa 104 +100 3046355 29291 Kansas 97 +93 2853118 29413
Kentucky 148 +142 4339367 29320 Louisiana 155 +149 4533372 29247
Maine 45 +43 1328361 29519 Maryland 197 +189 5773552 29307
Massachusetts 223 +214 6547629 29361 Michigan 337 +323 9883640 29328
Minnesota 181 +173 5303925 29303 Mississippi 101 +97 2967297 29379
Missouri 204 +196 5988927 29357 Montana 34 +33 999243 29389
Nebraska 62 +59 1826341 29457 Nevada 92 +88 2700551 29353
NewHampshire 45 +43 1316470 29254 NewJersey 300 +288 8791894 29306
NewMexico 70 +67 2059179 29416 NewYork 661 +634 19378102 29316
No.MarinaIsl 0 +0 88662 0 NorthCarolina 325 +312 9535483 29339
NorthDakota 23 +22 672591 29243 Ohio 394 +378 11536504 29280
Oklahoma 128 +123 3751351 29307 Oregon 131 +126 3831074 29244
Pennsylvania 434 +416 12702379 29268 PuertoRico 0 +0 3725789 0
RhodeIsland 36 +34 1052567 29237 SouthCarolina 158 +151 4625364 29274
SouthDakota 28 +27 814180 29077 Tennessee 217 +208 6346105 29244
Texas 858 +822 25145561 29307 USTerritories 0 +0 442545 0
USVirgin 0 +0 109825 0 Utah 94 +90 2763885 29403
Vermont 21 +20 625741 29797 Virginia 273 +262 8001024 29307
Washington 230 +220 6724540 29237 WashingtonDC 0 +0 601723 0
WestVirginia 63 +60 1852994 29412 Wisconsin 194 +186 5686986 29314
Wyoming 21 +20 600456 28593
Represented Persons = 308532682, Total Seats = 10529, US Ratio = 29303
Max is Vermont at 29797, Min is Wyoming at 28593
Max/Min = 1.042
Code: Select all
State Seats Population Ratio State Seats Population Ratio
Alabama 21 +14 4779736 227606 Alaska 3 +2 710231 236743
AmerSamoa 0 +0 65628 0 Arizona 29 +20 6392017 220414
Arkansas 13 +9 2915918 224301 California 168 +115 37593222 223769
Colorado 23 +16 5029196 218660 Connecticut 16 +11 3574097 223381
Delaware 4 +3 900877 225219 Florida 84 +57 18801310 223825
Georgia 43 +29 9687653 225294 Guam 0 +0 178430 0
Hawaii 6 +4 1360301 226716 Idaho 7 +5 1567582 223940
Illinois 57 +39 12830632 225098 Indiana 29 +20 6483802 223579
Iowa 14 +10 3046355 217596 Kansas 13 +9 2853118 219470
Kentucky 19 +13 4339367 228387 Louisiana 20 +14 4533372 226668
Maine 6 +4 1328361 221393 Maryland 26 +18 5773552 222059
Massachusetts 29 +20 6547629 225780 Michigan 44 +30 9883640 224628
Minnesota 24 +16 5303925 220996 Mississippi 13 +9 2967297 228253
Missouri 27 +19 5988927 221812 Montana 5 +4 999243 199848
Nebraska 8 +5 1826341 228292 Nevada 12 +8 2700551 225045
NewHampshire 6 +4 1316470 219411 NewJersey 39 +27 8791894 225433
NewMexico 9 +6 2059179 228797 NewYork 87 +60 19378102 222736
No.MarinaIsl 0 +0 88662 0 NorthCarolina 43 +30 9535483 221755
NorthDakota 3 +2 672591 224197 Ohio 52 +36 11536504 221855
Oklahoma 17 +12 3751351 220667 Oregon 17 +12 3831074 225357
Pennsylvania 57 +39 12702379 222848 PuertoRico 0 +0 3725789 0
RhodeIsland 5 +3 1052567 210513 SouthCarolina 21 +14 4625364 220255
SouthDakota 4 +3 814180 203545 Tennessee 28 +19 6346105 226646
Texas 113 +77 25145561 222527 USTerritories 0 +0 442545 0
USVirgin 0 +0 109825 0 Utah 12 +8 2763885 230323
Vermont 3 +2 625741 208580 Virginia 36 +25 8001024 222250
Washington 30 +20 6724540 224151 WashingtonDC 0 +0 601723 0
WestVirginia 8 +5 1852994 231624 Wisconsin 25 +17 5686986 227479
Wyoming 3 +2 600456 200152
Represented Persons = 308532682, Total Seats = 1381, US Ratio = 223412
Max is Alaska at 236743, Min is Montana at 199848
Max/Min = 1.185
Code: Select all
State Seats Population Ratio State Seats Population Ratio
Alabama 7 +0 4779736 682819 Alaska 1 +0 710231 710231
AmerSamoa 0 +0 65628 0 Arizona 9 +0 6392017 710224
Arkansas 4 +0 2915918 728979 California 52 -1 37593222 722946
Colorado 7 +0 5029196 718456 Connecticut 5 +0 3574097 714819
Delaware 1 +0 900877 900877 Florida 26 -1 18801310 723127
Georgia 14 +0 9687653 691975 Guam 0 +0 178430 0
Hawaii 2 +0 1360301 680150 Idaho 2 +0 1567582 783791
Illinois 18 +0 12830632 712812 Indiana 9 +0 6483802 720422
Iowa 4 +0 3046355 761588 Kansas 4 +0 2853118 713279
Kentucky 6 +0 4339367 723227 Louisiana 6 +0 4533372 755562
Maine 2 +0 1328361 664180 Maryland 8 +0 5773552 721694
Massachusetts 9 +0 6547629 727514 Michigan 14 +0 9883640 705974
Minnesota 7 -1 5303925 757703 Mississippi 4 +0 2967297 741824
Missouri 8 +0 5988927 748615 Montana 1 +0 999243 999243
Nebraska 3 +0 1826341 608780 Nevada 4 +0 2700551 675137
NewHampshire 2 +0 1316470 658235 NewJersey 12 +0 8791894 732657
NewMexico 3 +0 2059179 686393 NewYork 27 +0 19378102 717707
No.MarinaIsl 0 +0 88662 0 NorthCarolina 13 +0 9535483 733498
NorthDakota 1 +0 672591 672591 Ohio 16 +0 11536504 721031
Oklahoma 5 +0 3751351 750270 Oregon 5 +0 3831074 766214
Pennsylvania 18 +0 12702379 705687 PuertoRico 5 +5 3725789 745157
RhodeIsland 2 +0 1052567 526283 SouthCarolina 6 -1 4625364 770894
SouthDakota 1 +0 814180 814180 Tennessee 9 +0 6346105 705122
Texas 35 -1 25145561 718444 USTerritories 0 +0 442545 0
USVirgin 0 +0 109825 0 Utah 4 +0 2763885 690971
Vermont 1 +0 625741 625741 Virginia 11 +0 8001024 727365
Washington 9 -1 6724540 747171 WashingtonDC 1 +1 601723 601723
WestVirginia 3 +0 1852994 617664 Wisconsin 8 +0 5686986 710873
Wyoming 1 +0 600456 600456
Represented Persons = 312860194, Total Seats = 435, US Ratio = 719218
Max is Montana at 999243, Min is RhodeIsland at 526283
Max/Min = 1.899
Attachments
President Washington vetoed the first apportionment bill, because Congress was not aloting uniformed Representation ratio between all the States.Attachments
President Washington vetoed the first apportionment bill, because Congress was not aloting uniformed Representation ratio between all the States.Attachments
Attachments
President Washington provided two reasons. The most indisputable reason was that the Constitution specified that the district population size (as calculated) could not fall below 30,000. In Congress's first apportionment proposal, eight of the states had districts smaller than 30,000.USeagle wrote:Do you see why, President Washington vetoed the first Apportionment Bill!
President Washington provided two reasons. The most indisputable reason was that the Constitution specified that the district population size (as calculated) could not fall below 30,000. In Congress's first apportionment proposal, eight of the states had districts smaller than 30,000.USeagle wrote:Do you see why, President Washington vetoed the first Apportionment Bill!
Code: Select all
1911 1931 1921 1931
actual actual S.H.B. S.H.B.
------ ------- ------ ------
California 11 20 (+9) +3 +6
Connecticut 5 6 (+1) +1 -
Indiana 13 12 (-1) -1 -
Iowa 11 9 (-2) -1 -1
Kansas 8 7 (-1) -1 -
Kentucky 11 9 (-2) -1 -1
Louisiana 8 8 (-) -1 +1
Maine 4 3 (-1) -1 -
Michigan 13 17 (+4) +2 +2
Mississippi 8 7 (-1) -1 -
Missouri 16 13 (-3) -2 -1
Nebraska 6 5 (-1) -1 -
New Jersey 12 14 (+2) +1 +1
New Mexico 1 1 (-) +1 -1
New York 43 45 (+2) -1 +3
Ohio 22 24 (+2) +2 -
Texas 18 21 (+3) +1 +2
Virginia 10 9 (-1) -1 -
Washington 5 6 (+1) +1 -
Code: Select all
1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Alabama 8 +1 - +1 +1 +1
Arizona 1 +1 -
Arkansas 5 +1 +1 - +1 -
California 6 +1 +1 +3 +5 +10
Colorado 1 +1 +1 +1 - +1
Connecticut 4 - +1 - +1 +1
Delaware 1 - - - - -
Florida 2 - +1 +1 - +3
Georgia 10 +1 - +1 +1 -
Idaho 1 - +1 - -
Illinois 20 +2 +3 +2 +3 +5
Indiana 13 - - - - +2
Iowa 11 - - - - -
Kansas 7 +1 - - - +1
Kentucky 11 - - - - +1
Louisiana 6 - +1 +1 - +2
Maine 4 - - - - -
Maryland 6 - - - +1 -
Massachusetts 12 +1 +1 +2 +2 +1
Michigan 11 +1 - +1 +4 +5
Minnesota 5 +2 +2 +1 +1 +1
Mississippi 7 - +1 - - +1
Missouri 14 +1 +1 - - +1
Montana 1 - - +1 +1 -
Nebraska 3 +3 - - - -
Nevada 1 - - - - -
New Hampshire 2 - - - - -
New Jersey 7 +1 +2 +2 +2 +4
New Mexico 1 +1 -
New York 34 - +3 +6 +4 +10
North Carolina 9 - +1 - +2 +2
North Dakota 1 - +1 +1 - -
Ohio 21 - - +1 +4 +4
Oklahoma 8 +1 +2
Oregon 1 +1 - +1 +1 -
Pennsylvania 28 +2 +2 +4 +4 +4
Rhode Island 2 - - +1 - -
South Carolina 7 - - - +1 -
South Dakota 2 - - +1 - -
Tennessee 10 - - - +1 +1
Texas 11 +2 +3 +2 +3 +6
Utah 1 +1 - -
Vermont 2 - - - - -
Virginia 10 - - - +1 -
Washington 1 +1 +1 +2 +1 +1
West Virginia 4 - +1 +1 +1 +1
Wisconsin 9 +1 +1 - +1 +1
Wyoming 1 - - - -
Code: Select all
1911 1931 1921 1931
actual actual S.H.B. S.H.B.
------ ------- ------ ------
California 11 20 (+9) +3 +6
Connecticut 5 6 (+1) +1 -
Indiana 13 12 (-1) -1 -
Iowa 11 9 (-2) -1 -1
Kansas 8 7 (-1) -1 -
Kentucky 11 9 (-2) -1 -1
Louisiana 8 8 (-) -1 +1
Maine 4 3 (-1) -1 -
Michigan 13 17 (+4) +2 +2
Mississippi 8 7 (-1) -1 -
Missouri 16 13 (-3) -2 -1
Nebraska 6 5 (-1) -1 -
New Jersey 12 14 (+2) +1 +1
New Mexico 1 1 (-) +1 -1
New York 43 45 (+2) -1 +3
Ohio 22 24 (+2) +2 -
Texas 18 21 (+3) +1 +2
Virginia 10 9 (-1) -1 -
Washington 5 6 (+1) +1 -
Code: Select all
1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Alabama 8 +1 - +1 +1 +1
Arizona 1 +1 -
Arkansas 5 +1 +1 - +1 -
California 6 +1 +1 +3 +5 +10
Colorado 1 +1 +1 +1 - +1
Connecticut 4 - +1 - +1 +1
Delaware 1 - - - - -
Florida 2 - +1 +1 - +3
Georgia 10 +1 - +1 +1 -
Idaho 1 - +1 - -
Illinois 20 +2 +3 +2 +3 +5
Indiana 13 - - - - +2
Iowa 11 - - - - -
Kansas 7 +1 - - - +1
Kentucky 11 - - - - +1
Louisiana 6 - +1 +1 - +2
Maine 4 - - - - -
Maryland 6 - - - +1 -
Massachusetts 12 +1 +1 +2 +2 +1
Michigan 11 +1 - +1 +4 +5
Minnesota 5 +2 +2 +1 +1 +1
Mississippi 7 - +1 - - +1
Missouri 14 +1 +1 - - +1
Montana 1 - - +1 +1 -
Nebraska 3 +3 - - - -
Nevada 1 - - - - -
New Hampshire 2 - - - - -
New Jersey 7 +1 +2 +2 +2 +4
New Mexico 1 +1 -
New York 34 - +3 +6 +4 +10
North Carolina 9 - +1 - +2 +2
North Dakota 1 - +1 +1 - -
Ohio 21 - - +1 +4 +4
Oklahoma 8 +1 +2
Oregon 1 +1 - +1 +1 -
Pennsylvania 28 +2 +2 +4 +4 +4
Rhode Island 2 - - +1 - -
South Carolina 7 - - - +1 -
South Dakota 2 - - +1 - -
Tennessee 10 - - - +1 +1
Texas 11 +2 +3 +2 +3 +6
Utah 1 +1 - -
Vermont 2 - - - - -
Virginia 10 - - - +1 -
Washington 1 +1 +1 +2 +1 +1
West Virginia 4 - +1 +1 +1 +1
Wisconsin 9 +1 +1 - +1 +1
Wyoming 1 - - - -
]]>440
I don't know when the answer above was originally posted, but it is incorrect as of January, 2009, and before then it was correct only when including non-voting membership. There has never been more than 437 voting members in the House, which was from 1959, when Alaska and Hawaii were admitted to the Union, until 1963, when the apportionment of House seats based on the 1960 U.S. Census took effect.
Despite repeated warnings from the founding fathers not to allow congressional district sizes to exceed 60,000 people at the extreme maximum, The Reapportionment Act of 1929 froze the size of the House at 435 voting members, the quantity it had had since 1913. As a result, the average size of today's congressional districts is over 710,000 people, and one of them, Montana At Large, has over a million people! Congress could pass legislation to increase the size of the House any time it wanted to, but since more Representatives would mean less power for each existing Representative, it is doubtful that they will do so unless/until public pressure increases.
Each of the 435 voting members of the House is elected by each of the 435 congressional districts in the 50 states. The number of congressional districts per state is based on how many 435ths of the population of the 50 states each state has, after a minimum of one district per state. Because those fractions change due to births, deaths, immigration, emigration and internal relocations, they are recalculated, and the House seats are reapportioned, after every official U.S. Census, which takes place every ten years.
Since 2009, there are six non-voting House members, one from each of the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and, most recently, the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), making the membership grand total 441. Although they are called non-voting members, they are allowed to vote in committee. It is only in the final votes that take place on the House floor that voting is restricted to Representatives from States.
Coincidentally, if Congress ever gets around to responding to Puerto Rico's December 11, 2012 request for statehood, and they respond affirmatively, there are expected to be 440 voting House members from that time until the subsequent reapportionment takes effect.
]]>440
I don't know when the answer above was originally posted, but it is incorrect as of January, 2009, and before then it was correct only when including non-voting membership. There has never been more than 437 voting members in the House, which was from 1959, when Alaska and Hawaii were admitted to the Union, until 1963, when the apportionment of House seats based on the 1960 U.S. Census took effect.
Despite repeated warnings from the founding fathers not to allow congressional district sizes to exceed 60,000 people at the extreme maximum, The Reapportionment Act of 1929 froze the size of the House at 435 voting members, the quantity it had had since 1913. As a result, the average size of today's congressional districts is over 710,000 people, and one of them, Montana At Large, has over a million people! Congress could pass legislation to increase the size of the House any time it wanted to, but since more Representatives would mean less power for each existing Representative, it is doubtful that they will do so unless/until public pressure increases.
Each of the 435 voting members of the House is elected by each of the 435 congressional districts in the 50 states. The number of congressional districts per state is based on how many 435ths of the population of the 50 states each state has, after a minimum of one district per state. Because those fractions change due to births, deaths, immigration, emigration and internal relocations, they are recalculated, and the House seats are reapportioned, after every official U.S. Census, which takes place every ten years.
Since 2009, there are six non-voting House members, one from each of the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and, most recently, the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), making the membership grand total 441. Although they are called non-voting members, they are allowed to vote in committee. It is only in the final votes that take place on the House floor that voting is restricted to Representatives from States.
Coincidentally, if Congress ever gets around to responding to Puerto Rico's December 11, 2012 request for statehood, and they respond affirmatively, there are expected to be 440 voting House members from that time until the subsequent reapportionment takes effect.
The fixed number of house seats, or single member districts?]]>no single governmental tradition is more detrimental to the welfare of the public
The fixed number of house seats, or single member districts?]]>no single governmental tradition is more detrimental to the welfare of the public
It is tempting to make too much out of the current "tea party" phenomenon. On the one hand we can understand the frustration of some of the people with a government out of control. But on the other side of this argument we find that too much democracy is not such a good thing:The following is an excerpt from "Original Meanings - Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution", a Pulitzer Prize winning historical account authored by Jack N. Rakove - pg 205:
"Was representation simply a device to replace the impracticable meeting of the people at large, in which case representatives should resemble their constituents as closely as possible? Or should representatives possess an independence of mind and a breadth of experience or knowledge that would provide a capacity for deliberation that ordinary citizens lacked? Did the "sympathy" desired of lawmakers require reinforcing the ties that bound them to the voters; or could it be attained, in adequate measure, through some act of imagination? The answers to these questions in turn reflected divergent definitions of the essential duties of representative institutions. Did they exist primarily to protect the people at large against arbitrary power by preventing government from acting without the expression of popular consent? Or did they not provide as well a mechanism whereby the people could authorize government to make law in the positive sense, actively adopting policies that contribute to the prosperity of the society and the happiness of its citizens?"
Again quoting from Jack N. Rakove's "Original Meanings":
"At the Convention, the framers struggled to move beyond their preoccupation with the mechanics of representation -- especially the dilemma of apportionment in both houses -- to secure the qualitative improvement in the character of deliberation and legislation they desired. Once the Constitution was published, however, Federalists were hard pressed to defend this conception of representation against more traditional norms to which Anti-Fedralists clung when they worried that a small and elite Congress would lack the sympathy and local knowledge needed to protect the people at large against the abuse of power."
]]>Progress and Poverty --- Henry George
"To turn a republican government into a despotism the basest and most brutal, it is not necessary formally to change its constitution or abandon popular elections ....
.... forms are nothing when substance has gone, and the forms of popular government are those from which the substance of freedom may most easily go. Extremes meet, and a government of universal suffrage and theoretical equality may, under conditions which impel the change, most readily become a despotism. For there despotism advances in the name and with the might of the people. The single source of power once secured, everything is secured. ....
And when the disparity of condition increases, so does universal suffrage make it easy to seize the source of power, for the greater is the proportion of power in the hands of those who feel no direct interest in the conduct of government; who, tortured by want and embittered by poverty, are ready to sell their votes to the highest bidder or follow the lead of the most blatant demagogue; or who, made bitter by hardships, may even look upon profligate and tyrannous government with the satisfaction we may imagine the proletarians and slaves of Rome to have felt, as they saw a Caligula or Nero raging among the rich patricians ....
Where there is anything like an equal distribution of wealth - that is to say, where there is general patriotism, virtue, and intelligence - the more democratic the government the better it will be; but where there is gross inequality in the distribution of wealth, the more democratic the government the worse it will be; for, while rotten democracy may not in itself be worse than rotten autocracy, its effects upon national character will be worse ....
.... but in a corrupt democracy the tendency is always to give power to the worst. Honesty and patriotism are weighted, and unscrupulousness commands success. The best gravitate to the bottom, the worst float to the top, and the vile will only be ousted by the viler. While as national character must gradually assimilate to the qualities that win power, and consequently respect, that demoralization of opinion goes on which in the long panorama of history we may see over and over again transmuting races of free men into races of slaves."
It is tempting to make too much out of the current "tea party" phenomenon. On the one hand we can understand the frustration of some of the people with a government out of control. But on the other side of this argument we find that too much democracy is not such a good thing:The following is an excerpt from "Original Meanings - Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution", a Pulitzer Prize winning historical account authored by Jack N. Rakove - pg 205:
"Was representation simply a device to replace the impracticable meeting of the people at large, in which case representatives should resemble their constituents as closely as possible? Or should representatives possess an independence of mind and a breadth of experience or knowledge that would provide a capacity for deliberation that ordinary citizens lacked? Did the "sympathy" desired of lawmakers require reinforcing the ties that bound them to the voters; or could it be attained, in adequate measure, through some act of imagination? The answers to these questions in turn reflected divergent definitions of the essential duties of representative institutions. Did they exist primarily to protect the people at large against arbitrary power by preventing government from acting without the expression of popular consent? Or did they not provide as well a mechanism whereby the people could authorize government to make law in the positive sense, actively adopting policies that contribute to the prosperity of the society and the happiness of its citizens?"
Again quoting from Jack N. Rakove's "Original Meanings":
"At the Convention, the framers struggled to move beyond their preoccupation with the mechanics of representation -- especially the dilemma of apportionment in both houses -- to secure the qualitative improvement in the character of deliberation and legislation they desired. Once the Constitution was published, however, Federalists were hard pressed to defend this conception of representation against more traditional norms to which Anti-Fedralists clung when they worried that a small and elite Congress would lack the sympathy and local knowledge needed to protect the people at large against the abuse of power."
]]>Progress and Poverty --- Henry George
"To turn a republican government into a despotism the basest and most brutal, it is not necessary formally to change its constitution or abandon popular elections ....
.... forms are nothing when substance has gone, and the forms of popular government are those from which the substance of freedom may most easily go. Extremes meet, and a government of universal suffrage and theoretical equality may, under conditions which impel the change, most readily become a despotism. For there despotism advances in the name and with the might of the people. The single source of power once secured, everything is secured. ....
And when the disparity of condition increases, so does universal suffrage make it easy to seize the source of power, for the greater is the proportion of power in the hands of those who feel no direct interest in the conduct of government; who, tortured by want and embittered by poverty, are ready to sell their votes to the highest bidder or follow the lead of the most blatant demagogue; or who, made bitter by hardships, may even look upon profligate and tyrannous government with the satisfaction we may imagine the proletarians and slaves of Rome to have felt, as they saw a Caligula or Nero raging among the rich patricians ....
Where there is anything like an equal distribution of wealth - that is to say, where there is general patriotism, virtue, and intelligence - the more democratic the government the better it will be; but where there is gross inequality in the distribution of wealth, the more democratic the government the worse it will be; for, while rotten democracy may not in itself be worse than rotten autocracy, its effects upon national character will be worse ....
.... but in a corrupt democracy the tendency is always to give power to the worst. Honesty and patriotism are weighted, and unscrupulousness commands success. The best gravitate to the bottom, the worst float to the top, and the vile will only be ousted by the viler. While as national character must gradually assimilate to the qualities that win power, and consequently respect, that demoralization of opinion goes on which in the long panorama of history we may see over and over again transmuting races of free men into races of slaves."
On what source do you base that claim? According to the House website, the only member of the House without at least one committee assignment is the one from Oregon 2.TheTrucker wrote: There are about 200 committee members.
On what source do you base that claim? According to the House website, the only member of the House without at least one committee assignment is the one from Oregon 2.TheTrucker wrote: There are about 200 committee members.
This sort of power already belongs to the Speaker and the Committee Chairs. Not only is it wrong to say it's unlikely, it has already happened.Paul wrote:I also think it is unlikely that so much power would ever be granted to so few people, specifically in the cases of the Speaker and the Committee Chairs.
This sort of power already belongs to the Speaker and the Committee Chairs. Not only is it wrong to say it's unlikely, it has already happened.Paul wrote:I also think it is unlikely that so much power would ever be granted to so few people, specifically in the cases of the Speaker and the Committee Chairs.