It's ridiculous that each state gets two Senators, regardless of population...

[polichick]

Just another way - along with superdelegates, early primary states, gerrymandering, Electoral College, no statehood for DC, for-profit voting machine companies, etc., etc., etc. - to keep Americans from having a true democracy.

[OnDoutside]

1. Ok then, how do you change it ?

[polichick]

7. Congress would have to change it - but it works for the RepubliCONs.

[Hortensis]

15. Don't forget, Article 1 of the constitution establishes

2 senators from each state. So first would come a constitutional amendment.

[polichick]

16. Needs to happen imo, but RepubliCONs use the flyover states...

to brainwash the voters and pillage the country on behalf of their wealthy and corporate donors.

[ooky]

73. The 2 senator representation made a lot more sense with the 13 states at that time

than it does now. This is a needed amendment that needs to be pushed to the front of the line, whenever the opportunity comes.

[Hortensis]

90. Perhaps. But let's back up. The 2 senators ALSO protects

the individual from oppression by majorities in other states. Before we can change that, we need to come up with -- and be able to institute -- new protections as replacement or replacements.

So, what do you suggest instead? First, do no harm. You don't fix a clogged drain by ripping out and throwing away the plumbing.

This isn't a new topic. We could read for the rest of our lives and never take in all that's written about how, if, why to make government more representative. But none of the possible, workable answers involve just "plucking out the parts that offend us and casting them away."

Btw, many among the Republican electorate also have a great answer for the problem of "unrepresentative" senators: return to having them elected by elites in the state legislatures. That answer to the problem of "fixing broken" government" has a lot of clueless, destructive support as a way to eliminate liberalism from government. They actually think they want that.

Interesting topic in a time when we're at real risk of the right overthrowing our democracy and turning the senate into a rubber stamp for a dictator. Disagree on the focus, though.

Right now our job is to VOTE, VOTE, VOTE TO PROTECT THE SENATE, or major changes will be made, but not by us.

[ooky]

94. Having state legislatures pick U.S. senators, of course, does nothing to

address unrepresentative government.

Of course we should protect the Senate, but the representation problem is a mathematical one, which can be corrected by using multipliers, based on population, for each senator's vote. Nothing else about how many senators or how they are chosen needs to change. Each Senator's vote would just need to be proportional to one half of that Senator's state's population in relation to the national total population.

[Hortensis]

96. Yup. But any real passion for change right now WOULD be

misdirected into increased power to the fascistic right. Anyone miss how the Sanders left was USED disastrously to turn the nation over to the Republicans, including Trump? Couldn't have happened without their clueless assistance, actually idealistically imagining they were pulling the other direction.

The powers behind the Republicans are VERY good at using well meaning people against themselves. Political jiu jitsu. They have to be because they no longer have enough RW votes to win.

So, first we have to remove them from power.

[ooky]

97. Agree with that.

That's why I qualified that we should do it when we have the opportunity.

[royable]

23. How about if high-population blue states are divided into small blue states

each with population of 500K? ...500K being the population of Wyoming.

But don't divide up the blue state's red areas; just combine them with an adjoining blue area that has two or three times the total red population so that no repub senatorial candidates would have a chance at election.

Just think--Los Angeles county alone could provide us with forty democratic senators!

I suppose you could label this gerrymandering, but I feel in my heart of hearts that this would be good for the nation as a whole, so it's all OK.

(some small amount of )

[33taw]

26. Colorado tried that.

The state of “Northern Colorado” would have had two republican senators. However, the amendment failed when northern Colorado was impacted by the flood and all of the sudden the money from Denver, Boulder and the ski towns was needed.

[rainy]

34. Lessen their power. Bills must be debated

and voted on within a limited amount of time. Each Senator must vote publicly. Get rid of electoral college. Give more power to the house.

[treestar]

62. +1. Make them do away with the filibuster

They are undemocratic as is, and then requiring a super-majority of them to change anything makes it even more so.

Lessen their power to stop change. Maybe make it so they have no say to stop legislation if it passed the House by a super-majority.

Generally, make them more like the House of Lords. I'm not sure how it works, but it appears they cannot stop progress.

[dem4decades]

2. Yep. A pretty shitty democracy.

[polichick]

8. Not a true democracy - we're a nation of smoke and mirrors.

[spin]

10. We do not live in a true democracy. ...

The Founding Fathers Never Intended To Create A Direct Democracy
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-founding-fathers-never-meant-to-create_b_13051196

[Hortensis]

18. Well, when you figure out how to have over 300 million

people with their own ideas and needs (not that most have any real understanding of what those are) all have genuinely equal representation, write it up and go to work. Until real brilliance, far beyond anything Jefferson and Madison had to offer, fixes it, this is a pretty good version of democracy.

Just while on the subject, it's ironic that this Democratic forum has a people who join these discussions out of frustration that they can't have their way because majorities of voters always want something else, so they look for ways to fix their personal problem with democracy. They're always kicking at democracy looking for weak places to break that'll lessen the power of others and increase their own. A bunch of them even supported an attempt to steal the 2016 primary nomination from the choice of the majority of Democrats by manipulating and misusing rules meant to protect democracy from manipulators. Pretty funny when you think of it. Dark humor, of course.

[spin]

24. It is amazing that the Constitution has been in effect for over 200 years. ...

The Constitution contains 4,543 words, including the signatures and has four sheets, 28-3/4 inches by 23-5/8 inches each. It contains 7,591 words including the 27 amendments.
https://www.constitutionfacts.com/us-constitution-amendments/fascinating-facts/

I wonder how many pages and words a new Constitution will contain if and when we have to replace it.

[jimfields33]

52. Millions of pages

The budget alone are volumes. We have become a country that loves words.

[treestar]

63. They lived in the 18th century

Only white men with property could vote as it was.

They knew future people might need to change it, but didn't realize just how tough it would be to make a needed change to go along with modern life.

[treestar]

58. It turns out the British, for all their oppressing us

did devise a better system, even with an aristocracy in place. Other countries that separated from Britain peacefully copied the parliamentary system. They now have modern governments.

The Founders thought we needed something different, and had to deal with getting all the southern states to sign on, so they did the best they could. But now we lag behind, because of the concern for separate states as states and this led to the civil war, which cut back on state powers somewhat. But we are still stuck with states as such. There is more and more mobility between states, so maybe that would cut back on it. Do we really care if our state is in a minority position on some issue? We might be living in another one, or have contacts in another one. It's not the 18th century.

18th century people might be shocked at how much the federal government does, and how it pushed states around with the purse strings or the Supremacy Clause. And that's without a Democratic system, since the Electoral College and the Senate give the state more power the smaller it is. They thought the big states would push the small ones around. It turns out the opposite.

[spin]

91. Yes, our form of government is old and outdated however it is unfortunately...

hard to change. Plus calling it “hard to change” might be an understatement.

[treestar]

105. Yes and the Founders thought they were making it changeable

I believe Jefferson thought it should be easier to change.

The Founders had no way of predicting the industrial revolution and that the population would become so urban. I doubt they intended the rural population to dominate the way it can.

[FBaggins]

101. Different is not the same thing as better

Boris Johnson would probably agree with you... but he just won overwhelming control with barely 43% of the vote.

[treestar]

106. I don't know the UK system

and how it would allow him to do that. He would have to join with some other party to form a government, is my understanding.

[FBaggins]

108. Then probably not something you should declare to be better

No need for him to form a coalition. You can get an absolute majority in parliament without anything close to a majority of votes.

In fact, it’s entirely possible to win control without even getting a plurality of voters if your voters are distributed in just the right way.

[treestar]

109. How can you get a majority without a majority?

Since you are so knowledgeable, I am sure you would like to explain.

What parts of the country become more powerful, as the EC does? How do rural voters rule over urban voters in a parliamentary system? We should at least figure out which one does that to a greater extent.

[FBaggins]

113. Easy. They have several parties

And they all have different geographic strengths and weaknesses. You can easily win a seat in parliament with 25% of the vote in that constituency if five other parties split what’s left (even if all of them lean right and you alone lean left). Win enough such seats and you control Parliament (and thus also the executive... who is not directly elected).

[treestar]

117. I always understood that the

PM was the head of the party that got the most votes. If that includes someone who got 25% of the vote, then the rest of the parliament will not always go along with what they want. If Labor gets 51% of the vote, then the PM is Labor's head and the Parliament, the majority of his/her party, will want the same things. If the PM can be Labor's head where Labor gets 25% of the vote, then they won't be able to do much as they won't always be sure of a 51% vote.

I thought they need coalitions to get anything through, where they have so many parties. And they had a referendum of some kind for Brexit, so a majority would have voted for it - means the majority wants it.

I was in Oz when they had an election and when Gillard did not get a majority, she was not going to get to form a government until she got some independents to join her to make a majority. It gave the few independents a ton of attention in the media.

[FBaggins]

122. You understood incorrectly

The PM is selected by a majority of MPs... not individual voters. A coalition might be necessary to achieve that... or one party might have a majority of MPs on their own... neither of which requires a majority of voters to achieve.

Yes... if Labour received 51% of the vote they would almost certainly win a majority of the parliament (they received about 32%)... but there are more than two parties... sometimes controlling one area and not showing at all in another.

[edhopper]

3. It was a compromise between big and small States

to get the Constitution done. Not ideal.

[polichick]

4. Needs updating - but corrupt players use it to their advantage.

[edhopper]

6. maybe

But you would never get the 2/3 States to ratify.

[2naSalit]

13. +1

[dware]

76. Actually,

that's 2/3rds of the Congress and 3/4ths of the States to ratify a change to the Constitution.

[edhopper]

93. Right!

So definitely no way

[treestar]

112. not if you don't even try

[dware]

74. So tell us how you would get 2/3rds of the Congress

and 3/4 of the States to approve a change like that to the Constitution.

Remember, it would only take 13 States to deep six any change to the Constitution.

[elleng]

5. That's why there are 2 chambers,

'what is sometimes called the Connecticut, or Great, Compromise, proposed a bicameral legislature with proportional representation in the lower house and equal representation of the states in the upper house.'>>>

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Connecticut-Compromise

[polichick]

9. Made sense once but not now, considering population distribution.

[Steelrolled]

29. Population distribution in the 18th century was exactly why we got this system.

[coti]

11. Yup, both the Senate and the Electoral College are outdated. We need a full overhaul

of our Constitution at this point.

[polichick]

12. So true - I worry about our kids with this perversion of democracy.

[treestar]

51. +1

and it is only going to get worse. The population of the rural areas is shrinking while the population of the cities is going up. The few in the rural areas will rule the majority in the cities.

[ck4829]

99. Yep

[Hortensis]

14. How do we keep populous states from stomping the people of small ones

into the legislative mud without even bothering to notice?

[polichick]

17. What I think really happens is in #16

[Hortensis]

19. A lot of those flyover states are Big Energy states,

and those fat cats live there and other residents vote people who serve them into power. Because, for bizarre reasons related to the actual practice of democracy, that's what they want. Just like many trying to elect an incompetent but favorite candidate POTUS. Democracy in action.

But that doesn't answer my question, which was addressed to everyone who feels a need to get rid of 2 senators for every state nonsense to make the senate more "representative." How do we do that without making the nation far less representative at the same time? On a big, big scale too. No way to fix the oppression and growing poverty and injustice of small states except to move to a big, powerful state.

[polichick]

25. There's also a lot of brainwashing by rightwing radio and mega-churches...

So “the actual practice of democracy” ends up with people unwittingly voting against themselves, their children, and the planet.

[Hortensis]

33. Yeah, democracy sucks, especially in stupid states

in the middle of the country. You know what Churchill said about democracy, though, and he had no suggestions for how to fix people to make us do our part better. Imagine trying to run big, diverse countries like ours (over 300 million!) by bringing together people who think everyone else is stupid to work out solutions they can somehow all live with.

[polichick]

38. Wouldn't call them "stupid states" - which is why...

I didn’t.

Disinformation campaigns did not start with Putin - read What’s The Matter With Kansas (2004) to see what a head start RepubliCONs and their corporate donors have had in the heartland.

I once interviewed the minister of a mega-church in Kansas, asking how they chose the location. Very honestly, he said they looked for the most vulnerable populations - those left behind by socio-cultural change - because they are the most open to their message. This is predatory behavior, very calculated - they serve up the “Jesus loves you” message, followed up by the “it’s not your fault; it’s their fault scapegoating message, the “us vs them” message, the lies about who’s trying to take your healthcare and social security message, followed by the big RepubliCON savior message.

This is how good people unwittingly vote against themselves - Democrats need to understand how we got to this place

[Hortensis]

92. I have read that book, long ago though.

Informed people know how we got here. We don't know how to make better citizens of people who are not wired to make the decisions necessary to democracy. Or perhaps we should say that we've learned a lot about how, but how to do that without violating their rights to make their own choices and without brainwashing is a long list of questions without answers.

This isn't all going on on the right either. Right now too many on the left have also been seriously considering voting for people who are clearly unsuited to power or responsibility in a democracy. It's not that the information isn't available, it's that the judgement is lacking.

This may be a form of societal suicide. It ma be that evolution built a need into the human race, stronger in some than others, to burn down the village and move on to find a new valley now and then. And it's still in us. Easy to see how extended comfort and population growth leading to stasis and increased demand for food can be a danger to survival.

Looking around at what's happening now, that theory makes sense to me. How else to explain the eagerness in too many on both sides to burn down what has worked well in the past, to dismantle the stability our lives literally depend on, not just our wellbeing, without knowing we can replace it with something even halfway adequate, much less better?

The destabilization and destruction we are seeing is a clear result of eagerness in some to kick over the bucket and a willingness to destroy. And in this troubled era, it's become dangerously strong in too many, including the bad leaders who rise in response.

[maxsolomon]

20. how do we manage the converse now?

split CA into 20 states?

[genxlib]

50. I find this to be a right wing talking point with little merit.

The small states are walking all over the big states now. Making them more equal is not oppressive. It is fair. Oppressors always feel outrage when their disproportionate power is threatened. It is a form of privilege.

Whenever I hear somebody fret about the urban areas overwhelming the rural areas, my immediate response is "oh you mean, where the voters are?"

[treestar]

53. The way the system is now, the rural small states will rule

the majority in the big states. That's the problem, not the opposite. And it is getting worse - there is an article posted on DU awhile back about it.

States still have state powers, the police powers, and that is where a little state can have the rules it wants. But on the federal level, it is unfair to the vast majority for them to control the rules for the rest of the country.

[Remington]

21. We are not a democracy but a representative republic

Why should California and New York have more representation than Tennessee or Oregon because they are a larger state? That type of representation is reserved for the House of Representatives which is based on population. The system isn’t perfect but it’s the best thing going.

[crickets]

22. +1

[Skittles]

27. this system is giving us really shitty results

it served a purpose back in the day but needs to be updated

[Mosby]

68. +1

[Polybius]

81. It has worked in the past with good results

Not now, but we have had very solid Democratic majorities in the Senate. We has as high as 68 seats in the 60's, and 57 just a decade ago.

Edit: Wow, the highest ever was 75 seats for us after the 1936 elections, and we had fewer states then too. Republicans had just 17 seats. We could have changed the entire Constitution and no one could have stopped us.

[yonder]

28. "The system isn't perfect but it's the best thing going"

Agreed. Perhaps some fine tuning to prevent abuse, but yes.

[treestar]

66. Parliamentary system is better

They have health plans in Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand.

Our big problem is we separated un-peacefully from the mother country. And had slavery. Those things hold our country back.

[treestar]

65. Why should Wyoming and Alaska

get to stop up anything the majority wants and have as much power as such a large group as lives in NY?

They didn't mean it to be that undemocratic. As more of the population becomes urban, the rural white states will practically be an aristocracy.

[MichMan]

84. So what if California decided it wanted to drain the Great Lakes ?

and pipe all the water to California because they had way more people and votes than Michigan and needed it ?

[coti]

87. What if some Senate a-hole representing a minority party decided the Constitution and truth

didn't matter anymore?

[treestar]

107. How could they have enough votes for that?

Nationally, they don't have a majority all by themselves. This is the underlying of most of these arguments and it is just not so. If every CA voter voted alike, they still would not have enough votes.

In 2016. California had 11,954,317 voters and 7,362,480 voted for Hillary.

NY had 7.046,175 voters of which 4.143,874 voted for Hillary.

Math results: 11,506,354 CA and NY voters who voted for Hillary.

The total number of voters nationwide was 123,724, 157.

The CA and NY Hillary voters were 9.3% of the total voters.

9.3% cannot have their way all alone.

The next two most populous states are TX and FL. Even if they joined in, they don't have enough votes to win nationally.

The EC is not "fair" to the small states. It is unfair to the big states.

[moose65]

69. Yeah but even you have your threshold

Here’s an extreme example - what if the population of Wyoming declined because of some natural disaster, until only about 20,000 people lived there. Or 10,000. Or 1,000. At some point it would become absurd to still give them 1 rep and 2 Senators.

[coti]

77. Why are arbitrary lines on the ground represented at all, when it's people that matter? nt

[treestar]

111. A Republic is not required to let some people have

a greater say than others.

noun: republic; plural noun: republics
a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.
ARCHAIC
a group with a certain equality between its members.
"the community of scholars and the republic of learning"

It does not say the elected representatives have to be uneven in some way.

[Steelrolled]

30. The "modern" EU has similar issues

In fact, it is compared to the US system, where smaller countries get better representation. It is determined by treaties as countries are admitted.

[DanTex]

31. Yes. This is obvious. Sometimes people try to defend it, but there's no rational defense.

It's hard to change, so we're stuck with it. But it's horribly undemocratic.

[radius777]

32. Taxation without representation.

The Founders could never have envisioned the wide-ranging national and structural power the Senate and SCOTUS (which the Senate confirms) would have.

We have little-ass empty white states dictating how most of us should live, and that's neither democratic nor representative nor logical in any way.

There are congressional districts in populous states like CA, NY, TX etc with more people in them than some of these little states.

Notice how all metro areas (including in red states) trend blue ... TX will soon be blue for this reason.

Only the backwards people/areas trend red.

Basically the red states are sponging off of the blue states - robbing us blind, keeping us in the past, trampling all over the rights of PoC, gays, women, etc.

[maxrandb]

35. It's not a problem when we get 85-95% voter participation

It only works for Retrumplicans when only 30-40% of eligible voters bother to vote.

When people vote, Democrats and progressive policy wins, even in places like AL, MS and WY.

Another thing that can help... and I'll get in trouble for this...but, when Dems have majorities in the House, Senate and control the White House, the red States need to be punished.

Seriously, they should face consequences for sending racist dipshits like McConnell, Graham, Perdue and Cornyn to elected office.

[MerryBlooms]

42. Yes, increased participation is the answer. Here's how Oregon has done it-

(We are also a vote by mail state.)

How Oregon Increased Voter Turnout More Than Any Other State

New evidence shows how automatic voter registration increased not only voter participation but also voter diversity.

https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/how-oregon-increased-voter-turnout-more-than-any-other-state/

[jmg257]

37. The upper house - the Senate, was never intended to represent you; that's

What the House is for.

Senators represent the States interest. They were appointed by State legislators.

Great plan, until we let the federal govt get too strong.

[polichick]

39. Now these Senators represent the interests of the corporations and wealthy donors...

who bought them - or, in many cases, chose them for their corrupt reputations and installed them to begin with.

So RepubliCONs don’t need to consider what 75% plus of the voters want - in addition to zero witnesses, hundreds of bills meant to help Americans stack up on McCONnell’s desk.

[jmg257]

41. Yep -Likely the same for most govt reps - lots of gain to be made being in a position of power.

[treestar]

55. Since states are not equal in size, it's always going to be unfair

but ironically it is to "protect" small states and now it turns out it gives small states the disproportionate power. The House can be dominated by people from large states (though they won't all be the same, not every California house member is a liberal Democrat and there can be a liberal from urban areas of a red state). But the Senate advantages small population states over large, which is not really a big improvement.

Theorizing about a solution, it might involve not letting the Senate block legislation by not voting on it, not using the filibuster, and not being able to block an overwhelming House vote.

[jmg257]

70. Or maybe we reduce the power of the federal govt, so the states have more power, as was originally

intended?

Maybe then Senators would not be so obligated to protecting & obeying the Executive?

[treestar]

71. Today's senators obviously think the people in their states, if red,

want the Dotard to get away with anything, which is scary. Yet those are the people with the most power.

[Polybius]

82. They were never supposed to be elected either

If the 17th Amendment never passed, we'd have a Democratic Congress right now.

[jmg257]

83. Yep - appointed by the state legislators.

But as I am sure you know - we were called the United States for a reason. And had State Militias for a reason. And feared a strong central govt for a reason.

Ah well.

[treestar]

119. If Democrats control the majority of state legislatures

I thought Rs had that.

And that Rs often get fewer votes but still have a state majority.

There was an article on DU a few years ago that this is all going to get worse as the population is still moving from rural to urban. How are we going to put up with the minority holding us back at every turn?

[phylny]

40. How about statehood for D.C. and any territories that would

like to be a state?

[Cognitive_Resonance]

43. Be careful what we ask for. Not disagreeing on need for reforms, but elements of the right have

long dreamed of opening a new constitutional convention to "fix" all of the things standing in their way of utopia.

[MineralMan]

44. Sometimes it does seem ridiculous, except when it doesn't.

The Senate is a compromise. A great number of things in our Constitution are compromises. That's because there is no perfect way to govern as diverse a nation as the United States.

Be careful what you wish for. The Senate was designed to represent the states equally, regardless of their populations. The House was designed to represent the people as individuals.

The country is the United STATES of America. That's why the individual states are treated equally through the establishment of the Senate. Sometimes that doesn't work as well as it was intended, but a legislature that is 100% population-based would not work as well, either, in every situation.

Making foundational changes in response to temporal issues can come at a high cost.

[crickets]

45. +1

[Yeehah]

47. Doesn't mean it can't be improved.

A compromise 250+ years ago to arbitrarily give each state two senators might just need an update. Just look at a map of the USA and the state boundaries. Many state boundaries are based on land grants from English nobility. Yeah, that seems rational, give each one of those artificial entities two senators not based on population. LOL

Maybe you should present your civics lecture to a troop of boy scouts in your local area.

[Iggo]

54. LOL.

You were okay until the insult.

That's enough.

[MineralMan]

57. That is true. However, any such change should be made after

long consideration and a consensus of the governed.

I'll ignore your insult.

[treestar]

56. At the beginning of the Republic

convincing each colony to participate was essential. If the South wouldn't go along, the non-slave states alone might well not have been able to win the Revolution.

Modern times have changed things so much. States are of varying sizes, and the fear the big ones would dominate is less rational now, we see, than the fear the small ones might. Big states will still have red voters. Small states may have blue voters, but they won't be as numerous.

Now we took the vote for Senators from State legislatures and gave it to the People. That showed some move towards greater participation. Now women and African Americans can vote. As we make this progress, we can see that the Senate is becoming obsolete.

The Founders gave us an Amendment process that still favors the status quo, requiring super majorities in order to change anything. Maybe it will take a civil war. The millions in urban areas are someday going to erupt and object to being ruled by a rural minority. Forecasts are that it is going to get worse. Americans aren't used to bowing down to an aristocracy and they won't let a rural white one arise.

[MineralMan]

59. Knowing the history helps, for sure.

The requirement for super majorities to amend the Constitution, though, was also brilliant. The founders made it a very difficult process. Such changes should only be undertaken after long consideration and discussion and be enacted only by a preponderance of parties.

Foundational documents should, I think, be difficult to change.

[treestar]

61. Shouldn't take a super-majority though

We are way behind the countries with Parliamentary systems. They can make changes when a majority wants it. The US way favors conservatives.

That's why it can seem the farthest left candidates for the Democrats seem so unreasonable. They aren't recognizing that the Senate won't let them have single payer, even if Britain had it in 1948. The filibuster makes the Senate even more of a blocker.

[MineralMan]

64. On the other hand, we have the UK.

I'm not sure they're doing so well with a parliamentary system, really. And then there is Italy.

[treestar]

67. They have a health plan

And so do most of the European countries with parliamentary systems.

When the majority wants progress, they get it.

How does the UK not do well because of its system? Whatever problems it has arise out of something else.

[Rollo]

72. Yes, but...

A reasonable compromise would be to elect the president by popular vote, but keep the Senate as is.

In any case, amending the Constitution is such a bitch that nothing regarding representation is going to change. It would probably take a civil war.

[dware]

79. Truly well spoken.

People don't seem to understand that convening a Constitutional Convention opens the doors to all kinds of changes, which the Repigs have been salivating for for decades.

[MineralMan]

86. Thank you very much.

[Bettie]

116. +1 And an additional thought

The House doesn't really represent the people very well, because of the cap on number of representatives put in place (with a law, which can be revisited) in 1911.

Raising the number of house members would also make the EC function better, as it would end with more Electoral votes for places with larger population.

If we set the number of people in a congressional district at even the number of people in the smallest population state, it would be a very large number of reps, but that's not an insurmountable problem.

[Yeehah]

46. Acres of land should not have a vote

Only people should decide elections.

[ck4829]

100. +1

[hughee99]

48. If you want a true democracy, we need to get rid of all these elected officials

That make decisions on our behalf and put everything to a vote. In a true democracy, if more than 50% of the people think gay people shouldn’t be allowed to marry, then that is the law.

[treestar]

60. Like the California propositions

where the population votes on specific questions.

[hughee99]

89. Yes, sort of. The difference would be that the population would need to vote

On everything that the legislature normally handles, and majority can pass whatever rules they want.

[CFC]

102. Mob Rule?

So you're suggesting mob rule?

[treestar]

104. Is that what California has?

In your opinion?

[marlakay]

49. Especially when some states

Don’t offer a lot of jobs forcing most of the population into ones that do.

[Polybius]

75. I understand the opposition to it, but I wouldn't get too aggrivated

It's never going to change. The time for stopping it was taking it up with George Washington.

[sandensea]

78. And why do we need TWO Dakotas?

Or Wyoming! That should be east Idaho.

[krispos42]

80. I think a compromise position would be:

Each state gets the larger either one Senator for every six Representatives, or two Senators.

The perpetual problem is how to make this happen.

But DC should not be a state. It's too small and huge chunks of it are owned by the Federal government. It should have a voting member of the House, though.

[moose65]

85. DC is not "too small"

DC has more people than Wyoming or Vermont, and yet those 2 states have 2 Senators each while DC has NO representation in the Senate (or the House).

[krispos42]

88. It's too small physically.

It's only about 68 square miles, and a large chunk of that is Federally-owned land... the monuments, the museums, the National Mall, the government offices.

It's one-eighth the land area of New York City and one-twentieth the size of Rhode Island, the smallest state.

You might as well just say that Brooklyn should be it's own state. Or Manhattan.

It would make more sense to re-incorporate DC back into Maryland. DC would become "District of Columbia County" of the State of Maryland and be represented in the House and the Senate with voting members. The Federal government's administrative system has been expanding out into Virginia and Maryland for decades anyway.

My personal belief is that we have a lot of states that are too big and that it would be beneficial to break them up into more manageable areas, but a state needs to be more than just a city with suburbs. That's a metro area, not a state. States need to have rural areas and natural resources in addition to urban areas with human resources.

Hell, the county that I live in, Fairfield County, CT, has 907k people and 837 square miles. 28% more people and 1,100% more land area than DC, yet if I was advocating that Fairfield County should be it's own state you'd think I was at nuts.

[Odoreida]

95. Disenfranchise the people who grow your food? Bad idea. n/t

[ck4829]

98. It is

[FBaggins]

103. Good luck convincing those same tiny states to give up that power

That’s what it would take. 2/3 of the states would have to ratify a constitutional amendment giving it away (after 2/3 of the senators - many of whom only have seats because of the imbalance - vote the same way).

IOW... it ain’t happening.

[treestar]

110. Some would

there are small states joining the National Vote compact.

Or we could just have a Civil War. Urban people are going to become even more disfranchised as cities are still growing while rural areas are becoming less populated. The Founders had no way of knowing that would happen. They lived well before the Industrial Revolution. But they didn't want aristocracy and this system is letting rural voters be an equivalent of that.

[FBaggins]

114. Not nearly enough of them

Electoral college impact is tiny compared to the Senate. One vs. three electoral votes out of hundreds is essentially negligible. But two Senators vs. essentially zero is a huge shift when they already have little influence in the House.

As for “Civil War” nonsense... “good luck” doesn’t go far enough.

[treestar]

115. a huge majority is not going to want to be ruled by

a small minority. End of story. Something will happen when the blue city voters realize this.

[Polybius]

118. They've been been perfectly ok with that for over 200 years

They're never going to do anything about it, it's too hard to change.

[treestar]

120. As it gets worse

it will become a problem. People are starting to realize it now.

[FBaggins]

121. They aren't

The Senate can’t do anything on their own and the tiny states have a tiny impact on the White House.

We are in no sense “ruled” by a small minority.