Posted on 01/05/2019 5:13:44 AM PST by Impy
In 1995, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan declared, “Sometime in the next century the United States is going to have to address the question of apportionment in the Senate.” Perhaps that time has come. Today the voting power of a citizen in Wyoming, the smallest state in terms of population, is about 67 times that of a citizen in the largest state of California, and the disparities among the states are only increasing. The situation is untenable.
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
That’s at the heart of why the left wants more Senators per (left-wing) state, of course. Very imperial Romanesque, right?
This old saw is made irrelevant by the fact that people in North Dakota can only vote for three electors where as those in Pennsylvania can vote for twenty. Which get more attention in presidential elections?
Which is why the 17th Amendment was such a bad idea.
Took the power away from the state legislative bodies.
That’s why Wilson wanted that amendment so badly. State governments get shut out of DC and power gets centralized. As he put it, “socialism and democracy are almost, if not quite, one and the same. […] (m)en as communities are supreme over men as individuals”.
The end result would be far more new Democrat senators in the Senate than Republican senators.
“... The situation is untenable”
Ah no. It’s very tenable. If anything, I would propose the reverse. California has at least 5 million illegal aliens living and voting there. This means California is OVER represented in congress. They should either have to lose 12 congressional seats or one Senate seat to make up for stealing real American citizen votes.
How do you like that proposal, you butt wipe maggots at the Atlantic.
Exactly. Make it 6 states, then we can talk.
In 1780 the voters of Georgia had about 20 times the voting power as the voters in Virginia. Maybe they knew what they were doing when they set up the senate?
There is no point or advantage for any state with a smaller population to remain in the union if this dopey idea were to ever make it through the amendment process.
Certainly don’t trust this clown’s legal judgment...
One word -> NO!
It's not just that they don't control the Senate now.
They foresee a future where they will have a hard time controlling the Senate for decades -- even as the populations of rural states decline relative to their urban counterparts.
It’s like watching monkeys trying to fix a car engine.
Just start repealing amendments from the last one until it starts working again, dummies! I swear, the U.S. Consitution was amended by people who couldn’t wipe the a$$es of those who wrote it.
The Senate is SUPPOSED to be a body with non-democratic representation of individual citizens. How do you think you can keep the MOB from just voting itself other people’s stuff?
In fact, we have let liberal idiots and well-meaning retards break the design of the Federal Government so much with Amendments, that you can see it already failing, now. The Senate is just the House on steroids, and is, in no way, a counterbalance to it. The Supreme Court is now a Liberal body, swimming in estrogen.
Pray for the dying republic.
From author’s bio :
Director: Initiative for Global Environmental Leadership.
Reseach interests (among others): environmental law and policy.
Repealing the 19th amendment would nullify the need for the other listed changes.
The end result would be far more new Democrat senators in the Senate than Republican senators.
I’m not sure that’s true. Most of the big population states are now represented by Dems , with no senators to speak for their Republican voters
This REALLY IS a tale told by an idiot!
Using smoky back room machine polotics to select Senatorial candidates was certainly bad. But letting the “democracy” mob do it is FAR FAR worse.
1. The Constitution was written with the expectation that states would be added to the original thirteen as the frontier was settled and new territories acquired. However, the Constitutional also contains a provision that requires the consent of a state legislature before a new state could be created out of the territory of an existing state. In the case of California, this might be workable because the leftists out there would have a strong incentive to increase their representation in the U.S. Senate from two to four, six, or even more.
2. However, the admission of new states also requires the consent of Congress. Look at Congress as it's set up now. What incentive does the GOP-led Senate have to admit two or more new states that would simply add Democrats to the Senate?
This isn't a new issue, by the way. These questions were asked almost every time new states were admitted to the Union -- which is why they were often admitted in pairs or groups (one in the North and one South, for example) as part of political compromises.
If they want the Senate to look more like the House, why even have a Senate?
If any brains remain when this happens, any changes like these will cause several states to secede. Then, given the idiocracy that allowed the changes, a devastating war to try to destroy those states.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.