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 ...
Thanks for the update. I wasn’t aware of that.
Be that as it may, on my bucket list is pissing on his grave.
The Senate is the echo chamber for the state governments, not the individual citizenry groupings. 17th amendment must be repealed.
California and New York have stated that they have seceded. Don’t seat the Fake senators from either state. Precedent was set in 1861.
The Democrats want to dismantle our Federal form of government, especially those provisions that protect the rights of minorities, both individuals and States. Of course, the Democrats claim that they are the champions of the minority, but that is true only in the sense that they invite minorities to contribute their votes to the Democrat cause, and then the intellectually superior Democrat leaders will do what is best for all of these minority groups. The abhor the concept of individual rights and liberty. Those rights must belong to an identity group and their self identified leaders will act in their best interests. This was the construct of the USSR where the rights of races, tribes, and regions were completely protected, but that the rights of individuals were nonexistent.
The Democrats are working to destroy the Constitution and concentrate power and authority within a central government that is superficially duly elected, but under an open borders arrangement, Democrats only need to import voters where ever and when ever they are required. They could even be sent back when the election is over if they prove to be troublesome. This happened in the United States, in Kansas, where the Democrats imported voters from Missouri for election days to ensure that Kansas was not admitted as a Free State. Lots of free whiskey in border towns like Leavenworth and Kickapoo was sufficient to attract voters across the river. The Democrats know how to do these sort of things.
That's the article speaking. While I'll quickly argee the Senate is out of whack, changing the apportionment is NOT the solution. IMHO, that's going backwards.
If Texas follows California’s lead, we’ll have about 40 Senators.
The obvious solution is for Vermont to import more illegals.
Maybe the “WALL” should be built around California.
To keep the lunatics in.
Divide California into three parts. North of Sacramento would become part of Oregon. Central California would be the west side of the state from Sacramento south to San Diego. And the mostly empty eastern side of the state would become part of Nevada.
(rough map)
Full disclosure: I like Arizona.
This or any other way to circumvent the 2 Senators per state rule would trigger a civil war they would lose badly and cause the disillusionment of the United States of America. I’ve always thought a second Civil War was a ridiculous dream for some people and an empty threat for others, but for this issue I would stand and physically fight for the future of America and the freedom of my children and grandchildren.
the two senators per state rule is to prevent Mob rule.
The whole argument of this article is based on penumbras and emanations.
Exactly. Repeal the 17th Amendment. Probably never happen.
not going to happen.
Anyone who thinks the little states, population wise, are going to give an inch to the large populated ones is nuts.
Be like Slovakia Giving away its sovernity to the E.U./
Oh, wait,
They really do hate the Constitution.
The history of this is that it was a compromise. The bigger states thought each state should be represented in Congress according to population; the smaller states argued that a state is a state is a state, so the representation should be equal.
What the Framers ultimately came up with was a compromise that served both interests and furthered their design of diffusing power.
This design was recreated (at our suggestion) in the constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany, where there are two hoses in Parliament — the Bundestag (translated “people’s house”) and the Landestag (translated “states’ house.”)
We are supposed to be a union of sovereign states in which each state is equal.
It’s true that the Senate is undemocratic. It was supposed to be. Its job is to represent each state, not to represent teh people.
Taht is also why the 17th Amendment should be repealed.
Which would likely not have quite the effect that the Democrats would like.
I’ve heard the electoral college’s function is to ‘give dirt a vote.’ That may be true, but it keeps the urbanites from raping everyone else.
Some years ago, there was talk of having New England secede and join with the Maritime Provinces to form Acadia.
We know the left would like to form a new nation in the Southwest called Aztlan.
California has talked about seceding. Texas reserved that right, and also the right to break up into several states.
Some of Canada’s Western provinces talked about seceding from Canada and joining the USA. (They’re the relatively conservative parts of Canada.)
I’m sure the left would love that!
Why bother having senators?
If we had a strict popular vote system, California would have decided the president. Mrs. Clinton’s margin in California was larger than her ((recorded) margin in the whole country.
IOW, take out California and Trump wins the popular vote, even by the possibly corrupt reported numbers.
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.