Time for a change. Would appreciate comments below.
When the Constitution was written and ratified, the Founders knew that it would only survive if those who served, and the populace in general were a righteous people.
There is no place in a republic, or a democracy, for those who are dishonest, are thieves, or worse. Democracy is only as solid as its foundation on the rule of law. As that erodes, it usually becomes ripe for a despot. Donald Trump is no despot, contrary to what the media and the Democrats would tell you. Does a despot tear down regulation? Does a despot complain about inaction by the legislature, or Congress? You may say, "well, Phil, not at first", So far, Mr. Trump does not appear to me to be the one to take up the power wielded by his predecessors and expand it like each of them did. Of course, it is only two years, so we will have to see.
There are two groups that are despised by the people worse than Trump. They are the Media, and Congress. Can't do anything about the Media, though a lot of fantasies come to mind. So that leaves Congress. Congress is where the lawmaking is supposed to actually be done. So, what about it? Everyone hates Congress, but most, at least the majority in the district, like their Congressman. So what to do? What about a little bit of a radical change? A change that can be done by the states, without amendment, and actually allow for the introduction of elements to break up the two party system. Curious?
First. Congress needs to pass a law that apportions representation with a specific ratio, based on the Census done every ten years. For example, when the number 435 was set, the population of the US was 92 million, or 1 for every 211,000 people. with the only caveat that if a state does not meet the minimum number, whatever that is, they are allowed 1 representative. If we were to think that that ratio was a good mix, the number in the House today would be: 1,587 or so. How would that stack up? Instead of listing the populations, I will go from greatest to least, with the first number being how many congressmen they have and the second, how many they would have.
CA 53/188 TX 36/136 FL 27/101 NY 27/94 PA 18/61 IL 18/61 OH 16/55 GA 14/50 NC 13/49 MI 14/48 NJ 12/43 VA 11/40 WA 10/36 AZ 9/34 MA 9/33 TN 9/32 IN 9/32 MO 8/29 MD 8/29 WI 8/28 CO 7/27 MN 8/27 SC 7/24 AL 7/23 LA 6/22 KY 6/21 OR 5/20 OK 5/19 CT 5/17 IA 4/15 UT 4/15 NV 4/15 AR 4/14 MS 4/14 KS 4/14 NM 3/10 NE 3/9 WV 3/9 ID 2/8 HI 2/8 NH 2/6 ME 2/6 MT 1/5 RI 1/5 DE 1/4 SD 1/4 ND 1/3 AK 1/3 DC 1/1* VT 1/2 WY 1/2
I know, I did a lot of adding and color coding that won't be read. The DC delegate is a non-voting member, but does count towards the Electoral, for some bogus reason. Bottom line? So the numbers end up being 1523. Add that to the 102 for the Senate, and that is 1625 for the Electoral College. See, one problem solved. No need to abolish it, the numbers themselves, if Congress were apportioned according to the numbers in 1911 would account for the populous states. Much as I hate it. This number could change after the census every 10 years.
With so many in Congress, that causes some disruption in the lobbyist merry-go-round.
Now about gerrymandering. This is part II. I would propose, and I think that it is within the Constitution to do, is have people go to the polls every two years, and vote for party, not person, with no districts, and the Congressional representation is based on how the parties do. It would break up the power of the national parties, to an extent, and allow for 3rd, 4th or 5th parties to have a voice. For example, using Kansas, in the model above.
Kansas has 14 seats. Say the Republican party receives 40%, the Democrat 35%, and the KS LP receives 25%. That would mean that the KS GOP sends 6, the KS Dems send 5 and the KS LP sends 3 to DC. They pick the reps, and instead of the commercials we have, blasting each other, and trying desperately to depress the vote, we vote party, which we do anyway, and instead of the LP being in the cold because there isn't sufficient vote in any location to win, they had a good percentage, and are properly represented. Again, many vote party anyway, and how those reps do in DC, is how we rate the party next time around. If you are a black libertarian living in Topeka, how does a Democrat represent you? They don't, because as an individual, you don't push the needle enough for a Democrat, or Republican to care. How about a progressive in Hill City? Does the GOP rep do it for you? Or do you rave about how your vote doesn't matter? See, it now does matter.
The Senate, unfortunately, requires an amendment to fix. Or does it? If you read the 17th, it allows for the state to decide how to replace a Senator when a vacancy occurs. Could a state, in its Constitution, put an amendment in saying that with a supermajority vote by the legislature, a Senator could be recalled? I think the right judge would agree, and at the Supreme level, with Justices that believe in states's rights, who knows?
There is no place in a republic, or a democracy, for those who are dishonest, are thieves, or worse. Democracy is only as solid as its foundation on the rule of law. As that erodes, it usually becomes ripe for a despot. Donald Trump is no despot, contrary to what the media and the Democrats would tell you. Does a despot tear down regulation? Does a despot complain about inaction by the legislature, or Congress? You may say, "well, Phil, not at first", So far, Mr. Trump does not appear to me to be the one to take up the power wielded by his predecessors and expand it like each of them did. Of course, it is only two years, so we will have to see.
There are two groups that are despised by the people worse than Trump. They are the Media, and Congress. Can't do anything about the Media, though a lot of fantasies come to mind. So that leaves Congress. Congress is where the lawmaking is supposed to actually be done. So, what about it? Everyone hates Congress, but most, at least the majority in the district, like their Congressman. So what to do? What about a little bit of a radical change? A change that can be done by the states, without amendment, and actually allow for the introduction of elements to break up the two party system. Curious?
First. Congress needs to pass a law that apportions representation with a specific ratio, based on the Census done every ten years. For example, when the number 435 was set, the population of the US was 92 million, or 1 for every 211,000 people. with the only caveat that if a state does not meet the minimum number, whatever that is, they are allowed 1 representative. If we were to think that that ratio was a good mix, the number in the House today would be: 1,587 or so. How would that stack up? Instead of listing the populations, I will go from greatest to least, with the first number being how many congressmen they have and the second, how many they would have.
CA 53/188 TX 36/136 FL 27/101 NY 27/94 PA 18/61 IL 18/61 OH 16/55 GA 14/50 NC 13/49 MI 14/48 NJ 12/43 VA 11/40 WA 10/36 AZ 9/34 MA 9/33 TN 9/32 IN 9/32 MO 8/29 MD 8/29 WI 8/28 CO 7/27 MN 8/27 SC 7/24 AL 7/23 LA 6/22 KY 6/21 OR 5/20 OK 5/19 CT 5/17 IA 4/15 UT 4/15 NV 4/15 AR 4/14 MS 4/14 KS 4/14 NM 3/10 NE 3/9 WV 3/9 ID 2/8 HI 2/8 NH 2/6 ME 2/6 MT 1/5 RI 1/5 DE 1/4 SD 1/4 ND 1/3 AK 1/3 DC 1/1* VT 1/2 WY 1/2
I know, I did a lot of adding and color coding that won't be read. The DC delegate is a non-voting member, but does count towards the Electoral, for some bogus reason. Bottom line? So the numbers end up being 1523. Add that to the 102 for the Senate, and that is 1625 for the Electoral College. See, one problem solved. No need to abolish it, the numbers themselves, if Congress were apportioned according to the numbers in 1911 would account for the populous states. Much as I hate it. This number could change after the census every 10 years.
With so many in Congress, that causes some disruption in the lobbyist merry-go-round.
Now about gerrymandering. This is part II. I would propose, and I think that it is within the Constitution to do, is have people go to the polls every two years, and vote for party, not person, with no districts, and the Congressional representation is based on how the parties do. It would break up the power of the national parties, to an extent, and allow for 3rd, 4th or 5th parties to have a voice. For example, using Kansas, in the model above.
Kansas has 14 seats. Say the Republican party receives 40%, the Democrat 35%, and the KS LP receives 25%. That would mean that the KS GOP sends 6, the KS Dems send 5 and the KS LP sends 3 to DC. They pick the reps, and instead of the commercials we have, blasting each other, and trying desperately to depress the vote, we vote party, which we do anyway, and instead of the LP being in the cold because there isn't sufficient vote in any location to win, they had a good percentage, and are properly represented. Again, many vote party anyway, and how those reps do in DC, is how we rate the party next time around. If you are a black libertarian living in Topeka, how does a Democrat represent you? They don't, because as an individual, you don't push the needle enough for a Democrat, or Republican to care. How about a progressive in Hill City? Does the GOP rep do it for you? Or do you rave about how your vote doesn't matter? See, it now does matter.
The Senate, unfortunately, requires an amendment to fix. Or does it? If you read the 17th, it allows for the state to decide how to replace a Senator when a vacancy occurs. Could a state, in its Constitution, put an amendment in saying that with a supermajority vote by the legislature, a Senator could be recalled? I think the right judge would agree, and at the Supreme level, with Justices that believe in states's rights, who knows?
Comments
Post a Comment