• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.

olubode

Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,902
Pack the Union: A Proposal to Admit New States for the Purpose of Amending the Constitution to Ensure Equal Representation

While a step in the right direction, these proposals are inadequate. To create a system where every vote counts equally, the Constitution must be amended. To do this, Congress should pass legislation reducing the size of Washington, D.C., to an area encompassing only a few core federal buildings and then admit the rest of the District's 127 neighborhoods15× as states. These states — which could be added with a simple congressional majority — would add enough votes in Congress to ratify four amendments: (1) a transfer of the Senate's power to a body that represents citizens equally; (2) an expansion of the House so that all citizens are represented in equal-sized districts; (3) a replacement of the Electoral College with a popular vote; and (4) a modification of the Constitution's amendment process that would ensure future amendments are ratified by states representing most Americans.

What are the drawback? And I don't think it could be stopped
 

Masoyama

Attempted to circumvent a ban with an alt account
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
5,648
Prepare to live in a world with 155 states? North Alabama, Panhandle, Lower Mississippi, etc. DC and PR need to be given a vote, but if a couple simple majority votes are all that's needed to add states and get more votes, its all gonna go to shit fast
 
OP
OP

olubode

Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,902
Prepare to live in a world with 155 states? North Alabama, Panhandle, Lower Mississippi, etc. DC and PR need to be given a vote, but if a couple simple majority votes are all that's needed to add states and get more votes, its all gonna go to shit fast
How would you separate states? This proposal changes DC and could probably be performed much faster than separating existing states.
 

Chaosblade

Resettlement Advisor
Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,592
Prepare to live in a world with 155 states? North Alabama, Panhandle, Lower Mississippi, etc. DC and PR need to be given a vote, but if a couple simple majority votes are all that's needed to add states and get more votes, its all gonna go to shit fast
Haven't read the article yet but I think splitting existing states would be more difficult than splitting DC like the article proposes.
 

thewienke

Member
Oct 25, 2017
15,936
You could just add senators from Puerto Rico and Washington DC to make it easier to hit 60 votes in the Senate. Then repeal the 1929 Permanent Apportion Act and reallocate Congress from there. That would fix the Electoral College to be more representative of the population and you'd have more members of Congress proportional to the population.

Taking cues from Ancient Rome by arbitrarily adding Senators when you don't like the results isn't the path forward. Unless you're Russia and want to see how fractured the US can get anyway.
 

miscellaneous houseplant

self-requsted ban
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
306
I am totally on board with this. Our country is fundamentally broken at the federal level, and increasing population disparities between states will only exacerbate the issues of representation in the senate, congress, and the electoral college going forward. Without change, we risk a Senate controlled by Republicans in perpetuity.
 

Brakke

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
3,798
Shouldn't attribute this to "Harvard Law." This was a student piece selected by a student-edited journal that functions like an op ed section.
 

Joni

Member
Oct 27, 2017
19,508
This sounds like those suggestions to pack the supreme court with 20 new 'democrat' judges.
 

Deleted member 43

Account closed at user request
Banned
Oct 24, 2017
9,271
You could just add senators from Puerto Rico and Washington DC to make it easier to hit 60 votes in the Senate. Then repeal the 1929 Permanent Apportion Act and reallocate Congress from there. That would fix the Electoral College to be more representative of the population and you'd have more members of Congress proportional to the population.

Taking cues from Ancient Rome by arbitrarily adding Senators when you don't like the results isn't the path forward. Unless you're Russia and want to see how fractured the US can get anyway.
This is where I am just right off the bat. It's a novel idea but sets a very dangerous precedent and, no matter the noble intentions, would feel very much like a dirty trick.
 

Kirblar

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
30,744
You could just add senators from Puerto Rico and Washington DC to make it easier to hit 60 votes in the Senate. Then repeal the 1929 Permanent Apportion Act and reallocate Congress from there. That would fix the Electoral College to be more representative of the population and you'd have more members of Congress proportional to the population.

Taking cues from Ancient Rome by arbitrarily adding Senators when you don't like the results isn't the path forward. Unless you're Russia and want to see how fractured the US can get anyway.
The goal of this isn't to warp the Senate, it's to kill it.

The problem with this is really not the politics of it or it being a "dirty trick", it's that getting Senators to kill the Senate... will be very difficult.
 

Deleted member 43

Account closed at user request
Banned
Oct 24, 2017
9,271
The goal of this isn't to warp the Senate, it's to kill it.

The problem with this is really not the politics of it or it being a "dirty trick", it's that getting Senators to kill the Senate... will be very difficult.
I mean also just the basic moral problem of fundamentaly changing the nature of the US government without the consent of a super majority of Americans, as our plan of government pretty clearly demands.
 

Kirblar

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
30,744
I mean also just the basic moral problem of fundamentaly changing the nature of the US government without the consent of a super majority of Americans, as our plan of government pretty clearly demands.
The current nature of our government allows for a government by the minority which the GOP is trying to turn into permanent power for themselves. Going in and editing it so that there's actual majority rule with the removal of the EC and Senate and making sure the same play can't be re-run after (i.e., proportional representation on future decisions) would be fine, the problem is getting Senators onboard doing it in the first place.
 

Deleted member 43

Account closed at user request
Banned
Oct 24, 2017
9,271
The current nature of our government allows for a government by the minority which the GOP is trying to turn into permanent power for themselves. Going in and editing it so that there's actual majority rule with the removal of the EC and Senate and making sure the same play can't be re-run after (i.e., proportional representation on future decisions) would be fine, the problem is getting Senators onboard doing it in the first place.
I can't really agree, even if I would be overjoyed with the end result.

A minority of Americans don't have a right to make this level of basic and fundamental change to the government of this nation.
 

Kirblar

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
30,744
I can't really agree, even if I would be overjoyed with the end result.

A minority of Americans don't have a right to make this level of basic and fundamental change to the government of this nation.
Have you ever looked at the composition of the D-controlled Senate seats vs R-ones? Population wise?

This would be a majority of Americans making this decision.
 

FreezePeach

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
12,811
So get it up to 67% and we'll talk.
Yeah you see by that point if senate minority dems represent 67% of the country than we probably dont have a democratic government anymore and nothing will change. What a silly barrier to entry that number is. And it's arguing against more direct representation of the people as well.
 

PeskyToaster

Member
Oct 27, 2017
15,312
If you just give DC proportional voting rights as a state and then grant PR statehood, the game has already drastically changed and that's more palatable and an easier sell than this proposal.
 

Deleted member 43

Account closed at user request
Banned
Oct 24, 2017
9,271
Yeah you see by that point if senate minority dems represent 67% of the country than we probably dont have a democratic government anymore and nothing will change. What a silly barrier to entry that number is. And it's arguing against more direct representation of the people as well.
2/3 is the amount of Congress required to get a constitutional amendment passed.

If the argument is our system is so broken that getting to that point through traditional means is impossible, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that 2/3 of Americans support the untraditional manner and means through which that issue is addressed.