The ten least populous states have a combined 7.9 million residents but throw equal weight in the senate to the ten representing 164 million Americans. How can we fix this?
Let me know about options to share, specifically my daughter is totally disabled and living like the typical welfare queen, $800 a month income to cover all of her needs, and the US Congress just cancelled her dental and vision care. She can't afford much, but does her part calling congress and teaching others.
If you click the 'Share' button in this article and enter her email address, it sends a link to the free version of the Hartmann Report. No need to become a paid subscriber, the majority of content here is free.
I used to want to sky dive. Then a friend bought a plane and I hung around airports a while until I left for college. What I saw at those small airports cured me of ever wanting to leap out of a perfectly good airplane. Near where I live in Colorado, 5 years ago they had a chute fail, and killed someone. They tried to cover it up, but got caught.
What was interesting is all the people who came forward and said they'd been injured sky diving. It's a far larger number than I expected. They all said the same thing, I landed wrong or I landed on a cow or whatever, always their fault, but it shows that it's not a hobby for everyone. It's not like learning to play shuffleboard.
Here is more proof that Thom must be placed in a special bubble and preserved for at least the next 50 years with constant medical monitoring and a special diet and exercise regimen to keep us all informed and forewarned.
Honestly, I don't see the strong possibility that any new states will be added within the foreseeable future, except possibly Washington, D.C., although this message must be amplified in every way possible.
There is one alternative. If the people in the least populous states could be somehow reached by more rational and reasoned voices and brought into the 21 century, they would no longer be reactionary, ignorant, and xenophobic. If the bad laws undermining education and democracy were eliminated, the ideal of universal education would be much closer to realization. Well, okay, forget I mentioned it. That definitely isn't going to happen. Those bad laws are a security blanket for Americans and no one is willing to challenge the sacred cows or give up on reforming failing institutions so that children will learn democratic ideals through experience. Sorry, I keep forgetting.
That is a pretty compelling case you would bring to the voters in these small states.
You people are "reactionary, ignorant and xenophobic" so give up your political power so the same group that got you through the financial crises where bankers got bailed out and kept their bonuses and homeowners got evicted will now tell you how to run your states.
You illustrate the problem quite aptly. Your facts and your interpretation of the facts are spoon-fed from the right-wing spin machine and you are happy to buy in and then repeat endlessly regardless of the reality. It's very much a consequence of bad schools which leave graduates less able to discern truth and truthtellers than if they had played video games and partied throughout their youth. Obviously, there are people everywhere who are less gullible and who managed to overcome the handicaps imposed under the compulsory schooling paradigm and people do disagree on policy or practice for good reason in many cases. However, the extremists which now predominately populate the so-called red areas of the country are in fact reactionary, ignorant, and demonstrably xenophobic (and often, racist). They throw the word "freedom" around without a clue about the actual history of the nation or the conceptions enshrined in our US Constitution. They have made a mockery of our democracy and would prefer some other form of government where people like you and I are told what to do and when to do it by wealthy people or authoritarians such as Trump.
I did not say i disagreed with your analysis of red state republicans. I can see how one could see them that way... But you seemed to miss my point.
Insulting them is not going to convince them of anything.
Understanding how they view liberals like Obama and the financial crises will help you convince them of something.
Oh and my narrative on Obama, and the financial crises, does not come from right wing media. It is the analysis of liberal economists such as Nobel Prize winners Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman. And Prof's Stiglitz and Krugman as well as many Republican voters are correct in their analysis of and therefore lack of trust in Democrats .
It is not my objective to convince red state Republicans of anything. That is where the problem lies. They are in my estimation and in accordance with their political philosophy and tendency to demonize liberals, progressives, and Democrats, incapable of rational analysis, processing of objective facts, or appreciation for the historical record. And, they cannot overcome their fear of change or meaningful freedom for ordinary citizens. If they, or you, are insulted by being identified as ignorant, xenophobic, or extremist, I am powerless to assist.
Your suggestion or inference that Obama, Democrats, liberals, or progressives should be blamed for the negative aspects of the rescue plan of about 14 years ago is a bit ironic. Obama’s hands were tied, and he pushed through a bailout while holding his nose because the Republicans refused to support a more workable plan that would have been less of a boon for the bankers and CEOs and less of a boondoggle for the Republicans who would have allowed the country to be economically destroyed just to block him because of their racism and bigotry. Shame on you for twisting the conclusions of Krugman and Stiglitz to suit a perception that neither of them would ever support. No one on this site is fooled for a second.
Related — Quick arithmetic on Angus King's excellent speech, which said 24% of the country controls 40 or 41 Senate seats. Bad enough.
The above seems to say that less than 3% of the population controls 20 Senate seats.
That should have lit a fire under the DNC like a blow torch years ago. Instead, it was regressives with a vengeance.
Taking the King number, it’s not 24%, only 75% can vote, so we are down to 18%. Only 60% register, so thats 11%. Only 60% of those vote, so that’s 7%. And let’s say 65% of those vote R, so that’s around 5% vs the brave 3% who voted progressive, ending up with 2% controlling our country.
My quick estimates, checked in part by a brief glance at Wyoming’s recent numbers, deserve a more complete calculation, but the point will remain, and remain profoundly disturbing.
The opportunity has been overwhelming, all this time. Spend time, money, and heart on those states. We often got brilliant from those states, it has to happen again. — b.rad
ps King should have included the 8 million / 3% / 20 senators fraction of his 24% shocker … much more shocking! thanks Thom, I guess … =:-|
Very little DNC money filters down to the crimson red state I live in, even though there are still plenty of gettable Democratic votes. Howard Dean's 50-state strategy should be adopted for the long war as more and more people wake up to the fact of a fascistic Republican Party gone wild.
People who heard his speech live said that his exclamations at the end totally matched the rising din of the crowd and the mood. But, as Thom has written about, corporate media used a bad mic moment out of context in the heat of the moment to destroy him because he dared criticize the network on which he was interviewed.
The big guys stick together and he hit a little too close to home in pointing out that corporate medIa conglomerates are slanted to the right and Wall Street sympathird and badly misinform their audiences by playing down Democratic issues while filling the news cycle with Republican crap. I'm badly paraphrasing Howard Dean here (his screed was masterful) but his obvious truths were way over the line for the biggest liars of all liars. So he was out.
Thanks. First, the next steps should logically require no Senate supermajority.
Having said that, I break my own rule, and propose / insist we need city states, where metropolitan regions of sufficient population get 2 senators, in addition to whole state senators.
Great idea... If the leaders of the Dem party wanted to add more Dem Senators they would have done this in Bidens first 90 days. I think the evidence is overwhelming that Dem leadership, Pelosi, Schumer and Biden do not prioritize governing to suit voters. They support governing to suit the donor class first and foremost.
So this idea of adding states would clearly give the Dems more power. I am sure someone their thought about it. And in the end the rejected the idea... The Donor class wants America split like this. And Nancy, Chuck and Joe clearly have chosen to serve the donor class over ordinary Americans. No?
On this forum, It's okay to call the Democratic Party by it's proper name; although, I know that's a hard pill to swallow for members of the "Repugnant Party," a wholly owned subsidiary of Wall Street.
I think both parties have been proven to be "wholly owned subsidiary's of Wall Street. It was Bill Clinton that killed Glass Steagal which opened to the door to Wall Street creating the 2008 financial crises. Of course it also required Bush2 to stop enforcing regulations at the big firms. Then Obama's team okay'd the plan to evict home owners and make sure Wall Street share holders were made whole while bonuses were paid at the top.
My point stands. If the Dems wanted to add states, and it would be a brilliant idea IMHO, they would have already done it. So the evidence is clear. They don't want to add sates.
Naw, it's all about percentages and odds. I'd say the Democratic Party is only partially owned, and therefore it's ripe for the picking. Why go to all the hassle starting from scratch with some sure-to-lose third party when the necessary party machinery is already up and running? And, sure, it's sputtering and smoking a little (okay, a lot), but it can still be fixed.
Forget that rusty old heap gasping over in the corner with a bent "R" emblem on its hood; its totalled, ready for the junkyard of history.
For instance, rank-choice voting knocked out Sarah Palin in her own red state (for the time being anyway); and now, a Native Alaskan woman will be in the House until November when she has a good shot at securing the full two-year term.
The "Dems" could do a lot of cool things -- add states and justices to counteract the gross imbalances in the Senate and Supreme Court, get rid of the filibuster, gerrymandering, and the Electoral College -- IF (a word doing all the heavy lifting here) everyday liberals and progressives (which I suspect is the true center) put their votes where their mouths are, take over the party, and change the rules to make a fair and level playing field for all players, including whatever battered factions happen to survive the ultimate demise of the "Cons," who only stand in the way of progress time after time.
I have been hearing about the "cool" things the Dems can do for 20yrs now. It never happens and it never will as long as the Hillary Clintons and Chuck Schumers control the party. They are the ones that are controlled by corporations.
The majority of GOP and DEM voters support Medicare For All yet joe biden said he would veto the bill if it came to his desk. That is the definition of being controlled by the corporations. Bill Clinton gave Wall Street the power they needed to destroy the economy when he signed the bill killing Glass Steagal.
The elite in the DEM party are just as controlled by corporate America as Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump.
In 2008 the Tea Party organized to oppose Obama. By the time Obama was done the Tea Party candidate won the GOP primaries and was sitting in the white house after the General Election. Yes, parties can be taken over. We just saw it.
Hell no, i would not start a third party. I fully support the progressives that are trying to take power away from the Democratic elites that are clearly fully controlled by corporate interests.
If DEM voters that don't want leaders controlled by corporations leading our party they need to organize, protest and vote. Just like the wake jobs in the Tea Party did. And in the Dem party they need to vote against corporate shills like Nancy Pelosi and Jerry Nadler in every single primary.
Yes, it can happen that a party can get taken over in a rather short period of time. The Tea Party did it to the GOP.. Now those people are wack jobs, unquestionably.
But that does not mean that any Democrat that wants the Democrats to have real power should ever vote for an incumbent Democrat in a primary that is controlled by corporate interests. EVER.. If you are then stop complaining about GOP leaders being controlled by corporations. Your party is too. Vote progressives or stop complaining about th GOP controlled by Corporations
Here is an interesting solution to the problems inflicted on America by the Founders' "Undemocratic Senate", as proposed in an essay in the Washington Post (link further below). Create a filibuster that is apportioned to the population. "Democratize" the filibuster. "The Senate could change this rule (cloture) so that ending debate would instead require the support of a majority of senators who collectively represent a majority of the U.S. population, with each senator considered to represent half of his or her state’s residents."
This will allow the Senate to function as a representative body for bringing legislation up for a vote. It will require the backing of an actual "Majority of the People" to move legislation to the floor, while preventing the minority from obstructing the Senate.
Keeping the rule in place from one congress to the next would need to be solidified.
…
Meanwhile, I've some issues with the Founders' version of the Senate structure, here's a few:
Some complained in the WaPo's essay that this idea is "too complicated". But, the ideas for denying democratic Senate representation, i.e., one person one vote, to instead have only 2 senators per administrative borders while ignoring the people within - are already way too convoluted to begin with. The Founders made the mistake of going to extraordinary, complicated lengths to construct a system to maintain power for land owners and slave owners. Their construct obstructs the will of the people.
Next, to every supporter of the nondemocratic Senate I await a solid answer to this. The Constitution has carved in stone the Senate's power to declare war. Why in the world do people in a small state like Wyoming have 70 times the power to declare war as people who live in a large state like California?
Do these people have 70 lives to give for their country? Do they believe they are 70 times more important than the “big state elitists''?
People fight the wars, not their land.
Finally: Why the hoarding of power by the smaller states?
We often talk of our “Grand Experiment of Democracy”, and the effort to build “A More Perfect Union”. When you conduct and experiment and it fails, you change the experiment as you try to improve the outcome. We have yet to both thoroughly recognize the epic, ongoing failure of the Senate, and make corrections to that “experiment” so that it becomes a more effective institution for administering the will of the people of America.
The Senate must change, which will mean that some states will have less power than now. They will have to get over it, they are hoarding power that does not have a moral justification for it to belong to them.
It was quite something to see good-hearted Americans and allies fight overseas, and then try to promote democracy there. Remember all those purple finger pictures in Iraq and Afghanistan?
I hate the idea of conferring statehood for political purposes, but so damn much is at stake. Do we have the luxury to be pure of heart? At least it would be done with a majority VOTE!
Republican is the name, ruthless is their game. Democratic is our name, and we try to live up to it. Maybe it is time for some literal nation-building at home.
It's way past the time to rebuild what Republicans are happily destroying, but ya gotta start somewhere. Each election -- if people are sufficiently motivated to vote for the good guys and gals -- is one more step forward toward a "more perfect union."
Today, that dream seems so far away. But paradise and a big box of donuts is just over the next hill... (Haha, that's what I used to tell my kids on long hikes when they started complaining.)
The proposal that the Democratic Party and its elite urban voter support base should simply add a couple of new states, two not connected to the continental US, and the District of Columbia, is a flawed argument and will backfire in my analysis. All the rural voters are going to see it as a giant avalanche imposing urban living standards and needs on rural residents.
An alternative consideration would, logically, be to consider how to keep the United States of America intact by working on a centrist platform that would address the most meaningful needs of all Americans. For example, regardless of the evidence that the Democratic Party elites sponsored the pharmaceutical approach to healthcare with a massive one-size fits everyone in a manner that seemed more like a China or a Russia autocratic approach, rural voters who generally stayed healthy and were able to ignore the police mandates during the Covid Experiment will see Mr. Hartman's suggestions as unpalatable. However, independent voters everywhere, urban and rural, would probably vote for someone like Senator Cheney as president with a platform that: 1. Funded Social Security with a tax on all income, 2. Funded a Healthcare for everyone with State's options, 3. A 2-year universal GI Service Bill for all 18 year olds in return for debt-free education, 4. A new USA Transportation and Electric Grid system with fast intercontinental trains, interconnected to every town and an electric grid able to pull in all wind and solar power, and finally 5. A retooling of our education system to provide a US K-12 system that is funded at global standards.
Splitting our country as Mr. Hartman is suggesting is simply conducting civil warfare similar to what the Republican Party has been doing; I think an Independent Party is desperately needed before we do have a Civil War similar to what people experienced in the Balkans.
Mr. Hartman Citations:
The Democratic Party is facing a crisis that it’s experienced only once before in its history: within the next two decades, half of the population of the United States will live in just eight mostly-Democratic-controlled states and be represented by only 16 (out of 100) US senators.
The GOP, if their dominance in low-population states holds, will have an unbeatable majority in the Senate for generations going forward
Democrats must do the same next year — add two states to expand their majority in the Senate — if they can hold a majority in the House and expand their control of the Senate.
All it takes to add a state is that territory passing a referendum asking for statehood (already happened for DC and Puerto Rico), a simple majority vote in the House and Senate, and the President’s signature.
Almost half of our states have fewer than four million people, with 14 of them having fewer than two million, and generally the least populous states are the most rural and the most reliably Republican
To fix this undemocratic imbalance, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico must become states now.
“Taxation without representation” is proudly displayed on the license plates of vehicles registered in Washington, DC. It’s ironic, considering that the city is the capital of a nation birthed in the colonial times with cries of, “No taxation without representation!”
Though residents in Washington, DC pay federal taxes and the District has more citizens than either Wyoming or Vermont, DC is not a state, has no votes in Congress, and has had only three Electoral College votes since the 1961 passage of the 23rd Amendment.
Puerto Rico, with several times the population of Wyoming or Vermont, is in a similar situation, although residents of the territory don’t generally pay federal income taxes. In a 2017 referendum, 97 percent of the island’s residents voted in favor of statehood.
And if Democrats want to really imitate Lincoln’s political coup to solidify control of the Senate, they could add a third state.
One of the real breakout stars among the House Impeachment Managers, Delegate Stacey Plaskett, represents the US Virgin Islands in Congress. Like DC’s Eleanor Holmes Norton, she has no vote, but she can speak up during House debates.
The US Virgin Islands have a bit over 100,000 residents, which easily fits into the historic population ratios Republicans used to add both Nevada, Colorado and both Dakotas as states, all just to get more senators.
While a harder lift, the Virgin Islands should be considered for statehood, too, if for no other reason than to balance out the 39 million Californians who have only two US Senators.
So trying to reform a broken political system by outmaneuvering the other side? How's that working?
Along with a broken economic system BTW that supports a broken political system? Have we ever tried communicating with "I" statements, validating the feelings of the other side, emphasizing with them? Oh I'm sorry this isn't trying to save a marriage. However when there's 70 to 80% agreement on the major issues there must be some way that works to get us all to GO! ...maybe we need a new system(s) and a new way of listening and communicating?
OK, I've had enough, this MUST become required reading for all Americans.
Thom, glad you are back, but I 'd like ask where you found a superman pill to turn out so many excellent articles. I could use one myself.
It is good to see Thom back!
Please feel free to share the article with friends to help spread the word.
Let me know about options to share, specifically my daughter is totally disabled and living like the typical welfare queen, $800 a month income to cover all of her needs, and the US Congress just cancelled her dental and vision care. She can't afford much, but does her part calling congress and teaching others.
If you click the 'Share' button in this article and enter her email address, it sends a link to the free version of the Hartmann Report. No need to become a paid subscriber, the majority of content here is free.
It is good to see him back. Now, no more jumping out of planes!
I used to want to sky dive. Then a friend bought a plane and I hung around airports a while until I left for college. What I saw at those small airports cured me of ever wanting to leap out of a perfectly good airplane. Near where I live in Colorado, 5 years ago they had a chute fail, and killed someone. They tried to cover it up, but got caught.
What was interesting is all the people who came forward and said they'd been injured sky diving. It's a far larger number than I expected. They all said the same thing, I landed wrong or I landed on a cow or whatever, always their fault, but it shows that it's not a hobby for everyone. It's not like learning to play shuffleboard.
I used to jump off trains at running speed, but that's a whole 'nother story...
Here is more proof that Thom must be placed in a special bubble and preserved for at least the next 50 years with constant medical monitoring and a special diet and exercise regimen to keep us all informed and forewarned.
Honestly, I don't see the strong possibility that any new states will be added within the foreseeable future, except possibly Washington, D.C., although this message must be amplified in every way possible.
There is one alternative. If the people in the least populous states could be somehow reached by more rational and reasoned voices and brought into the 21 century, they would no longer be reactionary, ignorant, and xenophobic. If the bad laws undermining education and democracy were eliminated, the ideal of universal education would be much closer to realization. Well, okay, forget I mentioned it. That definitely isn't going to happen. Those bad laws are a security blanket for Americans and no one is willing to challenge the sacred cows or give up on reforming failing institutions so that children will learn democratic ideals through experience. Sorry, I keep forgetting.
RBE
That is a pretty compelling case you would bring to the voters in these small states.
You people are "reactionary, ignorant and xenophobic" so give up your political power so the same group that got you through the financial crises where bankers got bailed out and kept their bonuses and homeowners got evicted will now tell you how to run your states.
Good luck with that...
You illustrate the problem quite aptly. Your facts and your interpretation of the facts are spoon-fed from the right-wing spin machine and you are happy to buy in and then repeat endlessly regardless of the reality. It's very much a consequence of bad schools which leave graduates less able to discern truth and truthtellers than if they had played video games and partied throughout their youth. Obviously, there are people everywhere who are less gullible and who managed to overcome the handicaps imposed under the compulsory schooling paradigm and people do disagree on policy or practice for good reason in many cases. However, the extremists which now predominately populate the so-called red areas of the country are in fact reactionary, ignorant, and demonstrably xenophobic (and often, racist). They throw the word "freedom" around without a clue about the actual history of the nation or the conceptions enshrined in our US Constitution. They have made a mockery of our democracy and would prefer some other form of government where people like you and I are told what to do and when to do it by wealthy people or authoritarians such as Trump.
RBE
I did not say i disagreed with your analysis of red state republicans. I can see how one could see them that way... But you seemed to miss my point.
Insulting them is not going to convince them of anything.
Understanding how they view liberals like Obama and the financial crises will help you convince them of something.
Oh and my narrative on Obama, and the financial crises, does not come from right wing media. It is the analysis of liberal economists such as Nobel Prize winners Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman. And Prof's Stiglitz and Krugman as well as many Republican voters are correct in their analysis of and therefore lack of trust in Democrats .
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/19/books/19book.html
Mr.D.,
It is not my objective to convince red state Republicans of anything. That is where the problem lies. They are in my estimation and in accordance with their political philosophy and tendency to demonize liberals, progressives, and Democrats, incapable of rational analysis, processing of objective facts, or appreciation for the historical record. And, they cannot overcome their fear of change or meaningful freedom for ordinary citizens. If they, or you, are insulted by being identified as ignorant, xenophobic, or extremist, I am powerless to assist.
Your suggestion or inference that Obama, Democrats, liberals, or progressives should be blamed for the negative aspects of the rescue plan of about 14 years ago is a bit ironic. Obama’s hands were tied, and he pushed through a bailout while holding his nose because the Republicans refused to support a more workable plan that would have been less of a boon for the bankers and CEOs and less of a boondoggle for the Republicans who would have allowed the country to be economically destroyed just to block him because of their racism and bigotry. Shame on you for twisting the conclusions of Krugman and Stiglitz to suit a perception that neither of them would ever support. No one on this site is fooled for a second.
Related — Quick arithmetic on Angus King's excellent speech, which said 24% of the country controls 40 or 41 Senate seats. Bad enough.
The above seems to say that less than 3% of the population controls 20 Senate seats.
That should have lit a fire under the DNC like a blow torch years ago. Instead, it was regressives with a vengeance.
Taking the King number, it’s not 24%, only 75% can vote, so we are down to 18%. Only 60% register, so thats 11%. Only 60% of those vote, so that’s 7%. And let’s say 65% of those vote R, so that’s around 5% vs the brave 3% who voted progressive, ending up with 2% controlling our country.
My quick estimates, checked in part by a brief glance at Wyoming’s recent numbers, deserve a more complete calculation, but the point will remain, and remain profoundly disturbing.
The opportunity has been overwhelming, all this time. Spend time, money, and heart on those states. We often got brilliant from those states, it has to happen again. — b.rad
ps King should have included the 8 million / 3% / 20 senators fraction of his 24% shocker … much more shocking! thanks Thom, I guess … =:-|
Very little DNC money filters down to the crimson red state I live in, even though there are still plenty of gettable Democratic votes. Howard Dean's 50-state strategy should be adopted for the long war as more and more people wake up to the fact of a fascistic Republican Party gone wild.
thanks, meant to mention Howard, and the idiots who ejected him instead of supporting and building on the righteous rage and energy
"YEEEAAAHHH!!"
People who heard his speech live said that his exclamations at the end totally matched the rising din of the crowd and the mood. But, as Thom has written about, corporate media used a bad mic moment out of context in the heat of the moment to destroy him because he dared criticize the network on which he was interviewed.
The big guys stick together and he hit a little too close to home in pointing out that corporate medIa conglomerates are slanted to the right and Wall Street sympathird and badly misinform their audiences by playing down Democratic issues while filling the news cycle with Republican crap. I'm badly paraphrasing Howard Dean here (his screed was masterful) but his obvious truths were way over the line for the biggest liars of all liars. So he was out.
Thanks. First, the next steps should logically require no Senate supermajority.
Having said that, I break my own rule, and propose / insist we need city states, where metropolitan regions of sufficient population get 2 senators, in addition to whole state senators.
Imagine the squealing . . . got to go, b.rad
Great idea... If the leaders of the Dem party wanted to add more Dem Senators they would have done this in Bidens first 90 days. I think the evidence is overwhelming that Dem leadership, Pelosi, Schumer and Biden do not prioritize governing to suit voters. They support governing to suit the donor class first and foremost.
So this idea of adding states would clearly give the Dems more power. I am sure someone their thought about it. And in the end the rejected the idea... The Donor class wants America split like this. And Nancy, Chuck and Joe clearly have chosen to serve the donor class over ordinary Americans. No?
No.
Dems, Dems, Dems.
On this forum, It's okay to call the Democratic Party by it's proper name; although, I know that's a hard pill to swallow for members of the "Repugnant Party," a wholly owned subsidiary of Wall Street.
I think both parties have been proven to be "wholly owned subsidiary's of Wall Street. It was Bill Clinton that killed Glass Steagal which opened to the door to Wall Street creating the 2008 financial crises. Of course it also required Bush2 to stop enforcing regulations at the big firms. Then Obama's team okay'd the plan to evict home owners and make sure Wall Street share holders were made whole while bonuses were paid at the top.
My point stands. If the Dems wanted to add states, and it would be a brilliant idea IMHO, they would have already done it. So the evidence is clear. They don't want to add sates.
Naw, it's all about percentages and odds. I'd say the Democratic Party is only partially owned, and therefore it's ripe for the picking. Why go to all the hassle starting from scratch with some sure-to-lose third party when the necessary party machinery is already up and running? And, sure, it's sputtering and smoking a little (okay, a lot), but it can still be fixed.
Forget that rusty old heap gasping over in the corner with a bent "R" emblem on its hood; its totalled, ready for the junkyard of history.
For instance, rank-choice voting knocked out Sarah Palin in her own red state (for the time being anyway); and now, a Native Alaskan woman will be in the House until November when she has a good shot at securing the full two-year term.
The "Dems" could do a lot of cool things -- add states and justices to counteract the gross imbalances in the Senate and Supreme Court, get rid of the filibuster, gerrymandering, and the Electoral College -- IF (a word doing all the heavy lifting here) everyday liberals and progressives (which I suspect is the true center) put their votes where their mouths are, take over the party, and change the rules to make a fair and level playing field for all players, including whatever battered factions happen to survive the ultimate demise of the "Cons," who only stand in the way of progress time after time.
Deep
I have been hearing about the "cool" things the Dems can do for 20yrs now. It never happens and it never will as long as the Hillary Clintons and Chuck Schumers control the party. They are the ones that are controlled by corporations.
The majority of GOP and DEM voters support Medicare For All yet joe biden said he would veto the bill if it came to his desk. That is the definition of being controlled by the corporations. Bill Clinton gave Wall Street the power they needed to destroy the economy when he signed the bill killing Glass Steagal.
The elite in the DEM party are just as controlled by corporate America as Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump.
In 2008 the Tea Party organized to oppose Obama. By the time Obama was done the Tea Party candidate won the GOP primaries and was sitting in the white house after the General Election. Yes, parties can be taken over. We just saw it.
Hell no, i would not start a third party. I fully support the progressives that are trying to take power away from the Democratic elites that are clearly fully controlled by corporate interests.
If DEM voters that don't want leaders controlled by corporations leading our party they need to organize, protest and vote. Just like the wake jobs in the Tea Party did. And in the Dem party they need to vote against corporate shills like Nancy Pelosi and Jerry Nadler in every single primary.
Yes, it can happen that a party can get taken over in a rather short period of time. The Tea Party did it to the GOP.. Now those people are wack jobs, unquestionably.
But that does not mean that any Democrat that wants the Democrats to have real power should ever vote for an incumbent Democrat in a primary that is controlled by corporate interests. EVER.. If you are then stop complaining about GOP leaders being controlled by corporations. Your party is too. Vote progressives or stop complaining about th GOP controlled by Corporations
Here is an interesting solution to the problems inflicted on America by the Founders' "Undemocratic Senate", as proposed in an essay in the Washington Post (link further below). Create a filibuster that is apportioned to the population. "Democratize" the filibuster. "The Senate could change this rule (cloture) so that ending debate would instead require the support of a majority of senators who collectively represent a majority of the U.S. population, with each senator considered to represent half of his or her state’s residents."
This will allow the Senate to function as a representative body for bringing legislation up for a vote. It will require the backing of an actual "Majority of the People" to move legislation to the floor, while preventing the minority from obstructing the Senate.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/04/06/dont-eliminate-filibuster-democratize-it/.
Keeping the rule in place from one congress to the next would need to be solidified.
…
Meanwhile, I've some issues with the Founders' version of the Senate structure, here's a few:
Some complained in the WaPo's essay that this idea is "too complicated". But, the ideas for denying democratic Senate representation, i.e., one person one vote, to instead have only 2 senators per administrative borders while ignoring the people within - are already way too convoluted to begin with. The Founders made the mistake of going to extraordinary, complicated lengths to construct a system to maintain power for land owners and slave owners. Their construct obstructs the will of the people.
Next, to every supporter of the nondemocratic Senate I await a solid answer to this. The Constitution has carved in stone the Senate's power to declare war. Why in the world do people in a small state like Wyoming have 70 times the power to declare war as people who live in a large state like California?
Do these people have 70 lives to give for their country? Do they believe they are 70 times more important than the “big state elitists''?
People fight the wars, not their land.
Finally: Why the hoarding of power by the smaller states?
We often talk of our “Grand Experiment of Democracy”, and the effort to build “A More Perfect Union”. When you conduct and experiment and it fails, you change the experiment as you try to improve the outcome. We have yet to both thoroughly recognize the epic, ongoing failure of the Senate, and make corrections to that “experiment” so that it becomes a more effective institution for administering the will of the people of America.
The Senate must change, which will mean that some states will have less power than now. They will have to get over it, they are hoarding power that does not have a moral justification for it to belong to them.
The Virgin Islands also should be a state. And a tenth justice should be added to the supreme court since the court at one time had 10 Justices.
It was quite something to see good-hearted Americans and allies fight overseas, and then try to promote democracy there. Remember all those purple finger pictures in Iraq and Afghanistan?
I hate the idea of conferring statehood for political purposes, but so damn much is at stake. Do we have the luxury to be pure of heart? At least it would be done with a majority VOTE!
Republican is the name, ruthless is their game. Democratic is our name, and we try to live up to it. Maybe it is time for some literal nation-building at home.
It's way past the time to rebuild what Republicans are happily destroying, but ya gotta start somewhere. Each election -- if people are sufficiently motivated to vote for the good guys and gals -- is one more step forward toward a "more perfect union."
Today, that dream seems so far away. But paradise and a big box of donuts is just over the next hill... (Haha, that's what I used to tell my kids on long hikes when they started complaining.)
The proposal that the Democratic Party and its elite urban voter support base should simply add a couple of new states, two not connected to the continental US, and the District of Columbia, is a flawed argument and will backfire in my analysis. All the rural voters are going to see it as a giant avalanche imposing urban living standards and needs on rural residents.
An alternative consideration would, logically, be to consider how to keep the United States of America intact by working on a centrist platform that would address the most meaningful needs of all Americans. For example, regardless of the evidence that the Democratic Party elites sponsored the pharmaceutical approach to healthcare with a massive one-size fits everyone in a manner that seemed more like a China or a Russia autocratic approach, rural voters who generally stayed healthy and were able to ignore the police mandates during the Covid Experiment will see Mr. Hartman's suggestions as unpalatable. However, independent voters everywhere, urban and rural, would probably vote for someone like Senator Cheney as president with a platform that: 1. Funded Social Security with a tax on all income, 2. Funded a Healthcare for everyone with State's options, 3. A 2-year universal GI Service Bill for all 18 year olds in return for debt-free education, 4. A new USA Transportation and Electric Grid system with fast intercontinental trains, interconnected to every town and an electric grid able to pull in all wind and solar power, and finally 5. A retooling of our education system to provide a US K-12 system that is funded at global standards.
Splitting our country as Mr. Hartman is suggesting is simply conducting civil warfare similar to what the Republican Party has been doing; I think an Independent Party is desperately needed before we do have a Civil War similar to what people experienced in the Balkans.
Mr. Hartman Citations:
The Democratic Party is facing a crisis that it’s experienced only once before in its history: within the next two decades, half of the population of the United States will live in just eight mostly-Democratic-controlled states and be represented by only 16 (out of 100) US senators.
The GOP, if their dominance in low-population states holds, will have an unbeatable majority in the Senate for generations going forward
Democrats must do the same next year — add two states to expand their majority in the Senate — if they can hold a majority in the House and expand their control of the Senate.
All it takes to add a state is that territory passing a referendum asking for statehood (already happened for DC and Puerto Rico), a simple majority vote in the House and Senate, and the President’s signature.
Almost half of our states have fewer than four million people, with 14 of them having fewer than two million, and generally the least populous states are the most rural and the most reliably Republican
To fix this undemocratic imbalance, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico must become states now.
“Taxation without representation” is proudly displayed on the license plates of vehicles registered in Washington, DC. It’s ironic, considering that the city is the capital of a nation birthed in the colonial times with cries of, “No taxation without representation!”
Though residents in Washington, DC pay federal taxes and the District has more citizens than either Wyoming or Vermont, DC is not a state, has no votes in Congress, and has had only three Electoral College votes since the 1961 passage of the 23rd Amendment.
Puerto Rico, with several times the population of Wyoming or Vermont, is in a similar situation, although residents of the territory don’t generally pay federal income taxes. In a 2017 referendum, 97 percent of the island’s residents voted in favor of statehood.
And if Democrats want to really imitate Lincoln’s political coup to solidify control of the Senate, they could add a third state.
One of the real breakout stars among the House Impeachment Managers, Delegate Stacey Plaskett, represents the US Virgin Islands in Congress. Like DC’s Eleanor Holmes Norton, she has no vote, but she can speak up during House debates.
The US Virgin Islands have a bit over 100,000 residents, which easily fits into the historic population ratios Republicans used to add both Nevada, Colorado and both Dakotas as states, all just to get more senators.
While a harder lift, the Virgin Islands should be considered for statehood, too, if for no other reason than to balance out the 39 million Californians who have only two US Senators.
So, who're you voting for in November?
So trying to reform a broken political system by outmaneuvering the other side? How's that working?
Along with a broken economic system BTW that supports a broken political system? Have we ever tried communicating with "I" statements, validating the feelings of the other side, emphasizing with them? Oh I'm sorry this isn't trying to save a marriage. However when there's 70 to 80% agreement on the major issues there must be some way that works to get us all to GO! ...maybe we need a new system(s) and a new way of listening and communicating?