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?
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.
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 … =:-|
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 … =:-|
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?
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.
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?