I fear this business of the Democrats holding the whole government hostage may end in disaster for the party. Shutting down the government is the kind of foolishness expected of the Republican Party. You cannot hold shutting government over the nation’s heads every time you want something. Least of all over a group whose legality of merely staying in this country is questionable (almost nobody decent doesn’t support them staying).
Are they trying to alienate the public from the Dreamers — by making them the uncomfortable guests? Or may we are trying to renege the Democratic Party’s future — just as it was pulling out far in front of the Republicans; trying to turn the tide back in favor of the No-Nothing party.
Just how long are the Democrats willing to hold out disrupting the government for everybody else in order to back people whose legal tenure here is not secured yet — eroding support both for the Dreamers and the newly strengthening Democrat Party at the same time. Potential disaster. The Republicans will wait forever as long as they Dems self-imploding — no skin off their backs!!!
“The rule of law does not mean that more and more resources must go into enforcing the laws. It does not require a speed camera on every corner, or that everyone with expired prescription drugs in his or her bathroom need be prosecuted. It does not mandate any particular level of federal immigration raids, or inspection of worker credentials, to ensure that illegal migrants do not get jobs. Those are separate questions, governed by a mix of practical considerations and justice.”
“These government shutdowns feed into a narrative that is not politically neutral.” The more people believe the government is fundamentally dysfunctional, the more they’ll be OK with de-funding and shrinking it (cutting tax revenues), turning federal programs over to states (“block grants”), and generally accepting the R’s narrative of a feckless government sector that wastes your tax dollars. Why, they can’t even keep the lights on!
I think I understand your fears. I hope you are wrong. It is just as correct to say that Trump is shutting down the government because he can’t get his wall or other evil insanities offered in his “compromise.”
Personally, I hope the Dems show some spine, and the people understand where the blame lies.
Meanwhile it seems to me a little backward if not sneaky to argue that the Dreamers status is “illegal.” What is the law? What is being asked for is that their status as “legal” be made secure. It’s the humane thing to do.
America once had a reputation as a humane country.
(“what is the law?” above is not a question about what the law books currently say, but a more metaphysical question. what the law “should” say, and whether it is moral to “respect” it when it is immoral. i realize that opens a can of worms. )
At this point this shows the power of the press in framing events.
The bill in the Senate didn’t have 50 Republican votes on the motion to proceed. Granted the Republicans who voted against cloture did so knowing that there weren’t nine Democratic votes but the fact remains that regardless of Democratic actions there would have been no Senate bill.
I hate the whole passions play of shutdown brinkmanship but the fact remains that beginning with Newt Gingrich legislation by hostage taking and crisis has become the norm.
The Republicans have had several months to address both CHIP and DACA. At any point during that time they could have brought forward legislation to address two serious problems and, I would suggest issues that rise to the level of moral injustice.
The Hastert Rule which Ryan has adhered to automatically precludes and sort of bipartisan discussion in the House. If Ryan is willing to only move legislation when it has sufficient Republican votes any discussion or compromise is eliminated from the start.
Polling on this seems to be generally in favor of the Democrats but the bigger point is that norms have changed to the extent that cooperation on cloture votes is the only leverage the Democrats have in terms of forcing any sort of open discussion of policy issues.
It is also true that McConnell could simply blow up the filibuster which from a purely procedural standpoint is a horribly undemocratic tool in an institution that is already weighted against democratic governance.
Who shut down the government?
Do we look only at the proximate cause which is Democrats (and Republicans) failing to vote for a motion to proceed? Or do we consider the last year of incompetence, dissembling, and utterly dishonest behavior on the part of the Executive and Legislative branches?
At some point it has to go beyond short term tactical political considerations or even longer term strategic maneuvering. I would argue that the situation has reached a point where Democrats need to draw a line in the sand. I would suggest that both the most honorable and most strategic policy would be to refuse to be drawn into an argument of whose fault the shutdown is, to refuse to accept the premise and framing of the question.
The issue is whether the legislature can function in some reasonably productive and useful manner in addressing the issues that face this country. Lives are at stake with both CHIP and DACA. There are significant human costs at stake.
Look, if the American people decide this is just a petty political argument, business as usual, and assign blame under that sort of framing then quite frankly we are much further down the road to dissolution than anyone has imagined. The damage to our institutions over the last year is significant. Playing footsies for another year and hoping the mid-terms solve the problem is delusional. Time to wake folks up. If they respond all to the good. If they don’t, well the battle is likely already lost.
You don’t always get to pick the terrain you fight the decisive battle on – it’s preferable to try but sometimes the situation calls for a stand. It seems past time.
And being slightly more calculating and perhaps cynical, there are a year to mid-terms, Mueller is still in play, and Trump is an almost guaranteed weekly (if not daily) screw up machine, so this might actual be pretty decent terrain to make that stand.
Some who understands the majority of the majority rule (Hastert) in the House and the filibuster rule in the Senate which can be defeated by Reconciliation in certain instances. In either case such rules were never meant to be and the constitution specifically mentions when a 2/3rds majority in needed (6 instances). What has weakened our democracy is the loss o the House truly representing the population of each state in the House. If we use Wyoming as an example and measure California’s population against it, California is shy 14 Representatives.
The Hastert rule has killed any chance of bi-partisanship in the House, freezing the House at 435 has given power to minority states in population, and the Senate filibuster has done the same for states in the minority when population is considered. Attacked much of the issue here:
Gillbrand and many Senators came out to support “Me Too.” This would have been a perfect time for one of the Presidential hopefuls to do the same with the backing of many Democrats on national TV in protest of how Repubs have delayed repeatedly on a solution for DACA and CHIPS while Repubs wasted weeks on attempts to retract the ACA and pass the Income Tax reform for which 66% of the benefit goes to 1% of the taxpayers making greater than $500,000 annually. It is far easier to attack one of your own and not so easy to attack the opposition. No Dem courage and way too many Dems defending their lack of courage.
I do not believe the American citizenry believes their fate rides on the back of children.
Can’t remember the title right now but a couple of years ago a political scientist put out a book arguing for expansion of the House.
I tend to agree. Making House districts represent smaller population slices could have the effect of making Representatives more responsive to their districts.
As you suggest Run it would certainly resolve some equity problems created by differences in population size from largest to smallest. This is especially important if we are going to have a Senate that is fundamentally undemocratic in constitution.
Expanding the House would eliminate or at least make more difficult some forms of gerrymandering although it would it would also likely create some very safe districts. Say we doubled the size of the House which would mean districts of about 350,000 residents – there’s even a chance that in places like Wyoming at least one of the two representatives could be a Democrat or at least a more moderate Republican.
Right now the filibuster helps Democrats but as you point out it is extra-Constitutional. It is especially galling since the practice essentially arose from a mistaken understanding of a rule proposed in (I think) 1804. The fact that over the last thirty years Republicans have weaponized it creating a circumstance where every bill not subject to reconciliation must get a super-majority in order to proceed to debate is a violation of any fundamental democratic principle.
I think the problem right now is not the Constitution but the people elected and the money behind them. The “extra” representation of the small states was included in the Constitution in order to get the small states to join the nation. Back then the small states were more radical (more left) than the big states, and it was Virginia, among others, who did not like giving the small states extra representation (two senators).
Times change, but it always looks a little silly to me for people to get all hot to change the constitution because their opponents have found a way to take advantage of it to favor their causes.
The founders were afraid of too much democracy. Hate to say it, but so am I. I might change my mind real soon, but for now I’d rather concentrate on actually winning some of those (new) small states… it can be done.
I had a great idea once about chainging the constitution to have voting procede through a series of “houses” from precinct size to roughly county to state… etc in steps that would keep the lowest level representatives very answerable to their constituents, and each level above that small enough so “electors” from the next lowest level would have a chance to be heard and influence policy.
not explaining this very well, but the point is that i gave up the idea when i finally realized it would make no difference in the end. The people don’t care until it is too late, and the politicians specialize in lying to the people and exploiting their rather ignorant passions.
Book called “The Founders Coup” (?) goes into some detail about how the Constitution was written to limit popular democracy, which by then had shown itself to be dangerous to people with money. And hence dangerous to the stability of the country.
30,000 per Congressional District is written into the Constitution. It was a part of “The Great Compromise.” lesser populated states got two Senators and more populated stated had a Representative per 30,000 constituents. Everything you just said was based upon the size of the Congressional District and the ability of a House Representative to adequately relay that districts interests.
“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.” Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3
It does make a difference in the population of each district. It does make a difference in how the President is selected by the EC. It does make a difference when a minority can over rule a majority. It does make a difference in gerrymandering districts. The problem is we wandered away from the constitution and what the founders foresaw.
the Framers foresaw more than you might think. for one thing one Rep for 30,000 would mean the House would now have about 10,000 members.
Apparently, “equal representation” was not their goal. In fact it was the opposite of their goal as by then they had learned to distrust “democracy.”
You may think equal representation would be “fair,” but i don’t think you can (or could have) sold that idea to people in states who would not want to be outvoted by people in cities (subject to the political manipulation possible in cities, and composed of people with a very narrow view of the needs of the country, and apt (as the Framers feared, because they saw it) to vote themselves an unreasonable share of the country’s wealth.
Nor did the Framers have a hot line to God, so you probably can’t sell me on the idea that we ought to adhere to what they “intended.” They did what they had to do to cobble together a union at the time. Since then times have changed, and the Constitution has changed a little bit where seen as necessary and politically possible.
It would be a lot easier to spend some money to win elections in small states today than to change the constitution to get “equal” representation.
I don’t think you will find anyone more opposed to current Republican rule by the rich than me. But change things a little and you won’t find anyone more opposed to rule by the mob than me. Be careful what you wish for.
I will answer your first sentence and thank you for the obvious answer. First there is no change to the constitution as you claim in your earlier comment, second the founders were not afraid of too much democracy as you also stated, in one breath you say you do not want to change the constitution and then in another you do want to not follow it (at 30,000), and finally the problem existing today is a direct result of a disruption of the balance between states as intended by the great compromise and the founders by not following the constitution.
Montana has 1 representative for 1 million constituents. The least populated state Wyoming has one Rep for 586,000 constituents. California has a population of 39 million and has 53 representatives. If we used 586,000 as the rule, Montana would have ~2 Reps and California would gain 14.
30,000 was the size the founders believed would work as each Rep would be able to adequately represent their constituents interests. Somewhere between 30,000 and 586,000 is a number which will work and give back to states with large populations equal representation in the legislature and restore the balance sought by the founders between the House and the Senate.
Is there a minority which is controlling the government? Yes I believe so if one considers the popular vote. Does the House need to meet in Washington DC? No, they could WebX it from their states or established regions. There are ways around this and still follow the constitution in a manner better than what there is today. The 435 was set precisely because one party would have gained more Reps than the other.
Since 1932 Democrats have won (presidential) elections 12 times to the Republicans 10. You didn’t object to the electoral college or gerrymandering then. (nor did I)
it seems a little hysterical to me to rush to change the Constitution every time you lose an election. How about better candidates… maybe even Democrats who actually care about the people?
Abraham LIncoln, not to say FDR, won elections under the electoral college system. and I think Wyoming was the first state to give votes to women.
we are not getting anywhere. let me assure you i do not see the contradictions in my argument that you see. perhaps i am looking at different relationships among the facts than you are. but it would be too tedious to try to explain everything in detail.
meanwhile it would still be easier to actually change some votes than to change the constitution.
as for the founders being afraid of too much democracy… i wasn’t there. the book i mentioned makes the case pretty convincingly, and it wasn’t the first time i have heard that version of the founders (framers) intent.
“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.” Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3
There is nothing to change in the constitution. It is there and just has to be adjusted to show the increases in population. CONGRESS froze the # of Reps in 1929 at 435. Change it again to reflect the population and return it to closer to what it was intended to be as declared by founders in The Great Compromise. They did it in 1929 and they could do it again. Of course we are not getting anywhere as you do not know how the House and Senate were determined and why it occurred.
I fear this business of the Democrats holding the whole government hostage may end in disaster for the party. Shutting down the government is the kind of foolishness expected of the Republican Party. You cannot hold shutting government over the nation’s heads every time you want something. Least of all over a group whose legality of merely staying in this country is questionable (almost nobody decent doesn’t support them staying).
Are they trying to alienate the public from the Dreamers — by making them the uncomfortable guests? Or may we are trying to renege the Democratic Party’s future — just as it was pulling out far in front of the Republicans; trying to turn the tide back in favor of the No-Nothing party.
Just how long are the Democrats willing to hold out disrupting the government for everybody else in order to back people whose legal tenure here is not secured yet — eroding support both for the Dreamers and the newly strengthening Democrat Party at the same time. Potential disaster. The Republicans will wait forever as long as they Dems self-imploding — no skin off their backs!!!
Rule of Law Can’t Ignore Human Costs
by Tyler Cowen
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-01-17/rule-of-law-can-t-ignore-human-costs
“The rule of law does not mean that more and more resources must go into enforcing the laws. It does not require a speed camera on every corner, or that everyone with expired prescription drugs in his or her bathroom need be prosecuted. It does not mandate any particular level of federal immigration raids, or inspection of worker credentials, to ensure that illegal migrants do not get jobs. Those are separate questions, governed by a mix of practical considerations and justice.”
http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/a-few-thoughts-on-the-political-economy-of-a-govt-shutdown/
“These government shutdowns feed into a narrative that is not politically neutral.” The more people believe the government is fundamentally dysfunctional, the more they’ll be OK with de-funding and shrinking it (cutting tax revenues), turning federal programs over to states (“block grants”), and generally accepting the R’s narrative of a feckless government sector that wastes your tax dollars. Why, they can’t even keep the lights on!
Democrats are the other wing of the neocon/neolib bird…….
They have become the moral equivalent of the tea party……..
with a refined disdain for the Anglo Saxon vernacular,
Denis
I think I understand your fears. I hope you are wrong. It is just as correct to say that Trump is shutting down the government because he can’t get his wall or other evil insanities offered in his “compromise.”
Personally, I hope the Dems show some spine, and the people understand where the blame lies.
Meanwhile it seems to me a little backward if not sneaky to argue that the Dreamers status is “illegal.” What is the law? What is being asked for is that their status as “legal” be made secure. It’s the humane thing to do.
America once had a reputation as a humane country.
(“what is the law?” above is not a question about what the law books currently say, but a more metaphysical question. what the law “should” say, and whether it is moral to “respect” it when it is immoral. i realize that opens a can of worms. )
MAYBE I GOT IT WRONG (though I’m not sure I understand this):
New polling highlights shutdown risks for Republicans
By Steve Benen
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/new-polling-highlights-shutdown-risks-republicans
Denis
I don’t think you “got it wrong.” It’s a political gamble for both sides. It depends on luck and how well they play their hands.
“Democrats shutting down the government.”
At this point this shows the power of the press in framing events.
The bill in the Senate didn’t have 50 Republican votes on the motion to proceed. Granted the Republicans who voted against cloture did so knowing that there weren’t nine Democratic votes but the fact remains that regardless of Democratic actions there would have been no Senate bill.
I hate the whole passions play of shutdown brinkmanship but the fact remains that beginning with Newt Gingrich legislation by hostage taking and crisis has become the norm.
The Republicans have had several months to address both CHIP and DACA. At any point during that time they could have brought forward legislation to address two serious problems and, I would suggest issues that rise to the level of moral injustice.
The Hastert Rule which Ryan has adhered to automatically precludes and sort of bipartisan discussion in the House. If Ryan is willing to only move legislation when it has sufficient Republican votes any discussion or compromise is eliminated from the start.
Polling on this seems to be generally in favor of the Democrats but the bigger point is that norms have changed to the extent that cooperation on cloture votes is the only leverage the Democrats have in terms of forcing any sort of open discussion of policy issues.
It is also true that McConnell could simply blow up the filibuster which from a purely procedural standpoint is a horribly undemocratic tool in an institution that is already weighted against democratic governance.
Who shut down the government?
Do we look only at the proximate cause which is Democrats (and Republicans) failing to vote for a motion to proceed? Or do we consider the last year of incompetence, dissembling, and utterly dishonest behavior on the part of the Executive and Legislative branches?
At some point it has to go beyond short term tactical political considerations or even longer term strategic maneuvering. I would argue that the situation has reached a point where Democrats need to draw a line in the sand. I would suggest that both the most honorable and most strategic policy would be to refuse to be drawn into an argument of whose fault the shutdown is, to refuse to accept the premise and framing of the question.
The issue is whether the legislature can function in some reasonably productive and useful manner in addressing the issues that face this country. Lives are at stake with both CHIP and DACA. There are significant human costs at stake.
Look, if the American people decide this is just a petty political argument, business as usual, and assign blame under that sort of framing then quite frankly we are much further down the road to dissolution than anyone has imagined. The damage to our institutions over the last year is significant. Playing footsies for another year and hoping the mid-terms solve the problem is delusional. Time to wake folks up. If they respond all to the good. If they don’t, well the battle is likely already lost.
You don’t always get to pick the terrain you fight the decisive battle on – it’s preferable to try but sometimes the situation calls for a stand. It seems past time.
And being slightly more calculating and perhaps cynical, there are a year to mid-terms, Mueller is still in play, and Trump is an almost guaranteed weekly (if not daily) screw up machine, so this might actual be pretty decent terrain to make that stand.
Hi Mark:
Some who understands the majority of the majority rule (Hastert) in the House and the filibuster rule in the Senate which can be defeated by Reconciliation in certain instances. In either case such rules were never meant to be and the constitution specifically mentions when a 2/3rds majority in needed (6 instances). What has weakened our democracy is the loss o the House truly representing the population of each state in the House. If we use Wyoming as an example and measure California’s population against it, California is shy 14 Representatives.
The Hastert rule has killed any chance of bi-partisanship in the House, freezing the House at 435 has given power to minority states in population, and the Senate filibuster has done the same for states in the minority when population is considered. Attacked much of the issue here:
Gillbrand and many Senators came out to support “Me Too.” This would have been a perfect time for one of the Presidential hopefuls to do the same with the backing of many Democrats on national TV in protest of how Repubs have delayed repeatedly on a solution for DACA and CHIPS while Repubs wasted weeks on attempts to retract the ACA and pass the Income Tax reform for which 66% of the benefit goes to 1% of the taxpayers making greater than $500,000 annually. It is far easier to attack one of your own and not so easy to attack the opposition. No Dem courage and way too many Dems defending their lack of courage.
I do not believe the American citizenry believes their fate rides on the back of children.
Can’t remember the title right now but a couple of years ago a political scientist put out a book arguing for expansion of the House.
I tend to agree. Making House districts represent smaller population slices could have the effect of making Representatives more responsive to their districts.
As you suggest Run it would certainly resolve some equity problems created by differences in population size from largest to smallest. This is especially important if we are going to have a Senate that is fundamentally undemocratic in constitution.
Expanding the House would eliminate or at least make more difficult some forms of gerrymandering although it would it would also likely create some very safe districts. Say we doubled the size of the House which would mean districts of about 350,000 residents – there’s even a chance that in places like Wyoming at least one of the two representatives could be a Democrat or at least a more moderate Republican.
Right now the filibuster helps Democrats but as you point out it is extra-Constitutional. It is especially galling since the practice essentially arose from a mistaken understanding of a rule proposed in (I think) 1804. The fact that over the last thirty years Republicans have weaponized it creating a circumstance where every bill not subject to reconciliation must get a super-majority in order to proceed to debate is a violation of any fundamental democratic principle.
I think the problem right now is not the Constitution but the people elected and the money behind them. The “extra” representation of the small states was included in the Constitution in order to get the small states to join the nation. Back then the small states were more radical (more left) than the big states, and it was Virginia, among others, who did not like giving the small states extra representation (two senators).
Times change, but it always looks a little silly to me for people to get all hot to change the constitution because their opponents have found a way to take advantage of it to favor their causes.
The founders were afraid of too much democracy. Hate to say it, but so am I. I might change my mind real soon, but for now I’d rather concentrate on actually winning some of those (new) small states… it can be done.
I had a great idea once about chainging the constitution to have voting procede through a series of “houses” from precinct size to roughly county to state… etc in steps that would keep the lowest level representatives very answerable to their constituents, and each level above that small enough so “electors” from the next lowest level would have a chance to be heard and influence policy.
not explaining this very well, but the point is that i gave up the idea when i finally realized it would make no difference in the end. The people don’t care until it is too late, and the politicians specialize in lying to the people and exploiting their rather ignorant passions.
Book called “The Founders Coup” (?) goes into some detail about how the Constitution was written to limit popular democracy, which by then had shown itself to be dangerous to people with money. And hence dangerous to the stability of the country.
Now we seem to have the opposite problem.
30,000 per Congressional District is written into the Constitution. It was a part of “The Great Compromise.” lesser populated states got two Senators and more populated stated had a Representative per 30,000 constituents. Everything you just said was based upon the size of the Congressional District and the ability of a House Representative to adequately relay that districts interests.
It does make a difference in the population of each district. It does make a difference in how the President is selected by the EC. It does make a difference when a minority can over rule a majority. It does make a difference in gerrymandering districts. The problem is we wandered away from the constitution and what the founders foresaw.
“The Framers’ Coup”
Run
the Framers foresaw more than you might think. for one thing one Rep for 30,000 would mean the House would now have about 10,000 members.
Apparently, “equal representation” was not their goal. In fact it was the opposite of their goal as by then they had learned to distrust “democracy.”
You may think equal representation would be “fair,” but i don’t think you can (or could have) sold that idea to people in states who would not want to be outvoted by people in cities (subject to the political manipulation possible in cities, and composed of people with a very narrow view of the needs of the country, and apt (as the Framers feared, because they saw it) to vote themselves an unreasonable share of the country’s wealth.
Nor did the Framers have a hot line to God, so you probably can’t sell me on the idea that we ought to adhere to what they “intended.” They did what they had to do to cobble together a union at the time. Since then times have changed, and the Constitution has changed a little bit where seen as necessary and politically possible.
It would be a lot easier to spend some money to win elections in small states today than to change the constitution to get “equal” representation.
I don’t think you will find anyone more opposed to current Republican rule by the rich than me. But change things a little and you won’t find anyone more opposed to rule by the mob than me. Be careful what you wish for.
Coberly:
I will answer your first sentence and thank you for the obvious answer. First there is no change to the constitution as you claim in your earlier comment, second the founders were not afraid of too much democracy as you also stated, in one breath you say you do not want to change the constitution and then in another you do want to not follow it (at 30,000), and finally the problem existing today is a direct result of a disruption of the balance between states as intended by the great compromise and the founders by not following the constitution.
Montana has 1 representative for 1 million constituents. The least populated state Wyoming has one Rep for 586,000 constituents. California has a population of 39 million and has 53 representatives. If we used 586,000 as the rule, Montana would have ~2 Reps and California would gain 14.
30,000 was the size the founders believed would work as each Rep would be able to adequately represent their constituents interests. Somewhere between 30,000 and 586,000 is a number which will work and give back to states with large populations equal representation in the legislature and restore the balance sought by the founders between the House and the Senate.
Is there a minority which is controlling the government? Yes I believe so if one considers the popular vote. Does the House need to meet in Washington DC? No, they could WebX it from their states or established regions. There are ways around this and still follow the constitution in a manner better than what there is today. The 435 was set precisely because one party would have gained more Reps than the other.
Since 1932 Democrats have won (presidential) elections 12 times to the Republicans 10. You didn’t object to the electoral college or gerrymandering then. (nor did I)
it seems a little hysterical to me to rush to change the Constitution every time you lose an election. How about better candidates… maybe even Democrats who actually care about the people?
Abraham LIncoln, not to say FDR, won elections under the electoral college system. and I think Wyoming was the first state to give votes to women.
Run
we are not getting anywhere. let me assure you i do not see the contradictions in my argument that you see. perhaps i am looking at different relationships among the facts than you are. but it would be too tedious to try to explain everything in detail.
meanwhile it would still be easier to actually change some votes than to change the constitution.
as for the founders being afraid of too much democracy… i wasn’t there. the book i mentioned makes the case pretty convincingly, and it wasn’t the first time i have heard that version of the founders (framers) intent.
Coberly:
This is the constitution:
“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.” Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3
There is nothing to change in the constitution. It is there and just has to be adjusted to show the increases in population. CONGRESS froze the # of Reps in 1929 at 435. Change it again to reflect the population and return it to closer to what it was intended to be as declared by founders in The Great Compromise. They did it in 1929 and they could do it again. Of course we are not getting anywhere as you do not know how the House and Senate were determined and why it occurred.
Run
Thank you. I have read the Constitution. As I may have mentioned, I recently read a whole book about the Constitutional Convention.
We are talking past each other.