THE U.S. CONSTITUTION NEEDS AMENDING – AND FAST
On 8/9/09 Alec MacGillis in the Washington Post outlined one of the largest problems today in our Constitution that distorts the legislative process and often thwarts the will of a large majority of Americans. The composition of the U.S. Senate permits several small state Senators to essentially wield excessive power. MacGillis wrote:
“The Senate Finance Committee’s “Gang of Six” that is drafting health-care legislation that may shape the final deal..…represents six states that are among the least populous in the country: Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, Maine, New Mexico and Iowa.
Between them, those six states hold 8.4 million people — less than New Jersey — and represent 3 percent of the U.S. population…..In the House, those six states have 13 seats out of 435, 3 percent of the whole. In the Senate, those six members are crafting what may well be the blueprint for [health] reform.
Climate change legislation, which passed in the House, also faces daunting odds. Why? Because agriculture, coal and oil interests hold far more sway in the Senate. In the House, the big coal state of Wyoming has a single vote to New York’s 29 and California’s 53. In the Senate, each state has two. The two Dakotas (total population: 1.4 million) together have twice as much say in the Senate as does Florida (18.3 million) or Texas (24.3 million) or Illinois (12.9 million).”
We unfortunately need 4 new Constitutional Amendments to fix this and other affronts to our system of one-man-one-vote representative democracy and to address three other serious long-term Constitutional problems.
A 28th Amendment would change the composition of the Senate to better reflect the relative populations of the 50 states. All states with at least 1 million people but less than 10 million inhabitants would have 2 Senators. States with less than 1 million inhabitants would be allocated only 1 Senator. States will 10 to 20 million people would get 3 Senators, those with 20 to 30 million would get 4 Senators, and so forth.
Reviewing the Census numbers from 2008 and extrapolating the 2010 Census results, this new Senate allocation would still result in about 100 total U.S. Senators. 34 States (68%) would have 2 Senators each since they have between 1 and 10 million inhabitants each. Only 7 states would have 1 Senator each (Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming) because they all have less than 1 million people each. 5 states would have 3 Senators each: Florida, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Ohio as they have between 10 and 20 million inhabitants. Texas with about 25 million people would have 4 Senators and California with around 38 million people would have 5 U.S. Senators.
There are 2 states that might change places after the 2010 Census. Michigan has been steadily losing population and is just over 10 million inhabitants. North Carolina which has been steadily gaining population is just under 10 million in habitants. This proposed U.S. Senate allocation would ensure better national representation of all Americans in this very powerful national legislative body.
An additional change to the U.S. Senate would involve the filling of vacancies. To fill a vacant seat, a new election would have to be scheduled by the State’s Governor within 3 to 6 months from the date of any vacancy. The winner would take office within a week from the certification of the election results. No more political appointments would be allowed as was proven to be a real political fiasco in several states after the 2008 elections.
Finally, all laws passed by the Senate would only require the consent of a majority, or 1 vote more than half of the total Senators elected, provided a quorum were established. The filibuster should be prohibited. This would not change the two-thirds majority votes required for judicial appointments, treaty ratifications, or other specific matters listed in the Constitution. The President of the Senate (The Vice-President) would be able to cast a vote at any time on any vote, not just when the Senate is equally divided as it stands under current law.
In addition, we should admit Puerto Rico with about 4 million U.S. Citizens as a state and merge the 2 Dakotas (with just under 1.5 million total people) so we can still retain the magic number of 50 states. If the 2 Dakotas merged simultaneously with Puerto Rico Statehood, it would be a political wash in the Senate as the new State of Dakota would have 2 Senators (1.5 million people total) and Puerto Rico with 4 million people would also get 2 Senators. Alternatively, the residents of the U.S. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico could vote for complete independence.
Washington DC should revert back to Maryland, as did part of the Federal District to Virginia during and after the Civil War. Only a small geographic area surrounding the National Mall and including most Prominent Federal Government Buildings (including the Capitol, the White House, Supreme Court, Library of Congress, the Smithsonian, and most Federal Department headquarters) would be part of the Federal District for Congressional Administration. It is an affront to representational democracy that over 600,000 residents of the District of Columbia have no Congressional representation.
A 29th Amendment would increase the U.S. House of Representatives from 435 to a total of 777 members who would all serve 4-year terms, with one-half (½) of the House up for election every 2 years. It would become a continuous legislative body as is the Senate where only a third of Senators are up for election every 2 years. Each state would still have at least one Representative as provided by the Constitution. Actually any number between 500 and 1,000 would work so long as it becomes too expensive to bribe enough Members of Congress to influence important legislation.
Of all modern democracies, the U.S. has the most people allocated per federal legislative district (between 525,000 and 700,000 each) compared to most other countries which have less than 250,000 people per national assembly seat. These changes would significantly reduce the perpetual campaigning and fundraising that consumes more than half the time of our U.S. Representatives who must stand for election every other year. They may also increase direct voter access to their Congressional representatives and limit the power of a few well-moneyed campaign contributors.
Another change for the U.S. House would require that all Congressional Districts be determined by a bi-partisan commission appointed by Congress after the results of each Census are announced and certified. Districts would be based upon contiguous geographic entities without regards to the demographics, politics, economics, races, creeds, colors, religions or national origins of the inhabitants. This would actually return Congressional districts to the geographic basis of the original Constitution rather than the strange-shaped gerrymandered districts we have seen for the past 30 years. There should be no safe Democratic or Republican seats that reflect extreme gerrymandered partisan groupings of voters.
A 30th Amendment would eliminate the Electoral College and have the President and Vice-President elected by direct popular vote. In this manner, all candidates would have to campaign in every state and not just “battleground” ones, because one could never tell where the winning votes might come from. No state or large groups of the electorate would be disregarded as being safely in the Blue or Red camps as occurred for all of the Presidential contests since 1996.
A 31st Amendment would define and limit “person” for all Constitutional and legal purposes to natural born human beings. It would not attempt to define the beginning or end of human life, as that would be left to each state, or to future generations through legislative enactments. This is not a proposal to address abortion, euthanasia, or marriage, which could properly be the subjects of other Amendments. Most importantly the definition of “Person” would exclude all business, social, labor, or other organizations, including corporations, partnerships, companies, LLCs, foundations, Unions and all government-created “legal fictions.” This clear definition is particularly important for defining whose speech and civil liberties are to be legally protected and who may give money to political organizations and individual campaigns. Business entities, trade organizations and other legal fictions should be protected under the 5th Amendment and other specifically enumerated and reasonably related Constitutional protections but they should not be equated with living individuals. This was a serious interpretive mistake from several past U.S. Supreme Court decisions that must be rectified to reassert the authority of people over corporations.
With the requirement that Constitutional Amendments be approved by three-quarters (75%) of the states, the chances of passage may be decent for most of these 4 proposed Amendments. 82 percent of the states would retain 2 Senators or actually gain a few Senators. All states would likely see an increase in the number of Congressional districts instead of about a third losing seats if the House remains fixed at 435 members and the 2010 Census requires reapportionment. Finally, every state would probably like to be an equal focus of future Presidential elections instead of limiting the battlegrounds to fewer than 10 states.
Alternatively we could instead just add a fourth branch of government to reflect political and economic reality. This branch would have absolute veto power over the other three (Legislative, Executive and Judiciary). It would consist of permanent appointed representatives of all major U.S. corporations (including multinationals) that have at least $1 billion in total annual revenues as per their most recently filed federal tax returns. The make-up of this group would change a bit from year to year but essentially it is a pretty solid club. That way the rest of the government would not depend upon campaign contributions from this group of wealthy corporations, but they would face the normal reality of being wholly subservient to them. Full transparency and honesty would finally be achieved – even if the reality would not be so pleasant. The proposed 4 Amendment discussed above would go a long way towards reversing the ongoing surreptitious takeover of our country by large business interests.
As always, I welcome reader comments. – 8/11/09 by Marc Pascal in Phoenix, AZ.
76 Responses to “THE U.S. CONSTITUTION NEEDS AMENDING – AND FAST”
[...] Read more of this article click here –> census – Bing News [...]
This post disturbs me in ways I cannot even begin to count. It shows, it seems to me, profound lack of awareness regarding the institutions of our government, and the purpose of each provision in the Constitution. However, within the poorly designed plans, there are some good points.
Let's start with the proposed 28th Amendment. The Senate was not designed to be representative of the People, but to give equal voice to the equal states. In the eyes of the Framers, Rhode Island was equal to New York, separate, independent, and co-equal in power. The Senate was designed to represent the States, and was supposed to be a check against the mob rule that ran then, and continues to run, the US House. This proposed Amendment completely eviscerates the equality of the States, and sets up for the Senate a modified form of mob rule. As to appointments of Senators, actually, the 17th Amendment, allowing direct election of Senators, should be repealed because it represents another step towards mob rule instead of the limited Republic upon which we were founded.
Now, onto the 29th Amendment. This is the bright spot in the proposed set of Amendments, and one I could wholeheartedly support, although I would suggest that the number of districts be even further increased, perhaps up as far as a thousand. I do think that banning gerrymandering is a wise idea, and keeping districts geographically contiguous is a wise idea. It is time to overturn bad Warren/Burger Court Precedent that requires that districts be designed to ensure that minorities are represented specially. Of course, I would also propose that such districts would force a drastic cut in pay, and a severely reduced schedule for the House.
Onto the proposed 30th Amendment. This destruction of the electoral college, to me, damages one of the most important checks on popular power. The electoral college gives voice, first, to smaller states, as a protection so that Wyoming and Delaware do not always fall victim to the whims of New York and Texas, and second, to the State Governments themselves. Nothing actually requires a popular vote, and, should any State so desire, they could remove the Popular Vote option, and have, say, the Governor pick the slate of Electors. The Electoral College gives power to the States, not to the people. It represents a check on the people. The House of Representatives, that is the People's check.
Finally, for the 31st Amendment, it makes quite difficult the function of the courts, because it removes from the courts the ability to determine how their jurisdiction works.
As it stands, these planned Amendments represent a desecration of the checks and balances that our Founders set up, and should be wholeheartedly rejected as anathema to the Constitution.
Statehood for Puerto Rico NOW!!!
These proposals are meant to lock in the Democratic Party advantage. It creates two very liberal Senators from Puerto Rico that has a per capita income about half that of Mississippi. It would produce five very liberal Senators from California instead of just the two now. It would produce most seats for liberal Democrats. Do your really want 777 Congressmen inserting pork barrel ear marks in the budget.
As a counter. How about a constitutional amendment that says that no state can receive more in government spending than it pays in taxes. That would hurt both Republicans and Democrats and would make every Senator and Rep aware that earmarks for his district will be taken out of some other spending.
These are extremely dangerous proposals which fundamentally undermine the intent of the founders.
A) What is so magical about 50 States? What is wrong with 51, 52 or 55 States?
B) 777 congressman? why? why not simply determine the number of congresspeople at the end of every census by having a rule that defines a ratio of population per congresspeople? lets say 1 congressperson per 1/4 million residents. Using this ratio,in 2000 with a population of 300 million we would end up with 1200 congresspeople. If in 2050 our population grows to 400 million we would have 1600 congresspeople.
It's never too expensive to bribe a congresscritter…
As you can tell by reading SuperDestroyer's comment, this will never happen. If you think the Right Wing is going nuts over health-care reform, imagine what they would do if you actually tried to pass any of the these amendments.
We could replace that amendment with one that forces states to have a minimum ratio of population (1%) and a maximum ratio of population (5%). For example if a State had a population of less than 3 Million, it would lose it's Statehood Status and become a US Territory or merges with a contiguous State, if it had a population of over 15 Million, it would be forced to split in two or more States.
The constitution was made to be a living document, not something set in stone. The founding fathers certainly didn't expect things to stay stagnant so long after their passing and after so many advances. They understood that things would change society fundamentally over time and that the constitution would have to evolve to survive. They didn't see themselves as prophets whose words, ideas and opinions should be treated as divine truth, so I don't get all this *the founding fathers meant it to be a certain way, so any opinion that disagrees is wrong* attitude.
If we want to improve our government and our society as a whole, we cannot just stick to arguments over what the founding fathers would or would not do. We won't advance with that attitude and will quickly be surpassed by other nations who are not locked into the ideas of the past.
Personally, I think we should do away with the senate entirely and head towards a more parliamentary system. Would allow for more parties, more ideas and better representation. And don't argue nothing would ever get done, because that seems to be what is happening now. Plus, it is unlikely one party would have a total monopoly of power, but it would force more compromise on legislation for all involved.
The intent of the founders was undermined a long time ago, first by the railroad, the telegraph, the telephone, the automobile, the airplane and then the internet.
Undermining the intent of the founding fathers?
Sorry, but for those folks who feel this way, need a lesson in history. I can't remember what the original number was for representation in the House, but I want to say that it was about 60,000. The number is immaterial. The idea was that EVERY state had representatives that represented about an equal number of people.
Are you aware of the fact that the number of representatives was LIMITED to 435 in about 1911. Since then the number has remained the same. Once that occurred, SMALL states gained a DISPROPORTIONATE representation. As noted by the author, SMALL states have a representative for about every 500,000 people whereas large states get ONE for about every 725,000 people. Sorry, but that means that EVERY SMALL state is getting 1.5 votes for every large state. HOW is that fair? THAT was NEVER intended.
The idea of having consistency about replacing Federally elected officials becomes a states rights versus Federal issue.
I like the idea (living in Illinois although I lean Democrat). REPUBLICANS were up in arms when Illinois' governor and the governor of New Hampshire appointed (about to appoint) Democrats. All we heard was how there should be special elections. Gee, I wonder why? If nothing else, there should be some consistency to the process.
I totally agree about eliminating the electoral college. Especially if the representative portion would not change. Again, the smaller states currently wield way too much power in the election of the President versus the large states. There is absolutely no reason why the election of the President shouldn't be based on one person, one vote.
I'm tired of folks in Montana wielding a disproportionate amount of power.
You guys should knock off a few items from the existing list of pipe dreams before adding to it. Finish prosecuting Bush and Cheney for war crimes and then get back to us.
I tend on the one hand to like the idea. On the other hand the timing is absurd. Then the lunatic right would really need medicating..lol..
If you want a new Amendment, just pass a guarantee of health care for the public, like a protective mandate that the military is that guards citizen life. Think of pathogens and disease like Al Qaida. We need protection from the enemy. All of us should have that guaranteed.
That sort of skips to the real issue.
The nut-job right will be doing great if their fragile mental states can handle just the little change Obama Administration has on the table to correct the Cheneyco problems they were left with. You do too much too soon and there will be no bridge wide enough to span the rift.
As has been suggested above the purpose of the Senate is to represent states equally. The situation that's being complained about isn't a corruption of the design it is the design.
Let me propose two significantly simpler solutions for those who believe there is a problem.
First, we could abolish the Senate. If the Senate is to become a body that is numerically representative, it's redundant. Get rid of it.
Another alternative would be to amend the Constitution to
1) provide a fixed numerical constitutency size for Congressional districts (this would cause the size of the House to rise over time) and
2) require the legislature of any state whose Congressional delegation had reached some threshold size to split into two (or more) new states. Each of the successor states would have its own House delegation and two Senate seats.
I'm just leery of making such dramatic changes to a system that has worked pretty well for almost 2-1/2 centuries. The simplest and least complicated way to do that would be changing the lengths of Congressional terms and imposing term limits.
I believe the effects of each of these proposals can be accomplished with just one new amendment.
Eliminate all but symbolic lobbying monies paid to any who run for or hold office. By amendment, no one person or organization could contribute more than $100 to any politician. The argument that donations are a matter of free speech is ridiculous. It's equivalent to saying the use of megaphones by one side in a debate is fair.
It's not a matter of the number of senators or representatives, it is a matter of the legalized bribery that currently makes representation of the people's will impossible. No one can say with a straight face that 100s of thousands of dollars paid by business sectors or even individuals doesn't have a skewing effect on our democratic process.
Lobbying buys access, and regular payments buys loyalty. Remove payola from the process. Make legislatures make decisions based upon the merits of their arguments, not the size of the bribe.
HIstorically, the device of equal Senate representation was a tactic to persuade some of the smaller colonies to join the union. In that context, it can be argued that the device is anachronistic in 21st century America. However, it is a well entrenched anachronism and is unlikely to rescinded or modified where 75% of the states must approve its recission or modification.
Requiring special elections to fill vacancies, all vacancies not just in the Senate, is an idea whose time has come. Personally, I would prefer that the federal government propose a “Uniform Election Code”, like the Uniform Commercial Code, to be adopted separately by the various states, rather than using a Constitutional Amendment. Such a uniform code could also include uniform, fair voter registration and vote compilation mechanisms and procedures, instead of being limited to vacancy filling requirements. And, it would have the added advantage of being adjustable in the future, by legislative change, to accommodate new technology.
Your proposed increase in the number of House Representatives can be thrown in the nearest lake, heavily weighted with hardened concrete. This group, Congress, can't order a pizza with the 435 members it has. Doubling that number would make the process of getting anything meaningful passed impossible. The functions of Congress would be performed exclusively by permanent staff and party discipline. We're close enough to that already. The benefit of reducing bribery is an illusion. Lobbyists already bribe thousands at the state and federal level. Adding a few hundred more won't change that.
The Electoral College was conceived as a device to preserve influence in the hands of the powerful. It has served us poorly from Andrew Jackson's first presidential run to the present. It comes from the same mindset that originally limited voting rights to male land owners. Unfortunately, smaller states see it as a repository of their power, and 75% is unlikely in a 50 state vote.
Whatever happens with Puerto Rico should be up to the people of Pueto Rico. Period.
As for Constitutionally redefining “person”, that is a minefield, subject to all manner of manipulation and obfuscation. For all the talk that it would not impact abortion, euthanasia, etc,…it will, and all the proponents/opponents would be out in force to configure the language to their purpose. Let the Supreme Court, in its own tortoise like way, consider and decide how to expand the distinction between individual speech and commercial speech.
The elimination of gerrymandering is probably the best of the ideas, though this too could be incorporated in a Uniform Election Code adopted by the states rather than be imposed by the Feds.
I applaud the effort to think of ways to uncorrupt our system. But, the uncorrupting of our governmental system requires not so much the amendment of the Constitution as it does courage in the (human) constitution of our elected leaders. And, that is sorely lacking.
” believe the effects of each of these proposals can be accomplished with just one new amendment.
Eliminate all but symbolic lobbying monies paid to any who run for or hold office. By amendment, no one person or organization could contribute more than $100 to any politician. The argument that donations are a matter of free speech is ridiculous. It's equivalent to saying the use of megaphones by one side in a debate is fair.”
THANK YOU!!!
That kids is the fastest way to fix our broken system.
We're not talking about technology changing. We're talking about a radical departure from a system of government we've had for 200+ years. I don't believe such radical changes are required.
The idea of 2 houses was division of power. The Senate would check the big states and the House would check the small ones. The difference is now we have career politicians – that is what the founders didn't foresee. You address that simply – with terms limits. Most states already have them. The President is term-limited. That is what will limit people like Jesse Helms, Ted Kennedy and Ted Stevens from accumulating too much power to themselves.
The practical matter of this is that none of the states – either controlled by Republicans or Democrats – will give up their right to determine how someone gets to Washington. Nor are they going to willingly give up seats. You can debate this proposal in theory all you want, but in practicality it would be DOA on the hill.
Term limits are a much more reasonable and realistically achievable goal.
The balance of a Representative House vs. a State-apportioned Senate is the backbone of the whole legislative branch's internal structure and checks and balance.
If you are going to eliminate two different apportionments, and simply go on population, why not just propose a single Legislative body? What then would be the purpose of a bicameral legislation at all?
And then, from this single ruling Politburo (just to coin a name), why not simply have them elect a Premier, rather than going to the bother and expense of a Presidential election?
Term limits is a good way to guarantee that the elected official's political director/legislative secretary will be the real power in the legislature, he'll be there when the official gets elected and will still be there when the official is forced out of his seat, he will know where all the bodies are buried and where all the levers of power are.
Can you think of any state that has term limits in which the legislature has become more competent?
I believe the technical term is a Parliament and it's a system of government used by many if not most democracies at the present time.
DQ -
Duh. I was being snarky.
In the future when I reply to your posts I will try to use smaller words and simpler concepts, and avoid anything that requires a sense of humor, to make sure you keep up.
No Child Left Behind!
p.s. – That, too, was a snark. Just keeping you in the loop!
DQ: “Can you think of any state that has term limits in which the legislature has become more competent?”
Not California. Legislators can serve a maximum of 3 two-year terms. And by coincidence, the only fixes to our long term financial problems the legislature hatches amount to kicking the problems down the road for two, four, maybe six years.
HemmD: “The argument that donations are a matter of free speech is ridiculous. It's equivalent to saying the use of megaphones by one side in a debate is fair.”
So you're proposing to take away the megaphones of environmental lobby groups, consumer advocacy organizations, and all the other ways citizens organize behind causes they support?
Hemm, you're mistaken about the basic substance of government. It's not a planeload of “public interests” that gets hijacked by special interests, it's a boxing ring in which special interests duke it out. Every single one of them represents some interest of some slice of the public, and everything they want will come at the expense of something someone else wants. The “public interest” as you like to think of it doesn't exist.
We don't agree with all of this, but we certainly agree with putting an end to the Electoral College and electing the president by national popular vote, and there is a movement within the states to do that without amending the constitution: http://www.nationalpopularvote.com. We're also down with voting rights for DC.
electing the president by national popular vote
Just sum total? Make sure that almost all future Presidents are elected by the citizens of maybe 10 – 12 high-population states?
No thank you.
Dr J
” So you're proposing to take away the megaphones of environmental lobby groups, consumer advocacy organizations, and all the other ways citizens organize behind causes they support?”
I believe I stated clearly that no donations be greater than $100. Megaphones are for mob control, not legislative debate. The groups you cite could still petition their legislator just like ordinary citizens, the difference would be that they could no longer bribe that legislator with big fat checks that collected from an industry wanting to cut a special tax loop hole or no bid contract. People's concerns would ride upon the logic of their argument and strength of their logic, not the size of their wallet.
“It's not a planeload of “public interests” that gets hijacked by special interests, it's a boxing ring in which special interests duke it out.”
Nice mythic explanation. The fact is that our current laws get chock full of exceptions for a simple reason, specific groups provide enough free money to congressional members.
You can verify this in the current health care debate very simply. Create a list of those in Congress opposing a public option, and check out how much each of these opponents has received from health care interest groups.
” The “public interest” as you like to think of it doesn't exist.”
The public interest is the reason for our government. Our past conversations have demonstrated that you may not believe that. You and I have disagreed about health care because you believe health care is a business that must be protected. I believe health care is a human right in which the government should have an interest. You and I may continue to disagree, but that's not the debate that's occurring in Washington.
An easy way to see the truth of my position, check out how many politicians have changed their stance on a given piece of legislation only after they have announced they are retiring. Suddenly, they take the opposite position simply because they need neither the money nor good graces of the lobbyists who have paid for their re-elections.
By removing lobbyist money, the legislative process could be driven by “the public interest,” not the bottom line in a political war chest.
Dr J
” So you're proposing to take away the megaphones of environmental lobby groups, consumer advocacy organizations, and all the other ways citizens organize behind causes they support?”
I believe I stated clearly that no donations be greater than $100. Megaphones are for mob control, not legislative debate. The groups you cite could still petition their legislator just like ordinary citizens, the difference would be that they could no longer bribe that legislator with big fat checks that collected from an industry wanting to cut a special tax loop hole or no bid contract. People's concerns would ride upon the logic of their argument and strength of their logic, not the size of their wallet.
“It's not a planeload of “public interests” that gets hijacked by special interests, it's a boxing ring in which special interests duke it out.”
Nice mythic explanation. The fact is that our current laws get chock full of exceptions for a simple reason, specific groups provide enough free money to congressional members.
You can verify this in the current health care debate very simply. Create a list of those in Congress opposing a public option, and check out how much each of these opponents has received from health care interest groups.
” The “public interest” as you like to think of it doesn't exist.”
The public interest is the reason for our government. Our past conversations have demonstrated that you may not believe that. You and I have disagreed about health care because you believe health care is a business that must be protected. I believe health care is a human right in which the government should have an interest. You and I may continue to disagree, but that's not the debate that's occurring in Washington.
An easy way to see the truth of my position, check out how many politicians have changed their stance on a given piece of legislation only after they have announced they are retiring. Suddenly, they take the opposite position simply because they need neither the money nor good graces of the lobbyists who have paid for their re-elections.
By removing lobbyist money, the legislative process could be driven by “the public interest,” not the bottom line in a political war chest.
Hemm, the public interest does not exist. If you don't believe me, please name a single thing the public unanimously wants, that doesn't come at the expense of some other group.
Sure
Justice
Liberty
Freedom of choice
Or any of the 10 bill of rights
Hogwash, even you don't consider those all to be in the public interest. You and your leftward cronies are fighting tooth and nail against liberty and freedom of choice, to the extent they tend to permit unequal outcomes.
But you're making it too easy for me. What you're naming is so vague it's very easy to find counterexamples. Care to get specific?
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes–that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded.
The bill is currently endorsed by over 1,659 state legislators (in 48 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 29 state legislative chambers, in small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington. These five states possess 61 electoral votes — 23% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
The people vote for President now in all 50 states and have done so in most states for 200 years.
So, the issue raised by the National Popular Vote legislation is not about whether there will be “mob rule” in presidential elections, but whether the “mob” in a handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Florida, get disproportionate attention from presidential candidates, while the “mobs” of the vast majority of states are ignored. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided “battleground” states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 “battleground” states.
The current system does not provide some kind of check on the “mobs.” There have been 22,000 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 10 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. The electors are dedicated party activists who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.
The small states are the most disadvantaged of all under the current system of electing the President. Political clout comes from being a closely divided battleground state, not the two-vote bonus.
Small states are almost invariably non-competitive, and ignored, in presidential elections. Only 1 of the 13 smallest states are battleground states (and only 5 of the 25 smallest states are battlegrounds).
Of the 13 smallest states, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Alaska regularly vote Republican, and Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC regularly vote Democratic. These 12 states together contain 11 million people. Because of the two electoral-vote bonus that each state receives, the 12 non-competitive small states have 40 electoral votes. However, the two-vote bonus is an entirely illusory advantage to the small states. Ohio has 11 million people and has “only” 20 electoral votes. As we all know, the 11 million people in Ohio are the center of attention in presidential campaigns, while the 11 million people in the 12 non-competitive small states are utterly irrelevant. Nationwide election of the President would make each of the voters in the 12 smallest states as important as an Ohio voter.
The concept of a national popular vote for President is far from being politically “radioactive” in small states, because the small states recognize they are the most disadvantaged group of states under the current system.
In small states, the National Popular Vote bill already has been approved by a total of eight state legislative chambers, including one house in Delaware and Maine and both houses in Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. It has been enacted by Hawaii.
The 11 most populous states contain 56% of the population of the United States and that a candidate would win the Presidency if 100% of the voters in these 11 states voted for one candidate. However, if anyone is concerned about the this theoretical possibility, it should be pointed out that, under the current system, a candidate could win the Presidency by winning a mere 51% of the vote in these same 11 states — that is, a mere 26% of the nation's votes.
Of course, the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely act in concert on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states include five “red” states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six “blue” states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.
Moreover, the notion that any candidate could win 100% of the vote in one group of states and 0% in another group of states is far-fetched. Indeed, among the 11 most populous states, the highest levels of popular support were found in the following seven non-battleground states:
* Texas (62% Republican),
* New York (59% Democratic),
* Georgia (58% Republican),
* North Carolina (56% Republican),
* Illinois (55% Democratic),
* California (55% Democratic), and
* New Jersey (53% Democratic).
In addition, the margins generated by the nation's largest states are hardly overwhelming in relation to the 122,000,000 votes cast nationally. Among the 11 most populous states, the highest margins were the following seven non-battleground states:
* Texas — 1,691,267 Republican
* New York — 1,192,436 Democratic
* Georgia — 544,634 Republican
* North Carolina — 426,778 Republican
* Illinois — 513,342 Democratic
* California — 1,023,560 Democratic
* New Jersey — 211,826 Democratic
To put these numbers in perspective, Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 votes for Bush in 2004 — larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 votes for Bush in 2004.
Dr J
You really don't know me or what I think. The fact you see this as simply a political squabble demonstrates there is no explanation that would satisfy your narrow little world view.
As to specifics, I guess you also find the Constitution too vague for your tastes and comprehension also.
Justice – equal safeguards and penalties under the law. You know, if health care is good enough for the legislature, it's good enough for joe blow. Real leftwing.
Liberty – As guaranteed in the 2nd Amendment. I don't own a gun presently, but I will defend your right as long as you maintain the responsibility of ownership. Rabid right wing
Freedom of choice – freedom to do whatever I want as long as it doesn't affect another person. Real libertarian.
I*n short, just stop. Your broad brush accusations about me are embarrassing to you and boring to me.
Drop your political talking points, pick up your brain, and talk to me, not some imagined caricature. I'll never be the straw man you require.
The Founders also intended us to amend the Constitution when the needs require it.
The Founders intended to count slaves as 3/5 of people for census purposes. The Founders intended to deny women the vote. The Founders intended for state legislatures to choose Senators, not a direct vote by the people. Guess what? Slavery is gone, women can vote and hold office and people get to directly choose their Senators. The Founders intended us to Change when Change was needed.
Personally, I agree in spirit with some of the items Pascal listed, but not specifically his proposals. I personally don't think merging the Dakotas would work, I don't like overstacking the Senate the way he suggests (I prefer the top 15-20 states get an extra Senator for a max of 3, based on population rank), and his proposals still do nothing with regards to actual election and campaign fund-raising (what I call legalized bribery) reform that is more needed.
I do believe the citizens living in DC deserve direct representation, so merging the population back into Maryland to me is basic common sense. I still think Puerto Rico should be a state but on its own terms (what's wrong with the number 51?). I do recognize that we need better representation and should increase the number of Representatives (although I'd try to find out the next census numbers before agreeing to what the new House tally should be), but first I'd do everything to end the undue lobbyist influence before increasing the number of people who can get bought off. We do need to end gerrymandering of Congressional districts: too often it's played to benefit the parties, not the people needing representation. But I'm not so sure of upping the House terms to 4 years with alternating elections: given that even Senators and Presidential hopefuls are campaigning year-round, I'd try to amend the Constitution so that all campaigning and fund-raising can only happen in the actual year of election, and that should stop Congresspersons from going around with their hands out every day of every year.
And that final proposal of his, adding a Fourth Branch with veto power over the other three?! WTF. Hell no. Let's actually try to enforce the Checks and Balances already established. Best way to do that is to codify it by saying “The President of the United States is NOT above the law (suck it, Nixon/Cheney). The system of checks and balances between the three branches of the government, and between the federal and state levels, will be in effect at ALL times.”
So that's me.
Hemm, do you have any coherent points you can defend without name calling?
My points were coherent. They have been consistently based upon well known seminal components of our governmental system. Your inability to comprehend those building blocks are not my problem.
The building blocks I get just fine, Hemm. I just don't know what coherent points you're referring to.
My original point was (and is) that the “public interest” is ephemeral, that once you get into the specifics the “public interest” reveals itself as just a gabble of special interests. You disagreed, but the vague building blocks you proposed as counterexamples simply illustrated my point: although people want liberty in general, once you get into the specifics, they disagree about it.
At that point, you got even less coherent, ranting about how I'm out of line to characterize your leftish views as leftish. Whatever.
I guess we need to start with “the general welfare” clause of the constitution:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Being part of the preamble, it is clear that this social contract found that the general welfare of the population was a primary reason for writing the constitution. Would you agree with that analysis? Justice, tranquility, defense, welfare and freedom.
If so, then one need look to history to see how this promotion has been manifested. I don't want to go too far if you have problems with my line of thought so far.
Let me know.
Sure, Hemm, I'm totally for justice, freedom, and general welfare. But those terms are so broad and sweeping as to mean next to nothing, like driving directions that only tell you what solar system to go to.
So, one can look at history, and then what?
I'll send this link concerning the general welfare clause if you wish to read it. It's a fairly well done narration of this clause as viewed through our history. I don't agree with every bit of it, but we can certainly work from its narrative to get to the heart of what the phrase means.
general welfare discussion by by Edward Spannaus and quoting lyndon larouche
http://american_almanac.tripod.com/welfare.htm
I sent you a link discussing the historical context for the general welfare.
http://american_almanac.tripod.com/welfare.htm
I'm not advocating views expressed here, I merely am using this link to show the historical context.
” So, one can look at history, and then what?”
One's politics are based upon your understanding of history. If you don't know from where ideas come from, you can't make up your own mind and are left with somebody else's talking points.
Hemm, I don't understand what point you're making. Are you claiming that “general welfare” is sufficiently precise that no two rational people could disagree about what measures best serve it?
I sent you a link discussing the historical context for the general welfare.
http://american_almanac.tripod.com/welfare.htm
I'm not advocating views expressed here, I merely am using this link to show the historical context.
” So, one can look at history, and then what?”
One's politics are based upon your understanding of history. If you don't know from where ideas come from, you can't make up your own mind and are left with somebody else's talking points.
Dr J
The point is not only can people disagree, but they have for 200+ years. The positions have coalesced into two camps:
1. Gov Winthrop – Winthrop explained: “The welfare of the whole is not to be put to apparent hazard for the advantage of any particular members''–a very precise repudiation of an oligarchical form of society.
2. Hamilton – Alexander Hamilton's proposals of 150 years later, in 1640 the General Court of the Massachusetts Bay Colony voted for subsidies for textile manufacturing, and other subsidies designed to promote manufactures.
Sorry for the short description of each position, but I'm not trying to argue one against the other, just document them. Anyway, it thus comes down to me to decide which camp I believe is correct.
Side 1 believes the general welfare is served in total, and no one group being given preference.
Side 2 believes that the general welfare is helped best by helping those who run the economic interests. Guy's named Mandeville and Adam Smith later codified this into our current free marketers.
I'm a Side 1 guy. The reason I am can be seen in how side 2 is derived from some of our founding fathers who believed an elite should rule over the masses-an oligarchy like the Greeks. I don't think elites exist in society due to their actions, but by chance and ancestry . And chance is no way to govern.
If you feel differently, and I'd like to hear your thoughts.
Either way, one has to decide what to believe. Let me know if I sound a little more coherent to you now.
Just read this post. I have to say, its the worst piece of garbage I've seen here ever, disturbing in so many ways and totally undermining the nature of our country.
Thanks Hemm, that's a very interesting comment.
I see a couple different concepts in play here. The first is to what extent a government should attempt to advance the standard of living of its citizens. Genuine tyrants will answer scarcely at all, it's fine to kill them off. Mandeville didn't go quite that far, but he had a classist view of humanity, that government's responsibilities to the elite are different from those to the unwashed. I haven't heard anyone in American political discourse argue either of those positions. In fact everyone seems to agree government ought to maximize the standard of living of all its citizens.
The contentious part is, of course, the specifics. What policies best advance people's standard of living? How do you know when you're doing the right thing, either in the short term or the long term? Here we have a lot of disagreement that I'd group into these two camps:
Group A says government should aim in the near term for equality of opportunity, providing them the security, support, and the freedom to succeed or fail as their luck, talents, determination lead them. They're by no means against safety nets to cushion the costs of failure, but they don't feel the need to make it as pleasant as success. This policy, they believe, maximizes everyone's prosperity in the few-decades-and-beyond timeframe.
Group B says government should strive for more equality of outcome in the near term, providing everyone as much stability and prosperity as possible, and insulating them from the ill fortunes of chance. They're willing to accept less individual freedom as a consequence. This policy, they believe, maximizes everyone's prosperity not only in the long term but in the short term as well.
I'm a group A guy, because I think group B is mistaken. Pursuing equality of outcome in the near term produces worse outcomes in the longer term. The main engines of our prosperity have always been individuals' determination and skill and their freedom to put them to use–including the freedom to fail. Government does everyone a disservice by declaring war on failure, or success, or even luck.
Dr J
Thanks for a great response.
“Group A says government should aim in the near term for equality of opportunity, providing them the security, support, and the freedom to succeed or fail as their luck, talents, determination lead them. They're by no means against safety nets to cushion the costs of failure, but they don't feel the need to make it as pleasant as success. This policy, they believe, maximizes everyone's prosperity in the few-decades-and-beyond timeframe.
Group B says government should strive for more equality of outcome in the near term, providing everyone as much stability and prosperity as possible, and insulating them from the ill fortunes of chance. They're willing to accept less individual freedom as a consequence. This policy, they believe, maximizes everyone's prosperity not only in the long term but in the short term as well.”
“Government does everyone a disservice by declaring war on failure, or success, or even luck.”
Except, of course, if the people who are failing are part of the elite. It sounds like we agree that Bush's bailout(with complete help by the Democratic leadership) saved a few elites from their terrible economic gamble of credit default swaps and all the rest.
I don't want to discuss that fiasco, I mention it merely because it demonstrates a very interesting fact, people from BOTH sides of the aisle helped 1) to allow these elites run wild with other people's money, and then 2) back up the money truck to save their collective *sses when their shell game blows up. My point being that elitists exist in both parties. To look at politics as Dems and Repubs is flat wrong.
In health care, one can see the same thing. Dems have the cherished majority, you'd think they should be able to pass any damn thing they want. But no, the power elites in the health care business are currently having their present and future profits assured by BOTH sides of the aisle. Your definitions above are (I think) based upon political lines. I suggest that looking at this issue through that lens is pure illusion carefully devised to keep people distracted from what's really going on.
I know you have stated your opposition to a public plan, but consider what's going on. What is the worst possible threat to health care elites. A single payer system, off the table before before any discussion takes place in public.(The democratic senate leader said that first.)
The next biggest threat, competition – real competition. The kind where someone can drive the costs down. Costs are a function of profit here. 2% of a hundred million is better than 2% of one million. As long as the cost of medical care goes up, so do profits. It was the blue dogs that insisted that pharma costs could not be negotiated in the present bill. Bush et al did the same thing with the medicaid pharma bill – buy 100 billion in drugs and pay retail. The dems are doing the heavy lifting for the elites in this current bill. The Repugs are throwing out insane scare tactics to confuse the populace. You know the distractions,
abortion
gay marriage – these first two could have been taken care of when repubs had the supermajority.
killing granny is just the latest.
Instead of looking at this as political, follow the money. I thought the need for health care reform was to reduce costs, increase efficiency, and provide for the short and long term welfare of everyone. Not so much. Maybe I'm not as crazy as you thought.
Please tell me how I'm wrong. I personally hate my conclusion.