Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ Markus_Katabri 2 weeks ago
    They can Carve up Michigan all they want. The only overwhelming Democrat area is the SE. The rest of us are Republican. My own little county is 78% Republican. There are a fair amount of us that have started openly advocating splitting in two. North and South. We do NOT feel represented here in the North.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Temlakos 2 weeks ago
    I don't know what the Dems think they're doing about Maryland. But the Texas Annexation Resolution (HR 45) in fact specifies that Texas many subdivide into five States - and already has the "consent of the Congress" so to act.

    Nevertheless, Texans have something else in mind: secession from the Union. See:

    https://tnm.me/
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Commander 2 weeks ago
    That is really quite a brilliant idea. Now apply across the US.
    The number of Representatives would become diluted to 1 per State division, 2 Senators per would saturate, overwhelmingly, the rural divisions respective representation.

    All assuming "representation" numbers remain at 538.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ blarman 2 weeks ago
      I've actually done a little digging and the history of the House of Representatives is quite interesting. Apparently when the Constitution was first approved, each Representative actually "represented" only about 30,000 people! As the nation has added new states, the number of Representatives grew slightly, but not hardly enough to keep up with population growth. According to the figures I have, each Representative now "represents" 3/4 of a MILLION people. In my estimation, this tends to favor big cities at the expense of rural areas, which frequently aren't even represented at all. Montana has a total population just over one million people, yet are afforded only ONE Representative in the House.

      I think that we would get better representation by re-establishing a more representative House. We need to stop thinking of the House in terms of 435 seats and think of it in terms of population blocks. Now it probably isn't reasonable to go back to a ratio of one Rep per 30,000 people. By my math, the House would then comprise more than 10,500 members! But even if it were altered so that the House seated one Representative per 200,000 I think you would have a vast improvement even though the House would increase to 1,564 members. In my opinion, the nation would gain three very important benefits. First, it would make buying votes in Congress MUCH more expensive - prohibitively so. It would also greatly decrease the power any one Representative would hold. Second, this would greatly re-enfranchise rural areas, whose voices in the current system are hardly heard at all. Third, it would reward States who attracted population by creating a climate of low taxes and employment opportunities with greater representation in public affairs.

      Of course this would place great emphasis on the Census and would require a clause mandating that only Citizens of the United States be counted for House Apportionment.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Commander 2 weeks ago
        At present 57% of the population lives in cities of 100k or larger. Definitely disenfranchises rural population. Yet, rural is where all the food and manufactured products originate...resources.
        What if we looked even more simply. One County, one vote, for a majority vote within the County.
        I'd prefer to return to land owner only voting privilege. Anything to diffuse power center would be acceptable.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ blarman 2 weeks ago
          The one county approach is interesting, but in my mind doesn't really embody representative government. The House of Representatives is supposed to represent the People by populous.

          What would stop a State from simply carving itself up into smaller "county" chunks just to get more representation in Congress? You could ostensibly have a Congress where Alaska controlled 1/3 of the votes with less than 1% of the population of the nation.

          "I'd prefer to return to land owner only voting privilege."

          This one actually has some merit because those with property pay taxes. The problem is that its completely impractical in the modern age. My fear is that it would simply disenfranchise many city people. And what do you do about home owners with mortgages? Do the banks get those votes?

          Here's another provision I've thought about: if you receive welfare payments from the government, the receipt of those funds is contingent upon you signing away your right to vote. This avoids the problem foreseen by Alexander Tytler:

          "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage."

          Obviously, it is best for governments not to get into welfare at all, but with this provision it would certainly discourage it from being the plague it has become in our nation.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by freedomforall 1 week, 6 days ago
            " if you receive welfare payments from the government,"
            I would expand it to include all who are paid salaries, and those who are employed under government contracts.
            (I also would replace taxes with user fees. You have posted many good ideas in the past, blarman.)
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ blarman 1 week, 6 days ago
              I hesitate to expand things to that degree, but there may be a case to be made.

              I think that one of the other things we ought to do is repeal the Seventeenth Amendment and return control of the Senate to the State Legislatures. But my wishlist is quite long... ;)
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by NealS 2 weeks ago
        The number of representatives is not significant when you consider that most of them do nothing except campaign. A possible solution would be to redefine RINO and infiltrate the democratic party with DINO's (No offense Dino). Today all it takes is a "D" next to your name and your a shoe in. It would probably also solve the term limit issue after one or two terms each, no one would be reelected.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Pcfd1655 2 weeks ago
    Since they intend to keep the 'Capital' as a federal site, why not divide up the rest between the adjoining states. Look at the cost savings eliminating another layer of gov'ment!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo