Do you advocate this?
Members banned from this thread: evince, Truth Detector, CFM and Fentoine Lum |
A liberal NYU law professor's solution to other liberals complaining about representation in the Senate.
Divide States to Democratize the Senate
A constitutionally sound fix to a vexing political problem.
‘No State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate,” declares Article V of the Constitution, which lays out the amendment process. A Californian has only 1/65th the representation of a Wyoming resident in the upper chamber. That’s undemocratic, but there’s no way around Article V.
Or is there? Article IV provides that “new States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union”—including from the territory of an existing state, if its legislature consents. Five states were created in this manner: Vermont from New York (1791), Kentucky from Virginia (1792), Tennessee from North Carolina (1796), Maine from Massachusetts (1820) and West Virginia from Virginia (1863).
Drawing on that tradition, a Democracy Restoration Act could grant blanket consent to populous but underrepresented states to go forth and multiply to restore the Senate’s democratic legitimacy.
Section 1 of the act would provide that whenever the decennial census identifies states with populations that exceed that of the least populous state by more than, say, 20 to 1, each of those largest states would have the option of dividing in half. Section 2 would condition the creation of any such state on the consent of the residents of both halves of the original state.
If, using the 2010 census, we set the trigger at 20 to 1, the six states exceeding 12 million people—California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania and Illinois—with about 41% of America’s inhabitants, could split, yielding 12 new senators and dramatically reducing the Senate’s structural inequality. If we set the trigger at 10 to 1, 19 states with more than 70% of the U.S. population could generate 38 senators. Go all the way to 6 to 1—the ratio between the largest and smallest states when the Constitution was ratified—and 29 states yield 58 senators.
Given current political reality, such an effort to restore democracy to the Senate would likely attract more Democratic than Republican support. But it wouldn’t necessarily advantage either party. Bifurcating Texas and Florida would probably generate Democratic gains, with Georgia and Ohio up next; but splitting California, New York and Illinois could open up opportunities for Republicans. Once state boundaries were locked into place, Senate gerrymandering would become almost impossible. The future is unpredictable, but it would be determined by democratically legitimate institutions.
My fix wouldn’t be easy. Realistically, the Democratic Party would have to gain a Senate majority and the presidency under the existing, stacked system. Political leaders and residents in the underrepresented states would have to be willing to shake up the status quo to take advantage of the increased political power offered by creating new states. That means agreeing on fair boundaries, working out the problems of bifurcating (like liability for debts), and providing for joint administration of certain programs, possibly via interstate compacts.
The important thing is there’s a constitutional way to rescue the Senate from its current undemocratic condition.
Mr. Neuborne has taught law at New York University since 1972.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/divide-...d=hp_opin_pos2
Do you advocate this?
blackascoal (11-20-2018)
There is no other way...without a constitutional amendment.
Larger population states HAVE GOT TO SPLIT...or smaller population states must be amalgamated.
Here in New Jersey...the North and South are like different states already. We even root for different sports teams.
New Jersey could easily divide into THREE states...North Jersey, Middle Jersey and South Jersey...each with about 3,000,000 people.
The costs would be enormous. The idea of three state legislatures sucks.
But if several of the large states declare intentions of doing so...it might bring the others to consciousness. Maybe it could set the stage for a Constitutional amendment getting the Senate into greater population parity.
Making the Electoral College more equitable is a much easier thing to do.
Callinectes (11-21-2018), Sailor (11-20-2018)
Splitting up States wouldn't make that much difference, the population disparity is between metropolitan centers and rural areas, some time in the near future over seventy percent of nation will reside in urban areas
Real solution is to reduce either the powers of the Senate or its' processes, given that it has become just another majority based body its original purpose of protecting the minority voice has been diminished.
Personally, I'd go to a Parliamentary form of Gov't, making the Senate as relevant as the House of Lords in Britain, but that ain't ever happening
Controlled Opposition (11-23-2018), Fentoine Lum (11-20-2018), Guno צְבִי (11-20-2018)
do you need the senate to do this? I know for a fact there are movements to divide CA into 3 or 6 or whatever and they have been trying to do it via ballot initiative.
Nobody really wants to break up states, it is the mental masturbation of pseudo-intellectuals bored and trying to think up a theme to write an opinion article about.
What needs to happen is to stop treating residents of D.C. and Puerto Rico as second-class citizens, let them vote a referendum on statehood, and admit them as states if the referendum passes.
Althea (11-21-2018), Guno צְבִי (11-20-2018), TTQ64 (11-21-2018)
Unites States of America..
The states are the building block of the country -why they all get equal representation in the Senate.
But the population centers get more representation in the House..That's a good balance for our republic
I think the notion deserves more consideration and respect than you are giving it here, Archives.
The disparity in the Senate...and in the Electoral College...is much, much too great to simply neglect it or consider it to be acceptable.
Something has to be done.
Everything should be on the table...because most of the options are no-go simply because of the problem itself.
True, I'd suppose the point of the post was just to batter it about
And DC plus PR ought to be given that option, but that ain't going to alter the reality that down the road rural areas with sparse populations will grossly over represented while metropolitan centers will be consequently underrepresented
Cypress (11-20-2018)
Bookmarks