Since you can't be bothered to type an answer to my question, I won't be bothered to look up anything which cannot possibly justify the fundamental modification of the power relationships established in Our Constitution between the People, the States, and the three branches of the federal government.
Whatever those problems were imagined to have been could certainly have been handled in a way that did not require a structural modification of Our republic.
I have yet to read any substantive argument against the two improvements that I suggested previously, or against my premise that those changes would move U.S. closer to the original design and intent of the Framers, thereby resolving many of the problems that We have inflicted upon Ourselves over the last 100+ years, or against that increase in proximity being a desirable outcome on balance, so, barring a better effort, this will be my final post in this thread.
While repeal of the 17th Amendment would do nothing to address present problems, I was attempting to address one of the roots of them, rather than their symptoms.
By all means, We should try to alleviate current suffering in any way that is appropriate within the constraints of the Constitution.
What were those problems that the 17th Amendment “fixed?”
Please elaborate on them and explain why that solution is superior to Our Founding Fathers' well considered original design.
I'm sorry, I thought that the idea of trying to return our federal government to its original design, because what We've changed it into doesn't seem to be working as well as it might, was clearer in my other post.
Returning to a maximum of 30,000 Citizens per representative would give each of Us much more proportional representation than the current ratio of ~729,000:1 does; similarly, returning the appointment of the Senators to the States from their current popular vote would restore the original representation in the Senate and undo another change that We've made along the way which has gotten Us to Our current sorry state.
Some will complain that would mean We'd go from 435 representatives to more than 10,000, and where would We put them all? Well, We build aircraft carriers and spend billions on other things, so I think that We could build them a small town in the middle of nowhere.
I typed nothing about gerrymandering districts or disenfranchising those with different views; if anything, I'm talking about the opposite: dividing districts into groups of 30,000 Citizens so that each of Our views has more of an impact on the person elected to represent those views in the Congress.
Groups of 30,000 would be more jealous of and watchful over the integrity of their votes than the current ~729,000 per representative do today, because each vote has more impact and thus “value,” and there are magnitudes fewer elected officials in State governments than Citizens voting for Senators now, so the problem of dilution by ~3.17 million Citizens per Senator would likewise be corrected (and secondary to which group is actually being represented), so all types of voting shenanigans would likely decline as each vote commands a larger portion of each elected servant's attention.
While We the People have much to do to repair the century plus damage We've done to Our Constitution, I hope that it's more easily achievable than Spiff's lenghty list of terminations.
It will still take some doing, but I feel We should begin by fixing what We've obviously broken on Our path to this moment, particularly:
The surest way to return the control of the federal government to We the People is to realize that Article I, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution, which requires that “The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand,” trumps the Apportionment Act of 1911, which “sets” the number of members of the United States House of Representatives at 435.
And while We're at it, the States should appoint their Senators; We already have Our House, let's give them back theirs.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Willful1.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fixing the unfixable
Whatever those problems were imagined to have been could certainly have been handled in a way that did not require a structural modification of Our republic.
I have yet to read any substantive argument against the two improvements that I suggested previously, or against my premise that those changes would move U.S. closer to the original design and intent of the Framers, thereby resolving many of the problems that We have inflicted upon Ourselves over the last 100+ years, or against that increase in proximity being a desirable outcome on balance, so, barring a better effort, this will be my final post in this thread.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fixing the unfixable
By all means, We should try to alleviate current suffering in any way that is appropriate within the constraints of the Constitution.
What were those problems that the 17th Amendment “fixed?”
Please elaborate on them and explain why that solution is superior to Our Founding Fathers' well considered original design.
Re: Re: Re: Fixing the unfixable
Returning to a maximum of 30,000 Citizens per representative would give each of Us much more proportional representation than the current ratio of ~729,000:1 does; similarly, returning the appointment of the Senators to the States from their current popular vote would restore the original representation in the Senate and undo another change that We've made along the way which has gotten Us to Our current sorry state.
Some will complain that would mean We'd go from 435 representatives to more than 10,000, and where would We put them all? Well, We build aircraft carriers and spend billions on other things, so I think that We could build them a small town in the middle of nowhere.
I typed nothing about gerrymandering districts or disenfranchising those with different views; if anything, I'm talking about the opposite: dividing districts into groups of 30,000 Citizens so that each of Our views has more of an impact on the person elected to represent those views in the Congress.
Groups of 30,000 would be more jealous of and watchful over the integrity of their votes than the current ~729,000 per representative do today, because each vote has more impact and thus “value,” and there are magnitudes fewer elected officials in State governments than Citizens voting for Senators now, so the problem of dilution by ~3.17 million Citizens per Senator would likewise be corrected (and secondary to which group is actually being represented), so all types of voting shenanigans would likely decline as each vote commands a larger portion of each elected servant's attention.
Re: Fixing the unfixable
It will still take some doing, but I feel We should begin by fixing what We've obviously broken on Our path to this moment, particularly:
The surest way to return the control of the federal government to We the People is to realize that Article I, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution, which requires that “The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand,” trumps the Apportionment Act of 1911, which “sets” the number of members of the United States House of Representatives at 435.
And while We're at it, the States should appoint their Senators; We already have Our House, let's give them back theirs.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Willful1.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt