Regarding the growing number of places now talking about breaking away from the states they currently belong to and forming new states: This list includes Northern California, Southern California, Northeast Colorado, and now Western Maryland.
This is probably a great example of why the founders did not want a democracy but preferred a federal republic. At the state level, one can vote with ones feet by moving out of poorly managed urban centers and taking businesses with you. "Drive a little, save a lot" advertising slogans is the indicator that the city has gone to the dogs. This is called "urban sprawl" and is detested by the tax-hungry urbanites who see this as an indication of wide spread runaway slaves.
The tendency toward poor municipal management grows with the sprawl until the large metro area achieves 51% of the population of the state at which point the outlying geographical 95% of the state starts talking secession. Western Maryland has now joined the ranks likely in an effort to escape from Baltimore, and can Illinois be very far from demanding the eviction of Cook County?
Even if the modern city-states were granted statehood, the concept would probably not fly as the metroplexes currently elect Democrats who can control the Senate (for the moment) and the newly formed states would likely be far more conservative.
May I suggest that a more federal composition might help. Let the state houses of representatives be elected on a population basis, but let senators be elected one per county to balance the mismanaged cities. Colorado's constitution decrees that all out state congressanimals be elected on a per capita basis, which means that the only difference between a Senator and a Representative is the size of the bribe they command.
I am not a political scientist, but rather a political guinea pig* upon which the scientists perform their experiments.
*There is a hierarchy of jobs related to research beginning at the top with "astronaut" and descending through "test pilot", "development driver", "guinea pig", and "lab rat". The difference between guinea pig and lab rat is that if the lab rat doesn't survive the experience, you don't care.
This is probably a great example of why the founders did not want a democracy but preferred a federal republic. At the state level, one can vote with ones feet by moving out of poorly managed urban centers and taking businesses with you. "Drive a little, save a lot" advertising slogans is the indicator that the city has gone to the dogs. This is called "urban sprawl" and is detested by the tax-hungry urbanites who see this as an indication of wide spread runaway slaves.
The tendency toward poor municipal management grows with the sprawl until the large metro area achieves 51% of the population of the state at which point the outlying geographical 95% of the state starts talking secession. Western Maryland has now joined the ranks likely in an effort to escape from Baltimore, and can Illinois be very far from demanding the eviction of Cook County?
Even if the modern city-states were granted statehood, the concept would probably not fly as the metroplexes currently elect Democrats who can control the Senate (for the moment) and the newly formed states would likely be far more conservative.
May I suggest that a more federal composition might help. Let the state houses of representatives be elected on a population basis, but let senators be elected one per county to balance the mismanaged cities. Colorado's constitution decrees that all out state congressanimals be elected on a per capita basis, which means that the only difference between a Senator and a Representative is the size of the bribe they command.
I am not a political scientist, but rather a political guinea pig* upon which the scientists perform their experiments.
*There is a hierarchy of jobs related to research beginning at the top with "astronaut" and descending through "test pilot", "development driver", "guinea pig", and "lab rat". The difference between guinea pig and lab rat is that if the lab rat doesn't survive the experience, you don't care.
3 comments:
The notion of a bicameral legislature, without something significant to distinquish between them, seems almost nonsensical to me. And the U.S. Congress, pre-17th amendment, seems a useful way to solve the problem. However, in the U.S., for state legislatures, such a thing isn't possible, due to Reynolds v. Sims.
Thanks for the pointer. Noting Evrett Dirksen's warning was interesting as well. Allowing a state Senate made up of county representatives would put a check on the problems we're seeing today and adding the Dirksen amendment to the various proposed amendment suites would certainly be worth while.
I have often noted that the only differentiation between houses is that Senators, being less numerous, command larger bribes.
from the Wikipedia article cited by jed:
"Among the more extreme pre-Reynolds disparities (compiled by Congressman Morris K. Udall):"
Morris is the father of current Colorado U.S. Senator Mark Udall ( Donkeyrat ).
Post a Comment