The United States of America doesn’t seem to be so united these days.
So much energy and politics and media narrating the divisions of liberal versus conservative. This deflection funded by the real owners (billionaires) of the country, keeps the masses attacking each other instead of noticing the on-going great train robbery from the ‘owners’ wanting more of the pie. Every time we have a natural disaster, or financial crisis, or war, or pandemic, tax payers end up make the rich get richer. Or should I say future tax payers, as now our national debt skyrockets in good times and bad.
And now the division narratives are laced with violent rhetoric. Thanks to corporate social media and broadcast media, controlled by billionaires with agendas. The John Roberts court has hastened the demise.
And the wheels on the Wall St bus go ‘round and ‘round.
The idea of combining adjacent low population states into 1 bigger state with 2 senators (instead of 6 or 8 if they stayed 3 or 4 states) is a good one. Or, for every 10M in population over 5M they get 1 more Senator. But one takes a constitutional amendment ... the other requires what ... supermajorities in each state house to commit political dissolution?
We can achieve some semblance of logic but we have to turn a spotlight on what right wing strategists already know - state government elections freaking matter much more than the general public know. State attorney generals have the power to correct the unforeseen.
The actual solution is to nerf the Senate. A state gets one senator for every four reps, with a minimum of one senator per state. Once it’s tied in with population, we take the states out of the voting discussion once and for all.
Well, in Oregon, counties are voting to secede and join Idaho. I don't suppose any Republicans would get behind it, even though, as I said, small government types should love it. I am sure the executive could not do it by fiat, unless we get a dictator, but someone should at least challenge the 2 senators for every state rule.
Challenging the “2 Senators per state” rule means changing the constitution. I love it, but don’t see how it could happen.
Repub politicians are fine with shutting down the government as long as they keep getting their paychecks AND keep their jobs. They’ll also want to keep as many other Repubs in the Senate as possible to continue deciding policy.
Examine who’s running and support the one who isn’t working with groups like the heritage foundation. That aside I would recommend voting blue until the wing nuts back off. (Cynical, I know) desperate times? Definitely critical times.
They won’t let it happen, but what could happen if enough support is garnered and enough AGs agree - is proportionate representation in our states. How? Constitutional amendment.
The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures.
So we’d need 2/3 of the House & the Senate each.
In this case though I believe it would have to be the states themselves that would need to agree.
I love the idea, but i don’t think those states would agree to give up their power.
A long shot no doubt, although a better chance might be DC Statehood. Regardless we will be safer in terms of rights of individuals (bodily freedoms and voting rights) if we secured statehouses for democrats.
So you want to unilaterally welch on the agreement that the small states made with the big states as a condition of joining the union? That sounds democratic... not.
No one said anything about unilaterally, you will notice I suggested conservatives and small government folks should get behind it to align with their principles.
Wait til they tried to secede and then force them into it. Wyo-dako-dontanta-ho, or the Olympia State, is already in the works, and it's guaranteed to be a hellhole. Just uh... carve my little slice of Wyoming out first. We (and our nuclear weapons silos) can be Colorado's hat.
Upstate NY v NYC won’t work--NYC relies on the watershed from Upstate; Upstate relies on the tax base of NYC, and so it goes. Why four Texas’s? Let them have their way and secede and let El Paso join New Mexico. I’m not sure which segment would want the horribly polluted, drought sections of west Texas around Midland/Odessa . . . Florida split down the middle makes sense: East Coast retirees v Midwestern Repugs . . .Can we get rid of the electoral college while we’re at it?
The United States of America doesn’t seem to be so united these days.
So much energy and politics and media narrating the divisions of liberal versus conservative. This deflection funded by the real owners (billionaires) of the country, keeps the masses attacking each other instead of noticing the on-going great train robbery from the ‘owners’ wanting more of the pie. Every time we have a natural disaster, or financial crisis, or war, or pandemic, tax payers end up make the rich get richer. Or should I say future tax payers, as now our national debt skyrockets in good times and bad.
And now the division narratives are laced with violent rhetoric. Thanks to corporate social media and broadcast media, controlled by billionaires with agendas. The John Roberts court has hastened the demise.
And the wheels on the Wall St bus go ‘round and ‘round.
I knew it was bad there in America, not aware that bad. Your take on rural America, MI in particular is spot on.
"...Idaho’s two Senators are sent to Washington by just 1.9 million people."
Actually, in 2022, only about 449,000 Idahoans sent Jim Risch back to DC to represent 1.9-million Idahoans.
Yes but those senators in theory represent all the people of the state.
The idea of combining adjacent low population states into 1 bigger state with 2 senators (instead of 6 or 8 if they stayed 3 or 4 states) is a good one. Or, for every 10M in population over 5M they get 1 more Senator. But one takes a constitutional amendment ... the other requires what ... supermajorities in each state house to commit political dissolution?
We can achieve some semblance of logic but we have to turn a spotlight on what right wing strategists already know - state government elections freaking matter much more than the general public know. State attorney generals have the power to correct the unforeseen.
The other alternative, given magical powers, would be to move the new state to the coast and let it flood.
The actual solution is to nerf the Senate. A state gets one senator for every four reps, with a minimum of one senator per state. Once it’s tied in with population, we take the states out of the voting discussion once and for all.
In sum, the political situation we find ourselves in is a dog's breakfast.
Great idea, but who needs to do what to make it happen?
Well, in Oregon, counties are voting to secede and join Idaho. I don't suppose any Republicans would get behind it, even though, as I said, small government types should love it. I am sure the executive could not do it by fiat, unless we get a dictator, but someone should at least challenge the 2 senators for every state rule.
Challenging the “2 Senators per state” rule means changing the constitution. I love it, but don’t see how it could happen.
Repub politicians are fine with shutting down the government as long as they keep getting their paychecks AND keep their jobs. They’ll also want to keep as many other Repubs in the Senate as possible to continue deciding policy.
Examine who’s running and support the one who isn’t working with groups like the heritage foundation. That aside I would recommend voting blue until the wing nuts back off. (Cynical, I know) desperate times? Definitely critical times.
I do already do those things, but how go we get 5 states to merge into one & give up 8 senators?i love the idea, but can’t see how it could get done.
They won’t let it happen, but what could happen if enough support is garnered and enough AGs agree - is proportionate representation in our states. How? Constitutional amendment.
The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures.
So we’d need 2/3 of the House & the Senate each.
In this case though I believe it would have to be the states themselves that would need to agree.
I love the idea, but i don’t think those states would agree to give up their power.
A long shot no doubt, although a better chance might be DC Statehood. Regardless we will be safer in terms of rights of individuals (bodily freedoms and voting rights) if we secured statehouses for democrats.
This is fantastic...please more!
Clear and bright
So you want to unilaterally welch on the agreement that the small states made with the big states as a condition of joining the union? That sounds democratic... not.
No one said anything about unilaterally, you will notice I suggested conservatives and small government folks should get behind it to align with their principles.
Wait til they tried to secede and then force them into it. Wyo-dako-dontanta-ho, or the Olympia State, is already in the works, and it's guaranteed to be a hellhole. Just uh... carve my little slice of Wyoming out first. We (and our nuclear weapons silos) can be Colorado's hat.
Upstate NY v NYC won’t work--NYC relies on the watershed from Upstate; Upstate relies on the tax base of NYC, and so it goes. Why four Texas’s? Let them have their way and secede and let El Paso join New Mexico. I’m not sure which segment would want the horribly polluted, drought sections of west Texas around Midland/Odessa . . . Florida split down the middle makes sense: East Coast retirees v Midwestern Repugs . . .Can we get rid of the electoral college while we’re at it?
I was trying to be facetious, which always fails in social media posts. I was listing reasons that people have said in these states from time to time.