Pack the Union: Admit New States to Amend Constitution for Equal Representation

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

The Harvard Law Review has an excellent new article, which essentially proposes creating a bunch of new states, temporarily, for the purpose of passing constitutional amendments to reform American democracy to make it - well... an actually democratic system in which each voter is actually equal - by getting rid of (or fundamentally reforming to remove the un-equal aspects) the un-equal parts of the U.S. system which are inherited from the 18th century. In particular, this includes the Electoral College and the U.S. Senate.

I am particularly pleased to see this article, because I brought up the same essential idea in discussions on Atlas back around the time of the Kavanaugh hearings. The fundamental problems with the un-democratic and un-representative nature of the U.S. Government can be fixed by simply adding a bunch of temporary micro-states, which each will have 2 Senators - "Pack the Union!" - and then using these new states to pass amendments that will form a more perfect union.


Pack the Union: A Proposal to Admit New States for the Purpose of Amending the Constitution to Ensure Equal Representation

The 600,000 residents of Wyoming and the 40,000,000 residents of California should not be represented by the same number of senators. Nor should some citizens get to vote for President, while others do not. Any rationalization of the status quo must adopt the famous Orwellian farce: “All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.”

These observations are not new, and they were noted well before the Constitution was ratified. During the Constitutional Convention, delegates from small states refused to accept a system of representation by population. Likewise today, the faction that benefits from the unfair allocation of power has no interest in changing it. Article V of the Constitution requires supermajorities to amend the Constitution, so pragmatists have been reduced to advocating meager solutions: perhaps Congress could admit Washington, D.C., as a state; maybe Puerto Rico too, if we’re really feeling ambitious.

While a step in the right direction, these proposals are inadequate. To create a system where every vote counts equally, the Constitution must be amended. To do this, Congress should pass legislation reducing the size of Washington, D.C., to an area encompassing only a few core federal buildings and then admit the rest of the District’s 127 neighborhoods as states. These states — which could be added with a simple congressional majority — would add enough votes in Congress to ratify four amendments: (1) a transfer of the Senate’s power to a body that represents citizens equally; (2) an expansion of the House so that all citizens are represented in equal-sized districts; (3) a replacement of the Electoral College with a popular vote; and (4) a modification of the Constitution’s amendment process that would ensure future amendments are ratified by states representing most Americans.

Radical as this proposal may sound, it is no more radical than a nominally democratic system of government that gives citizens widely disproportionate voting power depending on where they live. The people should not tolerate a system that is manifestly unfair; they should instead fight fire with fire, and use the unfair provisions of the Constitution to create a better system.

I really like that last part. There will be some people who say that we should not do this because it is unfair, and is not how the Constitutional amendment system is supposed to work. But we should nevertheless do this. The retort to that is just as the article says: "The people should not tolerate a system that is manifestly unfair; they should instead fight fire with fire, and use the unfair provisions of the Constitution to create a better system." This proposal is certainly not more radical than having the votes of people in Wyoming count roughly 68 times more than the votes of a person in California, which is currently the case in the U.S. Senate. And actually, currently the votes of people in Wyoming count for infinitely as much as people in Washington D.C. both in the House and the Senate.

This status quo is fundamentally untenable and unsustainable, and it is only going to keep getting worse as America becomes more urbanized and less and less rural (especially after Texas eventually flips Democratic in the foreseeable future).

So it is good to see this idea (and others like it) starting coming up more often - I expect it to increasingly enter the mainstream/overton window over the coming years.



Note - the article is fairly long and has 3 parts. It is worth reading. The last part addresses a lot of the counterarguments that some posters might want to make:

This Note proceeds in three parts. Part I identifies the issue of unequal representation in the federal government. Part II explains the proposal to admit new states and pass new amendments. Part III addresses legal, historical, and political counterarguments.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Again this is one part of the constitution that just cannot be amended and creating new states in the jurisdiction of any other one is also unconstitutional  

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admission_to_the_Union#Text

WV was the lone exception due to the fact that VA had seceded from the union so this didnt apply.



The way the Senate is Allocated should not be changed and I am happy thats the one part of the constitution that just cannot be changed

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Again this is one part of the constitution that just cannot be amended and creating new states in the jurisdiction of any other one is also unconstitutional 

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admission_to_the_Union#Text

WV was the lone exception due to the fact that VA had seceded from the union so this didnt apply.

DC isn't a state. That's the whole point.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Again this is one part of the constitution that just cannot be amended and creating new states in the jurisdiction of any other one is also unconstitutional  

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admission_to_the_Union#Text

WV was the lone exception due to the fact that VA had seceded from the union so this didnt apply.

DC isn't a state. That's the whole point.

Thats not what the poster is claiming

The fundamental problems with the un-democratic and un-representative nature of the U.S. Government can be fixed by simply adding a bunch of temporary micro-states, which each will have 2 Senators - "Pack the Union!" - and then using these new states to pass amendments that will form a more perfect union.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

Again this is one part of the constitution that just cannot be amended and breaking up states to create microstates is also unconstitutional

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admission_to_the_Union#Text

WV was the lone exception due to the fact that VA had seceded from the union so this didnt apply.

State can still voluntarily split. The portion of the constitution you quote only says it cannot be done without consent of the legislatures of any existing state they are split from, and without the consent of Congress: "without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress."

So, for example, you could create 500 micro-states consisting of single houses in San Francisco, as long as the U.S. Congress (by simple majority vote which is all that is required to admit states) and the California legislature both agreed to it. And that would result in 1000 new (temporary) Senators to pass amendments.

However, even if you for some reason reject that, this rebuttal is irrelevant for this particular proposal, because it does not split up any existing states in any way, because it admits 127 new states from Washington DC, and DC is not a state currently.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Again this is one part of the constitution that just cannot be amended and breaking up states to create microstates is also unconstitutional

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admission_to_the_Union#Text

WV was the lone exception due to the fact that VA had seceded from the union so this didnt apply.

State can still voluntarily split. The portion of the constitution you quote only says it cannot be done without consent of the legislatures of any existing state they are split from, and without the consent of Congress: "without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress"

However, even if you for some reason reject that, this rebuttal is irrelevant for this particular proposal, because it does not split up any existing states in any way, because it admits 127 new states from Washington DC, and DC is not a state currently.

LMAO this is not some fantasy novel

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

LMAO this is not some fantasy novel

Correct. The Harvard Law Review is not a fantasy novel. It is a Law Review.

[OSR stands with Israel]

LMAO this is not some fantasy novel

Correct. The Harvard Law Review is not a fantasy novel. It is a Law Review.

I dont care who published it , as this is so laughably ridiculous this makes it Fantasy Novel level. It may be technically legal, but its still 100% a Fantasy

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Again this is one part of the constitution that just cannot be amended and creating new states in the jurisdiction of any other one is also unconstitutional  

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admission_to_the_Union#Text

WV was the lone exception due to the fact that VA had seceded from the union so this didnt apply.

DC isn't a state. That's the whole point.

Thats not what the poster is claiming

The fundamental problems with the un-democratic and un-representative nature of the U.S. Government can be fixed by simply adding a bunch of temporary micro-states, which each will have 2 Senators - "Pack the Union!" - and then using these new states to pass amendments that will form a more perfect union.

How are those contradictory at all?

The point of the review is that you can carve out microstates out of neighborhoods of DC because DC is not currently a state and therefore is not subject to this rule.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Again this is one part of the constitution that just cannot be amended and creating new states in the jurisdiction of any other one is also unconstitutional  

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admission_to_the_Union#Text

WV was the lone exception due to the fact that VA had seceded from the union so this didnt apply.

DC isn't a state. That's the whole point.

Thats not what the poster is claiming

The fundamental problems with the un-democratic and un-representative nature of the U.S. Government can be fixed by simply adding a bunch of temporary micro-states, which each will have 2 Senators - "Pack the Union!" - and then using these new states to pass amendments that will form a more perfect union.

How are those contradictory at all?

The point of the review is that you can carve out microstates out of neighborhoods of DC because DC is not currently a state and therefore is not subject to this rule.

he literally said he thinks 500 microstates should be created lol

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

he literally said he thinks 500 microstates should be created lol

That is not a counter-argument.

If you think that it is wrong for there to be small micro-states that have more Senators per capita than other states do, why is it not also wrong for Wyoming to have 68 times more Senators per capita than California does?

Especially given that the micro-states need only exist for long enough to pass the amendments fixing the problem with Wyoming having 68 times more representation (and other related problems like the electoral college).

[OSR stands with Israel]

he literally said he thinks 500 microstates should be created lol

That is not a counter-argument.

If you think that it is wrong for there to be small micro-states that have more Senators per capita than other states do, why is it not also wrong for Wyoming to have 68 times more Senators per capita than California does?

Especially given that the micro-states need only exist for long enough to pass the amendments fixing the problem with Wyoming having 68 times more representation (and other related problems like the electoral college).

Except lol that is the only part of the constitution that just cannot be amended unless every single state wants it to be amended.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

Except lol that is the only part of the constitution that just cannot be amended unless every single state wants it to be amended.

That is not really a constraint. If nothing else, you can always pass an amendment that says "The Senate shall have no powers whatsoever," pass other amendments to turn it into effectively a House of Lords equivalent, etc.

In that case, you could keep the bit about each state having 2 Senators, but it would be totally irrelevant since the Senators would do nothing whatsoever.

This would change the way the Senate worked significantly, but that sort of change is nothing new at all in U.S. Constitutional History (the Senate was originally not elected). Likewise other bits of the Constitution have been changed so that they don't do anything directly any more really - for example, the Electoral College members don't really make independent decisions as to who to elect (they just vote for whoever won the vote in their states).

In practice, you could do all sorts of other things as an alternative to that, just depending on the details of the new system you wanted to set up.

If you really wanted to, you could also simply pass a constitutional amendment that directly contradicts the prohibition on a State's senators being removed without the state consenting to it individually, and get rid of it through a 2 step process. First, pass an amendment that says "you can pass an amendment that cancels out that other part." And then you pass a second amendment that does actually cancel out that part.

The list of possibilities that all the creative lawyers out there could come up with is endless.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Except lol that is the only part of the constitution that just cannot be amended unless every single state wants it to be amended.

That is not really a constraint. If nothing else, you can always pass an amendment that says "The Senate shall have no powers whatsoever," pass other amendments to turn it into effectively a House of Lords equivalent, etc.

In that case, you could keep the bit about each state having 2 Senators, but it would be totally irrelevant since the Senators would do nothing whatsoever.

This would change the way the Senate worked significantly, but that sort of change is nothing new at all in U.S. Constitutional History (the Senate was originally not elected). Likewise other bits of the Constitution have been changed so that they don't do anything directly any more really - for example, the Electoral College members don't really make independent decisions as to who to elect (they just vote for whoever won the vote in their states).

In practice, you could do all sorts of other things as an alternative to that, just depending on the details of the new system you wanted to set up.

If you really wanted to, you could also simply pass a constitutional amendment that directly contradicts the prohibition on a State's senators being removed without the state consenting to it individually, and get rid of it through a 2 step process. First, pass an amendment that says "you can pass an amendment that cancels out that other part." And then you pass a second amendment that does actually cancel out that part.

The list of possibilities that all the creative lawyers out there could come up with is endless.

Again just cause what your claiming can happen doenst make it any less fantasy .

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

Again just cause what your claiming can happen doenst make it any less fantasy .

So your response is simply no argument whatsoever, much less any substantive argument.

This is a sadly typical from far too many Republicans on Atlas.

[GeneralMacArthur]

We should break San Francisco up and have each individual condominium declare itself a state.  Then the Democrats can hold the Senate forever.

[Wazza [INACTIVE]]

This idea suffers from the same problem that packing the Supreme Court does; There is nothing preventing the Republicans from pursuing a similar strategy. If California Democrats were to create hundreds of mini-states out of neighborhoods in San Francisco or Washington DC  in order to flood the Senate and House with new, safely Democratic seats, then theres nothing stopping Republicans in say, Oklahoma, from creating hundreds of new mini-states out of small towns or suburban neighborhoods in order to counteract the influx of Democratic mini-states. Even if we limit this to territorial admission, similar proposals could be made regarding breaking up the Northern Mariana Islands or the Republican parts of Guam into dozens of mini-states.

Now, a future Congress controlled by Democrats could just admit all the Blue State proposals and dismiss the Red State proposals based off of pure partisanship. However, this would appear to the wider American electorate as a blatant partisan grab, and it would most likely damage the credibility and electability of the Democratic party. This damage may be nullified with all the additional hyper-D mini-states, but then you'd be dealing with an alienated and aggravated potential majority of the country (With disproportionate rates of firearm ownership and military enrollment) which could spiral into large scale unrest and even insurgency and civil conflict.

Additionally, the logistics of managing these new mini-states in regards to the formation of constitutions, legal codes, state governments, law enforcement and electoral proceedings show that this plan is absurd. The waste of resources, disruption and damage to the livelihoods of the affected American citizens over some ridiculous political game would be profound, and ironically may not even work if such voters as a consequence of such disruptions either move or reject the Democratic Party.

This plan is insane, not only would you risk large scale disruption of the livelihoods of many American citizens regardless of race, class and political orientation, but the stability of American society and its territorial integrity, and all for some dubious notion of "mass democracy", a principle which you would go about violating far more severely than the Electoral College or the Senate does with your goal being to provide the Democrats with a veto-proof majority in both houses of Congress and a Big Blue Wall in the electoral college when Democratic support in 2016 amongst the national electorate was a slight plurality.

[Hollywood]

Again just cause what your claiming can happen doenst make it any less fantasy .

So your response is simply no argument whatsoever, much less any substantive argument.

This is a sadly typical from far too many Republicans on Atlas.

Probably cause it doesn't deserve a substantive response.  We get it.  You want to create more small states under Article IV to undermine the more important protections for agrarian states under article I in the same manner that both parties gerrymander electoral districts for the purpose of benefiting your party, or elected officials make themselves dictator for life so they can never be checked.  States that want to preserve an agrarian life-style will be ruled by states that encourage illegal immigrants and urbanized environments, which was addressed in the Constitution when the founders already gave you more representatives.  You want all the benefits of packing your state with as many people as possible, but none of the disadvantages of overpopulating your state like it's china or India.  Now everyone has to suffer due to your lack of state resources like China suffers by importing food produced in Africa and the US.  Nothing is far-fetched.

You're no different than most other Democrats on Atlas that ignore Constitutional Amendments, restrictions and protections when it's inconvenient.  You justify destroying the rights of states to govern their own citizens according to the powers that are granted to them by the Constitution, and take away the power to defend their rights. Actually, any civil right could also be rescinded at the whim of the party in charge.  

I don't care that you have good intentions.  It won't turn out that way, especially when you consider the fact that more corporations will have an ability to spread money to more Senators in these small, Democrat-leaning states.  It's more likely that our country turns into Russia.  

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Incidentally, the Constitution of South Carolina has an anti-packing provision in it, that is of little relevance since Reynolds. New counties (which originally had one Senator each and at least one Representative in the General Assembly had to have at minimum one full Representative's worth of population and new county seats could be no closer than five miles to an existing one, thus preventing a city from breaking up into multiple counties.

[7,052,770]

Terrible idea. Republicans could just do the same in the future.

We should, however, admit Puerto Rico, DC, and Guam as states, regardless of what the political consequences may be. (Remember that PR has a Republican representing them in Congress right now, so this isn't some hyperpartisan conspiracy.)

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

Terrible idea. Republicans could just do the same in the future.

We should, however, admit Puerto Rico, DC, and Guam as states, regardless of what the political consequences may be. (Remember that PR has a Republican representing them in Congress right now, so this isn't some hyperpartisan conspiracy.)

We should break San Francisco up and have each individual condominium declare itself a state.  Then the Democrats can hold the Senate forever.

This idea suffers from the same problem that packing the Supreme Court does; There is nothing preventing the Republicans from pursuing a similar strategy.

All three of you are misunderstanding the idea. The idea is not to add these states permanently (which would indeed be undemocratic, unfair, and just as tyrannical as the current system). The idea is to add these states temporarily solely for the purpose of passing constitutional amendments to ensure the right of all voters to equal representation under the law is respected. Once these amendments were passed, they would either render the new mini-states irrelevant, or else the new states could all simply be merged back together into one state (or more likely, merged back into the Federal District of DC).

Once the amendments were passed, adding new states would serve no purpose, since nobody would get any more (or less) representation simply by virtue of living in any particular "state" entity.

Additionally, the logistics of managing these new mini-states in regards to the formation of constitutions, legal codes, state governments, law enforcement and electoral proceedings show that this plan is absurd.

This is irrelevant, because the states need exist only for a few days.

Day 1 - New states are amitted.
Day 2 - Special elections are held to elect representatives and Senators from the new states.
Day 3 - Results are certified.
Day 4 - Constitutional amendments are passed. The amendments either are written explicitly to render these new states irrelevant, or then Congress passes legislation merging the new states back into Washington D.C.

For administrative reasons, though, I do think rather than making entire neighborhoods be the new states, it is better to have single houses/apartments be the temporary states with pre-selected and pre-screened "Senators in waiting" in each of the houses, who then elect themselves, certify the results quickly, and get straight to passing the amendments and there wouldn't be issues with crimes/picking up the trash/administrative issues like that for the few days that were needed to pass the amendments. With that, this could probably be done with a day (it would just need to be carefully planned beforehand so that everyone was on the same page).

This plan is insane, not only would you risk large scale disruption of the livelihoods of many American citizens regardless of race, class and political orientation, but the stability of American society and its territorial integrity, and all for some dubious notion of "mass democracy", a principle which you would go about violating far more severely than the Electoral College or the Senate does with your goal being to provide the Democrats with a veto-proof majority in both houses of Congress and a Big Blue Wall in the electoral college when Democratic support in 2016 amongst the national electorate was a slight plurality.

Again, you are misunderstanding. The idea is not to give Democrats a permanent majority, which would be tyrannical for the same reasons that the current system is tyrannical (namely it is un-equal representation and there is no substantive basis for some voters having more voting power than others simply because they live in one artificial entity called a "state" and other voters live in another different artificial entity called a "state" (or a territory). The idea is instead for all voters to count equally.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

Probably cause it doesn't deserve a substantive response.  We get it.  You want to create more small states under Article IV

First of all, insofar as voters in small states having more representation than voters in large states is a "protection," it is not a protection of "agrarian states." It is a protection for small states. Small states may be either agrarian or urban. A small state consisting of a small neighborhood or even of a single housing unit is a small state just as much as a small state consisting of a bunch of agrarian farms or even a single farm. Indeed, the article points out that the population of DC neighborhoods are (substantially) larger than the population of Nevada was when Nevada was admitted as a state.

There is just as much basis for "protecting" DC neighborhoods or individual DC housing units by giving them extra representation as there is for giving the same to "agrarian states" - i.e. none.

We are not a union of "states," America is a union of the American people. Insofar as giving small states extra representation ever made sense, it made some degree of sense in the 18th century because the US was much more like the European Union is now, as compared to being the modern nation-state that we currently are. During the Revolutionary War and early in America's history, people thought of themselves more in terms of being citizens tied to their "states" than being "Americans."

This lasted approximately to the time of the civil war, when, for example, Robert E. Lee joined the confederacy because he identified more with his state of Virginia than with the nation of the United States.

But that America - that America in which you could make at least a plausible argument that "state" was an element of identity for people, which needed special protection like a protected class - died on the battlefields of Appomattox, and ever since then it has been fading into irrelevance.

to undermine the more important protections for agrarian states under article I in the same manner that both parties gerrymander electoral districts for the purpose of benefiting your party, or elected officials make themselves dictator for life so they can never be checked.  States that want to preserve an agrarian life-style will be ruled by states that encourage illegal immigrants and urbanized environments, which was addressed in the Constitution when the founders already gave you more representatives.  You want all the benefits of packing your state with as many people as possible, but none of the disadvantages of overpopulating your state like it's china or India.  Now everyone has to suffer due to your lack of state resources like China suffers by importing food produced in Africa and the US.  Nothing is far-fetched.

This is not a persuasive argument, because one could make same argument in support of extra power for urban mini-states. I am not saying that urban mini-states should exist on a permanent basis (only to pass the amendments), but if they did exist, you could just as easily say that these states just "want to preserve an urban life-style" and the people in those states should be more equal than the people in other states so that they can do that as you could say that rural states just "want to preserve an agrarian life-style."

As a side note, the idea that small states having extra power has anything to do with agrarianism any more is absurd - the great majority of people even in states like Nebraska are not farmers. This has not been the case for about 100 years.

You're no different than most other Democrats on Atlas that ignore Constitutional Amendments, restrictions and protections when it's inconvenient.

You are the one ignoring the Constitution. The Constitution can be amended and it allows for the admittance of new states, which is precisely what is being proposed.

The only thing that is being ignored is the principle that everyone should have equal representation under the law. There is no reason for some voters to be more equal to others.

The only reason you oppose this is because you like living with a system that is unfair and gives 68 times more representation to people in Wyoming than people in California, solely because it benefits you personally. You would rather live in a fake "democracy" in which the minority rules over the majority (tyranny of the minority!!!), rather than a principled democratic system in which the majority rules (but which can have checks and balances against the tyranny of the majority). The reality is that you have 0 principled reasons for defending the status quo, you stand only in defense of your own self-interest, which is not a persuasive argument to anyone who has different self-interest. Why should the majority be permanently oppressed by the self-interest of the minority and by the rule of the minority? This is the very antithesis of the principles of democracy.

Eventually your tyranny will be overthrown, one way or the other.

You justify destroying the rights of states to govern their own citizens according to the powers that are granted to them by the Constitution, and take away the power to defend their rights. Actually, any civil right could also be rescinded at the whim of the party in charge.

Incorrect. All citizens would have the power to defend their rights and would have the same exact power to defend their rights as all other citizens. The constitution would still exist (with the bill of rights etc unchanged) under this proposal, and you would still have the same right to vote as everyone else. The only difference is that your vote wouldn't count for more than the votes of other people. You would not be more equal than other voters, but only equally equal to your fellow citizens.

I don't care that you have good intentions.  It won't turn out that way, especially when you consider the fact that more corporations will have an ability to spread money to more Senators in these small, Democrat-leaning states.  It's more likely that our country turns into Russia.  

I do care, though, that you don't have good intentions. Your only intentions are to preserve rule of the minority, simply because you are part of that minority.

If nothing is done, it is more likely that America eventually descends further towards rule by the executive, slouches towards dictatorship, and eventually if things are allowed to get that far, to civil war/revolution of some sort. Americans are steadily losing trust in government, and will continue to lose more and more trust as long as the government is not responsive to what they (consistently) vote for - or in the case of Americans who are totally disenfranchised in places like DC and Puerto Rico, what they would like to vote for, but can't because they live under a tyranny.

Permanent rule of the minority is not a sustainable condition, and the majority will eventually assert itself to end it.

[Badger]

Incidentally, the Constitution of South Carolina has an anti-packing provision in it, that is of little relevance since Reynolds. New counties (which originally had one Senator each and at least one Representative in the General Assembly had to have at minimum one full Representative's worth of population and new county seats could be no closer than five miles to an existing one, thus preventing a city from breaking up into multiple counties.

Guam's population is far too small for Statehood, unless we are going to rewrite the Wyoming rule into the Guam Rule and more than quadruple the size of Congress. Congress arguably needs expanded in terms of the number of Representatives giving it hasn't increased in about a hundred years despite our population having vastly increased, but troubling or quadrupling is simply not feasible or desirable.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Honestly, the best argument for a Biden or Bloomberg Presidency at this point is the way the far-left has absolutely lost their mind under Trump, and the best scenario for preserving our democracy is not letting that build any longer while also not electing someone who would act on that growing lunacy.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Honestly, the best argument for a Biden or Bloomberg Presidency at this point is the way the far-left has absolutely lost their mind under Trump, and the best scenario for preserving our democracy is not letting that build any longer while also not electing someone who would act on that growing lunacy.

The far left has lost their minds every where :

Remember they though Jagmeet Singh would help NDP rise again lol , and before that in 2015 who in the right mind would have thought some extreme socialist back bencher who hasn’t moved on from the Labour internal battles 80s should lead the Labour Party , and now all of this in the US.