Read on Twitter
The DC Statehood chatter is mostly about the Senate.
The Senate chatter is mostly about the Electoral College.
The problem with the EC could be most easily solved by an act of Congress to expand the House beyond 435.
More Reps = More electors based on population.
The Senate chatter is mostly about the Electoral College.
The problem with the EC could be most easily solved by an act of Congress to expand the House beyond 435.
More Reps = More electors based on population.
Since @JonahDispatch boosted this, let me revise and extend my remarks.
First: Yes, I know DC representation & the nature of the Senate ARE issues in and of themselves. As I said up top, “mostly.”
I’m just more interested in the EC, as I think most people are. /2
First: Yes, I know DC representation & the nature of the Senate ARE issues in and of themselves. As I said up top, “mostly.”
I’m just more interested in the EC, as I think most people are. /2
While the EC is designed to protect small states from large to a degree, the Founders still intended it to be much more proportional than it currently is.
The original formula for each state was 1 elector per 30,000 plus 2 for the state (i.e Reps + Senators). /3
The original formula for each state was 1 elector per 30,000 plus 2 for the state (i.e Reps + Senators). /3
The formula is now about 1:750,000 + 2, which “overtilts” the balance away from population.
Worse, the actual ratio for Electors/Reps now varies from 1:529K (RI) to 1:1.1 million (MT).
Both distortions result from a cap of 435 representatives set in 1929. /4
Worse, the actual ratio for Electors/Reps now varies from 1:529K (RI) to 1:1.1 million (MT).
Both distortions result from a cap of 435 representatives set in 1929. /4
Why 435? Mostly because that’s as many Reps as you can stuff in the House Chamber without giving the DC Fire Marshall indigestion. It isn’t a trivial problem. So how do you solve it?
[cracks knuckles]
Welcome to Haiku’s Half-Baked Ideas. /5
[cracks knuckles]
Welcome to Haiku’s Half-Baked Ideas. /5
First:
If up to me, Reps would Rep from their home districts. Covid Spring has proven we can work remotely if we decide to do it. Design a secure remote-voting and remote-committee system, and Reps have their offices & staffs where their constituents live. /6
If up to me, Reps would Rep from their home districts. Covid Spring has proven we can work remotely if we decide to do it. Design a secure remote-voting and remote-committee system, and Reps have their offices & staffs where their constituents live. /6
Second:
Divide the House into cohorts, and cohorts rotate through DC in shifts to do Reppy Things.
Build a dorm for them to live in, so they have to get to know each other and treat each other as humans. Maybe learn about people from other districts and their priorities. /7
Divide the House into cohorts, and cohorts rotate through DC in shifts to do Reppy Things.
Build a dorm for them to live in, so they have to get to know each other and treat each other as humans. Maybe learn about people from other districts and their priorities. /7
Third:
Each state R delegation would have shared office/staff in DC, as would each state D delegation. These permanent staffs can help multiple Congresscritters stay informed and organized.
Maybe each state has majority/minority leaders & whips. They’ll figure it out. /8
Each state R delegation would have shared office/staff in DC, as would each state D delegation. These permanent staffs can help multiple Congresscritters stay informed and organized.
Maybe each state has majority/minority leaders & whips. They’ll figure it out. /8
(A careful 17A critic might notice that by organizing larger state congressional delegations to work together, States as political unions—not merely national subdivisions—might find some of their intended voice in the Federal government that has erided in the past century.) /9
Fourth:
How many? Good question. I’d say start with a minimum of 2 per state, which would mean a current ratio of 1:265K based on the smallest state population (RI) and apportion accordingly.
That would mean about 1,250ish Reps. /10
How many? Good question. I’d say start with a minimum of 2 per state, which would mean a current ratio of 1:265K based on the smallest state population (RI) and apportion accordingly.
That would mean about 1,250ish Reps. /10
After 10 years to adjust, change the ratio to a minimum of 3 Reps per state. After another 10, go to 4 per state, etc.
IMO, the eventual goal should be a ratio of 1:100K. But the number matters less to me than this: Reps should be truly representative of their constituents. /11
IMO, the eventual goal should be a ratio of 1:100K. But the number matters less to me than this: Reps should be truly representative of their constituents. /11
OK, lets handle some objections.
Objection 1: 435 Asshats is plenty, thank you.
Answer: I get it. I see what a clown show my own state legislature is.
My hope (probably naive) is that diluting the power of each Asshat will tamp down on the individual asshattery. /12
Objection 1: 435 Asshats is plenty, thank you.
Answer: I get it. I see what a clown show my own state legislature is.
My hope (probably naive) is that diluting the power of each Asshat will tamp down on the individual asshattery. /12
Also, my hope is that more House seats closer to home might actually lead to more citizen legislators. I freely grant I’m probably unjustifiably optimistic. But I think a lower ratio might, just might, result in more ballot-box accountability than we have now. /13
Stop laughing. /14
Objection 2: That sounds expensive.
Answer: Oh, so we care about THAT now? /15
Answer: Oh, so we care about THAT now? /15
In all seriousness, I can think of worse ways to spend our Federal Monopoly Money. And, as you can see above, much of the idea is designed to limit costs and mischief where possible. /16
Objection 3: That will NEVER get passed.
Answer: It actually makes some sense, so OF COURSE it will never get passed.
But...there are trade-offs for both small states and large. So it has a snowball’s chance in El Segundo to get passed now, but maybe someday it might. /17
Answer: It actually makes some sense, so OF COURSE it will never get passed.
But...there are trade-offs for both small states and large. So it has a snowball’s chance in El Segundo to get passed now, but maybe someday it might. /17
I don’t think it is a perfect plan. I fully expect there would be some unintended consequences.
But I think it would 1) Make the House more Representative, and 2) Make the Electoral College work as intended.
For two reasons would be an improvement over the status quo. /18
But I think it would 1) Make the House more Representative, and 2) Make the Electoral College work as intended.
For two reasons would be an improvement over the status quo. /18
Finally...
...San Dimas High School Football Rules! /19
...San Dimas High School Football Rules! /19
Thank you for coming to my TED Talk. /ttfn
