In presidential race, it's the other way. Purple states, which many of them are in the midwest are, have a strong voice in presidential election. The rest are flyover, including TX, CA, NY, and probably FL going fwd. eg. Coal, something that should have been left for the market to decide years ago, was a thing in presidential race in 2016. Anyway, a way to solve this flyover problem is to have every citizen voice count, not just purple states citizen.
It mathematically dilutes the power of all Senators whether from small or large states. That's still an odd argument to say that residents of DC deserve representation but we want to dilute that power. I'm for DC and PR statehood because I believe they are underserved without representation not because I want to see representative government diluted.
Yes purple states get a strong voice and there are purple states in the Midwest. Again I don't see that as much as a problem. There are issues within the Midwest that get little attention to from populous coastal states and many rural issues that neither party addresses well. Under a system of direct elections most national politicians would focus on CA, NY, TX, and FL with the only Midwest state being IL and only then the Chicagoland area. Issues like the Great Lakes watershed and the ag trade policy would take a back seat to issues that affected coastal states. Also Coal isn't just an issue for small states as it is big in PA and several larger states.
As a hypothetical, the House would absorb the few responsibilities that the Constitution assigns exclusively to the Senate. The people are still represented, but more equitably.
Ok, I agee. I didn't say making the territory of DC into a state was unconstitutional. I said the constitution explicitly made provision to create a district outside the mandate of any state. The founders saw a benefit in having the federal seat of power outside of a state. The movement to make DC into a state still respects that, by providing that the federal buildings are still in a district. The alternative of returning that territory to Maryland also respects maintaining DC outside the jurisdiction of any state. The only reason I brought it up is regarding the justice argument, that it is unfair to the residents of DC that they do not have as much representation as other citizens. We clearly did that on purpose, per the clause I cited. But we can remedy that by changing the size of DC. None of any of this requires creating a state. But providing that representation to the people of Puerto Rico pretty much requires the creation of another state. Adding Puerto Rico to another state's jurisdiction doesn't make much sense.
I really don't understand what Nebraska has to do with the question I asked? Governing in Nebraska is a lot different than governing the entire U.S. And you pulled a FC with the other tweet that has nothing to do with this and its why I tend to tune out some progressives for not working with the here and now instead of saying things like if I had a magic wand as if they know more than anyone else and can fix everything if you let them. I am open to any and all ideas but it seems that many people who spout stuff like this don't have a grounded sense of real world consequences. Do you not see the **** show in the House that would happen if they had that much power?
You know your electoral system is a joke when people's representation in Congress is subject to its political expediency for any particular group. Let's just go ahead and get the next civil war over with and go our separate ways. This is stupid.
"even more of a backseat" is complete and utter bullshit, Cletus. the federal government takes from the Blue and gives to the Red.
