This is a great idea after the first two proposals (1 and 2) for reforms to the government and economy of the U.S. This is the best idea to advance democracy and strengthen the republic at the same time. The left/right debate has been vaporized in the election of President Trump where the body politic was expecting someone out of the political world but got something that was totally unexpected. The destruction of two political dynasties which were the Bush and Clinton political families. Gov. Jeb Bush on the Republican side and Madame Secretary Hillary Clinton on the Democratic Side.
I don’t want to dwell on the 2016 election any longer since it was last year and it was an election that I wanted to end very quickly. Instead of the political left/right crap but actually, reforms and ideas to help the coming generation come into its own. This is the way to actually make the institutions of government respond and reflect the will of its citizens. The problem with American Democracy is the same old theme that many people are saying. It’s not tyranny, dictatorship, or Neo-Hitlerian thoughts (Alt-right, White supremacy, or Neo Confederacy), and I not saying there are no racial problems in the country. It’s taxation without representation.
I argue the question that is on the public, political scientists, historians, and politicians’ minds is that why is the public will is never reflected in the outcome of bills.
Michael Lind is going deeper into the debate that needs to be started and solved:
“Nobody should underestimate the power of inertia in American politics. But we will never have any progress, if we accept stupid things just because they are old.
At this point, to the tune of “Yankee Doodle” on a fife and drum, somebody in the peanut gallery will object that our system represents the “genius of the Founding Fathers.” Sorry, peanut gallery patriots — the major Founders hated the overrepresentation of small states in the Senate. For most of their political careers, Alexander Hamilton favored more centralization, while the “Father of the Constitution,” James Madison (except early in his career), was for states’ rights. But these two co-authors of the Federalist Papers agreed that states should be represented in the Senate on the basis of population and that the compromise in the Constitution that gave each state two senators, no matter its size, was a mistake.
In the guise of denouncing the Articles of Confederation, Hamilton made his feelings clear in Federalist No. 22:
The right of equal suffrage among the States is another exceptionable part of the Confederation. Every idea of proportion and every rule of fair representation conspire to condemn a principle, which gives to Rhode Island an equal weight in the scale of power with Massachusetts, or Connecticut, or New York; and to Delaware an equal voice in the national deliberations with Pennsylvania, or Virginia, or North Carolina. Its operation contradicts the fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail…. It may happen that this majority of States is a small minority of the people of America; and two thirds of the people of America could not long be persuaded, upon the credit of artificial distinctions and syllogistic subtleties, to submit their interests to the management and disposal of one third. The larger States would after a while revolt from the idea of receiving the law from the smaller.”
We need to reform the Senate and allow the big states to be fully represented in the Senate where democracy has been missing for about 240 years. (241 if you include July 4, 2017) Michael Lind goes deeper into the sanity of representation of big states’ populations in the Senate:
“If we assume that microstates like Wyoming are not going to give up their two U.S. senators, then macrostates like California, Texas, Florida and New York should voluntarily divide themselves, in order to boost their representation in America’s upper house. Under the Six Californias plan, for example, residents of present-day California would send 12 senators to Washington, not two.”
“And because they are smaller, the successor states to the Former California would be more citizen-friendly. A citizen of Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota or Alaska — the four least populous states — has a much better chance of influencing the legislature or arranging an appointment with the governor than does a citizen of California or Texas who is not backed by an army of lobbyists or hundreds of thousands of dollars.”
- Michael Lind – 75 Stars
“Why not form new states within the jurisdictions of the existing megastates? Why not divide in order to rule? This is not as crazy as it sounds. Commentator Walter Russell Mead has suggested that no American should have to live in a state with more than 4 or 5 million citizens. If the 4-million-population rule were applied to the large states, California might be subdivided into eight new states; Texas, five; New York and Florida, four; Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Ohio, three; and Michigan and New Jersey, two.
Eight Californias? Five Texases? Four New Yorks? Why not?”
- Michael Lind – 75 Stars
That includes four Floridas in this new way of thinking. Redistricting is going to have a new meaning where instead of not only congressional districts but also regional governors manage these new areas. The only thing that I disagree with Michael Lind is the creation of new states. You could keep the same states but treat the new “statelets” as regions within a state as a district.
This is the third article in a three-article series on Regional Governance.
Founding Purpose: “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”
The mechanism for achieving this goal is Capitalism and Democracy.