Onion over Vox. Hilarious.

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.............................................................

Literally nothing in the Constitution prevents Congress from admitting the Obama family’s personal DC residence as a state — a state which would then be entitled to two senators, one member of the House, and exactly as much say on whether the Constitution should be amended as the entire state of Texas.

Congress could then follow up this move by adding the personal DC residences of 149 other staunch Democratic families as states, each of which would then get two senators of their very own.


https://www.vox.com/2020/1/14/21063591/m...ce=twitter

(01-14-2020 12:31 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Onion over Vox. Hilarious.

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.............................................................

Literally nothing in the Constitution prevents Congress from admitting the Obama family’s personal DC residence as a state — a state which would then be entitled to two senators, one member of the House, and exactly as much say on whether the Constitution should be amended as the entire state of Texas.

Congress could then follow up this move by adding the personal DC residences of 149 other staunch Democratic families as states, each of which would then get two senators of their very own.


https://www.vox.com/2020/1/14/21063591/m...ce=twitter

Imagine the level of butthurt you'd have to possess to suggest such non-sense? "We have to destroy democracy go save it!"

Sounds like early 16th century England. Do Prince Harry and Megan get a state?

That civil war wouldn’t last long.

This has little to do with Vox.

Quote:An unsigned note, entitled “Pack the Union: A Proposal to Admit New States for the Purpose of Amending the Constitution to Ensure Equal Representation” and published in the Harvard Law Review, offers an entirely constitutional way out of this dilemma: Add new states — a lot of new states — then use this bloc of states to rewrite the Constitution so that the United States has an election system “where every vote counts equally.”

Quote:So let’s be frank. The Harvard note’s proposal is ridiculous, but it is no more ridiculous than a system where the nearly 40 million people in California have no more Senate representation than the 578,759 people in Wyoming. As the Harvard note says of its own pitch, “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.”

(01-14-2020 01:37 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  This has little to do with Vox.

Quote:An unsigned note, entitled “Pack the Union: A Proposal to Admit New States for the Purpose of Amending the Constitution to Ensure Equal Representation” and published in the Harvard Law Review, offers an entirely constitutional way out of this dilemma: Add new states — a lot of new states — then use this bloc of states to rewrite the Constitution so that the United States has an election system “where every vote counts equally.”

Quote:So let’s be frank. The Harvard note’s proposal is ridiculous, but it is no more ridiculous than a system where the nearly 40 million people in California have no more Senate representation than the 578,759 people in Wyoming. As the Harvard note says of its own pitch, “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.”

They did an article on it LOL

There is such a fine line distinction between Vox and The Onion...

(01-14-2020 01:37 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  This has little to do with Vox.

Quote:An unsigned note, entitled “Pack the Union: A Proposal to Admit New States for the Purpose of Amending the Constitution to Ensure Equal Representation” and published in the Harvard Law Review, offers an entirely constitutional way out of this dilemma: Add new states — a lot of new states — then use this bloc of states to rewrite the Constitution so that the United States has an election system “where every vote counts equally.”

Quote:So let’s be frank. The Harvard note’s proposal is ridiculous, but it is no more ridiculous than a system where the nearly 40 million people in California have no more Senate representation than the 578,759 people in Wyoming. As the Harvard note says of its own pitch, “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.”

It's on Vox's site. Vox gave insight. Oh and Vox thinks Cali should have more representation than Wyoming.. HMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

(01-14-2020 02:03 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 01:37 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  This has little to do with Vox.

Quote:An unsigned note, entitled “Pack the Union: A Proposal to Admit New States for the Purpose of Amending the Constitution to Ensure Equal Representation” and published in the Harvard Law Review, offers an entirely constitutional way out of this dilemma: Add new states — a lot of new states — then use this bloc of states to rewrite the Constitution so that the United States has an election system “where every vote counts equally.”

Quote:So let’s be frank. The Harvard note’s proposal is ridiculous, but it is no more ridiculous than a system where the nearly 40 million people in California have no more Senate representation than the 578,759 people in Wyoming. As the Harvard note says of its own pitch, “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.”

It's on Vox's site. Vox gave insight. Oh and Vox thinks Cali should have more representation than Wyoming.. HMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

They already do with the number of EC votes and state representatives, don't they, at least in the House?

Cali:53 Wyoming:1

(01-14-2020 01:42 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  There is such a fine line distinction between Vox and The Onion...

Looks like that line just got smudged, blurred and run all over...

Even the "disclaimer" illustrates a fundamental non understanding of our Constitution.

Our government schools, folks! Hard at work.

(01-14-2020 02:49 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 02:03 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 01:37 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  This has little to do with Vox.

Quote:An unsigned note, entitled “Pack the Union: A Proposal to Admit New States for the Purpose of Amending the Constitution to Ensure Equal Representation” and published in the Harvard Law Review, offers an entirely constitutional way out of this dilemma: Add new states — a lot of new states — then use this bloc of states to rewrite the Constitution so that the United States has an election system “where every vote counts equally.”

Quote:So let’s be frank. The Harvard note’s proposal is ridiculous, but it is no more ridiculous than a system where the nearly 40 million people in California have no more Senate representation than the 578,759 people in Wyoming. As the Harvard note says of its own pitch, “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.”

It's on Vox's site. Vox gave insight. Oh and Vox thinks Cali should have more representation than Wyoming.. HMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

They already do with the number of EC votes and state representatives, don't they, at least in the House?

Cali:53 Wyoming:1

Yea but more Democratic Senators means more control of the Senate and "muh in peach mints"

Democrats are the kings of unintended consequences. Like petulant children, they want to change the rules of the game to suit them, not considering that circumstances always change and what is now in their favor won't be in their favor in the future. Just ask Harry Reid how those things work out.

I also wish they would actually understand that we aren't, and have never been, a democracy. The founder's understood the danger of majority (mob) rule and intentionally avoided it.

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/tr...cna1110356

Along the same lines, this guy claims that voting Republican is unconstitutional. While noting whites vote heavily Republican in the south, he fails to note that Blacks vote overwhelmingly Democratic, far more one party than whites. Perhaps Blacks are racists who should have their vote reduced?!

(01-18-2020 12:33 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/tr...cna1110356

Along the same lines, this guy claims that voting Republican is unconstitutional. While noting whites vote heavily Republican in the south, he fails to note that Blacks vote overwhelmingly Democratic, far more one party than whites. Perhaps Blacks are racists who should have their vote reduced?!

Terry Smith, a visiting professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law, offers a different response in his new book, "Whitelash: Unmasking White Grievance at the Ballot Box." Rather than excuse racist voters or try to figure out how to live with their choices, he argues that racist voting is not just immoral, but illegal. The government, Smith says, has the ability, and the responsibility, to address it.

So the Dem party would cease to exist.

(01-14-2020 01:39 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(01-14-2020 01:37 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  This has little to do with Vox.

Quote:An unsigned note, entitled “Pack the Union: A Proposal to Admit New States for the Purpose of Amending the Constitution to Ensure Equal Representation” and published in the Harvard Law Review, offers an entirely constitutional way out of this dilemma: Add new states — a lot of new states — then use this bloc of states to rewrite the Constitution so that the United States has an election system “where every vote counts equally.”

Quote:So let’s be frank. The Harvard note’s proposal is ridiculous, but it is no more ridiculous than a system where the nearly 40 million people in California have no more Senate representation than the 578,759 people in Wyoming. As the Harvard note says of its own pitch, “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.”

They did an article on it LOL

I can't laugh hard enough at #muhHawwwwvurd in contradiction...

higher education my fk'n arse.....