Abolish the popular vote !

[mrjurrs]

The Supreme Court of the United States of America ruled that the words "security of person" meant that abortion was a "right" protected by the Constitution of the United States of America.

Indeed, all laws that are passed enjoy the "presumption of constitutionality" until determined otherwise.

It might be. Then again, it might not.

I wouldn't. The crucial fact of Griffin v. Illinois (351 U.S. 12) was that the Appellant had to pay the state to exercise a legally permitted right.

If someone is required to possess "property or other assets with a net value in excess of $1,000,000" in order to be eligible to vote, then they do not have to pay the state anything in order to exercise their legally permitted right to vote. True, they have to actually be able to prove that they possess the requisite net worth, but they also have to prove where they live, that they are of age, and that they are US citizens in order to exercise their legally permitted right to vote.

I really do suggest that you learn the meaning of "legally relevant". The issue in Griffin v. Illinois was the Appellant's ability to PAY FOR something.

That was my point. Constitutionality is not limited to what the Constitution says. Court decisions, basic legislation, executive actions, political party practices and even 'customs and usage' expand the protections of the Constitution.

While in theory all passed laws are constitutional, that's a bit oversimplified. Laws contrary to the 'enumerated' constitution or state laws that directly conflict with federal laws may not receive that designation.

That's not how I read it. The IL SC held that, but SCOTUS held that "Petitioners' constitutional rights were violated, the judgment of the Illinois Supreme Court is vacated, and the cause is remanded to that Court for further action affording petitioners adequate and effective appellate review. Pp. 351 U. S. 13-26. Judgment vacated, and cause remanded.

And if that ability impacts the ability to exercise a constitutional right, SCOTUS comes down on the side of the poor.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I never advocated for changing Senate representation in the EC. I do say that that the 1 House rep states all are over represented in selecting the President and making laws.

OK, so you are quite fine with the Senate giving grossly inflated representation to some states:

1. Wyoming has one Senator for every 288,425 people;
2. California has one Senator for every 19,769,111 people;
3. to have the same proportional representation as Wyoming has, California should have 137 Senators (an increase of ~6,750%);

but believe that the proportional representation in the House of Representatives:

1. Wyoming has one Representative for every 576,851 people;
2. California has one Representative for every 746,004;
3. to have the same proportional representation as Wyoming has, California should have 69 Representatives (an increase of ~30.19%)

so that the whole system becomes one that proportionately represents the will of the American people.

OK, fine.

However, if you don't fix BOTH of the broken spark plugs in your two cylinder engine it really isn't going to run much better - is it?

Since property ownership has not been a requirement since the 1820's (with a few holdovers), I suggest that it would certainly qualify as an issue that the feds could legislate.

Indeed, that is just what I said. The states can make property ownership (or net worth) a qualification for voter eligibility, the federal government can pass legislation banning the use of property ownership (or net worth) as a qualification for voter eligibility and then the courts would have to decide whether or not, in the light of the fact that it has required constitutional amendments to impose restrictions on what the states can use to limit voter eligibility previously, it requires a constitutional amendment before the federal government can give a blanket grant of voter eligibility to any class of voters.

(Hopefully that court decision would be based on actual law and not merely on which political party appointed the members of the court - but I wouldn't count on it.)

 

[mrjurrs]

OK, so your proposal is that the number of senate seats be increased to 580 (assuming one seat for every 576,851 [or major fraction thereof] in its population) and that the number of House of Representative seats be increased to 2,521 (in order to keep the relative sizes of the Senate and House the same as it is now) or to some other number that is an even multiple of 580 - right?

Never said that. I never advocated changing Senate representation. I do believe that the artificial restriction on House representation should be eliminated. The actual proposal I tried to get to (and it may have been with someone else is this). After the 2020 census (which clearly is flawed by pandemic and previous administration action), WY has a slightly smaller population than 600,000. I say double that, and every state with a population of 1.2 million or less get 1 rep (that would change the number of 1 Rep states from 7 to 9. Adding a rep for each additional 600,000 would result in a HoR of 432 members. (9-1, 4-2, 3-3, 2-4, 5-5, 2-6, 3-7, 2-8, 3-9, 2-10, 4-11, 1-12, 1-13, 1-15, 1-16, 2-17, 1-19, 2-21, 1-34, 1-35, 1-48, 1-65)

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

That was my point. Constitutionality is not limited to what the Constitution says. Court decisions, basic legislation, executive actions, political party practices and even 'customs and usage' expand the protections of the Constitution.

While in theory all passed laws are constitutional, that's a bit oversimplified. Laws contrary to the 'enumerated' constitution or state laws that directly conflict with federal laws may not receive that designation.

That's not how I read it. The IL SC held that, but SCOTUS held that "Petitioners' constitutional rights were violated, the judgment of the Illinois Supreme Court is vacated, and the cause is remanded to that Court for further action affording petitioners adequate and effective appellate review. Pp. 351 U. S. 13-26. Judgment vacated, and cause remanded.

And if that ability impacts the ability to exercise a constitutional right, SCOTUS comes down on the side of the poor.

Many things "impact the ability to exercise a constitutional right" and the US Supreme Court does not always come down on the side of the poor.

However, the US Supreme Court is reasonably firm that requiring people to pay the government in order to be allowed to exercise a constitutional right IS "unconstitutional".

PS - Did you know that simply reading the synopsis is an incredibly good way to lose legal arguments because you cite cases that do NOT actually prove your point?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Never said that. I never advocated changing Senate representation. I do believe that the artificial restriction on House representation should be eliminated. The actual proposal I tried to get to (and it may have been with someone else is this). After the 2020 census (which clearly is flawed by pandemic and previous administration action), WY has a slightly smaller population than 600,000. I say double that, and every state with a population of 1.2 million or less get 1 rep (that would change the number of 1 Rep states from 7 to 9. Adding a rep for each additional 600,000 would result in a HoR of 432 members. (9-1, 4-2, 3-3, 2-4, 5-5, 2-6, 3-7, 2-8, 3-9, 2-10, 4-11, 1-12, 1-13, 1-15, 1-16, 2-17, 1-19, 2-21, 1-34, 1-35, 1-48, 1-65)

Your math is off. California would be entitled to 67 Representatives. I'm not in the least interested in doing the calculations for the remaining states for you.

As before, it really doesn't matter if you fix ONLY the House of Representatives to adjust for population size. The Senate is STILL going to give a disproportionately large voice to the states with the smaller populations AND it requires approval by BOTH the House and Senate before legislation can be enacted.

 

[mrjurrs]

OK, so you are quite fine with the Senate giving grossly inflated representation to some states:

1. Wyoming has one Senator for every 288,425 people;
2. California has one Senator for every 19,769,111 people;
3. to have the same proportional representation as Wyoming has, California should have 137 Senators (an increase of ~6,750%);

but believe that the proportional representation in the House of Representatives:

1. Wyoming has one Representative for every 576,851 people;
2. California has one Representative for every 746,004;
3. to have the same proportional representation as Wyoming has, California should have 69 Representatives (an increase of ~30.19%)

so that the whole system becomes one that proportionately represents the will of the American people.

OK, fine.

However, if you don't fix BOTH of the broken spark plugs in your two cylinder engine it really isn't going to run much better - is it?

Indeed, that is just what I said. The states can make property ownership (or net worth) a qualification for voter eligibility, the federal government can pass legislation banning the use of property ownership (or net worth) as a qualification for voter eligibility and then the courts would have to decide whether or not, in the light of the fact that it has required constitutional amendments to impose restrictions on what the states can use to limit voter eligibility previously, it requires a constitutional amendment before the federal government can give a blanket grant of voter eligibility to any class of voters.

(Hopefully that court decision would be based on actual law and not merely on which political party appointed the members of the court - but I wouldn't count on it.)

Imo, the only way to fully fix it is to go to the Popular vote.

I do not believe changes would have to go through the court. The way I see it is that Congress could legislate, and the courts may/may not become involved. I also don't think that poverty would require an amendment because that state is (in theory) transitory. I may be poor today, but not next year. I will always be a white male over the age of 18.

 

[mrjurrs]

Your math is off. California would be entitled to 67 Representatives. I'm not in the least interested in doing the calculations for the remaining states for you.

As before, it really doesn't matter if you fix ONLY the House of Representatives to adjust for population size. The Senate is STILL going to give a disproportionately large voice to the states with the smaller populations AND it requires approval by BOTH the House and Senate before legislation can be enacted.

39,538,223/600,000= 65.9

 

[rickc]

Imo, the only way to fully fix it is to go to the Popular vote.

I do not believe changes would have to go through the court. The way I see it is that Congress could legislate, and the courts may/may not become involved. I also don't think that poverty would require an amendment because that state is (in theory) transitory. I may be poor today, but not next year. I will always be a white male over the age of 18.

Imo, the only way to fully fix it is to go to the Popular vote.

I do not believe changes would have to go through the court. The way I see it is that Congress could legislate, and the courts may/may not become involved. I also don't think that poverty would require an amendment because that state is (in theory) transitory. I may be poor today, but not next year. I will always be a white male over the age of 18.

Here is how to fix the senate and the electoral college at the same time. No Constitutional amendment required. Just a simple rule change.

The Path to Give California 12 Senators, and Vermont Just One

Maybe the two-senators-per-state rule isn’t as permanent as it seems.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[mrjurrs]

Here is how to fix the senate and the electoral college at the same time. No Constitutional amendment required. Just a simple rule change.

The Path to Give California 12 Senators, and Vermont Just One

Maybe the two-senators-per-state rule isn’t as permanent as it seems.

www.theatlantic.com

Sorry, Article 1 Section 3 Clause 1 enumerates two senators per state. That would require an amendment to change.

 

[rickc]

Sorry, Article 1 Section 3 Clause 1 enumerates two senators per state. That would require an amendment to change.

The obvious reply is, “This is impossible! The Constitution plainly says that each state gets two senators. There’s even a provision in the Constitution that says this rule cannot be amended.” Indeed, Article V, in describing the amendment process, stipulates that “no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

This seems like a showstopper, and some scholars say it’s “unthinkable” that the one-state, two-senators rule can ever be changed. But, look, when conservative lawyers first argued that the Affordable Care Act violated the Commerce Clause, that seemed unthinkable, too. Our Constitution is more malleable than many imagine.

First, consider that Article V applies only to amendments. Congress would adopt the Rule of One Hundred scheme as a statute; let’s call it the Senate Reform Act. Because it’s legislation rather than an amendment, Article V would—arguably—not apply.

Second, the states, through the various voting-rights amendments—the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, Nineteenth, Twenty-Fourth, and Twenty-Sixth—have already given their “consent” by directing Congress to adopt legislation to protect equal voting rights, and this delegated power explicitly applies to “the United States” as well as the states. The Senate Reform Act would simply shift seats according to population. No state or its citizens would lose the franchise.

Note that even states that did not ratify the voting-rights amendments have, functionally, consented to them, and thus also to the constitutional logic supporting a Senate Reform Act. As Justice Clarence Thomas explained in 1995, “The people of each State obviously did trust their fate to the people of the several States when they consented to the Constitution; not only did they empower the governmental institutions of the United States, but they also agreed to be bound by constitutional amendments that they themselves refused to ratify.”

 

[mrjurrs]

The obvious reply is, “This is impossible! The Constitution plainly says that each state gets two senators. There’s even a provision in the Constitution that says this rule cannot be amended.” Indeed, Article V, in describing the amendment process, stipulates that “no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

This seems like a showstopper, and some scholars say it’s “unthinkable” that the one-state, two-senators rule can ever be changed. But, look, when conservative lawyers first argued that the Affordable Care Act violated the Commerce Clause, that seemed unthinkable, too. Our Constitution is more malleable than many imagine.

First, consider that Article V applies only to amendments. Congress would adopt the Rule of One Hundred scheme as a statute; let’s call it the Senate Reform Act. Because it’s legislation rather than an amendment, Article V would—arguably—not apply.

Second, the states, through the various voting-rights amendments—the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, Nineteenth, Twenty-Fourth, and Twenty-Sixth—have already given their “consent” by directing Congress to adopt legislation to protect equal voting rights, and this delegated power explicitly applies to “the United States” as well as the states. The Senate Reform Act would simply shift seats according to population. No state or its citizens would lose the franchise.

Note that even states that did not ratify the voting-rights amendments have, functionally, consented to them, and thus also to the constitutional logic supporting a Senate Reform Act. As Justice Clarence Thomas explained in 1995, “The people of each State obviously did trust their fate to the people of the several States when they consented to the Constitution; not only did they empower the governmental institutions of the United States, but they also agreed to be bound by constitutional amendments that they themselves refused to ratify.”

I disagree with your conclusion. Even if it were to be passed it would immediately be challenged. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. All other laws in America are inferior to it...including the rules of the Senate. Do you suppose the Senate could pass a rule that forbids any election of women or bipoc? Your rule would stand in direct opposition to the words of the Constitution and the precedent of Article 3 rulings.

States consenting to the Constitution? That was given long ago.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Imo, the only way to fully fix it is to go to the Popular vote.

Then you are going to have to apply that "solution" to the Executive Branch, the Senate, and the House of Representatives.

That is pretty easy to do for the Executive Branch.

When it comes down to the Senate, your options are:

[1] divide the country so that there are a total of 100 "senate districts" with around 33.5 million people in each one;

[2] increase the number of senate districts so that there is one for every major percentage of 50% of the population of the state with the lowest level of population (assumes a minimum of one Senator per state) - which would require that there be around 557 senate seats.

[3] apply a system of proportional representation based on the total national vote and let the political parties sort out who gets whatever senate seats they are entitled to based on that national vote.

The last option above has a certain attractiveness in that the ballots would be absolutely identical all across the country in that they would list nothing but party names and there would be a uniform, national, standard set of criteria to be met in order to get your party's name on the national ballot. Of course, you could also end up with a situation like Canada's where there is one "national" party that runs candidates in only one province (and elects them) which has absolutely no interest in anything other than the interests of a portion of the country (and what it can extract as a quid pro quo in return for its support for any legislation [sort of like the "Joe Manchin Party" in the US]).

I do not believe changes would have to go through the court. The way I see it is that Congress could legislate, and the courts may/may not become involved.

If you actually wanted to "fix the system" then you would have to "fix the Senate" and that would require more than simple ordinary legislation.

I also don't think that poverty would require an amendment because that state is (in theory) transitory. I may be poor today, but not next year. I will always be a white male over the age of 18.

Quite right, the US federal government could, theoretically, pass ordinary legislation which says something like

The following shall be added to the voter qualification criteria for all states:

Has a net worth in excess of $100,000​

and that would be covered by the black letter law set out in the Constitution of the United States of America (as well as being within the ambit of what the Original Intent of the Founding Fathers most clearly was).

Of course the succeeding government could then amend that so that it reads

Does NOT have a net worth in excess of $10,000
​

or something equally foolish.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

39,538,223/600,000= 65.9

The current population of the US is 334,315,903 NOT 39,538,223.

The current population of the US divided by 600,000 is 557.193.

The current population of the state with the lowest population is 576,851.

The current population of the US divided by 576,851 is 579.553.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Here is how to fix the senate and the electoral college at the same time.

Somehow that "modest proposal" doesn't seem to be quite consistent with

​

Article I Section 3​

​

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state ...​

of a rather obscure document that both you and Professor Ortis seem to be totally unaware of.

No Constitutional amendment required. Just a simple rule change.

The Path to Give California 12 Senators, and Vermont Just One

Maybe the two-senators-per-state rule isn’t as permanent as it seems.

www.theatlantic.com

Want to bet?

 

[mrjurrs]

Then you are going to have to apply that "solution" to the Executive Branch, the Senate, and the House of Representatives.

That is pretty easy to do for the Executive Branch.

When it comes down to the Senate, your options are:

[1] divide the country so that there are a total of 100 "senate districts" with around 33.5 million people in each one;

[2] increase the number of senate districts so that there is one for every major percentage of 50% of the population of the state with the lowest level of population (assumes a minimum of one Senator per state) - which would require that there be around 557 senate seats.

[3] apply a system of proportional representation based on the total national vote and let the political parties sort out who gets whatever senate seats they are entitled to based on that national vote.

The last option above has a certain attractiveness in that the ballots would be absolutely identical all across the country in that they would list nothing but party names and there would be a uniform, national, standard set of criteria to be met in order to get your party's name on the national ballot. Of course, you could also end up with a situation like Canada's where there is one "national" party that runs candidates in only one province (and elects them) which has absolutely no interest in anything other than the interests of a portion of the country (and what it can extract as a quid pro quo in return for its support for any legislation [sort of like the "Joe Manchin Party" in the US]).

If you actually wanted to "fix the system" then you would have to "fix the Senate" and that would require more than simple ordinary legislation.

Quite right, the US federal government could, theoretically, pass ordinary legislation which says something like

​

The following shall be added to the voter qualification criteria for all states:​

​

Has a net worth in excess of $100,000​

and that would be covered by the black letter law set out in the Constitution of the United States of America (as well as being within the ambit of what the Original Intent of the Founding Fathers most clearly was).

Of course the succeeding government could then amend that so that it reads

​

Does NOT have a net worth in excess of $10,000​

​

or something equally foolish.

Again, I disagree with your interpretation. While all federal elections, they don't have to be all treated in the same manner. I accept the disproportionate representation created by the Constitution and am willing to abide by it until constitutional changes take place. The disproportionate representation in the House was created by legislation (Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929) and can be changed by legislation.

Black letter law is not the extent of what is constitutional in America. See Brown v Board of Education for example. Where does the power of the president's cabinet come from?

 

[mrjurrs]

The current population of the US is 334,315,903 NOT 39,538,223.

The current population of the US divided by 600,000 is 557.193.

The current population of the state with the lowest population is 576,851.

The current population of the US divided by 576,851 is 579.553.

Our representation is not determined by national population totals. 39 million is the population of CA.

 

[DarkWizard12]

i think we should go back to the old caucus system of voting.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Our representation is not determined by national population totals. 39 million is the population of CA.

Please put those goal posts back where they used to be.