A Proposal to Admit New States (2020)

They are pushing for a change in the voting system as well for representation. I think it is important to truly understand why the system was constructed before trying to change it all. So here I am quoting from Federalist papers #62, concerning the reasons for the Senate vs House:

"If indeed it be right, that among a people thoroughly incorporated into one nation, every district ought to have a proportional share in the government, and that among independent and sovereign States, bound together by a simple league, the parties, however unequal in size, ought to have an equal share in the common councils, it does not appear to be without some reason that in a compound republic, partaking both of the national and federal character, the government ought to be founded on a mixture of the principles of proportional and equal representation."

There are good reasons for the Senate to be as it was. Especially when States were more of independent entities representing regional interests. Local government can be adapted to the needs and culture of a region. (There are a massive number of distinct cultures and ideas in the US). One size fits all also fits none.

[1] https://thefederalistpapers.org/federalist-paper-62-the-sena...

The lede:

While [admitting DC and Puerto Rico as states would be] a step in the right direction, these proposals are inadequate. 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.

This seems very much to be "We have the right to win! And since we aren't winning as much as we want, we want to change the rules so that we win all the time!" That's a horrible reason to make changes, even if you back that side. And that spirit leads to horrible changes, which are going to have horrible consequences.

Their fourth proposed amendment is where they really lose me. The concept of enacting significant reforms to the constitution ending with an amendment to forbid future changes to the rules seems both scummy and dangerous.

> 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.

I've long believed that city-states would be a good way to remedy unequal representation, but this plan is hamhanded and has some pretty obvious failure modes.

First and most obvious is that civil war is a topic of open discussion, and this would go down like a match in a flour silo. Second is the incredible optimism that the people of these 127 freshly minted states would vote the way they're told, and not, say, rewrite the constitution in a way that cements their supermajority status.

I find it interesting that there are proposals like this now. There were proposals of the same type before the American Civil War, like those ideas represented by the Knights of the Golden Circle[1] which had very prominent members including the Secretay of War, Secretary of Treasury, and Vice-President. It also resulted in people like William Walker overthrowing the Nicaraguan government and declaring it to be under Louisiana law [2]. It seems that when a set of beliefs becomes contentious enough, a certain set of people start trying to win by altering the political meta-system itself. That is not a good way to find a truly progressive solution or peace.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_of_the_Golden_Circle

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Walker_(filibuster)

Majority rule and “pure” democracy is not intrinsically good. Giving disproportionate voting power to residents of smaller states is a feature, not a bug. If you want more senatorial voting power, move to Wyoming.

'the world’s oldest surviving democracy'

Highly debatable, and rather sets the absolutist tone that follows.

I think they forgot one counter argument; there are a lot of guns in the US and they’re more likely to be owned by people who would viciously oppose this move. Oh and everybody is told the other side is literally Hitler, so this will just reinforce one sides perception of that belief.

Without weighing in on the merits of the proposal, it is a bold plan in a time which we need bold plans that change systems. The status quo sets our future on a very risky path in my opinion.