Posted: 7/17/2017 9:39:16 PM EDT
|
I don't know how they all work, but in Oregon there are fewer state senators than there are counties. This means of course that a given county may or may not get full representation depending on how the lines were drawn.
What's the downside of a ballot measure to change the senate to send one senator from each county? |
|
I'm not talented enough to reliably post a pic from my phone so this look nk is a map of senate districts.
Oregon Blue Book Red counties are attached at the hop to a couple tardfest cities. |
|
Quoted:
I don't know how they all work, but in Oregon there are fewer state senators than there are counties. This means of course that a given county may or may not get full representation depending on how the lines were drawn. What's the downside of a ballot measure to change the senate to send one senator from each county? The issue here is that Oregon would need to be willing to tell SCOTUS to piss off on this one. In the 1960s, the Warren Court via the Reapportionment Cases (Baker v. Carr, Reynolds v. Sims, and others) declared that such legislative arrangements were unconstitutional, being a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. In Reynolds v. Sims, it invented the doctrine of "one man, one vote, one value," and said that this comes from the constitution. Honestly, those rulings hardly refer to the constitution at all, but rather, constitute big ideological overtures. Basically, those cases were decided on the basis of Leftist ideology and not on the Constitution, which means they are total unconstitutional BS, but the lower courts will almost certainly stick to them, especially the 9th Circuit (which probably would be willing to take such rulings even further). Oregon would need to be willing to take this as far as it will go in court, and if they lose, still tell the courts that they will not abide by their ruling and do what it wants. The Congress or the President would likely need to step in to enforce anything at that point, and I'm not sure that they would, as it is many of Trump's supporters who have been most affected by theses cases and would stand to benefit them most from this sort of constitutional change in Oregon. I do think that one house should be apportioned on a primary basis other than population. This was a common feature starting around the turn of the 20th century, and could be seen in State constitutions going back to the 18th century. Vermont's provision of this nature that was swept away by the Reapportionment Cases had been in place since 1793. California before WWII actually approved by initiative amendment such a measure, which stated that no county could have more than one senator and that no county could be divided and merged with another district, and that no district could have more than three counties, and then only small-population ones. The result was nearly a one-county, one-senator setup, and 10.7% of the population could controul the Senate. If it were in place today, despite how bad things have gotten in California, a small Republican Senate majority would not be outside the realm of possibility, and a Democrat supermajority would be a very tall order, almost certainly out of reach. But because of Reynolds v. Sims, we amended our constitution to the present system in 1967. Nevada had a more strict one-county, one-vote system, and the result was that 8% of the population could controul the Senate. It kept places like Las Vegas from dominating the State and I suspect that the Republicans would have a much stronger hold today than they do now if the old system were intact. Oregon, however, based both houses on population and I suspect that it used a similar system then as it does now. Back then there were 30 senators to 36 counties, and counties could have more than one district contained within, with district lines being drawn by the county government rather than the State's. It took a minimum of nearly 50% of the population to controul either house. A measure of this sort would be introducing a new system. Unfortunately the trend, especially in blue States or those on the verge of becoming one, like Oregon, is toward more democracy (to include promoting the popular vote for President), more urban-centering, and other things that go against such an effort, and due to the urban concentrations, the numbers probably are not there. You need a majority in a case where the majority of people would stand to lose power if they voted for what you want. This sort of thing needed to be put into place beforehand; once the transformation goes as far as it has, it's a tough genie to put back into the bottle. It is even tougher given that the courts are against such an effort. It would be good for every State to have this sort of system, but I'm not sure that it's politically viable. I think that this would be tough to get passed even in solidly red States. It's worth the effort if you're up to the task, but it would not be an easy road, and failure is more likely than not. Regarding the courts, I do wonder if the rulings would apply if the upper house were to be indirectly elected, like was the case in a few colonies and early States here. Maybe have the county legislatures, or the city councils acting as one unit, choose the senator, and have each county get just one senator, no more, no less. It would likely result in litigation anyways, but it might not violate the rulings in the Reapportionment Cases. It does face the obstacle of being even more anti-democratic in an era where democracy is sanctified, despite being evil. It's interesting reading works on this topic that came out just after Baker v. Carr and they dismissed the possibility stated by proponents that things would end up as they are now, and that there was a real rural-urban divide and conflict. The positions of those opposed to the trends of the time, who favoured using something other than population as a basis for apportionment, have largely been vindicated by events. The current ideological split, which very much has a basis in geography, is, IMO, a defining issue of our time, and unfortunately we are ill-equipped to deal with it, as the courts have neutered us and stripped us of the very tools needed to deal with this issue, and the belief in judicial supremacy is king these days. It is also interesting to see how diverse the various State legislatures were in terms of structure at the beginning of the 1960s and how uniform they are today in the same respects. The reason for that is the courts, imposing their will unconstitutionally and continuously damaging federalism and republicanism in the process, all in the name of equality, and when it comes down to it, liberty and equality are not compatible. |
|
I was under the (vague) impression that that ruling did allow for such a scheme if it had a popular vote aspect to it.
Obviously, it looks like I'm wrong that this would be as simple as a ballot initiative, but am I wrong about that aspect? What I'm getting at is if the county popular vote elected its senator, why does that not work? I've never understood that court ruling so I'm way out of my area here. |
|
Quoted:
I was under the (vague) impression that that ruling did allow for such a scheme if it had a popular vote aspect to it. Obviously, it looks like I'm wrong that this would be as simple as a ballot initiative, but am I wrong about that aspect? What I'm getting at is if the county popular vote elected its senator, why does that not work? I've never understood that court ruling so I'm way out of my area here. What the rulings did not address, since no legislature was constituted this way at the time, were legislative houses that were indirectly elected. One might be able to get away with this sort of apportionment based on geography or political subdivisions in such a case so long as the other house was directly elected and based apportionment on population, and at the very least, one would be fighting a totally new series of litigation for which the plaintiffs would not be guaranteed a win, ultimately, and with the right SCOTUS composition might actually result in weakening of the old Reapportionment Cases. I personally would like to see States go with one-county, one Senator, whether directly or indirectly elected, or the one-town, one senator method used in certain States where this was more appropriate (Vermont used this method from 1793 until the courts did away with it in the 1960s). Congressional districts should be drawn on the basis of equal (or as nearly equal as possible) representation of counties (or towns, where appropriate); apportionment itself is, of course, based on population, per the Constitution. Presidential Electors should be chosen in such districts, either directly or indirectly, except for those corresponding to Senate representation, which should be chosen by the legislatures (I also wouldn't mind seeing Governors be Electors by virtue of their offices). And the 17th Amendment should be repealed, and there should be a supermajority legislative recall option for Senators. I also think that an electoral college should be used to choose Governors with geography and political subdivisions being used to apportion them to a large extent. It wouldn't be a bad idea to use such a college to chose Supreme Court Justices, either, IMO. I would love to see a qualified franchise rather than a universal one, but that's even more of a pipe dream. I do find it interesting that the courts basically said that the very method used to structure the national legislature is unjust and unconstitutional. Ultimately, the decisions were meant to serve a political end, which was to give more power to urban areas which typically support the Left. The unconstitutionally excessive intrusion into voting and the like is also meant to serve such an end, as is the recent practice of race-based districting meant to ensure that certain races possessed certain seats (and which is based on the racist notion that people of a particular race can only be represented by someone of the same race), while at the same time attacking gerrymandering, claiming a racial basis (quite ironic and hypocritical), with which the Left just succeeded in North Carolina, and also going after political gerrymandering (which is a major part of why so many legislative houses have managed to remain Republican despite going Democrat statewide) with the Wisconsin case (it's okay when they do it, though). |
|
Okay, I have a better understanding of the problem. Not great, but better, thank you.
Not sure how to begin changing it though. The problem from a rural/semi rural viewpoint is that "my" senator really isn't anything of the sort. That means I have no voice and I just don't understand how *that* is perceived as constitutional. Yes, I understand why it was done and that it is inherently unjust and it chaps my ass that it is so. |
|
Quoted:
Okay, I have a better understanding of the problem. Not great, but better, thank you. Not sure how to begin changing it though. The problem from a rural/semi rural viewpoint is that "my" senator really isn't anything of the sort. That means I have no voice and I just don't understand how *that* is perceived as constitutional. Yes, I understand why it was done and that it is inherently unjust and it chaps my ass that it is so. It is unjust, as majoritarianism/democracy is wont to be. We have the same problem in CA. In geographic terms, a lot of areas and the people thereof are not represented in a way in which they can promote their interests or at least block harm to them. They get run over roughshod by people whose interests, problems, culture, etc. can be radically different but who have numbers an concentration to back them up. |