I'm Forrest Gump and that's all I have to say about that

 

Supremes tell Michigan Dems to take a hike, Republican drawn districts to remain

Story.

"Improper" drawing of congressional districts is not the problem, improper restriction of the number of districts is

To Fix Our Democracy, First End Gerrymandering:

Gerrymandering, the pervasive practice of drawing congressional districts for political purposes, owns a great deal of responsibility for the dysfunction of our government and the loss of trust among Americans in their government.

This story is a smokescreen obscuring the real problem, which is that Congress voted decades ago to stop the growth of representation. Gerrymandering is simply the problem you face after committing the offense of fixing the number of districts.

By 1930 the number of congressional districts had grown to 435, more or less naturally as required by the Constitution and the Census every ten years. The number would have kept growing, but the natural process was halted, by a bigoted, power hungry Congress.

The very people who are supposed to represent us stopped the growth of representation and fixed it at 435 in the 1920s, because they could.

The original First Amendment, never ratified with the rest of the Bill of Rights for want of but one vote, would have ensured the natural growth of representation with the natural growth of population in perpetuity by a formula. The argument was over the formula, so our forebears punted the problem, and the issue was never settled. Post-WWI, however, alarums began to sound over the expansion of the Congress to include lots of new representatives for America's burgeoning German-American population, so the Congress voted to fix representation at its then current level, 435, so they didn't have to sit next to the evil Hun in their own Capitol. (The Congress also effectively halted immigration, but that's another story).

So in 1930 one US representative held the power of the purse over 283,000 Americans, on average. Fast forward to today and a US representative can steal from 757,000 of us at a stroke, on average. How their power has grown, and how coveted the seats! Now you know why it takes $10 million to win one.

Just to get the ratio back down to 1930 levels, we'd have to have 1,163 congressional districts today instead of the 435 we do have.

Adding them would dramatically reduce the power the current 435 have over us, which is why it doesn't happen. Nancy Pelosi would have to herd 582 cats to get anything done instead of 238. And with 1,163 representatives, it's unlikely Nancy Pelosi would be the Speaker in the first place.

Redrawing the lines of this tyranny which they exercise over us isn't the solution. That's simply rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

The power hungry House is the biggest impediment to our democracy. Ironically, a bigger House is the answer, because it returns power to the people.

I'm sick of headlines from Democrats claiming to defend the republic when they're out to destroy it

Like this one from the prince of liars Andrew Sullivan, the spokesman for the freak zone of democracy, not republicanism: Can the Republic Strike Back?

They don't care about the republic. If Democrats had their way, all the bulwarks of the republic would be gone already: the electoral college, the US Senate, the Supreme Court, borders, citizen-only-voting, law and order, the presumption of innocence, and on and on. They'd replace it all with a two-headed monster of populism, a country led only by the US House and a popularly-elected president, creatures of the mob. 

The rest of the republic has to go, and its defender, Donald Trump:

Congress has real power. The press can’t get his tax returns. Congress can. The press can’t truly discover the depth of the corruption in his administration. Congress can. The press can’t publicly cross-examine Cabinet members, order functionaries to answer questions, kill proposed legislation, and air everything where it should be aired — on Capitol Hill. ...

One-party rule has strained this democracy. The Electoral College, gerrymandering, the structure of the Senate, and demographics have given us a government actively indifferent and even hostile to half the country. That single party has now taken firm control of the Supreme Court as well. It will very likely retain control of the Senate in January. Capturing the House is the only way the republic can strike back.

My no good dirty hippy Michigan Republican Party is libertarian, not conservative

The robocalls from the Michigan Republican Party are going out this weekend, urging the voters to vote against liberal proposals to "reform" gerrymandering and to allow "automatic" and same day voter registration.

The calls notably mention these as proposals 2 and 3, but never mention proposal 1 which aims to legalize possession, use and cultivation of marijuana.

It's just like term limited Republican Governor Rick Snyder's robocalls urging votes for lowly state senate and house candidates without once mentioning Republican Bill Schuette for governor, John James for Senate, or Tom Leonard for Attorney General, the Donald Trump and NRA endorsed candidates.

To be sure, a Yes vote on proposals 2 and 3 would give Michigan liberals the victories they can't achieve at the ballot box. The strategy is to make an end run around their decades of electoral failure in order to get control of redrawing district lines to favor Democrats. Flooding the zone with their dubious voters is simply the second part of the one-two punch strategy. And if their voters are high on election day, so much the better.

Not recommending a No vote on proposal 1 is simply more proof that the Michigan Republican Party isn't conservative and doesn't deserve the votes of conservatives. After decades of the war on tobacco, somehow smoking marijuana is suddenly supposed to be OK when the evidence is pouring in that it's not.

Combined with the large number of anti-Trumpers among their ranks, Michigan Republicans doubly don't deserve our votes when they run as libertarians in Republican disguise. There's a party for that. It's called the Libertarian Party. They should join it, especially you, Justin Amash, you faker.

We can't vote for Democrats, but we can vote US Taxpayers Party in many instances, and failing that, for hamburger condiments like ketchup, mustard, pickles and onions.

And on the proposals, I'll make it easy for you. Just vote No on all of them, including the Early Childhood proposal and the Caledonia operating millage. 

In Michigan we have geniuses who think the Senate is gerrymandered

Here, in the comments section.

His vote cancels your vote.

Congress sucks: Let's make it bigger!

As we all know, Congress sucks.

About only 17% of Americans approved of the Congress in 2016 according to Gallup, which is indicative of the historical lack of esteem for it. The average is just 31% approval since 1974. Real Clear Politics has its own tracker here, going back only to 2009. It is a composite of various polls, yielding an even lower average of 14.5% approval than Gallup's current 18%.

You get the idea. At best only about a third of the people approve of the job Congress is doing at any given time. And the top reasons given are 1) gridlock, bickering, not compromising and 2) not getting anything done, not making decisions.

So why make Congress bigger?

In a word, to make it more representative, end the gridlock and get something done.

In short, make Congress overwhelmingly Republican . . . because the country is.

Currently, just 435 congressmen and women represent districts unnaturally carved out of America's 3,144 counties, parishes, boroughs, census areas, independent cities and the District of Columbia.

I say unnaturally carved out because after every census the gerrymandering fight begins to redraw the congressional district lines to favor incumbents of the party in power whose boundaries transgress all over those counties, parishes, boroughs, census areas, independent cities and DC.

We've already got all these boundaries and units that go back to the beginning of the country in many cases, so we don't need these 435 fake Congressional districts anymore.

My own county with a population of just over 600,000 is carved up by two congressmen who each represent over 700,000 spanning many other counties. That doesn't make any sense.

The constitution never intended this.

It intended representation to grow with population, but in the 1920s Congress saw a loophole and fixed representation at the then current 435. There's nothing magic about 435. Why not 439? 394? 943? Did Moses decree 435? George Washington? The founders never settled the question, but they never intended representation to stop growing with population. If we followed an early formula, we'd have one Congressman for every 50,000 people. That would mean 6,473 in the US House today!

Ever since the 1920s we've been treated to an increase in oligarchy where just 218 votes are needed to ram something down the throats of more and more people.

You know, like Obamacare, which was passed without a single Republican vote.

Meanwhile Republicans just showed that they own the grassroots politically, winning the counties 2623 to 489. Here's the map that shows that, from brilliant maps dot com:

If you want to end the gridlock and get something done, reform the Congress to represent the country for a change. Abolish the Congressional districts, and elect representatives to the US House from every county across this land.

You say you want a revolution . . ..

After New York, under Winner-Take-All it would be Trump 1089, Cruz 433, Kasich 66 and Rubio 57

And everyone would be telling Cruz and Kasich "GET OUT!"

Instead it's Trump 845, Cruz 559, Kasich 148 and Rubio 171. The also-rans are being enriched at the expense of the front-runner, mostly by allocations of delegates from congressional district wins which chip away at the overall winner of the states.

They won't divide the vote this way when Trump faces Clinton in November. Think of the electoral college votes from each state as delegates. Representing House and Senate seats held by both Republicans and Democrats, the winner of the popular vote in your state gets them all, regardless of political party affiliation.

It'll be winner take all in November. It should be now.

Congressmen aren't even elected this way.

If you win the popular vote in your district, you win the seat in the House. It's not because you won more delegates in the precincts.

If you win the popular vote in your state, you win the seat in the Senate. Senators don't get seated because they won more delegates in the congressional districts. They get seated because they won more votes.

But Republicans for some reason want to divide their primary votes for president along (already highly gerrymandered) congressional district lines, making the candidates creatures of the districts, not of the states. They do this out of fear that the more populous liberal urban areas will have an unfair advantage over conservative rural ones in choosing their candidate. So they interfere with the process instead of insuring the integrity of their party membership and of its primary elections.

Meanwhile Trump's won the popular vote in 21 states so far, Cruz in 9, Rubio in just 2 and Kasich in only 1, but the Chicken Party won't even take a popular vote in Colorado, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, Wyoming, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa and North Dakota.

Republicans need to decide if they want to continue to be the Chicken Party, or if they want to take the fight to the enemy.

They already have a leader who is doing just that, if only they had the courage to follow him.

Sean Trende Calls For A Larger US House But Never Mentions The Actual Language Of The Constitution

In "It's Time To Increase The Size Of The US House", here, Sean Trende of Real Clear Politics makes many of the same points we have made about the sorry state of representation in these United States, including the importance of the "unratified" Article the First as the real First Amendment as opposed to the mythology which has grown up around the default one.

As Trende ably shows, Article the First would have fixed representation eventually at 1 US representative for every 50,000 of population. He appears horrified, however, at the prospect of a Congress of 6,100 representatives today.

Is that why he never mentions Article I Section 1 of the actual constitution which is ratified and under which we are supposed to operate?

"The number of representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand . . .."

If 6,100 representatives is horrifying, the 10,533 representatives we should have according to the spirit of the actual constitution is downright heart-stopping. I can understand Trende not talking about this, but how come the Tea Party never does? After all, they carry the constitution around with them pretty much everywhere and are supposed to be the quintessential originalists these days, second only to Antonin Scalia.

This was the language Article the First was supposed to remedy. But as it stands, the constitution was ratified with this loophole specifying how many representatives we may not have, but not how many we should. As a consequence, when the light finally dawned on the dimwits in Congress in the 1920s that they could fix representation at the then current 435, they set up for themselves quite the little oligarchy of power, influence and corruption, and representation ceased to expand ever since. And along with that expanded our discontent.

That's why your congressmen doesn't know your name nor the name of the other 728,000 average constituents in his district. Nor does he care to. The only name in his Rolodex (sorry, I'm dating myself) is the Club for Growth or some such "org".

It's also why we have the other problems Trende mentions: malapportionment as in Montana, gerrymandering of the most unnatural sort just about everywhere, underrepresented minority enclaves and rural areas, and the expensive bought and paid for campaigns which depend on mostly outside money.

Trende mentions the British House of Commons has more representatives than we do, but the irony that they are better represented than we are never dawns on him. Nor does Trende mention New Hampshire. They have 400 in their House, a ratio of 1:3300.

America should be more like New Hampshire.