Do not corner your enemy and make him desperate."
Sun Tzu, The Art of War
We are witnessing an exercise of minority power that will end badly.
Current party coalitions create an urban-oriented party and a rural-oriented party. Urban and suburban voters are more likely to be politically liberal, ethnically diverse, and Democratic; exurban and rural voters are more likely White, politically conservative, and Republican. Rural Senators can leverage minority power to create yet more minority power via the Supreme Court, which can perpetuate that minority advantage for generations with strategically timed resignations. The Constitution is undemocratic on purpose, but it is now so undemocratic that it has become a threat to itself.
Rod Kessler is a college classmate who had a long career teaching writing at Salem State University in Massachusetts and observing the political culture. He is the acting chair of the Salem Democratic City Committee and has a Biden/Harris sign on his lawn. He observed a Republican Senate that stiff-armed an Obama appointee, filled that seat with a conservative, and now is putting through another conservative, giving a heavy conservative tone to the Court.
The Senate is poised to put Amy Coney Barrett on the Supreme Court, where this 48-year-old conservative justice, approved by the Federalist Society, could sit for four decades. She is expected to rule against abortion rights, the Affordable Care Act, the limitation of dark money in politics, gun control, and the prevention of voter suppression — all policies favored by the majority of Americans. She’s also likely to be no friend of government regulations (protections) regarding the environment and big business.
Even though she’s a great mom, Judge Barrett might never be confirmed if the general public could vote on the matter. But the general public has no say in confirming Supreme Court justices — that’s up to the president and the Senate.
The president, in the last election, received nearly 3 million fewer votes than his opponent. Most people didn’t vote for him.
The Senate will confirm Barrett because Republicans hold a slim majority — of seats, but not of the people represented. The Republican majority that confirmed Justice Gorsuch represented states that comprise only 45 percent of the population. The Republican majority that confirmed Kavanaugh represented only 44 percent. Put another way, the senators representing the majority of Americans lost those battles. It’s likely that when the Senate meets in a few days to confirm Barrett, the senators whom most Americans sent to Washington will lose again.
So there it is: a president whom most Americans voted against and a bloc of senators most Americans didn’t vote for will soon solidify a Supreme Court whose values are abhorrent to most of us.
How is this possible in a democracy? How can majority rule be so thwarted? If “dark money” and voter suppression come to mind, you have a case to be made, but I’m blaming it all on Wyoming. Wyoming’s population in 2019 was 578,759. Wyoming has two Senators, both Republican, both supporting Barrett. Let’s compare that state with California. Its populations is 69 times larger: 39,937,500. California also has two senators, both Democrats unlikely to support Barrett. Put differently, a single voter in Wyoming has as much clout in the Senate as 69 Californians.
Why pick on Wyoming? Alaska's two Republican senators represent a population of 731,545. That’s the size of Boston, if you throw in Salem for good measure (694,583 and 43,302). Given that Massachusetts as a whole has nearly 6.9 million people, it takes more than nine Bay Staters to match the political clout of a single Alaskan.
Can this be constitutional? You bet — it’s as constitutional as the right to bear arms or to separate church and state. The framers sought to balance the political power of citizens as such with the political power of states. But maybe over the centuries the arrangement has grown out of balance? After all, the population of the original 13 states was 3,929,214 — just a little more than the population of, say, today’s Puerto Rico (3.2 million) if you threw in Washington, D.C. (705,749). In 1790, the largest state, Virginia, with its population of 747,000, was not even twice as populous as the smallest, Delaware (434,000) — and 39% of Virginia’s population were enslaved.
Once out of balance, our system can easily result in a minority running the show for everyone else. And if that imbalance can lock into place a Supreme Court that won’t undo gerrymandering, that won’t protect minority voting rights, that won’t stem the flow of dark money in politics, then we might need to kiss good-bye to any future vision of one person one vote, of majority rule.
But if our ship of state is hitting the rapids now, we can still reach calmer waters and smooth sailing ahead. Remember Wyoming with its population of 578,759? Well, the Washington, D.C., population is greater: 705,749. Adding a 51st state like D.C. is as constitutionally sound as our free press, and doing so would rebalance the Senate in this regard: one tiny red state with one tiny blue one. And why stop at 51? Puerto Rico’s population of nearly 3.2 million is larger than our two newest states combined: Alaska and Hawaii (731, 545 and 1.4 million). Hola, Puerto Rico! Let’s bring red Alaska into balance with another tiny state. Let’s dream even bigger: imagine a U.S. map with a North California and a South California.
You can see where this is going.
If today’s Republicans are racing the election clock to lock in a court forever advancing minority interests, a Democratic administration in 2021 can start to use constitutional means to rebalance our democracy and bring us closer to the one person, one vote democratic ideal.
And that notion of rebalancing? Can it be applied to the federal judiciary as well? I for one like the sound of rebalancing the courts better than “packing” them. (Once again, beware the far-right’s genius at using language to frame the conversation.)
What if the Democrats don’t prevail in this cycle? You’ll hear progressives fantasizing all the time that if Trump wins they’ll have to move to Canada or Scandinavia or New Zealand or wherever. To them I want to shout No! Let’s move to Wyoming! Let’s move to Alaska. Let’s urge California to relocate a million or two voters here and there. It won’t take very many of us to rebalance the nation by relocating and sending to Washington a representative government that actually represents what most people want.
Rod Kessler is a college classmate who had a long career teaching writing at Salem State University in Massachusetts and observing the political culture. He is the acting chair of the Salem Democratic City Committee and has a Biden/Harris sign on his lawn. He observed a Republican Senate that stiff-armed an Obama appointee, filled that seat with a conservative, and now is putting through another conservative, giving a heavy conservative tone to the Court.
The Senate can do that. It is legal. They have the power and are using it.
There is a consequence to running up the score with a big win. They have cornered their Democratic opponents and made them desperate. If Democrats win elections this November, they will be under pressure to react in a way that desperate people do. They will attempt--legally and Constitutionally, just as the Republicans are now doing--to change the institutions that were the causes of their desperation. They don't need a Constitutional Amendment. They could expand the number of Justices; reduce the areas of jurisdiction of the Federal Courts; make new states, divide large population states into smaller ones for the purpose of Senate representation. They could try to fix something that has gotten out of whack.
Guest Post by Rod Kessler
"Whitewater rapids ahead for America."
Like anyone paying attention to politics, I see whitewater rapids ahead for our ship of state and for our democracy, and by democracy I mean the idea of one person, one vote, the notion that in our representative form of government, people should be fairly and equally represented.
 |
| Rod Kessler |
The Senate is poised to put Amy Coney Barrett on the Supreme Court, where this 48-year-old conservative justice, approved by the Federalist Society, could sit for four decades. She is expected to rule against abortion rights, the Affordable Care Act, the limitation of dark money in politics, gun control, and the prevention of voter suppression — all policies favored by the majority of Americans. She’s also likely to be no friend of government regulations (protections) regarding the environment and big business.
Even though she’s a great mom, Judge Barrett might never be confirmed if the general public could vote on the matter. But the general public has no say in confirming Supreme Court justices — that’s up to the president and the Senate.
The president, in the last election, received nearly 3 million fewer votes than his opponent. Most people didn’t vote for him.
The Senate will confirm Barrett because Republicans hold a slim majority — of seats, but not of the people represented. The Republican majority that confirmed Justice Gorsuch represented states that comprise only 45 percent of the population. The Republican majority that confirmed Kavanaugh represented only 44 percent. Put another way, the senators representing the majority of Americans lost those battles. It’s likely that when the Senate meets in a few days to confirm Barrett, the senators whom most Americans sent to Washington will lose again.
So there it is: a president whom most Americans voted against and a bloc of senators most Americans didn’t vote for will soon solidify a Supreme Court whose values are abhorrent to most of us.
How is this possible in a democracy? How can majority rule be so thwarted? If “dark money” and voter suppression come to mind, you have a case to be made, but I’m blaming it all on Wyoming. Wyoming’s population in 2019 was 578,759. Wyoming has two Senators, both Republican, both supporting Barrett. Let’s compare that state with California. Its populations is 69 times larger: 39,937,500. California also has two senators, both Democrats unlikely to support Barrett. Put differently, a single voter in Wyoming has as much clout in the Senate as 69 Californians.
Why pick on Wyoming? Alaska's two Republican senators represent a population of 731,545. That’s the size of Boston, if you throw in Salem for good measure (694,583 and 43,302). Given that Massachusetts as a whole has nearly 6.9 million people, it takes more than nine Bay Staters to match the political clout of a single Alaskan.
Can this be constitutional? You bet — it’s as constitutional as the right to bear arms or to separate church and state. The framers sought to balance the political power of citizens as such with the political power of states. But maybe over the centuries the arrangement has grown out of balance? After all, the population of the original 13 states was 3,929,214 — just a little more than the population of, say, today’s Puerto Rico (3.2 million) if you threw in Washington, D.C. (705,749). In 1790, the largest state, Virginia, with its population of 747,000, was not even twice as populous as the smallest, Delaware (434,000) — and 39% of Virginia’s population were enslaved.
Once out of balance, our system can easily result in a minority running the show for everyone else. And if that imbalance can lock into place a Supreme Court that won’t undo gerrymandering, that won’t protect minority voting rights, that won’t stem the flow of dark money in politics, then we might need to kiss good-bye to any future vision of one person one vote, of majority rule.
But if our ship of state is hitting the rapids now, we can still reach calmer waters and smooth sailing ahead. Remember Wyoming with its population of 578,759? Well, the Washington, D.C., population is greater: 705,749. Adding a 51st state like D.C. is as constitutionally sound as our free press, and doing so would rebalance the Senate in this regard: one tiny red state with one tiny blue one. And why stop at 51? Puerto Rico’s population of nearly 3.2 million is larger than our two newest states combined: Alaska and Hawaii (731, 545 and 1.4 million). Hola, Puerto Rico! Let’s bring red Alaska into balance with another tiny state. Let’s dream even bigger: imagine a U.S. map with a North California and a South California.
You can see where this is going.
If today’s Republicans are racing the election clock to lock in a court forever advancing minority interests, a Democratic administration in 2021 can start to use constitutional means to rebalance our democracy and bring us closer to the one person, one vote democratic ideal.
And that notion of rebalancing? Can it be applied to the federal judiciary as well? I for one like the sound of rebalancing the courts better than “packing” them. (Once again, beware the far-right’s genius at using language to frame the conversation.)
What if the Democrats don’t prevail in this cycle? You’ll hear progressives fantasizing all the time that if Trump wins they’ll have to move to Canada or Scandinavia or New Zealand or wherever. To them I want to shout No! Let’s move to Wyoming! Let’s move to Alaska. Let’s urge California to relocate a million or two voters here and there. It won’t take very many of us to rebalance the nation by relocating and sending to Washington a representative government that actually represents what most people want.
3 comments:
Every Democrat points to Wyoming, the Dakotas but somehow they seem okay with Delaware, Rhode Island and Vermont. In similar fashion, their fervent defense of majority rule seems to apply only when that rule supports their favored candidates; in fact, the U.S. is not and has never been a majority rule democracy. A Constitutional republic is what we are. I've always been of two minds about the Constitution, a document that has said it's fine to own a human being as property (as long as they are Black) but it's not fine to drink Bud Light. So, let's set the Constitution aside when making rational, principled arguments. I think most presidents, lately, have never earned more than half the vote, right? Third party candidates often keep that from happening, so saying "most voters did not vote for him" is almost meaningless. Instead of creating new states, our leaders should work toward a non-Constitutional reform of our Electoral College system, and change it from "winner take all" to one that uses Congressional Districts to award Electors. And also work to reform Gerrymandering. But forget new states; forget adding seats to the Supreme Court.
I like the idea of every person knowing their vote counts. West Coast Republicans know their presidential vote is pro forma. Alabama Democrats know theirs are as well. How can we tell people with a straight face that their vote matters when it actually only matters in a half dozen states. A popular vote is a means toward better engagement of the public.
What about Congressional District voting, as the comment below suggests? Multiple problems. First of all, the same thing as winner take all states, except that Congressional Districts are almost all more lopsided that are states, so ones vote doesn't count once again. I voted for Biden but my CD is bright red. There are Republicans in Portland who will cast a worthless vote because of their CD. Second, it would make the contests for the office that controls districting even more consequential than the governors' office. Depending on how the Districts are drawn, Pennsylvania could have between 5 and 15 Democrat's or Republicans. We saw it happen in Texas when there was a mid-cycle redistricting. Gerrymandering the central issue in American politics.
The winner-take-all system is the effort of each state to maximize its impact, with the problem that nearly every state does it. Lets maximize the impact of real people, voters. Every vote counts.
Peter Sage
“One man one vote” is just one ideal. It needs to be balanced against the possibility that a majority will tyrannize a minority.
Take Oregon as an example of this sort of tyranny. Thanks to the population of the Willamette Valley, urban interests heedlessly crush rural economies in this state without even noticing. Rural folks have absolutely no say in state policy.
The disproportionate representation of small states in the Senate is the only thing that protects them from a similar fate nationally. The tyranny of the majority is it serious consideration that needs to be addressed.
Post a Comment