It's hard to pick out a unifying story from the midterms, but one observation is deepening polarization: blue areas got bluer and red areas got redder. I don't pretend to know how to bridge that divide, but one consequence of this urban/rural division when combined with the structure of our government means that a minority of citizens has held the majority of federal power for decades. In the last three presidential elections won by the GOP, they've lost the popular vote. And the structure of both the House and Senate give disproportionate power to rural voters. I argue that minority rule represents an unhealthy state in any modern Democracy, and the deepening divisions may even be related to the strain of unbalanced representation.
The rural/urban divide is not an American phenomenon. It happens all over the world. The difference is that our system gives structural advantages to rural parts of the country, which allow them to hold more power than they represent by population balance alone. In the Senate, this is largely by design. In the House, it is due to political choice. The Permanent Appointment Act of 1929 capped the number of representatives in the House, and population dynamics since that time mean that a voter in rural Montana has three times the political power as an urban voter in California. As a result, the House is failing in its designated purpose -- to represent the people of the United States.
In contrast, the Senate is meant to represent states, which largely insulates it from the kind of political manipulation that we see in the House. However, there are 4 million American citizens living in D.C. and Puerto Rico who are taxed by the federal government, yet not permitted to have representation in it. This runs in contrast to the founding principal of the United States, and the continued designation of "district" and "territory" is a political choice that effectively denies these citizens proper representation in our government. If we tax these areas, they deserve Senate and House representation.
Some people have argued that any fundamental changes to our government would require a Constitutional Amendment. I disagree. The concept of a Senate that represents the states and a House that represents the voters is a sound one. The structural issue is a Congressional one, not a Constitutional one. Our system as designed is fine, but it’s been biased against current U.S. population dynamics for so long that’s it’s taken as a given that nothing can ever be done because literally any changes will be seen by the GOP as “unfair.” If Democrats and centrists want to be more fairly represented in the federal government rather than live in a country under constant rule by a minority of voters, they need to address these structural impediments.
1. Automatic voter registration. Tie it to an ID, but make it automatic and free.
2. End gerrymandering. Politicians should never be permitted to choose their voters.
3. Re-balance the House to actually reflect the current U.S. population, and stop using a century-old map.
4. Grant D.C. and P.R. statehood so 4 million Americans aren’t being taxed by a government they aren’t allowed to participate in.
Of course, the GOP would fight any of these changes tooth and nail, but that doesn’t make them unworthy to pursue. There are other changes -- for instance, Florida will allow citizens with prior felony convictions to vote in the next election, which was another (racial) structural check on representative democracy. But these are what I see as the big issues, and fixing the structural imbalance would go a long way to restoring an actual representative government.
The rural/urban divide is not an American phenomenon. It happens all over the world. The difference is that our system gives structural advantages to rural parts of the country, which allow them to hold more power than they represent by population balance alone. In the Senate, this is largely by design. In the House, it is due to political choice. The Permanent Appointment Act of 1929 capped the number of representatives in the House, and population dynamics since that time mean that a voter in rural Montana has three times the political power as an urban voter in California. As a result, the House is failing in its designated purpose -- to represent the people of the United States.
In contrast, the Senate is meant to represent states, which largely insulates it from the kind of political manipulation that we see in the House. However, there are 4 million American citizens living in D.C. and Puerto Rico who are taxed by the federal government, yet not permitted to have representation in it. This runs in contrast to the founding principal of the United States, and the continued designation of "district" and "territory" is a political choice that effectively denies these citizens proper representation in our government. If we tax these areas, they deserve Senate and House representation.
Some people have argued that any fundamental changes to our government would require a Constitutional Amendment. I disagree. The concept of a Senate that represents the states and a House that represents the voters is a sound one. The structural issue is a Congressional one, not a Constitutional one. Our system as designed is fine, but it’s been biased against current U.S. population dynamics for so long that’s it’s taken as a given that nothing can ever be done because literally any changes will be seen by the GOP as “unfair.” If Democrats and centrists want to be more fairly represented in the federal government rather than live in a country under constant rule by a minority of voters, they need to address these structural impediments.
1. Automatic voter registration. Tie it to an ID, but make it automatic and free.
2. End gerrymandering. Politicians should never be permitted to choose their voters.
3. Re-balance the House to actually reflect the current U.S. population, and stop using a century-old map.
4. Grant D.C. and P.R. statehood so 4 million Americans aren’t being taxed by a government they aren’t allowed to participate in.
Of course, the GOP would fight any of these changes tooth and nail, but that doesn’t make them unworthy to pursue. There are other changes -- for instance, Florida will allow citizens with prior felony convictions to vote in the next election, which was another (racial) structural check on representative democracy. But these are what I see as the big issues, and fixing the structural imbalance would go a long way to restoring an actual representative government.