The greatest good for the greatest number.
3
Yes, yes...keen analysis. But you forgot the most important overriding principle for all of humankind. Change is bad.
5
I think the Senate is working just fine as there is far more bipartisanship there than in the House of Representatives. Maybe what we need to do is develop more urban centers in Red States. Rural Americans flock to the big cities for better opportunities as do immigrants. Let’s invest in education, infrastructure, tech, and the environment to convert each state’s metropolitan area into a hub of some sort on par with global cities. Yes we can! #BlueWave2018
2
Time for a constitutional amendment: “The power of a Senator’s vote shall be proportionate to the population that he or she represents”
7
In other words, if you don't like election results, change the rules.
9
The separation of Congress into the Senate and the House is a brilliant solution to an ancient problem of conflict between urban/industrial and rural/agricultural cultures. This problem is almost universal and the American solution to it proves the amazing foresight the Founding Fathers had.
I was born in a country where identity politics lead to an extremely bloody war among the different groups defined by ethnicity, religion, etc. Blaming one group for nearly all of the problems and then identifying individuals only by the characteristics of that group is the root cause of the worst crimes against humanity throughout the history.
I thought American values included judging individuals based on their deeds, not based on race, religion, etc. Maybe it's because I'm an immigrant who had been raised to respect all people regardless of their race, before coming to the US, that I find this constant bashing of the white people as a bit racist. Before you call me a white supremacist, neo-Nazi, etc, let me tell you that much of my family was exterminated by the Nazis. Does it really take an immigrant to remind Americans of their great history and values?
7
@natan
The premise of your first paragraph is mostly true, but totally non apropos to the times in which the US Constitution was written...
The US Constitution of 1787 was an effort to protect and preserve the social, legal and financial status of its writers. There was no mention of civil rights, equality, who could vote, etc. All of that came later.
The Founding Fathers feared direct participation democracy and the hoi polloi as much as they feared the British. The FF were as class conscience as any European nobility and just as defensive and possessive of their power and positions.
The entire system for electing federal officials (president, senators and representatives) was designed and intended to put as little power as possible in the votes of the hoi polloi and as much power as possible in the votes of the 1% of the day.
7
Victims, Victims, Victims. It seems like the only topic the NYT and their columnist can write about is the victimization of everyone except the villainous white male. Please note, the road to success is not based on victimization and the US has succeeded rather well for the past 230 years. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
15
I think the founding fathers got it right. By your logic, NYC, L.A., Dallas etc.should be states. PR has been given that option several times and oooooops a NO vote. By the great PR people. Send back your PP, Dave. And ask yourself why nobody leaves, and everyone wants to come. This comment, if approved will be at around 1153.
6
The eighteenth century rationale remains intact in one regard: the interests of states with smaller population will be relegated to a lower priority than those of states with larger populations when representation is based solely on population. Some compensatory mechanism is required and some suggestions would be welcome.
3
Sounds pretty logical to me. As a "white" person of color, one of many on the grand rainbow of humanity, I have no doubt that our earlier racist past has not fundamentally influenced the way things have been written and designed in this country. For the poor white people that think and feel that brown, black people are the cause of their suffering, it is not but instead the cancerous growths they have on their hearts. It is hypocritical too, that many of these people claim they are devotees of Jesus Christ. I guess anything can be distorted. It is not equitable that rural voters, less of them, are determining the direction of the country for the urban masses. The urban centers where diversity and the engines to the economy churn with humanity's foibles and triumphs. It's not that I don't care about the rural folk, I do, but let's get real, they are white, republican and afraid of of those that look, talk and act differently.
2
Actually, giving statehood to the District of Columbia is a terrible idea. Why not follow the precedent set many years ago and give almost all of DC back to Maryland? Virginia absorbed their part without too much trouble. Carve out a federal enclave, the agency buildings and Smithsonian around the mall, the Capitol and the White House. Give the rest to Maryland.
12
Another bad argument to try to fix the results of past elections!! If Hillary had won against Trump we would not hear all this nonsense!
9
"Each citizen of a small state is considered more important than each citizen of a large state."
The Senate is supposed to represent states, especially how it was originally designed. While the House of Representatives is more of the "People's House."
Hopefully the author will support a large scale federalism bill, shrinking the power of the National Government (where he points out there is less diverse representation) and transfer the same power to the states.
3
This is truly ridiculous. Not everything has to do with race. Small states have the same representation as large states in the Senate because small states insisted on it at the Constitutional Convention. As to Puerto Rico - it is not obvious that they want to be a state since it would require them to give up their current level of autonomy and would require their residents to pay federal income taxes. As to DC - sure they want to be a small state and that appeals to Democrats, which is exactly why Republicans will never agree to it. The right way to give DC residents federal representation is to give DC back to Maryland, just like the Virginia portion (Alexandria and Arlington) was given back to Virginia in the 1840s.
10
Mr. Leonhardt doesn't seem to care much for anything about America. He does have a fondness for what never was and what his wisdom dictates should be.
For instance, he wants to revive the "basic ideals of American democracy" [which sounds a lot like "let's Make American Great Again"]. Well, Dave, the bulletin is that America was never formulated as a democracy.
One would think that a long time Times employee might have stumbled across this high school civics lesson. Apparently not.
That might explain why he doesn't have a grasp of the concept of a two house legislature with different term durations.
Maybe Mr. Leonhardt's dissatisfaction with America is not simple ignorance of the philosophy undergirding our institutions. Maybe he understands the philosophy well enough, but he simply detests a system that thwarts his profound grasp of the proper structure of government.
That would be a structure that would ensure permanent hegemony of his political persuasion.
By whatever means necessary.
10
David Leonhardt has identified a (very old) small problem, and has come up with a stunningly disruptive big solution to fix it. Are the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico well suited to be states? Wouldn't it be better and easier to fold DC back into Maryland, from whence it came? Does Puerto Rico even want to become a state? Shouldn't they have a say? They have a lot of privileges that they would lose as a state.
.
There's a reason the Democratic party is known as the party of unintended consequences. It's because there are always Democrats determined to do the "right" thing, no matter how stupid or damaging, because they'd rather be right than effective, and their righteous indignation brooks no consideration of practicality. And you wonder how Republicans get elected.
.
This all comes back to the Democratic party having a party platform that is only popular in urban centers. Perhaps, just perhaps, the party should consider the needs of the other half of America, rather than simply moaning about their fate, and plotting fanciful schemes. The evil GOP of 2018 exists only because the Democratic Party refuses to become popular.
12
Nothing wrong with white folks. It's their country too.
9
Hey David- It's alright to be white
7
Another click-bait, race-hustling, fascism-is-here advertorial-as-editorial to gin up the November vote-Democrat head-count.
7
The NYTimes will be supporting Trump for president before D.C. and Puerto Rico gain U.S. statehood.
4
Great two more welfare states living fat off of hard working Americans.
7
Somebody treat this ignoramus to a library card. The Senate represents states, not populace.
9
@Robert L Smalser, yes, states, which are legitimate and organized political bodies.
1
Does David Leonhardt view himself as a member of the "white" team locked in mortal combat with the "black" and "brown" and "yellow" and "red" teams? My skin tone is white, but I don't put my friends and neighbors into racial categories upon which I judge them or make assumptions about their politics. If you do, then you're a ... oh, I can't say it because the Times won't publish it.
7
It's worse than what you say. The House of Representative was supposed to represent 'the people' in that it was to be allocated by population. That was the compromise between the populus states and the less populus ones when the constitution we created. However, because of a law passed in 1911 the number of representatives in the lower house is now fixed at 435. As the US population continued to grow this created an imbalance in the number a representative may repesent. Wyoming has 573,000 people while California has 39,776,000 people. Wyoming has one house member who repesents 573,000 people, while a California's 53 congressmen represent about 744,000 each. Using Wyoming's population as a basis, California should have 69 members in congress, not 57. It's as if 9 million people in California were unrepresented! A voter in Wyoming has 20% more power in congress than a voter in large states like Texas or California or New York. Increase the number in the US House of Represenatives using something like the Wyoming rule many of the problem with underrepresentation in both the electoral college and in the house would be solved.
7
The senate: affirmative action for the financial elite.
The senate: affirmative action for men.
The senate: affirmative action for rural citizens.
Addressing only issues of race is completely insufficient to bring about either democracy or justice. Racial injustice Must be addressed. And All the other injustices Must be addressed for racial racial equality to really manifest.
From a structural point of view, Wresting control of politics from the financial elite is job one. Nothing else can move forward until that is done. The financial elite use their control of Both parties and of the media to keep the country divided and the non-elite chasing their own tail rather than pursuing a course of real power. For the non-elite, the Only source of non-violent power is through an honest system of representation. That has been thoroughly corrupted by the financial elite with the rise of Corporate personhood and corporate political power. Until Big Oil, Big Ag, Big Chem, Big Finance, Big MIC, Big Health, are themselves disenfranchised, Everyone else effectively is.
7
The U.S. Senate, even after being recklessly politicized by hate-filled Democrats, is the envy of the world. Getting the states to go along with disposing it - a complete impossibility for over two centuries - would be a sign to the planet that the USA is no longer the beacon of freedom.
Yes, Jane Fonda spent more time in Vietnam than the ludicrous Richard Blumenthal, but we judge the Senate by its accomplishments, not by its dregs.
10
of what hate speakest thou? a beacon of freedom in incarceration land would a fair novelty. Americans are as prisoners as the protagonists of the play you refer to in your location.
1
The Senate is designed to represent the States equally.
The Constitution advertises itself as "We the People". But some people were counted as 3/fifths.
I remain unconvinced that States and Corporations are "persons".
Either the Senate is abolished or it becomes representative of the people. In that case population counts, not state-lines.
The USA is, it would seem, designed to be unequal, racist and imperial.
What a waste of half a continent.
4
@Zeus of the Clouds States are the entities of government that are most responsible for the laws that you have to live by and the government services that you are entitled to.
Next, America is not imperialistic. There is no effort in place for us to colonize new territory.
Lastly, no one, regardless of color has been counted as 3/5’s of a person in many generations. Even then, it was intended to limit congressional representation in southern states.
3
@Zeus of the Clouds You could always leave.
2
@Zeus of the Clouds...Do you envision your new and better Senate as a populist institution constructed on a model similar to the current House of Representatives but with far greater representation of the People? Would 20,000 Senators be enough? 500,00? Everyone a Senator? While we are at it, why just one President? Why not everyone a President? Judges and Justices? What for? We the People wouldn't need laws if we were represented equally, would we?
1
This is just another example of ignorance.Unless he could use "white" as a term for Anglo Saxons. If it's a cultural difference, he should say so, not compare racial composition with culture.
2
do you mind helping me understand what you mean please?
1
"A house divided cannot stand". This is as true today, as it was then. Then the division was over slavery, today it's over slavery's most enduring fallout, white privilege, and exploiting a system that empowers the minority to shove odious neo-Confederacy values such as voter suppression down the majority's throat.
It's time to seriously start developing a strategy for a successful Blue state secession.
2
@yonatan ariel I think Sacramento would suffice as a capital for this new 3rd world nation.
1
a blue state secession would make far larger numbers (in the union and possibly the planet) more vulnerable, than those it will help. was that closing comment rhetorical?
after shock, disbelief, and acceptance for 18 months, awareness and decisiveness have taken over. they could not, for those who quit. join the resistance ;-)
I don’t get what’s so tricky about Leonhardt’s argument, I really don’t.
All it is is a plain statement of reality: most Americans live in cities, the biggest cities are mostly in Blue states (and he might also have noted that they tend to dress somewhat to the left), the least-populated states skew to conservative white people, and because regardless of population every state gets the same number of Senators, the Senate skews right and white. Whoopdediddledo, welcome to reality.
But I get why all the howling. The effort is always to smokescreen (as with the weird claims that Leonhardt Hates His Own People), or to flatly deny obvious tiltage of the playing field.
You see pretty much the same when Trumpists simultaneously yelp about how a white man cain’t catch a break these days, and race don’t matter anyway. Basically, they need to feel aggrieved, so race matters, but they also need to insist that their privileges don’t exist, so race don’t matter.
See also Derrida, “Structure, Sign and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences.” An oldie, but a goodie.
5
@Robert More hate speech against whites, and not particularly original. Please tell us about all the "privileges" enjoyed by poor whites in FL and GA who just lost their trailers, hater.
2
On principle, the arguments against the U. S. Senate make a good deal of sense worth considering. But in reality, we live in an age of NONsense, so I can hardly imagine that talk of abolishing the U. S. Senate would play well among conspiracy theorists who fear the left are out to destroy American values. I'm not suggesting it's not worth considering, I just worry that those of us who care about our civil liberties seem to be losing more immediate matters of everyday equity and fairness. While I, too, have been tempted to blame the U. S. Senate for the confirmation of a justice that lacks a judicial temperament, the reality is that it is the Senators themselves that are to blame--in other words, blame lies with the officeholders, not the institution. Until our officeholders realize that "We the People" are the government, all the changes to the Constitution will be for naught, I fear.
2
As a political scientist, I find these types of articles bordering on the ridiculous and absurd. Most people I know, about as diverse a selection of individuals as possible, do not vote one way or the other based on their identity established by the Democratic Party. Instead, based on my informal survey, most if not all vote based on a careful analysis of the substantive issues. Their votes appear to be informed and carefully considered after examining the purpose and effect of candidates and issues.
9
Great idea! This is eminently do-able at whatever point the Democrats have control of the executive and both houses of Congress. It might take a strong Whip-hand to pull small-state Dem senators along, but it's most certainly worth the effort. It also provides a fine opportunity for Republicans to demonstrate their racism, which wins them an ever-declining minority of votes nationwide.
While we're at it, there's an even larger number of disenfranchised citizens in prisons, on probation and parole, and among those who've fully paid their debt but are still not allowed to vote. I've never heard any coherent argument why any adult citizen who is not deeply mentally disabled should not be allowed to vote. We can at least demand that states restore voting rights to those off parole.
1
Why does Leonhardt not tackle campaign finance as the major blockage to representative govt in the US?
Why do the 24/7 Cable TV networks never mention it?
Is it ‘too anti corporate’? Verboten?
Big money influence legalized in politics by our Supreme Court is the major blockage to reforms of any kind for all issues affecting our lives---health care, taxes, jobs, unions, regulations on corporate exploitation, etc.
It worsens ouor economic inequality which then worsens our racial resentments and competition. Good for TV news pundit panel discussions.
US media makes big profits from high priced campaign ads that flood our media and manipulate voters.
Per Wikipedia--- most European countries ban these privately paid political ads, so that special interests won't dominate the political discourse.
Imagine that!
And these are the same nations who have affordable health care for all for generations now. No coincidence.
Our health care is the world’s most profitable.
The US is the holdout in h/c for all among modern countries, because we turn our elections over to a small group of elite billionaires and corporations for financing--and have the longest campaigns in the world. The most expensive and most profitable for donors.
NYT article --- "Small Pool of Rich Donors Dominates Election Giving."
Follow up David Leonhardt.
3
Any examples of demonizing one group to favor others ever working?
Russia, Zimbabwe, Venezuela and now South Africa are examples of the most likely result.
The biggest danger is when folks don't except election results they don't like and begin rationalizing alternative means to gain power.
7
@Lane I agree. You can also add Germany of 1930's and Rwanda to the list of countries that demonized and blamed one group for all their problems.
1
This is narrow-minded thinking. The Senate isn't the only branch of our government. The founders were trying to balance the rights of each state with the rights of each person. Each state has equal rights in the Senate and each person has equal rights in the House. Both were deemed important principles.
8
John, that's ridiculous. The federal government can preempt tons of state laws and federal regulations. Senators confirm federal judges and Justices, who rule on preemption cases. Also, the Supreme Court. the same Supreme Court headed for the last 50 years by Republican-appointed Chief Justices who supposedly exemplify judicial restraint, stretched the Commerce Clause to reach medical marijuana grown in one person's backyard solely for personal use. That means Congress can regulate just about anything it wants to. Based on 18th century mythology, you want to force U.S. citizens to choose between living in the place of their choice or having a voice in Congress? How American of you.
Your understanding of the concept and structure of the United Staes Senate is lacking, David. Each state is given seats in the House of Representatives based on their states population as taken by the census every ten years. Texas, New York and California represent 26 percent of the House membership. Delaware, Rhode Island and Alaska make up .009 percent. It stands to reason that the states with the proportionally greater population have a proportionally greater influence regarding the legislation that is written. House seats come up for re-election every two years in order to keep the voice of the people current. The Senate is the great equalizer, giving each state an equal say before legislation is voted on. It also ensures that the interests of one state does not supersede those of another. The Senate is traditionally composed of senior statesmen who's focus is trained more towards what's best for the nation rather than their individual states. The importance of citizens based on the size of their state is of absolutely no concern in the Senate nor should it be. The majorities speak in the House of Representatives, the Senate deliberates the merits of the legislation and its effect upon all Americans.
7
Another solutions would be to reverse the terms of office. Elect members of the House for terms of 8 years, and senators for 2 year terms.
While we're at it, can we please talk about the House? Here's the math: the state of Wyoming has about 570,000 people, and they have one representative in the House. California has roughly 39,000,000 people, and it has a total of 53 representatives. Simple math reveals that the average congressional district in California has 735,849 people. That means that in every district in The Golden State, 165,849 people effectively lack representation, i.e., the difference between Wyoming's population and the average California district. Multiply that figure by 53 (again, the number of representatives), and you come up with a total of 8,790,000 Californians who lack representation in the House. Instead of 53 House districts, California should have a total of 68. That extends to other states, from Texas (the second largest state) on down the line.
Given that the Senate is already extremely lopsided, and that change on that front won't come without a Constitutional amendment, it would take only an act of Congress of increase the size of the House of Representatives. The size of this body was set in the 1920s at 435; there is absolutely no reason it could not be expanded by similar means. I know that the GOP will resist this mightily, as the system greatly benefits them. However, our democracy is not truly representative. The current government is ample testament to that fact.
8
@ProSkeptic
If the number of people in an average district in California is about the same as the number in districts in other states, then it is about as fair as it can be practically speaking. Wyoming is just an exception because we don’t want any state to have zero representatives, so it gets the minimum of one. Rather than California ‘s people being very under represented, Wyoming’s are a bit over represented, but it is the best we can do.
5
@sgsgs. Um, no, we can do better. Montana, for example, is even more underrepresented, having one representative for over a million people. The country has over tripled in size since the 1920s, when the 435 member limit was established. Also, the Senate is wildly unequal, Wyoming and California having exactly two Senators. The House needs to be much more representative...no pun intended.
1
"small states dominate the United States Senate, by design."
The Constitution of the United States was conceived as a very conservative expression of governance.
It was, in effect, was an effort to protect and preserve the social, legal and financial status of its writers.
There is no guarantee of a US citizen’s right to vote in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Indeed, the Constitution still gives control over elections to state and local governments.
The concept of “equality” is missing entirely in the original US Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The writers the Constitution were concerned about protecting the rights and privileges of the top 1% of the day by limiting the political and voting power of the bottom 99%. “Originalists” are concerned about maintaining the power of the current 1%, not about uplifting the remaining 99%.
2
Beyond the minor technical detail of the Declaration’s explicit statement that the entire idea of the United States rested on the “self-evident,” ideal that all men were “created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,” and then there’s the Bill of Rights, one wonders how you lot somehow manage to miss the 13th, 14th, 15th and 19th Amendments to the Constitution.
Honestly, it was in all the papers. There were movies and everything.
4
@Robert
Did you read the word "original"?
What I wrote, as copied from above:
The concept of “equality” is missing entirely in the original US Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The amendments you mention were added ~80 years after the 1787 Constitutional Convention...
1
The author fails to acknowledge the basic fact that most of the laws, regulations, etc that effect our lives are passed and implemented by the state in which you reside. That state government is responsible for providing for all essential services except for national defense and immigration. You can choose to live in any state you like. If you prefer to live in a state with a majority Democrat government then you can do so. Nothing prevents states from instituting medical coverage for all, guaranteed basic income, etc. Senators are your states representatives to the federal government.
10
"These racial preferences are the ones that dictate the makeup of the United States Senate. "
One of the most unhinged columns I've ever read. What is preventing Maxine Waters or Keith Ellison from running for a Senate seat?
10
"I know that some Republicans will claim that adding two states is just a ploy to help the Democratic Party."
Stop right there.
This is underlying motivation for this piece.
Plain and simple.
16
These comments are so frustrating because there are either reading comprehension issues being demonstrated here or there are some real disingenuous arguments being made.
The author clearly stated that those states together are a minority population that weild too much power. Every future reference to them being a minority was based on that premise. No one said that a white person cannot represent a black person or vice versa the problem is that there is not enough representation in the senate and thus it does not it doesn't reflect the diversity of the population. No taxation without representation. That argument is specious at best. There are whole populations of citizens without a representative for their interests and that is not fair. Different populations do have different interests. People of color are obviously going to be more concerned with civil rights than someone that is not adversely impacted by how unequally rights are applied. As opposed to someone with no civil rights concerns may have more concerns about taxation. If there is no one in the senate that is concerned with civil rights because none of them are adversely impacted by how rights are applied then civil rights progress will not be a priority when there are constituents for which it may be the highest priority.
2
David, your heart is in the right place, however you’re in the wrong house.
The House of Representatives is where this conversation should be happening, and it is way overdue. The first Congress had one representative for every 30,000 citizens. In today’s population that would be 12,000 members of congress which is of course unworkable. The problem is that the house of representatives is set at 435, memorialized in the reapportionment act 1929. As the US population grows the citizen representation ratio continues to shrink. The best ration is 582,658:1 for Wyoming. The worst is California at 723,255:1.
Going forward the size of the house needs to grow to have US Representatives really have the capacity to represent their districts. My thought is that we use Wyoming as the base line and establish a representation ratio of 600,000:1 Wyoming would remain at 1 representative and California would gain 11, Texas would gain 8. Red and Blue states would gain with a result that would be a much more equitable for all Americans. Every 10 years we reset the ratio based on the least populated state to maintain equity.
Before I get challenged that this is a backdoor to disrupt the electoral college, under my plan, the electoral college results for 2016 would still have yielded a Trump victory.
Let’s start a grass roots campaign to increase the population of the house to better represent all citizens.
5
Those who live in Washington, DC pay income tax and those who live in Puerto Rico don't. So maybe Washington, DC but maybe not Puerto Rico.
And states with greater contributions to GDP get less back than states less contributory states. Face it, the Senate is a disproportionate body and I can probably prove most anything because of that.
1
@Richard Frauenglass The senate is proportionate in one way, the number of state governing bodies that exist within the nation. This is as it was intended. The vast majority of the laws that pertain to you and the vast majority of services provided to you come from that state government.
1
@John The intent was to give the less popular states a "equal" voice and it over - worked. It was also intended as a "check on the rabble" should that "rabble" get out of hand. Your senator's vote is worth 2.3 times my senator"s vote. Regarding laws, yes the states have more of them but the "biggies" are federal. Regarding services, not totally clear if you mean number of - or dollar value, but more of my tax dollars go to your state than return to mine.
1
Not only is the Senate a patriarchal Republican one, it's also a lily-white Republican one. I am encouraged by the prospects of Democrats recapturing the House but fear the Senate will continue to be led by the cantankerous and duplicitous Mitch McConnell. Let's not forget that McConnell excoriated his "friends across the aisle" for attempting to delay the confirmation of Kavanaugh yet he rebuffed President Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland over a ten month period. If that's not naked hypocrisy, what is?
3
@nzierler Aren't Kamala Harris and Cory Booker both Senators?
2
"The anti-democratic tendencies of the Senate are well known: Each citizen of a small state is considered more important than each citizen of a large state. "
Take a civics course Mr. Leonhardt. The Senate represents the STATES themselves, not citizenry (the House takes care of that). We are not a democracy, we are a federal republic. If you want that to change, then propose a constitutional amendment to abolish the Senate.
13
I agree with this article. I would also go a step further, and add Senate positions to the "high population" states, like CA, NY, TX, FL, and a few others.
A key principal upon which America was founded was to fight against "taxation without representation." That is happening right now in PR, DC, and the Pacific Islands.
It is also happening, albeit on a lesser scale, to the highly populated states (in that the people in those states have materially less proportionate representation now in the Senate).
The Senate plays a major role in many aspects of federal government. Its current membership does not properly reflect the county. It is time to rectify this non-representation and under-representation.
1
And ponies for everyone
5
Would it not make more sense to instead increase Senate representation from more populous states? Could larger, more diverse states have 3 or 4 reps instead of 2?
1
I agree with the poster Doug Terry that the fundamental problem is the terminal failure of the Senate to represent the people of the U.S. Merely adding Puerto Rico and the District DOES NOT alter this.
Some re-apportionment of the number of senators-to-states is the only way to break the tyranny of minority rule. I cannot at this point suggest a new apportionment, but I believe race to be a needlessly contentious basis on which to build this reform. Whether regionalism or some designation of large cities (SMSAs) would help spread representation more fairly, this is the crucial constitutional question of this century.
Even people in medium-sized states lose the franchise to the vast empty spaces of the West or the tiny preciousness of Vermont. There could be a lot of winners under a wisely-drawn new apportionment.
However sound your historical analysis, please have the foresight enough NOT to turn this essential reform into a competition among the races. That's just not constructive.
2
@Karen Owsowitz
“failure of the Senate to represent the people “
The role of the Senate has always been to represent the states not the people.
The House represents the people.
1
We need a good class war in this country. Maybe that would help the working-class see who they really are, then they would vote for themselves, not the Republicans.
The liberals real problem with the Senate is that it's currently controlled by Republicans. Wait until the Democrats once again have the majority and watch how quickly all these arguments disappear.
12
Interesting that liberals seem to have a plan for everything EXCEPT actually winning elections. Sorry, kids, but President Trump is what you get for voting for Jill Stein, just like George W. Bush is what you got for voting for Ralph Nader.
Use your brains, don't throw away your votes, and we won't have to pack the Supreme Court or start adding states so you can have power.
8
We need to realign the US Senate. The current system is unfair and undemocratic and, on top of that, distorts the results of presidential elections through the Electoral College.
Here is a proposal:
All states should get one senator and the more populous states two, as now. The "extra" senators left over by giving the smaller states only one would be given, one at a time, to the larger states. There would still be some "left over". This number could run in regional elections to represent a whole region of the nation, but, critically, regions chosen for economic diversity, not uniformity. Just like the House is reapportioned every ten years (each House district now represents about 770.000 citizens), the regional senators could be reapportioned also. (How about every 20 yrs.?)
This system would not result in a perfect alignment of population to representation, but that's okay. Perfect should not be the goal, but better, broader representation.
Having some senators representing regions of the nation would have many benefits. Those who were elected on a region wide basis would be natural candidates to elevate to the presidency, especially so because they would understand how to represent diverse populations and had won election by a number of states.
At present, the system pits state against state and creates animosity not cooperation. To be successful going forward, we need to encourage both competition and cooperation. Otherwise, we are likely to fail, big time.
1
Regardless of whether you are an old white man, or Asian American, or Hispanic American, or Black American, as an American should you not favor health care and justice for all? Apparently not - apparently each group has to advocate separately for their health care and their justice??
Could it be that the GOP makes that necessary?? Eh??
3
Lets's see:
- genocide natives and steal their land: CHECK
- bring in millions of black people and get them to build the country for free: CHECK
- bring in millions of brown people and get them to provide intellectual and physical labour at low cost, while white suave golf-playing managers take the credit: CHECK
- claim that whites are racially superior and "built all this stuff": CHECK
- have a lockdown on political power for white people: CHECK
Yep, sounds good.
10
@KS - hey you forgot a check mark for DT.
1
This is a bigger problem. States are outmoded as a concept, at least as they relate to federal representation. Many state lines were drawn as a result of colonization by other nations - essentially, arbitrary lines. Worse, we had a rural, dispersed, agrarian economy controlled by wealthy white land (slave) owners when the Constitution was written.
Today, we have an urban society which makes a vastly and disproportionately larger contribution to our economy as compared to that of rural agricultural areas.
Said another way: If the economy of today had been the economy when the Constitution was ratified, the weights for representation of states at the federal level would look entirely different, and rightly so.
5
@Yoyo
Thanks for your comment. We need to realign the US Senate. All states should get one senator and the more populous states two, as now. The "extra" senators left over by giving the smaller states only one would be given, one at a time, to the larger states. There would still be some "left over". This number could run in regional elections to represent a whole region of the nation, but, critically, regions chosen for economic diversity, not uniformity. Just like the House is reapportioned every ten years (each House district now represents about 770.000 citizens), the regional senators could be reapportioned also. (How about every 20 yrs.?)
This system would not result in a perfect alignment of population to representation, but that's okay. Perfect should not be the goal, but better, broader representation.
Having some senators representing regions of the nation would have many benefits. One is that they would have to tailor their messages to appeal to a broad cross section of voters, not just one state. Also, those who were elected on a region wide basis would be natural candidates to elevate to the presidency, especially so because they understood how to represent diverse populations and had won election by a number of states.
The current system is unfair and undemocratic and, on top of that, distorts the results of presidential elections through the Electoral College.
At present, the system pits state against state and creates animosity not cooperation.
1
Cool, now do white gentiles. Are they over-represented in the Senate despite their majority share of the population?
(BTW, you called white Americans a minority in your second paragraph. How can anyone take the rest of your argument seriously, after that?
10
Dear Mr. Leonhardt....I doubt you will solve "racism" by re-inforcing racial differences. Maybe you shoulda listened to Kanye West instead of laughing at him.
12
I am not sure if David Leonhardt is being serious about adding Washington DC and Puerto Rico as additional states to shift the balance to Democratic.
Historically, Washington DC is a district and not a state. This was done by our founding fathers intentionally so that states rights would not be a conflict. Also as for Puerto Rico, they were offered chances to join the Union as a state, but declined, primarily because the citizens would have to pay income taxes for essentially the same set of services.
Everyone wants their side to win. Are we next going to have editorial on why Texas and Alaska are geographically too big and should each be split into two Republican states?
8
“The Congress shall have Power To… exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States”. (The U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17)
Doesn’t this mean that a constitutional amendment would be required for D.C. to become a state? Please, Mr. Leonhardt, think before you write. Treat the Op-Ed page of the New York Times with the respect it once deserved.
Why not consider undoing our grave mistake of colonizing Puerto Rico by granting that proud land its independence.
8
I challenge Mr. Leonhardt to define "white". Define "diverse". He's very confused on the definitions. about 75% of Puerto Ricans also define themselves as "white".
11
Leonhardt is one of the best columnists out there -- if you like playing of the race card, divisiveness and identity politics. Given that a majority of the US population is bi- or multiracial (regardless of what "boxes" they check), nothing is gained by this kind of thinking. And his graph, which assumes multiracial Americans do not exist, is just another demonstration of the adage, "garbage in, garbage out." And all for the sake of creating animosity within society.
9
Like some others here, I'd like to amend the Constitution so that the number of senators is somewhat related to population.
Unfortunately, Article V states:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments ... provided that... and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
5
@Paul
Right. By design, the UNITED States of America is composed of 50 sovereign states. State borders are almost like national borders. They aren't merely lines on a map, like the borders between NY boroughs.
4
What's most hilarious is the insinuation that this was intentional.
5
The notion that skin color automatically determines a person's values and ideals is anti-liberal. It is also racist. It dehumanizes people by reducing them to nothing more than the color of their skin.
My white self voted for Hillary. On the other hand, my friends from India (naturalized American citizens) were rabid Trump fans.
I doubt that most people like being primarily judged by the color of their skin, lighter or darker. Or their gender. Is this one reason that Democrats don't win as much as they should based on their superior ideals?
12
@John Hamilton You nailed it, John. But I think you'd agree that the "identity politics" you decry is one of the Democrats "inferior" ideals, not one of their "superior" ones
5
I favor making PR a state under one condition. We move the prison from Guantanamo Bay (not a US territory) to PR. And, we terminate the lease on Guantanamo (it is Cuban territory and Cuba is a sovereign nation. Guantanamo is not US territory and has never been.
We can have prisons, military bases, etc and create lots of jobs on PR.
1
I’d point out that despite all the claims, Leonhardt didn’t say anything close to “whites are a minority in the country.” He said that states with largely-white pops appeared to have a disproportionate amount of representation in Congress, which is not at all the same thing.
It’s one of several ways that some very strange readings of this editorial are whipping in from the Right. Hard to explain why folks gets things that wrong without asking after their political rigidity and their irrational fears.
4
@Robert
The implication is that one cannot be represented by another with a different skin pigmentation. Seems a bit bigoted to me. No?
9
@Robert
I think he did imply that white were a minority.
See the second paragraph: "It allows a minority of Americans — white Americans — to wield the power of a majority."
11
@John Hamilton
Agreed, the statement is unambiguously that whites are a minority. Our "progressives" are not known for their math skills, or logic.
Complete nonsense -- starting with the premise that racial/ethnic groups have any entitlement to being represented on the basis of their race/ethnicity. Then this piece proceeds to the latest "progressive" idea that the Senate's allocation of two spots per state, regardless of population, deprives states with large populations of representation based on population. Why, yes it does. It was done this way on purpose to ensure representation of all sovereign states in the US, not just New York and California.
The founding fathers were highly fearful of the tyranny of the majority and went to great pains to build a system of checks and balances to hold the braying masses in check.
8
@Kurfco
The founding fathers understood the mob.
6
Yes, they somewhat did. And right now, that mob is in the White House.
1
I love all these Republicans basically thumbing their noses at fairly common sense remedies. They well know that their minority say on these issues cannot be overcome by our clear majority. Yes, it is WE on the left who have shown that we have the grace to accept unfair results from unfair rules, just because they were the rules. No Republican president in the 2000s has entered office with a majority or even a (banana republic) plurality of the vote. We on the left have accepted this fairly outrageous state of affairs, while everyone knows that if those on the right had to contend with this, a fair number of them would be out and about with their guns, completely enraged about such an unfair election process. And for once, they would actually be on the right side of fairness and justice.
When this country was founded, the institution of slavery was WRITTEN INTO IT. Don't pretend that was the only wrong or, at best, archaic structure that was part and parcel. And that was not remedied by a "constitutional amendment", but by a brutal and horrifying war. I hope to god that nothing like that is ever needed again to fix injustices in the structure of this country.
3
@Bruce
Bill Clinton have a majority either.
Republican Senators McConnell, Grassley, Cornyn, Graham, and crew would vote for such a Constitutional amendment authorizing admission of Puerto Rico and The District of Columbia right after Trump admits he could care less about knowledge, reality, evidence, and facts because he likes telling people what to believe and because he is so good at it.
2
The Compromise of 1787 granted Southern states (primarily) to consider three fifths of their slaves in calculating Congressional representation (which gave them disproportionate representation by which the Slave Powers protected the institution of slavery). Thus, every slave was counted as three fifths of a white person.
Despite the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act (mauled by SCOTUS recently) of 1965, every black person is now considered three fourths of a white person. Moving on up.
3
@alprufrock
Slaves should have been counted as zero because it would have reduced the representation of the slave states and allowed the abolition of slavery. Slave holders wanted slaves counted just like anyone else because it had the perverse effect of empowering slave owners.
The Senate was created as a brake on the House. Other than its advise and consent role on presidential nominations (where it is, again, more a brake than an actor) the Senate can't really do anything the House doesn't want to do. But it CAN prevent the representatives of a few large states from dictating to all the smaller states.
Given the Republican majorities in the House these last few years, I'd vote for a stronger brake, not a weaker one.
4
Shouldn't writers for the NYT know at least basic civics? The Senate was not designed to represent the people, it was designed to represent the states. Perhaps we could create a separate part of Congress that represents the people, we could call it the House of Representatives. Maybe Mr. Leonhart could look into this? And did Mr. Leonhart do this same analysis when Obama was President and Democrats had a super majority in the Senate? The NYT just keeps proudly displaying its bias.
15
Actually, it was designed to represent a wiser élite, as the Roman Senate had been before it. Unfortunately, that has generally meant whiter and richer than us proles.
3
@Robert Cory Booker and Kamala Harris are senators, and both are quite a bit richer than most white Americans, especially working class white people.
Go all the way David ! Two senators from each state whether small or large is a great mistake . The Electoral college is another one .
A lot of what is in the constitution is a sop to the former slave states and the so-called non slave states : creating an army to catch escaped slaves and fighting the Indians.
Wealthy white ( men ) settlers, (George Washington for one ) and slaveholders were the folks behind the constitution . Not to mention Alexander Hamilton. More or less this is the group that’s still in change . They favored minority , oligarchical rule . What a rotten development !
3
Don't stop with the Senate. Apportion House seats among Democrats, Republicans, and yes, Greens and any other parties that wish to run candidates, on the basis of their respective statewide vote totals.
2
Yes, the constitution has 'anti-democratic tendencies' as Mr. Leonhardt said because we ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY. We are a Republic, and our genius bi-cameral legislature allows smaller states like my native New Hampshire to have a strong voice in the Senate, while larger states like California have a strong say in the House. This is a strength, not a drawback.
I believe the real affirmative action for white people are the gerrymandered districts that limit the ability of minorities to elect representatives (that's what we do in a republic) in numbers that reflect their real presence in communities.
7
An alternative is to subdivide California into 3 states. Each would be more populace than most states. The Central Valley and the Sierras could be Eastern California. The Northwest and Southwest could be divided at about San Luis Obispo. That would provide Californians with better representation. The rural agricultural zone would probably be republican at this time but that would be fair.
2
All true. But numbers can play different ways. If you are a minority in Vermont, you get 5 Senators per million minority people. This gives Vermont the best senate representation for a minority individual of any state.
1
So, what the author is advocating is that the Senate becomes more like the House - population based.
So then, what is to prevent the 9 states which account for 51% of the US population from passing federal law with total disregard for the residents of smaller states?
The author is advocating for the tyranny of the masses on the minority (the residents of small states). Last time that was tried, we had a civil war.
There is a very, very, very good reason for the Senate to be different than the House.
Democrats/Liberals need to stop trying to change the rules every single time they lose an election.
14
Speaking of changing the rules, Democrats/Liberals ain’t the ones kicking voters off the rolls and rearranging the districts like crazy.
7
You state that whites are in the minority in this country. According to the census, whites are about 76% of the population as of 2017. See https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045217. I agree that the fear of becoming a minority is real, though.
4
Actually, Leonhardt said no such thing. He said that states with majority white populations appeared to have disproportionally breater representation.
4
Even before the hurricane, Puerto Rico was 70 BILLION in debt. Make them a state? Uhhh, no thank you.
8
Given attitudes like these is it any wonder rural populations tend to vote Republican?
The message from Democrats is clear: We don’t care about you. You’re too small to matter and besides, you’re all white. We’d like to silence your voice so we can do what we think is best without any resistance.
After all, all wisdom and enlightenment flows directly downhill from Mounts New York City and Washington, D.C. The idea that small states like Montana, Wyoming and Maine unduly control the political agenda of the country is a farce.
I can tell you that in places like these they already feel like they’ve been forgotten and have no voice at all, which is why messages like rugged individualism, low taxes. independence, and freedom from government control resonate with them, even when they come from idiots like Trump.
Instead of writing these people off Democrats should try acknowledging that they live in one of the fifty United States of America (not the People’s Republic of Large Urban Populations) and put forth a vision for America that has something in it for them.
Instead they resort to crass, raced-based identity politics, which makes them no better than the Republicans.
12
@John
Well said, thank you.
6
They preach rugged individualism etc but those places are the biggest takers, the hungry pigs at the Federal trough. More equitable representation would fix that.
4
A cogently argued article, however one cannot help but think that the ongoing problem for the journalist is how many causes can one unearth that is worthy of a headline. There is also the argument that causes reinforces self-segregation. When people, like well meaning journalists, (to be well meaning does not mean one is right) try to cultivate liberalism while neglecting the genuine foundations of a political order, the results can be...Trump. Although efficaciously argued, some might ask if this article is the misguided shilly-shallying of a liberal looking for yet another cause? You tell me. There are insights and perceived injustices in this piece and one feels it is fuelled by an underlying drive to bring us (go on, call me a deplorable) out of our our unfair and ignorant state of political blasphemy. Yet. is not the nation (the US) currently defined by enmity and might not a cause be a coming together, a cause which heals rather than further divides. But then where is the headline in that?
3
@Contrarian:
Very well said, but it's not like there's a *lack* of 'causes' - among which a coming together would indeed be a wonderful and indeed headline-making one.
Many of us believe that Obama genuinely tried to do that, and Mitch McConnell all but literally told him to shove it. I mean, do you see *any* evidence of Trump, or other Republicans, or Fox 'news', etc, wanting and trying to bring us together?? I sure don't.
By the way, one can tell you're really English in that your vocabulary is much better than the average American's. I'm pretty sure the so-called president and most of his followers would call you an elitist just for using "five dollar words"!
2
This chart is so awesome, and so telling. Just from a "status quo" perspective, it's notable that the ~40m people residing in California have per person Senate representation just about sitting on the "zero" axis point, i.e., too small to even show up on a graph with this scaling!! People in Wyoming are likely on a first name basis with their two Senators!
1
This is the moment we waited for. Vote out of power all the trump enablers-the gop. There is no ‘good’ republican. They are all just trump enablers. They have tormented us for 2 years now with crazy tweets, brutality towards children on the border and under threat from assault weapons, poisoning and polluting the environment and leaving us at the mercy of mother nature’s wrath for man made climate change, trying to take away our health coverage, enabling assaults of women, raising our taxes, subjecting us to white 0.1 billionaire apartheid and oligarchy, making us putin’s vassals, worsening the deficit by 1 trillion and endangering our jobs and pocketbooks by doing so- their spending is reckless, for inciting violence in charlottesville, for replacing impartial lower court judges with their cronies, for gerrymandering, and voter suppression. With a democratic congress we will check and balance trump and the right wing, we will protect and preserve our american values and bring about true change that makes america greater than ever
4
"The Senate: Affirmative Action For White MEN."
There are only 23 women are in the Senate.
Please stop saying "White People" when women are so woefully underrepresented.
3
With so much unchecked informal power in the hands of the resident bureaucrats of WashDC....it is the heighth of insanity to give these people even MORE power and representation. Mr. Leonhardt is simply not thinking this all the way through. A far better idea would be to RE-annex Arlington and Alexandria BACK into the District as originally set up back in 1792..........then when slavery was outlawed in the District, Virginia demanded their portion back....THAT was the bad idea.
1
We could also go a long way towards fixing our democracy if the Fairness Doctrine were reestablished. A large minority of US do not know what is really going on in the Nation. A major portion of US in the rural/small town states are coming to our debates armed only with lies and myths and conspiracy theories.
We have arranged ourselves into tidy little boxes arranged so that we can choose which kind of victim we would like to be.
I'm an aggrieved white man and those people over there are getting something that I'm not.
I'm an aggrieved white woman and I want to be secure from those "terrorists" over there.
I'm an aggrieved Christian and my faith isn't being taken seriously by those snobs on the coasts.
None of which is really happening but if F(alse)ox tells me it is all real who am I to doubt?
The other thing we could more easily do is take the koch bothers and their ilk's money off the table so that they cannot buy the entire republican party.
We the People must understand that the oligarchs do not have our best interests in mind. Ever.
Statehood for Puerto Rico and D.C.? Absolutely.
2
The working class in the US have no representation since the Republicans work only for the 1%. They could care less about the rest of the actual taxpayers out there.
5
How about taking statehood away from Wyoming, Vermont, Dakotas and Maine? Then maybe they would make a special effort to recruit non-white residents. How about Amazon builds their new centerpiece in one of those states to encourage new populations? With hefty incentives, of course, anything is possible instead of some long, drawn out bureaucratic top-down government solution.
Indigenous peoples, including Puerto Ricans, should decide this matter for themselves -- not another white guy deciding for them.
1
@subway rider Puerto Ricans are not "indigenous peoples." They are almost entirely descendants of Spaniards, other Europeans and Africans.
2
@subway rider Is anyone in Vermont, the Dakotas or Maine hurting you? Maybe they like their states the way they are. If they don't like beautiful scenery and peaceful, friendly communities, couldn't they move to NY or LA? Why do you hate them so much and why do you want to ruin their communities and lives?
As an historical note, I would point out that Arizona and New Mexico were denied statehood as long as they were not so much because they were so Hispanic, but because they were both heavily Catholic. In the middle and late 19th centuries, anti-Catholic prejudice was strong in the American power structure. By the time AZ and NM were admitted, they were surrounded by California, Utah, Colorado, Oklahoma and Texas, all previously admitted states.
5
More beating the race drum, every day from the NYT. Yawn.
Do liberals wonder why whites vote like a minority? Oh, they also vote more than every other race and also make up the majority of the United States.
70% of this country doesn't identify with any party right now, and that includes a lot of Whites, which made up 73% of the voting population in 2016 (according to the census.gov).
Instead of expanding the liberal tent, liberals employ their best 'identify politics', hoping non-showing African Americans, Hispanics (9.2% of the voters in 2016) all magically show up and vote Democrat.
I am solidly in that 70% that thinks both parties do not represent me, but reading Charles Blow constant 'Whites R Bad' diatribes, LeonHardt and Krugmen push me a bit more R every time.
11
Whereas I completely support the importance of this conversation, I hazard to say it misses the proverbial boat.
Where is gender in this article?
Women are tired of hearing only about ethnic make-up. Select any race, including Caucasian. Who in that race is more likely to be paid less and treated like less? The female.
We get the short end of the stick so often, we should have it bronzed.
2
@Sarah The claim that women in the US get paid less for doing the same job or type of work as men with the same skill levels and work experience is simply false. You've been misled by journalists who have no ability to analyze statistical information -- or who have some skill at knowing how to misrepresent it.
1
In response to mancuroc who writes
This is a bit off topic, but Puerto Rico (presumably with other US offshore territories) is home to another electoral anomaly. US citizens from the mainland who move there cannot vote in US elections. Move to a sovereign nation like France and they can cast an absentee ballot.
That's because when you become a resident in PR you are not liable for Federal Income Tax on the money you make in PR.
If you move to France, you are
1
Black, Asian and Hispanic Americans could move to those states.
1
All sounds kind of like the 3/5 ths compromise. Carry on a great tradition of originalism.
1. Count blacks ( now add hispanis and asians) as 3/5ths of a citizen for representation.
2. Of course no right , limit rights to vote! Yup.
Makes one proud doesnt it?
@HJR
I don't think you understand what the 3/5 compromise did. But don't let that stand in the way of your virtue signaling.
5
@RobIt yup it pportioned representation giving the South House seats for Black enslaved bodies at a count of 3/5. Yr proud of that?
2
Alpha white males have stolen America and the American Dream. Women and minorities are crushed in the dust of the white alpha males. Vote out GOP for our survival as America. Ray Sipe
1
The problem with the Senate isn't two missing states. It's that one man, Mitch McConnell, wields power far beyond the 800,000 Kentuckians who voted for him. The issue is rabid partisanship led by a man who is running roughshod over democratic rules. To be sure, the Democrats have had their chance in years past and have played rough as well.
While I applaud the idea of adding 2 states, I think it's much more important to reform the Senates rules. To wit:
- Let's allow a 33% minority of Senators to force a vote on the floor. Even if the majority votes them all down, now all senators can be held accountable for how they voted.
- Let's require the Senate to vote up or down within 120 days on presidential appointments. No more stolen Supreme Court seats from either side.
These could be enacted through rules changes the next Senate, or we could amend the Constitution to make them more permanent.
5
I'd like to have a rule change in the Senate where a senator's vote is increased or diminished relative to her/his dependence on federal funds.
Say NJ gets back $0.66 for every dollar spent.
Say KY gets back $2.00 for every dollar sent to the Feds.
Each NJ senators' vote would count as 1.33 votes.
Each KY senators' vote would count as 0.50 votes.
Representation based on taxation.
I'm very tired of McConnell and Graham ruining our future.
I'm very tired of subsidizing these states who consistently vote against my interests. Why do I have to pay for this? If my money is speech then it must have a greater voice in government.
I don't vote against my own self interests, but I'm forced to spend against it. There has to be a constitutional challenge somewhere in this.
3
Typical Liberal Racism. You talk about the black and brown people as if they are just your chips to dispose of as you see fit. The people of PR have voted against State hood several times. Washington DC exists under Article 1, sec 8 of the Constitution it has no pathway to Statehood. This garbage gets play in the NYT? Come on make an effort.
13
If there is a proposal of statehood for US territories, make Puerto Rico and The Virgin Islands one voting state and Guam and The Northern Mariana Islands the other voting state each with their own elected Senator.
2
If you’d like to know why the guys who wrote the Constitution had their doubts about simple representative democracy, you only need to know two things.
First, that Jefferson, Adams, Madison and the rest lived in a world that emphasized protecting their property, and simply didn’t include the notion that women, black folks, Indians, Jews and suchlike were really the equals of white men in any sense at all. Well, except for Tom Paine, arguably the best and most influential writer of them all, and the sure didn’t let HIM anywhere near writing the Constitution.
Second, that Churchill had a point when he said that nothing was more discouraging of one’s faith in democracy than five minutes spent talking to the average voter. I mean, look at a lot of the comments on this article. They’re just plain nuts, stuffed chock-a-block with wackadoodle “logic,” bizarroland historical “facts,” far-right nutbar shrieking about Venezuela, invented numbers, and crazy versions of genetics. Mostly on the Right, but not completely. Ability to read the actual editorial ain’t much, either.
It’s pretty simple, these days: democrats basically want more people voting, republicans generally want fewer.
So while this isn’t going to happen any time soon, good article, Mr. Leonhardt. Certainly fired folks up.
It’s an obnoxious ask, but could you do some writing on restoring voting rights to felons who’ve paid their debt, and the self-disenfranchisement of millenials?
4
Great, keep fostering more divisive tribalism. Not to mention the patronizing racism that Hispanics senators (for example) should be considered representative of Hispanic citizens and only concern themselves with Hispanic people and Hispanic issues.
So keep up this race baiting and then try telling a white voter that they shouldn't have a white representative looking out for them. I guess Democrats won't be happy until the entire government is filled with Donald Trumps.
7
Strange that this article wasn't written from 2007 to 2015, when Democrats controlled the Senate.
11
This is a very strange reason to call for statehood - and from a non-Puerto Rican source at that. If Puerto Rico wants to become a state, it should request to become one for some geo-political-economic-social reason of its own accord.
"Because the Sentate is a white male powerhouse" is... I mean, seriously, how can you spin this in any other way that political machinations?
4
The DISTRICT of Columbia cannot be a state as it is defined in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution.
6
Thank you for advocating for equal treatment and rights for all the U.S. citizens residing in the Territory of Puerto Rico.
4
The senate, and house, do not represent ethnicities. They represent states, and perhaps districts. Nor should we try for, or need, affirmative action in racial representation.
5
Well, then it would seem logical that white guys wouldn’t need to cheat in order to win, wouldn’t it.
4
Why 2 dakotas? Why 2 Virginias? Why not 2 or 3 California’s?
@Jackie Geller,
Why not just disenfranchise all white men for two or three election cycles? Or permanently?
I predicted this gambit back in 2009, when I wrote:
"The Democrats have solid reasons to promote Washington D.C. and/or Puerto Rico to statehood whenever it looks like they can get away with it. Each would provide them with 2 additional Democrats in the U.S. Senate, along with 5 or 6 Democratic Reps for PR and 1 for D.C. ...
"This illustrates why statehood for Puerto Rico and Washington D.C. is likely to come up again. ... What, are you against equality? ... statehood for D.C. and P.R. will at some point be turned into racial equality issues—which are hard to withstand under our age's reigning mindset. ...
"Threatening to split Texas into five states would be an effective Republican counter-gambit.
"... splitting Texas could create a net gain for Republicans in the Senate of 2 or 4 Senators. Texas currently sends two Republicans to the Senate. Five Texases would likely send seven or eight Republicans to the Senate, for a net increase of two or four—assuming most of the Democrats are corralled into a new Hispanic-dominated state of South Texas along the Rio Grande. Creating a heavily Hispanic state in south Texas would almost certainly add two Latinos to the Senate—how could anybody be against that? Republicans would be delighted to demonize Democrats who opposed splitting Texas as racists who don't want Hispanics to have their own state."
https://vdare.com/articles/sailermandering-texas-what-to-do-while-we-re-...
1
Yet another white man trying to perpetuate colonialism in Puerto Rico. We're tired of non-Puerto Ricans speaking for us and advocating for an political status that only serves to keep us under the rule of a country that has sterilized our women, stripped our rights, and made it illegal to fly our flag.
What Puerto Rico needs is self-sufficiency and sovereignty.
I don't deny that your intentions are good, but statehood would only make us a minority in our own land like the natives of Hawaii.
The NYT rarely reports on the issues that my island faces (I guess it doesn't sell), but when they do, it's always garbage.
7
What do Puerto Rico and Washinton have to bring to the table? Nothing, except that they are brown. PR is a third world country whose people speak Spanish while Washinton D.C. is a ghetto nightmare. Americans would love to have as a state Canada or England or Germany for example. These areas would contribute to America's greatness, not make it poorer and stupider which PR and Washington D.C. would bring. Oh, I just remembered they are already dragging us down. Now we're going to give them the vote to provide more damage??
1
1. No taxation without representation, y’all.
2. Of course this isn’t going to happen any time soon.
3. Unless us good guys get off our duffs and vote.
4. Speaking of voting, ever notice how the Right always tries to chop the numbers of voters, and the Left always tries to raise them? You know, like in the tussle over letting black folks vote at all?
5. Speaking of the Right, are those guys ever gonna learn any American history? Like, oh, I dunno, what kinds of folks discovered America, where the oldest European settlements in the country are, how Rhode Island got founded, who died first in the Revolution, what Hamilton’s ancestry was, what languages Washington’s soldiers actually spoke, who Tom Paine was, that the Gadsden Flag stood for national unity not Ayn Rand? You know, the little things?
6. Speaking of rights, ever notice that about sixteen things in the Bill of Rights are there to protect us from what its writers called, “the tyranny of the majority?”
7. Speaking as a white guy, boy howdy, are we ever whiny.
The country’s changing, kids, as it always has and always will, if we’re lucky. So pardon me all to blazes if I snicker at your petty little fantasies of an all-white America, then tell you to get on the bus and love it or leave it.
2
Having just driven through Wyoming, past miles and miles of nothingness, the fact that it has the same number of Senators as densely populated California is preposterous.
3
Dc and puerto rico ought to be able to vote. They are blue states and districts but could be red or swing states in the future. The residents should be allowed to at least vote in one state of their choice. Denying 4 million people a vote is undemocratic. But first, it is time to vote out of power the gop senators and congress men and women who voted to take away our health coverage, raised our taxes by limiting the salt deduction and gave trump, kushner and their billionaire patrons a huge tax break at our expense.
2
I don't dispute the sentiments expressed, but the facts of the arguments are not correct.
1) Caucausians still make up the majority of legal US citizens, and 2) Puerto Ricans historically, and on several occasions, voted against the opportunity to become the 51st US state.
It was only in recent years when PR descended into financial difficulties that they began to look favorably upon the benefits of becoming a state.
4
Clearly the 40 million people+ in California with the world's 5th largest economy , should have more say in the Senate than 10 least populated states--that have less than 10 million people total. That the future of the country rests in the hands of Senators of states representing less than 1 million people is absurd and antiquated and does not reflect the will of the people. Even the Electoral College ,with all its flaws, is clearly more democratic than the Senate.
2
The major unaddressed issue in the article, as I see it, is that in electoral politics race and ethnicity is now an integral aspect of partisan politics. Accordingly, any attempt to remedy the historical racial and ethnic imbalance in the political branches, particularly in both houses of Congress, will ultimately devolve into a bottomless quagmire of political partisan backbiting and hardball negative political campaign. Just as the effort to draw racial/ethnically balanced congressional districts has disintegrated into an unrecognizable and toxic slime, which SCOTUS will ultimately decide. But, unfortunately, statehood is a nonjusticiable political question. As a result, I fear that Washington DC and Puerto Rico will never become states until the Democrats take control of all of the political branches of the federal government.
1
Although the Republicans have managed to get conservative white Democrats into the party the old school racist aren't going be around forever.
While the Democrats practice identity politics, the message is it does matter if you're black or white. Modern conservatives don't care black, white, brown, gay, or what religion you are. There are plenty of non white conservatives with no place in either party. It remains to be seen what change this demographic will bring.
1
I am Puerto Rican. Leaving aside the nakedly short term, concern-trolling political machinations of this plan, let me explain 1 of 5 huge problems with this plan.
1) Have you ever actually been to PR and spoken to people who live there who are not resort employees? If you had, you'd know that residents of La Isla are an entirely different breed than their cousins (me) who live here in the states (mostly in NY or FL). For 1, they are FAR more socially conservative that most mainland Lations. In terms of religious preference, resistance to abortion rights, gay rights and don't even try talking trans rights...
It would be such perfect karma for Dems to agitate for statehood and then have PR elect a conservative senator that ACTUALLY represents their views...but this whole argument is moot.
To accept PR as a state is to take on a debt obligation that would make CT or IL blush, a deeply stratified social order (and many thousands living in truly 3rd world conditions) plus the unforeseen actual result of statehood: a new retirement community that will make it a purple state like AZ/FL.
5
Statehood for Puerto Rico and D.C. is a good idea, but Leonhardt made a bad case for it. It should not be for the purpose of racial representation, but rather for the purpose of the citizens of those states having adequate legal status and representation in the US government.
The rules of our Republic were written well-over 200 years ago, long before anyone had heard the grotesquely overused and abused term racist. The system is a result of historical accident, pure and simple. To blame racism is the last refuge of scoundrels who have lost the argument and lost the election.
For decades the Democratic party has bet big-time on demography to present them with a gift-wrapped White House and the Hill. To cash in on that bonanza, Democrats have manufactured white racism as their bogeyman. They have framed whites (and especially white males) as conspirators who seek to deny minorities their rightful place in the sun. The have tried the same tactic with women too.
Every statistical disparity between races or genders has been seized on to inflame minority anger toward whites. Truly a disparity is a terrible thing to waste.
They have even booted the white working class out of the Democratic coalition and then cursed it for voting for Trump.
Nothing can make amends for this cynical manipulation of race for the Democrats' electoral advantage. What poetic justice it will be if immigrants' children see themselves as Americans and not as members of official victim classes. Then the Democrats will need much more than tinkering with the rules to favor their chances.
4
I have been thinking about this for many years. As a Puerto Rican I was always told we were caucasian until recent times.
Then they started using the term hispanic.
I am sorry to inform you but I still consider myself white and a NY Liberal.
3
Washington DC should return to Maryland as county or city. Puerto Rico should have that independent status Puerto Ricans have often professed to want; this would save the USA from a hopeless dead weight economy.
4
Leonhardt must be really desperate. Making Puerto Rico a state is an absurd idea. This can not be emphasized enough. There is absolute zero chance of PR ever becoming a state...zero. It doesn't serve our long term interests or theirs. The government is unapologetically corrupt & inefficient to the core. That is beyond debate. If the PR politicians ran a state like they do the island they would be under federal indictment. Even before the hurricane hit, water & power systems were already broken. They have a $118 billion debt crisis because of government corruption & mismanagement. PR can afford to be corrupt because they know we will always bail them out. And we do. This isn't fair to us or them. PR should be an independent state. Right now PR's status as a U.S. commonwealth means its 3.5 million citizens don't have the full rights of U.S. citizens. There's no rational reason military or economic why the U.S. should have this territory. It's 2018 we should be out of the Empire building business. Economic & cultural arguments aside, statehood has never been a real option for PR. Indeed, PR's status as an territory means that it "belongs to, but is not part of the U.S." A Republican-controlled Congress would never admit Puerto Rico -- with its massive debt and overwhelmingly Democratic voting base -- into the U.S. It's wrong. PR is a nation not a state. The 1st step to getting PR back on their feet is letting them run their own country. The sooner the better for all concerned.
7
As a counter-argument to the idea that the founders intended to enshrine minority rule in the Constitution, I would highly recommend this article by Jamelle Bouie:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/10/minority-rule-not-in-the-con...
1
Of the 8 very white states in your chart only my state, Vermont is heavily Democratic our lone Republican major office holder is Gov. Scott. Liberalism can survive whiteness.
2
Apparently, according to NYTimes, every issue now needs to be separated into partisan groups based on race, gender, religion or some other trait that allows one group to be portrayed as taking advantage of another. This article could just as easily have been The Senate Affirmative Action for the Religious or perhaps The Senate: Affirmative Action for Men or ... It's all the same politics of division, with the NYTimes fanning the flames of discord.
6
Thank you for your article. It displays the ignorance of many. Without stats like this our ability to see how deep and low our privileged society will take us and how far from freedom shores.
Whether it is realized or not all, America is a land of the rich and the home of those that often die very young. Just ask a poor, black, gay, man in the south.
2
this is, of course, the front line in the cold war we are all hoping doesn't heat up
1
What about the USVirgin Islands? Another territory where inhabitants volunteer to serve in the US military and with a non-voting representative in Congress.
1
Oh, and abolish the Electoral College.
2
I don’t understand “identity politics” and I don’t see justification for Republicans to accuse Democrats of wielding identity politics.
As I see it, Republicans are incessantly isolating populations to tax or harass or deprive of constitutional rights—all in the service of preferences for the identity group known as white people.
1
How the Senate was comprised was done for its reasons important at the time, that quickly changed anyway. What makes this "tweak" any different...that in 20 or 30 years time would have any relevance for the circumstances of that time. It is what it is. To make 'em states would create a temporary "hoohah" at the expense of more important issues facing this great country. And as others have said what would be the "unattended consequences"....what have been the "unattended consequences" of the original design, I'm sure many of come and gone over the years...yet it has stood us well.
Leonhardt is hopping on a growing trend of bashing our republic form of government for not being democratic enough. It is utter nonsense and especially grating in its simplicity and mob-rule mentality.
This movement is asserting that mostly urban areas, and especially those with large minority populations, are ‘underrepresented’ by gerrymandering of House seats by the states and the Senate is unrepresentative for the reasons laid out by Leonhardt. He then puts a new, and even nuttier twist on it, by proposing Puerto Rico and Washington DC be made states.
To the last point, Puerto Rico has declined statehood innumerable times. Further, after their absolutely horrible response to Hurricane Maria, the US would be better off cutting this banana republic off to make it on its own. All the competent people have left the island already for America, so what is there to be gained for the US?
As to DC, if you go back and look at history, Virginia took their part back years ago. I believe under the creation of DC, it would revert back to its donor state, Maryland, if it wanted to be represented - but that would only be in the House.
Here’s an idea - if you want better representation, increase the number of House members. The current 435 should go to around 5000. That’s right - about 1 Representative per 60,000 Americans. Maybe then the House could once again represent the voice of the people and the Senate could act as the cooler chamber. Maybe both will start legislating again.
1
Au contraire, Puerto Rico has had referendums in which it elected to remain a commonwealth. So don't go forcing statehood upon it if that isn't by the just consent of its governed. White people settled the United States with a lot help from their African slaves who became American too with the ratification of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments. And white people still own the critical mass of capital in the USA by an astounding amount. Good luck trying to guilt everyone into giving away the wealth they've accumulated to help others not like them. It would take another Civil War to accomplish a major change in our governance vis-a-vis racial and gender issues. Perhaps it is coming after all...
Does anyone thing that the Republican base is going to stand by and allow a whole bunch of Hispanic folks to have votes that could tilt the current power structure you have quite eloquently described away from whites? Not a chance. And as we head into the Asian American discrimination lawsuit against Harvard, I think they are making a big mistake. They are drawing lots of attention to themselves. Whites absolutely, positively do not want ANYONE to get a leg up on them. Asians are taking spots white kids want. And there's plenty of ways to get the base riled up about Asians: Trump already has : "Chinese Americans are all spies". There's plenty of crime and gangs in the Asian world. A family of 4 Chinese Americans was bludgeoned to death with hammers in my town, allegedly by organized crime. The crime is unsolved. No one is willing to talk. Perfect fodder for the Trump base. So to Asian Americans, take off the blinders. You are next up on the Trump base's hit list. You are fighting against whites. Getting away with racism, sexism and xenophobia is right in their wheel house. You don't stand a chance.
2
great title! i got angry enough to read your article- and low and behold: I agree! thank you.
2
Puerto Rico should be an independent country. Simple.
2
Night crew seems to have missed it:
Why make them states? Neither have anything to offer--save crime and poverty. We already have Chicago, Oakland, and Baltimore. At least Hawaii has good surf and coconuts, and Alaska has great fishing, hunting, and natural resources.
1
Our great shame is slavery and racism. We need to dismantle the political institutions which support racism. Begin with the elimination of the electoral college. End gerrymandering. End Citizens United. Then sit back and watch the all white Senate become representative of the people it is supposed to serve. Alas, it will be too late for the lifetime memberships to the courts since the present all white rich boy's club has stacked it with their pals.
3
Democrats suggest forcing Puerto Rico to become a state, even though they don’t want to, because it would benefit Democrats.
It will irritate enough Puerto Rican’s that they will all vote Republican.
5
As long as the Republicans remain in power, Puerto Rico and Washington D.C. will never have statehood.
Vote them out!
1
Ah, an illegitimate Supreme Court, now an illegitimate Senate. All because the checks and balances system does not let the intolerant "tolerants" rule with an iron fist, demands they be accountable, demands that everybody (including the "baskets of deplorables' in "flyover" country) is part of the accountability. Again, faux victims proclaiming their alleged victimization.
2
Should the Supreme Court or Federal judgeships also reflect America’s demographics? Seven of nine judges Catholic. Eight of nine white. Six of nine male. Nine of nine people of privilege. Does it make a difference?
I will wonder her an idea that many will not enjoy hearing.
But it is important to think and understand...
Why are hispanics considered a unique "race"?
Hispanics - or prefered, latinos - are not so much a unique race as a mix of races.The conquistadors came from Spain or Europe, and were mostly white. The slaves brought from Africa were black. And the resulting mix in the Caribbean islands and the Americas are a mix of white and black. They share only a language.
So should Spaniards also be considered latinos?
And what about the Chinese? Shouldn't they have their own race - separate from white?
What about the Arabs from the middle east? Should they have their own race - separate also from their skin color, often white?
This notion that Latinos/Hispanics are their own race seems odd. It's not based on how other races are defined. And is more a commonality of language than of race.
Who else thinks in this way?
1
'It allows a minority of Americans — white Americans — to wield the power of a majority.'
Huh? Whites at 73% of the population are the majority. Of course whites are projected to keep losing ground but currently whites are still the majority.
Also, the metrics imply that citizens can be considered to be represented only by members of their own race? Huh? Many whites live in cities with black or Hispanic mayors, where are the metrics for that? The US did have a black or rather bi-racial president for 8 years, where are the metrics for that? Also Hispanic is not a race, it is an ethnic group, and many Hispanics identify as white, which skews the metrics.
Identity politics was a losing proposition in 2016, but keep trying.
6
I could not disagree with Mr. Leonhardt more. I expect this kind of argument from Mr. Blow, but from Mr. Leonhardt, it is very disappointing. I could not live with myself if I were as so ashamed of my race as he is.
6
David,
Only when Dems/Libs have super majority in Congress can this be fixed.
Here's how I think would more fairly representing states population today.
CA and NY should have 5 Senate seats
FL, TX, IL, PA should have 4 Senate seats
OH, MI, WA, OR, CO, MN, MO, OK, VA , TN should have 3 Senate seats
AR, MA, AZ, GA, MD, NC, SC, NH, KS, WI should have 2 Senate seats
AK, ME,RI, DE,AL, LA, MS,HI, NE, NM, UT, NV, ID, KY, WY, MT, ND, SD, IA, IN, WV only ONE seat each.
1
@MorGan That's what the House of Representatives is for. Read up on how our founding fathers came up with these ideas. It was to prevent _ANY_ single group from gaining absolute power. Of course, based on your comments, that appears to be what you want. A totalitarian Socialist State.
2
All agreed except for your omission of Native Americans, underrepresented in Arizona and the Dakotas, and against whom a huge voter repression effort is underway—namely, North Dakota's current drive to disenfranchise Native Americans who have no ID.
Please put our indigenous people on your chart.
4
Our daughter lives in the District of Columbia. Vehicle license plates there bear the legend “Taxation Without Representation.” Every time we go to visit I wonder if there is some GOP equivalent of British tea the residents could dump into the Potomac.
2
@Steel Magnolia:
I suggest advertisements for Fox "news".
Just because a senator, or house member shares my skin pigmentation does not mean I benefit. This is just another attempt by a "progressive" to create further divisions. I will never ever even consider voting for a democrat as long as they continue this kind destructive divisive identity politics.
5
Been wondering for some long time now about how many non-white votes are the equal of a single white vote, roughly; must be a way to come up with a raesonably fair metric estimate objectively (e.g. averaging polling results that poll for single issues, issues that clearly break down along ethnic lines (?) not sure how this could be done, maybe the ratio is as bad as 100 to 1 in many cases, nobody knows but such a study might be offly illuminating/embarrassing). Voting weight might break down in other ways too, women vs men, old vs, young, educaional attainment, relative income.......
How about we get to the single most important issue and it's not the topic of this article.
TAXES!!!!!!
Why is it acceptable for the POTUS and members of his family to not have to pay taxes when the rest of American people are required to?
Is it really worth discussing any other issue when the rules don't apply to Mr. Trump and his family when it comes to taxation?
Democrats should understand that this election is about taxes. Who pays them and who doesn't.
2
My comment did not get published where I mention that a majority of Puerto Ricans are white, so I try again with specific numbers and references.
Here are 2010 US Census figures for Puerto Rico.
White (75.8%), Non-White (24.2%)
Please use data when classifying people on race if you need to use an artificial category like racial identity. Just because they speak Spanish does not mean that they do not consider themselves white. If you need to use genetic data, then genetic study suggests that 66% of Puerto Rican males have white ancestral Y chromosome(Am. J. Hum. Genet. 81: 626–33.)
It would be much better not to get into racial identify politics in the first place. But the data indicate that a majority of Puerto Ricans consider themselves white and probably are mostly white from what I can see.
3
And once again Native Americans don't even make it onto the list of consideration for representation.
3
And the House of Representative gives considerably more representation to citizens who are "dark-skinned" (to use the authors term). The author seems to be asserting that all white citizens want the same things from their government and all "dark-skinned" citizens want the same things from their government but it is different than what the white citizens want. That's a pretty racist assertion and a pretty ignorant one.
6
Below Liberty Hound falls back on the idea that DC should instead become part of Maryland. DC and Puerto Rico should become states but if we are going to play the “fold ‘em in game as a different way of marginalizing millions of people (while asking how that addresses the lack of representation for citizens of Puerto Rico), why not Go full bore and suggest that North and South Dakota become a single state and, that Wyoming, Montana amd maybe Idaho become a single state, large by area but still small in terms of population and remaining overwhelmingly White.
1
Ockham’s Razor, yet again.
Move the so-called racially disenfranchised to Utah, the Dakotas, etc.... In fact, those wanting more voting power can do that on their own. Today!
No need for more senators or the infrastructure/overhead of more states.
1
Past time to give Puerto Rico back to its owners: Spain.
3
Splitting California into three states would help.
2
I believe that what we, as a nation, are living through what is the last gasp (albeit a long-winded, stage 4 hurricane of a gasp) of the white male hegemony to cling to the power that they have unilaterally and ruthlessly wielded over "the rest of us" since they decided that god was a white man (how convenent) over 2,000 years ago. (not what Jesus would have liked.)
This too, and they (and "the rest of us", alas) shall pass. All too soon.
Life moves forward. The arc of justice and all that.
Our great- grandchildren will look back and scratch their multi-cultural heads.
3
Why? Neither have anything to offer--crime and poverty. At least Hawaii have good surf and coconuts, and Alaska great fishing, hunting, and natural resources.
revive the basic ideals of democracy for other races?? what basic ideals of democracy for other races??
This is some outrageous race baiting. The discussion regarding PR/DC statehood should be had but contorting this discussion to a purely racial argument is just one more example of why Democrats don't win elections.
3
There is no good reason why a New Yorkers Senate vote should only have One thousandth the power of a North Dakota farmers.
3/5ths would be a step up in power. The country still has masters on the farm.
"No taxation without representation"
Wink, wink...
I am in favor of statehood for both PR and DC, but you can make your argument more persuasively without resorting to ridiculous and flawed demographic bean counting. First, the majority of the nation's beans are counted as white, roughly 70%, so I'm not sure how you figure the "minority of Americans yield the power of the majority," unless of course you're further boiling the white beans down to the whitest, which is to say beans of British origin, aka the WASP beans who certainly account for a mere fraction of the population (imagine that, Catholics and a Jew on the Supreme Court, the founders are rolling in their graves!). If you add in white Hispanics (who are certainly as white as any of the other white beans), the white population increases even more. Such is the case in PR, where 75% of the island's population is white. Adding PR will just make the US even whiter than it is already.
2
Really an attempt to expand Democrat base to get control of Senate and House.
3
Why not just scrap the whole system and move to a parliamentary system all the other democratic republics? Americans say they're in love with the "constitution" but it's been amended and changed constantly. The original version not only didn't allow women to vote but treated Black people as sub-human, giving them (well, their owners) 3/5ths of a vote. The document so many pretend to love was so problematic it required ten amendments to pass.
Two out of the past three President's have been elected by a minority of voters, and both were radical right-wing monsters. Besides being blatantly unfair this sends a terrible message to dictators and despots. Compound that by the Senate where tiny states rule over larger one's, and the 60% gerrymander rule (when "conservatives" pay attention to it) gives small states even more power.
The whole system needs an overhaul. Create a Parliament of 500 elected officials, similar to the House of Representatives. Elect the President by popular vote. Set either a minimum and maximum age for federal judges, including the Supreme Court, or specify a term of years; twenty should be a good number so no President gets to load the court forever. Bring the US in line with other democratic republics.
1
I know that Maine, Wyoming, Vermont and the Dakotas welcome anyone that wants to live there. They are very welcoming and friendly states. None were set up based on any racial priveledge. I bet that most residents in these state consider themselves to be "Americans". Mr Leonhardt, your writing is racially motivated. That's sad!
3
I say this as someone who will vote straight Democrat this election - this is the type of opinion piece that Bret Stephens was thinking about when he wrote in his column “Democrats Are Blowing It Again” several days ago – i.e., Leonhardt believes (i) our society is a system of spoils that should be proportionately divided by race and gender and (ii) I’m only represented in government when someone of my race, gender and religion is representing me. What hogwash!
I voted for Barack Obama to be my Senator and my President, I voted for Hillary Clinton, I’ve voted for women and minorities over white men because I thought they were smarter, wiser, kinder, harder-working and, most importantly, shared my values (not gender or skin color). So I'm very offended when Leonhardt says outrageous things like “the average Asian-American has 72% as much representation as a white person” – he sets us back as a nation and encourages white people to think themselves in racial terms and vote accordingly – Republican
5
Another unfair aspect of our system: Why do we always allow tiny NH and IA to jump ahead in the Presidential nominating process? By the time CA gets to vote, it's usually all but settled.
The dates of federal primaries should be set by federal law, with the earlier dates rotating among the states. Another advantage of this would be that the starting date could be set much later - maybe July? - which would make the campaign much shorter and cheaper. Wouldn't we all prefer that?
Of course Puerto Rico and other territories should have representation, as should the residents of DC.
And to address the issue of uneven representation between states, perhaps some of the bigger states should divide. We have North and South Dakota - Why not North and South California?
It's actually worse than the obvious Senate representation of States vs. People.
In the 1920s, Congress capped itself at 435 Representatives, a number that stands today.
The problem is that as the small states got smaller, the big states got bigger.
Something had to give. Wyoming, with just 579,315 (2017) has 1 Representative, serving as a sort of 2-year version of a Senator.
California, our most populous state at 39.54 million (2017) has 53 representatives.
At first it sounds great, like California has way more influence than Wyoming, and it does.
But California, with 39.54m people divided by 53 Representatives, has 1 Representative per 746,038 people, while Wyoming's 1 Representative only has to represent 579,315 people.
What this means, in aggregate, is that the small states have a lot more influence, in the House as well as the Senate. Since small, rural states tend to lean red, with some exceptions, like Bernie Sanders' Vermont, that means the country leans even more to the right with every increase in population in the largest states.
And that's before you throw Gerrymandering into the mix, and Democrats natural tendency to self-corral themselves into urban areas, which has surely helped Texas stay Red too.
The solution is to remove the Representative Cap, which really ought to be unconstitutional anyway, since it violates the notion of one person, one equal vote. If that was done, the House would surely flip to the Democrats, even without new States like PR and DC.
Many people believe that it's a leftist strategy to gain seats for the implementation of a socialist government. It's right up there with fighting voter ID laws, another perceived strategy for adding fraudulent votes to a failing Democratic Party's totals.
1
The states with the largest populations contribute the most to our federal coffers but get the least amount of representation per head.
Our nation was founded on the idea that taxation without representation is tyrannous and worth overthrowing the government.
The citizens of big population, high-tax states are the financial foundation of this country. The longer this goes on, the less stable we will be. I doubt NY and CA voters will tolerate this much longer without threatening the Union.
1
I agree Puerto Rico and DC should have statehood. I don't think it is time to do away with the bicameral system.
Especially at a time when so few understand what it is and how it is meant to work.
Consensus based on emotions sans reason is a guarantee of nothing but unfairness and instability.
1
While I agree that Trump is an ego maniac, bigot and demagogue being PC is not the answer to it.
Doing what you suggest is a good way to keep Trump in office for another term and fan the flames of racial riots.
We "received" Puerto Rico as a prize for our illegal war with Spain in 1898. Even then wars like this were beginning to sound the death knell for imperialistic countries re their illegal takeover of third world countries.
We never should have had Puerto Rico. They should have decided their own fate ie independence or merging with Spain or something else.
Since 1898 we have treated Puerto Rico as part welfare state, part island to be exploited.
We should not consider them for statehood as a means to punish white non hispanic Americans.
When they are ready to stand on their own as a democratic, economically healthy state and undo the many yrs. of harm we did to them only then should they be considered for statehood.
4
For a moment I thought this was a Charles Blow column. But a bit patronizing to assume Puerto Rico wouldn’t prefer independence, and DC could more efficiently be reincorporated into a state. Unless of course one is promoting a particular political agenda. More radical and representative, let’s move the Capital around the states every decade or so- a quick solution for politicians to gain some knowledge of the country and a sure way to dislodge the DC bureaucratic and journalistic class.
3
What about the average toleratnt multi-cultural economy-generating California? The average Californian has less representation before the US that African Americans!
Our two senators (both women, 1 white Rodeo Queen, and 1 black Prosecuting Attorney) represent 40 million Californians!
We have almost no representation in the US Senate. If we were appropriately represented in the US Seante (which means also the Electoral College...), we would never have allowed the mess to occur which has occurred since the 2000 Presidential Election and Citizens United (money just washing without limit into political campaigns).
Puerto Rico deserves to be a state - how is it any different than Rhode Island? Hawaii? Alaska (isolated all alone up there on the other wide of Canada)? Time for a bit of logic in Washington. But Democrats will have to take over all three branches of government to make that happen!
1
Am of the understanding that because some of the original 13 colonial states had more representation than some other states due to populations, the former's decided that there would be two 'senators' to balance the over/under of the more populous states with those of less populations...not because of racial inequities, which by then were well established, not only in America but else where in the world, particularly with Africans, and they were not even an inclusion in any thing other than a piece of human equipment for white financial prosperity and economic gains in business, particularly in the South.
Racism has always existed in America and never went away even thru public policy enactments to have otherwise. Even wonder how much racism played in the Obama Administration...against him and policy enactments.
With this said though, am baffled about this opinion piece, esp. at the end where you state that it won't make any real difference esp for racial gaps...they occur throughout America not just in small white states with two senators...
Ah, yes. Yet another complaint about the constitutional apportionment of 2 senators per state. But with a twist, it is, wait for it, racist. But of course, isn’t everything these days? It seems our founding fathers, 230 years ago, foresaw the settlement of states-to-be with small, white populations (think ID, MT, WY, SD, ND but not ME, RI, VT, NH- they vote democratic) that would minimize the political power of, among others, yet-to-be-discovered in 1787, Hispanic citizens. So clever! So foresighted! So ridiculous!
Two points:
1) don’t like the demographics of certain states? There is nothing that prevents the ‘right folks’ from moving in and making these states more to your liking
2) want to add states? As noted, there is a political process to do so. But an appeal to racial bean counters and Democrats (redundant, I know) is probably not the best approach.
5
@JB
Says the very unbiased person from a 96% white town with a *median* income of just under $210,000 per year. (Wikipedia)
Surely no entitlement to be found there!
1
The 3/5 compromise was racist.
2
@Camille Moran
The 3/5 compromise had nothing to do with Senate representation. Stating the obvious, or what should be obvious, the Senate was established to represent states, regardless of population.
I would love to see Puerto Rico become a state soon, assuming, of course, that they want to become a state, rather than a sovereign nation on their own. I would like to think--I'm guess I'm still a silly optimist--that statehood would prevent in the future at least some of the shameful treatment the Trump administration gave them during the hurricane sweepstakes last year.
1
This article is based on a belief that identity politics should be the highest value in American government. What ever happened to the idea that all Americans are American, to be judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin. We will never have a diminution of racism if skin color is the single most important factor in our national lives.
If blacks have less than 13% of the total population and one senator is black, they would seem to have fulfilled their "quota" at the moment, if we are designating seats by race.
Asian Americans are 6% of the population and have representation in the Senate. They are "over represented" by their proportion in the American citizen population.
If skin color is to be the determinant of all American politics, America is doomed to racism forever.
Whether or no Puerto Rico becomes a state is now and has been up to the Puerto Ricans. They have rejected statehood several times.
7
California should be divided into two or three states. It certainly has the population and diversity to deserve it.
1
If you want to make the specious claim that blacks and Hispanics have less representation in the federal government than whites, I would also like to point out that this same government massively discriminates against the average white citizen by taxing him far more heavily than the average blank or Hispanic citizen. A neutral observer would conclude that blacks and Hispanics must actually have far greater power in the federal government than their numbers would indicate.
3
Let's reform the Senate, yes, but first abolish the Electoral College! Citizens of small states have outsize influence in picking presidents. Trump was put in the White House thanks to this gimmick, despite sizably losing the popular vote. Now that's Affirmative Action for white people...
The under-representation you detail would appear to be a backdoor reinstatement of the three-fifths compromise in the Constitution giving slaves only 3/5ths the population for apportionment as non-slaves.
It's the Republican Golden Rule: those who have the gold make the rules.
Democrats should have done this when they were "in charge" of the Presidency and Congress. Why not? ex-President Obama, ex-speaker Pelosi, ex-Majority Senator Harry Reid. You guys should have played hardball!
Puerto Ricans voted to reject statehood multiple times. Why? Because they would then lose their commonwealth status and be subject to paying federal income taxes. They have nobody to blame but themselves for a corrupt government and the dilapidated infrastructure that contributed to the devastation of the hurricane. You reap what you sow.
5
I'm Irish, and that's very White. I live in NH, again White City. If the African descended Americans this author references (Liberals) needed a rep, they'd surely prefer me over say Kanye West. Notice that's a WHITE person better representing a BLACK constituency than a BLACK person.
The race of people is a non sequitur with respect to governance. What matters is ethics and courage and means. If you think Bernie Sanders is worse representative for minorities than
1
Lumping all whites - male and female - into one statistic may be convenient but it is misleading and disingenuous. White MEN currently hold about 70% of all seats in Congress, while white MEN make up just 31% of the population in the U.S.
Women are the most under-represented group in the U.S. Congress. Women should have 34% more seats in Congress than they currently hold, Hispanics should have 12% more seats, African-Americans should have 5% more seats and Asians 4% more.
While I am all of for statehood for D.C. and Puerto Rico (if Puerto Rico wants statehood), the misogynistic view that men are interchangeable with women (regardless of race) when it comes to politics has been proved wrong over and over, including with the most recent events in the Senate.
All citizens or nationals of the United States of America, indeed all citizens and nationals of every place in the world, specifically including the British Empire, should have full voting rights for all legislative and executive bodies and referenda which exist at the national level which rules them. All of the voting should be done on an approximately one-person-one-vote basis. This would include residents of all the smaller American possessions, such as the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa. These smaller possessions could be attached to an already-existing state for purposes of federal-level voting.
France already has such a voting system in effect for its overseas possessions. One major reason why the United States broke away from Great Britain was because we were denied representation in the British parliament.
2
The true "affirmative action for white people" consists of legacy preference for admission to so called elite colleges. This has been going on for a very long time, but it became more critical as more of the population sought a college degree and the prestige of going to a big name school rose significantly. It amounts to a disadvantage, a push down and backward, for those who cannot gain admission because the seats are taken by legacy students.
No one talks much or writes about this unfair practice. Why? Because people who have education and earn decent salaries themselves hope that their children or others close to them might benefit. It is one of those inherent prejudices born of their own presumed advantages. The problem is right in front of them. Silence.
As for the US Senate, it was designed to be an undemocratic body, acting as a check on the "wild passions of the moment" that might arise from the House of Representatives. We don't need that undemocratic structure any more, especially when senators representing a minority of the nation are not merely willing but racetrack eager to impose their views on the rest of us.
There is no balance, no compromise any more. The Republicans, when they have the chance, are all about permanent victory and revenge against the part of the nation, the majority, who don't agree with their retrogressive laws. It is too limiting to see this as a racial issue. It is an issue for everyone: fairness, democracy, majority rule.
2
"By contrast, the smallest states, like Wyoming, Vermont, the Dakotas and Maine, tend to be overwhelmingly white."
You and other people who constantly complain about the Senate act as though the population of the small states is exogenous. In fact, anyone can move there of any race or political affiliation. So go ahead and move there, or get Soros or some other rich democrat to pay people to move there, or get some big liberal tech company to locate a presence there. Given the fact of the Senate and the electoral college, location should be part of any political strategy.
4
@tanstaafl
The populations of these states are low because they have no jobs for people.
I grew up in Iowa and finished school in 57. At that time the state had 10 members of the house, it now has 4. The population is just about the same as it was then, but the national population has more than doubled and over the years Iowa lost representatives one by one as other states grew.
Wow, way to be completely ignorant of our government! The Senate was set up the way it was, not to give citizens equal representation, but to give the states equal representation. Citizens have equal representation in the House... if they were both set up the same way, there would be no need to have two seperate bodies.
Why is it that the left is so obsessed with race? Why is it that the left always wants to change the system when they don't get their way? Had Democrats maintained a majority in the Senate, we wouldn't be hearing a thing about completely changing the way our government was set up... same with the electoral college... I am reminded of those children I see in grocery stores who throw a tantrum in the cereal aisle when they don't get the cereal they want. I have no doubt that the left would go back in time to "fix" the current system if they could... but if the current system favored them, they would decry the changing of it. That is what happens when you don't believe in something (in this case, our constitution), your position changes based on the direction of the wind.
10
NO! independence for Puerto Rico! along with a number of years of financial support.
2
Mr Leonhardt conveniently skips over two important facts , first the majority of puerto ricans refused statehood in 4 referendums ( the left keep holding them till they get the result they like then it becomes sacrosanct decision ) secondly the huge debts and mismanagements of the island government are the real incentive to join statehood not patriotism .
Also your senate calculations are a reflections of smaller states getting 2 senators as do much bigger states with race playing no role , just split california and new york into 6 states maybe this will help get a democratic majority worth trying because anything is better then appealing to regular americans with a decent platform since they forgot how to .
2
This is an intriguing proposition, though not one that will actually happen. In reality, members of Congress pay heed to one thing--money, and lots of it. Whoever has the money gets the Congressperson's ear, and attention. And donors are mostly white, rich, and well-connected. As another poster noted, poor whites have been encouraged to identify with wealthy whites, rather than with individuals from other ethnic groups who also live economically precarious lives. This phenomenon has a long, long history in America. It goes back to slave times, when poor whites had little but their ethnicity to set them above their African American brethren. It wasn't much, but it was something.
I don't agree with David's racial take on it. The underlying principle of a fixed State representation is still sound, foremost because every American by Law is free to live anywhere in the US.
Moreover, without a fixed State representation, many important decisions for, say, people in Wyoming or the Dakota's would be imposed by metropolitans living thousands of miles away who have no affinity for or understanding of them. We live in a huge country.
The GOP has been entirely taken over by amoral and greedy billionaires. Don't be too sure the same thing couldn't happen to the Democrats. Taking money out of politics is the root cause of all America's problems today. That's what needs urgent fixing, not the Constitution.
3
Puerto Rico has enjoyed tax advantages for years. When they had an opportunity to assume statehood status, they refused it. How about just granting them the dream of full independence ad let them forge their own unique identity and place on the planet.
2
Statehood of DC and PR should be done as fast as possible along with adding 3 more seats to Supreme Court to nullify ill gotten gains of the Republicans/Mitch McConnell.
This proposal would not fix the fundamental problem of identity politics. If we take this a step further to assume senator is represented proportionally by the ethnicity (I know this violate the constitution), white ethnicity would dominate the politics because of white majority. We would then end up either like Brazil where govern distribute benefit proportionally according to the ethnicity composition of the population or like Malaysia where the majority discriminates the minority under by a democratically selected government.
Could someone with the connections please tell Dave Leonhardt that "race," to say nothing of skin color, is not a thing? That is, there are no "Black People" intrinsically. The idea "Black People" is a construct for discussion purposes, it has no value in biological or evolutionary science, it is therefore a very poor descriptor for a demographic. Yes it carries a lot of weight by it's implications, but in fact it needs to be deprecated.
This may seem surprising to some, but our propensity to honor the idea "Black People" is just habit left over from when African Americans were so limited in lifestyle that they were easily pigeonholed. The reality of this no longer being nearly the case is obvious if you know a lot of those African descended Americans we so often categorize by their appearance.
1
Sure, and the terms of annexation of Texas gave it the right to divide into 6 separate states, each with two senators, sounds like a great idea to me.
The Senate has become the most powerful political body in the country and the trend is toward old white people in 30 of the least populated states to permanently make it a 30 Republican majority.
1
As long as Senators are elected statewide and as long as every state has at least a plurality of whites, it is highly likely that the Senate will be mostly white without any political shenanigans. And as long as DC and Puerto Rico are solid blue, the GOP will oppose their statehood primarily for political reasons. It's not that there aren't plenty of racists. It's just that race isn't the main issue in Senate representation. If the shoe doesn't fit, don't where it.
Leonhardt's argument is predicated upon a questionable claim: "... a minority of Americans - white Americans - wield the power of a majority." Are white Americans really a minority? Not yet, if you believe Wikipedia, they are 62% of the population of the US in 2014. What year did white Americans become a "minority"?
2
And as an added bonus of statehood, your next natural disaster will warrant more than having paper towels tossed at you. Reason enough right there.
1
Statehood for DC and Puerto Rico is simply the right thing to, period.
2
Equal representation to every state regardless of population. NO, California or NY do not get to make decisions for the nation just because they are teeming with overpopulation. That's called mob rule.
Also, just because the mass population becomes darker does not mean they will also vote for someone who is the same color. Many immigrants today come from countries where they still elect some of the lightest or whitest to represent them. I have had some of them tell me, and it it is apparent they actually believe it, that they are white. Maybe the real emphasis should be on educating the populace which still harbors a lot of colonial era self hatred.
1
Liberals can't win the Senate, so their response is change the game. No surprise, but it won't happen.
5
Your argument is seriously flawed, and in some cases you are just incorrect. First off, “a minority of Americans- white Americans” isn’t an accurate statement, since 60% of people in the U.S. are white. Second, you are trying to argue that two new states— Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico— should be added the the Union, but this would create a state with 50% African-Americans and another with 90% Hispanics (according to the author), and those state’s senators would clearly be giving two low population states with a high percentage of a certain race overwhelming power over the government, even though these states don’t represent the average race of an American. This is not only the opposite of what the author wants, but it would also be giving voting power to a large amount of people who shouldn’t be able to vote nationally. This is because Puerto Rican’s on average do not speak enough English or know enough about civics or government to pass a Citizenship Test, the requirement for immigrants who want to participate in democracy, and it would allow a large amount of voters who know little about U.S. politics to influence our election, something which is very dangerous for democracy. When the author says “image the Fox News outrage if [U.S. citizens without senate representation] were white evangelicals. “ White Evangelicals on average know more English and Civics, and could pass a Citizenship Test. Having a citizenship test for everyone 18 to allow them to vote would smarter.
3
Leonhardt calculates: “The Senate gives the average black American only 75 percent as much representation as the average white American. The average Asian-American has 72 percent as much representation as a white person. And the average Hispanic American? Only 55 percent as much. That’s right — the structure of the United States Senate treats a Hispanic citizen as only about half as important as a white citizen.”
A disturbing aspect of this assessment is that it supposes that these categories identify folks with distinctly different agendas that need representation. That is already an admission of failure to put human rights front and center, because things like health care and justice should be universal and espoused by every group. Except the GOP Congress that is.
2
I disagree with the premise of this article but It is obvious some people need a lesson in American history.
There were laws that not only banned people from moving to a state based on race but also forced them to leave the state under penalty of jail, whippings or death. A classic example was the PETER BURNETT LASH LAW. It barred blacks, both slaves and free, from Oregon. Slave owners with black slaves had to sell them and free blacks had to leave. Similar events occurred in states like Oklahoma which was originally intended to be a state for Blacks and Native Americans. Such laws were enacted by white settlers trying to prevent that from happening . It was part of the lingering resentment that led to the Black Wall Street massacre.
Such rules were often unofficially enforced but the Burnett Law is an example of how such rules actually became law. The real truth is some of these laws have never been officially abolished and still sit on the books.
Often such laws were unofficially
And while we're at it, let's move to formally recognize our two countries: a Red U.S. and a Blue U.S. . . . we can put the capital of the former in, say, Billings, Montana, and the capital of the latter in, say, Boston, Massachusetts. Anyone wanna second me on this?
2
Yes, but what would be the capital of Washington DC?
Leftists now realize they are not going to win the Senate this election cycle and so they begin to trot out these ridiculous ideas to attempt to tip the balance in their favor. I have a better idea. Instead of having the House of Representatives be apportioned by population, let's move to an apportionment by land area. Take a good look at a map of the USA with red/blue areas colored in and you can immediately see why this would be such a great idea.
4
If the Democrats insist upon showering rights and benefits on non-citizens, such as the asylees from central America, "(would you like Medicaid with that "credible threat" to your life, sir?"), I believe we are fated to lose our shirts, pants, sox, sandals, and sombreros to the lowest form of political life that America has ever known, the GOP.
2
The Constitutional requirement for two senators from every state regardless as to the their population makes exactly as much sense logically and morally as counting slaves (who were virtually all black) as three-fifths of a person.
1
I'll be willing to exchange thoughts with David Leonhardt once he turns on the Republican shame in the 2016 denial of even a hearing (much less a vote) on Merrick Garland.
As for DC and Puerto Rico, of course they should both become states if their populations so wish.
1
So let me get this straight. I live in a blue state and not only is it expected that I’ll be ruled by a white Evangelical Christian minority but it’s also expected that I subsidize that minority.
That’s the most galling aspect of this. These red states that wield disproportionate power are nothing but welfare states, unable to support themselves.
2
So the plan for Democrats to seize power is to create new states, and revise the system covering the existing ones, based on race? And to assume crude divisions by race (the assumption all "whites" from Bill Gates to the homeless guy in the park vote the same) will now and forever play out as intended, with POC flocking to elect Democrats just because? Seriously, this counts as thoughtful commentary?
5
It is a reasonable question to ask; why should states such as Wyoming, Maine or North Dakota have two senators for their very small populations, while Texas, California, and NY have only two Senators for their very large populations? The proportionality is unreasonable by any standard.
While the addition of PR or DC may be an option regarding 'affirmative action for white people'; it does not address 'affirmative action' for all citizens living in very large states. I do believe this country must have a very serious constitutional discussion and debate on the reasonableness of the representation each American has in the US Senate. It appears inherently unequal and disproportionate at this time in our history.
Gosh, Mr Leonhardt, the idea of "making Puerto Rico the 51st state" sure does sound attractive to liberals, but shouldn't we at least ask the people of Puerto Rico if they want to be a state? Just a thought.
In 1998, the people of Puerto Rico voted against statehood. In 2012, the people of Puerto Rico voted against statehood. In 2017, only one in five Puerto Rican voters voted for statehood.
So, doesn't the idea that we should just wave a legislative wand and make Puerto Rico a state, because it might help the Resistance, sound a little neo-colonialist? Okay, perhaps neo-colonialism is just a small speed bump for Trump-haters, but when Mr Leonhardt says it's just a matter of "Congress would need to pass a bill, and the president would need to sign it," will that bill include funding for the invasion?
5
Who knew? The US Senate is just another manifestation of white power. The latest dopey idea to come out of this unhealthy obsession with race.
7
@KJ mcNichols
Funny how the liberals are the most racist people in the country, as demonstrated by this article.
3
Here's an idea that would accomplish the same goal, and in perhaps a more equitable way: add a Senator for any metro area over a certain size (say, 5 million people).
This does have the downside of requiring a Constitutional amendment--meaning it likely only makes sense if part of a package of other reforms. But it would help equalize our politics and add an interesting and helpful new dynamic by creating power blocs that don't conform to state boundaries. I suspect it also would help de-polarize politics, on the logic that (as is often said of mayors) there is no Republican or Democratic way to clear the snow or fix a pothole.
Everyone knows the point of Senate is to be anti-majoritarian right? Its right in the Federalist Papers, this is not some secret conspiracy. If it was, its the worst one in American history by a country mile.
The House is supposed to be the raucous majoritarian abomination that reflects the populations of the various States of the Union.
The Senate is supposed to be cool, deliberative, and concerned with the interests of the States they represent. A useful check on the passions of the House.
As for the statehood of Puerto Rico, I see no real issues philosophically besides balance in the Senate, an entirely political question.
I am, however, fully opposed to the Statehood of DC. The City is supposed to be preserve exclusively of the Federal Government where it does not compete for authority with a State government.
Moreover, were DC to be a State, it would be giving undue prestige to one of the States by letting it host the nations capital. The Federal government should be the government of all the States, and to be unbiased should not be associated with any.
4
Mr. Leonhardt might want to retake 8th grade civics. His wonderfully imaginative take on why the Senate was created would get a laugh out of the other kids, but there’s a small chance he could actually gain a understanding of how the system was designed to work. As a bonus, he’d learn about “The House of Representatives.”
5
Representation in the Senate is not the only problem reassessing statehood could solve. Right-sizing states will also improve state government. Excessively small states lack resources for scale, and excessively large states aren't responsive to regional concerns.
Consolidate Idaho and Montana with the Dakotas.
Consolidate Colorado and Wyoming.
Consolidate VT, NH, and ME.
Consolidate CT and RI.
Consolidate DC, MD and DE.
Split CA into 4 states.
Split NY, TX and FL into 2 states.
Add Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands as a new state.
Voila! 50 states. More proportional representation, affecting both blue and red states.
2
I have difficulty reading words that say Montana and Colorado are small states without giggling.
2
The Constitution, a state-of-the-art document in the 1780's, is now old and creaky. The world has changed (understatement) and the country and the Constitution hasn't kept up.
Country: every other advanced country has public transportation infrastructure that puts the US to shame. Go to any airport in Germany, The Netherlands, Japan, China, Singapore and see how you can take a train *from the airport* to your destination city. Here, not so much.
The Legislature -- the House -- that was supposed to be most beholden to The People is not any more. They are beholden to the oligarchs, the richest, and the corporations who buy their election by financing them. This is legalized bribery, aided and abetted by SCOTUS. Can you say corruption?
The Senate represents the geographical dirt where descendants of Europeans live with lots of lebensraum between them and their neighbors. One can see that there is taxation without representation: the red states with fewer folk get more back from the Federal Government than they send. The big blue states send more money to the US Treasury than they get back. So the over-represented, sparsely populated, red states are on the government teat and don't seem to mind. Their senators successfully misdirect voter attention to guns, abortions, LGBTQ rights, and the like, while America slides further behind the rest of the world.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-states-are-gi...
1
Mr. Leonhardt is obviously suffering from diminished intellectual capacity as he clearly fails to understand how the Senate is actually elected and why the Constitution has established 2 Senators per State. Our nation is a Republic and the reasons for such lay deep in our historical roots. The Senate serves as a counterweight to the madness that commonly afflicts the popularly elected House of Representatives. This is to prevent not only the tyranny of the majority but to prevent mob rule. He only needs to crack open a history book on the French Revolution to understand that reasoning.
His additional racist commentary is rooted in his own biases and suffering of white guilt. He obviously believes that racial groups should not only be massed together for purposes of political identity, but also group think. He seems to believe that the racial identity, hidden deep in the DNA of the individual, gives them a specific and particular political dogma that is somehow being suppressed by the Constitutional framework that elects the Senate. He is treading on dangerous ground by silencing the rights of citizens of smaller and less populated states and subjugating them to the tyranny of the more populous states. I am sure that no one in Middle America wants to have their lives dictated by the citizens of NY or California.
7
While you’ve got a point about what Jefferson et al called, “the tyranny of the majority,” I take it that you don’t realize you just stood up for a tyranny of the white minority.
Anyway, I don’t exactly get how winning the franchise for about four or five million Americans is exactly Godless Communism.
The status of Peurto Rico has always been their choice. It makes no sense to say "this is what we should do …". It's up to them, always has been. As for DC, it is insane to think that it should be it's own state. Make it part of Maryland for representation, but that's it. Why does everything have to be made into a racial issue? This race bating is one thing that really irritates many Americans. Shame on you!
4
"It allows a minority of Americans — white Americans — to wield the power of a majority."
Quite a bold claim. According to the Census Bureau, whites (excluding hispanic) account for 60.7% of the american population.
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045217
2
Uh huh, the Republicans will now just fall all over themselves to vote to create a permanent Democratic Senate majority.
Really, why write and, worse, why public such political drivel.
Equal representation in the Senate, which provides an extra two votes in the Electoral College for each state, is part of the deal not just between large and small states in 1787 but between slave states and states that had abolished slavery, then actually only Pennsylvania, or were on their way to abolishing it, like those of New England and the upper mid-Atlantic.
The racial disparities are built in by the same Constitution that would makes statehood to D.C. and Puerto Rico political totally impossible because it needs Republican votes or an elected Article I and Article II government controlled entirely by Democrats.
Surely Mr. Leonhardt and the Times know this and have better things to write about than this foolish conjecture.
1
For God's sake we need to stop fixating on race. It's beyond ridiculous at this point. So many people including myself are very tired of reading article after article about race and racial grievances.
If there are situations of overt racism going on in government, business, etc, those should be addressed. But stop with the suggestion that racism is simply everywhere and that any difference in statistics or numbers, is due to racism. Human beings are too manifestly different for us to expect equal outcomes and equal numbers everywhere. It's just not the case, and anyone who simplifies things this way looks stupid.
8
Actually, what Leonhardt’s arguing for is an end to old white guys cheating. I mean, if fair competition’s as important to you as you say, why work so hard to make sure that several million Americans can’t even play?
Two words: no chance. Nice try, though.
5
i watched a comedy special recently...... one of the first bits involved thomas jefferson coming back and upon viewing the current condition of our democracy comments "what? you didn't write any new stuff???" well of course we have amended this document but we have not done anything major since 1920 when we "allowed" women to vote. i honestly do not think that would happen in today's climate...... imagine fox news on the prospect of women voting! all the trumpets would fall into place and agree....
1
Speaking of significant American ethnic groups, how much senatorial representation do Native Americans have?
3
Fine; but then conservative and whiter states can opt to granulate down to smaller states, each with their own two Senators as well. You could break Texas into 12 little states - why not?
1
once again you fail to understand that the House of Representatives is a counterbalance to the Senate and reason that the counterbalance has become ineffective is that an artificial limit has been placed on the number of seats in the House.small populations states have too much power because largepopulation states do not have a comparable number of seats in the house to have meaningful federal power in legislation and in presidential elections.
based on population the state of California is extremely underrepresented in the Senate, and because the normal growth of new seats in the House was curtailed a century ago in political ploy which origins are artificial and have led to this disenfranchisement of states with large populations, and these states power continues to dwindle and there is a constitutional method availble to festore Democracyin our Federal Government, which is simply add seats to the House. Rvery seat added is acounterbalance against small state Senate tyranny and is also another large state Eletoral College vote
currently the syatem is so out of balance for exampl that adding 200 seats in house would not increase the seats of any of more than 20 small states
1
Mr. Leonhardt, hasn't Puerto Rico been given the opportunity more than once to vote whether or not their citizens wanted to become a state? They have always turned it down, correct. Please explain how they will now become a state?
6
Yes, the structure of the Senate, and the concept of Federalism, gives a citizen of Montana more representation than a citizen of New York. But it was not intended to be racially discriminatory, nor is it discriminatory in practice. African American, Latino, and Asian people have the option of living in rural areas, but they tend to choose to live in cities.
Party control in the Senate has flipped over the last four decades- meaning the system has worked well. Maybe Democrats should begin thinking of policies which benefit a larger group than their voting base on the coasts, instead of thinking of ways to alienate people in rural America.
Mr. Leonhardt should travel out to the country more- he would likely find out that these rural areas are filled with people who are more diverse in thought, experience, and practical knowledge than most city dwellers.
6
Isn't this the point of the House, though? I mean, I get that not having Senators of more varying backgrounds is DEFINITELY a big failure, but would changing how many congresspeople come from this branch matter? To me, we should be more focused on recalculating Representatives per state, and ensuring that voting districts are cut evenly. Abolishing the Electoral College would also make this fairer.
I just really don't see how "everyone gets 2 Senators, period" is really the biggest roadblock...
1
Here's a better idea. Shrink DC by 90% and give the land back to Maryland. And give Puerto Rico independence like we did with the Philippines.
4
Good grief, the argument misses the main point: the baked-in inequality of American voting. We are not “one man, one vote.” The Founders came up with this weird system because they feared “one man, one vote” as a road to perdition.
Why, fellas? Did you think the the great “unwashed” would take your land away?
1
I beg to differ with your headline. the Senate is Affirmative Action for White men.
2
More Socialist drivel, trying to find a problem for a solution. The Socialists will never stop at trying to jury rig our political system to ensure they maintain absolute power.
It's not like the Senate is the be all to end all. And if you look at the history of control in the Senate the Democratic Party has controlled that well more than half of the time since the beginning of the 20th Century. In fact many of those "racist" states have been reliably Democratic over the years.
The intent of the Senate is just like the intent of the Electoral College. To prevent a small number, geographically speaking, of places from controlling the entire country. It's all about balance.
To imply that it's racist is to imply that lack of male teenage babysitters is misandrist. Or one of the many other stupid excuses that get tossed around.
And be careful what you wish for. Muslims have been openly advocating that they will breed themselves into a majority part of populations as part of their effort to eradicate infidel beliefs.
9
decently argued, but misses the point! It is democracy itself where the true flaws are: democracy is built on myths ( essentially a miss-reading of Greek and Roman history--both slave holding societies +). Read your De Toqueville (remember him??!!) Greek democracy murdered its greatest and wisest citizen Socrates--Plato had it right; but Plato leads via Rousseau etc. to modern totalitarianism. Easy answers ? No. Any answers-another 'no'!
We are trapped without hopes for solutions: a bewildering painful nasty , brutish Hobbsian nightmare--that is, except for the dominant whites who control the purse strings, the herd (the 'hoi poloi',following meekly, hoping, desperately to get rich too, if only they could! Where does it all end--fascism on the march--american style!
The Founding Fathers originally intended that only white Anglo-Saxon Protestant men who owned property were divinely naturally created equal persons with certain unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
After the Supreme Court of the United States, the US Senate is the least democratic branch of our divided limited power constitutional republic of united states. Before being amended the Constitution provided that Senators elected by state legislatures. While the President of the United States is elected by the Electoral College the only representative directly elected by the people from the beginning is their member of the House.
America is 73.1% white European American. And in the Presidential elections from 2008-2016 the white voting majority went 55%, 59 % and 58 % white McCain / Palin, Romney / Ryan and Trump / Pence aka Julian Assange, James Comey, Benjamin Netanyahu and Vladimir Putin white.
There is no Hispanic race. Having a Spanish cultural and language heritage has nothing to do with color aka race or national origin. But the two largest cultural and language heritage groups in America are German and Hispanic with 50 million each. But Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are as white as Donald Trump and Mike Pence.
Indeed there is only one multicolored multiethnic multifaith multi national origin biological DNA genetic evolutionary fit human race species that began in Africa 300, 000 years ago.
MAGA !
2
So interesting that democrats have decided they don't want, or need white folk in their party. One has to wonder how that is going to work out for them.
4
@jaco
If that's the conclusion you take from this article - assuming you really have read it - perhaps you think the Harry Potter stories is about a sculptor who 'throws' pots on a spinning wheel.
No wonder we have an impostor for a so-called president! We're not really so far from the ancient Egyptians who worshiped scarab beetles.
1
@jaco -- you keep banging this water-army talking point; it must be your script today.
Look at the Democrats in office: overwhelmingly white, and mostly male.
The idea they are out to shaft white people is silly.
2
This shows just how desperate liberals really are. Instead of gaming the system, why not try getting Americans to vote for you.
6
Giving all American citizens, regardless of race, a right to have a voice and vote is “gaming the system”?
1
@James: His point is that the system is already inherently "gamed" - or 'rigged,' if you like.
1
@Ambient Kestrel
D.C was purposely set of not set up as a state and not all Puerto Ricans want to become a state. This isn't new and doesn't have anything to do with race.
Whites make up 73% of America. Latinos (of any race) 16%. Blacks 13%.
So whats the problem?
Why do Democrat operatives in the media like Mr Leonhardt suggest our process needs to be fixed every time they lose?
Ok, I answered my own question. Because NYtimes employees like Mr Leonhardt are not reporters - they are Democrat operatives.
Has it ever occurred to you folks that Democrats are losing elections not because of race, but because of their policies?
Foreigners emigrate to this country (the legal ones) for a safe place to raise their family, and for opportunity. They are leaving their countries for a reason. Democrat policies of the last 10 years have strived more and more to remake America into third world welfare state. Hard working Immigrants dont want that. They want the freedom to be successful - in a safe zone. So when Democrats levy thousands of new regulations and higher taxes, that makes it harder for the immigrant, and even native Americans for that matter, to climb that economic ladder and become successful. When Democrats subvert some of the most essential aspects of American rule of law, like the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof, that makes immigrants wonder - That isnt the America I left my country for. So its no wonder that even many immigrants are voting Republican.
9
Great idea but this comes under the category of When Pigs Fly, and I don't mean on Air Force One. It's why the united states of amerika is a fiction. People never surrender privilege, it must be taken from them. Ask Louis or Marie. It's why the biggest example of fake news was 150+ years ago when Lee "surrendered" at Appomattox. If you look closely at the old Brady serigraphs you can see The Great Confederate holding one hand behind his back crossing his fingers.
3
There will come a time in the future where people clamor for yet another state. Consider the proposal to divide California into 4 states. That is a band aid to the problem, not a solution. A better answer to this problem is to eliminate the Senate's power to disadvantage certain groups of citizens instead of just adding more states.
The Senate should be representative of a state's population. Continuing the mistake of the Senate representing states instead of citizens is antithetical to democracy. The Senate could be abolished, but a direct popular vote would be easier to establish, and in the long term would be more effective.
1
Let's do it!
2
If we had 52 states, we would have a chance of playing with a full deck.
3
Wait a minute...
the legislator represents a majority of white people...regardless of what states they come from...because "white" people (whatever that means....)...ARE the majority of American citizens who think democracy means the "majority rules."
Assigning unequal representation to those who's skin color isn't "white"...(whatever that means)...is tyranny of the minorities. Also...it's racist.
People whose skin isn't "white" have the same opportunity to vote as those of us in states with lots of colors of people.
6
I wonder why the loudest traditionalists are always the ones who know the very least about the Constitution and American history?
For openers, I swear I recall something about, “No taxation without representation.” For another, the Bill of Rights, Supreme Court, Senate and about eleventy other things are in the Constitution to protect us from what Jefferson and Madison called, “the tyranny of the majority.”
I still believe independence would be even better, especially for Puerto Rico. If the "covfefe" GOP does regain (or worse, somehow retain or INCREASE) power, they WILL find a way to penalize the new state. We here in New York are a full (and original-13!) state, and the Job Cuts and Taxes Act increases our taxes to pay the leeching red states!
An independent PR, on the other hand, can ally with us and accept financial and military protection from us in the US when we're sane, and not be forced to accept Republican racist legal-maneuver whims when we're not. In particular, not having to tolerate the unqualified creepyfest that is Real(Creepy)ID is always an incredible bonus, and international travelers can stop in an independent PR on their non-nonstop flights without worrying about TSA gropage.
Stay gold, and governmentally and financially independent, Ponyboy.
White people are so bad. All they ever did is found and build this country. Now, people want to destroy it with their identity politics and turn it into a third world country so Dems can get the votes that white working people will no longer give them.
8
Good article and thanks.
https://goo.gl/tamspe
Democrats can’t win the votes of the voters we have, so the next best thing is either import more illegal aliens who might be dumb enough to actually vote for them sometime in the future, or now, make DC and PR states.
On the overly white thing, Democrats have been haranguing their base to distrust old white folks, so I expect the overly old, overly white Democrat politicians will be taken care of by patricide.
4
IF non-whites want to be better represented, then move to the small states where making a living is tougher, rather than congregating in the cushy big cities.
Tough love, but better than whining in place.
6
@Jack Schmedeman:
American big cities are "cushy"? LOL! You must travel first class all the way.
2
@Jack Schmedeman:
Also, if the cities are so 'cushy' - or really, in any case -what about rural people taking the *opportunity* to move there?
No group better represents "whining in place" than Trumps adoring white crowds!
Feeling 'left behind' usually translates into "I don't want to move and I don't want to learn anything new."
2
1790
1
Dear Mr Leonhardt,
I'm afraid you're dead wrong. Puerto Rico should NOT become the 52nd state. It should become the 52nd, 53rd, 54th, 55th, and 56th Idaho-sized states.
Why don’t we just ban all White male GOP Senators? Isn’t that what you want??
7
Not affirmative action for white people.... Affirmative action for rich white people... there's a big difference...
4
What a racist endeavor.
Typical Democrat slavery-logic, which they could never fully shed even after losing a war to eradicate slavery.
If there are 10 Americans and two of them happen to not have a white skin, Democrats set out to divide the two from the 10, continuously agitate to highlight their differences from the remaining eight, and stir them up to move away from the unity of the original 10-Americans.
Is it even possible for a senator to represent one race and not another when speaking for their state as a whole?
If senators are agnostic to the race-makeup of their states, isn't that the ultimate non-racially representation that could exist?
Why would this ignoramus racist Leonhardt even do a study like this unless it is to stir up racial divide, to enhance the notion that some folks' skin color sets them apart from the American Family and that they need to protest?
All while all races are already in the American Family regardless of their skin color?
All while senators already represent all the people in their states, without exception, legal or otherwise?
This is an atrocity, but typical.
4
Watching you guys try to argue logically is like watching monkeys try to build a fusion reactor out of bananas and Legos. Less entertaining, of course.
1
....can the NYT write an article that isn't about some factor of race?
6
The press and their willing lap dog democrats have managed to demonize white people, especially old white men. That is the mantra, the new talking point if you will. We heard it at the Kavanaugh hearings, that the Senate Republicans were old white men and thus must apologize to the leftist mobs who trap them in elevators and chase them down the hallways for all the world to see. Well the world has seen the radical mobs, government by screaming, and the country has responded. Age discrimination and gender discrimination are insidious evils that a free society cannot tolerate. Our country was founded by old white men who wrote an enduring constitution that the democrats seek to rewrite to include government intrusion that was never contemplated. Madison would be turning over in his grave at the thought that the right to kill your unborn baby was guaranteed by his constitution. That is what the Kavanaugh war was all about. Abortion....period...full stop. Now that Kavanaugh has been confirmed, look for quick action and cutting back, and chipping away at the travesty of Roe v Wade. That decision will be reversed. It was on the ballot. Trump won. Get over it.
3
@Steve (and Ken and others)
I'd direct your attention to D Petersen's comment near the top of the 'Readers Picks' - of which this is the main point:
"Republicans see the demand for this as simply a ploy to help Democrats. But then, isn't the DENIAL of the demand simply a ploy to sustain an unfair edge for the GOP?"
2
Should be "...for White Men."
(or at least it least it would have outside of Washington and Puerto Rico, where it’s long been popular.)
Copy editor!
Making the DC "logic free"area a state is the dumbest idea I have ever heard. Making essentially federal government employees is like letting the inmates run the asylum. NO!! this is a terrible idea . Puerto Rico has voted not to be a state and that is a subject for their consideration. The entire reason the NYT wants two more states is to have 4 more Senators that they assume would be Democrats and thus push the NYT Socialist agenda. This has nothing to do with race or skin color, an attempted charade by the NYT writer to hide the real reason for the article. Second, equating the percentage of senator to race is outrageous, as race is irrelevant. Every single Hispanic I know voted for Trump and Ted Cruz.
5
My God David. Is everything about race for you. These states are not white by design. No underhanded ruse occurred to set up the senate the way it is. No one is keeping people from any race from moving to these states.
You are out of control and a major reason division continues to grow in this country as you sow seeds of discourse. You and NYT are just as responsible as Trump in fanning this division.
Get a life.
9
"It allows a minority of Americans - white Americans - to wield the majority of power." One would think that a columnist at the esteemed NY Times would have the basic eighth-grade knowledge to know that white Americans are still very much the majority in this country. And if all those white Americans are the hate-filled racists that Mr. Leonhardt and every other opinion writer at the group-think Times tell (lecture?) us incessantly, how does that explain the overwhelming popularity of black Senator Tim Scott from South Carolina? And sure a lot of people are clamoring for statehood for Puerto Rico and DC but the chances of that happening in the real world - and not in Mr. Leonhardt's fantasy one - are about the same as Ariana Grande agreeing to marry me now that she's back on the market.
5
Are we trying to create racial conflict?
5
Do you sit around all day and dream this stuff up?
6
See the research numbers? The references to history?
No, he doesn’t just sit around and dream up. That’d be Donald Trump, who doesn’t bother with petty things like facts.
Make the U.S. Senate more inclusive and representative of the American people? Admit Puerto Rico (Hispanics) and Washington, D.C. (Afro-American people) as States? You must think you’re living in la-la-land rather then trump-land!
1
"Dirt Senator" - all acreage, no people.
3
@rls Odd that somebody from Illinois would make this insulting comment, because back in the day Abraham Lincoln could have been dismissed as a "Dirt Senator".
That's white men, not white women!
DC and Puerto Rico should definitely be granted statehood. However, sparsely populated states should be amalgamated. For instance, North and South Dakota should become one state. Likewise, any additional states that receive an inordinate amount of representation that is not equivalent to the country's majority views should be altered to reflect this disparity.
This country considers and makes adjustments to its voting districts. We should also adjust our outmoded and disparate voting/state boundaries to reintroduce fairness.
It is true that the residents of Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia deserve to be represented in both the House and the Senate. And it is also true that, in the latest vote on the issue, Puerto Rico citizens voted for statehood. What Mr. Leonhardt fails to provide, however, is any way to get there from here in the foreseeable future. There is a smalller step that might deal with the District of Columbia — giving most of it back to Maryland. We have already given the portion of the District that was originally taken from Virginia back to that Commenwealth. We could give most of the 73 square miles taken from Maryland back to that state, keeping a kind of Vatican City for the Capitol, the White House, and the Mall. This step would not address Mr. Leonhardt’s issue, but it would likely be much easier to accomplish (though it would most certainly upend Maryland politics).
2
The smaller states control the Senate because of the obscene political longevity of their Senators. Term limits, which many States have for their executive and legislative branches (and the presidency, no less), would do much to dilute said control. However, the irony is that trying to get the United States Congress to vote itself term limits is like asking the scorpion not to sting the frog---it's just not in their nature.
4
A bill has to pass in both the Senate and House to become law. Every state has two senators so every state, regardless of size, has equal voting power. Adding a couple of minority populated states might dilute the problem somewhat as to minorities but would do practically nothing to alleviate the anti-democratic problem with Congress. A much better solution to the basic problem would be to abolish the Senate. Google that and see how many hits you get. Yeah, I know that abolishing the Senate is not going to happen.
@Clark Landrum Abolishing the Senate is a terrible idea. The Senate is one of the greatest parts of our government.
Makes sense, as an incremental solution. However, as you suggest, the United States of America may have "outgrown its clothes." As such, we may have to re-create our form of democracy since it is no longer 1789, with 13 states, a population of about 4,000,000 (where only men could vote), and an uncounted population of African Americans and Native Americans.
Perhaps a better form of democracy for a large, diverse country would be a unicameral legislature. And, let's not forget that several forms of parliamentary democracy function quite well worldwide.
1
The article omits that Peurto Rico does not pay federal taxes. Presumably becoming a state would require paying taxes like all the other states, right? Can Peurto Rico afford that?
3
They pay all Federal Taxes except income tax. At the average salary they have the income tax portion would not be much, if any. Might even qualify for some credits.
1
Not as much as, say, Jared Kushner, but that’s only fair. I mean, he’s important.
Yeah, let's now take on Puerto Rico's $71 billion of debt, and pass on the bill to future generations. Very gracious of us.
Do you really think that assuming greater bail-out obligations will be a popular policy winner for the Democrats?
4
Well, it should be a winning issue for republicans, who just backed another 1.5 trillion in dept just to cut taxes on corporations and the wealthy.
3
The central idea in creating the District of Columbia was for the national capital to not be sited within the borders of any state or states. This was to prevent the host state, or states, from having undue influence over the national government, and to prevent those that were not hosts from worrying about being treated unfairly. Thus it is a no-brainer for Puerto Rico to become a state, but the District of Columbia must not. It has legitimate problems and needs better representation, but another solution will have to be found. Improving the function of its existing government would be a good start.
2
Absolutely not! We already have too many small population states, and adding to them only dilutes democracy more, whichever party it benefits. The only sane answer for DC is to return the residential portions of it to Maryland. Puerto Rico should have become an independent Caribbean country long ago.
5
This, as the Author of this Opinion piece states, has been known for years. The question is, what to do about it??
Especially, who can you reconcile the political power of a group of people that are slowly losing their numerical power in the United States with those others that are slowly becoming the majority in within 3 or 4 decades?
How this is done will be the determining factor of whether this country will stay powerful and vibrant, or fall apart like other countries and Empires have done in the past.
The Constitution and laws can be used and is referenced like the Bible - manipulated for political and power purposes. Our system of government must adapt to times and issues.
Obviously lots is not working in government and justice presently. We need better and more adept reform processes. Electoral College needs to close its doors, there is ample good technology for one citizen one vote. Justice and bail and prosecutorial systems including how judges are put into place and how to get rid of them needs reform. DC and PR yes need to be states. We need nationally paid health care for all. Immigration reform. Healthy public schools.
This will begin to happen when the executive, legislative and judicial branches are cleared of the freeloading criminal classes.
I like the idea Australia has of making votes an obligation. How about a test for competence for high office, including a true background investigation. djt and his son in law would be in the big house where they belong of course, as would many of their enablers. The table has to be turned so that each citizen realises their obligation to the country including all of the people.
1
OK. Good. But what about the US Virgin Islands? American Samoa? Northern Mariana Islands? Guam? This would definitely enliven the Senate with another 8 Senators. Same arguments apply as in David's column.
The only place that truly qualifies for statehood is the Michigan UP. Yupers for Superior!
1
Excellent piece. Way past time for this. Want to help ???
VOTE in November. Exercise your RIGHT, which many people don’t have. Vote straight Democratic.
1
A far simpler solution is for the large blue states to split themselves into multiple smaller states. Voila!
1
Best route for Puerto Rico would be a total break with the US; become your own country with your own identity; believe me, you don't need the problems which come with a large country; especially, America.
2
Puerto Ricans are PROUD American citizens. Your response completely ignores the history and identity of Puerto Ricans.
Eighty percent of the population is white. Asserting that Hispanic Americans are of a different race, when 80% of American Hispanics are white is comparable to saying that the German-American population is a separate race. Which is a slightly bigger demographic than the Hispanic American population.
4
Well David, Puerto Rico's citizens have repeatedly rejected statehood in the past. Incorporating them into the US against their will is the ultimate expression of conquest and white manifest destiny, don't you agree? As for Washington DC, it is actually a city located in the state of Maryland. Their corrupt government is incapable of delivering basic city services and they don't deserve to be rewarded with representation by senators and congressmen who will be using the federal treasury as a feeding trough. Try again, Mr. Leonhardt.
5
Along with no representation comes no Federal Taxes.Agreed. It is a racist policy but most policies of our government go to maintain white hegemony .It is no accident that diverse people migrated to the coastal states where they felt more welcomed. The authors argument is moot because why would mostly white smaller states give up their power? It is like the pipe dream of getting rid of The Electoral College that gave us our last two Republican presidents.Dream On!
Perhaps all those who are spinning their brains remaking the Senate should acquaint themselves with Article 5 and turn their lucubrations to other ideas.
Rather than Statehood, just set PR free or give it back to Spain. DC can join Maryland if voting is so crucial. Thry might get decent governance for a change.
2
Why stop with the District and Puerto Rico? The US Virgin Islands has a population of over 100,000. Guam has a population of over 160,000. American Samoa, over 51,000; the Northern Mariana Islands, over 52,000.
Admit these 5 territories and the District and presto, chango!, the Senate has 12 new members, all of whom will be Democrats. In a Senate with 112 members, you'd need 57 to have a majority. Assuming all 12 new Senators are Democrats, the Democrats would need only 45 of the previous 100 Senators to achieve a majority. The Republicans would need 57 of the existing seats. That is a hard road, a very hard road.
Follow this road and the Mitch McConnell will never be more than Minority Leader.
The Democrats have to wake up and face reality. The Republicans do not let custom, tradition, or Constitutional or political norms obstruct them. The Democrats need to fight fire with fire. The Republican Party is a cancer on America. This plan will be chemo.
This is no doubt the last gasp of the Republicans, but meanwhile they want to steal every last drop of democracy from their fellow citizens.
If anyone thinks the GOP will allow 4 additional Democratic senators—they are dreaming.
Why would Mitch Mcconnell endorse his own political suicide?
"..the structure of the United States Senate treats a Hispanic citizen as only about half as important as a white citizen." I agree that is unfair. So is the fact that it treats California residents as only 5 - 15 % as important as those of the smallest states. Making D.C. and Puerto Rico states is a fine idea. But let's fix the fact that the 21 least populated states have 42 Senators and yet their total population is less than that of CA, which of course has 2 Senators. How can America be called a Democracy when the residents of the 21 least populated states have 42 Senators, and the residents of CA have two? The Senate is Affirmative Action for red state residents, who happen to be predominantly white.
It's past time for CA to secede. What are we waiting for?
1
I agree that the U.S. Senate is a bastion of wealthy white conservatism governing an increasingly diverse, multilingual, and multi-ethnic nation. Reminiscent of apartheid rule in South Africa, an image that comes to mind with the recent death of Pik Botha.
The Senate isn't the only institution holding the District and Puerto Rico down. The Supreme Court has passed on several recent opportunities to reexamine the obsolete and racist decisions known as the Insular Cases, decisions as morally abhorrent as Korematsu v. United States and Plessy v. Ferguson.
I endorse the idea of statehood for the District and for Puerto Rico not just because of the impact on the Senate, but because our ideals and principles as a nation where all are created equal require it.
Great idea, but why stop there? How about a couple of Senators each for Guam, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands too?
While I would love to see this happen I am not going to chase after windmills. You would have 4 new Democrat Senators. Would love to see that but I have to stick with being on planet earth and the realities of what is than what I would like.
Is it time to change the credo on the statue of liberty? It seems to have lost its meaning.
1
@jhbev...
I never was the law; and indeed, even when it was placed on the base of the Statue of Liberty, it did not reflect what the laws of the United States actually were regarding immigration.
In short: Nice sentiment; entirely impractical.
3
I remember when both Hawaii and Alaska became states. Actually, it was an exciting time for so many, and not a thought was given to the indigenous peoples of each state. But that was then, and this is now.
David Leonhardt presents us with good arguments as to the benefits of adding both DC and Puerto Rico to our presently not-so-united states. Re our nation's capital, it always baffled me as to why this site with all its political history, the center of our federal government, has not had adequate representation.
But right now my focus is on Puerto Rico. Embarrassingly, I never looked at it as being so important and, yes, necessary to a/our functioning democracy. Until...Hurricane Maria. Let us reflect back on the mistreatment and negligence of an entire population, perpetrated by a most nativist president and his abetting Republican Congress. The reactions toward the people of a US territory were nothing short of indecent, uncivil, and amoral, with a total lack of empathy and compassion.
I believe that we need these two entities as much as they need us. And how easy it can be accomplished, if only... If only, we shed ourselves of this present political paradigm which lusts only for power, control, and money. There are more caring Americans than not. We are just quieter.
1
@Kathy Lollock...
You are aware that the Puerto Ricans have, a number of times, rejected statehood by referendum?
There are benefits to being a state, but there is a huge downside, particularly for a political entity that is plagued by so much waste and corruptions...They would no longer be able to incur debt the way that they have. And, in not being able to incur debt as they have in the past, they flood of money that sustains the incompetence and corruption of governance will no longer flow...
And too many Puerto Ricans are dependent upon the corruption to allow the flow to be cut off.
One thing that seems to be eluding a lot of people is that in our current system, "equal representation" refers to both states and people.
The House of Representatives, based on population, supposedly provides equal representation to people.
The Senate provides equal representation to states.
6
Better yet the democrats should call for joining the European Union.
I mean, really - Trump is President for two years and folks like Leonhardt have called for packing or eliminating the Supreme Court, changing or eliminating the Senate, getting rid of the Electoral College, allowing illegals, minors and felons to vote and now, adding two states. I don't no whether to characterize this behavior as scary or embarrassing.
8
In 1709, Delaware, the smallest state, had 10% of the population of Pennsylvania, the largest. Today Wyoming has 1.5% of the population of California.
@Chris
And California has 53 Representatives and Wyoming has 1, so a little under 2% as many. California, while still only one state, over 10% of the House. Wyoming represents approximately 0%.
@Chris
Wyoming has a population of just under 574k and it has 1 voting member in the House and 2 senators.
Washington DC has just under 704k people and no voting representation in either chamber.
The residents of the city pay the same taxes to the feds as everyone else.
I love the idea of Washington DC and Puerto Rico as states #51 and #52...if and West Texas and California Valley become states #53 and #54.
1
Mr. Leonhardt,
Yes, I do not agree adding two more states as proposed by you under the two party system will work. Rather, let us reorient all states into smaller number and reduce number of senators proportionally. In other words, make sure all states have same number of people to represnt the number of senators. In my calculation, all these south and north business should disappear such as south/north carolina or North/South Dakota, etc. and smaller states should disappear. I have another idea - let the constitution allow to have a third party of minorities and immigrants to defocus two party rivalries. This third party could have a platform of all changes of the current system such as:
• Review of constitution to cater to the modern world
• Term limit of the senator and the congressperson
• 2/3 majority for approving any federal appointment
• Open immigration to talented people without any country specific quota
• Shrink states so that senate representation is proportional to the population
• Abolish the electoral college (popular vote should dominate)
• Public referendum when the congress is deadlock on issues they cannot resolve
• Serious review of gun ownership and the relationship to the national guard
• Balance of gun handling between enforcement officers and the public
• Voting rights for permanent residents paying taxes and no criminal record
Many Puerto Ricans want independence. I suggest we give it to them. DC is essentially in Maryland and should be counted as such. There, fixed it.
3
@M...
But more than enough Puerto Rican voters have rejected both independence statehood when it came referendum time. There are distinct benefits to being a territory of the United States with home rule.
Making Puerto Rico a state for the sole reason to add Democrats to the Senate is the most brazenly partisan policy proposal I've heard expressed in recent memory.
It's insane.
Puerto Rico would immediately be the poorest state by a factor of 2x--meaning it is half as poor as Mississippi which is already 2/3's as poor as the US average.
Nearly half of Puerto Rico households are below the poverty line.
Granting statehood would immediately be a one way drain on American pocketbooks.
If Democrats pursue this I'd support nearly *any* commensurate partisan measure to even the score. That is how brazen I see this proposal.
5
What you are talking about, in blunt terms, is a power grab--a fair power grab, but still a power grab. Non-white people should have equal power in the system. But for people who have power, like whites, there is always a way to justify that their power is appropriate and, therefore, to see any balancing of the power as unfair. I fully support the idea, but I also think it will be a long, hard fight.
2
If you look at the 10 states listed and take the first 7 (Maine thru Kentucky) you end up with 5 Democrat + 2 Independent senators (7 non-Republican) and 6 Republican senators. Sure, they don't reflect a lot of racial diversity simply because of who lives there, but their Senators are certainly diverse in thought and political persuasion.
Using racial percentages seems like nothing but analysis for the sake of analysis. We have a Senate, that's not changing and it is not based on population; thus there will be inequities no matter how you slice it. (Perhaps of you slice states by 'average income' you'll get a completely different result.... e.g., that the smaller ones over-represent lower income populations which, in turn, may align favorably with black voters?). You can drive your self nuts slicing up the permutations.
Puerto Rico should be its own state for the simple reason that if it were, it would be the 30th largest state in the union by population (between Connecticut and Iowa). As it exists now, Puerto Rico is full of a lot of poorly represented people left dangling in the wind (or hurricane); statehood seems like common sense.
DC? Not buying a city becoming a state, but maybe it could be incorporated into a border state like Maryland or Virginia, not sure.
@PG...
Aside from the facts that Puerto Rico has the benefit of home rule already and that the residents of Puerto Rico have voted to reject both statehood and independence, your argument makes perfect sense.
Do you have a problem with the right of Puerto Ricans to govern themselves and/or their right of self-determination as to their relationship with the United States?
Come now...Let's have a real discussion based on what the people of Puerto Rico want.
As for the District of Columbia, your solution is what I would suggest, and I doubt if it would require a constitutional amendment to accomplish.
"I know that some Republicans will claim that adding two states is just a ploy to help the Democratic Party."
Yes. Of course this will be said. The gerrymandering GOP is motivated by insincere self-interest, and as a result, it sees the rest of the world through its own deeply cynical eyes. It's pathetic, really.
It's the same twisted logic that condemns a liar to the mistaken view that nobody else ever tells the truth, that the success of another group is purchased at the cost of one's own, or that everyone is "out to get you" so you better "get them" first. These sound like aphorisms, but do they not encapsulate the ethos of the GOP? The party's cynicism cannot be overestimated, and its corrosive effect on American society has already taken its toll.
If they did not have such an impact on the lives of others, I would simply feel sorry for people who live in this self-enclosed prison house of fear and mistrust. But it is a worldview they choose, carefully nurtured in the echo chamber of Fox News and elsewhere. I suppose my own political view evolved from the fact that, at some point in my life, I came realize that our time on Earth is remarkably short; to waste it crawling in the muck instead of soaring in the sky is a tragedy.
2
@Norman...
The twisted logic rests in the thinking that Republicans are the only gerrymanderers in our political system.
I point you to the congressional district map of the 11th Illinois Representative District and the entire districting maps of the states of Maryland and Massachusetts.
Those map clearly show the disenfranchising of Republican voters and a massive scale.
But here's the rub. Drawing district maps is a patently POLITICAL process done to canvas the residents for POLITICAL CONTROL. And it is a process that hasn't been party specific since our Constitution was signed in 1787.
Elections have consequences. And the decennial elections in the years of the census are ones that have broad consequences.
Democrats lost big in 2010 for reasons that are well known and discussed. The bottom line of that was that Democrats had only themselves to blame for their loss of power in the most important election for the next 10 years.
One wins control of the process by the ballot box. And that is how it should be.
If you want to win, develop a message that The People are willing to support with their votes...
And don't complain about the rules when you lose.
The statistics show how consistent we are. Minorities are about 75% empowered. That's a small improvement over the 2/3 human status black folks were granted by the founding white fathers.
At that rate, by 2275, they will have 82% of the rights of privileged white men.
Of course Trump will set back that rate of "progress," perhaps regressing to the original 2/3.
If I was a cynical person this might seem like a blatant way to get more Democrats in Congress and little more.
6
While it’s always been clear that the senate, and most of governmental structure of this country, are biased toward white people, I’ve never considered this perspective. Very clear, simple, and overwhelming.
1
I like it. And it's fair. The lack of statehood status has greatly harmed Puerto Rico in the aftermath of last year's hurricane.
1
@Susannah...
But it allowed them to have a very corrupt government that borrowed far more money than it could afford and the island's infrastructure to a big hit long before the hurricane arrived.
Puerto Rico politics are no different from state-side politics. The few, very wealthy, are the machine and stay in power. So-called white Republicans have nothing to fear from PR as the 51st state. It would be business as usual. Afterwards, the citizens of Puerto Rico, will get what they have earned, i.e.; political representation. Finalmente, an end to colonialism after 500 years of economic exploitation.
David
Let's see a graph of progressive and democratic house reps and senators per person.
1. DC should be given back to Maryland, whether they want it or not, just like the other half of was given to Virginia. Problem solved.
2. Puerto Rico has held many referendums and they always chose commonwealth. Let them be their own country.
4
Any whining from Republicans that this is merely a political ploy went right out the door when the nomination of Merrick Garland was never put to a vote. The Democrats have to find the stomach to do whatever they can, even if it is Mitch O'Connell-like, to even the score in order to protect the rights of the millions of Americans who have become disenfranchised under this Congress.
2
An easier way to get more representation in the senate would be for the Democratic Party should consider going back to representing the average American laborer.
2
With all due respect to Mr. Leonhardt, who makes a great argument about citizenship and race, the fact of the matter is that at this time in history while males are claiming victimhood, not just fighting against minorities but also against women, of all ethnicities and nationalities. They also managed to convince poor whites that they fall into the same victimhood, and thus together propped up a racist as the leader of this country, which underneath it all, has become the Great White Hope for many of these "victims of repression." Furthermore, as a Puerto Rican I do not wish to have the island become a state. Look at the example of Hawaii: they are a minority within their own country, requiring laws to protect their culture. Look at the indigenous people in this country. When they were finally "blessed" with cititenship as late of 1924. Imagine that: the country was stolen from them and then they were not regarded as citizens. In fact, prior to 1957 many were barred from voting, even as citizens. Puerto Ricans are citizens so they really do not need to become a state in order to be American citizens. Afro-Americans are citizens, and again, are seen as second class citizens and it doesn't matter what state they live in. No. The granting of statehood will not in itself confer equal citizenship. What needs to happen is that those who call themselves "white" stop thinking that they are superior to other human beings. God made us all equal; those in power insisted otherwise.
112
@Maria Rodriguez Speak for yourself and Puerto Rico, but leave me out of it. As an African American, I foresee Washington, DC statehood as a corrective good without any downside whatever.
OK, Maria, are you just going to sit there an complain or are you going to be active in assuring that your voice is heard?
You need to accept a certain amount of personal responsibility for your role in our body politic and need to be willing to make the effort to influence affairs.
Sitting on the sidelines, indeed sniping from the sidelines, has limited validity.
I make my political views known by clears statement and cogent, rational, and logical argument.
If my argument doesn't hold sway, I go back and refine my argument to address legitimate criticism and to correct my logical errors. If I can't win at the ballot box, I don't seek to destroy my opposition's legal right to govern.
@Maria Rodriguez
Hey, not just before 1957!
A bunch of native Americans just lost their voter registration in North Dakota, courtesy of our shining new Supreme Court.
Just make Washington, D.C part of Maryland. Problem solved.
Would not adding more states further erode the voting power of California, Texas and Florida in particular? 28% of all Americans live in these three states and have a whopping 6% representation in the senate, and adding two additional states would reduce that to 5.8%. At what point do we confront that the senate simply is no longer a representative body given that 28% of the people only have 6% representation.
It is funny how we keep reinventing the same bloody (in the American sense) wheel. Does everyone remember the last time the Congress was torn about whether to admit new states? There were even some Grand Compromises about the issue that would likely appeal to fence-sitters like Leonhardt.
The problem of the Senate is the Senate. When the Senate becomes a boiling kettle, instead of its typical cooling saucer, it is not because we should have more or fewer states: it's because we are sectionally divided and the anti-majoritarian safeguards of the Constitution are applying the brakes. As it turned out in the mid-19th century, what happens when you apply brakes to the course of history and the will of the majority is that something ruptures.
We abolished selection of Senators in favor of direct election by the people 105 years ago. It is time to finish the work, and either reform the Senate into a truly popularly elected body--with members standing for at-large national election--or simply abolish it and embrace a unicameral legislature. While you're at it, also get rid of the Electoral College. Our government would thus consist of a popularly elected Executive, a popularly elected House of Representatives and a Court appointed by two popularly elected branches.
126
@Daniel . Apparently you missed the fact that the point of the Senate was to maintain some remnant of state integrity. This country is a Constitutional Republic. You want a Direct Democracy, apparently.
Get out your law book and write that constitutional amendment.
1
@Daniel
One compelling reason to abolish (or circumvent) the Electoral College is that almost from the beginning it has not functioned as it was intended. The framers wanted a group of wise men (or course they would always be men) to make a judgment about who was best for the Presidential chair that would take into account the popular will, but not be bound by it. Indeed, through the first decades of the nineteenth century, Electors were chosen by state legislature, not a vote of the people. (The Constitution doesn't specify the method of choosing, which is why several states have now agreed that the national popular vote should determine their Electors.) The rise of political parties basically ended the utility of the College.
The Senate was designed to protect the interests of the smaller states in the original thirteen, but it's interesting that with some obvious exceptions, geographical parity underlay the creation of new states. States of equal size would allow the possibility that there might not be extreme differences in population, but that's what we now have. I really wonder what Madison and Hamilton would think if they knew that California had 40 million people while half a dozen other states had less than a million.
@Daniel Perhaps you should look into why the framers created the government we have? They did not want majority rule, or a direct democracy. Also look into why we are called the United STATES of America, as opposed to the United People of America. Funny how nobody on the left complained in 2009 when they dominated Congress and the presidency.
Great Job, Mr. Leonhardt!! Thank you for this thought provoking piece.
Of course, Washington DC and Puerto Rico won't become states any generation soon...
First-off, that is 4 Democratic Senators right then and there and the GOP won't stand for that.
Second, statehood admission requires approval from Congress and the President. Unless the Democrats control both houses and the presidency, that's not going to happen. There will be a lot of blow-back from fly-over country over admitting another "liberal coast" state or a state where English isn't even the dominant, let alone, official language.
Third, with respect to Maryland, there may be Constitutional lawsuits involved. DC was to be built from part of Maryland and Virginia. Ultimately, it was only Maryland that made the sacrifice. If DC was to attempt to become a state, Maryland may say something along the lines of "Hey, wait a minute. Just give us back DC." and they do have some Constitutional merit on that.
1
What strikes me is the underrepresentation ratio cited in the article, 75 percent, is so little changed from the original 60 percent enumeration ratio established in the Constitution.
Not much has changed with regard to blacks in the 160 years since slavery was abolished throughout the country.
If you are concerned about representation for racial and ethnic minorities, you might also want to consider Native Americans (including those in Alaska and Hawaii). According to a quick search, Native populations in some of the states with small populations in general amount to 1.3% in Idaho, 2.2% in Wyoming, 5% in North Dakota, 8.8% in South Dakota, 8% in Montana, and 15% in Alaska. The figures for Hawaii include various categories, but Hawaii is not majority white, according to the figures I found.
I am no expert on political science, but I believe having 2 senators per state provides a balance, and the H of R is proportional to population. I live in a medium-sized state that does not appear on your graph; we probably have a larger-than-average population of Native Americans and Spanish speakers, and maybe an an average black population. I am concerned that many of these individuals may not be voting, because our representatives in Washington are truly horrible.
It's time for the citizens of Puerto Rico to issue a Declaration of Independence. There's a great copy of it in English at the Library of Congress. And then they can create a government by their people, for their people, and of their people.
No revolution would be needed - the USA isn't going to invade, no Congress would declare war on the nation. We would let them go.
1
Making NYC, with its 5 boroughs, a state should be a priority over DC. DC could simply be added as a county to MD as a congressional district. NYC would give millions of people more fair electoral equity. PR should vote for statehood, dem or rep, they deserve representation.
1
This column put the right wing opposition to affirmative action in its proper perspective. Conservatives are against affirmative action only when it seeks to redress the wrongs that white people have inflicted upon a broad range of minorities, but mostly African Americans.
White people have been benefiting from a massive affirmative action program since the drafting of the US Constitution.
3
I support DC and Puerto Rico being given actual voting representative in Congress.
The Constitution does not- however- grant special rights or status to white people. Want to change things? It is a free country- people can move to South Dakota, or where ever, until it is majority minority.
The rules are that each state gets two Senators. It does not require that states maintain white majorities.
1
Knowing your ethnicity would help to put perspective to your comment. I assume you are a white man. I too am a white man and i believe the exact opposite to be true. Current representation does not match either the citizenry of each state nor the positive output from each state. There is zero reason a state like Alabama should have the same power as one like California.
@Tim,
There is at least one reason why Alabama has as much political power, in the Senate, as California: the Constitution.
We have a system of laws in this country. Simply deciding, on a whim, to disenfranchise millions of people isn't going to fly.
Keep in mind that there are minority voters in every state- your casual dismissal of the political rights of people in Alabama includes many African-Americans and Hispanics.
It may be worth it if we can stick it to enough white guys in the process. Seems like a bad way to run an inclusive society but we are talking about white people so-- who cares?
Good policies help people of all races. Our political system is blind to race in the respect that each state gets two Senators- regardless of the racial make-up of the electorate. Anyway- the writers of the Constitution could never envision that California would exist or be a melting-pot of poverty, violence, and over-population.
Puerto Rico and DC should get their votes in Congress. It doesn't require hurting people elsewhere- not in California or Alabama.
This article sums up nicely one of the major problems living in a multiculturalist society, and that is that everything eventually comes down to racial ethnic groupings. The author laments that the Senate now favors whites much more than ever before, however; from 1900-1970 the US was 89% or better white. I find it difficult to believe that TODAYS'S Senate is more favorable to whites than in the relatively recent past. The biggest problem with multiculturalism is that individuals stop voting for good policies, and instead vote their ethnic group. The next problem is that different ethnics groups, or cultures don't get along, so freedoms must be curtailed in order to have harmony. It's all a scam.
"The Senate, as a result, gives far more special treatment to whites than it once did."
This is a ridiculous statement, as any look at the policies of the US government prior to the Civil Rights Act will clearly show.
There is no question in my mind that Puerto Rico should become the 51st state. However, there are good reasons why Washington D. C. is not a state - as the capital, and the place where the federal government resides, it has a special, neutral status. This hasn't worked out for some time, so perhaps it is time to make it its own state - but I think this should be thoroughly debated and explored and not done hastily, whereas making Puerto Rico a state is a no-brainer.
1
At least, given its geographic size, Wyoming's population could expand. Rhode Island, Delaware, and Connecticut are essentially one party small blue states, who do nothing but automatically send two Democrats to the Senate. I'd start with them.
3
I have a heard time finding a lot of credibility in Leonhardt's statistical analysis when he claims that white Americans are a "minority of Americans."
It should also be noted that the states Leonhardt cites as large, racially diverse and underrepresented (NY, CA, TX, FL) are also the states with the largest populations of undocumented immigrants. In reality, their voting representation is less skewed than it appears, unless of course Leonhardt isn't really interested in a fair apportionment of representation and is just making a partisan point about one way Democrats could try to stack Congress...
2
If they're really that concerned about it non-whites can always move to Montana.
And let's not forget about the House. California has 53 Representatives. Montana has one, which means that Montana citizens have effectively zero voice in that chamber of Congress.
The bicameral structure of Congress, with a countermajoritarian Senate, was created that way for just that reason--to counter any potential tyranny of the majority.
Just because the racial demographics of the country have evolved in a way that leads to the current representation dynamics doesn't mean the validity of that governmental principle has gone away.
There is also implicit bias in this argument because it implies all white citizens of the more rural states are racist. They are not and the insinuation is offensive.
4
The reason that the Senate has equal representation of the states is due to the Connecticut (Great) Comprise of 1987. It was an inducement to the smaller states to enter into the new federal union. The Compromise was made so that the interests of the smaller states would not be overwhelmed by the larger states. This was codified in Article 5 of the Constitution, which provides "no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate." This was not racist but to ensure that large and small states would be on an equal footing when it came to federal legislation.
As to admission of Puerto Rico as a state, there have been multiple referendums in my life time offering Puerto Ricans the options of independence, statehood and continuation of its commonwealth status. Each time, commonwealth status has been the the choice.
As to Washington DC as a state, it was formed by Maryland and Virginia ceding territory to the federal government. There were conditions to the ceding. Virginia reclaimed its ceded territory by a process called retrocession. It has been proposed that the same process be used by Maryland to give DC residents the right to vote as Maryland citizens, but this does not add two sure Democrat senators to the Senate.
2
Or the Democratic party could get more seats by making white voters feel represented in the party. They have to stop with the identity politics if they want to regain real power.
5
In other words, the United States has basically maintained the original Constitution's 3/5 compromise in how dark-skinned people would be counted. Not only that, but in two very populous dark-skinned regions, that ratio is closer to 0/5. This is an outrage, but very much in line with what Trump means with MAGA.
Statehood for D.C. and Puerto Rico needs to happen. Very good point.
3
NYC needs to be a state. We have close to 9 million people. We are as under represented as DC and PR. We are arguably the real capital and power center of the country and the world. Yet we share 2 senators with a large rural mostly white state. We give way more to the federal government then we get back. Meanwhile, our transit system and roads are rotting. The trump feds are not listening to our pleas for help. The state delights in depriving us even as they use our dollars for sparsely populated expanses, building and maintaining modern roads that few drive on compared to congested chocking NYC. Our politicians are forced to bargain with upstate for crumbs. NYC 51!
1
Trade Vermont and Maine to Canada for a city to be named later.
1
You would think, given the embarrassment that is both legislative houses of the federal government of the United States, that folks would be only too happy to not be represented there...
1
Racism appears to be a major factor in the US government's failure to respond in a timely manner to the disaster caused by the hurricane last year. I laughed when I saw Florida citizens wondering when help is coming...Why isn't Trump telling them to be independent and throwing paper towel rolls at the FL citizens?
1
The glaze of race here, masks the issue that our country is based on two key ideas: (1) No taxation without representation; and (2) no taxation without representation. The race argument while solves a problem that addresses some problems we have today, it does not make the stronger argument, why PR and DC should be states.
1
Let me make sure I heard this dreamer: we need to give statehood to Washington DC, the most liberal area in the country, and Puerto Rico, the place that is not allowed to declare bankruptcy, and 75% of its debt goes into paying the interest on loans from Goldman Sacks and other, while they close down schools, default on pensions of 30 year folks. We have a Supreme Court Federal benches, and State Appelllate courts all stacked by the hard Right, and paid for by far right folks who buy elections, who buy candidates with dark money. We just gave on giant tax cut to the rich, and now must give up on Medicare and Medicaid and SS. Yeah, its clear, in this climate granting statehood is about to happen. Make is so. Hard hitting journalism at its finest.
With all this emphasis on diversity, loving thy neighbor as thyself seems to be only getting harder and harder to want to try and do when I realize how much others must resent what thyself is to them. I dare not try to lest they sense my obliged reluctant celebration of their uniqueness. All I feel now is indifference to everything around me. As far as I'm concerned every person should be their own private state with their own personal representative.
1
The U.S. Senate is one giant rotten borough. It is ripe for complete dissolution in favor of something else. I have no idea how to do this, but statehood for Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia are certainly way overdue. And let's remember this: as my young niece chemist for a big energy company says, "ethanol is food stamps for corn farmers." A rational Upper Chamber would not for an instant permit this outrageous maldistribution of the revenue and resources of the American people such as this ethanol money pot is. Finally, I am quite certain that Kansas has at least one U.S. Senator who is a much more reasonable statesman than this state-based Senate permits him to be--and another who with proper incentives might ditch his commitments to the reactionary right. This ancient and unjustifiable arrangement makes fools of us all, and gives too many Americans a reason to resent the small states.
Unfortunately, Mr Leonard’s blatant partisanship shows through this column. This system of equal representation for the less populated states has worked quite well for over 2 centuries. “Fixing” this would serve to get a Democrat majority in the Senate. However, these kinds of fixes always have unintended consequences. Witness the Democrats changing the cloture vote to a simple majority only to have this tossed back in their face with the approval of Justice Kavanaugh. Add to that the idea of making states out of 2 places that have a hard time governing themselves and managing their money. This is like having your bankrupt ill behaved cousin move in with you to help you convince yourself you are kind and generous human being.
3
Lumping various groups together only obfuscates and confuses issues.Since when are Hispanic-Americans non-white? Since some Hispanic-American interest groups decided that getting themselves so considered by the US government would make them eligible for various federal programs; and when the media then went along with this charade. Are Spaniards non-white?
Since the end of the Civil War there have been only 2 elected Afro-American elected state governors-Douglas Wilder in Virginia in 1990 and Duval Patrick in Massachusetts in this century. Meanwhile we've already had 2 Indian(Asian)-American governors-Bobby Jindal in Louisiana and Nikki Halley in South Carolina.
And the number of Asian-American doctors (of Indian, Chinese, Korean, and Philippine descent) clearly exceeds the number of African-American doctors, and around 20% of entering Harvard undergraduates are Asian-Americans.
Issues relating primarily and particularly to African-Americans should be dealt with as such. It really just confuses the issue(s) by trying to throw in other very disparate groups.
1
What also should be considered is that some Puerto Ricans want independence, not statehood.
4
The liberal narrative has become tiresome. David Leonhardt writes,
"Thanks to a combination of historical accident and racism, the Senate gives considerably more representation to white citizens than to dark-skinned ones."
But why do we need to think in terms of race at all? If our elected representatives actually represent ALL of the people, the color of their skin should be secondary. And we were told by the very liberals who now fan the flames of racism that the goal was a society in which race was irrelevant?
Perhaps the real problem isn't race. Perhaps it is our failure to address the problems of an increasing number of poor. And those poor are often white, often black, often Hispanic. Yet the suffering is pretty much the same.
While Democrats incite blacks to tear down statues of Robert E Lee and thereby stokes up hatred of those who might want to honor the Civil War Dead, nothing is done about providing poor blacks or whites or Chicanos with good jobs. Or universal health care.
While Democrats try to divide along racial lines, they fail to even allow a discussion of the problems that are destroying planet earth.
Oh I know. They say it is Trump who denies global warming. But Democrats deny the cause of global warming---population growth.
Not only that but they have destroyed freedom of speech by decrying any efforts to limit immigration as racist. That stops discussion for sure.
As the US and the world head toward Malthusian disaster.
3
For what its worth, and just as eye-opening, half the US population (according to the 2010 Census) is represented by 18 senators, the other half by 82. The "red" states have an enormous advantage in Senate power, something of a twist on the original Founders' scheme to keep the thinly populated (especially with black residents being counted at 3/5 of a person each) South from being politically overpowered.
The only reason the Democrats held Senate majorities from the New Deal forward was, ironically, the "Solid South," with their political dominance of the southern states being firmly rooted in racism and white supremacy. Once the South flipped red, the true built-in 82/18 advantage began to show itself. It is actually something of a miracle - and a testament to the abysmal governance and true unpopularity of the GOP - that the Democrats have been able to stay within spitting distance of Senate control.
But the Senate deck is stacked against them - as is the House deck, courtesy of ruthless GOP gerrymandering. Of course, ALL decks are stacked against any candidates who threaten corporate power - as long as we continue to permit our votes to be counted in the partisan pitch-dark of cyberspace.
Congress is not supposed to "look like" the US population. Half of its members are not supposed to be female, nor do we attempt to elect legislators based on appearance, religion, place of pre-emegration origin, etc.
And we don't need a Senate as intended - a house similar to the House of Lords in the UK. As the UK has with Lords, the power of the Senate should be slowly reduced, our presidency given the power of the UK Monarch.
Washington DC deserves voting House and Senate members.
As for our colonies, Puerto Rico, half the Virgin Islands, and several groups of Pacific islands, some rendered uninhabitable by nuclear testing; and Hawaii, a monarchy seized by the US in the name of United Fruit, these places should be granted full independence - and 50 years of US aid to make up for our evil history - Puerto Ricans alive at the date of separation should be awarded permanent dual citizenship, and the right to choose the citizenship of their minor children, alive as of that date.
We are never going to have, nor should we have a government that "looks" like the US population, nor should we award seats on gender, skin color, home language or ancestors' residence or religion.
What matters is none of these factors, but their intelligence, and "heart".
We should worry more about the 2020 Census, which threatens to strip House seats from residents who know, and do not fear women and "minorities" and attempt to leach the poisonous fear from the bigots of this nation.
This is another way to game the system not for constitutional purposes, but for leftist ambition. The biggest states have hegemony over the rest of us that rarely gets addressed. NY, FL, CA, and TX determine the content of our text books. NY and CA control the cultural messages and national discussions through media based there. The cars we drive, food we eat-so much of that is dominated by huge population centers in just a few states. The rest of us have to consume things and ideas we do not need or want, because it is considered important or maybe even is important, but just in those places. Big city ideas about gun control are a world apart from other communities, because guns are not problems everywhere. Immigration impacts small towns much differently than large cities. We all understand what the biggest blue states want and how they think. We get a steady diet of that daily. Blue states, most notably CA and NY study very little and care even less about how their hegemony already gives them an outsized voice economically and culturally. Not satisfied with that, they want to change the one thing that is designed to balance the interests of a broad, diverse, bicoastal nation, where the variety of geography, endeavor, and culture not only add richness to our political lives, but critically prevents permanent factions from forming and destroying self-government for all, not just large blue bubbles. The Illiberal left should never get that kind of power.
6
A much simpler solution - Each state tallies the candidate's votes for President and submits the vote totals to the Electoral College.
No more Minority Presidents, The candidate with the largest votres WINS.
1
Thanks David for highlighting this pathetic injustice. I've been a resident of DC for seven years now. There are plenty of Americans that don't even know DC residents have zero representation in Congress. We need to put this issue front and center among several other steps that urgently need to be taken to help strengthen (and save??) our democracy.
Suggesting that McConnell and Ryan ask their GOP delegations to support statehood for DC and PR is laughable. They'll never agree to diminishing their (and white citizens) hold on the levers of power. As for Trump, his bigotry and outright disdain for the minorities that comprise DC's and PR's voters would make the chances of him signing such a bill nonexistent. It'll take a Democratic Congress and POTUS to get it done. Of course it would require that the Democrats had a clue, something they've failed to demonstrate more often than not.
While we're at it, let's have the two major parties redo the primary system so that the overwhelmingly white, Christian states of Iowa and New Hampshire have far less influence on picking our Presidential candidates.
1
Affirmative Action is New Speak for racial quotas.
2
The idea of making Puerto Rico a state in order to solve a structural problem of the US government is a bad one. The majority of the people of Puerto Rico have never voted for statehood, even when Washington and a pro-statehood San Juan cheated in the referendum. Right now, the argument for statehood on the island is an infusion of federal funds to remedy the fiscal problems of a fading economy. This is illusory as the Trump-fueled FEMA failure over Hurricane Maria has shown. Did you know that voters in favor of independence have grown from 5% to 17%? Puerto Rico has a natural affinity with other Caribbean islands and Latin America. There is little sense for us to engage in mud-wrestling with the white mentality of "taker" states like Mississippi and Alabama, when we have greater leverage and a measure of equality in a common market arrangement with CARICOM. There is even logic for re-association with Spain whose federation of autonomous nations would give us more say over our own destiny than statehood. Yes, Catalonia is imitating the role Quebec had in Canada, but those struggles are waged within a federation system that is superior to assimilation as a state. Besides, incorporation in the USA is less and less attractive to people of color. We are not far from the day when the separatist movements in Alaska, Vermont, and Texas arise in California, Hawaii, and a host of places that consider the US model of government by compromise to be compromised irrevocably.
1
Puerto Rico has never asked to become a state. Today they get all of the benefits of being part of the USA except voting in federal elections but don't have to pay Income Tax. If they want to be a state first let them ask. As for Washington DC, it was created because the 13 States didn't want to give the economic power of the central government to any individual state. This purpose has eroded over time as the federal government has grown and expanded into Virginia and Maryland. Today the economies of both these states is highly dependent on federal workers who work for the central government. Virginia and Maryland vote big government because it pays the bills. One solution would be to expand the borders of Washington DC fifty miles out into Virginia and Maryland and require federal workers of the central offices live within those new borders and lose their voting rights. Of course Virginia, Maryland, and supporters of big government would strenuously object. During Trumps run for office, his reference to these communities as The Swamp resonated with American voters.
1
This whole argument is a good one. Not necessarily new, but certainly righteous. The short explanation for why this hasn't happened is the lack of any incentive to put federal dollars into these areas. No military incentive, no economic incentive, no.... etcetera, etcetera.
1
In the interest of fairness, it makes sense to provide statehood to D.C. and Puerto Rico. But as the Gilens and Page study ("Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens") of a few years ago showed, the color that matters most in congressional policy making is actually green.
2
There's another 9 million Americans who are also not represented in Congress or the Senate- that's the 9 million Americans who live overseas. It's high time that US citizens overseas also got a voice in the legislative body. No taxation without representation!
This isn't only a problem of our Senate. The Electoral College votes are distributed by States based on House & Senate numbers, again over-representing small population states. And the Senate votes up or down on Supreme Court nominees. Only the House composition gives more representatives to populous states. We are very much a minority led country.
1
Here's a novel idea: if Democrats want to reduce Republican influence in the Senate, try winning more elections in rural states by crafting policy positions and a message that appeal to them, instead of just trying to write them off and silence their voice altogether.
2
No argument with Mr. Leonhardt, but his suggestions still avoid the primary problem facing our democracy. Two small changes that would dramatically improve democratic process:
1. Public finance of all elections: No more dark money---no more corporations as people, no more PACs.
2. Term limits for all elected national officials. 6 year term for President, Senate, and House-----no more lifetime job in office.
This would enable every elected official to focus on what urgently needs to be done within a reasonable time, without spending (as is now the case) 90% of his/her efforts raising money for re-election. Those who accomplish something could go home proud to have served, and those who choose to serve only corporate interests at the expense of their constituents would be minimized in impact.
2
David,
I would like to suggest something very easy and very feasible (I think!). I strongly suggest that these two parts of our democracy (blacks, hispanics) come out and vote in record numbers. The well known road blocks put up by the GOP should be seen as challenges to be overcome. We have the numbers, we all need to show up! No excuses, come out and vote!
November 6 2018.
Richard N. Rosenfeld wrote an essay in the May 2004 issue of Harper's Magazine (What Democracy?) arguing for the abolishment of the Senate altogether. His case seems to grow stronger with each passing year.
1
How about a constitutional convention? How does it work? Would the Right have an edge? We could make so many recent SCOTUS decisions moot. Get direct elections, redefine militia, term limit judges. Scalia used to cherry pick the bits he needed to push his POV under the guise of original intent as though he had a gift to do so. With a rewrite, we could settle so many things for the future and sleep better at night.
1
I'm not sure why people are suggesting to just move to smaller states knowing the history of migration of people of color in the US. We concentrate in particular cities for safety and a familiar culture, among other reasons. I am Black. We are about 12%-13% of the population. Hispanics, about 15%. Why would we have the same flexibility to move as a white person who can see themselves among over 60% of the population? We as Black people don't even consider certain states as places to live because of how historically low the Black population is there (ex: Wyoming, Vermont, etc). I'm not sure what could remedy such a phenomenon, but those are just the facts.
The obvious thing to do would be to increase representation in the House of Representatives, which is based on population. Reps haven't been added to the House since 1911. Oh wait. Increasing reps in the House of Representatives according to population increases would result in a loss of power for the political establishment, and parties, currently holding the reins. Better to just rig the system against flyover country. Politicians, especially Democrats, have already shown they ignore people in flyover states. Hillary Clinton didn't even bother to campaign in several of them. Since the Democrats already hate the heartland, why not just go all the way and disenfranchise them altogether???? We'll just load the deck against them so their votes become meaningless. Problem solved.
2
The Census Bureau reports that in the 2010 Census, ≈ 50 percent of Hispanics self-identified as white. White Hispanics must be added to non-Hispanic whites to get the true white population. Leonhardt's failure to use the true white population skews his analysis.
To give Washington, D.C., representation, I'd add it to the state of Maryland, or perhaps to both Maryland and Virginia. I'm willing to consider statehood for Puerto Rico.
Ultimately, the fix for the senate's not being based on one person, one vote, is a constitutional amendment. That's a very long term project. In the meantime, if Democrats want to win control of the government, they're going to have to stop treating the white working class as irredeemable racists, homophobes, and worse.
"make Washington (DC) and Puerto Rico the 51st and 52nd states . . . A few years ago, this idea would have seemed radical", it still does, buddy. It's ideas like that will help sink the Dems in November. While you're at it, why not also beat the drum for open borders to increase unwanted immigration, regulations and job killing taxes on the economy to 'stabilize' the climate and 'save' the planet, and changes to the constitution to guarantee leftist hegemony from now till the cows come home, or at least until you're overthrown in the resulting multi-decade depression that results.
3
Before talking about racism one needs to exam:
Does Puerto Rico WANT to become a US State ?
The evidence at best is mixed
From the NY Times, on the 2017 PR election on Statehood
"With nearly all of the precincts reporting, 97 percent of the ballots cast were in favor of statehood, a landslide critics said indicated that only statehood supporters had turned out to the polls. Opposition parties who prefer independence or remaining a territory boycotted the special election, which they considered rigged in favor of statehood.
On an island where voter participation often hovers around 80 percent, just 23 percent of registered voters cast ballots. Voting stations accustomed to long lines were virtually empty on Sunday."
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/11/us/puerto-ricans-vote-on-the-question...
It is very clear that a majority of Puerto Ricons do not want statehood, that would force them to pay federal income tax on what ever little money the make
1
Is Puerto Rico going to start paying federal taxes too?
1
For anyone who thinks that racism isn't a factor in why Puerto Rico isn't a state here's a little history. After the war between the US and Mexico ended in victory for the US we could have added all of Mexico to the US but declined. John Calhoun explained our position, "ours sir, is the government of a white race. The greatest misfortunes of Spanish America are to be traced to the fatal error of placing these colored races on an equality with the white race."
Puerto Ricans have served this country during wartime honorably and in greater numbers than those who are born within the 50 states. But because they are brown we've never seen them as equal. Most Americans didn't even realize they were American citizens until the island was devastated by a hurricane.
We're never going to move past our history of racism until we make a decision to grant equal representation to all Americans. That means we stop disenfranchising black people, native Americans and other minorities and expand statehood and the right to vote to all Americans. We're not a white nation, we're a melting pot. It would be nice if we acted like it.
240
@Ami The US likes to maintain its fascade of democracy but it is acting like a colony owning country. Puerto Rico is a territory (colony) of the US. Throughout history America has fought to get the British Empire to free its colonies. Why won't the US make Puerto Rico a state? Because they are not wealthy white people! They would vote against the wealthy (& mostly white) republicans that's why they are not a state. Washington D.C. needs to be demoted to a city not a district & not a state.
@Ami
Funny Calhoun said that, as plenty of his Southern contemporaries were champing at the bit to annex Mexico and the Caribbean and admit a wealth of new pro-slavery states to the Union in the process.
It's one of my favorite "what-ifs" to ponder in American history. We probably would have skipped the War Between the States, but slavery would probably have held on for years. Our ethnic makeup would have likely wound up mirroring the rest of South America as well.
@Ami
This also explains the lack of response to Puerto Ricans suffering from hurricane damage.
We should either give Puerto Rico back to Spain or give it independence. As for DC, for voting purposes it should be part of Maryland.
I'm with Alec Baldwin. This bunch needs to be "overthrown" on November 6th. Vote diversity. Vote younger. Vote Democratic.
And, YES, statehood for DC, Puerto Rico, AND Guam. No taxation without representation. Just like the American Revolution. Might be time for another one.
4
How about independence for Puerto Rico? They need to follow their own path which might be entirely different from the path of the US.
1
I believe our slowness to grant statehood has evolved out of history: the slave-state battle during the 19th century where states were only granted statehood if there were an equal amount of slave and non-slave states represented in congress. That has evolved to Republican and Democrat states, the last four are a great example. And those parties also are defined by "diverse" and "un- diverse".
wait, white people are a minority in this country Now??? the soonest estimate i've seen puts this in the 2030s, more likely in the '40s... the strategy of relying on an emergent change in demographic power may have meant to energize and encourage people of color to be active in politics (which is a good thing) and a coalition of people of all backgrounds who want an equitable and just society would be an excellent development... but to assume anything about demographic change being a foregone conclusion when it's still decades away has been a tragic over-reach
2
I agree with this. One reason I would not live in DC is that you do not have fair representation in Congress.
In the email introducing this column, Mr. Leonhardt list several states small based on population as part of his argument. He includes Kentucky in the list - I imagine because of Mitch McConnell. Kentucky is ranked 26 in population. This does not support his argument.
3
Basic American civics: the Senate is not a representative body, while the House of Representatives is. The Senate determines the the legal framework for fair treatment of states participating in the Union, while the House funds those laws on the basis of state population.
Otherwise, California’s laws would be the laws of every state.
We Democrats may not like the current crop of retrograde Trump enablers, but it’s up to us to offer policies that rural GOP voters, independents and stay-at-homes find sufficiently compelling to elect more Democrat Senators. So far we have utterly failed at this - despite glaring issues of economic opportunity, drug crime, education and health access prevalent in rural areas.
As to statehood for Territories, that’s best left to those residents to decide their own future.
6
As I understand it, the Senate was founded to ensure against tyranny by the majority. The House of Representatives was designed to be population based with the Senate to ensure that states with large populations did not run rough shod over the interests of less populated states.
If the Senate were also population based, that is exactly what happen.
11
@Talbot Yes, that is what we were taught in school. The truth is more nuanced.
"The Convention agreed to grant states equal representation in the Senate because Madison's Large state bloc simply collapsed. In the end the small states won when two of the four delegates from Massachusetts, along with the North Carolina delegation, defected and joined the small states' side. They did so because they became convinced that the work of the Convention would othersise fail."
"We have argued that the Constitutional Convention adoption of equal apportionment for states in the Senate is best viewed as the result of several historical contingencies rather than as the product of functional design."p 39-40 Sizing Up the Senate The Unequal Consequences of Equal Representation by Frances E. Lee and Bruce Oppenheimer 1999.
Wow, David L. what a whopper of a mistake: "It allows a minority of Americans — white Americans — to wield the power of a majority."
Go look it up anywhere -- as of 2014 whites are 77% of the US population. Non-hispanic whites 62%.
Demographic trends are predicted to make non-Hispanic whites less than 50% (and so a "minority") in 20 - 40 years ... these predictions depend on assumptions about birth rates that may not be the way things are, but the overall trend of declining white fraction does seem certain.
But whites will be the "largest minority" for a long time, and also the issue of how people identify themselves is next-to-certain to change ... as the nation starts to become more homogenized.
As to making Puerto Rico and DC states ... not gonna happen.
No way in hell will either get through the senate, precisely because it will dilute the power of the other states.
Puerto Rico also has substantial internal resistance to becoming a state.
A much more plausible plan for DC is simply to shrink it radically, down to the Federal complex + the Arlington Cemetery, returning the parts north of the Potomac to Maryland, and the much smaller area south of the river to Virginia. This would enfranchise most of the citizens of DC.
But it would change the electoral politics of Maryland considerably and also bring the state a new set of urban problems, so there's not a lot of love in Maryland, even among Democrats, for this idea.
9
@Lee Harrison Some people may believe that Trump’s disdainful discourse is in our national interest, most of us do not. As a professor I preside daily over conversations between very emotional students. We agree to disagree - in order to find truth and solve problems. Using bar room language does not aid in this endeavor. As a fellow reader of this paper, I for one request that you use laguage that reflects the level of our discussions. Race and socio-economic divides are difficult to discuss. Let us try to move forward in becoming a more perfect democracy as dignified Americans.
We should be adding either a 3rd Century Constitutional Review Congress, that redresses these issues or passing a digestible evolution that takes 25 years to introduce like.
1. Expanding to 66 states
2. Contracting to 33 states
3. Adding Senators to States at certain population thresholds.
@Leslie sole...
As we are a constitutional REPUBLIC and called the UNITED STATES of AMERICA, isn't it appropriate that one of the branches of Congress represent the interest of the states, not just be a super-select version of the House of Representatives?
The Senate has a purpose...to allow the interests of the states to be heard as STATES.
We have adulterated that representation with the institution of the 27th Amendment, allowing for the popular election of the members of the senate. Gone are the "statesmen" who are practiced in the skills of political consensus, skills sufficient to navigate the vagaries of the legislatures of the states they are to represent.
What we have now is a popularity contest, when the most photogenic or the loudest shouter gets elected and the states get shafted in their representation.
Look at the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to see it at work...A political novice with no legislative experience at any level who made herself into a "celebrity" through bombast and wearing a blazer got elected, and then a person that hasn't lived in Massachusetts for decades got selected over others who had strong roots in the state fooled the state's voters. One represents her own interest, much like Edward Kennedy and John Kerry did, and the other has the awkward. mocking title of the Distinguished 3rd Senator from Maryland.
Before Puerto Rico and Guam get representation in the House or Senate, how about we in Massachusetts get some?
Why is it that every time Democrats and liberals lose power, we have to entertain radical changes..abolish the electoral college, add more states etc. etc. etc. We are a constitutional republic of sovereign states, not a direct democracy.
88
@Jerry Engelbach
Absolutely not. The US is a federal republic, and the states as policy laboratories has been critical to its success. If anything, more power and responsibility should be devolved form DC to the states.
2
Incorrect. Such luminaries as Adams, Jefferson, and Madison referred to the U.S. as a both a 'Constitutional Democracy' and a 'Representational Democracy'. Furthermore, all the founders referred to the U.S. as a 'Federated System', meaning that all the states contribute to be shared. That's how such failed states as Alabama, Mississippi, and Kansas are still able to provide for their residents. Without the shared wealth (through tax dollars) provided by wealthier states like California and New York, many states (sadly all R controlled) would be poorer than places like Paraguay. We are not a collection of sovereign states; that idea was thrown out when we replaced the Articles of Confederation with the current Constitution. Or perhaps you're still thinking that original Articles IS the constitution? How you can tell the difference is in Article VI of the Constitution (one of my favorites actually) which states that the Constitution and "all laws derived therein" were the "supreme law of the land" overriding any state law cover the same topic. That's one reason there are some politicos who don't want the federal government to pass certain laws, because the instant it did, those states would have to follow - i.e. no nullification kiddies (outside a Supreme Court judicial review, which according to Kavanaugh, isn't the SCOTUS business, but that's another conversation).
It's not radical to add states. What's radical is to tax whole populations without representation.
2
@Jerry Engelbach as the Founders intended. The did not want the majority to rule.
This entire piece has one huge presupposition that goes unmentioned: the assumption that for a black person to be “represented” they must be represented by a black senator?!? Or, alternatively, a Hispanic voter, in order to be represented - must have an Hispanic senator? Or again, that white voters ARE given voice merely by having a white senator?
The problem with this assumption is manifest, but I’ll explain for the readers of the Times. Let’s say a female, Hispanic senator gets elected from a state with a high population of African Americans - and that she wins 94.5% of the black vote in her state. According to Mr Leonhart’s analysis, the black voter has no voice in the senate. That’s right... a female Hispanic Democrat senator, is not adequate representation for African Americans...even if they vote for her. Also, Leonhart infers that “white voters” are over represented. Ok, tell that the tens of thousands of progressive and Democrat white voters in Atlanta. They’re covered right, should be happy right...after all, they have white senators? I guess they’re voices are being heard. Shoot, I guess somebody forgot to tell the white Never Trumpers and the white Democrat #resistance to relax...they should be happy, there’s a white guy in the Oval Office. My point, of course, is that they are NOT represented well, simply because they share skin tone with Trump.
3
Just make DC part of Maryland and PR part of Hawaii. Ciao!
Hawaii? Have you any idea where Puerto Rico and Hawaii are? Get a map, dude.
Utter race baiting tripe.
Hawaii is a small state.
Like all states, it has two Senators.
Both Democrats.
And it has the most heavily "Asian" population of any state.
Delaware is also a small state.
Like all states, it has two Senators.
Both Democrats.
And the proportion of blacks in Delaware is greater than in the USA .
Both New Mexico and Alaska are small states (in population).
But, like all states, they each have two Senators.
And they are the two states with the highest proportion of Native Americans.
Both the Senators from New Mexico are Democrats.
One of the two Republican Senators from Alaska is a "liberal" Senator (Murkowski) who voted against both Trump's Obamacare repeal and against confirmation of Trump's nomination of Kavanaugh.
Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and Rhode Island are all small states.
And like all states, they each have two Senators.
All of those Senators are Democrats except Collins in Maine and she is considered a liberal Republican. (Sure, Sanders in Vermont and King in Maine call themselves "independent", but they "caucus" with the Democrats.)
7
@sam finn, I actually think you have a point concerning the small states with Democratic Senators. However, I do take issue with your descriptions of Senators Murkowski and Collins as "liberal Republicans". That is an animal that has not been seen for many decades. Perhaps center right would be a more accurate description and they are a disappearing breed. Both voted in support of Trump around 80% of the time, hardly a liberal position. I believe the huge majority of Republican Senators are hard right, a position that 25 years ago would probably have been called extreme right.
A threatened white GOP won't allow statehood to DC or PR. As for the Senate, it's up to voters to vote (of course the threatened white GOP will do it's best to suppress black votes ... as Kemp is doing in Georgia now; and the GOP controlled SCOTUS will support these kinds of GOP tactics wherever they crop up .. and they will increasingly crop up because the GOP knows it now has cover).
Can you imagine living around this writer with his constant harping about things he either hates or simply doesn't understand?
America is different from all the other countries, and always will be.
A nation that had to fight to gain its freedom will always have guns.
A nation aware of the Lord will always have religion, including religious expression in its public life.
And angry people will always resort to violence in the end, as in Portland OR this weekend. The worst part? The local mayor siding with those beating old people holding flags.
Who wants to live in the coldest places? Not the children of Africa or Latin America, for sure. White people have always been the folks in cold places around the world, and that's okay.
But angry David smells something sinister about this. Couple that with his assigned progressive hatred of the U.S. Constitution and we have a dyspeptic fret-party every time he looks at a map.
Or a flag, too, we can safely assume!
3
@L'osservatore "Fredonia is different from other countries and always will be." So what?
And then could you possibly understand "you don't need to tell me you are a Christian, let me figure it out for myself?" And in these days of Trump ... I've figured it out, and none of those who support him can claim to anything other than throwing spitballs at the word of Jesus.
And then as to "PortlandOregon this weekend ... The worst part? The local mayor siding with those beating old people holding flags. "
Could you bother to get your facts straight? Obviously not.
That was august 4th. Paul Welch is 38. The Mayor did not condone beating people holding flags, old or otherwise.
And to bring up this ugly fact in isolation without mentioning the wider violence is just plain lying.
https://www.wweek.com/news/2018/06/30/portland-police-declare-a-riot-aft...
Note the TITLE of that url -- and that's what happened. I am not condoning it, but Mr. Welch had the misfortune to wave a flag on a pole at the antifa after that.
And then your "who wants to live in the coldest places" is just plain disgusting. The Inuit are not caucasian, for starters.
Compelling, however saying that white people in these states are "represented" seems a little misleading. In many of these small, white states poverty among white people is prevalent. These people aren't generally dumb, but they are desperate. And politicians come around telling them that they can help, if only they were elected senator. And they get the votes, because the people need the help. As we know, the help never really arrives, and nothing ever really changes. These people are not represented. They are exploited.
3
Gasp! The Senate is non-democratic! Gasp! Rural America is more "white" than urban America! Gasp! Not every place in America looks like New York City! Double gasp! The masses should run everything! We should abolish the Senate and the Presidency and the Courts while we're at it. They're all non-democratic! The only principle we should have is mass rule by "democracy." Or how about this? Go read some history. The Republic was never meant to be 100% "democratic." There are checks against even the "democratic mass." For good reason. Go read Toqueville and grasp the Tyranny of the Majority. Or go read Aristotle on democracy. Oh, oops, that would require actually having a desire to learn some history and perspective rather than be 24/7 outraged.
5
Try making California three states.
3
Why is it that race only exists when it suits Democrats?
2
Not a very honest article. Shame on you NYT.
The constitution was much about protecting the noble farmer, the people of the soil, from being abused and ignored by the moneyed classes on the coast. How many of our issues concerning agriculture and mining are recognized?
The anglo saxons did not consider the ‘frog’ Frenchmen nor the Irish white. (In the 1960s their orphans were also not allowed in the ‘white’ orphanages in British Columbia. The Mother Cabrini order almost immediately after arriving in America discovered that Irish, Italian and Spanish, Eastern Europeans, Greek, Asian, Hawaiian, Black, Native American were not considered white nor treated in ‘white’ emergency rooms, medical clinics, hospitals, nor orphanages, nor many public schools. Even the Scandinavians were not accepted.
As the railroad was built from San Francisco to Seattle the Cabrini mothers o pumped teeter totter railroad pump cars 200 and more mikes to railroad camps to collect money and build orphanages and hospitals for all those ‘not white’ men and their children.
As our farms are abandoned let us invite rural refugees and islanders from Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Micronesia, Guam, and American Samoa and give them those abandoned farms to clear and rebuild. 40 or many more acres and an iron mule. Let us bring in Sudanese and Somali, Ethiopians and Anglo Cameroonians, Burmese, and so many others to farm.
1
With their birth rates we can juice the economy with more consumers, higher oil consumption, more fast food. A Somali driving an SUV burns as much fuel as a white in Minnesota.
The only chocolate being melted in the great mythical US melting pot, is white. When a Supreme Court candidate claims to be a Constitutionalist, this is code for white, male, Christian dominance in American law. The rise of US citizens of color is sending chills throughout white male Christian America, largely explaining the modern day Republican Party and the rise of an unqualified and unworthy racist Oval Office resident like Trump and Republican attempts to curtail the rights of American citizens of color.
2
@Jeff
Yours is the logic that dooms people of color to marginal political status in this country.
You may feel righteous in your proclamations, but all you do is alienate white males who once supported Civil Rights for all. You may be smug about your righteousness, but you will lose elections.
By the way, white men are not quaking because people of color are shouting; quite the contrary.
Those white men who were and struggle to remain empathetic with people of color merely roll their eyes and consider folks like you to be immature children incapable of coherent discussion.
Those white men who are genuinely racist welcome comments from the likes of you.
When you learn not to conflate all white men, you might learn how to win elections.
Why don’t you just say that it will add 4 Democrat senators?
That is your aim.
3
Puerto Rico has never voted for statehood.
3
This must be tongue in cheek. Why would anyone want to grant statehood to 2 poverty stricken, crime ravaged, politically corrupt, economically bankrupt geographical areas?
5
@Jim Tagley
Simple, really. Just as poverty stricken, crime ravaged and politically corrupt inner cities are reliably Democratic, the expectation is that DC and PR would be as well. It’s all about the votes.
Actually, just return DC to Maryland and make Puerto Rico part of Florida like Long Island is part of New York.
@kirvls I think , in actuality, it is, and that's not bad.
How much representation does the Senate give the average American woman compared to the average American man?
I think more “whites” are in politics because they are the new slaves to perceived power entitlements on paper that the rest of America derides. The collapse continues....
The United States should let Puerto Rico go. Let it become a country and move on.
3
@Concerned Citizen -- I sort-of agree, but that's not going to happen either.
No chance of this happening, but term limits would do a lot to help the "senate situation". No question, McConnell is a joke, a sickening partisan from a taker state, not a giver state. So that the senate doesn't completely fossilize, limits need to be imposed so these old fools can be put out to pasture and replaced with younger stock who have the ability to understand and empathize with the needs of the country.
3
@Curt If you want term limits, don't keep voting for the same people. People like Ted Kennedy, who made a 50 year long career out of the Senate, for example. By the way, 14 of the top 15 longest serving members of Congress were Democrats so be careful what you wish for.
3
Pure blather, and a scarcely-disguised ploy to add more Democrats to the electorate.
4
Count me "YES" for making Puerto Rico and Washington D.C. states.
And until a Democrat restores decency to the White House, let us change the address and title of the occupant, "president" to what it currently is "The Royal Embarrassment."
2
US territories is just a euphemism for colony.
2
@Iris Arco...
True. But the Commonwealth of Puetro Rico has chosen to remain a territory as it has many of the benefits of statehood...citizenship is the most alluring...with few of the drawbacks...such as not being able to incur sovereign debt.
1
So, Our Author had a bad case of writers block over the weekend, or, ran out of ideas, and is now borrowing from Charles Blow's tried and tested "Reduce Everything To Racism When You Have No Valid Argument" school of propagandizing.
That's one approach, I guess.
So far the majority of Puerto Ricans have voted against statehood, for a good reason.
And Washington DC is a district for a good reason.
But never mind. Good reasons don't matter when you can't win at the polls by using ideas that appeals to the voters.
14
@Objectivist -- I presume that you are aware that I strongly disagree with most of what you post, but I agree that this is the worst and most puerile piece by Leonhardt I have seen, though not entirely for your reasons.
He makes a gross error, and he ignores obvious facts that make his propositions impossible or unworkable.
Indeed he "had a bad case of writers block over the weekend, or, ran out of ideas."
This is C- work, barely one step above "my dog ate it."
@Lee Harrison
Differences on political theory aside, it is difficult for any of us to actually have a back-and-forth conversation on complex topics on this venue.
Text limitations and the long delay due to censoring makes it difficult to do much more than expound on a single topic, or make several terse statements.
Contrast with the Washington Post comments tool, which facilitates real -time chats but often interrupted by by rapid fire idiots.
It disturbs me to see the race baiting spread among the authors here. It is becoming a propaganda rag.
Our kids are color blind, gender blind, religion blind. Our youth are increasingly multi racial, multi religious and multi gender. They see people as people. It is time our older citizens do the same. Treat our young voices like they count.
3
After reading this article, I read the one describing how elected state officials are disregarding voter initiatives. For heaven's sake, the official elected by voters referred to those voters as crittters!! “The average critter that I run into on a daily basis doesn’t have that angst,” he said. VOTE HIM OUT!!
1
“If you think about the four youngest states — Arizona, New Mexico, Alaska and Hawaii — you may notice a pattern. Like Puerto Rico and Washington, they are home to a lot of nonwhite people, which is not a coincidence”
So the controlling variable is a lot of nonwhite people? Nonsense.
Another in the infinite series of examples of why I am not on the same side as such writers though I fear Trump may destroy the republic with his Trumpists. But prissy shallow lies are still prissy shallow lies.
The states listed had plenty of whites running things and plenty of disenfranchised native Americans. Duh. For pity’s sake. Can’t even keep the grievance Uber Alles arguments consistent.
And many view Hawaii as a state as an imperial white man coup. Including some who doubted it should be a state. I mean have you looked at a map? For pity’s sake.
And non of these now States were much to speak of in the years before they became States.
And there was a terrorist liberation movement for Puerto Rico during the writer’s life. No State for them you dirty Yankee! For pity’s sake.
A lot of nonwhite people indeed. As one descendent of one of who would make this silly list, I bet he would immediately spot the sort of person who just makes stuff up and judge them accordingly. Because lies are lies. It is a western thing.
Puerto Rico made incredibly bad decisions for its populace and for its future - it is demonstrably proud of its autonomy to make those bad decisions - but like a wayward teen when it gets in trouble it cries for its mommy.
The hardworking taxpayers of all current states wish our friends in PR well - but guess what - we are not going to transfer billions upon billions of our tax dollars to you - sorry but every quasi state has to eventually grow up to be responsible.
Balance your budget - clean up your debt - develop some industries - we would love to have you as a state. Just so you are not confused by Mr. Leonhardt - this has nothing to do with your ethnic demographics but rather everything to do with your economic dysfunction and willful magical macroeconomic thinking.
3
@SteveRR
Take a look around the Caribbean ... not a pretty picture away from the tourist beaches.
If you have any real suggestion as to how Puerto Rico could "develop some industries" other than tourism, put them out there.
Let's see: Open borders, wage depressing immigration free-for-all; radical socialism, guaranteed incomes for layabouts, free medical care for all--never mind cost; job-killing, economy depressing taxes to control the temperature and 'save' the world; admission of new states guaranteed to elect 4 Democrat senators, constitutional changes to nullify the power of about 30 mostly non-Democrat states turning them into, in effect, powerless territories. Dems must be living in a closed fantasy-world and have a national death-wish, they want to jump off a cliff, but they want everybody to join hands and jump with them. They must think the voters are as crazy as they are, somehow I think we're not. The last time I encountered something as goofy as the Democrat political agenda was when I read, "Gulliver's Travels".
3
@Ronald B. Duke
Indulge me; Alt-right conservative? Trumpist? most likely Caucasian? global warming science skeptic? opposed 'The New Deal'? supported Reaganomics? etc. Bingo! Perfect score!
1
@Ronald B. Duke -- could you show me the Ayn Randian nation that has implemented what you want a nation to be? Where is there this "libertarian" paradise?
I have the suspicion that the old Rhodesia is what you want?
David,
Apparently you are not familiar with the U.S. Constitution and the laws associated with admitting new states to the Union. And if you are, you are ignoring them in favor of fatuous political argument. If you have a reason(s) grounded in law, please advise.
3
Actually, despite the demographic war against us (immigration that doesn't reflect our population in the slightest, white folks subsidizing non-white 'families'), whites are still a majority.
So David Leonhardt is wrong there.
Washington DC is a special case, it was purposely left outside the state structure because the founders, in the Wisdom, knew that it would become a center of folks reliant, directly or immediately indirectly, on the Federal government... i.e. reliant on skimming taxes off the productive sector of our economy.
Finally, it's time to stop pretending Puerto Rico is part of the US. They showed us how committed to the US they were during the 'vieques controversy' -- they wouldn't even permit the US to continue training there (almost every day I, in Southern Orange County California, hear guns and bombs from Camp Pendleton). They have their own olympic team, they speak Spanish (unlike 83% of Americans). They are about half as wealthy as our poorest state.
Viva Puerto Rico libre!
2
The real problem with the Senate is how beholden the small state Senators are to big donors.
Jon Tester for example kowtows to bankers in NYC and the big fundraisers in Boston, Seattle and San Francisco. He often acts like Patty Murray’s and Kirsten Gillibrand’s poodle. He does a better job representing the money of the big coastal cities than people in Montana.
But you will never hear Leonhard complain about that.
@Frank -- I'd have more sympathy for your position if Rosendale were something other than a vanity-run near-billionaire candidate.
The party of segregation and slavery was the Democrat Party. There were no Republicans in Washington from the South for nearly 100 years following the Civil War. No political party has a more shameful history over such a long time than the Democrat Party in world history. And you are talking discrimination?
6
It’s ok for one party to evolve and change but the other can rest on its “Lincoln” laurels for all eternity?
Trying to describe democracy to a Republican is like talking to a border wall.
1
"It allows a minority of Americans- white Americans-..." An unfortunate framing of the thought, in that whites are 70% of the legitimate voters now. I assume the intent was 'a minority of WHITE Americans...'.
Unfortunately another misleading sentence follows later, "The Senate, as a result, gives far more special treatment to whites than it once did." Uh, maybe than it did in the period 1963 to 1981, or whatever, but certainly not from 1875 to 1935.
Puerto Rico should be in because it deserves to be treated more like, say, FL than Haiti. But the answer for DC is to let it chose whether to vote for Senator with VA or MD (and have a Rep).
There are many other fixes needed to update a governmental structure originally engineered for the facts of the late 18th century. A quick fix to improve fit in Presidential elections with popular vote would be to eliminate the Senate seat components from the Electoral College. The Supremes should have 8 year limits (and be re-invented as an emeritus pool of 30 to 40 that will be randomly assigned in juries...of equal #s, 8, 6...
We could go on...
& should, before game's back on...the US Civil War, 2nd half...
@M. J. Shepley -- many of us noted Leonhardt's gross errors of fact. I don't think your reconstruction is what he meant, because it blows his later argument.
Florida, California, New York, and Texas
Have grown too big for our Constitution’s britches.
Burgeoning populations
require fairer representation:
Either cut each in half
(Don’t make me laugh).
Or, call the Mother of all Constitutional Conventions
To ease seething racial tensions:
To overhaul senatorial representation
To preserve our great nation.
2
Fantastic idea!!
The problem is that the Repubs are in power and will never allow such a logical, fair and democratic change to their representation of the white oligarchy.
2
@Bi-Coastaleer in the Heartland..
Hate to have to break it to you. but like gun control legislation, there is insufficient political will in the Democratic Party, even with control of the Congress and the presidency and if they had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate to get these measures passed.
If there were, they should/would have tried it before they rammed Obamacare through Congress...And it would have made passing universal health care so much easier...
The longer that you cling to the viability of the impossible and unlikely, you will continue in the political irrelevance that you have earned over the past decade.
If volunteer contributions were included in the political power distribution calculation whites would still score the most power, followed by African Americans, then native Americans, then Asian Americans, and finally, way back in the pack, Hispanic Americans. Since the survival of our "commonwealth" is at stake we must, unfortunately, promote the progress of whites.
1
This article has a flawed premise: that white Americans are a minority. White Americans are 62% of the population and are so the majority. Do a quick google before writing an op-ed please.
3
So much for party platforms. Check out page 30 of the 2016 Republican platform. It calls for statehood for Puerto Rico ...
2
Not sure how you can claim white people are the minority when they make up over 70%. Why has media become the pulpit for people ashamed of who they are because their political party tells them to be?
7
Actually it’s white MEN....the rest of us have little to no representation (just ask a white woman in a state with no access to family planning or reproductive care).....and I’m 100% sure “she’s” represented by some old white dude......
Because they are, above all else, FOR SALE!
Want to see Mitch McConnell bust a gut laughing, bounce this one off him.
2
The U.S. Constitution is the greatest set of laws in world history.
Dismantling it for political reasons would be a colossal blunder.
Nearly every NYT Opinion,including Leonhardt's, portrays current issues as divisive based on race,ethnicity,religion,gender, and sexual orientation.
Black vs. White
Male vs. Female
Christian vs. non-Christian
People of color vs. people of no color
homosexual vs. heterosexual vs. transgender
Democrat vs. Republican
This is part of the problem, not the solution.
Portraying each individual based on their assigned identity group as different than all other Americans is damaging to all Americans.
The goal should be to view each individual as an American like all others.
5
You are 100 percent correct. The Times tried to divide us according to grievances that are based on race and gender and sexual-orientation. My grievance is that we are being divided. The columnist’s grievance is that we are being united. He gets power from division.
1
I'm struck by the omission of any discussion of Guam. The representation of Chamorro people in the Senate has got to be roughly ZERO.
A white person can't represent other races? People think Republicans are Preoccupied with race, the truth is Democrats are. As for P.R. becoming a state; we allowed them a number of times to become the 51first state and they voted to remain a commonwealth. We must stop looking at race, and looking at us as a nation
11
I'm a white person. Why should I have less direct representation in the government? I pay taxes, lots of them.
It's not about race, it's about the transfer of tax money, wealth and power without equal representation.
A perfect example of this is farmers who are mostly big corporations are getting federal aid, tax dollar transfers to reduce the pain of the trade war. Middle class and poor families. mostly in urban areas are paying for the tariffs when they are passed along to them as consumers.
It wouldn't happen with representation that's equal.
3
New York is 65% Caucasian and California is 61%. Review your Statistics 101 college text, and tell me the probability that two Senators elected from these "diverse" states will be something other than Caucasian. (HINT: Slim is thinking about leaving town.)
I am glad Leonhardt does not cast his analysis in purely political terms. Being small and white does not automatically make a state red. Here in small, mostly white New Hampshire we have the only all-female, all-Democratic Congressional delegation in the country, even though the state legislature and currently the governor are largely Republican.
I felt I understood why the District of Columbia was not a state (being our nation's capitol) but have never understood why Puerto Rico has been denied statehood, especially after Alaska and Hawaii--both also acquired territories--were brought into the fold and given Senators and Representatives. For a nation founded on anti-colonialism. having an unrepresented colony raises my uncomfortable questions about why.
1
I suspect the issue presented this article will at some point start to resolve itself. The "big" states, which are underrepresented in the Senate according to the author, are also becoming some of the most expensive. This is especially true in the more diverse urban areas that tend to have higher populations of non-white residents who the author says are underrepresented. Just look at California and the cost of living in San Francisco/LA/San Diego. New tech startups are starting to look outside of the San Francisco area for office headquarters, because no one can afford to live there. Where will these or other businesses move to? Probably, in part, some of the "small" states. With them will come more people and jobs. I'm not saying this will happen overnight and that suddenly South Dakota will becoming a booming tech hub. But eventually the cost of living in the "big" states will become unsustainable and people and businesses will need to move elsewhere. Furthermore, Democratic politicians, if they are as concerned about the issue of representation in the Senate, may want to push for this kind of relocation to help hasten political change in some of these small states. North Carolina is a great example-- it's becoming more of a purple state because more and more business has moved there over the past 15 years attracting well-educated (and left-leaning) residents from all kinds of racial backgrounds. In time, more states may start to look like North Carolina.
1
why is Washington D.C. not a state in spite of its status as the capital of the United States?
81
@Jung Myung-hyun Because by having the Capital not in any state, it was intended to keep it above the state vs state political fray.
3
@Jung Myung-hyun
It is a Federal City, and the land was donated by Maryland, and Virginia. The better solution would be to just return the land to the original states, and only keep a very small portion of government buildings. Then everyone gets representation.
2
@Jung Myung-hyun It was an area that was not part of any state so no other state could claim it held the national capital. District of Columbia (DC).
I lived most of my life in RI with its 1 million people. I don't think it should have 2 senators. I don't think any state with less than perhaps 5 million residents should have 2 senators like the Dakotas. Get rid of the electoral college as it too is unfair. No representation is extremely unfair. However I have seen Puerto Rico vote in several non-binding referendums on statehood, commonwealth status or independence. Commonwealth always won. Perhaps the way they were treated after Hurricane Maria may have changed their minds.
1
Apparently white people are the cause all the problems in the US.They force young black females to have out of wed lock babies in their early teens, encourage young black males toil each other, and obsessed with racial animosity. Mr. Leonhard - articles like this are why Trump won. When you lose you want to change the rules.
3
@Bill -- I applaud the clarity of your animosity ... but not much else.
You are perhaps aware that the overwhelming faction of black people in America are native born, and did not immigrate illegally?
And taking Mr. Trump's words at face value, he won though anger at illegal immigrants, predominantly hispanic.
But you do make it very clear what it is really about, for you.
@David Leonhardt
Please look outside the box for a solution, your point on how we landed up with small States, " It’s a deliberate feature of the Constitution, created to persuade smaller states to join the union."
Giving Statehood to D.C and PR is applying bandaid to an open wound. You are looking for reasons to make it more equitable to add more Senators.
This is no longer the case. Some of these States have less population than my County,Alameda (for those of you who don't know its across from SF) 1.63 Million People. The Greater Bay Area 7 Million, Los Angeles County has 10.16 Million people. (Both 2015 figures)
Population of Wyoming in 2018 573720, South Dakota, 858469, N. Dakota 755,393, Iowa 3,046,355, Kentucky 620,000, Maine 1.34 Million
This cannot stand. The power of minuscule States over larger States is not acceptable. Either merge contiguous small states to get to a reasonable sized population, say 5 Million? to make a State, or reduce their Senators? so that some share one or give the large States more Senators. This is only fair and equitable.
145
@Gary Valan
While the electoral victories that made two americans president despite losing the popular vote is something that is a sore spot for many and perhaps it is considered an anachronism changing it in this stage of our history is not something that would possible let alone beneficial. We would be better served by limiting the amount of money in the political process and reforming the revolving door of lobbyists. A stronger country is one in which all are involved. A pure democracy would diminish the rights of both the minority and individuals and be in reality mob rule
7
@Gary Valan
I agree!!!
Why isn't this being demanded by the residents of heavily populated states!
@Gary Valan I fully agree with the article and the author's proposal, but please get your facts straight. Kentucky has far, far more people than you quoted. Over four million, in fact. Citing faulty statistics diminishes your argument.
1
While this subject needs further discussion, the real inequality in the structure of the Senate is more related to the fact that people and political institutions can take advantage of week election laws to pervert the control of the Senate.
It is extremely expensive to win a Senate seat in the most populous states. However, for a fraction of the cost a consortium of wealthy individuals from New York, or Texas can ban together and support a candidate in Wyoming or Alaska. Banking interest or fossil fuel companies can easily channel funds to friendly candidates without revealing the true source of funds or the motivation.
If you target the 20 or so least populated states and are only modestly successful, you can control the Senate and the entire agenda of the US government.
Citizens United made an already bad system worse. I should have the right to influence (donate) to the election of Senators from Delaware, but not any other State.
2
“The Senate gives the average black American only 75 percent as much representation as the average white American.“
No doubt Sen McConnell, and the conservative majority on the Supreme Court, would argue that this is better than the Constitutionally-mandated 3/5 representation for blacks that was deemed necessary in order for slave-owning southern states to join the union in the first place. So much winning!
1
Before Newt Gingrich, cooperation and compromise were standard fare in Congress. Each representative was expected to consider the interests of others.
Now it is the parochial interests of one's party that prevail over all else, even the national interest and public opinion. Witness Brett Kavanaugh.
But it's money more than race or anything else that skews those interests. We need campaign finance reform and the only people talking about that are first time candidates. The others have been co-opted.
1
By focusing on identity politics, in this case race, this piece misses the mark big time.
There is a great inequity in the current makeup of political power in both houses of our legislative branch but it is not race based. It is a divide between urban and rural America. I moved recently from soon to be Former Congressman Crowley’s district. I was one of approximately 1.3 million of his constituents. Now in Syracuse the local Congressman, Karakoram, has approximately 800,000 constituents. In Wyoming, Alaska, and a few other states the congressional district is approximately 650,000 voters.
While Crowley’s district may be the most demographically diverse district in the US, what is important is that its voters count half as much as other voters. This is repeated around the US with urban populations being represented compared to suburban/rural populations. Increasing the size of the House to roughly 500 seats would repair this disparity.
The concept of two senators per state has been a good one when movement around the continent was difficult and commerce limited but now in the Internet age and high frequency travel this arrangement is more antique. Balancing a need for proportional representation and preventing tyranny of the majority, the Senate should be expanded by 15 to 20 with these expansion Senators elected at large regionally (I.e. New England, Mid-Atlantic, Northwest, etc) including one Senator each from DC, Puerto Rico and the territories.
1
@William B
Really good recommendation to expand the number of Senators and make them elected at large.
Equally prescient is your comment that the editors' focus on identity politics as the determinant to make the Senate more representational only backfires politically.
The irony is that their preoccupation on identity and race not only undermines support for progress, but it is a miserable failure in the pragmatic issue of winning elections.
James Madison and Alexander Hamilton argued in 1787 that representation in both houses of Congress should be on the basis of population. They lost that argument. Now we're seeing why Madison and Hamilton were right.
The author seems unaware that U.S. senators, unlike U.S. representatives, represent states, not people. Population is not a factor. The U.S. Constitution grants states equal suffrage in the Senate. This is the sole provision of the Constitution that cannot be changed by amendment. The author also seems misinformed about U.S. demographics. According to the Census Bureau, white Americans make up 76.6 of the population. They are not a minority. The author’s resentment of white voters is racism, pure and simple.
Washington, D.C. is a federal enclave. There are thousands of federal enclaves. The largest is White Sands Missile Range, which covers 693,972 square miles. Washington covers 68.34 square miles. The assertion that D.C. should be a state is absurd.
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045217
4
Here is another way of looking at it. Since there are 2 senators for each state, I allocated each 1/2 the population of the state they represent using the latest census bureau estimates. That means Alabama senators Doug Jones(D) and Richard Shelby(R), each received 2,437,373, or half of the states population of 4,874,747. Applied nationally, the cummulative total of state populations allocated to republiican senators was 143 million, wheras the dem/ind (independents caucus with the democrats) totaled 182 million, or 44% rep and 56% dem/ind. In short, the 52 senate republicans represent 44% of the constituencey and the 48 dem/ind 56%. This doesn't even take into account Puerto Rico or DC.
Perhaps we should add Guam and the Virgin Islands since they're protectorates like Puerto Rico. The people of all four areas that include DC should vote to become a state. DC residents would probably vote overwhelmingly to join the Union, but the outcome is not as certain in the other islands. We need a constitutional amendment to unwind the Electoral College and have runoff or ranked voting to ensure the president enjoys support from the majority of Americans. The Senate as the only body that gives equal representation to small and large states.
1
+ Make NYC an independent state from the rest of New York. City issues (e.g., traffic) should be managed by the city.
+ Split California into 2 or 3 states. It is absurd that the largest state in the country has the same representation in the Senate as the smallest.
4
Regardless of race, state (or in the case of PR and DC, US territory), or political party, we should all stand by the slogan from the 1700's "taxation without representation is tyranny".
1
The argument that the entire reason for the existence of the Senate was to entice small states to join the Union is nonsense. The Constitution was designed with checks and balances other than its tripartite division into Congress, the Judiciary, and the Executive.
One of these is the Constitutional recognition that majority rule is subject to great “enthusiasms” and is potentially authoritarian. A tyranny of the majority is, indeed, always a possibility. Thus, the Constitution also recognizes that the minority is also governed by its consent and it does so by establishing a Senate whose members are at least partially insulated from democratic “enthusiasms” by giving them 6 year rather than 2 year terms. Senators, it was intended, would be chosen from among those who would have greater concern for the Union than Representatives, whose political fortunes were tied to the often fleeting “enthusiasms” of the citizenry, much of which is non-political.
Turning the Senate into another House of Representatives doesn’t solve the problem. The hidden breakdown of this “checks and balances” feature of the Constitution is the corruption of the Senate—and the House—with money.
And, oh yes, let’s create states out of Puerto Rico and Washington DC. Some fresh blood from people who actually believe in our constitutional democracy can only be a good thing.
3
Never heard of a state or an entire ethnicity giving up their enonomic/political power for a democratic principle. It might be a better world we’re humans like that, but we are not!
It may be a more realistic option to ask those who feel the oppressive sting of this inequity in our theoretically representative democracy to, as best they can, avoid the moral posturing that too often results therefrom, accept it and simply sign voters up and get to the polls!
We can only make change the old-fashioned way: by changing ourselves and participating in the political fray!
1
Do you know who has no representation?
The 60% of the population that works for a living and their families.
The Republican Party represents the richest .1% of the population, aiming all policy at them, with promises that it will trickle down to workers. But that is more than Democrats are promising them. Democrats refuse to promise anything to anyone. Republicans work 24/7 to make the mega rich richer, and Democrats do their best to stay out of the way.
No one is fighting for the American worker, and the American worker feels unrepresented. That is why a lying fraud could promise all things to all people and get workers to vote for Republicans.
Democrats now represent the fake corporate center, that no one likes, while Republicans pretend to champion working people, as they give their productivity away.
It is the Democratic move to the center that has cut turnout, and has the ship of state listing so far to the right we are in danger of capsizing.
By refusing to actually oppose the global billionaires and their corporations to help workers, and becoming the second party of the rich, you have left the largest voting block (workers) feeling like no one in government cares about them.
Those that vote for Republicans may be voting against their interests, but voting for centrist Democrats is voting for those same policies.
Stop trying to get a few million Republicans to switch to Democrats, and start trying to give tens of millions of non-voting workers representation.
206
@McGloin Which Party has supported equal pay for women? Which Party has supported raising the minimum wage? Which Party has supported affordable health care? Which Party has supported lowering cost of higher education?
1
@McGloinThanks for taking the time to write this. So well said. You said what has been roiling around in my mind
@McGloin; The richest .1% pay more taxes than 70 million of the poorest. That is fair enough. Get some skin in the game.
Puerto Rico has had votes on becoming a state and as yet has said no, Washington D.C. is unique in the fact that all federal laws do not apply to that city so there's little chance of them becoming a state because congress won't allow it.
And this democratically unjust Senate voted Kavanagh on the Supreme Court. Injustice upon injustice is taken as justice.
Nice job on this article.
As a next step, review the current contributions of these "white" states, e.g., Federal Taxes per capita, food, culture, environment, politics, education, etc. vs. your other states.
Disclosure: Genetically, I'm a New Englander, but born in Florida and went to high school in Iowa.
1
@Mark Samuel Tuttle genetically I am a human being and not heavily invested in where on earth my ancestors may or may not have lived, what ship they took to America and when, what prep schools whose books they were enrolled on at birth and how many trust funds I draw on...just a commoner here.
1
I can see Puerto Rico but please, leave the nation's capital out of any state. Give representation appropriate to the situation but not statehood.
The comments to this article reinforce my thought regarding "civics" ... or the lack of civic education. Too many people don't understand this countries history -- the why's and how's. It's scary.
DC is too small for statehood .. and, as it becomes more white would do just what this article seems to think is wrong with the country. My guess is today Hawaii would not have become a state - it made for a nice even number at the time.
PR is also a poor candidate for statehood.
You never complained when the Dakotas and Montana sent Democrats to Congress. Don’t you remember Senate Majority Leaders Mansfield and Daschle. I suspect if those states sent Dems to the Senate this column wouldn’t be written.
1
The inclusion of Puerto Rico is justified if that is what the residents aspire to. On the other hand, DC was carved out of Maryland. It would be appropriate to give residents of the capital a vote in Maryland senatorial elections and to count them when determining how many House seats. Also don't forget that Hawaii was only allowed into the Union when Alaska was available to restore the D-R senatorial balance.
The Constitution was designed to be a fluid document, was it not? Witness the twenty-seven amendments that have been added to it.
Seems to me we're long overdue for some touch-ups!
Adding D.C. and Puerto Rico, and disbanding the Electoral College would be good places to start.
7
While you acknowledge that the senatorial size/representation disparity has long historical roots, you now add a racial issue. Do you think turning the issue into a racial matter would be helpful to those who seek a fairer share of representation? I don't: you have made an important contribution to the trend toward tribalism.
4
Political philosophy does not equal race. This article repeats the tiresome Democratic meme that identity automatically translates into political orientation. Actually, recent polls among Latinos find that many of them define themselves as conservative and that Trump is as popular with them as he is with the rest of the population. Texas has more Latinos than California: why is it as red as California is blue? Another article in NYT shows how women can vote for Trump. I am waiting for an interview with an Iranian immigrant I know who was his early supporter. Those people are not self-deluded. They are not brainwashed. They are much more rational political actors than those who automatically vote their skin color. You may disagree with their political philosophy - I do - but you have to respect their free choice. We are not differently colored chips that Democrats can slot into so many boxes to ensure their victory (which, in my view, is not coming any time soon). We are individuals who are capable of rising above the accident of our birth. Until Dems recognize it and articulate a coherent political message that can appeal to everybody, they’ll lose. I don’t see why DC and Puerto Rico should not be given statehood but when they do, prepare for electoral surprises.
155
@Mor The article actually doesn't say that they would automatically be Democrats. (See non-voting Puerto Rico rep who is a Republican.) It just says that Blacks and Hispanics are underrepresented in the Senate because of the structure. That's all.
@Morat Uh, it didn't say that at all. The only mention of Republican and Democratic parties was that PR and DC citizens have a right to representation, and that many people think they would be Democratic but that PR has a history of Republican representation.
@Mor "Texas has more Latinos than California: why is it as red as California is blue?" Have you heard of gerrymandering?
As we see more and more voter suppression and more barriers to vote, the ability to buy elections, we are ever closer to the plutocracy that we really seem to be. We move further and further from being a more perfect union.
3
Make Peurto Rico a state? Okay. Washington D.C. - NO. The District of Columbia was purposely created as a non-partisan enclave, made up of land donated by Virginia and Maryland. Making it a state would "politicize" it more than it is now.
However, the citizens of those places should have their votes count. They could choose a state to register in - with an exception rule - perhaps the one their relatives originally occupied?
There is another way. Let's work a little harder to find it.
3
Your fact based article is enlightening. Thank you. As one of those who has lived in Washington, D.C. since 1974 without representation in the Congress, I was struck by two facts and one question in particular. First, that the "advantage" of the white population was so "narrow" (not to far off the +/- survey error factor) compared to the title of the article and the points on the map. Second, that the racial mix of Washington, D.C. is changing rapidly enough that it is no longer a majority black city, so the statehood impact would be one mainly of party, not color. The question which is not answered by the article, and which I will explore in the survey data, is whether he hispanic number is citizens only or inclusive of the large illegal population (I should note that I favor changes in the immigration law, but until the law is changed find such illegal activity as sanitary cities problematic). If it is just citizens, the numbers are meaningful. If inclusive of the total legal and illegal population then the it would be interesting to see the adjusted numbers as a way to see what the impact would be of immigration law changes (which I favor),
18
@Dallas Salisbury "whether he hispanic number is citizens only or inclusive of the large illegal population"
The vast majority of Latinos are here legally--nearly 90%. Some have been in the US since before their homelands were part of the US.
Also, there are many ways to be here legally (not just citizens vs. "illegals").
Let's all try to remember why we are a nation of states. What's good in Alabama, might not be right for New York. And that's the way it should be. We are not a nation built on one idea but rather tolerance for all people's ideas and values. At the simplest level that means if you don't like the way they do things in Mississippi, move to Vermont.
66
@Landlord...
But remember, in Vermont you won't be having universal health care because the state legislature killed the proposal on discovering that that their bill for the program would require DOUBLING the yearly tax bill to the states residents.
Note, too, that now that the state is no longer going to provide such a generous program, the residents of Vermont are turning to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to get them to pick up the tab.
Does any one think that the cost of a "medicare for all" program is going to be any different for the Feds than it was for the state?
Dream on, dear liberal, dream on.
Can you give examples of policies that are good for Alabama but not good for New York?
@Landlord
Alabama ranks near the bottom in education and healthcare. What's good about that?
1
I think one must ask, at this point in history, if David's argument here is even radical enough. Is there some compelling reason that small states should be over represented in what is arguably the most powerful legislative body in the country? The political compromise that led to the design of the Senate was a worthy one at the time, but perhaps it's time to iterate further, and think more critically, and seriously, about changes to the Senate that would make the body more representative while maintaining its more significant separation from the public (when compared to the House). Adding DC and PR could certainly be part of this process, but why stop there? In fact, I think it's probably true to say that ONLY adding DC and PR could de-legitimize the institution, in the same way that Republicans current structural advantage in the House causes some the question the body's legitimacy. But I digress, let's deal with the real issue here: that states with unequal populations are arbitrarily represented in the Senate with the same weight (2 votes). Everything else is either a symptom of this central cause, or a lesser issue.
4
I live in DC and we deserve to become a state. I encourage all DC citizens NOT to serve on juries for federally appt judges until we are a state. Chaos breeds results.
As for rétrocession (go back to being part of MD) TN and KY were once part of VA, as was WV. I doubt they would like to return to VA.
Also, there would still be a federal district, albeit a smaller one, so no change to Constitution is needed.
1
In an otherwise spot-on commentary, more than 500,000 other Americans are neglected: those in the U.S. Virgin Islands (100,000); American Samoa (195,000); Guam (162,000); and Northern Mariana Islands (55,000). Is there a way to combine the insular territories, including Puerto Rico --and possibly Washington, D.C. -- into a single state?
144
Thank you, I wanted to make that point. People in the territories are citizens too.
Why can’t they vote absentee ballot ... say in the new state of DC?
Every citizen should be eligible to vote somewhere.
20
An article a few weeks ago in the times talked about how to vote absentee. So I can move to Europe and still vote absentee. If I move to the Virgin Islands I lose that right. Someone needs to explain the logic.
37
@Tim
The Caribbean territories can join with Puerto Rico and become a new state, if they want to.
The Pacific territories can become part of Hawaii, if they and Hawaii agree.
The non-federal parts of DC can rejoin Maryland, like when Arlington and Alexandria left DC and rejoined Virginia -- retrocession.
Then everyone would have voting representation in Congress.
12
This is a strange way of thinking about representation. Every black, Hispanic, and Asian citizen of one of the fifty states has the same number of senators that I (a white person) have: two. I comprise just one part in 300+ million in the nation, but my representatives in the senate comprise one-fiftieth of the whole body, just as do the senators for every black, Hispanic, and Asian citizen of one of the fifty states. That seems like a pretty good deal.
I have resided in bigger (supposedly underrepresented) states: California, Texas, and North Carolina, but I don't begrudge my countrymen in North Dakota or Maine their two senators each. Any time I wish to increase my representation in the Senate, I can move to Wyoming. There's plenty of land, and the cost of living is low.
63
@Sam...
The major change that has fueled this phony "constitutional crisis" is the 27th Amendment's provision for the popular election of senators...
The result has been the Senate becoming a miniature House of Representatives, no longer representing the interests of the states from which the Senators were elected.
Prior to the 27th Amendment, elected senators were forced to navigate the political winds of their state legislatures, proving that they had the political skills to achieve political consensus, and more likely actually to represent the interests of their states to the government of the United STATES of America.
So many of our citizens have forgotten...or never knew...what the words "federal" and "republic" mean, and have even less understanding that we are constitutional, representative, and FEDERAL REPUBLIC.
@Sam "Supposedly" underrepresented? No, actually underrepresented.
@Sam I'm sorry, but it's not exactly that easy for a person of color to move to such small states. Being one of like, 100 Black guys in North Dakota doesn't sound too safe. There's a reason why we tend to concentrate in cities: there's at least some sort of safety in diversity.
I don’t think the idea of statehood for PR is a good thing. Consider that their economy is in tatters with no indication of ever recovering (fact is it has been catastrophic since the 1970s) and aren’t Alabama and Mississippi states of the Union but overall poor as dirt? What makes anyone think that PR would get a boost by joining the Union? That is pure myth and fantasy. I think the best option is for the island to sever its useless relationships with the US and to go its own way. In this manner they could tap into international markets and relationships without Washington in the way and blocking prospects left and right. Then, in the era of superstorms, there is the yearly peril of climate calamity for the island. What will happen when the next category 5 strikes? But this has nothing to do with the topic under discussion.
3
I thought I’d seen it all until this. I thought I’d seen the worst of the desperation of the Democratic Party to “transform” our country to their liking and take power by any means necessary until this. I thought I’d seen the extent of the rejection of our Constitution, and the process to amend it, so its words reflect the will of not just a majority of the People but also a majority of the States in order that we may continue to be a United States until this.
Affirmative action was always a blunt and dirty instrument to resolve long-standing racial disparities on our country and yet Mr. Leonhardt would have us apply it for the sole purpose of adding states that would be more likely to vote for Democrats. This gambit is appalling for any number of reasons but the simple reality is that Democrats are so convinced of their rightful place as our masters that they are willing to destroy the very system of government they want to lead. They accuse Trump and Republicans of destroying the country on the basis of nothing more than incoherent Twitter rants that result in not a single policy or law that actually destroys the country or threatens our system of government while at the same time they think up truly vile plans like this one.
Of course, I shouldn’t be surprised given that it follows nicely on the heels of court-packing plans to make it even easier to obtain by judicial fiat what they cannot obtain by actual legislation.
2
So you think it's fair that residents of Washington DC and Puerto Rico have zero representation in Congress?
Do these people pay any Federal taxes? Wasn't there something written somewhere about "no taxation without representation"? No matter, I'm sure wherever it was written, it's irrelevant today. After all, Donald Trump and Jared Kushner haven't paid any taxes in years, and think how much "representation" they get?!
8
and if wishes were horses beggars would ride...
what we need is another Constitutional amendment
making Senate representation, which was by appointment
until an earlier amendment, proportionate to population
like the House of Reps
just to add more states, with Senators in the same scheme
won't help restore Democracy to our Plutocracy...
1
If Democrats win full control of Congress and the presidency in 2020, one of the first things they need to do is to grant full statehood to Puerto Rico and (if possible) D.C. They don’t need to ask GOPers for permission. Just do it.
3
Puerto Rico statehood is not going to happen. Ever.
And it's not lost on the taxpayers that the 6 counties around DC are among the wealthiest in the USA. To portray DC as an under-represented victim of the majority white population in the rest of the US is risible.
1
I would add the US Virgin Islands, as well.
2
"I know that some Republicans will claim that adding two states is just a ploy to help the Democratic Party."
And they'd be right!
Funny how all these radical changes --- packing the Supreme Court, eliminating the Electoral College, adding new states --- happen when the Left loses.
Nary a mention or consideration during the Obama Administration.
2
It's worse than you think. Do the math:
The ten biggest population states, California, Texas, Florida, NY, etc, have 58% of the nation's population, but only 20 Senate seats.
The 26 smallest population states, like Wyoming, Alaska, Montana, Vermont, RI, etc. have less than 18% of the nation's population, yet hold 52 Senate seats, an absolute majority.
If the 40 smaller states band together, with only 42% of the population, they can simply totally ignore the 10 biggest...and the disparity gets worse the 34 states with even LESS of the population have a veto-proof 68 seats. They could, LITERALLY, expel ANY big-state Senator they don't like (it's in the main body of the Constitution). They could present any Amendment they want, no matter HOW unfair.
It was a DREADFUL compromise enacted to entice the slave states. Some Republicans even want to repeal the 17th Amendment, returning the election of Senators to the state legislatures!
Representative Democracy is fundamentally anathema throughout human history. It's clear at the slightest danger, humans ignore Franklin's sage advice that those who give up a little liberty for a little more safety, will soon lose BOTH and deserve neither.
Trump is now trying to get a law passed that will make it illegal to peacefully assemble around the White House and its environs to petition the government for redress of grievances. In other words, repeal the 1st Amendment!
4
The data simply do not support Mr. Leonhardt's attempt to be divide people based upon racial identity. Washington D.C. had a large majority of white people from it founding in 1800 well into the 20th century. If race were a consideration, we would have had two more white senators from Washington D.C. for all of those years.
Puerto Rico still has a majority white population according to 2010 US Census.
Please look to data and stop practicing racial identify politics.
5
@Dan
Sorry Dan, the fact that Puerto Rico has a majority white population by definition eliminates them from Mr Leonhardt's proposal. Facts do not matter much to the editors or their echo chamber on identify politics. No more so than facts influence the WSJ or Fox News talking heads.
>
Just more infantile optimism.
PR and DC becoming states has absolutely no chance unless it can be accomplished with a simple majority vote in the House and Senate with a signature from the POTUS, and I don't believe these are the rules to become a state; I may be wrong.
This also assumes that the DEMs control all three branches and the SCOTUS doesn't conjure up something unconstitutional in it. Wait for it: 5-4 no.
The GOP is never going to give the Dems 4 Senate seats unless it is allowed to split Dakotas up into 8 different states.
Get with the program.
2
It is an oxymoron that without power P.R. cannot command the power to become a state and obtain power which is needed to become a state. P.R. is not clearly Republican or Democratic although it often has Republican elected officials. This should make it more viable but it doesn't command enough from either party.
As to the imbalance of the electoral college and small states how many more times do we have to read a wasted column on this. It is not going to change and most liberals should not want a Constitutional process to start because if it does we will get a don't hurt the flag amendment, an anti-abortion amendment, etc. It will b a dangerous process. AND, even the ERA failed to pass. So these are useless arguments.
27
@Bruce Kirsch "Catch 22, it's the best there is!"
@Bruce Kirsch
The first step to Puerto Rico becoming a state would be that Puerto Ricans would have to vote to become a state, and Puerto Ricans have never voted to become a state. There is a high probability that they have not because residents of Puerto Rico would have to start paying income taxes.
It's a good thing the ERA didn't pass, because it would open up a legal morass today as to whether transgendered men were entitled to protected status because they were biologically female.
@Bruce Kirsch
Not only a useless agreement, but bringing the racial element into how representation is apportioned is also pointless. Really, we should set up some form of representation according to how the population breaks out racially? Have to agree, this was a wasted column.
DC is not a state. Let the Federal Goverrnment give it back to Maryland, and then let Maryland and DC figure out what they want to do.
Creating a new state based on race, as Leonhardt suggests, is a poor idea. Creating new states out of existing cities is an even poorer idea.
3
How on earth does this line make it into the New York Times:
"The anti-democratic tendencies of the Senate are well known: Each citizen of a small state is considered more important than each citizen of a large state. It’s a deliberate feature of the Constitution, created to persuade smaller states to join the union."
In the Senate, each state is equal: they all get two votes. In the House, representation is proportional: one vote for every X number of people. It has nothing to do with one citizen being more important than another, and sure as heck is not "anti-democratic". It's a bicameral legislature, and your vote decides who is in there. Would the writer call it anti-Democratic if people he agreed with were in the majority?
Here is a solution: VOTE. People seem to have the ability to complain ad nauseum, but not to make it to their polling place one Tuesday every two years.
2
I like the concept of California tech companies hiring 300,000 Puerto Rican remote workers and moving 100,000 each to Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Shortly we would have 6 Senators in favor of Puerto Rican statehood.
1
If the Electoral College is fundamentally undemocratic and contrary to the ideals espoused in the rest of our Constitution (it is both), the lack of full Congressional representation for the District of Columbia is as naked a denial of the rights of citizenship as you could ever find.