I can't help but feel this would give the Democrats an untouchable Senate majority, maybe even a supermajority, and with it the White House. But that's just a gut feel. Atlanta, Houston, Trinity, Chinati, possibly Ogallala, Phoenix and Shiprock- all new blue or swing states carved out of old red or swing ones. Several low-population red states get swallowed up- Utah, Montana (though it's swing, really), Wyoming, Idaho, and the Dakotas have a combined 12 senators under the normal system. Under the new map, they have four. Alaska disappears into the Seattle metro area. California gets carved up into six states, most of which are now blue.
This will be slightly balanced out, of course- North Carolina's emerging swing status will be delayed as it gets carved into three and lumped in with rural parts of other states. But this would be a boon to the Democrats, all told.
The elections would just become between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative Democrats, everything would be the same.
No, see, this is wrong. It is, as we have seen through Gerrymandering, incredibly easy to sideline a group entirely. It would be the near versus the far left, at most, and that's not nearly the same. It's true that eventually, given time with no changes, population fluctuations and demographics undermine the prevalent power base in a area (That's why the period immediately after Gerrymandering sucks, while immediately before it is not so bad.). But even in the short term,It is essential to all involved however, that a large undisputed not be allowed to occur at the level which marginalized minority.
The entire purpose of the Founding Fathers was to prevent anything from becoming so powerful as to run rampant with it's power. In and of that, they are successful as all hell. Crab mentality was their design. James Madison wrote in the 51st of the Federalist Papers:"Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. Further, as Madison wrote in the
Federalist 10, a majority would be the most dangerous of all factions that might arise, for the majority would be the most capable of gaining complete ascendancy. Or, simply put, as he said it, If the political society were very extensive, however, and embraced a large number and variety of local interests, the citizens who shared a common majority "must be rendered by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect their schemes of oppression".
So to mess with it would be messing with a system that thus far, hasn't fallen to a single interest. The Founders were right here, as much as I support the democrats, I'd hate to see what might happen left to their own devices. It's easy for a single power to enter in, take over the party, and put a stranglehold, through it, on all of America. With What we have now, that' completely impossible.
But of course, these are idle calculations.I don't like the map because New York would literally have to give up one of the five Boroughs to fit as even 1 state. There's a little too much enforcement of population restrictions per-state and not enough of common interest, which is what presumably a redesign would want to accomplish.
Author
Topic: Fifty States, Equal Populations? (Read 2992 times)