If you read my last post, you will notice a theme.  People on the Left wanting to destroy the electoral system in order to dilute Republicans out of power, permanently.

An anonymous writer with the Harvard Law Review has another idea on how to do this.

Also, more evidence that Harvard is a worthless Leftist diploma mill.

Pack the Union: A Proposal to Admit New States for the Purpose of Amending the Constitution to Ensure Equal Representation

We have pretty equal representation now.  That is the House of Representatives and the Senate.  Populous states have more Representatives and all states have two Senators.  It’s called the Great Compromise and it’s worked for 244 years.  You’d think somebody at Harvard Law would know that.

Recent events have highlighted some of the ways in which federal elections in the United States are profoundly undemocratic and, thus, profoundly unfair.  The Electoral College — when it contravenes the popular vote — is an obvious example of this unfairness. But it is just one of the mathematically undemocratic features in the Constitution. Equal representation of states in the Senate, for example, gives citizens of low-population states undue influence in Congress. Conversely, American citizens residing in U.S. territories have no meaningful representation in Congress or the Electoral College.

No… it’s what kept states like Rhode Island from getting the shit kicked out of it by New York.  It was the Senate that got the little state to ratify the Constitution in the first place.  Today, that holds equally well for people in Wyoming, the Dakotas, and other states.

When the 53 members of Congress from California say “no more domestic drilling for oil,” the one representative from North Dakota hasn’t a chance.  When the two Senators from California repeat “no more domestic drilling for oil,” the two Senators from North Dakota can stand toe to tow with them.

This was the whole point of a bicameral legislature.

Just as it was unfair to exclude women and minorities from the franchise, so too is it unfair to weight votes differently. The 600,000 residents of Wyoming and the 40,000,000 residents of California should not be represented by the same number of senators.

Yes, they should, for exactly the reason I stated above.  What angers the Left is that they are concentrated in pockets.  They don’t have a problem with the House because they control the big urban population centers.  They don’t control rural America so they want to take away rural America’s meaningful representation.

While a step in the right direction, these proposals are inadequate. To create a system where every vote counts equally, the Constitution must be amended. To do this, Congress should pass legislation reducing the size of Washington, D.C., to an area encompassing only a few core federal buildings and then admit the rest of the District’s 127 neighborhoods as states. 

This will create 127 new Congressional Seats and 254 new Senators, all which represent one of the bluest and the most big-government bureaucracy dependent areas in the country.

The US Congress will become a permanent Blue super-majority with unchecked power.  It will also elect a Democrat to the Presidency every time.

Doing this, will also give the Left the ability to rewrite the Constitution at will.

These states — which could be added with a simple congressional majority — would add enough votes in Congress to ratify four amendments: (1) a transfer of the Senate’s power to a body that represents citizens equally; (2) an expansion of the House so that all citizens are represented in equal-sized districts; (3) a replacement of the Electoral College with a popular vote; and (4) a modification of the Constitution’s amendment process that would ensure future amendments are ratified by states representing most Americans.

So California and New York could amend the constitution whenever they felt like it but the Deep South and Midwest can’t say no.

Radical as this proposal may sound, it is no more radical than a nominally democratic system of government that gives citizens widely disproportionate voting power depending on where they live.

Bullshit.  Our current system has worked for nearly two-and-a-half centuries.

The Left lost the 2016 election and can’t rely on the Senate to impeach Trump so now they want to nuke the system and make DC, NYC, San Francisco, and Los Angeles in total dictatorial control of the United States.

Of course, the nutjobs at Vox love this shit.

A modest proposal to save American democracy
A law journal just floated a wild idea to add 127 more states to the union. And it’s all constitutional.

They want to save American democracy by totally destroying it and giving one party by way of one city, super-majority power.  That doesn’t sound very democratic.

American democracy is broken.

Broken = Democrats not in total control.

An unsigned note, entitled “Pack the Union: A Proposal to Admit New States for the Purpose of Amending the Constitution to Ensure Equal Representation” and published in the Harvard Law Review, offers an entirely constitutional way out of this dilemma: Add new states — a lot of new states — then use this bloc of states to rewrite the Constitution so that the United States has an election system “where every vote counts equally.”

Again, one party super-majority with no check or balance on that.

Our system was designed to prevent easy change.  Our Founding Fathers emboldened the “no” vote.

One can quarrel with the details of the Harvard proposal. Ratifying a constitutional amendment, for example, requires the consent of three-fourths of the states. So it makes more sense to divide the District of Columbia into 150 states, rather than 127 states, to ensure that pro-democracy amendments will actually be ratified. (Under the Harvard proposal, there would be 177 states, so 133 of them would have to agree to a new amendment. That means that six existing states would need to play along.)

The issue for Vox is that the insane Harvard Law idea isn’t insane enough.

It also would be a good idea to draw the boundaries of those new states to ensure that the electorate within each of the new states supports such amendments.

So Gerrymandering is great when it guarantees Democrat outcomes.

Details aside, however, the wild thing about this Harvard Law Review proposal is that it is absolutely, 100 percent constitutional. The Constitution provides that “new states may be admitted by the Congress into this union,” but it places no limits on the size of a state either in terms of population or in terms of physical space.

Literally nothing in the Constitution prevents Congress from admitting the Obama family’s personal DC residence as a state — a state which would then be entitled to two senators, one member of the House, and exactly as much say on whether the Constitution should be amended as the entire state of Texas.

So it’s unfair that Wyoming – a Red state – has as much power in the Senate as California – a Blue state – but it’s totes awesome to make Obama’s house its own state – a Blue state – with as much Senate power as Texas – a Red state.

See how this really isn’t about fairness as it is giving the Democrats monopolistic power?

Congress could then follow up this move by adding the personal DC residences of 149 other staunch Democratic families as states, each of which would then get two senators of their very own.

Absolute Democratic monopolistic power.

So let’s be frank. The Harvard note’s proposal is ridiculous, but it is no more ridiculous than a system where the nearly 40 million people in California have no more Senate representation than the 578,759 people in Wyoming.

If the people of Wyoming decided that they had enough of being told they didn’t deserve representation because there are so few of them, and decided to do something about that with violence.  I think I would be sympathetic to them.

That’s the one thing that Harvard Law and Vox have overlooked.

We believe in the Constitution because its the law of the land and it works for everyone.

The second that the Obamas, and Nancy Pelosi’s daughter, and Hunter Biden are given the power to invalidate the votes of the people of Arkansas or Oklahoma or Nebraska or the Dakotas or Kansas, the respect that we have for the Constitution will distribute.

The corrective action for that will be to remind Harvard Law and Vox that we own 400 million guns and a trillion rounds of ammo.