$850 billion. Way to aim low, Mr. President.

We could have a Constitutional Convention to change the Senate, could we not? I think that's long overdue, actually, but I think it should be done when there is far less chance of the Republicans influencing the outcome.

The Senate is full of "rotten boroughs" but there's not too much that can be done to solve this. However, admitting the District of Columbia as a state with full Senate representation would mitigate the anti-urban problem-- as well as that other even uglier under-representation problem.

Right, you CAN change the format of the Senate, but yeah, tough sell.

I've often wondered what the process would be-if it would be easier, better, or even possible- to instead change the states.

For example, NYC should be a state by itself. Or three or four. And it (or they) should include chunks of northern New Jersey too, so the urbanized area is as much as possible under one jurisdiction.

Same with DC/MD/VA. Los Angeles. Etc.

In other words, if you can't get more senators per state, just subdivide the dense areas into more states. As a big bonus, you can try to draw new urban agglomerations with more coherent regional government.

Or not. Obviously the state is sort of the atomic unit of the United States. And then statehouses would likely not be very inclined to let their largest tax bases secede without a fight. West Virginia aside, states are virtually impossible to redraw. But while we're dreaming...

backing up to the original issue, are there that many shovel-ready transit projects out there waiting funding? or is that not an issue?

i was under the (possible mis-)understanding that one factor in how much stimulus money could be spent on infrastructure of any kind is that the money has to be spent more or less right now, so the projects need to be ready to go on relatively short-notice.

as to the larger point, you're right about the senate. it is by definition an anti-urban institution.

The UK New Labor party faced a similar grim situation with the House of Lords as the US has with the Senate. But they got restructuring after a long hard battle.

Breaking up states is probably undoable, and some think that changing the formula on the Senate is similarly a waste of time to try.

My take: nobody wants a new constitutional convention, but that's the urban states' nuclear option. Either pass a amendment that gives some weight to population in Senate membership, or face a convention. Keeping total membership within the Senate below, say 120 (20% gain) to maintain some intimacy, a formula could be amended in that gives a range of perhaps 1-10 senators dependent on citizens per state. We all know the states (WY, DC, VT, ND, AK, SD, DE, MT) that should be reduced (or awarded for DC) to one Senator - at approximately the population of one House Member.

CA perhaps should have 10 Senators (36 times the population of the one-vote states-to-be)

TX, NY and FL should have 8-9 Senators

IL, PA, OH, MI, GA, NC, NJ, VA should have 6-7.

The remaining mid-size states should be allocated 2-5 Senators - perhaps a reduced-mirroring the House contigents from those states.

This won't be done quickly, but the process of submitting an amendment to do this should be started, knowing that it might take 5 years or more to get approval/disapproval. Always the threat of a constitutional convention should be the damocles sword held over the heads of the state legislatures that are reluctant or opposed. It takes 2/3rds of the states to call a convention, and 3/4ths of state approvals to pass an amendment, so the threat of convention could be made real.

My take: nobody wants a new constitutional convention, but that's the urban states' nuclear option. Either pass a amendment that gives some weight to population in Senate membership, or face a convention.

The legislatures of two-thirds of the states have to agree to a convention. And whether an amendment to the constitution is proposed by Congress or by a convention, it still requires the agreement of three-fourths of the states to be ratified. There is no nuclear option.

Breaking up states is probably undoable

Does anyone know offhand what it would actually take though?

Wikipedia's page on WV secession is ambiguous. It seems that in that case, following Virginia's secession from the Union, the dissenting delegates from the NW area declared themselves the real legislature (the others having abdicated by becoming rebels), and voted to break off, then petitioned for statehood.

SOME rules definitely got bent there though, I just don't know which ones.

If it is a matter that a state legislature (or statewide convention) has unilateral control over, I think it becomes easier. New York, for example, could "amicably" partition itself in order to obtain greater Senate representation, and then all the new states could form some kind of regional government to preserve most of the benefits of the former state.

It takes 2/3rds of the states to call a convention, and 3/4ths of state approvals to pass an amendment, so the threat of convention could be made real.

What Herschel said. This really seems like the catch 22, because I doubt 2/3rds of the states are even very dense, let alone upset enough about it to commit to a 'nuclear option'. I mean, 1/3rd, sure. But 2/3rds?

Just possibly if they thought they'd have more power in the new system, but I'm not really sure the math works out that you can rob the bottom 1/3rd of enough Senate seats to make it worth the middle states' worthwhile - especially if they're simultaneously worried about their own relative loss of power to the handful of new super-states.

Why does Jim Oberstar support transit? His district includes Duluth, MN and the rest of the Iron Range. Is he just a nice guy?

You can't redress this imbalance without changing the Senate. And you can't really change the Senate.

Well, you can get rid of the filibuster. I think that's the only option, because changing the apportionment of senators isn't politically feasible, as Herschel's 5:19 comment explains. I hadn't thought of the "break up the states" argument, but it obviously isn't full-proof, as small states, too, could break themselves up.

Get rid of the filibuster. Small states would still be disproportionally advantaged, but their power would be moderated.

Senator Charles Schumer said that he was unhappy about the amount of stimulus money set aside for mass transit and rail.

Well....DUH! It ain't Kansas that will benefit from moneyh set aside for mass transit and rail!

And while we're at it, it's pretty obvious that jack lecou is from the NorthEast....probably New York. The ethnocentrism is dripping from his comments.

Senator Charles Schumer said that he was unhappy about the amount of stimulus money set aside for mass transit and rail.

Well....DUH! It ain't Kansas that will benefit from moneyh set aside for mass transit and rail!

And while we're at it, it's pretty obvious that jack lecou is from the NorthEast....probably New York. The ethnocentrism is dripping from his comments.

The ethnocentrism is dripping from his comments.

As opposed to that from the Yellow Stain of Texas?

Why does Jim Oberstar support transit? His district includes Duluth, MN and the rest of the Iron Range. Is he just a nice guy?




What a great question, Nicholas B.! I live in Minnesota, and while I don't know Rep. Oberstar well enough to know why he's a rail buff, I can tell you that he lights up with delight when you ask him a question about trains. Very knowledgeable guy on transit.

The ethnocentrism is dripping from his comments.

Which ethnic group is he being ethnocentric about? I had no idea that having roots in New York gave one a claim to a separate ethnic identity.

Just possibly if they thought they'd have more power in the new system, but I'm not really sure the math works out that you can rob the bottom 1/3rd of enough Senate seats to make it worth the middle states' worthwhile - especially if they're simultaneously worried about their own relative loss of power to the handful of new super-states.

To elaborate on this, go here.

2/3rds of 50 states is 33, so we'd need to convince everyone down to Kansas, inclusive.

But some simple math will show that it's only the top 17 states that are actually underrepresented in the Senate - down to Tennessee, inclusive. And even that's borderline - WA, AZ, MA, IN, and TN all have more than 90% of their "just" Senate representation - so there's really only about 12 states that are getting really screwed in the Senate.

Obviously some of them are REALLY getting screwed, but it's difficult to see how it's something you can really correct with ANOTHER one-state-one-vote process...

(P.S., El V.: Pacific NW. Alaska and Portland. What 'ethnicity' does that make me now?)

OK, this argument about rural states not wanting to "pay" for "urbanized" states transit systems is wrong headed. If urban areas increase the rate that public transportation use over private car use it would seem to me that overall demand for gasoline would drop lowering prices for gas in the entire country, or at least a region. Lower gas prices benefits everyone's pocket books and boost the country's economy. Improving public transport in urban areas and getting people incentives to use the public transition system helps everyone in the short term economically and in the long run environmentally. I haven;t heard anyone make this argument forcefully enough.

Think light rail! Then look at the top 100 or so metropolitan regions. By my count, only 7 states (Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine) don't have metropolitan regions that don't need light rail networks in the green era.

Building subways is over-priced and often hard going politically. Light rail has a different and less intrusive image, can with much more bang for buck touch a much larger number of commuters, and (especially) is an efficient way to connect suburbs to central cities. It just fits the typical, fairly loose, not densely packed American metropolitan area.

Heck, Portland Maine could use a light rail netork as well. And New Hampshire is a borderline case. So at most only 6 states would not receive funding in a big light rail transit scheme bill.

Which ethnic group is he being ethnocentric about? I had no idea that having roots in New York gave one a claim to a separate ethnic identity.

Yankees

Yankees

Anyone can become a Yankees fan. You just have to get over your martyrdom complex and accept the superiority of what is really America's team.

"Ethnocentrism" isn't the word you were looking for. Please attempt to become literate before posting again.

It's exactly the word I was looking for....all of the hypenated Americans in the NorthEast.

I think that the word you're looking for is "provincial" or "parochial", but I don't blame you for wanting to avoid it. The irony might kill us all.

"We could have a Constitutional Convention to change the Senate, could we not? "

NO!

According to the Constitution, Constitutional amendments cannot deprive any state of its "equal representation in the Senate" without "its consent". It's the only restriction on the content of Constitutional amendments (there was also one prohibiting the abolition of slavery before 1808, but that expired, obviously).

You would have to have UNANIMOUS passage of a Constitutional amendment, by *all 50 states*, in order to change the composition of the Senate!

I think the end-run around this is a Constitutional amendment allowing legislation to pass if it passes the House, even if it doesn't pass the Senate. *That* would only require 3/4 of the states and might conceivably be possible!

If absolutely necessary, it could be done by "packing the states". If some of the urban states split up into multiple states, that would give the necessary numbers.
(The process could be reversed afterwards.)

However, this sort of change is on the order of passing the 1911 Parliament Act taking away power from the House of Lords in the UK -- it would require *IMMENSE* social pressure, which would only come if the Senate was routinely obstructing something which 75% of the population wanted very very badly.

"Breaking up states is probably undoable"

"Does anyone know offhand what it would actually take though?"

Approval by bare majorities of both Houses of Congress (joint resolution), *or* by 2/3 of the Senate and the President (treaty). *Plus* approval by the state which is being divided up. (In this case that would be assumed to be present already.) I think joint resolution is easier in this case. And the House wouldn't be a problem.

In other words, you have to get just over half of the Senate to approve, in order to subdivide a state.

With Vice-Presidential support, you need precisely 25 states to vote for it in the Senate. (Obviously, some individual Senators might vote contrary to their state's narrow parochial interest, so it's not quite this exact.)

That's not the bare minimum for "legal" Senate reform, however. You need half: if some seats are vacant, they don't count. Accordingly, if the "returning classes" of Senators (2/3 of them) fail to seat the entire incoming class of senators at the beginning of the session -- and they appear to have the right to fail to seat them while there are "questions" about the elections -- then the numbers could be tilted a little bit more.

Still very very difficult. If Senate reform becomes absolutely essential (unlikely), I expect that we'll go the "extraconstitutional" route of having a new Constitution. France did that when its system became unmanageable.