Size of the Dakotas is an issue in this thread. That’s where that entire issue about the sizes of Texas and California came from.
You could, ignoring politics. Frankly it’s an accident of history that California and Texas are so large. The logistics of governance in the days of horse and carriage made it much more difficult to govern a large state than it does today. Hence why today people think it is feasible to do away with the electoral college; back in the eighteenth century, when the population was roughly 1/100th of todays and only a fraction of those could vote, the electoral college was a brilliant solution to a practical problem. Today, the problem it was designed to address has mostly disappeared.
~Max
Only if the House of Reps has passed articles of impeachment against a justice. The Senate doesn’t have an independent power of removal.
Perhaps it would help if you first enumerate specifically what unfairness you are setting out to fix. It’s possible the fundamental problem you have in mind isn’t considered worth fixing by everyone:
~Max
This thread reminds me of an old saying: “Be careful what you wish for, lest it come true.”
Our system is not perfect, of course. But (IMO) it’s better than anything else out there, and I would be afraid that any changes would have unintended consequences. My vote is to keep it as-is, along with all of its deficiencies and shortcomings.
However the US has a particular implementation of federalism that sucks in modern times.
For a better centralized state with a federal system, I’d point to Germany, where the lower house has more powers, and the upper house that is designed to represent constituent states have more of a compromise between state sovereignty and individual sovereignty, and there are solutions for deadlocks.
And for a federal system that actually protects sovereignty of states within it, I’d point to the EU, where states didn’t trade basic aspects of their own sovereignty such as control of currency, the military and diplomacy to the federal government in exchange for a permanently disproportional federal government.
The US has the worst of both worlds. It might be forgiven as an early adopter, but we don’t have to now pretend that we have the best (or even a good) implementation of federalism.
I don’t think any of that is in the Constitution.
Here’s what the text says on the subject:
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
If I recall correctly, this was an issue when Texas was admitted as a state. Texas was a recognized independent nation at the time. So the first approach was to admit Texas into the United States by a treaty between the two nations. But the negotiations on the treaty bogged down so Congress just bypassed the treaty be passing a legislative act which declared Texas was now a state.
I could live being combine with Montana, but I want nothing to do with Idaho. Those people are crazy. 
I think I sort of conflated the Constitutional mechanism of new states being admitted by Congress with the actual Congressional mechanisms that came into place.
And yeah, the treaty didn’t pan out, but the annexation resolution was passed by the US Congress and ratified by the Texas Congress as well, which is sort of an echo of the usual procedure at the time, with the main difference being that the Texas national government sort of morphed into the state government, and there wasn’t any territorial period. In fact, the convention to ratify the annexation was also the state constitutional convention.
That’s been my point all along. A lot about the structure and governance of the US is an accident of history.
I’m opening the floor. People are complaining that our government is broken, that the two-party system leads to extreme positions, that Fascists are taking over and the guardrails are breaking down. That parliamentary system is superior, that Congress is dysfunctional, that the unhinged right has put in place an unhinged Supreme Court.
The intent of this thread is to look at extreme solutions to making America function better. So I’m throwing open the doors and granting carte blanche to fix whatever you think is wrong. Basically, I’m allowing freedom to interpret fix from a Constitutional Amendment to a Continental Congress.
All I ask is that proposed solutions explain why the change would be better.
This thread is not about practical fixes. This thread is a “man, what if we could start over from scratch knowing now what they didn’t then?” Or “this is totally not disable because would take 2/3 vote in the Senate and we’ll never get that again”. Whatever scope you want to address, whatever problem you want to fix, just explain and justify it.
So we don’t have to all agree. That’s the fun of this thread.
As you note, Texas consented to being made a state along with the United States. But it’s interesting to note that there’s nothing in the Constitution which requires this. Congress could theoretically declare that Cuba, for example, is now a state and it wouldn’t matter that neither the Cuban government or the Cuban people agreed to this.
Of course, the United States would then have to use force to impose actual statehood on Cuba. But there’s historical precedent for us making states out of places that didn’t want to be states.
The parliamentary system is not superior. I give you the UK and Israel. Then Italy.
I give you all the countries with the US presidential model of governance which have been overthrown by military coups.
See Professor Juan Linz’s article, “The Perils of Presidentialism”. He was a poli-sci prof coming to issues with a Hispanic political viewpoint, rather than the traditional Anglo-American viewpoint.
He pointed out that all of the presidential-congressional systems in the western hemisphere, except the US, had fallen to authoritarianism and dictatorship, and attributed that pattern to the rigid separation of powers in presidential-congressional systems.
He argued that the parliamentary system is better at diffusing executive power (a cabinet collectivity rather than a unitary executive), and also better at allowing more dissentient voices in the legislature.
He also argued that what had kept the US from falling that way was the strong commitment to bipartisanship. If that failed, he predicted the US would join the other presidential-congressional systems in authoritarianism.
It was a chilling read, in light of political tendencies in the US over the past two decades.
Earlier thread on that topic:
Here’s a thought I’ve posted before but it fits the topic.
Virtual congressional districts.
The idea would be that congressional representation would no longer be tied to geography. A number of districts would be created, based on the total national population. And then voters could choose which district they wished to belong to. You could end up with people living in California, Alabama, New Jersey, and Iowa all belonging to the same district and being represented by the same member of Congress.
This would eliminate the problem of people who feel marginalized because they happen to live in an area where the majority doesn’t share their political beliefs. It would make gerrymandering impossible. And it would give political platforms that are shared by a significant number of people who are spread out through the country a chance to be represented. Groups like Greens or Libertarians, which aren’t big enough in any current geographical district, would have an opportunity to unite their followers across the country and be represented.
Could work on big national policies but be mindful of the meme “all politics is local”.
There’s not much upside to you voting for a new bridge, road, hospital or service etc. only to find, aided by your virtual vote, the bridge, road, hospital or service has been commissioned but way, way away over there where most of your virtual district happen to live.
If you are trying to have your voice heard it’s a hard gig. Your chances of successfully influencing issues are much improved if you can be heard from your front porch.
The US Government isn’t bad the way it is. It’s worked for over two hundred years.
But the US needs to really look at its federal elections. If it’s a federal election, then the states ought to play no part. There should be a neutral body—maybe “Elections USA”—that looks after the federal presidential election, setting district boundaries, and such. The idea that a political party, especially the one in power in a state, can set district boundaries so as to give itself an advantage—well, that just won’t work in real democracies.
I’m not suggesting that the US adopt a parliamentary democracy (though I’d prefer that they did); just that the US stop with the party politics, and with each state establish a neutral body, to determine representative districts. “Wahhh!” say Replubicans. “Wahhh!” say Democrats. Too damn bad. Americans deserve better than to have their electoral districts determined by political parties.
Really, what could be better than the neutral “Elections Ohio” (for example), where the prime reason for membership/employment is registering as “Independent”?
And you could use the same principle for appointing judges.
And let multi-purpose local authorities appoint as professional civil servants the leaders of more local services (policing, schools, libraries…?)
I tend to see this more as an advantage. If you have congress members all representing people from all over the country, it would remove the incentive for funding pork projects for the voters “back home”. There would be no centralized “back home” to focus a representative’s attention. So hopefully instead, they would focus on national needs and interests.
I also feel congress members would be much more incentivized to pay attention to the people they represent. Because they couldn’t afford to take them for granted. An elected representative couldn’t tell themselves that as long as they’re keeping at least 51% of the people in their district happy, they can safely ignore the rest. In this system if people are unhappy with you, they can just leave your district and “move” to another one.
I suspect that there’s no possible model of human governance that can’t go wrong. The problem’s with the species.
That doesn’t mean that some models may not work better than others, or may not have better levels of resistance to going wrong.
I’m not convinced that either the parliamentary or the USA model is essentially better than the other, though. I’m pretty sure that they’re both better than hereditary monarchy, which only requires one evil or sufficiently wonky inheritor to be screwed; or, for large populations, full-out communism, which doesn’t seem to work in groups larger than a few hundred and on larger scales always seems to turn into some nasty version of totalitarianism.
How are we going to staff that neutral body? NYState tried it, by using 50% R and 50% D – and got a total stall because the body couldn’t come to any agreement. The people who are genuinely neutral between the two parties either are entirely ignorant about politics (and shouldn’t be on such a board) or are entirely disgusted about politics (and won’t be willing to be on such a board.)
If we’re starting in our imaginations entirely from scratch, with no parties yet existing, it should be possible – but it’s unlikely to stay that way. That’s what the USA founders tried to do, and it didn’t work.
There’s nothing to stop partisans from registering as “independent” if they’ve got sufficient reason to do so.
I think the best we could do would be to write the best anti-gerrymandering laws we can come up with, and incorporate them in the constitution so they can’t be declared unconstitutional. The wording of such laws is liable to be a cause of considerable argument.
Then ain’t nobody ever going to fix the Pre-Emption Road Bridge.
Thereby guaranteeing that you stay in office, because everyone unhappy with you has moved out.