(C) Daily Kos This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered. . . . . . . . . . . Congress, what can we do? [1] ['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.'] Date: 2024-11-24 So I have spent my time since Nov. 5th, trying to find the positive here on DKos. Mind you, we’re all angry — but a couple of articles that prompted some great comment (Which is where I spend most of my time reading.) Grabbed my attention. (I read at work, I have to take it in small bits. I work at a C-store in a repub state, that has a lot of migrant workers, and MAGA and what not. I could go into it, but let’s not, how it’s shaped this community and the people, bothers me, but I see the survivors). Focusing to my topic: One was proportional representation — and it took me back to some great ones on expanding congress, not limiting it the 435. Also how the Electoral College doesn’t represent the truth. (We’re all pissed that our candidates win on the popular vote, but lose in the EC). So tons of research — My numbers were coming up similar to what I could fact check with the census and district populations, and voting numbers etc. While I don’t like the numbers all and all, they are based on current numbers. So I played around with ‘What if we doubled the size of Congress to 870 seats?” That means that each representative is standing for 380,584 individuals. I worked with the top five (R) States, and the top five (D) States, population etc. Focusing on districts. I was utilizing population from 2020 (It does include everyone, not just registered voters, or voter eligible). This is where I find some fault in how things work — population includes kids, 17.9 and under. They can’t vote, yet they are included in the ‘representation by population’ calculation. Which in turn feeds into Representation by state, and in turn, the Electoral college. If you missed how that works — States are broken up by TOTAL population, We have reps dependent on that population, but only those eligible to vote can make that call at the ballot box. --Exposition, but it was a thought— This whole Rep. thing against abortion? It just makes more of them, for the population, and 18 years later, voter eligible. They got an education (Public or otherwise with some religious hints) They now have opinions. Getting back to focus — using the 2020 census, and the 2024 election results for all fifty states, and the individual districts, and how their votes ‘leaned’ (actual numbers are difficult to find). It was interesting. Hold your breath, this isn’t going be pretty, but it has potential. Because it is based on current data — who was voted in (2024) and Census data (2020) There are discrepancies, and there is some gerrymandering involved at the state level. But when you take (R) Voters, and (D) Voters, and the populations of the districts, etc — AS THEY ARE — and move Congress to 2x its size, (435-870 each rep. representing 380,584 people per district) R’s have a slight advantage. But the ones that are screaming the loudest? They are safe. The underlings? Not so much. Just a brief summary: Who suffers the most: Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota. — Small populations. Who Benefits the Most: California, Texas, Florida, New York, and Illinois: — Well damn, that’s almost a 50/50 split on (R) and (D) right there. How does one sell this to a Republican congress, a Republican President? And a compromised Supreme court? It’s not a “bait and switch” it’s just bait. If we offer 870 congressional seats or the 435: (We’re going to need their help, it’s a congressional rule). Who gains. Republicans gain +223 seats compared to Democrats' +212 seats in the hypothetical 870 Congress. (Note this is 2020 census data and 2024 voter data). Republicans slightly outpace Democrats in numerical gains due to their dominance in smaller, rural states that gain additional representation in an expanded Congress. I might be in the minority here, but in my state (Idaho), going to an 870 congress over a 435? I now have four representatives (Over my now two and the way the districts are now broken up, another candidate doesn’t have a chance). Depending on how those districts fall, one of them could be a dem, possibly two. That’s what the electorate gets to decide. I honestly feel, with the incoming congress, this is something we can work on, and work with them. They won their district, R’s are strong, and they gained over us by 11 seats! R wins! You get more of your crazy, you get more of your conservative values (That no one agrees with) and control over the purse strings of the government. The thing they don’t see? They allowed us to level the playing field by the voters and the population. I’m a (D) Voter in a red state. My vote doesn’t count for shit, because of the primaries, there is usually only one option, and I don’t know them from adam. A dem Candidate wins 100% on a primary, but then loses a lot in the general by a lot. I was a big proponent of open primaries (I as a (D) Should have been able to vote for the lesser evils of the (R) candidates that filled the ballot). But it was pared with rank choice, on the general, and big money got in the way (I heard it) It was radio, it was print, it was what people got around here. They weren’t against open primaries, but the rank choice on the general. They were honestly able to get away with ‘Dems trying to change the way voting happens.’ Because we bit off more than we could chew. It needed to be dumbed down. — Note this was a voter initiative; we chose to put this on the ballot for open primaries; it was not easy. But the party attached the ‘rank choice’ to the general, and that killed it. Baby steps, one small goal at a time. How I see to ‘sell this,” is to get congress to 870. It’s an (R) win, with slight (D) Gains. Are we going to overturn Congress in 2026? Maybe, maybe not. But this? Expanding congress? Gives them the perception of power. It’s what they want. It gives us more gains in the end run. Our votes actually start counting in red States. And when our votes count in red states? The electoral college changes, as it’s based on reps in the house. Then, we might be able to get our territories and DC to actual voting capabilities in the house. The Senate is a F**k’d mess. But it is the way the founders made it. They were fighting against an un-educated populace. (I don’t want to say we are now, but we are). The rights that were granted there in the bill of rights back in 1787, don’t equate to today. We have amended, the constitution, but there are elements that don’t mesh with it, and changing the Senate we can’t do without 3/4’s of the States involved. Might have been easier back in the 1800’s when we didn’t have the Western States. And thing about this, the addition of states pre-civil war, and during, was all about ‘slave state or not slave state’ — minus California, it was just money, Gold rush. Idaho, Oregon, Nevada, etc, were after the civil war. In case you need those dates: The U.S. Civil War took place from April 12, 1861, to April 9, 1865. We as western states are not all clean on our hands here. During the pre- and Civil War periods, African Americans faced the extreme oppression of slavery, legally and socially entrenched in U.S. society. Chinese immigrants, while free, endured systemic discrimination, exclusion, and exploitation, particularly in the West. Both groups were victims of racial violence and dehumanization, with African Americans suffering from institutionalized slavery and Chinese immigrants marginalized through exclusionary policies and labor exploitation. But the difference here? Looks at those western states, (California is Blue, Oregon is, Washington is as well — Nevada is a swing, and Idaho — ah you surrendered us to red, big sigh). But we have always owned up to our ugly, the truth was really easy to find 15 years ago, not so much now. (A whole different really long diary on that). What I think we we as Dem’s need to focus on at the federal level? Convincing R’s it’s good to double the size of the house of reps. Get their help to move that 435 rule. It servers their purpose, they gain seats. (But we gain them in the back end, because fairness is starting to happen, and my vote actually starts counting). Dem voters in (R) states are going to be more likely to go to the polls, because their vote might actually count. We get the 870 congress? We have better footing, (Even with the same districts) but better when they start doing the Gerrymandering. those Dem votes that are tossed to the side now? (Just using Idaho as an example) We actually get one vote in congress. That’s more than we’ve had forever! I’m not saying flip a state, I’m suggesting, showing them how it’s good for them. They win on that by a small margin. the R’s that are in office, they aren’t threatened, they are going to stay there. So we eliminate the ‘i’m going to lose my office’ let them keep it. They are asseholes, let them be that. Not to quote the former president, and the president elect, but ‘we win bigly’. (Wow, my adverb detector on his stuff, is on crack, just sayin’). We aren’t all innocent in the ‘blame game’ — our leadership isn’t the best, we coulda-woulda-shoulda is the game that we here from the (D) leadership. It should be ‘can, will, and ‘bite me’’ type. You don’t fight fire with fire (unless it’s a backburn, but that’s another diary) — you just put a little CO2 at its base, and poof, not a problem. And don’t get on my shit about wildfires — mother nature is a bitch, there is management available, but it has gotten to a point, where it’s underfunded, useless, etc. Yellowstone in ‘88? could have been avoided, but we as (D’s) didn’t want the encroachment, protect the wildness of it. (And we missed tons of other places that needed it). California, and the tragedies at Paradise, and the like? THey are avoidable, is it political? No. Can federal government solve it? No. Is getting rid of NOAA the solution (2025 option) No! Buidling hazards zones? Yes. But if you don’t know it is, that’s a different story. Idahohans don’t like Californians because of a lot of things, but the big one? (Uh, 1980-2010-ish) you build these really big homes in places we all knew the river was going to murder you and your home. You insured it for a million bucks, so you were fine, but we had to deal with your shit. Our property taxes were raised to rebuild those bridges, to get you to your nice homes that you’d already surrendered. You didn’t care about our history, or where you were building, it was just a great view. Sorry, that’s just the Idahoan view on californian’s coming in. And there is another one that has absolutely nothing to do with you, ‘sin taxes’. Cigarettes and alcohol. “Sin taxes’ I am pissed off with, they are stupid, and do nothing other than cause government bloat. (Gotta enforce it, check on every place that sells, it, fine them if they don’t). F*** that to wherever you want to go. It’s not going to stop the smokers, it not going to stop the drinkers, (Okay we’re a little more careful about the law enforcement on the drinking and driving thing — good on us) But it’s excessive. By law in this state? I can’t accept your ID if it’s not State issued. (Hi, exclude all legal and non-legal immigrants) And if you don’t have it on you? (Not on your phone, you’ve got to produce it). 80% of the sales for the C-store I work at just tanked. From an (R) perspective? THey just lost 11K a night, in revenue (My gas station alone). Yes, we sell that much, I’ve been watching. The argument we as (D)’s agree on, Immigrant workers, not only provide our labor, but feed our benefits which they can’t access? True times ten. Just throwing this out there — but if the former and soon to be pres, deports the illegal immigrants, followed up by the legal ones? He just tanked one Western Red state — Idaho. We use Migrant workers to get those taters out of the field. They are actually paid really well. They pay state taxes, they play the lottery a lot (23% of that goes to education— it’s a thing I’m bitching about, another diary), but it’s all cash. (They can cash their check, but can’t establish an account, they’re not a resident). But back to my point — we as Dems have many ways to work in these dark four years of ‘Yucks’ Presidency. We know him and his backers well enough to know what they want. (Power and money). That’s the bait on the hook. But we’re on the pole and reel. The Senate we can’t really affect, that’s constitutional, but the house? We can. I don’t like the word ‘bipartisan’ because there should be no partisan in the house. But it is. So dangle the power before them on an 870 house it works to their advance (barely) in places like CA, NY, etc, that they don’t have a chance. (Those R voters, deserve as much as us D voters in ID). With this? The population does win. Maybe not this year, or the next. (Population over voters is a crazy thing). If we can get Population into play, with their help? My vote counts, so do so many others. [END] --- [1] Url: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/11/24/2288335/-Congress-what-can-we-do?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=more_community&pm_medium=web Published and (C) by Daily Kos Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified. via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds: gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/