I like that you included expansion of the House as part of the potential reforms. That wouldn’t require a Constitutional Amendment, as I understand it, but simply the repeal of the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929.
Capping the House at 435 seats dilutes the representation, and encourages gerrymandering.
Various ideas on what the size of the House should be, but how about this: the smallest state by population shall have two (2) seats. Wyoming (pop. 576,851) would get 2 seats, so 288,426 per district (as of 2020 census). The size of the House would expand to 1,147 seats. Allow Representatives to stay in their District, and vote electronically in their state’s Capitol building, so you don’t need to construct that many offices in DC.
Very interesting article. Thank you, Mr. Todd. Another change that should be considered is rewriting the Emoluments Clause to restrain financial corruption. The original language is legally nonfunctional.
100% -- this is hugely important. Basically I think we should want all (or most) gray areas of the Constitution to be clarified and most absolute powers (like pardons) to be constrained, subject to another branch's review and veto. Thus, there should be amendments to counter SCOTUS' Trump vs US 2024 immunity decision, specifying what specific behavior is liable for criminal prosecution and what is not. Similarly, for SCOTUS' opinion in Trump v Anderson (2024) that only Congress can take action to disqualify candidates for insurrection under Section 3 of the 14th amendment, there needs to be some clarity for what would force Congress to take a vote on such an action... a lawsuit, a petition, or something else. And on and on...
Thanks for sharing these issues. They tap into the general consensus that systems are broken. This sentiment is shared by people of all political persuasions. Money in politics has always been the source of rigging the system. The bipartisan McCain-Finegold bill attempted to do that, but citizens united over turned that. How we regulate money in politics clearly needs to be addressed. An other issue is the structure of our representative government. Should we be governed by a class of professional politicians or should serving in government be viewed as public service. Having our elected officials as public servants which I believe the constitution viewed them as might be a structural fix long overdue. As you stated we have 435 members of the house and 100 senators. Why should we assume that out of a population of over 320 million people these 535 people are the only ones fit to govern us. Term limits might just be the structural change needed to fix some of our current issues and mistrust in government. A constitutional amendment that would change the term of members of the house of representatives to 4 years and limit members of Congress to 2 terms might just be the fix we need.
Thoughtful discussion of structural reforms has been sorely missing from public discourse.
The constitution is not sacred text, and the founders designed it to be amended. (So may argue that it is too difficult to amend, but that debate is for another day.)
Thank you for getting the ball rolling. I would love to hear more proposals for structural reforms, how they should be prioritized, and likely paths to enacting them thru state or federal legislation or constitutional amendments.
Totally agree. Only quibble: I would reframe your 2nd para by saying the Constitution IS indeed a sacred text (in the sense that it's the highest law of the land and MUST be followed in its existing form at any time) but one expressly designed to be amended as needed by later generations. That's the beauty of it.
It's obvious why Gallup stopped polls and the reason is purely economical. Their polls continue to show the erosion in the current president's approval rating. When 47 gets bad news he doesn't take a step back and see what can he might be doing wrong and what he could do differently to change public opinion. Instead he claims it as being inaccurate and shoots the messenger in the form of a lawsuit. My guess is Gallup felt the cost of defending a baseless $10+ billion lawsuit was not worth it.
This is another example of why I miss you on MTP so much. Thoughtful, insightful, intelligent - I had not thought about reform in exactly this way. Thank you for giving me information and questions!
Not sure exactly how - without "solutions" making the system worse - or "Government controlled'." Or torrents of the sewer. But clearly social media being X, Threads, Facebook, TicToc and the various others - are an issue with the popularity of the posts and what you're seeing controlled by ownership
Don't agree with Chuck on plenty of topics and political observations but this is a REALLY sharp big picture historical 'trend' analysis... excellent read
I like that you included expansion of the House as part of the potential reforms. That wouldn’t require a Constitutional Amendment, as I understand it, but simply the repeal of the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929.
Capping the House at 435 seats dilutes the representation, and encourages gerrymandering.
Various ideas on what the size of the House should be, but how about this: the smallest state by population shall have two (2) seats. Wyoming (pop. 576,851) would get 2 seats, so 288,426 per district (as of 2020 census). The size of the House would expand to 1,147 seats. Allow Representatives to stay in their District, and vote electronically in their state’s Capitol building, so you don’t need to construct that many offices in DC.
Very interesting article. Thank you, Mr. Todd. Another change that should be considered is rewriting the Emoluments Clause to restrain financial corruption. The original language is legally nonfunctional.
100% -- this is hugely important. Basically I think we should want all (or most) gray areas of the Constitution to be clarified and most absolute powers (like pardons) to be constrained, subject to another branch's review and veto. Thus, there should be amendments to counter SCOTUS' Trump vs US 2024 immunity decision, specifying what specific behavior is liable for criminal prosecution and what is not. Similarly, for SCOTUS' opinion in Trump v Anderson (2024) that only Congress can take action to disqualify candidates for insurrection under Section 3 of the 14th amendment, there needs to be some clarity for what would force Congress to take a vote on such an action... a lawsuit, a petition, or something else. And on and on...
Thanks for sharing these issues. They tap into the general consensus that systems are broken. This sentiment is shared by people of all political persuasions. Money in politics has always been the source of rigging the system. The bipartisan McCain-Finegold bill attempted to do that, but citizens united over turned that. How we regulate money in politics clearly needs to be addressed. An other issue is the structure of our representative government. Should we be governed by a class of professional politicians or should serving in government be viewed as public service. Having our elected officials as public servants which I believe the constitution viewed them as might be a structural fix long overdue. As you stated we have 435 members of the house and 100 senators. Why should we assume that out of a population of over 320 million people these 535 people are the only ones fit to govern us. Term limits might just be the structural change needed to fix some of our current issues and mistrust in government. A constitutional amendment that would change the term of members of the house of representatives to 4 years and limit members of Congress to 2 terms might just be the fix we need.
Thoughtful discussion of structural reforms has been sorely missing from public discourse.
The constitution is not sacred text, and the founders designed it to be amended. (So may argue that it is too difficult to amend, but that debate is for another day.)
Thank you for getting the ball rolling. I would love to hear more proposals for structural reforms, how they should be prioritized, and likely paths to enacting them thru state or federal legislation or constitutional amendments.
Totally agree. Only quibble: I would reframe your 2nd para by saying the Constitution IS indeed a sacred text (in the sense that it's the highest law of the land and MUST be followed in its existing form at any time) but one expressly designed to be amended as needed by later generations. That's the beauty of it.
It's obvious why Gallup stopped polls and the reason is purely economical. Their polls continue to show the erosion in the current president's approval rating. When 47 gets bad news he doesn't take a step back and see what can he might be doing wrong and what he could do differently to change public opinion. Instead he claims it as being inaccurate and shoots the messenger in the form of a lawsuit. My guess is Gallup felt the cost of defending a baseless $10+ billion lawsuit was not worth it.
This is another example of why I miss you on MTP so much. Thoughtful, insightful, intelligent - I had not thought about reform in exactly this way. Thank you for giving me information and questions!
I sincerely hope you are right.
Not sure exactly how - without "solutions" making the system worse - or "Government controlled'." Or torrents of the sewer. But clearly social media being X, Threads, Facebook, TicToc and the various others - are an issue with the popularity of the posts and what you're seeing controlled by ownership
A beautiful cry for action, reposting!
Why did Gallop pack it in terms of taking the presidential temperature?
Love your history lessons!
Thank you, Tod! Appreciate your analysis and tbh, found even the prospect of reform somewhat comforting. 🤔
Don't agree with Chuck on plenty of topics and political observations but this is a REALLY sharp big picture historical 'trend' analysis... excellent read