Yet, for some reason, we are shocked when they don't actually do the bidding of the people. Every time we hear "The party agenda"", "Party line vote"", and that is not representation at all. Let alone, demographically, congress isn't even close to the people of America. Parties keep us divided ("A divided house cannot stand"), yet we keep falling for the same old tricks.
"Taxation without representation is tyranny." All of us recognize this as the slogan used by our forefathers for their revolution. Without representation in government, this great nation would never have attained the heights it now holds. Let us change the scene and come down to our present day. Is the principle of our forefathers still the basis for our government? We must admit, that we have refused, or failed, to follow the axiom that was so dear to them, that they were willing, and did shed blood in its defense. The majority of the citizens of the U. S. can honestly cry, "Taxation without representation is tyranny."
The public's views on issues don't line up with the policy positions cobbled together by the two parties' leaders. There are pro-lifers who want a welfare state and pro-choicers who want less regulation and lower taxes. A growing number of Christians, who historically have aligned with the Republicans, are now concerned about the environment. There are even people who favor giving undocumented immigrants legal status and a path to citizenship but who vehemently oppose an increasing the minimum wage.
Currently 80% of these seats are occupied by white politicians, both male and female. According to census data, this group makes up just over 60% of the total US population. Women, although more than half the US population, make up around 20% of those elected. The largest minority ethnic groups - Hispanic, Asian and African Americans - are also significantly under-represented in Congress. The Native American community was not granted citizenship of the United States until 1924. However, even then, not all were allowed to vote, because many states made laws denying Native Americans that right. It was another 40 years before every state agreed - New Mexico being the last, in 1962.
The Congressional Research Service reports at least 14 people of Native American descent have served in Congress.
There is no proper representation in congress.
Once a decade, every state redraws its electoral districts, determining which people will be represented by each politician, however, they do this by party, not population. This means that politicians gather behind closed doors to figure out how they can manipulate the lines to hinder their competition and maximize the power of their party (not the people). While an increasing number of states employ independent commissions to draw district lines (which still doesn't quite work), the large majority still lack safeguards to prevent partisan manipulation in the redistricting processalso known as partisan gerrymandering.
For hundreds of years now, we've had districts. But there's no constitutional requirement that we have it. It's important to remember the provision of the constitution that is relevant is Article 1, Section 4, the times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof. So it was the states that were given the authority to decide how they would be elected. They could have set up a proportional representation system, everyone running statewide in which case redistricting would never have arisen as a problem.
However, when all of this was set up in the constitution, there were no parties. None. Districts were more about general population. And that is how it should have stayed. Gerrymandering is vote manipulation, disenfranchisement, fraud, and needs to be made illegal.
Repealing the 17th Amendment, would end the direct election of U.S. senators and return the power of appointing senators to state legislatures. Giving state governments formal and direct representation in Congress would resuscitate constitutional federalism, which has been adversely affected by the Progressive Era amendment passed in 1912 and ratified by the states a year later. Advocates of repeal reason that under the sway of state legislators, senators would rein in federal government overreach and stanch its growth. But let's get some background"
The Seventeenth Amendment (Amendment XVII) to the United States Constitution established the direct election of United States senators in each state. The amendment supersedes Article I, Section 3, Clauses 1 and 2 of the Constitution, under which senators were elected by state legislatures to represent the states themselves. It also alters the procedure for filling vacancies in the Senate, allowing for state legislatures to permit their governors to make temporary appointments until a special election can be held.
Having the state legislatures elect the senators reassured anti-federalists that there would be protection against the federal government's swallowing up states and their rights, and providing a check on the power of the federal government.
If state legislators decided to use their influence in the Senate to shrink federal revenues, they would be forced to use greater fiscal discipline than they do today (which is 0). While repealing the 17th Amendment result in less federal spending, money would get to the states with fewer strings attached. That alone would mark a significant rebalancing of power between the states and the federal government. Many nationwide policies have been established voluntarily by states eager to secure federal grants that require compliance with certain federal mandates. States would have more latitude to devise their own policy solutions, but with federal grant money to fall back on, they would not need to bear the costs of their own policies, and would be subject to the voters wrath if they misstep. The states would be able to continue benefiting from expensive social welfare programs and lavishing money on public-sector employees without raising the necessary revenue themselves, knowing Congress would help foot the bill.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
