[matthewdgreen]

We could add new states. For example, Washington DC has 702,000 people with zero Congressional representation, and they're currently occupied by Federal troops without any voting recourse. If they were made a state, they'd be bigger than Wyoming and Vermont. Puerto Rico is also a US territory with 3.2 million people and zero Congressional representation. As a state it would be larger than 20 existing states. This doesn't "fix" the problem but it does ensure that more U.S. citizens gain access to representation in Congress, while also shifting power to more densely-populated areas.

[soderfoo]

True. I'm not as familiar with the politics of DC, but my limited understanding of the PR statehood situation is that the GOP is unlikely to approve what would presumably be 2 new safe democratic seats in the senate.

If I remember correctly, the governor of PR would appoint the first 2 senators. A tactic could be to promise to appoint 1 republican senator as an enrichment to approve statehood. It's a real shit situation.

There are more Puerto Ricans living in NYC and Orlando than in PR. I'd like to visit before the little family I have left there leaves or dies out.

[pear01]

fwiw DC is essentially the same situation as PR in this regard. DC would essentially be a blue city-state (state) which is also why DC statehood resolutions always fail.

It's an open joke in DC if you ever visit there the official DC license plate has "end taxation without representation" on it.

You are right to point out the problems with getting it passed. I would just say we need to stretch our political imaginations. Let's also remember that when the Constitutional Convention was originally convened no one thought it was going to create a new constitution - it happened sort of by accident as circumstances changed. The original purpose was to make revisions to the Articles of Confederation.

I'll put it another way. We are far from the bottom here. This system can and I believe will inflict more dysfunction on us in the coming years. A constitutional crisis is not unthinkable anymore for a variety of reasons. A modern constitutional convention might be one of the few ways of getting ahead of it.

Perhaps in such a future situation then, small states can be convinced to amend compromises they may otherwise have never considered.

You could also just do away with bicameralism, which was proposed at the original convention. Also remember as originally written the population of the states did not directly elect their senators. Thus there is already amendment precedent (17th) for making major changes to the Senate.

[matthewdgreen]

I don’t think either of these things requires more than a vote of Congress and the President’s signature. DC might, because of its unique Constitutional status and the current partisan Court, but there’s no argument for PR. You would have to abolish the filibuster, but Congress can do that once per session by majority vote — it’s just a legislative rule and not a Constitutional mechanism.

[pear01]

I mean even if we accept the premise the problem is if you start to engage with this game then the next Congress can do it too.

Pretty soon you'll have "Middle Dakota". And on and on.

At a certain point the USA is going to have to address its structural issues - the founders foretold of this necessity. It's why the amendment process exists in the first place.

[matthewdgreen]

Getting rid of the filibuster is a good thing in general. The GOP-led states have already moved into mid-cycle gerrymanders and routine gerrymandering of the state legislatures to eliminate fair elections there: I'm sure eventually someone will have the idea of adding new GOP states. Adding two actual territories/districts that are full of actual unrepresented Americans happens to be a good idea on the merits, since those people are being screwed by the Federal government.