So now in its latest, unvarnished attempt to ensure clear congressional majorities as far as
the eye can see, the aggrieved left has taken up a campaign against the inherent and fundamental unfairness imagined in the current system of congressional representation between the states. To be sure, the huge swath of red which has led to Republican control of a majority of governorships and state houses across the country has led Democrats to concede the once pendular battle for redistricting within states in an attempt to gain an artificial congressional majority. And, with unfettered immigration and the Dream Act having come under fire and with them greater restrictions on undocumented voter access, such as voter ID, the dream of a wave a new Hispanic DNC registrants has gone the way of the Whigs. So what to do? Turn one’s attention to the “unfairness” of the current system.
Those interested in establishing a clear, unbalanced congressional majority would argue that something must be done to make the system “fair,” to find a way to enfranchise millions of forgotten individuals whose voices are not being heard in the hallowed halls of congress. The problem is, there is no matter of unfairness to be rectified. The system is functioning exactly as the framers intended.
Congressional representation is based on the notion of states’ rights, not individual rights. The argument of the left, designed to shift and/or expand representation toward Democratic
bastions such as the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, or Guam are based on ensuring greater individual representation. The founding fathers were careful to avoid such excesses in the interest of preserving the union. They wished to, and were purposeful in building a system which would prevent what Madison called “the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.” A form of government which grants the same representation to a state of 600,000 souls as to a state of 1 million souls was expressly designed to avoid the evils of democracy, which is why they did not build one.
They designed a constitutional republic, a fact often lost on many. A republic of states, where citizens were represented in government by an elected congress and where the District and the territories of the republic were expressly excluded from representation. Ours is not a one man, one vote, direct democracy. Were it so, the left would have a point. Until such time as we are, the argument regarding representation between states and territories, while fascinating, is moot.
