-------- Original Message --------
Subject:        Re: [MAPS-L] article: The United States Redrawn with 50
Equal-Population States
Date:   Wed, 03 Feb 2010 14:36:22 -0600
From:   Robert T Wyatt <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To:       [log in to unmask]
Organization:   http://bentones.us/
To:     Maps, Air Photo, GIS Forum - Map Librarianship
<[log in to unmask]>
References:     <[log in to unmask]>



> To: Maps-L
>
> If all members of Congress are proportional by population, then why
> preserve a bicameral legislature at all? Why not just get rid of the
> Senate? :-)
>
> John Nance Garner, in 1930 when House Minority Leader, suggested
> something along these lines (just for Texas, though). Divide Texas (one
> of the big states that felt it got cheated in the Senate) into five
> states (Texas, North Texas, East Texas, etc.). Go from 2 to 10 Senators.
>
> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,739302,00.html
>
> --Mark

Mark,

Recognizing that you must have meant this to be a humorous distraction
and there having been many great and astute Texans over the years, I
would still go with the founding fathers on this one.

Here are some blatantly plagiarized quotes:

Edmund Randolph called for its members to be "less than the House of
Commons... to restrain, if possible, the fury of democracy." According
to James Madison, "The use of the Senate is to consist in proceeding
with more coolness, with more system, and with more wisdom, than the
popular branch." Instead of two year terms as in the House, Senators
serve six year terms, giving them more authority to ignore mass
sentiment in favor of the country's broad interests. The smaller
number of members and staggered terms also give the Senate a greater
sense of community.

Anyway, the gist is that one house answers every two years to the
populace while the other house is intentionally more insular.

Best regards,
Robert
Austin, TX