>> Your privilege, of course. But can you name a document
>> anywhere else that does the job better?
>
>(1) There's a whole history of documents expanding the realm of human
>rights far beyond that provided for in the US Constitution. Many of
>them actually do a far better job in practice as well.
Oh yes? And that are in use as boundary docs for national government? Name some, please.
>
>(2) The vast majority of advanced industrial nations have a more
>democratic system of representative democracy that the US, based on
>proportial representation (formal dimension), a broader ideological
>array of political parties and significantly higher rates of voter
>participation (informal dimensions).
Why lay our deficiency in those regards at the door of the Constitution? At the time it was written, how many countries were doing it better?
The Document doesn't forbid our having a better political system. It would support all the things you name, if only we demanded them.
>(3) In light of the above, the fetishizing of "documents" is utterly
>beside the point.
Sorry, Paul, I disagree that you've made a case here.
>
>> I think those planters were remarkably foresightful,
>> me. Pity their political successors are such
>> pillocks, but that's my fault, and yours, for allowing
>> them to *be* successors.
>
>Blaming the victim. How quaint!
We have the ballot, and so far it has proven supreme. We are indeed victims, but of our own inaction as much as anything. Nothing but bums --the ones we won't get off of and the ones who control power now -- prevent us from having better functionaries in office. We are responsible for whom we elect, and we can upset the applecart of power any time we choose to do so. Ventura's election in Minnesota is a perfect example of that. The Establishment's nose is still well out of joint over that.
>> What would you have instead: (a) tyranny of large
>> states over small, (b) state-against-state land-grab
>> wars, (c) automatic gerrymandering of state boundaries
>> to maintain representational parity, or (d) no states
>> at all?
>
>Pre-1962, one could have posed the same question with respect to state
>governments. At the time, it was quite common for states to have the
>lower house apportioned by population, and the upper house apportioned
>on some roughly geographical basis (in tennesse, for example, simply by
>not making any changes in district lines since 1901). That year, the
>Supreme Court ruled (Baker v. Carr) that this practice was
>un-Constitutional. Nowadays, both upper and lower houses in state
>legislatures have population-based distrists.
I just checked Baker v Carr. I don't think that decision means what you think it means.
>To my knowledge, abolishing US Senate-style upper houses in the States
>has not brought about the collapse of Western Civilization. Correct me
>if I'm wrong, Margaret.
So you would choose (a). Fine. But 'US Senate-style' upper houses have apparently not been abolished. Some states elect by population, some (eg Alabama, Missouri) by creating equal-sized districts. There may yet be other states that ignore population the way the US Senate does. I've not found a way to check that conveniently.