SCOTUS heard arguments this week in favor of creating Congressional districts that are predisposed to get specified, predetermined results in elections. Those aren’t my words, they are actually the words (paraphrased) of Justice Sotomayor. She pressed the need to districts that are purposely designed to have a majority of black voters, because in her words: “white voters won’t vote for black candidates.”
Nevermind that white voters elected a black President. No, what she is saying is that democratic processes must be rigged so that the results favor one particular political minority (in the democratic, not racial sense). The Democrats are simply illustrating that they are NOT in favor of Democracy. They are in favor of power, and they know blacks overwhelmingly vote for Democrats.
There are 26 congressional districts where blacks are the majority, and a further 14 districts where they are the plurality. That is, they are the largest demographic, even though they are not the majority.
GA-02 — 49.3% Black (Rep. Sanford Bishop).
NY-09 — 48.9% Black (Rep. Yvette Clarke).
AL-02 — 48.7% Black (Rep. Shomari Figures).
IL-02 — 48.4% Black (Rep. Robin Kelly).
NY-08 — 48.2% Black (Rep. Hakeem Jeffries).
NY-05 — 47.2% Black (Rep. Gregory Meeks).
SC-06 — 46.9% Black (Rep. Jim Clyburn).
MI-13 — 46.9% Black (Rep. Shri Thanedar).
MO-01 — 45.4% Black (Rep. Wesley Bell).
VA-03 — 45.4% Black (Rep. Bobby Scott).
IL-07 — 43.0% Black (Rep. Danny Davis).
FL-24 — 42.2% Black (Rep. Frederica Wilson).
TX-30 — 41.9% Black (Rep. Jasmine Crockett).
TX-09 — 38.6% Black (Rep. Al Green).
Assuming that Sotomayor is correct, blacks are guaranteed 40 congressional seats, making skin color the single most important factor in electing representatives.
How many other demographics get that privilege? The fact is that she is admitting blacks only vote on skin color and not for the candidate that best represents their interests. What Sotomayor is saying is elections are only valid if the electorate votes the way that they want you to. How about this- we go back to the original ratios from the nation’s founding? It’s time to get rid of the artificial limit of 435 Representatives that dilutes the power of the people.
Each state gets at least one Representative. No single Representative can represent more than 100,000 people. That would mean 3,380 representatives, give or take. I would even say Washington DC and other territories should have voting representatives under this plan. If it’s done like this, the number of representatives would range from 394 for California. Texas would get 313, Florida 234, Georgia 112, New York 199, and so on.
The lesser populated states would see similar numbers- Hawaii would have 15. Alaska 8, Wyoming 6, Vermont would have 7, Maine would get 14.
We could even allow representation for territories- Puerto Rico would get 32, Guam would get 2, the US Virgin Islands would get 1, Samoa 1, the Mariana Islands 1, Washington, DC gets 8.
It would be much more difficult to arrange factions to game the system, and each representative would be more likely to actually represent the interests of their constituents instead of party leadership. That’s a feature and not a bug. Congress can meet in a domed stadium. We can build them for concerts and sporting events, we can surely do the same for a legislative body.
Of course this creates a large amount of power in the most populous states. That’s why the Senate exists- to represent the states. Each state (not territory or DC) gets 2 Senators, just as they always have.
11 Comments
Honk Honk · October 17, 2025 at 6:14 am
The wise Latina will help build the New Man workers utopia?
SiG · October 17, 2025 at 7:27 am
The downside, of course, is that it’s pretty much eight times the number of congress critters, which requires vastly expanding D.C., either making the House of Representatives eight stories high or putting in more buildings. That means every road has to be modified to handle more traffic, and making them wider seems to be the only way to do that, which means there’s less room for the bigger buildings. Plus, that’ll pretty quickly turn into eight times the number of lobbyists and lobbying organizations. It would take years to do this, maybe a couple of decades, and the best thing to do would be to freeze spending so that they couldn’t immediately vote themselves pay raises, which seems to be the thing they do most reliably.
I’ve seen people recommend we move DC out of DC, so to speak. Build a new capital somewhere far from the current crowded areas, like maybe lightly populated section of Wyoming. That would sure go faster than expanding the current hell hole.
Divemedic · October 17, 2025 at 7:42 am
They could simply vote electronically or hold sessions at the Capitol One arena.
EN2 SS · October 17, 2025 at 4:47 pm
They cheat and vote for each other when someone has something more important to do. Who is going to actually vote electronicly?
I don’t trust a single one there now, 3-4 thousand more? No thanks.
Tree Mike · October 17, 2025 at 6:29 pm
Great idea. Turn them back into working, citizen legislators. End the professional political class. Pay them per diem, travel, no govt retirement. Maybe get some tips from Texas?
Jester · October 18, 2025 at 7:31 pm
I live in Wyoming, don’t turn the place in to a dump. We don’t want DC types around.
P-Tar · October 17, 2025 at 8:12 am
Guarantee you we have the space downtown in the Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy on the Potomac: I personally mapped the fucking cesspit for the largest commercial real estate firm in the country 20 years ago. Eminent Domain exists for a reason.
All I ask is that if we have a domed arena for our political battles, we make all the seating steel “WWF” folding chairs, and include a steel cage that we can lower from the ceiling for No-Holds-Barred Filibusters. Can we get Steve Inman and possibly Jerry The King Lawler as commentators?
Bonus points if we include a mud wrestling pit – AOC vs. Lauren Boebert would rake in millions in Pay-Per-View tickets. Maybe also mechanical bulls that must be ridden during speeches, with registered citizen-viewers able to vote ‘bullshit’ and make the bulls buck harder.
If politics is going to be a circus of thieves, frauds and clowns, it should at least be entertaining.
Texas Dan · October 17, 2025 at 8:38 am
435 is too many of the bastards already. The Founders never imagined someone in the House becoming a national figure, let alone maybe 50-100 of them. The answer is to repeal the 17th Amendment first and then to make it illegal for any House candidate to either have a national PAC or to receive more than 10% of campaign donations outside of their district.
Tom762 · October 17, 2025 at 3:00 pm
Can’t we just hang the current crowd and call it good?
Hariman · October 17, 2025 at 8:15 pm
In Pennsylvania, during the later Obama years (and I think during the early Trump years), the DNC saw that the Republicans had/were gaining control of the State Senate and were going to remove the Democrat Gerrymandering.
So the DNC/leftists poured a bunch of money into packing the State Supreme Court with leftist unionistas.
When the State Senate undid the Democrat gerrymandering, activists groups sued on the grounds that “republicans were gerrymandering!”… and because the State Supreme Court was packed with lefties, they won the right to keep the awful redistricting that wasn’t even all that old.
The left/DNC has been rigging elections since Lincoln’s time… or earlier.
Chuck · October 17, 2025 at 9:55 pm
You have got the right idea but we need to go back to the original ratio of one rep for every 33,000. And get rid of about five bureaucrats for every new representative.
Comments are closed.