America's inequitable Constitution

One of our Oregon Senators, Jeff Merkley, has been trying to put a stop to Senate filibusters that block up or down votes on key legislation.

I signed his on-line petition, but we have a much bigger problem with the Senate. It's well outlined in Robert A. Dahl's book "How Democratic is the American Constitution?"

The short answer is— not very.

And the U.S. Senate is about as undemocratic as can be. The book uses the 2000 census, but nothing has changed since then in terms of the inequity in how the Senate is composed and operates.

Civic's 101 tells us that each of the 50 states, regardless of population, gets two senators.

How inequitable is that and how hard would it be to change the Constitution to rectify matters?

I'll let Dahl, who teaches at Yale, explain using the extremes of Wyoming, the least populous state, and California, the most populous. Their populations differ by a factor of 70. Each has two senators, which means that if you live in Wyoming your vote has the power of 70 California votes in a senatorial elections and deliberations.

Among all federal systems found in 12 countries, only Brazil and Argentina have greater unequal representation, Dahl reports.

Because it would take Senate approval to amend the Constitution, reform can't happen, writes Dahl. The system is inherently rigged against reforming itself. It's a closed system.

Thirty-four Senators from the 17 smallest states — with a mere 7.28 percent of the population — could block an amendment to reform the Constitution.

So Senator Merkley is fighting a tough skirmish in a larger, hopeless battle.

Dahl's book is as fascinating as it is depressing. For more about it go HERE.

One small ray of hope is that he believes moderate changes to make our government at least somewhat more democratic can start at the local and state levels.

An example are two states, Maine and Nebraska, which have voted to apportion their electoral college delegations by the same proportions as the voting results, not winner-take-all. If all states did that, we'd be a lot closer to avoiding debacles like the 2000 election in which the majority of voters elected Al Gore but the electoral college gave the White House to George W. Bush.

If we did that, candidates would campaign in all the states, and so democratize the campaigns.More voters might choose to participate.

The results of these constitutional failings is shameful. Among the world's 22 well-established democracies, the US is in the bottom third in women's parliamentary representation, in the ratio of rich to poor inequity, in energy efficiency, in welfare, in social expenditures, in voter turnout (we are next to the bottom), in incarceration rate (ours is the highest) and in foreign aid (in which we are dead last).

And just think, this is the Constitution we are asked to pledge our support to. It's enough to give one pause — and then some.

The Divine Verb

Photo by Peter Schütte 

God is neither Father nor Mother,

Neither Master nor Ruler,

Neither Judge nor King nor Queen,

God is not God — the noun. Not person, place or thing.

God is a verb.

The verb “To God” has ALL as its subjects and objects — always.


To God is to Love.

The future begins today

 I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favor to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

Ecclesiastes 9:1

I thought of this passage from the Old Testament while reading about and pondering simplicity and our growing need to simplify and change in these times of self-created global peril.

“Time and chance” is indeed happening to us all. But the Old Testament was wrong in one important respect:  Our future is unfolding not despite “the race,” “the battle,” the so-called “wise” and “riches to men of understanding” and our “skill,” but because of them.

Halt the race and end the battles. Recognize that our "wisdom" has in fact been folly. Our “riches” and the resulting inequity kill millions in number and the rich in spirit. Our "skill" is destroying the planet and all life on it.

The race, battle, bread and riches will mean nothing in a generation. In a mere 30 years or less, we will have doomed our children and grandchildren to irreversible despair.

To avoid such a future, today — now — we must change, radically — by quickly slowing down.

Simplify, live close to and in harmony with the planet and nature.

Start with yourself.

Live for the world you want for posterity. The future begins with today.

PS The book I've been reading about simplicity, bears that word as its title and is written by fellow Quaker Jennifer Kavanagh. You can learn more about it HERE.

Change and Aging

Tom Meyer led a recent discussion at our Quaker meeting on the topic of “Aging.” He began with his own thoughts, which he had written out. I thought readers of the Red Electric might find them interesting and insightful.

By Tom Meyer


Getting older is tricky.

On the one hand we are supposed to be conscious beings. We can conceive of ourselves not being and watch ourselves thinking — or so we say.

But I think it is an imperfect system at best, because I have definitely changed as I have gotten older, although it is not obvious to me how.

Oscar Wilde suggests that the tragedy is not that we get old but that we stay young or even get clearer (less driven by hormones and passions).

I think that is true though I am not always conscious of it.

I am less adventuresome and less energetic. I am more patient. I am not so driven by passions. I am less idealistic and less driven by ideals. Perhaps I see the world more as it is and less as it should be.

Yet I am convinced I am the same person. Other people react to me differently. I am not always attractive to the people I am attracted to, but I also realize that sometimes that attraction leads to a burden. I think that is OK, but sometimes not.

We like the music and the sexual partners of our youth, but realize with the latter that it will not work out. Our issues are different.

I am not searching for a profession or how I will fit in or interact with the world.

I am not debating about whether to have children and how many and with whom.

I am contemplating retirement. I am contemplating health insurance and wills and trusts.

And yet I feel I am the same person.

Other people treat me differently. I am no longer a sexual player no matter how interested I am in someone or how helpful I could be in straightening out someone's crooked life.

I have less faith in people, places or things to change my life.

I am more concerned with the equation of health vs. injury. I take longer to heal.

I take more responsibility for my life and spend less time blaming others.

I have less faith in our political, economic and school systems.

I require less novelty and do not feel I have to be a cutting-edge consumer.

I do not care whether most people are picking my own direction for life.

I do not have enough time to spend it focused on television shows, sports, or the 24-hour news cycle.

I do not trust charismatic people to change my life or to have my best interests at heart.

I have only so much energy and realize my responsibility in figuring out how to expend it. I do not have enough time to spend with alcohol, street drugs, or fast food.

I am involved in several healthy practices like yoga, aerobic exercise, journaling, and conversation, but I am not trying to convert anyone to my causes.

I have learned that a healthy life is its own reward.

While I feel I am the same person, I am clearly not.