Messages
6,824
Reactions
17,592
The senate in the Federal gov't gives each state two votes regardless of population. This helps mitigate tyranny of the majority. We don't have that in WA -- we have equally populous legislative districts where each district gets 1 senator and 2 reps. Here's a map: http://leg.wa.gov/LIC/Documents/Maps/Statewide Legislative District Map.pdf

In E. WA, the districts cover multiple counties (District 9 for example, covers five counties + some of Spokane county). In contrast, Olympia to Everett appears to comprise more than half the Senate (over 25 senators) and yet is only 5 or 6 counties.

It's no wonder gun laws pass so easy here. We don't have a real senate, we have a second house of reps. To have a functioning senate, senators ought to be X per county -- that would be analogous to how the national senate is based on states rather than population. But it appears this is built into the WA Constitution, Article 2, Sec 43:
(5) Each district shall contain a population, excluding nonresident military personnel, as nearly equal as practicable to the population of any other district. ...

Anyway, amending the WA Constitution is probably not a real option, but it would go a long way to preventing Seattle from doing whatever the h___ it wants, legislatively speaking.
 
Messages
6,824
Reactions
17,592
Here's what I'm talking about. Every number is one senator. Note the cluster:

ld.png
 
Messages
6,824
Reactions
17,592
It would require a constitutional amendment: Library Guides: Washington State Constitution: Amending the Constitution

I don't think a proposal that the senate be divided up by county would fly -- it takes a 2/3 vote in each house and then it gets placed on the ballot. I just don't see the I5 corridor having any desire to be fair.

However, one idea that might work and give the senate a bit more of its proper role, is to make the rule that there is one senator per legislative district, but also provide that if a legislative district covers more than one county, each county in that district will have at least one senator. That wouldn't cure the problem, but it would help give those with no voice at least a small voice.
 
Last Edited:
Messages
6,824
Reactions
17,592
Extending the above: E WA currently has 11 senators (out of 49). The suggestion to make each county have at least one senator, would see that rise to 19 (Spokane already has more than 1). It should be noted that LD24 covers Clallam, Jefferson, and Grays Harbor Counties -- that would give that LD 3 senators and two of the counties voted for I-1639 so it isn't all roses. On the other hand, LD 19 & 20 covers four counties, all of which voted against I-1639, so that would offset the northern part of the Olympic Peninsula by setting up 2 more potentially pro-2A senators.

It would be a step in the right direction at least.
Screenshot from 2019-04-03 00-07-33.png

EDIT: Also With Lewis, Skamania, and Cowlitz counties, that would be net +2 potentially pro-2A senators.
 
Last Edited:
Messages
4,377
Reactions
6,220
I've always thought outside the box.
Why does a state get ruled by the house and the house vote only? The citizens vote in the elected officials, based on whos on the ballot. No other choice. As an example, Seattle and Olympia, along with their minions have taxed the hell out of the rest of the state, say the tax is for this or that, then when it comes time to apply said taxes (by county as it should be), the funds were garnished more in tune for those two dictators. A gas tax was to be for all the roads, not just the highways near said cities. IF we pay a gas tax, license plate fee, or what have you, all that tax per county population should be funding that county. Period.

All the schmucks in the concrete houses are dictators of divying what they deplete first. Our representatives do not, and never have represented the lineage where they come from, cept to someone elses advantage as a whole, and those lips are tattoo'd on the derrieres within the concrete houses. Then the counties (and the cities) are forced to GOV funding to fund what should be funded from a divied, county-by-county structure. A change is long over due, how thing "should be" ran decades ago, but we keep riding a lame horse.

I feel every law should get voted on by the people, not just the whack jobs behind the curtain. We The People, put the people in position to do what's best for us, but that should not give them the right Yay or Nay of the final outcome.
 
Messages
13,359
Reactions
51,944
I've always thought outside the box...

I feel every law should get voted on by the people, not just the whack jobs behind the curtain. We The People, put the people in position to do what's best for us, but that should not give them the right Yay or Nay of the final outcome.

You do realize that popular vote passed I-1639, don't you?
 
Messages
4,377
Reactions
6,220
You do realize that popular vote passed I-1639, don't you?
I do. I also know that those who voted, also did not know and understand what they were voting for.
Politics has too many GD pages.
Put it in short, simple, laymens terms of comprehension, for those not understanding WTH their doing, so were not walking through a tracked pile to get where we go/are due to it.
 
Messages
13,359
Reactions
51,944
An uneducated populace will be the end of the Republic.
That is the Democrat strategy.

I do. I also know that those who voted, also did not know and understand what they were voting for.
Politics has too many GD pages.
Put it in short, simple, laymens terms of comprehension, for those not understanding WTH their doing, so were not walking through a tracked pile to get where we go/are due to it.
But information explaining what I-1639 was available. Everywhere. I really think it was laziness more than confusion that helped pass 1639. And that is our real nemesis.
 
Messages
6,824
Reactions
17,592
I was thinking the same thing for Oregon awhile back. But there is a major problem, judicially, to overcome first.

Reynolds v. Sims - Wikipedia

Ouch. My idea is dead before I even had it:

Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964), was a United States Supreme Court case which ruled 8-1 that unlike in the election of the United States Senate, in the election of any chamber of a state legislature the electoral districts must be roughly equal in population.
 

Upcoming Events

2A Rally at the Capitol
Salem, OR
Wes Knodel Gun Shows
Chehalis, WA
Wes Knodel Gun Shows
Redmond, OR

Latest Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top