Dems should double down on that idea.

And if we had the constitutional mandated 30,000 per Representative this would be mute.

You can easily find 218 republicans to sell their soul for a big bribe, campaign contribution, the puny congress number now allowed.

show me where the constitution was amended to change to one Representative to 600,000 1/20th of our deserved representation.

Madison recommended it, but it was never put in.

Also those same founders thought slaves were worth 3/5ths and generally that only white men who owned property could vote. They weren't perfect.

The three fifths thing wasn't what southerners thought they were worth. Hell, the South wanted them counted as full people. It was folks in Northern states, who had many fewer slaves (can't say there were none, but in comparison northerners had next to zero), who didn't want them counted at all.

That allowed them to be fully counted, but they still could not vote. They and their children were indentured at birth.

When the Constitution was ratified. I mean, not anywhere close to as many as there were in the south, and that number decreased from 1787 onward, but emancipation went very slowly in the north (most of the laws were something along the lines of like "no one born after *this date* is a slave" or similar, which meant that current ones were often kept in bondage), taking some of them sixty years to become fully free states.

That was another bone of contention between some of the southern slave holding states and the hardcore abolitionists (rather than the folks like Lincoln who sought to hold the line on expansion of slavery), given they were often calling for immediate abolition. The slaveholding south thought those people were being hypocrites since the northern states had started with a much smaller population and it still took some of them multiple generations to free them all.

Article 1 section 3 " The number shall not exceed one for every 30,000 but each state shall have one "

their gerrymandering that dilutes red districts

That’s why 40 million Californians only get two senate seats while tiny red states get the same number.

Just as importantly… only 1/3 of the seats are up in any given election. We basically have to run the table on competitive seats in order to take control 51-49 (and that assumes Fetterman resists changing parties). “Big time” is not in the cards

And in the modern America, this makes little sense.

However some of the "tiny" states are D voters also - I'm thinking of Delaware and Hawaii. It seems to come down to percentage of city-dwellers vs. rural-culture, and also the quality of education per state.

Your point about California and New York being unfairly represented in the Senate is well taken. It is what it is.

The purpose is to prevent the citizens from one state from making decisions for citizens of another state just because one state is more populated. Its at the STATE level of representation because we are a REPUBLIC. The House is the counter the that. From a States standpoint I believe this is sensible.

Along with increasing the house to 50-100% more seats.

If we can elect enough Democrats to expand the court in 2029, perhaps some adjustments to congress can be on the agenda as well.

I also don’t see how it changes the underlying issue of the same representation per state

(Not that I disagree with the founders’ design in that regard. I just recognize the current impact adds challenges)

But I wouldn’t mind the 2028 Dem nominee campaigning on amendments that weaken the article II powers of the executive and article III powers of the courts, while increasing the article I powers of congress.

In the post-Trump era, there just might be an appetite for such amendments from both parties.

It’s such an unintentional bit of comedy from one who is certain Trump isn’t capable of doing anything and everything possible to acquire or stay in power, yet somehow believes we can, with a magic wand, expand the court, unilaterally change the constitution, expand the congress, expand the senate all by winning a mid term. Amazing!.

I know you’re not a fan of CT, and neither am I, but surely you must see these things you talk about so casually are every bit as ludicrous as the CT? You know that, right?

...in Republican primaries where the winner is pretty certain to be a Republican. Spoil Trump's plans to turf out Bill Cassidy in LA by voting for him. Will he became a great Democratic ally? I doubt it, but we can stop another MAGAt rubber stamp from getting in while screwing Trump.

Vote in the SC primary to send Lindsay Graham packing by voting for his primary opponent simply by asking for a Republican ballot on Primary Day and using it. When I still lived in GA-06 and we were guaranteed to have a Republican, we used strategic voting to bounce Bob Barr. Yes, we still got a Republican, but it wasn't a white supremacist who went after Bill Clinton, and we ended Barr's political career.

It's great to be angry, but we can also take action to punish those we can to show strength and power in as many ways as we can. This is just one.

In Florida, you must re-register as the other party to be able to vote that party's ticket in the primary. And I believe it must be done at least 30 days before the primary. Don't know how other states handle it. In Indiana you could indeed choose at the polls when I lived there. Don't know if that's still true.

...and I know SC allows you to ask for whichever ballot you want for the primary on-site. GA used to do the same, and I think they still do.

If you completely alienate your voters by driving up food and gas prices, they will either stay away or vote for another option.