Under repeated trials, small states vote as regional states discount the district. Large states find little relevance in their senors, which is a bunch of trouble.
My claim is that repeated trial will drive the large states to p a consistent tax to the small. The ratio is set except by volition. There will be a tendency toward increased subsidized cottage districts in the small own. A least worst method of known unknown. Like a Constitutional requirement to find Wyoming tin cowboys to be rt.
As far as the Law, democracy rules, and it is the large sttates need to buy out the small, at net present value, and their is a price. There comes a time when buying a half million in Vermont costs twenty billion Make it 40 billion.
California has a 2000 billion budget, Texas is large. If they two split the tab with their representative billionares, they could get couple of the small states combined.
The federal budget is four trillion. Allocate 100 billion in one year auction to small states willing to combine. Large states can pitch in. The auction can include forty year coupons.
At a certain point Californians will observe considerable gain by a friendly slit. Just splitting in two is a huge voting gain,for them in the senate. takes them to a 1/25 ratio. The liquid is one o ten. But as an edge case it is not bad. The cheap route, buy off two small and split California. This get out a lot of wobble at the least cost.
Much closer to the telecommunication auction, it has a bound. One or two steps an that about does it, it creates a broad enough middle. What was a serious fundamental flaw becomes a two, three hundred dollar bill to buy off thee small state an one large. Purchase democracy at market price.
No comments:
Post a Comment