From The New Republic:
BAD INFLUENCE:
This magazine has lambasted Montana Senator Max Baucus on more than one occasion. But his explanation for his vote against DC receiving a vote in the House of Representatives (with Utah receiving one as well to maintain presumed partisan balance), is really one for the ages:
Baucus said in a written statement that he opposed the bill because Montana has only one House vote. "If we were to expand the House, Montana's voice would become less influential," he said.
Now, my back-of-the-envelope calculation--and I hope readers will feel free to correct it if it's wrong--finds that Montana's single House vote currently makes up 0.2299 percent of the total House vote. If the House were expanded from 435 members to 437, Montana's share would drop to 0.2288 percent. Yes, Baucus felt obligated to vote against any federal representation for residents of the District of Columbia, because it would reduce the relative clout of his states' residents (in the House only, the Senate would be unaffected) by one-thousandth of one percent.
Of course, anyone who's followed Baucus's career knows that he loves a good compromise. So don't be surprised if he comes out in favor of a new plan that will give DC its vote but will reduce every other state to a single representative, just like Montana. It's only fair, after all.
--Christopher Orr
http://www.tnr.com/blog/the_plank?pid=144534
No comments:
Post a Comment