Canadians were happy with the pipeline threatening American groundwater and violating American treaties with Native nations. And we're supposed to feel bad that these bad things are being undone? Canada can bite itself if that's how they feel.
We are upset that a president who will be heavily dependent on friends and allies of the US will act unilaterally to damage their interests without even talking to them.
Reminds me far too much of a previous, much hated US president, who was only interested in the US and cared not at all for the impact his actions would have on his supposed allies.
If you want to talk co-operation internationally, and claim that the US is going to try to take back its position, you have to be prepared to work with, not against, your allies. This action confirms, I'd guess, death to the idea of the US as the great leader...but then, most of us don't want the US to be the great leader, we'd rather have the US as a partner to work with.
So. "We were benefitting to your great detriment, and now he wants to take that away from us." Sheer and utter national selfishness.
Not totally convinced that Krugman is right about everything.
I don't doubt that there was substantial part of the Biden vote that was basically a vote for sanity and good governance, but if that were enough to put Biden over the top Hillary Clinton would have been president for the last four years.
Hmmm. Agree up to the comma. After is short sighted hindsight. She actually had enough white working class support, but remember Jill Stein? She took critical votes from Clinton in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Young, white, green leftists. Put Trump in power.
I think this kind of illustrates my point. From a good governance perspective, Trump was clearly a walking breathing tire fire to anyone who was seriously paying attention in 2016. Yet some people were nonetheless willing to take the risk of a Trump win with a vote for the Greens. The worry for 2022 being that boring unglamorous good governance may not be enough to bring out the vote again if Biden/Harris can't score some high-visibility wins - which may be a challenge.
(But I should stop being a pessimist for a moment and wish them well, which I sincerely do.)
john holdingEcclesiantics Host, Mystery Worshipper Host
Canadians were happy with the pipeline threatening American groundwater and violating American treaties with Native nations. And we're supposed to feel bad that these bad things are being undone? Canada can bite itself if that's how they feel.
We are upset that a president who will be heavily dependent on friends and allies of the US will act unilaterally to damage their interests without even talking to them.
Reminds me far too much of a previous, much hated US president, who was only interested in the US and cared not at all for the impact his actions would have on his supposed allies.
If you want to talk co-operation internationally, and claim that the US is going to try to take back its position, you have to be prepared to work with, not against, your allies. This action confirms, I'd guess, death to the idea of the US as the great leader...but then, most of us don't want the US to be the great leader, we'd rather have the US as a partner to work with.
So. "We were benefitting to your great detriment, and now he wants to take that away from us." Sheer and utter national selfishness.
Or, "we want to do something and don't really care if it hurts you: we're bigger than you and can do what we want. So there!"
Canadians were happy with the pipeline threatening American groundwater and violating American treaties with Native nations. And we're supposed to feel bad that these bad things are being undone? Canada can bite itself if that's how they feel.
We are upset that a president who will be heavily dependent on friends and allies of the US will act unilaterally to damage their interests without even talking to them.
Reminds me far too much of a previous, much hated US president, who was only interested in the US and cared not at all for the impact his actions would have on his supposed allies.
If you want to talk co-operation internationally, and claim that the US is going to try to take back its position, you have to be prepared to work with, not against, your allies. This action confirms, I'd guess, death to the idea of the US as the great leader...but then, most of us don't want the US to be the great leader, we'd rather have the US as a partner to work with.
So. "We were benefitting to your great detriment, and now he wants to take that away from us." Sheer and utter national selfishness.
Or, "we want to do something and don't really care if it hurts you: we're bigger than you and can do what we want. So there!"
Rather we don't want to let you do something to us. Nice try though. Almost cute.
Not totally convinced that Krugman is right about everything.
I don't doubt that there was substantial part of the Biden vote that was basically a vote for sanity and good governance, but if that were enough to put Biden over the top Hillary Clinton would have been president for the last four years.
Hmmm. Agree up to the comma. After is short sighted hindsight. She actually had enough white working class support, but remember Jill Stein? She took critical votes from Clinton in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Young, white, green leftists. Put Trump in power.
I think this kind of illustrates my point. From a good governance perspective, Trump was clearly a walking breathing tire fire to anyone who was seriously paying attention in 2016. Yet some people were nonetheless willing to take the risk of a Trump win with a vote for the Greens. The worry for 2022 being that boring unglamorous good governance may not be enough to bring out the vote again if Biden/Harris can't score some high-visibility wins - which may be a challenge.
(But I should stop being a pessimist for a moment and wish them well, which I sincerely do.)
When you are voting to decide who will be the president of the USA, it doesn't make sense to vote for anyone who couldn't possinly win.
I know Canada isn't all that mighty in the world, but Biden is setting about making us (almost) regret his election in a way I would not have expected. If he won't even discuss something so important to us before knifing us in the back, what comes next? ANd why should we take seriously whatever he says about being allies and friends?
Biden campaigned on this. If you didn't expect it, it's because you are simply not informed. And you really think he didn't discuss it with Canadian officials? Seriously?
In a statement issued following Biden’s inauguration, Trudeau said he “spoke directly” to Biden about the $8 billion project in November, and other Canadian officials “made the case” in favor of it “to high-level officials in the incoming administration.” Source.
And no doubt they'll talk about it again when Biden has his first foreign call with Trudeau on Friday.
@john holding Yes the KeystoneXL pipeline is cancelled. Many think this is good in Canada. This was a bad project for a subsidized climate nightmare of tar sands that also pollutes 2 major water sheds. This form of oil uses so much water and so much natural gas to extract.
I've been to the tar sands (they're more tarry than oily, like an old macadam road in the hot summer sun, with more pebbles). I've toured the heavy oil upgrader in Lloydminster. Been in the Evraz pipe manufacturing plant in Regina (a Russian company listed in London).
This form of oil production isn't economic without all sorts of direct and indirect subsidies, tax breaks. The workers need to be retrained. They were misled that the oil boom would last forever. I'm sorry that they all bought $80k trucks, have $750k mortgages, limited post-secondary education. They were misled, and will have to retool.
There's no stab in the back. This cancellation is necessary. And the coldest it's been this winter is -22°C for one day. Its been close to melting all of January. Climate change is a real thing. Terrible.
When you are voting to decide who will be the president of the USA, it doesn't make sense to vote for anyone who couldn't possinly win.
That's too strong a statement. If you live in a swing state, sure. If you live in a state that isn't in contention, then your third party vote is "free" - there's no risk that your vote, or the vote of people like you, will alter the outcome. In which case you're quite free to signal your support for envirotnmental issues, hardcore nutjobbery, or whatever else is promoted by third party candidates in your area.
Or if you genuinely don't care which of the major parties wins, because you think they're both completely ignoring your concern, then voting for a third party that promotes your interest is entirely rational.
But if you, for example, prefer Green over Dem, and Dem over GOP, then in a swing state, you should vote Dem.
Yes, but Mr Biden is not alone. Ms Harris has a lot of power, too, doesn't she?
Anyway - God Bless America!
US Shipmates will correct me if necessary, but my recollection is that the Vice-President has no power until (s)he steps in on the inability of the President to carry out duty; or the President expressly delegates some power.
Wow! I've just watched President Joe Biden sign three Executive Orders, including one on Climate Change.
Woohoo! He's my hero!
Seventeen executive orders on Day One, though most were signed off camera. Well, fifteen executive orders and two "executive actions". That's a record for a modern president, depending on where you draw the line for "modern".
An informal summary of what was in those executive orders/actions.
Yes, but Mr Biden is not alone. Ms Harris has a lot of power, too, doesn't she?
Anyway - God Bless America!
US Shipmates will correct me if necessary, but my recollection is that the Vice-President has no power until (s)he steps in on the inability of the President to carry out duty; or the President expressly delegates some power.
I think that's roughly right, though others will probably fill in the specifics.
The VP is also the President of the Senate, in the sense of being the one who presides. However, others (senators?) often fill in so heSHE can do other things.
Thanks - I'd forgotten presiding over the Senate. Ms Harris may well decide to do a bit more of that and keep the Republicans in line. It would also be a public reminder that for the first time a woman is V-P.
I think my delegated by the President covers your last paragraph.
Yes, but Mr Biden is not alone. Ms Harris has a lot of power, too, doesn't she?
Anyway - God Bless America!
US Shipmates will correct me if necessary, but my recollection is that the Vice-President has no power until (s)he steps in on the inability of the President to carry out duty; or the President expressly delegates some power.
Her role in the senate gives her the casting vote in the event of a tie. That likely gives Harris more power in the next two years than any VPOTUS in a long time (excluding puppet masters like Cheney).
Yes, but Mr Biden is not alone. Ms Harris has a lot of power, too, doesn't she?
Anyway - God Bless America!
US Shipmates will correct me if necessary, but my recollection is that the Vice-President has no power until (s)he steps in on the inability of the President to carry out duty; or the President expressly delegates some power.
Her role in the senate gives her the casting vote in the event of a tie. That likely gives Harris more power in the next two years than any VPOTUS in a long time (excluding puppet masters like Cheney).
"Power" is used in many ways in political speech. One that may be relevant to Harris is whether she can motivate a broad base of support. Harris has certainly excited a swath of women voters yesterday, but it remains to be seen whether they will line up behind her when she speaks out for political action. She ran a very uninspired and uninspiring campaign for POTUS and may be more appealing as a symbol than as a leader. If she actually can energize the electorate, she will have power.
That's a rather narrow view of 'power' tclune.
Power can be what someone is able to control, or command - what they are able to do, not (so much) whether people like or respect them.
I believe the people President Biden chose to be part of his cabinet reflect Vice President Harris' influence. Biden was a key advisor to Obama, I am certain Biden will also rely on Harris for advice as well.
Harris will have a lot of power in the Senate. I think you will see her welding a lot of power in the Senate as well since it is a 50/50 split.
That's a rather narrow view of 'power' tclune.
Power can be ...
You're right. I should have said, "One sense of the word..." Oh, wait.
I retract. I read quickly and realised I'd misunderstood when it was too late.
Thanks. I do find the question of whether Harris will be able to get traction with the voters of interest, though. I thought she should have been seen as a more viable candidate than she ended up being, and wonder whether she will seem more "Presidential" to voters once she's occupied a high-visibility position of authority for a few years.
"Power" is used in many ways in political speech. One that may be relevant to Harris is whether she can motivate a broad base of support. Harris has certainly excited a swath of women voters yesterday, but it remains to be seen whether they will line up behind her when she speaks out for political action. She ran a very uninspired and uninspiring campaign for POTUS and may be more appealing as a symbol than as a leader. If she actually can energize the electorate, she will have power.
{Emphasis mine.}
...and African-American voters, and South Asian, and multi-racial, and possibly step-moms, and probably more.
I presume it's to do with the mid-terms - the Democrats have to do enough to prove that they are worthy of having all the levers of power at once before the electorate gets the power to take two of them away from them.
Aye, the mid-terms. 'Joe MUST vastly enlarge representation. Nothing else matters. He's got two years. When will he start?'. And why didn't Obama? Clinton? Carter?
Aye, the mid-terms. 'Joe MUST vastly enlarge representation. Nothing else matters. He's got two years. When will he start?'. And why didn't Obama? Clinton? Carter?
The size of the Senate (two per state) is laid out in the constitution. I assume (without going to check) that the same applies to the House. How easy would it be to amend the Constitution to take effect by the November 2022 elections?
And if, as I suspect, the answer is 'impossible' then might it be better for Mr Biden to choose a different fight?
"Enlarge representation" here probably means "get more people to vote Democrat."
Right now the best thing Biden can do to improve the chances of Democrats at the mid-terms is get the pandemic under control and the economy back on its feet. In another word, govern.
Actually I think he means get Puerto Rico or DC made a state which would increase senators by 2 or 4 and increase representatives by about 5 (a mix of states would lose representatives since the number is fixed by a 1929 law at 435). The other option is to increase the total number of representatives which would decrease the relative power of the smallest states by population in the House (all states are guaranteed 1 representative and 7 states have only 1, most of the small states are Republican).
If DC and Puerto Rico were to become bona fide states:
a) How exactly would that happen?
b) How long would it take?
c) Is there any indication whether they would be reliably Democrat? (I am guessing the answer is "yes" with regards to DC)
If DC and Puerto Rico were to become bona fide states:
a) How exactly would that happen?
b) How long would it take?
c) Is there any indication whether they would be reliably Democrat? (I am guessing the answer is "yes" with regards to DC)
On the basis of having lived there for two years, I can say with some confidence that DC would be reliably Democrat. I’m not sure about PR.
Aye, the mid-terms. 'Joe MUST vastly enlarge representation. Nothing else matters. He's got two years. When will he start?'. And why didn't Obama? Clinton? Carter?
The size of the Senate (two per state) is laid out in the constitution. I assume (without going to check) that the same applies to the House. How easy would it be to amend the Constitution to take effect by the November 2022 elections?
And if, as I suspect, the answer is 'impossible' then might it be better for Mr Biden to choose a different fight?
It's not the same for the House, no. The maximum is one per thirty thousand, population or electorate I don't know: “[t]he number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one Representative.”. So no constitutional amendment would be necessary. It is for the absurdly anti-democratic Senate. The Electoral College is only 90% democratic.
The size of the Senate (two per state) is laid out in the constitution. I assume (without going to check) that the same applies to the House. How easy would it be to amend the Constitution to take effect by the November 2022 elections?
The size of the House of Representatives is set by law, not the Constitution. The only guidance the Constitution provides on the matter is "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative" (Art. I, § 2, cl. 3) and that "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed" (Amendment Fourteen, § 2). The last time the number was set was 1929, at the level indicated by the 1910 census with a mechanism for re-assigning representation based on subsequent censuses. There's no reason the number of Representative couldn't be increased and it could be done via legislation, not Constitutional amendment.
And if, as I suspect, the answer is 'impossible' then might it be better for Mr Biden to choose a different fight?
I've never been a big fan of the theory that the purpose of obtaining power in a democratic system is to preserve that power once it's attained. That seems hollow and self-defeating. A better view is that power is obtained to enact your agenda. Think of the Affordable Care Act (d/b/a "Obamacare"). Some kind of universal (or at least broader) medical coverage plan had been a Democratic priority since at least the LBJ administration. 2010 was a bad year for Congressional Democrats largely because Republicans demagogued the program. (Remember "death panels"?) I still say that passing it and suffering the obvious electoral consequences was better than doing nothing and hanging on to a majority simply for the sake of having a majority. Unused power is useless power.
If DC and Puerto Rico were to become bona fide states:
a) How exactly would that happen?
Traditionally the people of the territory would petition Congress for admission (usually by referendum). Congress would authorize a constitutional convention for the would-be state and whatever constitution came out of that would be submitted to the voters of the would-be state for approval. Congress would have to vote in favor of admission (or not; Kansas was initially refused admission because of an unacceptable state constitution) and the president signs off on it.
How fast this can be done depends on how much will there is to do it. Alabama territory was organized in 1817 and admitted in 1819, the shortest amount of time between becoming an organized territory and statehood. Of course, Puerto Rico is already an organized (though unincorporated) territory so how quickly it could become a state is largely a matter of how much the Puerto Ricans want to become a state and whether Congress would agree.
The District of Columbia is a thornier issue. It's non-statehood is spelled out in the Constitution (Art. I, § 8, cl. 17) so it may require a Constitutional amendment. Or maybe just trimming off a rump federal district consisting of the monumental downtown section of the District and devolving the rest of the territory to the new state of Columbia (or whatever).
On the basis of having lived there for two years, I can say with some confidence that DC would be reliably Democrat. I’m not sure about PR.
Although I gather lots of PR politicians identify with D or R as well as a PR party, most PR politics don't map neatly on to D vs R. Or at least, that's what my friend in PR tells me.
I’d have thought that if you wanted to address democratic deficit, it would not be about which way voters voted - but committing to reversing voter suppression and making participating in elections a smoother and better supported process.
Tackling gerrymandered districts would be a longer project.
I’d have thought that if you wanted to address democratic deficit, it would not be about which way voters voted - but committing to reversing voter suppression and making participating in elections a smoother and better supported process.
Absolutely! And that applies not just to the USA but to all countries seeking to be genuinely advocates of democracy.
Tackling gerrymandered districts would be a longer project.
But the work needs to begin soon. Gerrymandering (in any country) is an affront to democratic principles.
With regards to Puerto Rico, one of the latest series of the (mostly) excellent Island Diaries features PR and Sophie Fouron has an interesting discussion with someone about the question of whether it should become a State. The impression I got from the programme is that there might be just as much inclination to move towards full independence.
I’d have thought that if you wanted to address democratic deficit, it would not be about which way voters voted - but committing to reversing voter suppression and making participating in elections a smoother and better supported process.
Tackling gerrymandered districts would be a longer project.
It's not about which way they voted, it's about representing that higher up the food chain pyramid. Voter suppression should be a major state crime, up there with treason and sedition.
Sophie Fouron has an interesting discussion with someone about the question of whether [Puerto Rico] should become a State. The impression I got from the programme is that there might be just as much inclination to move towards full independence.
My friend who lives in San Juan (who admittedly is a bit muddleheaded) tells me that the island is pretty much equally divided between status quo, statehood and independence. He also says that the most recent ballot initiative for statehood was poorly worded and so many voters may have been confused as to what they were voting for.
The Constitution mandates two Senators for every state.
Each state is also guaranteed at least one Representative, but the size of the House is limited by law and largely because of the size of the Chamber of the House. Every ten years the House will reapportion the number each Representative will represent, but it is up to the states to determine each district within its border. Many states have gone to nonpartisan commissions to make this decision. There have been court challenges to gerrymandering. Eventually, I think the courts will rule gerrymandering is unconstitutional.
My friend who lives in San Juan (who admittedly is a bit muddleheaded) tells me that the island is pretty much equally divided between status quo, statehood and independence.
"equally" might be a bit strong, but there's substantial support for each of the three, and probably a significant majority for "they're going to screw us over whatever we choose".
The Constitution mandates two Senators for every state.
Each state is also guaranteed at least one Representative, but the size of the House is limited by law and largely because of the size of the Chamber of the House. Every ten years the House will reapportion the number each Representative will represent, but it is up to the states to determine each district within its border. Many states have gone to nonpartisan commissions to make this decision. There have been court challenges to gerrymandering. Eventually, I think the courts will rule gerrymandering is unconstitutional.
All States and the Commonwealth here have an independent, non-partisan commission which draws electoral boundaries, maintains electoral rolls and conducts elections. There is judicial review but only upon traditional review grounds. Boundaries are drawn after public hearings. Equal numbers of Senators per State (which grossly over-represents Tasmania) but Representatives electorates are approximately equal in size (save again for Tasmania because of the minimum number per State).
I’d have thought that if you wanted to address democratic deficit, it would not be about which way voters voted - but committing to reversing voter suppression and making participating in elections a smoother and better supported process.
Absolutely! And that applies not just to the USA but to all countries seeking to be genuinely advocates of democracy.
Tackling gerrymandered districts would be a longer project.
But the work needs to begin soon. Gerrymandering (in any country) is an affront to democratic principles.
However many Republicans have already said out loud they thought democracy was overrated. They appear to want a one-party dictatorship along the lines of Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union.
Comments
So. "We were benefitting to your great detriment, and now he wants to take that away from us." Sheer and utter national selfishness.
The filibuster is a rule that could (but probably wouldn't) be modified, eliminated altogether, or worked around. This discussion is instructive.
Thanks. Reading Obama's biography, it's clear that it loomed large in his thinking during the first two years of his presidency.
Woohoo! He's my hero!
I think this kind of illustrates my point. From a good governance perspective, Trump was clearly a walking breathing tire fire to anyone who was seriously paying attention in 2016. Yet some people were nonetheless willing to take the risk of a Trump win with a vote for the Greens. The worry for 2022 being that boring unglamorous good governance may not be enough to bring out the vote again if Biden/Harris can't score some high-visibility wins - which may be a challenge.
(But I should stop being a pessimist for a moment and wish them well, which I sincerely do.)
Or, "we want to do something and don't really care if it hurts you: we're bigger than you and can do what we want. So there!"
Rather we don't want to let you do something to us. Nice try though. Almost cute.
When you are voting to decide who will be the president of the USA, it doesn't make sense to vote for anyone who couldn't possinly win.
Biden campaigned on this. If you didn't expect it, it's because you are simply not informed. And you really think he didn't discuss it with Canadian officials? Seriously?
And no doubt they'll talk about it again when Biden has his first foreign call with Trudeau on Friday.
I've been to the tar sands (they're more tarry than oily, like an old macadam road in the hot summer sun, with more pebbles). I've toured the heavy oil upgrader in Lloydminster. Been in the Evraz pipe manufacturing plant in Regina (a Russian company listed in London).
This form of oil production isn't economic without all sorts of direct and indirect subsidies, tax breaks. The workers need to be retrained. They were misled that the oil boom would last forever. I'm sorry that they all bought $80k trucks, have $750k mortgages, limited post-secondary education. They were misled, and will have to retool.
There's no stab in the back. This cancellation is necessary. And the coldest it's been this winter is -22°C for one day. Its been close to melting all of January. Climate change is a real thing. Terrible.
That's too strong a statement. If you live in a swing state, sure. If you live in a state that isn't in contention, then your third party vote is "free" - there's no risk that your vote, or the vote of people like you, will alter the outcome. In which case you're quite free to signal your support for envirotnmental issues, hardcore nutjobbery, or whatever else is promoted by third party candidates in your area.
Or if you genuinely don't care which of the major parties wins, because you think they're both completely ignoring your concern, then voting for a third party that promotes your interest is entirely rational.
But if you, for example, prefer Green over Dem, and Dem over GOP, then in a swing state, you should vote Dem.
US Shipmates will correct me if necessary, but my recollection is that the Vice-President has no power until (s)he steps in on the inability of the President to carry out duty; or the President expressly delegates some power.
Seventeen executive orders on Day One, though most were signed off camera. Well, fifteen executive orders and two "executive actions". That's a record for a modern president, depending on where you draw the line for "modern".
An informal summary of what was in those executive orders/actions.
I hope they get him a wrist brace, a wrist rest, or both, so he doesn't get carpal tunnel. He's got a lot more signing to do!
I think that's roughly right, though others will probably fill in the specifics.
The VP is also the President of the Senate, in the sense of being the one who presides. However, others (senators?) often fill in so he SHE
Plus assorted assigned missions and tasks.
I think my delegated by the President covers your last paragraph.
Her role in the senate gives her the casting vote in the event of a tie. That likely gives Harris more power in the next two years than any VPOTUS in a long time (excluding puppet masters like Cheney).
"Power" is used in many ways in political speech. One that may be relevant to Harris is whether she can motivate a broad base of support. Harris has certainly excited a swath of women voters yesterday, but it remains to be seen whether they will line up behind her when she speaks out for political action. She ran a very uninspired and uninspiring campaign for POTUS and may be more appealing as a symbol than as a leader. If she actually can energize the electorate, she will have power.
Power can be what someone is able to control, or command - what they are able to do, not (so much) whether people like or respect them.
IOW, what capacity does Vice-President Harris have to influence policy, governance etc.?
You're right. I should have said, "One sense of the word..." Oh, wait.
Harris will have a lot of power in the Senate. I think you will see her welding a lot of power in the Senate as well since it is a 50/50 split.
I retract. I read quickly and realised I'd misunderstood when it was too late.
Thanks. I do find the question of whether Harris will be able to get traction with the voters of interest, though. I thought she should have been seen as a more viable candidate than she ended up being, and wonder whether she will seem more "Presidential" to voters once she's occupied a high-visibility position of authority for a few years.
You mean besides breaking tie votes in the Senate?
{Emphasis mine.}
...and African-American voters, and South Asian, and multi-racial, and possibly step-moms, and probably more.
I guess there may also be the question of his age - in 2 years' time, he'll be about 80, no?
The size of the Senate (two per state) is laid out in the constitution. I assume (without going to check) that the same applies to the House. How easy would it be to amend the Constitution to take effect by the November 2022 elections?
And if, as I suspect, the answer is 'impossible' then might it be better for Mr Biden to choose a different fight?
Right now the best thing Biden can do to improve the chances of Democrats at the mid-terms is get the pandemic under control and the economy back on its feet. In another word, govern.
a) How exactly would that happen?
b) How long would it take?
c) Is there any indication whether they would be reliably Democrat? (I am guessing the answer is "yes" with regards to DC)
On the basis of having lived there for two years, I can say with some confidence that DC would be reliably Democrat. I’m not sure about PR.
It's not the same for the House, no. The maximum is one per thirty thousand, population or electorate I don't know: “[t]he number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one Representative.”. So no constitutional amendment would be necessary. It is for the absurdly anti-democratic Senate. The Electoral College is only 90% democratic.
The size of the House of Representatives is set by law, not the Constitution. The only guidance the Constitution provides on the matter is "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative" (Art. I, § 2, cl. 3) and that "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed" (Amendment Fourteen, § 2). The last time the number was set was 1929, at the level indicated by the 1910 census with a mechanism for re-assigning representation based on subsequent censuses. There's no reason the number of Representative couldn't be increased and it could be done via legislation, not Constitutional amendment.
I've never been a big fan of the theory that the purpose of obtaining power in a democratic system is to preserve that power once it's attained. That seems hollow and self-defeating. A better view is that power is obtained to enact your agenda. Think of the Affordable Care Act (d/b/a "Obamacare"). Some kind of universal (or at least broader) medical coverage plan had been a Democratic priority since at least the LBJ administration. 2010 was a bad year for Congressional Democrats largely because Republicans demagogued the program. (Remember "death panels"?) I still say that passing it and suffering the obvious electoral consequences was better than doing nothing and hanging on to a majority simply for the sake of having a majority. Unused power is useless power.
Traditionally the people of the territory would petition Congress for admission (usually by referendum). Congress would authorize a constitutional convention for the would-be state and whatever constitution came out of that would be submitted to the voters of the would-be state for approval. Congress would have to vote in favor of admission (or not; Kansas was initially refused admission because of an unacceptable state constitution) and the president signs off on it.
How fast this can be done depends on how much will there is to do it. Alabama territory was organized in 1817 and admitted in 1819, the shortest amount of time between becoming an organized territory and statehood. Of course, Puerto Rico is already an organized (though unincorporated) territory so how quickly it could become a state is largely a matter of how much the Puerto Ricans want to become a state and whether Congress would agree.
The District of Columbia is a thornier issue. It's non-statehood is spelled out in the Constitution (Art. I, § 8, cl. 17) so it may require a Constitutional amendment. Or maybe just trimming off a rump federal district consisting of the monumental downtown section of the District and devolving the rest of the territory to the new state of Columbia (or whatever).
Although I gather lots of PR politicians identify with D or R as well as a PR party, most PR politics don't map neatly on to D vs R. Or at least, that's what my friend in PR tells me.
Tackling gerrymandered districts would be a longer project.
Absolutely! And that applies not just to the USA but to all countries seeking to be genuinely advocates of democracy.
But the work needs to begin soon. Gerrymandering (in any country) is an affront to democratic principles.
With regards to Puerto Rico, one of the latest series of the (mostly) excellent Island Diaries features PR and Sophie Fouron has an interesting discussion with someone about the question of whether it should become a State. The impression I got from the programme is that there might be just as much inclination to move towards full independence.
It's not about which way they voted, it's about representing that higher up the food chain pyramid. Voter suppression should be a major state crime, up there with treason and sedition.
My friend who lives in San Juan (who admittedly is a bit muddleheaded) tells me that the island is pretty much equally divided between status quo, statehood and independence. He also says that the most recent ballot initiative for statehood was poorly worded and so many voters may have been confused as to what they were voting for.
Each state is also guaranteed at least one Representative, but the size of the House is limited by law and largely because of the size of the Chamber of the House. Every ten years the House will reapportion the number each Representative will represent, but it is up to the states to determine each district within its border. Many states have gone to nonpartisan commissions to make this decision. There have been court challenges to gerrymandering. Eventually, I think the courts will rule gerrymandering is unconstitutional.
"equally" might be a bit strong, but there's substantial support for each of the three, and probably a significant majority for "they're going to screw us over whatever we choose".
All States and the Commonwealth here have an independent, non-partisan commission which draws electoral boundaries, maintains electoral rolls and conducts elections. There is judicial review but only upon traditional review grounds. Boundaries are drawn after public hearings. Equal numbers of Senators per State (which grossly over-represents Tasmania) but Representatives electorates are approximately equal in size (save again for Tasmania because of the minimum number per State).
Oh, and compulsory voting. Get everyone involved
However many Republicans have already said out loud they thought democracy was overrated. They appear to want a one-party dictatorship along the lines of Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union.