The only way this country will once again get itself sorted out in terms of democracy is to adjust its representational scheme to better reflect -- yes, that pesky detail -- reality.

If the House of Representatives apportionment method can -- as it has over the centuries -- be adjusted to reflect changing demographics, but the Senate "two per state" method cannot, then we need more states. Simple as that.

Twenty years ago, a wise University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee anthropology professor [writing under the pen name Dakota James] wrote a science fiction novel, "Milwaukee the Beautiful." Its premise:

The year is 2013. The Greenhouse Effect has ravaged the south, creating a huge illegal immigrant in-flow from Mexico (causing the US to build a huge, laser-armed, barbed-wire-topped wall across the southern border). The Midwest is semi-tropical. Milwaukee has palm trees. The city and its metro area -- along with a handful of other urbanized regions in the US -- take advantage of a new federal law and secede from their states, turning themselves into self-governing city-states. Thus [although this is not made explicit in the book] the "State of Milwaukee" continues with the same number of congressional districts but adds two senators of its own.

Of course there are huge problems that would prevent the subdivision of existing states given our current political and electoral siutation (not the least of which is: It's essentially unlawful). But one can imagine it happening after a semi-social breakdown under economic or environmental stress.

Counties and city governments have already begun to merge; metro government has become a reality in Indianapolis and elsewhere. As the nation is hugely more urban and growing ever more urban, the advent of an American city-state system seems ultimately inevitable.

New York City-State could become the first such conversion.

The rise of the city-state will have negative side effects, of course. It will create rancor and division in the beginning, and to the extent rural areas continue to suffer (not at all a sure thing) it will for at least awhile further divide the country into haves and have-nots.

But it will also have positive benefits, among them: More equal representation, and a new kind of identity for urban Americans. But this trend doesn't have to be limited to urban areas.

Chaffing under the rule of its southern brethren, The Upper Peninsula of Michigan -- which geographically and culturally ought to have been left part of what was then the Wisconsin Territory -- has been angling on and off for years to partition itself into the "State of Superior."

Upper Michigan is the result of a partitioning scheme similar to those that created today's strange boundaries in the Middle East. It was a political creation, not a rational one.

Luckily, jurisdictional boundaries are hardly written in stone. They can and will change, as the peoples of each region assess their interests and decide among themselves how to reorganize for the greater community good.

Some of this reorganization will be quite selfish in origin; that, however, doesn't necessarily mean it won't be a good idea. Having to rethink alliances and boundaries will be a good exercise in populist democracy, no matter how things turn out.

Federal government will of course act as a brake on this development, but it will only slow the accelerating train, not bring it to a halt.

Some will see this trend as a balkanization. Some will see in it an echo of the Roman Empire's decline. But one just as well can see it as a move toward enhanced local control and self-determination. Nor do you have to be a "states rights" wingnut to view the potential for good in this, especially given modern technology and the likely re-emergence of the "small is beautiful" movement.

All hail the coming rise of the American city-state.