# USMB Political Hackery



## Samson

I doubt this thread will get much play because it challenges the USMB membership to think beyond their usual lemming limits of following whatever partisan hack's blog they read every single fucking hour, but here goes;

The HoR has had the same number of members since 1910.

I know some of you may want me to post a link to evidence supporting my contention that the US population has grown since 1910, but let's just use our imaginations for a moment.

This population change means each US representative, Dem OR Repub, has an average 770,000 constituants.

Realistically, there is no fucking way these guys are representing this many people: No other representative body on the face of the planet has such an absurd ratio.

_*If you really cared about the validity or representative government, then you'd stop the political hackary, and demand that congress vote to triple the size (at minimum) the number of representatives in the HoR.*_

Of course, this would open wide the door for MORE that BiPartisan government....hell, we might even be able to form an effective third party: GOD FORBID!!!


----------



## Oddball

Repeal the 17th Amendment, too.


----------



## Foxfyre

Interesting proposal re enlarging the HoR, and I will think on it.  As it hasn't been on my radar lately, other than those running for election, I haven't given the makeup a great deal of thought.  But I will think on it.  The main downside I can immediately see is the cost, so I would want an enlargement of the House to be contingent on the representatives funding their own healthcare and pension plans out of their salaries, and the taxpayers would no longer contribute to these during their tenure or once they left office.   Also the current system of automatic incremental raises for those in congress would be ended and they would have to go back to the system where they voted themselves each raise and could not benefit from it until after they were re-elected.

(I want to see this in both houses of Congress even if we don't enlarge the HoR.)

As for repealing the 17th amendment and going back to legislature appointed senators, I can see an advantage to that but in my state that has never had a Republican majority in the legislature, I would never have a Republican representative and the nation would never have had such great statesmen as Manuel Lujan Jr. or Pete Domenici.


----------



## Samson

Oddball said:


> Repeal the 17th Amendment, too.



I am pretty sure the average American's math skills will only allow them to think of One thing at a time: let's not challenge this and just try tio see how many are able to focus on the ratio 1:770,000.

I'm pessimistic.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Samson said:


> I doubt this thread will get much play because it challenges the USMB membership to think beyond their usual lemming limits of following whatever partisan hack's blog they read every single fucking hour, but here goes;
> 
> The HoR has had the same number of members since 1910.
> 
> I know some of you may want me to post a link to evidence supporting my contention that the US population has grown since 1910, but let's just use our imaginations for a moment.
> 
> This population change means each US representative, Dem OR Repub, has an average 770,000 constituants.
> 
> Realistically, there is no fucking way these guys are representing this many people: No other representative body on the face of the planet has such an absurd ratio.
> 
> _*If you really cared about the validity or representative government, then you'd stop the political hackary, and demand that congress vote to triple the size (at minimum) the number of representatives in the HoR.*_
> 
> Of course, this would open wide the door for MORE that BiPartisan government....hell, we might even be able to form an effective third party: GOD FORBID!!!



Sounds good, but first, term limits!


----------



## Samson

Foxfyre said:


> Interesting proposal re enlarging the HoR, and I will think on it.  As it hasn't been on my radar lately, other than those running for election, I haven't given the makeup a great deal of thought.  But I will think on it.  The main downside I can immediately see is the cost, so I would want an enlargement of the House to be contingent on the representatives funding their own healthcare and pension plans out of their salaries, and the taxpayers would no longer contribute to these during their tenure or once they left office.   Also the current system of automatic incremental raises for those in congress would be ended and they would have to go back to the system where they voted themselves each raise and could not benefit from it until after they were re-elected.
> 
> (I want to see this in both houses of Congress even if we don't enlarge the HoR.)
> 
> As for repealing the 17th amendment and going back to legislature appointed senators, I can see an advantage to that but in my state that has never had a Republican majority in the legislature, I would never have a Republican representative and the nation would never have had such great statesmen as Manuel Lujan Jr. or Pete Domenici.



The Senate is not really supposed to represent "The People;" This legislative entity, in fact, is supposed to act as an override to foolish populism, so increasing the number here really is not the point.

The tread is not another repeal the 17th Amendment re-hash either: I'm really not interested in HOW Senators gain office, we are addressing the HoR, and the gridlock results of BiPartisanship that is a product of too few parties and too few members.


----------



## spectrumc01

The ratio is huge, but does not hinder the representation.  They are represented on the federal level, to increase federal limits for more reps would bog down the process.  These people are very well represented on the state level, so they really are not without adequate voice.


----------



## Againsheila

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt this thread will get much play because it challenges the USMB membership to think beyond their usual lemming limits of following whatever partisan hack's blog they read every single fucking hour, but here goes;
> 
> The HoR has had the same number of members since 1910.
> 
> I know some of you may want me to post a link to evidence supporting my contention that the US population has grown since 1910, but let's just use our imaginations for a moment.
> 
> This population change means each US representative, Dem OR Repub, has an average 770,000 constituants.
> 
> Realistically, there is no fucking way these guys are representing this many people: No other representative body on the face of the planet has such an absurd ratio.
> 
> _*If you really cared about the validity or representative government, then you'd stop the political hackary, and demand that congress vote to triple the size (at minimum) the number of representatives in the HoR.*_
> 
> Of course, this would open wide the door for MORE that BiPartisan government....hell, we might even be able to form an effective third party: GOD FORBID!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds good, but first, term limits!
Click to expand...


I'm with the term limits idea.  Serve 4  years and you can run for election to ANY office while you are currently in office.  IOW you can be a representative for 4 years and a senator for 4 years and a president for 4 years but not consecutively.  When you are in a job you should damnwell be doing your best to be doing that job and you can't if  you're working your ass off to get elected to another job.


----------



## Samson

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt this thread will get much play because it challenges the USMB membership to think beyond their usual lemming limits of following whatever partisan hack's blog they read every single fucking hour, but here goes;
> 
> The HoR has had the same number of members since 1910.
> 
> I know some of you may want me to post a link to evidence supporting my contention that the US population has grown since 1910, but let's just use our imaginations for a moment.
> 
> This population change means each US representative, Dem OR Repub, has an average 770,000 constituants.
> 
> Realistically, there is no fucking way these guys are representing this many people: No other representative body on the face of the planet has such an absurd ratio.
> 
> _*If you really cared about the validity or representative government, then you'd stop the political hackary, and demand that congress vote to triple the size (at minimum) the number of representatives in the HoR.*_
> 
> Of course, this would open wide the door for MORE that BiPartisan government....hell, we might even be able to form an effective third party: GOD FORBID!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds good, but first, term limits!
Click to expand...




Why would that be relevant to increasing effective representation?


----------



## Foxfyre

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt this thread will get much play because it challenges the USMB membership to think beyond their usual lemming limits of following whatever partisan hack's blog they read every single fucking hour, but here goes;
> 
> The HoR has had the same number of members since 1910.
> 
> I know some of you may want me to post a link to evidence supporting my contention that the US population has grown since 1910, but let's just use our imaginations for a moment.
> 
> This population change means each US representative, Dem OR Repub, has an average 770,000 constituants.
> 
> Realistically, there is no fucking way these guys are representing this many people: No other representative body on the face of the planet has such an absurd ratio.
> 
> _*If you really cared about the validity or representative government, then you'd stop the political hackary, and demand that congress vote to triple the size (at minimum) the number of representatives in the HoR.*_
> 
> Of course, this would open wide the door for MORE that BiPartisan government....hell, we might even be able to form an effective third party: GOD FORBID!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds good, but first, term limits!
Click to expand...


No, not term limits.  Take away their ability to enrish themselves at taxpayer expense, and we will see true public servants instead of opportunistic career politicians running for office again.  And some will love doing it and become the old guard, but we really do need some of those with the memory and experience and expertise and sense of history instead of mostly new people with none of that.

But I can see virtue in Samson's proposal to enlarge the house.  I am still mulling over the downside to that.  Would that make it easier or more difficult to get proposals out of committee?  Would that make it easier or more diffficult to form a viable third party?  Would that make for a more responsive or competent goverment, or would it increase selff serving behavior, incentive to include pork barrel earmarks, etc. etc. etc.?


----------



## Samson

spectrumc01 said:


> The ratio is huge, but does not hinder the representation.  They are represented on the federal level, to increase federal limits for more reps would bog down the process.  These people are very well represented on the state level, so they really are not without adequate voice.



What the Fuck are you talking about: The ratio DOES hinder representation, and this is why congress has an approval of less that 20% of constituants!

No other representative body on the PLANET has such a ridiculously high ratio (see Japan, France, GB....ANY OTHER REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY).

The "process" is done entirely by committees.

I'm not talking about STATE HoR.

Get your head out of your ass.


----------



## Samson

Againsheila said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt this thread will get much play because it challenges the USMB membership to think beyond their usual lemming limits of following whatever partisan hack's blog they read every single fucking hour, but here goes;
> 
> The HoR has had the same number of members since 1910.
> 
> I know some of you may want me to post a link to evidence supporting my contention that the US population has grown since 1910, but let's just use our imaginations for a moment.
> 
> This population change means each US representative, Dem OR Repub, has an average 770,000 constituants.
> 
> Realistically, there is no fucking way these guys are representing this many people: No other representative body on the face of the planet has such an absurd ratio.
> 
> _*If you really cared about the validity or representative government, then you'd stop the political hackary, and demand that congress vote to triple the size (at minimum) the number of representatives in the HoR.*_
> 
> Of course, this would open wide the door for MORE that BiPartisan government....hell, we might even be able to form an effective third party: GOD FORBID!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds good, but first, term limits!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm with the term limits idea.  Serve 4  years and you can run for election to ANY office while you are currently in office.  IOW you can be a representative for 4 years and a senator for 4 years and a president for 4 years but not consecutively.  When you are in a job you should damnwell be doing your best to be doing that job and you can't if  you're working your ass off to get elected to another job.
Click to expand...


Someone should start a tread about term limits.

This is not it.


----------



## spectrumc01

Samson said:


> spectrumc01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ratio is huge, but does not hinder the representation.  They are represented on the federal level, to increase federal limits for more reps would bog down the process.  These people are very well represented on the state level, so they really are not without adequate voice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the Fuck are you talking about: The ratio DOES hinder representation, and this is why congress has an approval of less that 20% of constituants!
> 
> No other representative body on the PLANET has such a ridiculously high ratio (see Japan, France, GB....ANY OTHER REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY).
> 
> The "process" is done entirely by committees.
> 
> I'm not talking about STATE HoR.
> 
> Get your head out of your ass.
Click to expand...


I have representatives on the County, State, and Federal level.  How the Fuck am I under-represented?

The process DOES bog down.  Tryin to get 10 people to agree on something is easier than trying to get 100 people to agree on something.  Look at the ineffective UN.

Japan, France, and GB don't come anywhere near the population of the US.  You should check to see what India's ratio is, being the worlds largest democracy.


----------



## Foxfyre

spectrumc01 said:


> The ratio is huge, but does not hinder the representation.  They are represented on the federal level, to increase federal limits for more reps would bog down the process.  These people are very well represented on the state level, so they really are not without adequate voice.



I am not represented at all.  My representative shares none of my values and principles of what good government should be.  But if the House was expanded and my more local area could choose our representative rather than us being in the much larger District 1 pool, I would have a much better chance to elect somebody who did share my values and principles of what good government should be.


----------



## spectrumc01

Foxfyre said:


> spectrumc01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ratio is huge, but does not hinder the representation.  They are represented on the federal level, to increase federal limits for more reps would bog down the process.  These people are very well represented on the state level, so they really are not without adequate voice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not represented at all.  My representative shares none of my values and principles of what good government should be.  But if the House was expanded and my more local area could choose our representative rather than us being in the much larger District 1 pool, I would have a much better chance to elect somebody who did share my values and principles of what good government should be.
Click to expand...


I suppose we should agree on what type of representation we are discussing.  If we are talking about wether they have my views or not than I have no representation either.  If we are talking about just the numbers as the OP wishes, than I have representation out the ass.


----------



## Foxfyre

spectrumc01 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> spectrumc01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ratio is huge, but does not hinder the representation.  They are represented on the federal level, to increase federal limits for more reps would bog down the process.  These people are very well represented on the state level, so they really are not without adequate voice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not represented at all.  My representative shares none of my values and principles of what good government should be.  But if the House was expanded and my more local area could choose our representative rather than us being in the much larger District 1 pool, I would have a much better chance to elect somebody who did share my values and principles of what good government should be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suppose we should agree on what type of representation we are discussing.  If we are talking about wether they have my views or not than I have no representation either.  If we are talking about just the numbers as the OP wishes, than I have representation out the ass.
Click to expand...


The whole concept of the House of Representatives was to provide a local voice for the people in Congress.  The purpose of the two-year term was to give the people an opportunity to oust the representative who did not adequately provide that voice.  But when you have one representative speaking for 770,000 people spread over a large area, how could he or she possibly represent the hopes and concerns of more than a small percentage of those people?


----------



## Wiseacre

Triple?   I dunno about triple, or even double.   That's a lot of people, for starters we'd have to make the Capitol building a whole lot bigger.   Also, I wouldn't bet the rent that having more assholes would necessarily help alleviate the governance problems we have.   You want 435 liars, cheats,and thieves or over 1300?   Could be we'd just be expanding the problems of cronyism.

3rd parties have sprung up ever since the 1820s, and continuing today with Gary Johnson.   Matter of fact, I voted for a 3rd party candidate a time or two for president when I wasn't too thrilled with either major candidate.    Look at the current situation:   I don't see a 3rd party taking away too many voters from the democrats, these guys have a number of constituents but none of 'em are likely to bite the hand that feeds 'em so to speak, by leaving their party.   The repubs on the other hand could lose a sizeable number of supporters if the Libertarian Party grows in size and power, wouldn't we end up with a democrat in the WH every time?   

I don't want bigger with more people, I want smaller.   I want fewer people to keep an eye on, fewer people that could be making deals and wasting our money, and I do not believe increasing the number of reps or the number of parties helps the situation.    435 is a nice odd number, let's stick with that.


----------



## Mr. H.

I got nothin'. Sorry, Sammy.


----------



## spectrumc01

Foxfyre said:


> spectrumc01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not represented at all.  My representative shares none of my values and principles of what good government should be.  But if the House was expanded and my more local area could choose our representative rather than us being in the much larger District 1 pool, I would have a much better chance to elect somebody who did share my values and principles of what good government should be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose we should agree on what type of representation we are discussing.  If we are talking about wether they have my views or not than I have no representation either.  If we are talking about just the numbers as the OP wishes, than I have representation out the ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The whole concept of the House of Representatives was to provide a local voice for the people in Congress.  The purpose of the two-year term was to give the people an opportunity to oust the representative who did not adequately provide that voice.  But when you have one representative speaking for 770,000 people spread over a large area, how could he or she possibly represent the hopes and concerns of more than a small percentage of those people?
Click to expand...


Your right.  At that level they can't.  However to increase the amount of representatives is not the answer either.  The cost is prohibative, and the sheer size of the HoR would prove to be unruly.  The constitution provides us the tools to change this, but I don't trust our politicians to fix it with the general publics intrest at heart.  Term limits wouldn't work either if we are talking increasing the over all number of representatives.

I still believe that at this point our HoR is made up of people representing our state, and not so much the individual.  For more specific individual representation we should focus more locally.


----------



## Againsheila

Samson said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds good, but first, term limits!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm with the term limits idea.  Serve 4  years and you can run for election to ANY office while you are currently in office.  IOW you can be a representative for 4 years and a senator for 4 years and a president for 4 years but not consecutively.  When you are in a job you should damnwell be doing your best to be doing that job and you can't if  you're working your ass off to get elected to another job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Someone should start a tread about term limits.
> 
> This is not it.
Click to expand...


----------



## Foxfyre

Againsheila said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm with the term limits idea.  Serve 4  years and you can run for election to ANY office while you are currently in office.  IOW you can be a representative for 4 years and a senator for 4 years and a president for 4 years but not consecutively.  When you are in a job you should damnwell be doing your best to be doing that job and you can't if  you're working your ass off to get elected to another job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone should start a tread about term limits.
> 
> This is not it.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


   I think the topic will get a lot more play if members are encouraged to express their questions and concerns re keeping the current makeup of the HofR or expanding it as Samson suggests.  And certainly term limits is a legitimate concern within the larger subject because most especially if more entrenched and immovable power structures might be created in a much larger elective body.

Again I haven't given any thought to this up to today, so I am interested in all the pros and cons as well as such concerns.   Otherwise how do we arrive at a reasoned conclusion and an formed opinion about whether it is a good idea or not?


----------



## Samson

Foxfyre said:


> spectrumc01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not represented at all.  My representative shares none of my values and principles of what good government should be.  But if the House was expanded and my more local area could choose our representative rather than us being in the much larger District 1 pool, I would have a much better chance to elect somebody who did share my values and principles of what good government should be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose we should agree on what type of representation we are discussing.  If we are talking about wether they have my views or not than I have no representation either.  If we are talking about just the numbers as the OP wishes, than I have representation out the ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The whole concept of the House of Representatives was to provide a local voice for the people in Congress.  The purpose of the two-year term was to give the people an opportunity to oust the representative who did not adequately provide that voice.  But when you have one representative speaking for 770,000 people spread over a large area, how could he or she possibly represent the hopes and concerns of more than a small percentage of those people?
Click to expand...


This is my point.

I find the fact that we might need a bigger capitol building, and this might be too much of an obsticle to overcome quite amazing in light of Federal Building Programs that have been given $$Trillion$$$.

Yes, instead of prioritizing effective representation in our nation, let's build another Pentagon.

This sort of response is exactly why the US Congress is so despised, but also why US citizens are incapable of changeing the system antiquated since 1910.


----------



## spectrumc01

My vote would always be for smaller federal government.  Cut the work force in half, top to bottom, whole agencies, departments and staffs.  Slash the wages, co-pay on their medical benefits and the pension reductions or modification of our elected officials to the median income of those they represent.  If they want a raise they need to get their constituency a raise.  This would go a long way to balancing the budget in a hurry.  There would be no reason to cut SS, medicade / medicare, military, space, welfare, or anything else.


----------



## Wiseacre

Effective representation is not a matter of numbers, it's an issue of the people maintaining an awareness of what's going on and making informed decisions about who they want to vote into office and who they don't.    If that doesn't happen [so far it hasn't] then the number of reps running around won't make a positive difference.


----------



## Samson

Wiseacre said:


> Effective representation is not a matter of numbers, it's an issue of the people maintaining an awareness of what's going on and making informed decisions about who they want to vote into office and who they don't.    If that doesn't happen [so far it hasn't] then the number of reps running around won't make a positive difference.





Then why have any reps?

Perhaps you'd prefer a King.


----------



## Samson

spectrumc01 said:


> I still believe that at this point our HoR is made up of people representing our state, and not so much the individual.



Yes.

Tis is the point: The HoR is supposed to represent people.

Agreed it has become somewhat of a muddled point for most Americans to comprehend, but WE THE PEOPLE are supposed to be represented on the FEDERAL LEVEL in the HoR.


----------



## mal

Samson said:


> I doubt this thread will get much play because it challenges the USMB membership to think beyond their usual lemming limits of following whatever partisan hack's blog they read every single fucking hour, but here goes;
> 
> The HoR has had the same number of members since 1910.
> 
> I know some of you may want me to post a link to evidence supporting my contention that the US population has grown since 1910, but let's just use our imaginations for a moment.
> 
> This population change means each US representative, Dem OR Repub, has an average 770,000 constituants.
> 
> Realistically, there is no fucking way these guys are representing this many people: No other representative body on the face of the planet has such an absurd ratio.
> 
> _*If you really cared about the validity or representative government, then you'd stop the political hackary, and demand that congress vote to triple the size (at minimum) the number of representatives in the HoR.*_
> 
> Of course, this would open wide the door for MORE that BiPartisan government....hell, we might even be able to form an effective third party: GOD FORBID!!!







peace...


----------



## Wiseacre

Samson said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Effective representation is not a matter of numbers, it's an issue of the people maintaining an awareness of what's going on and making informed decisions about who they want to vote into office and who they don't.    If that doesn't happen [so far it hasn't] then the number of reps running around won't make a positive difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why have any reps?
> 
> Perhaps you'd prefer a King.
Click to expand...



The thread was about increasing the number of reps, not doing away with them.   Your concept appears to be that having a lot more reps (triple) solves our problems of gov't.   I don't think so.


----------



## spectrumc01

Samson said:


> spectrumc01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I still believe that at this point our HoR is made up of people representing our state, and not so much the individual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Tis is the point: The HoR is supposed to represent people.
> 
> Agreed it has become somewhat of a muddled point for most Americans to comprehend, but WE THE PEOPLE are supposed to be represented on the FEDERAL LEVEL in the HoR.
Click to expand...


At some point you evolve or die off.  We had to interpet our HoR a little differently to reflect the increase of population.  If anything a major shift of power to the states and away from the federal level thus making the importance of your state rep more powerful than your federal rep.


----------



## Samson

Wiseacre said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Effective representation is not a matter of numbers, it's an issue of the people maintaining an awareness of what's going on and making informed decisions about who they want to vote into office and who they don't.    If that doesn't happen [so far it hasn't] then the number of reps running around won't make a positive difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why have any reps?
> 
> Perhaps you'd prefer a King.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The thread was about increasing the number of reps, not doing away with them.   Your concept appears to be that having a lot more reps (triple) solves our problems of gov't.   I don't think so.
Click to expand...


You realise the YOU are supposed to have a voice in the Federal government, right?

As astonished as I am with the seemingly bottomless pit of confusion (more representatives do NOT mean more representatives for YOU, only better QUALITY representation), it serves as a perfect reason why Americans are so disappointed in their government on the one hand, yet are too ignorant to change it on the other.


----------



## Samson

spectrumc01 said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> spectrumc01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I still believe that at this point our HoR is made up of people representing our state, and not so much the individual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Tis is the point: The HoR is supposed to represent people.
> 
> Agreed it has become somewhat of a muddled point for most Americans to comprehend, but WE THE PEOPLE are supposed to be represented on the FEDERAL LEVEL in the HoR.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At some point you evolve or die off.  We had to interpet our HoR a little differently to reflect the increase of population.  If anything a major shift of power to the states and away from the federal level thus making the importance of your state rep more powerful than your federal rep.
Click to expand...




The US Constitution gives power of the federal government over state government.

WTF are you babbling about "shift of power?" Relative representation on the state vs. federal level is irrelevant.


----------



## spectrumc01

Samson said:


> spectrumc01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Tis is the point: The HoR is supposed to represent people.
> 
> Agreed it has become somewhat of a muddled point for most Americans to comprehend, but WE THE PEOPLE are supposed to be represented on the FEDERAL LEVEL in the HoR.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At some point you evolve or die off.  We had to interpet our HoR a little differently to reflect the increase of population.  If anything a major shift of power to the states and away from the federal level thus making the importance of your state rep more powerful than your federal rep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US Constitution gives power of the federal government over state government.
> 
> WTF are you babbling about "shift of power?" Relative representation on the state vs. federal level is irrelevant.
Click to expand...


Increasing the size of the federal HoR won't fix the percieved problem of inadequate representation.  What might do it would be a shift in power from the federal government back to the states.  Power shift means money.  As Romney alluded to during the the first debate, I believe it was, he wants to shift the responsibility of federal programs to the states.  If the state reps had more power than their federal rep than it wouldn't matter because the real power is closer to home.


----------



## Trajan

Samson said:


> I doubt this thread will get much play because it challenges the USMB membership to think beyond their usual lemming limits of following whatever partisan hack's blog they read every single fucking hour, but here goes;
> 
> The HoR has had the same number of members since 1910.
> 
> I know some of you may want me to post a link to evidence supporting my contention that the US population has grown since 1910, but let's just use our imaginations for a moment.
> 
> This population change means each US representative, Dem OR Repub, has an average 770,000 constituants.
> 
> Realistically, there is no fucking way these guys are representing this many people: No other representative body on the face of the planet has such an absurd ratio.
> 
> _*If you really cared about the validity or representative government, then you'd stop the political hackary, and demand that congress vote to triple the size (at minimum) the number of representatives in the HoR.*_
> 
> Of course, this would open wide the door for MORE that BiPartisan government....hell, we might even be able to form an effective third party: GOD FORBID!!!



I am not sure about the third party, sorry to say, I see this as making things worse, they will just ride along the same lines and have to add more spending so they can each then placate their newly apportioned constituency ...


I agree with OB on the 17th amendment btw, that was a DC power grab if there ever was one....


----------



## Wiseacre

Samson said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why have any reps?
> 
> Perhaps you'd prefer a King.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thread was about increasing the number of reps, not doing away with them.   Your concept appears to be that having a lot more reps (triple) solves our problems of gov't.   I don't think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You realise the YOU are supposed to have a voice in the Federal government, right?
> 
> As astonished as I am with the seemingly bottomless pit of confusion (more representatives do NOT mean more representatives for YOU, only better QUALITY representation), it serves as a perfect reason why Americans are so disappointed in their government on the one hand, yet are too ignorant to change it on the other.
Click to expand...



I know damn well that I only get one rep for my district, I am getting the distinct impression that you are deliberately trying to piss me off.   Let me rephrase to avoid further confusion:   only a fucking idiot can possibly think that having 1300 reps in the HofR will lead to better quality of representation.   We've already got a mess, you want to make it a bigger mess.   Just what we need: more corruption, more cronyism, and a much larger Congress that is too fucked up as it is now.


----------



## Foxfyre

spectrumc01 said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> spectrumc01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose we should agree on what type of representation we are discussing.  If we are talking about wether they have my views or not than I have no representation either.  If we are talking about just the numbers as the OP wishes, than I have representation out the ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whole concept of the House of Representatives was to provide a local voice for the people in Congress.  The purpose of the two-year term was to give the people an opportunity to oust the representative who did not adequately provide that voice.  But when you have one representative speaking for 770,000 people spread over a large area, how could he or she possibly represent the hopes and concerns of more than a small percentage of those people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your right.  At that level they can't.  However to increase the amount of representatives is not the answer either.  The cost is prohibative, and the sheer size of the HoR would prove to be unruly.  The constitution provides us the tools to change this, but I don't trust our politicians to fix it with the general publics intrest at heart.  Term limits wouldn't work either if we are talking increasing the over all number of representatives.
> 
> I still believe that at this point our HoR is made up of people representing our state, and not so much the individual.  For more specific individual representation we should focus more locally.
Click to expand...


But the senate was designed to represent the various states.  The House is supposed to be made up of the representatives of the people.  If the senators and representatives have the same job, why not do away with the House and Senate and just have one bicameral body?


----------



## Synthaholic

Samson said:


> _*If you really cared about the validity or representative government, then you'd stop the political hackary, and demand that congress vote to triple the size (at minimum) the number of representatives in the HoR.*_



That's fine with me.

Let's see if you can do the same:

How about dividing each state into equal sized squares of a grid in order to determine each district?

No more re-districting into weird shapes and sizes in order to maximize Rep/Dem votes.


----------



## Trajan

Synthaholic said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*If you really cared about the validity or representative government, then you'd stop the political hackary, and demand that congress vote to triple the size (at minimum) the number of representatives in the HoR.*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's fine with me.
> 
> Let's see if you can do the same:
> 
> How about dividing each state into equal sized squares of a grid in order to determine each district?
> 
> No more re-districting into weird shapes and sizes in order to maximize Rep/Dem votes.
Click to expand...


the dems would never go along with it..


see-

Civil Rights Division Voting Section Redistricting Information


----------



## Synthaholic

Trajan said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*If you really cared about the validity or representative government, then you'd stop the political hackary, and demand that congress vote to triple the size (at minimum) the number of representatives in the HoR.*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's fine with me.
> 
> Let's see if you can do the same:
> 
> How about dividing each state into equal sized squares of a grid in order to determine each district?
> 
> No more re-districting into weird shapes and sizes in order to maximize Rep/Dem votes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the dems would never go along with it..
> 
> 
> see-
> 
> Civil Rights Division Voting Section Redistricting Information
Click to expand...

I'm asking if Samson (and you) would go along with it.


----------



## Trajan

sorry, yes I would.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Synthaholic said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*If you really cared about the validity or representative government, then you'd stop the political hackary, and demand that congress vote to triple the size (at minimum) the number of representatives in the HoR.*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's fine with me.
> 
> Let's see if you can do the same:
> 
> How about dividing each state into equal sized squares of a grid in order to determine each district?
> 
> No more re-districting into weird shapes and sizes in order to maximize Rep/Dem votes.
Click to expand...


Districts are based on population, not area. Districts can't be a uniform size, because population density isn't uniform.


----------



## Samson

Synthaholic said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*If you really cared about the validity or representative government, then you'd stop the political hackary, and demand that congress vote to triple the size (at minimum) the number of representatives in the HoR.*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's fine with me.
> 
> Let's see if you can do the same:
> 
> How about dividing each state into equal sized squares of a grid in order to determine each district?
> 
> No more re-districting into weird shapes and sizes in order to maximize Rep/Dem votes.
Click to expand...




You think every state could be divided into equally sized squares with equal populations?



You know, I'm beginning to support not allowing Americans to be adequately represented. Perhaps ignoring 80-90% or the constituancy is a better idea.


----------



## Samson

Wiseacre said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thread was about increasing the number of reps, not doing away with them.   Your concept appears to be that having a lot more reps (triple) solves our problems of gov't.   I don't think so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You realise the YOU are supposed to have a voice in the Federal government, right?
> 
> As astonished as I am with the seemingly bottomless pit of confusion (more representatives do NOT mean more representatives for YOU, only better QUALITY representation), it serves as a perfect reason why Americans are so disappointed in their government on the one hand, yet are too ignorant to change it on the other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I know damn well that I only get one rep for my district, I am getting the distinct impression that you are deliberately trying to piss me off.   Let me rephrase to avoid further confusion:   only a fucking idiot can possibly think that having 1300 reps in the HofR will lead to better quality of representation.   We've already got a mess, you want to make it a bigger mess.   Just what we need: more corruption, more cronyism, and a much larger Congress that is too fucked up as it is now.
Click to expand...




Thinking outside the box is not your strength.

Corruption and cronyism is a result of the Bipartisan congress.

With more representatives that have fewer constituants, biPartisanship becomes weaker, not stronger.

Perhaps you haven't noticed the trend since 1910....maybe you think by keeping a magic number of representatives will help run a country whose population will double.

Brilliant.

With this logic, maybe we should just have 10 guys in the HoR. Then there will surely be less corruption....How about just ONE guy!!! then there will be NO CORRUPTION!!!!


----------



## Samson

spectrumc01 said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> spectrumc01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> At some point you evolve or die off.  We had to interpet our HoR a little differently to reflect the increase of population.  If anything a major shift of power to the states and away from the federal level thus making the importance of your state rep more powerful than your federal rep.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US Constitution gives power of the federal government over state government.
> 
> WTF are you babbling about "shift of power?" Relative representation on the state vs. federal level is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Increasing the size of the federal HoR won't fix the percieved problem of inadequate representation.  What might do it would be a shift in power from the federal government back to the states.  Power shift means money.  As Romney alluded to during the the first debate, I believe it was, he wants to shift the responsibility of federal programs to the states.  If the state reps had more power than their federal rep than it wouldn't matter because the real power is closer to home.
Click to expand...


"What might do it would be a shift in power from the federal government back to the states."

Thank you.

I believe the blithering idiot constituancy has spoken.

Be sure to pick out a lolipop of your choice at the door.


----------



## freedombecki

Synthaholic said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*If you really cared about the validity or representative government, then you'd stop the political hackary, and demand that congress vote to triple the size (at minimum) the number of representatives in the HoR.*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's fine with me.
> 
> Let's see if you can do the same:
> 
> How about dividing each state into equal sized squares of a grid in order to determine each district?
> 
> No more re-districting into weird shapes and sizes in order to maximize Rep/Dem votes.
Click to expand...

*How about dividing each state into equal sized squares of a grid in order to determine each district?*

Over-representing the glacier district today, are we? The left will be miffed.


----------



## jillian

Oddball said:


> Repeal the 17th Amendment, too.



yah...cause you hate government so much that you want the government to elect your senators.


----------



## jillian

freedombecki said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*If you really cared about the validity or representative government, then you'd stop the political hackary, and demand that congress vote to triple the size (at minimum) the number of representatives in the HoR.*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's fine with me.
> 
> Let's see if you can do the same:
> 
> How about dividing each state into equal sized squares of a grid in order to determine each district?
> 
> No more re-districting into weird shapes and sizes in order to maximize Rep/Dem votes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *How about dividing each state into equal sized squares of a grid in order to determine each district?*
> 
> Over-representing the glacier district today, are we? The left will be miffed.
Click to expand...


riiiiiiiight...so 10 people in the bible belt gets represented by the same number of representatives as new york city with it's how many millions of people?

you must truly think everyone is as stupid as you are.


----------



## Ravi

Who is going to pay for it?


----------



## jillian

Samson said:


> I doubt this thread will get much play because it challenges the USMB membership to think beyond their usual lemming limits of following whatever partisan hack's blog they read every single fucking hour, but here goes;
> 
> The HoR has had the same number of members since 1910.
> 
> I know some of you may want me to post a link to evidence supporting my contention that the US population has grown since 1910, but let's just use our imaginations for a moment.
> 
> This population change means each US representative, Dem OR Repub, has an average 770,000 constituants.
> 
> Realistically, there is no fucking way these guys are representing this many people: No other representative body on the face of the planet has such an absurd ratio.
> 
> _*If you really cared about the validity or representative government, then you'd stop the political hackary, and demand that congress vote to triple the size (at minimum) the number of representatives in the HoR.*_
> 
> Of course, this would open wide the door for MORE that BiPartisan government....hell, we might even be able to form an effective third party: GOD FORBID!!!



that's an interesting concept. so how would you recommend divvying up those representatives  so that you're not gerrymandering a bunch of red seats? what percentage of those new representatives are assigned to new york and california and other population centers as opposed to rural areas which have far fewer people? I mean, you vote GOP... how do you keep your side from getting drowned out by the high population dense cities, which vote blue?


----------



## jillian

Ravi said:


> Who is going to pay for it?



i hadn't even gotten that far....

but it doesn't sound very small government conservative...


----------



## Grandma

Aiyee!

Here's how it works, for those of you that have never been to DC : The House was stopped at 435 representatives because it's too small to hold any more.

As we need works programs and it's better to spend tax money on jobs than on war, it would make a great deal of sense to expand the Capitol Building. Expansion would give our reps decent office space, too, as well as making the place more energy efficient. It's not like expansion would destroy the asthetics of the current building.

As for representation, if we're going for one rep per 100,000 people, we need 3,000 reps. I like the idea. A lot. More individual communities, with individual interests, would get representation.

Do we just make a bunch of little squares? Of course not - the Mojave Desert doesn't need a representative, does it? And should a huge city like New York get a representative and two cattle ranches in west Texas also have a single representative? No, Congressional districts should be divided according to population. That's not to say we need squiggly lines, either, division to throw voter tallies is absolutely wrong.


----------



## Synthaholic

theDoctorisIn said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*If you really cared about the validity or representative government, then you'd stop the political hackary, and demand that congress vote to triple the size (at minimum) the number of representatives in the HoR.*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's fine with me.
> 
> Let's see if you can do the same:
> 
> How about dividing each state into equal sized squares of a grid in order to determine each district?
> 
> No more re-districting into weird shapes and sizes in order to maximize Rep/Dem votes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Districts are based on population, not area. Districts can't be a uniform size, because population density isn't uniform.
Click to expand...

Ok - unequal sized squares.


----------



## spectrumc01

Just look to the UN to see what more representatives will get us.  It is hard enough trying to get 435 representatives to agree on anything (look at congressional grid-lock now), how hard do you suppose it would be to get 3000 representatives to agree?  If the problem for some is under representation, why not use our technology and let the people directly vote on major issues (money).  Let the 435 reps take care of the mundane BS.


----------



## Samson

spectrumc01 said:


> Just look to the UN to see what more representatives will get us.  It is hard enough trying to get 435 representatives to agree on anything (look at congressional grid-lock now), how hard do you suppose it would be to get 3000 representatives to agree?  If the problem for some is under representation, why not use our technology and let the people directly vote on major issues (money).  Let the 435 reps take care of the mundane BS.



The UN is not the HoR.

Imbecile.


----------



## Samson

Synthaholic said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's fine with me.
> 
> Let's see if you can do the same:
> 
> How about dividing each state into equal sized squares of a grid in order to determine each district?
> 
> No more re-districting into weird shapes and sizes in order to maximize Rep/Dem votes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Districts are based on population, not area. Districts can't be a uniform size, because population density isn't uniform.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok - unequal sized squares.
Click to expand...




I have an uneasy feeling that you have been infected by Shapeism. Why are you prejudice against the Triangles? I bet you want to send them all to another continent, or at the very least, segregate them in their own schools and neighborhoods.


----------



## Samson

jillian said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is going to pay for it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i hadn't even gotten that far....
> 
> but it doesn't sound very small government conservative...
Click to expand...


Well, I suppose we could save money if we just had one representative living in a castle for life.....think of the savings in election costs; $2 B this year for the presidency alone!

Th idiots who believe they'll get more responsible spending out of government by dilluting their representation deserve what they get: A ridiculously small HoR, and $15 T in debt.


----------



## spectrumc01

Samson said:


> spectrumc01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just look to the UN to see what more representatives will get us.  It is hard enough trying to get 435 representatives to agree on anything (look at congressional grid-lock now), how hard do you suppose it would be to get 3000 representatives to agree?  If the problem for some is under representation, why not use our technology and let the people directly vote on major issues (money).  Let the 435 reps take care of the mundane BS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The UN is not the HoR.
> 
> Imbecile.
Click to expand...


'nuff said


----------



## MeBelle

Grandma said:


> Aiyee!
> 
> Here's how it works, for those of you that have never been to DC : The House was stopped at 435 representatives because it's too small to hold any more.
> 
> As we need works programs and it's better to spend tax money on jobs than on war, it would make a great deal of sense to expand the Capitol Building. Expansion would give our reps decent office space, too, as well as making the place more energy efficient. It's not like expansion would destroy the asthetics of the current building.
> 
> As for representation, if we're going for one rep per 100,000 people, we need 3,000 reps. I like the idea. A lot. More individual communities, with individual interests, would get representation.
> 
> Do we just make a bunch of little squares? Of course not - the Mojave Desert doesn't need a representative, does it? And should a huge city like New York get a representative and two cattle ranches in west Texas also have a single representative? No, Congressional districts should be divided according to population. That's not to say we need squiggly lines, either, division to throw voter tallies is absolutely wrong.



How about one rep for 200K or 300K? 
As for how do we pay for them (not your comment) cut their salaries by 3/4. 
Personally, I'm sick of my home state only having one rep.


----------



## Foxfyre

MeBelle60 said:


> Grandma said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aiyee!
> 
> Here's how it works, for those of you that have never been to DC : The House was stopped at 435 representatives because it's too small to hold any more.
> 
> As we need works programs and it's better to spend tax money on jobs than on war, it would make a great deal of sense to expand the Capitol Building. Expansion would give our reps decent office space, too, as well as making the place more energy efficient. It's not like expansion would destroy the asthetics of the current building.
> 
> As for representation, if we're going for one rep per 100,000 people, we need 3,000 reps. I like the idea. A lot. More individual communities, with individual interests, would get representation.
> 
> Do we just make a bunch of little squares? Of course not - the Mojave Desert doesn't need a representative, does it? And should a huge city like New York get a representative and two cattle ranches in west Texas also have a single representative? No, Congressional districts should be divided according to population. That's not to say we need squiggly lines, either, division to throw voter tallies is absolutely wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about one rep for 200K or 300K?
> As for how do we pay for them (not your comment) cut their salaries by 3/4.
> Personally, I'm sick of my home state only having one rep.
Click to expand...


New Mexico has three which doesn't help a great deal against the big population states.   And of course doubling the reps would not help those ratios, but at least in your case it would give you a better chance to have your political party represented.

But assuming the logistics of a larger representation is accomplished, we pay for it with a Constitutional amendment that prevents anybody in the federal government from allocating the people's money for ANY purpose that benefits one group, entity, demographic, constituency without benefitting all without respect for political party or socioeconomic standing.  And we require that all in government fund their own retirement plans and health plans out of the salaries for as long as they are in government and there is no entitlement for employees, appointees, or elected representatives.  That would eliminate the ability of politicians and bureaucrats to enrich themselves at our expense.   The extra salaries would then be a tiny percentage of what they are now costing us.


----------



## regent

With basically two political parties that's all the representation needed. If we had ten political parties it would be a different story. The two parties offer us a chance to support two groups, the world  corporations or the average American. While that would seem a simple choice for Americans, add to the corporations tons of money spent on convincing us that corporations are here, not for profit, but to help America. 
Corporations have had to become people, our friendly neighbor, just-plain-folk, and programs that help people presented as evil and socialistic. How effective are the corporations? Considering what they are trying to do, and with what, very effective-and needed to keep the two party system alive.


----------



## Samson

regent said:


> With basically two political parties that's all the representation needed. If we had ten political parties it would be a different story. The two parties offer us a chance to support two groups, the world  corporations or the average American. While that would seem a simple choice for Americans, add to the corporations tons of money spent on convincing us that corporations are here, not for profit, but to help America.
> Corporations have had to become people, our friendly neighbor, just-plain-folk, and programs that help people presented as evil and socialistic. How effective are the corporations? Considering what they are trying to do, and with what, very effective-and needed to keep the two party system alive.





Another blithering idiot believes there is a political party in the USA that is not controlled through "world corporations."

1978 called; they want their brain back.


----------



## mamooth

The downside is the smaller the district, the harder it is to gerrymander. And that any redistricting threatens the fortunes of the party which controlled the redistricting in 2010, which was overwhelmingly the Republicans. Hence, every Republican will fight it. At least until 2020, when the districts are redrawn again. Then the Democrats might fight it.

Point. I dunno. That you'd have to get this in as part of the decadal redistricting, in order for it to have any chance.


----------



## Dante

Samson said:


> I doubt this thread will get much play because it challenges the USMB membership to think beyond their usual lemming limits of following whatever partisan hack's blog they read every single fucking hour, but here goes;
> 
> The HoR has had the same number of members since 1910.
> 
> I know some of you may want me to post a link to evidence supporting my contention that the US population has grown since 1910, but let's just use our imaginations for a moment.
> 
> This population change means each US representative, Dem OR Repub, has an average 770,000 constituants_*[sic]*_.
> 
> Realistically, there is no fucking way these guys are representing this many people: No other representative body on the face of the planet has such an absurd ratio.
> 
> _*If you really cared about the validity or representative government, then you'd stop the political hackary, and demand that congress vote to triple the size (at minimum) the number of representatives in the HoR.*_
> 
> Of course, this would open wide the door for MORE that BiPartisan government....hell, we might even be able to form an effective third party: GOD FORBID!!!





> The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Samson For This Useful Post:
> alan1 (10-20-2012), Care4all (10-20-2012), hjmick (10-29-2012), Kevin_Kennedy (10-20-2012), kiwiman127 (10-20-2012), mal (10-20-2012), MeBelle60 (Today), Oddball (10-20-2012)



solution: larger government body


----------



## Samson

mamooth said:


> The downside is the smaller the district, the harder it is to gerrymander. And that any redistricting threatens the fortunes of the party which controlled the redistricting in 2010, which was overwhelmingly the Republicans. Hence, every Republican will fight it. At least until 2020, when the districts are redrawn again. Then the Democrats might fight it.
> 
> Point. I dunno. That you'd have to get this in as part of the decadal redistricting, in order for it to have any chance.



First you'd need to pass the resolution to expand the house.

Redistricting is done, regularly, at the state level, and challenged in Federal court, thus drawing boundries has nothing to do with the tread; How this is done would remain the status quo.


----------



## Nightson

Samson said:


> I doubt this thread will get much play because it challenges the USMB membership to think beyond their usual lemming limits of following whatever partisan hack's blog they read every single fucking hour, but here goes;
> 
> The HoR has had the same number of members since 1910.
> 
> I know some of you may want me to post a link to evidence supporting my contention that the US population has grown since 1910, but let's just use our imaginations for a moment.
> 
> This population change means each US representative, Dem OR Repub, has an average 770,000 constituants.
> 
> Realistically, there is no fucking way these guys are representing this many people: No other representative body on the face of the planet has such an absurd ratio.
> 
> _*If you really cared about the validity or representative government, then you'd stop the political hackary, and demand that congress vote to triple the size (at minimum) the number of representatives in the HoR.*_
> 
> Of course, this would open wide the door for MORE that BiPartisan government....hell, we might even be able to form an effective third party: GOD FORBID!!!





I agree with you. It's an epiphany--one's awakening to the absurdity of the machinery that governs us. All three hundred plus million of us. It's kind of an "So has _this_ ever occurred you before?" kind of question (illuminated lightbulb pops up overhead). To which I emphatically, exasperatedly answer "Yes, of course, it's occurred to me, now let me get back to watching Dancing With The Stars". But seriously, as good an idea as better representation through multiplication of representitives is, the _the machine_ knows no other way. Cold forged iron gears click and turn. Of the approximately 770,000 constituants each congressman represents, I am willing to count most of them--even the sentient ones among the majority, as happy to play this way so long as the quickie mart carries pop and go go juice for their ride. Bliss and remiss in acceptance.


----------



## regent

Perhaps some also realize the futility of pushing for a political change that has little or no chance of coming to pass. The Constitution did not create a government with multiple political parties in mind, in fact the founders had no political parties in mnd. d
There are vested interests that want no change to parts of our political system and those vested interests are required to make the change.


----------



## Dante

regent said:


> Perhaps some also realize the futility of pushing for a political change that has little or no chance of coming to pass. The Constitution did not create a government with multiple political parties in mind, in fact the founders had no political parties in mnd. d
> There are vested interests that want no change to parts of our political system and those vested interests are required to make the change.



JEsus Christ, that old line again. The Framers and the Founders formed the first political parties, so can the bullshit.

What Madison warned against were factions. Factions have a specific set of interests separate from the whole. Parties used to speak to the whole.

It all stopped when the GOP around the time of Ronald Reagan chased out Republicans from the Big Tent of the Grand Old Party. Now the GOP is controlled lock, stock, and barrel by a faction .. right wingnuts


----------



## Dante

Samson said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> The downside is the smaller the district, the harder it is to gerrymander. And that any redistricting threatens the fortunes of the party which controlled the redistricting in 2010, which was overwhelmingly the Republicans. Hence, every Republican will fight it. At least until 2020, when the districts are redrawn again. Then the Democrats might fight it.
> 
> Point. I dunno. That you'd have to get this in as part of the decadal redistricting, in order for it to have any chance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First you'd need to pass the resolution to expand the house.
> 
> Redistricting is done, regularly, at the state level, and challenged in Federal court, thus drawing boundries has nothing to do with the tread; How this is done would remain the status quo.
Click to expand...

Oh fuck off. Your pseudo-intellectual bullshit is nauseating


----------



## mamooth

I remember my first drunken dorm room discussion. Such happy times. We ranted about the sheep of the two-party system as well.


----------



## midcan5

Does this mean we should have bunches and bunches of presidents?  The suggestions seems absurd in a nation in which states, counties, cities etc have lots of these so called legislatures and representatives. Maybe we need a counselor for every ten citizens too?  I thought in America we did it all on our own or something like that. 


"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.  The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist....We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes.  We should take nothing for granted.  Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together." Dwight D. Eisenhower


----------



## regent

Dante said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps some also realize the futility of pushing for a political change that has little or no chance of coming to pass. The Constitution did not create a government with multiple political parties in mind, in fact the founders had no political parties in mnd. d
> There are vested interests that want no change to parts of our political system and those vested interests are required to make the change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JEsus Christ, that old line again. The Framers and the Founders formed the first political parties, so can the bullshit.
> 
> What Madison warned against were factions. Factions have a specific set of interests separate from the whole. Parties used to speak to the whole.
> 
> It all stopped when the GOP around the time of Ronald Reagan chased out Republicans from the Big Tent of the Grand Old Party. Now the GOP is controlled lock, stock, and barrel by a faction .. right wingnuts
Click to expand...


The framers made no provision for political parties in the counstitution. It was believed by some that factions would offset factions. The irony was that the constitution caused the factions to coalesce into basically two parties, and the electoral college keeps them in two parties. 
Wonder if the modern GOP came about when Truman began easing the southern Democrats out of the party and they became Republicans? But I agree the GOP today is controlled by far right wingnuts and they make no attempt to hide it, and it's where the money is, but where can the moderate Republican go?


----------



## Samson

regent said:


> The irony was that the constitution caused the factions to coalesce into basically two parties, and the electoral college keeps them in two parties.......





How does the Constitution promote bipartisan government? And how does the electoral college have to do with sustaining bipartisan government?

Niether of these has anything to do with promoting partisanship.

The proto-partisans formed around the issue of small states Vs large states, and populated states vs unpopulated states. The issue was resolved in forming the Senate and HoR.

Next, partisanship was defined by those that either liked the French (Jefferson), or hated the French (Adams).


----------



## freedombecki

Samson said:


> I doubt this thread will get much play because it challenges the USMB membership to think beyond their usual lemming limits of following whatever partisan hack's blog they read every single fucking hour, but here goes;
> 
> The HoR has had the same number of members since 1910.
> 
> I know some of you may want me to post a link to evidence supporting my contention that the US population has grown since 1910, but let's just use our imaginations for a moment.
> 
> This population change means each US representative, Dem OR Repub, has an average 770,000 constituants.
> 
> Realistically, there is no fucking way these guys are representing this many people: No other representative body on the face of the planet has such an absurd ratio.
> 
> _*If you really cared about the validity or representative government, then you'd stop the political hackary, and demand that congress vote to triple the size (at minimum) the number of representatives in the HoR.*_
> 
> Of course, this would open wide the door for MORE that BiPartisan government....hell, we might even be able to form an effective third party: GOD FORBID!!!


This is a good point to review, Samson, and I'm glad you brought it up.

In America, we have redefined government as a people who have gone through a process.

Along the way, we started employing extremists to help moderates make choices, but we lost moderation in the process, and now, government is by the extremists themselves, and not by representatives. That came about by legislating to a small number of people who benefitted the larger, and a press that doesn't give any but a myopic view.

At present, we have a press lockstepped into a faction of extremists who want to do a Bolshevik number on the founder's constitution which doesn't fit into the Government-as-owner-and-caregiver-of-everyone schema, and traditionalists who mind. The rift is pretty wide, and avails America to more extremism than ever, and it splits us in two, sadly.

Adding more people in government to make laws carries a common i.e.d. of centralized government blowing up states rights.

The founders set up a system to keep a country as large as ours operating through broad common goals that protect freedoms of individuals alive at the time the Constitution was written. So careful were they that when we are swayed by debaters with strong goal-oriented agendas to increase federal power, we lose integrity of agreements the nation made with low-population states guaranteed an equal voice in government. I realize this occasionally brings out some angst between large and small states, but it does keep smaller states in the position of having a voice and from being swamped by population centers that have completely different needs for keeping human systems and institutions in order.

Term limits viewed from the perspective that locals should have some say in who represents them is not desirable in certain areas of the country that view experience in politics wins them advantages. There was a reason the founders did not take that away from the people, whilst being themselves willing to back off after two terms to give younger men the opportunity and experience it would take to lead the nation at another given time.

My problem with adding more spenders to the rolls of Congress is that it might increase Congressional spending.

That's taking money out of private hands and putting them into an almighty federalist system.

The founders were chary of too much centralized power because it was too much like the European harpies they had just thrown off their backs.

The founders knew the weight of a big power was undesirable to the man on the street. That means something to this American.


----------



## Foxfyre

Well said Becki.  The Founders intended for the people to govern themselves, not be governed by a central government.  It was the first such concept in the history of the world and continues to be the only such concept in the history of the world.  The purpose of the federal government was to secure our ability to do that without violating unalienable rights of those who chose to govern themselves differently than we chose for ourselves.

After giving this some thought, I'm not sure that enlarging the HOR would accomplish anything other than creating more factions.  The goal should be to restore the federal government to its original purpose and then we could actually reduce the HOR with no problem at all.


----------



## regent

Foxfyre said:


> Well said Becki.  The Founders intended for the people to govern themselves, not be governed by a central government.  It was the first such concept in the history of the world and continues to be the only such concept in the history of the world.  The purpose of the federal government was to secure our ability to do that without violating unalienable rights of those who chose to govern themselves differently than we chose for ourselves.
> 
> After giving this some thought, I'm not sure that enlarging the HOR would accomplish anything other than creating more factions.  The goal should be to restore the federal government to its original purpose and then we could actually reduce the HOR with no problem at all.



Of course the founders did not intend the people to govern themselves, only somewhat. Of the three branches of govenment the founders the people selected one half of one branch. Democracy was a word that brought up fear to most of the framers, sort of like the word communism does today. 
The ancient Greeks had a number their city-states try forms of democracy, even direct democracy. Might even check the heritage of the word "democracy."


----------



## Foxfyre

regent said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well said Becki.  The Founders intended for the people to govern themselves, not be governed by a central government.  It was the first such concept in the history of the world and continues to be the only such concept in the history of the world.  The purpose of the federal government was to secure our ability to do that without violating unalienable rights of those who chose to govern themselves differently than we chose for ourselves.
> 
> After giving this some thought, I'm not sure that enlarging the HOR would accomplish anything other than creating more factions.  The goal should be to restore the federal government to its original purpose and then we could actually reduce the HOR with no problem at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the founders did not intend the people to govern themselves, only somewhat. Of the three branches of govenment the founders the people selected one half of one branch. Democracy was a word that brought up fear to most of the framers, sort of like the word communism does today.
> The ancient Greeks had a number their city-states try forms of democracy, even direct democracy. Might even check the heritage of the word "democracy."
Click to expand...


I disagree.  If you study the federalist papers and the anti-federalist papers as well as the plentiful transcripts of speeches, notes, commentary, letters, and other documents the Founders left behind for us, they agreed to a man what liberty is.  Their sole motivation was to remove all concepts of a monarchy or dictatorship or fuedal kingdom or papal authority or any other form of authoritarian government so that the people would govern themselves and live their lives as they chose to do that.  The role of the federal government was to secure their rights and provide a structure in which they could effectively do that without violating the rights of others.


----------



## Foxfyre

The United States of America is the only nation in the history of the world that was organized to respect and protect the God given unalienable rights of the people rather than the government assigning the people what rights they would have.  It produced the most powerful, prosperous, innovative, creative, productive, and benevolent nation the world has ever known.   But the Bible speaks of a people who enjoyed such freedom but who clamored for a king.  And so they got one and the results were not satisfactory or happy for anybody.  So we now have Americans who clamor for a king to provide for them and are willing to give him authority over them in hopes that he will be a benevolent king for them.  And nobody is really happy with the results.


----------



## Connery

Quantity will not insure quality.  We as interested parties need to hold those we elect responsible for decisions made on our behalf. Many of today's problems are caused by the citizenry as far as I am concerned. I do not want more government, I want effective government.

 Quite frankly, less government would compel people to get off their asses and be responsible for their own destiny instead of this paternalistic approach to life that has been instilled in the US today. If we go back in the history of the US, the times of true growth as a society was when people needed to do for themselves such as the westward expansion or WWII when women had to essentially become the breadwinners in the family.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

spectrumc01 said:


> The ratio is huge, but does not hinder the representation.  They are represented on the federal level, to increase federal limits for more reps would bog down the process.  These people are very well represented on the state level, so they really are not without adequate voice.



What the fuck are you smoking?

TX-23 encompasses the parts of San Antonio and stretches west 600 miles engulfing multiple small towns and rural communities. Tell me how, exactly, that gives the people in those small communities any type of representation at the federal level. By the way, the state house of representatives uses the exact same district that Congress does, so the representation level is exactly the same at both state and federal levels.


----------



## Foxfyre

New Mexico has the fifth largest land area in the United States and three representatives in the House.  District 3 is a larger area than many states and encompasses the southeastern counties that are all ranch land, oil fields, and generally redneck country and the southernmost counties that are mostly left of center.  But one representative represents both.

But still, if we limited the functions of government as the Founders intended, the party representing us would not carry near the consequences that it now does.


----------



## regent

Connery said:


> Quantity will not insure quality.  We as interested parties need to hold those we elect responsible for decisions made on our behalf. Many of today's problems are caused by the citizenry as far as I am concerned. I do not want more government, I want effective government.
> 
> Quite frankly, less government would compel people to get off their asses and be responsible for their own destiny instead of this paternalistic approach to life that has been instilled in the US today. If we go back in the history of the US, the times of true growth as a society was when people needed to do for themselves such as the westward expansion or WWII when women had to essentially become the breadwinners in the family.



It was the during the Great Depression that America had an influx of people that wouldn't work, and whined for jobs and were not responsible. They were an awful, people, lazy wanted food, like little children, not real Americans, but then when WWII came along those bums left America, and a new breed immigrated to America, these new ones were hard workers, independent and winners of wars. 
I still wonder where that old group of the lazy depression laggards went, and where the new breed of WWII workers came from. Now some are back wanting food stamps.


----------



## Samson

regent said:


> Connery said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quantity will not insure quality.  We as interested parties need to hold those we elect responsible for decisions made on our behalf. Many of today's problems are caused by the citizenry as far as I am concerned. I do not want more government, I want effective government.
> 
> Quite frankly, less government would compel people to get off their asses and be responsible for their own destiny instead of this paternalistic approach to life that has been instilled in the US today. If we go back in the history of the US, the times of true growth as a society was when people needed to do for themselves such as the westward expansion or WWII when women had to essentially become the breadwinners in the family.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was the during the Great Depression that America had an influx of people that wouldn't work, and whined for jobs and were not responsible. They were an awful, people, lazy wanted food, like little children, not real Americans, but then when WWII came along those bums left America, and a new breed immigrated to America, these new ones were hard workers, independent and winners of wars.
> I still wonder where that old group of the lazy depression laggards went, and where the new breed of WWII workers came from. Now some are back wanting food stamps.
Click to expand...


January 2012 seems to have been the apex an influx of morons to USMB.


----------



## emilynghiem

Dear Samson:
I was thinking the best way to organize mass representation is by Party.

Could we cap how much is paid to the federal govt in income tax? Such as keeping it at 10% where anything above that is considered a loan, and then giving states or parties an option of working out how to delegate that money "per issue" or "per Party" etc. So if Republicans want to take on the responsibility for the debts from under the Bush administration and Iraq War contracts, and how to redirect funds from supporters to Vets and military and national security; while the Democrats want to focus on "health care" and domestic policies that other groups/taxpayers DON'T necessarily want to fund, could we organize this by Party?

Also, I was thinking the big business contributors could get involved; what if the big business interests could formulate a plan to get China paid back, such as calculating how much debt is owed, issuing credits to China that they can redeem for labor or resources to re-organize their country into educational districts, and rework their economy and labor to gradually offer sustainable living conditions for their workers instead of slave labor where the money goes into the Chinese govt and military. 

We wouldn't necessarily depend so much on assigning people to a rep by geographical district, if we could organize by Party or issue (such as addressing the death penalty, and redirecting funds into more cost-effective alternatives and deterrents, or gay marriage, or abortion, or immigration, etc.). 

And given how people are ABUSING party politics to represent their own party agenda instead of the constituents in their districts, or states or whole nation; it's almost better to organize the representation and funding from taxpayers by the parties/issues of their choice.



Samson said:


> I doubt this thread will get much play because it challenges the USMB membership to think beyond their usual lemming limits of following whatever partisan hack's blog they read every single fucking hour, but here goes;
> 
> The HoR has had the same number of members since 1910.
> 
> I know some of you may want me to post a link to evidence supporting my contention that the US population has grown since 1910, but let's just use our imaginations for a moment.
> 
> This population change means each US representative, Dem OR Repub, has an average 770,000 constituants.
> 
> Realistically, there is no fucking way these guys are representing this many people: No other representative body on the face of the planet has such an absurd ratio.
> 
> _*If you really cared about the validity or representative government, then you'd stop the political hackary, and demand that congress vote to triple the size (at minimum) the number of representatives in the HoR.*_
> 
> Of course, this would open wide the door for MORE that BiPartisan government....hell, we might even be able to form an effective third party: GOD FORBID!!!


----------



## editec

Samson said:


> I doubt this thread will get much play because it challenges the USMB membership to think beyond their usual lemming limits of following whatever partisan hack's blog they read every single fucking hour, but here goes;
> 
> The HoR has had the same number of members since 1910.
> 
> I know some of you may want me to post a link to evidence supporting my contention that the US population has grown since 1910, but let's just use our imaginations for a moment.
> 
> This population change means each US representative, Dem OR Repub, has an average 770,000 constituants.
> 
> Realistically, there is no fucking way these guys are representing this many people: No other representative body on the face of the planet has such an absurd ratio.
> 
> _*If you really cared about the validity or representative government, then you'd stop the political hackary, and demand that congress vote to triple the size (at minimum) the number of representatives in the HoR.*_
> 
> Of course, this would open wide the door for MORE that BiPartisan government....hell, we might even be able to form an effective third party: GOD FORBID!!!


 
I completely agree with you on this one.

I believe that the HoR ought to have one rep for every 30,000 people. (yes I realize that would mean roughly 1,000 Reps)

I also think that each state ought to send 4 Senators to the Senate.

Of course I also think a parlimentary system would be preferable to what we have, now, too, so more HoR Reps is not my ideal solution to our GRIDLOCK.


----------



## Politico

Yes let's make government bigger. Like that's the problem.


----------



## editec

Politico said:


> Yes let's make government bigger. Like that's the problem.


 
I believe that it is a problem.

Today's HoR rep is supposed to concern himself with the well being of over 700,000 people CONTRARY to the original consitution.

Being that far removed from the people makes them out of touch with the lives of their constituents.

Representing the interests of 700,000 is difficult because then the Rep has to balance the needs of too many people, people who are not remotely in the same communities, and people whose local interests are often in conflict.

Knock that number down to 30,000 people and the REP will likely be a more effective Rep for the people of that one area, and area which has more allied interests.


----------



## jillian

Politico said:


> Yes let's make government bigger. Like that's the problem.



there are things that government does well and for which its necessary.

and there are things that government doesn't do well and shouldn't do.

like government SHOULDN'T tell women what to do with their bodies or make people's religious decisions.

it should be adequately funded so that it can do the things it does well. 

the problem with the 'small government conservatives' is that they aren't for small government, they want government doing things like forcing women to have unnecessary internal sonograms, but don't want to do a thing to help other people.


----------



## JimH52

To increase the members in the HoR when the body is now getting the lowest approval rating in History, is NOT a good idea.  Perhaps when they start actually doing their jobs, the idea can come up again.


----------



## Samson

emilynghiem said:


> Dear Samson:
> I was thinking the best way to organize mass representation is by Party.





You mean, say, if your born under Sagitarius, then you would be in the Sagitarius Party for life. Ditto Gemini, Capricorn, Tarus, etc...?

Interesting idea Emily N. Ghiem.

Probably deserves a thread of its own on whatever planet you're on.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Politico said:


> Yes let's make government bigger. Like that's the problem.



Adding more reps is not how government gets big.


----------



## Samson

editec said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt this thread will get much play because it challenges the USMB membership to think beyond their usual lemming limits of following whatever partisan hack's blog they read every single fucking hour, but here goes;
> 
> The HoR has had the same number of members since 1910.
> 
> I know some of you may want me to post a link to evidence supporting my contention that the US population has grown since 1910, but let's just use our imaginations for a moment.
> 
> This population change means each US representative, Dem OR Repub, has an average 770,000 constituants.
> 
> Realistically, there is no fucking way these guys are representing this many people: No other representative body on the face of the planet has such an absurd ratio.
> 
> _*If you really cared about the validity or representative government, then you'd stop the political hackary, and demand that congress vote to triple the size (at minimum) the number of representatives in the HoR.*_
> 
> Of course, this would open wide the door for MORE that BiPartisan government....hell, we might even be able to form an effective third party: GOD FORBID!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I completely agree with you on this one.
> 
> I believe that the HoR ought to have one rep for every 30,000 people. (yes I realize that would mean roughly 1,000 Reps)
> 
> I also think that each state ought to send 4 Senators to the Senate.
> 
> Of course I also think a parlimentary system would be preferable to what we have, now, too, so more HoR Reps is not my ideal solution to our GRIDLOCK.
Click to expand...


2,4,6, 8 Senators....Not certain what the magic number is, or why two is not OK: Senators really do not represent "the peoples' interest" as much as they do the state government and industry.


----------



## Samson

Quantum Windbag said:


> Politico said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes let's make government bigger. Like that's the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Adding more reps is not how government gets big.
Click to expand...


Well, literally, it is obvious that adding more representatives will add to government.

Many seem to have a great deal of trouble separating the number of representatives from the total number of government employees, believing that raising the number in the HoR to 1500 will have some dramatic increase on the 21,000,000+ govenment employees, most of whom have nothing to do with representing the interests of tax payers.

How to overcome this deficite in common sense?

Sadly, stupid is incurable.


----------



## Samson

JimH52 said:


> To increase the members in the HoR when the body is now getting the lowest approval rating in History, is NOT a good idea.  Perhaps when they start actually doing their jobs, the idea can come up again.



Each representative is supposed to know what his 700,000 contituants want.

And you wonder why they are unpopular?


----------



## grandwizfla

who would pay for the extra chairs ?


----------



## regent

Samson said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> To increase the members in the HoR when the body is now getting the lowest approval rating in History, is NOT a good idea.  Perhaps when they start actually doing their jobs, the idea can come up again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Each representative is supposed to know what his 700,000 contituants want.
> 
> And you wonder why they are unpopular?
Click to expand...



How many views do Americans have on most issues, 700,000?
So are you suggesting that for those 700,000 constituents we have 700,000 representatives? If not 700,000 how many?


----------



## Samson

regent said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> To increase the members in the HoR when the body is now getting the lowest approval rating in History, is NOT a good idea.  Perhaps when they start actually doing their jobs, the idea can come up again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Each representative is supposed to know what his 700,000 contituants want.
> 
> And you wonder why they are unpopular?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How many views do Americans have on most issues, 700,000?
> So are you suggesting that for those 700,000 constituents we have 700,000 representatives? If not 700,000 how many?
Click to expand...


You really need to begin reading the OP before asking, but I see you could probably benefit from spoon-feeding if you ever suspected that we have 700,000 representatives for 700,000 constituants.

I suggest that the ratio should be what it was the last time it was adjusted in 1910


----------



## Politico

editec said:


> Being that far removed from the people makes them out of touch with the lives of their constituents.
> 
> Representing the interests of 700,000 is difficult because then the Rep has to balance the needs of too many people, people who are not remotely in the same communities, and people whose local interests are often in conflict.
> 
> Knock that number down to 30,000 people and the REP will likely be a more effective Rep for the people of that one area, and area which has more allied interests.



I don't have to be in touch with anyone's lives. My job is to do what the constituents ask. Whether it 's 100 or 70,000, if the majority want Smurfs to have their own holiday then I vote yes when the bill hits the floor.


----------



## regent

Samson said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Each representative is supposed to know what his 700,000 contituants want.
> 
> And you wonder why they are unpopular?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many views do Americans have on most issues, 700,000?
> So are you suggesting that for those 700,000 constituents we have 700,000 representatives? If not 700,000 how many?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really need to begin reading the OP before asking, but I see you could probably benefit from spoon-feeding if you ever suspected that we have 700,000 representatives for 700,000 constituants.
> 
> I suggest that the ratio should be what it was the last time it was adjusted in 1910
Click to expand...


I'm suggesting it ain't gonna happen. How many views are there on most issues before the Congress, I'd say basically two, the Republican and Democratic view, or conservative and liberal. It is the very reason we have only two major political parties-two views. The other people must adjust their wishes to fit those two concepts or in effect lose their clout. To add another hundred congressmen would not change much, but the cost. Ain't gonna happen.


----------



## Two Thumbs

Samson said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting proposal re enlarging the HoR, and I will think on it.  As it hasn't been on my radar lately, other than those running for election, I haven't given the makeup a great deal of thought.  But I will think on it.  The main downside I can immediately see is the cost, so I would want an enlargement of the House to be contingent on the representatives funding their own healthcare and pension plans out of their salaries, and the taxpayers would no longer contribute to these during their tenure or once they left office.   Also the current system of automatic incremental raises for those in congress would be ended and they would have to go back to the system where they voted themselves each raise and could not benefit from it until after they were re-elected.
> 
> (I want to see this in both houses of Congress even if we don't enlarge the HoR.)
> 
> As for repealing the 17th amendment and going back to legislature appointed senators, I can see an advantage to that but in my state that has never had a Republican majority in the legislature, I would never have a Republican representative and the nation would never have had such great statesmen as Manuel Lujan Jr. or Pete Domenici.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Senate is not really supposed to represent "The People;" This legislative entity, in fact, is supposed to act as an override to foolish populism, so increasing the number here really is not the point.
> 
> The tread is not another repeal the 17th Amendment re-hash either: I'm really not interested in HOW Senators gain office, we are addressing the HoR, and the gridlock results of BiPartisanship that is a product of too few parties and too few members.
Click to expand...


The Constitution sys that there is supposed to be not more than one representative per 35,000 people. Here we see a clear example of just how far astray the country has been lead. Most states have fewer than 1 representative per 700,000 people. In short, the people are vastly less represented and far more distant from their representatives than intended by the Framers. Further, there is the presumption that each citizen is equally represented in congress -- which is clearly a fraud given that huge disparity in these numbers. The citizens of some states are vastly more represented than others. 
People Per Representative | DataMasher

current population is about 315 million.

meaning we should have 9000 HoR members.

9
fucking
thousand


----------



## Samson

Two Thumbs said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting proposal re enlarging the HoR, and I will think on it.  As it hasn't been on my radar lately, other than those running for election, I haven't given the makeup a great deal of thought.  But I will think on it.  The main downside I can immediately see is the cost, so I would want an enlargement of the House to be contingent on the representatives funding their own healthcare and pension plans out of their salaries, and the taxpayers would no longer contribute to these during their tenure or once they left office.   Also the current system of automatic incremental raises for those in congress would be ended and they would have to go back to the system where they voted themselves each raise and could not benefit from it until after they were re-elected.
> 
> (I want to see this in both houses of Congress even if we don't enlarge the HoR.)
> 
> As for repealing the 17th amendment and going back to legislature appointed senators, I can see an advantage to that but in my state that has never had a Republican majority in the legislature, I would never have a Republican representative and the nation would never have had such great statesmen as Manuel Lujan Jr. or Pete Domenici.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Senate is not really supposed to represent "The People;" This legislative entity, in fact, is supposed to act as an override to foolish populism, so increasing the number here really is not the point.
> 
> The tread is not another repeal the 17th Amendment re-hash either: I'm really not interested in HOW Senators gain office, we are addressing the HoR, and the gridlock results of BiPartisanship that is a product of too few parties and too few members.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution sys that there is supposed to be not more than one representative per 35,000 people. Here we see a clear example of just how far astray the country has been lead. Most states have fewer than 1 representative per 700,000 people. In short, the people are vastly less represented and far more distant from their representatives than intended by the Framers. Further, there is the presumption that each citizen is equally represented in congress -- which is clearly a fraud given that huge disparity in these numbers. The citizens of some states are vastly more represented than others.
> People Per Representative | DataMasher
> 
> current population is about 315 million.
> 
> meaning we should have 9000 HoR members.
> 
> 9
> fucking
> thousand
Click to expand...




Indeed 9,000 representatives....each with 35,000 constituants.

Even that's a lot of email.


----------



## Samson

regent said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many views do Americans have on most issues, 700,000?
> So are you suggesting that for those 700,000 constituents we have 700,000 representatives? If not 700,000 how many?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really need to begin reading the OP before asking, but I see you could probably benefit from spoon-feeding if you ever suspected that we have 700,000 representatives for 700,000 constituants.
> 
> I suggest that the ratio should be what it was the last time it was adjusted in 1910
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm suggesting it ain't gonna happen. How many views are there on most issues before the Congress, I'd say basically two, the Republican and Democratic view, or conservative and liberal. It is the very reason we have only two major political parties-two views. The other people must adjust their wishes to fit those two concepts or in effect lose their clout. To add another hundred congressmen would not change much, but the cost. Ain't gonna happen.
Click to expand...


It has happened before.

It will happen again.

The position that there are only two (2) POV in politics is exactly the stupidity that bipartisanship depends upon.


----------



## emilynghiem

Dear Samson:
Representation by District doesn't solve the problem of redistricting to either consolidate or split minorities. If representation is organized by Party, then people don't have to play games with demographics and geographics, but have more direct control over which policies they support and fund. This would also take care of the issue of "who is going to pay" for govt and programs - you pay for your own. If you don't like the two major choices, then go with the Greens or Libertarians. And have all parties agree what issues or areas to delegate to each party, so they don't conflict. If your policy is so bad or unsustainable, only the people who agree to experiment with their own tax dollars will fund it!



emilynghiem said:


> Dear Samson:
> I was thinking the best way to organize mass representation is by Party.
> 
> Could we cap how much is paid to the federal govt in income tax? Such as keeping it at 10% where anything above that is considered a loan, and then giving states or parties an option of working out how to delegate that money "per issue" or "per Party" etc. So if Republicans want to take on the responsibility for the debts from under the Bush administration and Iraq War contracts, and how to redirect funds from supporters to Vets and military and national security; while the Democrats want to focus on "health care" and domestic policies that other groups/taxpayers DON'T necessarily want to fund, could we organize this by Party?
> 
> Also, I was thinking the big business contributors could get involved; what if the big business interests could formulate a plan to get China paid back, such as calculating how much debt is owed, issuing credits to China that they can redeem for labor or resources to re-organize their country into educational districts, and rework their economy and labor to gradually offer sustainable living conditions for their workers instead of slave labor where the money goes into the Chinese govt and military.
> 
> We wouldn't necessarily depend so much on assigning people to a rep by geographical district, if we could organize by Party or issue (such as addressing the death penalty, and redirecting funds into more cost-effective alternatives and deterrents, or gay marriage, or abortion, or immigration, etc.).
> 
> And given how people are ABUSING party politics to represent their own party agenda instead of the constituents in their districts, or states or whole nation; it's almost better to organize the representation and funding from taxpayers by the parties/issues of their choice.
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt this thread will get much play because it challenges the USMB membership to think beyond their usual lemming limits of following whatever partisan hack's blog they read every single fucking hour, but here goes;
> 
> The HoR has had the same number of members since 1910.
> 
> I know some of you may want me to post a link to evidence supporting my contention that the US population has grown since 1910, but let's just use our imaginations for a moment.
> 
> This population change means each US representative, Dem OR Repub, has an average 770,000 constituants.
> 
> Realistically, there is no fucking way these guys are representing this many people: No other representative body on the face of the planet has such an absurd ratio.
> 
> _*If you really cared about the validity or representative government, then you'd stop the political hackary, and demand that congress vote to triple the size (at minimum) the number of representatives in the HoR.*_
> 
> Of course, this would open wide the door for MORE that BiPartisan government....hell, we might even be able to form an effective third party: GOD FORBID!!!
Click to expand...


----------



## Foxfyre

If we could get through an iron clad law, preferably a constitutional amendment, forbidding the White House or Congress or Supreme Court to pass or order any legislation that provides any form of favor or benefit to one person, group, entity, demographic that does not provide equal benefit to all regardless of race, ethnicity, political party, or socioeconomic sitaution, we could reduce the House of Representatives to one for every million or more people even as all our budget and tax problems would be solved and we would have good government again.


----------



## emilynghiem

Foxfyre said:


> If we could get through an iron clad law, preferably a constitutional amendment, forbidding the White House or Congress or Supreme Court to pass or order any legislation that provides any form of favor or benefit to one person, group, entity, demographic that does not provide equal benefit to all regardless of race, ethnicity, political party, or socioeconomic sitaution, we could reduce the House of Representatives to one for every million or more people even as all our budget and tax problems would be solved and we would have good government again.



Look at the Code of Ethics for Govt Service, Public Law 96-303
There is an article about not putting loyalty to party or dept above govt duty.

Like the Bill of Rights, we just need agreements to enforce laws we already have!
And hold all people, whether citizens or corporations, lobbies, unions or PACs/parties
to the same standards. We protest when religious groups threaten to impose agenda
through govt, so why not respect the same for political beliefs and agenda to keep these privately funded by choice not public mandate and certainly not by majority rule of one party over another. We would not do that with religious groups, why let political parties do it?

http://www.ethics-commission.net
CODE OF ETHICS for GOVT SERVICE:

"Any person in Government service should:

"I. Put loyalty to the highest moral principles and to country above loyalty to persons, party, or Government department.

"II. Uphold the Constitution, laws, and regulations of the United States and of all governments therein and never be a party to their evasion.

"III. Give a full day's labor for a full day's pay; giving earnest effort and best thought to the performance of duties.

"IV. Seek to find and employ more efficient and economical ways of getting tasks accomplished.

"V. Never discriminate unfairly by the dispensing of special favors or privileges to anyone, whether for remuneration or not; and never accept, for himself or herself or for family members, favors or benefits under circumstances which might be construed by reasonable persons as influencing the performance of governmental duties.

"VI. Make no private promises of any kind binding upon the duties of office, since a Governmental employee has no private word which can be binding on public duty.

"VII. Engage in no business with the Government, either directly or indirectly, which is inconsistent with the conscientious performance of governmental duties.

"VIII. Never use any information gained confidentially in the performance of governmental duties as a means of making a private profit.

"IX. Expose corruption wherever discovered.

"X. Uphold these principles, ever conscious that public office is a public trust."


----------



## Foxfyre

emilynghiem said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we could get through an iron clad law, preferably a constitutional amendment, forbidding the White House or Congress or Supreme Court to pass or order any legislation that provides any form of favor or benefit to one person, group, entity, demographic that does not provide equal benefit to all regardless of race, ethnicity, political party, or socioeconomic sitaution, we could reduce the House of Representatives to one for every million or more people even as all our budget and tax problems would be solved and we would have good government again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the Code of Ethics for Govt Service, Public Law 96-303
> There is an article about not putting loyalty to party or dept above govt duty.
> 
> Like the Bill of Rights, we just need agreements to enforce laws we already have!
> And hold all people, whether citizens or corporations, lobbies, unions or PACs/parties
> to the same standards. We protest when religious groups threaten to impose agenda
> through govt, so why not respect the same for political beliefs and agenda to keep these privately funded by choice not public mandate and certainly not by majority rule of one party over another. We would not do that with religious groups, why let political parties do it?
> 
> ethics-commission.net
> CODE OF ETHICS for GOVT SERVICE:
> 
> "Any person in Government service should:
> 
> "I. Put loyalty to the highest moral principles and to country above loyalty to persons, party, or Government department.
> 
> "II. Uphold the Constitution, laws, and regulations of the United States and of all governments therein and never be a party to their evasion.
> 
> "III. Give a full day's labor for a full day's pay; giving earnest effort and best thought to the performance of duties.
> 
> "IV. Seek to find and employ more efficient and economical ways of getting tasks accomplished.
> 
> "V. Never discriminate unfairly by the dispensing of special favors or privileges to anyone, whether for remuneration or not; and never accept, for himself or herself or for family members, favors or benefits under circumstances which might be construed by reasonable persons as influencing the performance of governmental duties.
> 
> "VI. Make no private promises of any kind binding upon the duties of office, since a Governmental employee has no private word which can be binding on public duty.
> 
> "VII. Engage in no business with the Government, either directly or indirectly, which is inconsistent with the conscientious performance of governmental duties.
> 
> "VIII. Never use any information gained confidentially in the performance of governmental duties as a means of making a private profit.
> 
> "IX. Expose corruption wherever discovered.
> 
> "X. Uphold these principles, ever conscious that public office is a public trust."
Click to expand...


You can post all the rules and regs you want, but the fact remains they still vote themselves power, prestige, influence, personal wealth and keep getting themselves re-elected by dispensing favors and benevolence on key constituencies or making promises to dispense benevolence to key constituencies.   And it is the rare Congressman or Senator who is not corrupted by that one single thing.   They can claim that none of the stuff in those posted rules and regs are a factor in the legislation they pass or the regulations they impose, but anybody who doesn't think they do it for personal advantage lives in a dream world.

Make it illegal to do it.  That means move all the charitable and benevolent stuff out of the federal government entirely and let the states and local communities manage it.

And the problem of adequate representation will be solved.


----------



## emilynghiem

Foxfyre said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we could get through an iron clad law, preferably a constitutional amendment, forbidding the White House or Congress or Supreme Court to pass or order any legislation that provides any form of favor or benefit to one person, group, entity, demographic that does not provide equal benefit to all regardless of race, ethnicity, political party, or socioeconomic sitaution, we could reduce the House of Representatives to one for every million or more people even as all our budget and tax problems would be solved and we would have good government again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the Code of Ethics for Govt Service, Public Law 96-303
> There is an article about not putting loyalty to party or dept above govt duty.
> 
> Like the Bill of Rights, we just need agreements to enforce laws we already have!
> And hold all people, whether citizens or corporations, lobbies, unions or PACs/parties
> to the same standards. We protest when religious groups threaten to impose agenda
> through govt, so why not respect the same for political beliefs and agenda to keep these privately funded by choice not public mandate and certainly not by majority rule of one party over another. We would not do that with religious groups, why let political parties do it?
> 
> ethics-commission.net
> CODE OF ETHICS for GOVT SERVICE:
> 
> "Any person in Government service should:
> 
> "I. Put loyalty to the highest moral principles and to country above loyalty to persons, party, or Government department.
> 
> "II. Uphold the Constitution, laws, and regulations of the United States and of all governments therein and never be a party to their evasion.
> 
> "III. Give a full day's labor for a full day's pay; giving earnest effort and best thought to the performance of duties.
> 
> "IV. Seek to find and employ more efficient and economical ways of getting tasks accomplished.
> 
> "V. Never discriminate unfairly by the dispensing of special favors or privileges to anyone, whether for remuneration or not; and never accept, for himself or herself or for family members, favors or benefits under circumstances which might be construed by reasonable persons as influencing the performance of governmental duties.
> 
> "VI. Make no private promises of any kind binding upon the duties of office, since a Governmental employee has no private word which can be binding on public duty.
> 
> "VII. Engage in no business with the Government, either directly or indirectly, which is inconsistent with the conscientious performance of governmental duties.
> 
> "VIII. Never use any information gained confidentially in the performance of governmental duties as a means of making a private profit.
> 
> "IX. Expose corruption wherever discovered.
> 
> "X. Uphold these principles, ever conscious that public office is a public trust."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can post all the rules and regs you want, but the fact remains they still vote themselves power, prestige, influence, personal wealth and keep getting themselves re-elected by dispensing favors and benevolence on key constituencies or making promises to dispense benevolence to key constituencies.   And it is the rare Congressman or Senator who is not corrupted by that one single thing.   They can claim that none of the stuff in those posted rules and regs are a factor in the legislation they pass or the regulations they impose, but anybody who doesn't think they do it for personal advantage lives in a dream world.
> 
> Make it illegal to do it.  That means move all the charitable and benevolent stuff out of the federal government entirely and let the states and local communities manage it.
> 
> And the problem of adequate representation will be solved.
Click to expand...


Yes, I agree to shift the social programs back to the states or parties to handle through business, schools, nonprofits and churches. 

Let people pay for their own parties and programs, like we do with private churches!

This would also help meet the ethics principles on seeking the most economical and efficient means of getting tasks accomplished. If your party/program is not the most effective way, people won't pay money into it. We should vote with our money, with where our taxes or tax writeoffs go, so people can't manipulate the vote.

If public policy were based on consensus, that represents and includes all groups/views equally, then any conflict would mean delegating different policies/programs per state or party and not having one policy for the whole public if not everyone agrees religiously.

So it would not matter how much you paid politicians to run for office, the decisions would have to reflect public consensus anyway, in order to be Constitutionally inclusive, or else keep those policies private and fund them yourself.

The only people with any influence or authority would be people who can either coordinate a consensus among different groups, or organize each party to be separate from the others.
So you would not need to compete for power and dominance, people would decide policies based on what they support and are willing to fund themselves, and take back responsibility.


----------



## kwc57

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt this thread will get much play because it challenges the USMB membership to think beyond their usual lemming limits of following whatever partisan hack's blog they read every single fucking hour, but here goes;
> 
> The HoR has had the same number of members since 1910.
> 
> I know some of you may want me to post a link to evidence supporting my contention that the US population has grown since 1910, but let's just use our imaginations for a moment.
> 
> This population change means each US representative, Dem OR Repub, has an average 770,000 constituants.
> 
> Realistically, there is no fucking way these guys are representing this many people: No other representative body on the face of the planet has such an absurd ratio.
> 
> _*If you really cared about the validity or representative government, then you'd stop the political hackary, and demand that congress vote to triple the size (at minimum) the number of representatives in the HoR.*_
> 
> Of course, this would open wide the door for MORE that BiPartisan government....hell, we might even be able to form an effective third party: GOD FORBID!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds good, but first, term limits!
Click to expand...


Todd, we already have term limits.  They are called elections.


----------



## Foxfyre

emilynghiem said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the Code of Ethics for Govt Service, Public Law 96-303
> There is an article about not putting loyalty to party or dept above govt duty.
> 
> Like the Bill of Rights, we just need agreements to enforce laws we already have!
> And hold all people, whether citizens or corporations, lobbies, unions or PACs/parties
> to the same standards. We protest when religious groups threaten to impose agenda
> through govt, so why not respect the same for political beliefs and agenda to keep these privately funded by choice not public mandate and certainly not by majority rule of one party over another. We would not do that with religious groups, why let political parties do it?
> 
> ethics-commission.net
> CODE OF ETHICS for GOVT SERVICE:
> 
> "Any person in Government service should:
> 
> "I. Put loyalty to the highest moral principles and to country above loyalty to persons, party, or Government department.
> 
> "II. Uphold the Constitution, laws, and regulations of the United States and of all governments therein and never be a party to their evasion.
> 
> "III. Give a full day's labor for a full day's pay; giving earnest effort and best thought to the performance of duties.
> 
> "IV. Seek to find and employ more efficient and economical ways of getting tasks accomplished.
> 
> "V. Never discriminate unfairly by the dispensing of special favors or privileges to anyone, whether for remuneration or not; and never accept, for himself or herself or for family members, favors or benefits under circumstances which might be construed by reasonable persons as influencing the performance of governmental duties.
> 
> "VI. Make no private promises of any kind binding upon the duties of office, since a Governmental employee has no private word which can be binding on public duty.
> 
> "VII. Engage in no business with the Government, either directly or indirectly, which is inconsistent with the conscientious performance of governmental duties.
> 
> "VIII. Never use any information gained confidentially in the performance of governmental duties as a means of making a private profit.
> 
> "IX. Expose corruption wherever discovered.
> 
> "X. Uphold these principles, ever conscious that public office is a public trust."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can post all the rules and regs you want, but the fact remains they still vote themselves power, prestige, influence, personal wealth and keep getting themselves re-elected by dispensing favors and benevolence on key constituencies or making promises to dispense benevolence to key constituencies.   And it is the rare Congressman or Senator who is not corrupted by that one single thing.   They can claim that none of the stuff in those posted rules and regs are a factor in the legislation they pass or the regulations they impose, but anybody who doesn't think they do it for personal advantage lives in a dream world.
> 
> Make it illegal to do it.  That means move all the charitable and benevolent stuff out of the federal government entirely and let the states and local communities manage it.
> 
> And the problem of adequate representation will be solved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I agree to shift the social programs back to the states or parties to handle through business, schools, nonprofits and churches.
> 
> Let people pay for their own parties and programs, like we do with private churches!
> 
> This would also help meet the ethics principles on seeking the most economical and efficient means of getting tasks accomplished. If your party/program is not the most effective way, people won't pay money into it. We should vote with our money, with where our taxes or tax writeoffs go, so people can't manipulate the vote.
> 
> If public policy were based on consensus, that represents and includes all groups/views equally, then any conflict would mean delegating different policies/programs per state or party and not having one policy for the whole public if not everyone agrees religiously.
> 
> So it would not matter how much you paid politicians to run for office, the decisions would have to reflect public consensus anyway, in order to be Constitutionally inclusive, or else keep those policies private and fund them yourself.
> 
> The only people with any influence or authority would be people who can either coordinate a consensus among different groups, or organize each party to be separate from the others.
> So you would not need to compete for power and dominance, people would decide policies based on what they support and are willing to fund themselves, and take back responsibility.
Click to expand...


Great post.  And I don't even have any problem with a state or local government taking on some programs now administered or funded by the federal government because state and cities more often implement new programs by consent of the people, and are far more responsive to the opinion of the people about how anything is working or producing as advertised.  But the ability of the federal government to impose one-size-fits-all mandates on everybody in a country of this size and diversity should be ended.  And the ability of our elected leaders and their appointees to enrich themselves at our expense should also be ended.

If we do that, again it won't be nearly as much problem for an elected representative to meet the expectations of large groups of people.   As the system now exists, enlarging the House of Representatives just increases the number and variety of pork barrel outlays stuffed into everything Congress does.


----------



## Samson

emilynghiem said:


> Dear Samson:
> Representation by District doesn't solve the problem of redistricting to either consolidate or split minorities. If representation is organized by Party, then people don't have to play games with demographics and geographics, but have more direct control over which policies they support and fund.



Maybe there should be 12 Districts.

Each one could send two representatives every year to play in a nationally televised tennis tournament.

The winning team's district would be sent social security checks, food stamps, and cable TV the rest of the year. Losing teams' districts would have to hunt squirrels with bow-and-arrows, and listen to AM radio.


----------



## Samson

Foxfyre said:


> , enlarging the House of Representatives just increases the number and variety of pork barrel outlays stuffed into everything Congress does.



No.

Without exception, every influential political and economic special interest operating in this nation will strenuously oppose enlarging the House to the extent necessary to return political power to the citizens. The investment in the status quo is extensive and deep. Powerful special interest groups as well as the federal lobbyist industry depend on their ability to influence *a very small number of House members (and Senators) in order to affect legislative and policy outcomes. *

It will become impossible to effect the same level of influence upon the House when it consists of thousands of Representatives, especially if those many Representatives are living back in the real world  among their constituency  rather than being concentrated in the surreal parallel universe known as Washington, D.C.


----------



## emilynghiem

Samson said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Samson:
> Representation by District doesn't solve the problem of redistricting to either consolidate or split minorities. If representation is organized by Party, then people don't have to play games with demographics and geographics, but have more direct control over which policies they support and fund.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe there should be 12 Districts.
> 
> Each one could send two representatives every year to play in a nationally televised tennis tournament.
> 
> The winning team's district would be sent social security checks, food stations, and cable TV the rest of the year. Losing teams' districts would have to hunt squirrels with bow-and-arrows, and listen to AM radio.
Click to expand...


1. The winning candidate could create positions for the nonwinning candidates to manage members of their party within that district. So everyone has representation and their leaders have to work together to include all input or else fund separate policies/programs per issue.

2. People who want to fund the amenities are free to do so through their own parties and management who is paying in and who is taking out -- ie good luck with that! Maybe people would learn that freebies don't work unless you are earning more than you spend. duh!

3. Minimalists who only want to pay for the basic structures and functions of govt can pay for that, but would not get all the fun freebies either.

And yes, if they have enough budget left, after paying back taxpayers for corporate corruption and govt abuses that have run up the debts, they can host tennis tournaments or XBOX matches where I'm sure warcraft contests are still cheaper than real life wargames.

Any costs involved can be covered by creating a reality show, and selling ads, where any extra profits can pay for Big Bird.


----------



## Foxfyre

Samson said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> , enlarging the House of Representatives just increases the number and variety of pork barrel outlays stuffed into everything Congress does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Without exception, every influential political and economic special interest operating in this nation will strenuously oppose enlarging the House to the extent necessary to return political power to the citizens. The investment in the status quo is extensive and deep. Powerful special interest groups as well as the federal lobbyist industry depend on their ability to influence *a very small number of House members (and Senators) in order to affect legislative and policy outcomes. *
> 
> It will become impossible to effect the same level of influence upon the House when it consists of thousands of Representatives, especially if those many Representatives are living back in the real world  among their constituency  rather than being concentrated in the surreal parallel universe known as Washington, D.C.
Click to expand...


So you are going to do away with the Capital chambers altogether?  And go to what.  Teleconferencing?   Or some such electronic means of voting?


----------



## Samson

Foxfyre said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> , enlarging the House of Representatives just increases the number and variety of pork barrel outlays stuffed into everything Congress does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Without exception, every influential political and economic special interest operating in this nation will strenuously oppose enlarging the House to the extent necessary to return political power to the citizens. The investment in the status quo is extensive and deep. Powerful special interest groups as well as the federal lobbyist industry depend on their ability to influence *a very small number of House members (and Senators) in order to affect legislative and policy outcomes. *
> 
> It will become impossible to effect the same level of influence upon the House when it consists of thousands of Representatives, especially if those many Representatives are living back in the real world &#8212; among their constituency &#8212; rather than being concentrated in the surreal parallel universe known as Washington, D.C.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are going to do away with the Capital chambers altogether?  And go to what.  Teleconferencing?   Or some such electronic means of voting?
Click to expand...


Why not? We are no longer living in the 18th century.

It is no longer necessary, or even advantageous, to require that all Representatives convene in one location (nor is it explicitly required by the Constitution). Current technology makes available a host of other means for virtually assembling and voting on bills. 

Imagine if four new federal cities were created in four distinct locations around the country (in addition to the one already established in Washington, D.C.). To the extent that assembly was required, it could take place within the regional federal capitol buildings, which could be further interconnected via video conferencing. 

Implementing geographically distributed governance &#8212; geographically decentralizing the House of Representatives &#8212; would also greatly reduce the value of Washington as a strategic military target for our nation&#8217;s enemies.


----------



## PixieStix

Samson said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why have any reps?
> 
> Perhaps you'd prefer a King.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thread was about increasing the number of reps, not doing away with them.   Your concept appears to be that having a lot more reps (triple) solves our problems of gov't.   I don't think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You realise the YOU are supposed to have a voice in the Federal government, right?
> 
> As astonished as I am with the seemingly bottomless pit of confusion (more representatives do NOT mean more representatives for YOU, only better QUALITY representation), it serves as a perfect reason why Americans are so disappointed in their government on the one hand, yet are too ignorant to change it on the other.
Click to expand...


Exactly many of us are NOT represented and we know this, and have known this for a very long time.


----------



## Samson

PixieStix said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thread was about increasing the number of reps, not doing away with them.   Your concept appears to be that having a lot more reps (triple) solves our problems of gov't.   I don't think so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You realise the YOU are supposed to have a voice in the Federal government, right?
> 
> As astonished as I am with the seemingly bottomless pit of confusion (more representatives do NOT mean more representatives for YOU, only better QUALITY representation), it serves as a perfect reason why Americans are so disappointed in their government on the one hand, yet are too ignorant to change it on the other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly many of us are NOT represented and we know this, and have known this for a very long time.
Click to expand...


It is reaching a critical point:


----------



## Jimmy_Jam

Samson said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Connery said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quantity will not insure quality.  We as interested parties need to hold those we elect responsible for decisions made on our behalf. Many of today's problems are caused by the citizenry as far as I am concerned. I do not want more government, I want effective government.
> 
> Quite frankly, less government would compel people to get off their asses and be responsible for their own destiny instead of this paternalistic approach to life that has been instilled in the US today. If we go back in the history of the US, the times of true growth as a society was when people needed to do for themselves such as the westward expansion or WWII when women had to essentially become the breadwinners in the family.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was the during the Great Depression that America had an influx of people that wouldn't work, and whined for jobs and were not responsible. They were an awful, people, lazy wanted food, like little children, not real Americans, but then when WWII came along those bums left America, and a new breed immigrated to America, these new ones were hard workers, independent and winners of wars.
> I still wonder where that old group of the lazy depression laggards went, and where the new breed of WWII workers came from. Now some are back wanting food stamps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> January 2012 seems to have been the apex an influx of morons to USMB.
Click to expand...


I didn't come in until a couple of months ago, so I guess I came after the apex. I always knew somehow I wasn't the BIGGEST moron here.


----------



## Jimmy_Jam

Samson said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Without exception, every influential political and economic special interest operating in this nation will strenuously oppose enlarging the House to the extent necessary to return political power to the citizens. The investment in the status quo is extensive and deep. Powerful special interest groups as well as the federal lobbyist industry depend on their ability to influence *a very small number of House members (and Senators) in order to affect legislative and policy outcomes. *
> 
> It will become impossible to effect the same level of influence upon the House when it consists of thousands of Representatives, especially if those many Representatives are living back in the real world  among their constituency  rather than being concentrated in the surreal parallel universe known as Washington, D.C.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are going to do away with the Capital chambers altogether?  And go to what.  Teleconferencing?   Or some such electronic means of voting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not? We are no longer living in the 18th century.
> 
> It is no longer necessary, or even advantageous, to require that all Representatives convene in one location (nor is it explicitly required by the Constitution). Current technology makes available a host of other means for virtually assembling and voting on bills.
> 
> Imagine if four new federal cities were created in four distinct locations around the country (in addition to the one already established in Washington, D.C.). To the extent that assembly was required, it could take place within the regional federal capitol buildings, which could be further interconnected via video conferencing.
> 
> Implementing geographically distributed governance  geographically decentralizing the House of Representatives  would also greatly reduce the value of Washington as a strategic military target for our nations enemies.
Click to expand...


I can't go along with this. It makes my cooping gang completely obsolete.


----------



## Old Rocks

Foxfyre said:


> spectrumc01 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ratio is huge, but does not hinder the representation.  They are represented on the federal level, to increase federal limits for more reps would bog down the process.  These people are very well represented on the state level, so they really are not without adequate voice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not represented at all.  My representative shares none of my values and principles of what good government should be.  But if the House was expanded and my more local area could choose our representative rather than us being in the much larger District 1 pool, I would have a much better chance to elect somebody who did share my values and principles of what good government should be.
Click to expand...


Even if you get the ratio down to 1 to 3, if the other two disagree with you, you are going to have no representation. 

A more intelligent solution is to take a more active part in the politics of your area. In doing that, you may also find out why you have no representation. It could well be that the things you want that would you believe would benefit you, would not benefit the majority of the voters in your district.


----------



## Foxfyre

Well if we go to a congress that uses all teleconferences, how about each district teleconferencing with its congressperson?  We vote our wishes within our district and our elected representative is obligated to cast his/her vote according to the majority vote in his/her district.   Going on a district by district basis would eliminate the problem of the tyranny of the majority vote in a purely democratic system, or would it?

I am all for keeping options open and not necessarily doing everything the way it currently is or the way it 'has always been done' yadda yadda, and maybe there is a better way to have truly representative government.

And how do you get around the nitpickers who would say that those without computers or computer skills would be disenfranchised?


----------



## zakdavis

I know this shit is old, but India only has 552 members in its lower house, and 250 members in its upper house. The PRC National People's Congress has a little under 3,000 members. The nation right below us in terms of population, Indonesia, has 560 in its lower house and 360 in its upper house.


----------



## candycorn

Samson said:


> I doubt this thread will get much play because it challenges the USMB membership to think beyond their usual lemming limits of following whatever partisan hack's blog they read every single fucking hour, but here goes;
> 
> The HoR has had the same number of members since 1910.
> 
> I know some of you may want me to post a link to evidence supporting my contention that the US population has grown since 1910, but let's just use our imaginations for a moment.
> 
> This population change means each US representative, Dem OR Repub, has an average 770,000 constituants.
> 
> Realistically, there is no fucking way these guys are representing this many people: No other representative body on the face of the planet has such an absurd ratio.
> 
> _*If you really cared about the validity or representative government, then you'd stop the political hackary, and demand that congress vote to triple the size (at minimum) the number of representatives in the HoR.*_
> 
> Of course, this would open wide the door for MORE that BiPartisan government....hell, we might even be able to form an effective third party: GOD FORBID!!!



I'm all for increasing the size of the HoR.  Good post.

I think it is more important to have a House whose membership is determined by fair elections however.  Currently, the heavily gerrymandered districts are not serving anyone except those who support this two party system and the parties themselves.


----------



## Samson

Foxfyre said:


> Well if we go to a congress that uses all teleconferences, how about each district teleconferencing with its congressperson?  We vote our wishes within our district and our elected representative is obligated to cast his/her vote according to the majority vote in his/her district.   Going on a district by district basis would eliminate the problem of the tyranny of the majority vote in a purely democratic system, or would it?
> 
> I am all for keeping options open and not necessarily doing everything the way it currently is or the way it 'has always been done' yadda yadda, and maybe there is a better way to have truly representative government.
> 
> And how do you get around the nitpickers who would say that those without computers or computer skills would be disenfranchised?



There is no way around the nitpickers.

You must go through them.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Oddball said:


> Repeal the 17th Amendment, too.



OK, and let's repeal the Second Amendment too; doing so will allow each state or each political subdivision therein to establish laws in re (fire)arms.  You do support states rights, don't you odd-person?


----------



## freedombecki

Wry Catcher said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Repeal the 17th Amendment, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, and let's repeal the Second Amendment too; doing so will allow each state or each political subdivision therein to establish laws in re (fire)arms.  You do support states rights, don't you odd-person?
Click to expand...

States agreed to the Second Amendment before signing on.

Stay away from my Second Amendment rights. I don't own a gun, but I support the Second Amendment. It was placed near the top of the Bill of Rights on purpose by people who knew what they were doing for this nation.

They didn't include the garbage in the 17th Amendment has brought to this nation, either. They decided the Senate should come directly from the state governments and not the populus. What has resulted since its passage is a huge push to go pure democracy. Those types of government fold quickly. This one may if we do not get rid of the 17th Amendment that has brought a sentiment of hate-business into the arena. It is untenable and unsustainable to go that way, and the Clinton Administration Spin Room in its lust for power evilly acquired proved it.


----------



## regent

freedombecki said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Repeal the 17th Amendment, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, and let's repeal the Second Amendment too; doing so will allow each state or each political subdivision therein to establish laws in re (fire)arms.  You do support states rights, don't you odd-person?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> States agreed to the Second Amendment before signing on.
> 
> Stay away from my Second Amendment rights. I don't own a gun, but I support the Second Amendment. It was placed near the top of the Bill of Rights on purpose by people who knew what they were doing for this nation.
> 
> They didn't include the garbage in the 17th Amendment has brought to this nation, either. They decided the Senate should come directly from the state governments and not the populus. What has resulted since its passage is a huge push to go pure democracy. Those types of government fold quickly. This one may if we do not get rid of the 17th Amendment that has brought a sentiment of hate-business into the arena. It is untenable and unsustainable to go that way, and the Clinton Administration Spin Room in its lust for power evilly acquired proved it.
Click to expand...


If democracies go fast, what types of governments do not go fast?


----------



## Samson

regent said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, and let's repeal the Second Amendment too; doing so will allow each state or each political subdivision therein to establish laws in re (fire)arms.  You do support states rights, don't you odd-person?
> 
> 
> 
> States agreed to the Second Amendment before signing on.
> 
> Stay away from my Second Amendment rights. I don't own a gun, but I support the Second Amendment. It was placed near the top of the Bill of Rights on purpose by people who knew what they were doing for this nation.
> 
> They didn't include the garbage in the 17th Amendment has brought to this nation, either. They decided the Senate should come directly from the state governments and not the populus. What has resulted since its passage is a huge push to go pure democracy. Those types of government fold quickly. This one may if we do not get rid of the 17th Amendment that has brought a sentiment of hate-business into the arena. It is untenable and unsustainable to go that way, and the Clinton Administration Spin Room in its lust for power evilly acquired proved it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If democracies go fast, what types of governments do not go fast?
Click to expand...


Well as governments go, Roman or Chinese Style Imperialism worked for 1000 years.

Democracies...not so much.


----------



## freedombecki

Samson said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> States agreed to the Second Amendment before signing on.
> 
> Stay away from my Second Amendment rights. I don't own a gun, but I support the Second Amendment. It was placed near the top of the Bill of Rights on purpose by people who knew what they were doing for this nation.
> 
> They didn't include the garbage in the 17th Amendment has brought to this nation, either. They decided the Senate should come directly from the state governments and not the populus. What has resulted since its passage is a huge push to go pure democracy. Those types of government fold quickly. This one may if we do not get rid of the 17th Amendment that has brought a sentiment of hate-business into the arena. It is untenable and unsustainable to go that way, and the Clinton Administration Spin Room in its lust for power evilly acquired proved it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If democracies go fast, what types of governments do not go fast?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well as governments go, Roman or Chinese Style Imperialism worked for 1000 years.
> 
> Democracies...not so much.
Click to expand...

The thinking among some of the posters I've read here who really don't have a pony in the show for either party is that the 17th Amendment went against the Founder's Republic. I haven't seen a good refutation of their point, and they seem well-versed in wanting to remove what the 17th Amendment started in the way of frittering away at the Free Enterprise system. The claim seems to be if Free Enterprise is abolished, so will incentives and innovations. It seems a compelling case disparaged only by those willing to go the redistribution of wealth by removing the properties of people who have them. That tends to scare me a little because I am retired with enough to last 20 years, but not much more than that. It took such a long time to earn such a small bit of the American dream, and I'd like to enjoy the 20 years I have left on my own property. Unfortunately, since I've lived here in 3 years, they raised taxes from $5,000 a year to $6,000 a year, and now it's over $7,000 a year. They're out front building a new road, which tells me the county taxes will keep on going up. They're not even close to finishing what they started mid-summer. We lost tons of tall trees in the drought 2 years ago, and they fall on the fences. 

Between the higher taxes and soaring utility rates, groceries, etc., our 20 years is dwindling down to 5 or 6 years. I'm worried about where they will put us when all our money is gone that we saved for 40 years but are now being taxed to death on account of replacing a road that was really not needing to be replaced, but for county reasons, are thoroughfares to 4 local prison facilities that keep traffic going 3 shifts per diem and loads of folks going to and from their security jobs in these facilities. We're being tapped with high taxes to accommodate thoroughfares for prison workers to speed back and forth to work. Nobody told us this was planned when we moved here, and the commissioners are saying we have to be farmers, when neither of us is able to withstand the rigors of surrogating horses and cows, goats, chickens, and other animals that need constant care and cleaning. We just came here to retire and enjoy the good life. High taxes for other people's agendas are taking away our plans of retiring. We can't jump their ever-moving bar of higher tax rope, except to be bled for all the money in our bank account and retirement savings accounts. Also, the insurance company puts us on hold when we call them for over an hour with static on the lines. One of us no longer has health insurance even though we paid into the same company insurance for 40 years. When Obamacare was announced they changed our $200 deductible to $2500 deductible, which means basically, we were not insured. 

Now, my husband cannot get drugs because his insurance company won't answer the phone in a reasonable amount of time when we call. They put us on a no-help call phone, and they don't answer the line for over an hour of terrible static. I can't stand the racket because fibromyalgia makes my ears hurt too much listening to all that static, and my husband has dementia and doesn't know how to stand up for himself any more. We're screwed by everyone who wanted our money when we were working, but now that we're seniors, they don't want to help us and show us that by not helping us in a reasonable amount of time and put us through hell on earth so they hope we will cancel or not pay their ridiculous premiums. It's hell to be old these days. The insurance companies know how to get rid of people they have zero intention of helping, other than to collect fees. The last scam was we requested to have my husband's insurance come direct from our account. They played around with us for hours and came up with the "You have to remember to pays us for 1.5 months before your money will be taken from your account," which was our last contact with them several months ago when they decided we would never talk to them again, no matter how long they put us on perma-hold rather than dealing with our payments. My husband now cannot get any meds for his dementia, and they aren't answering their phones when I call them. Watch out, young people, when you retire, they will scam you out of 40 years of paying premiums to get rid of you when you need help the most.

I'm just sayin'. And I repeat, if you're a Republican, if you ask for help from the government which you supported over the years, the last time I went to the Social Security office and got there bright and early, they already had a room full of people, and I waited from 9:30 am until 4:30 pm, while they took the whole room full of people and everyone else who walked through the door after me until it was almost time for them to go home. If that were a business, they wouldn't last 10 minutes. But because the government pays them, they can wait on anybody they please, make any excuse they want, and bludgeon people who paid taxes for 50 years or more into a corner with no-help to American citizens, and all help for everyone else. We're screwed because we're senior citizens who belong to the wrong party.


----------



## Samson

freedombecki said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> regent said:
> 
> 
> 
> If democracies go fast, what types of governments do not go fast?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well as governments go, Roman or Chinese Style Imperialism worked for 1000 years.
> 
> Democracies...not so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The thinking among some of the posters I've read here who really don't have a pony in the show for either party is that the 17th Amendment went against the Founder's Republic. ....
> Between the higher taxes and soaring utility rates, groceries, etc., our 20 years is dwindling down to 5 or 6 years. .....
> Now, my husband cannot get drugs because his insurance company won't answer the phone in a reasonable amount of time when we call. ...
> I'm just sayin'. And I repeat, if you're a Republican, if you ask for help from the government which you supported over the years, the last time I went to the Social Security office and got there bright and early, they already had a room full of people, and I waited from 9:30 am until 4:30 pm, while they took the whole room full of people and everyone else who walked through the door after me until it was almost time for them to go home. ....
Click to expand...


Quite a rant.

I hope you cut it from some chain letter.


----------



## Samson

This thread has nothing to do with the 17th amendment.

Why can we not make congress larger?


----------



## Dante

Samson said:


> I doubt this thread will get much play because it challenges the USMB membership to think beyond their usual lemming limits of following whatever partisan hack's blog they read every single fucking hour, but here goes;
> 
> The HoR has had the same number of members since 1910.
> 
> I know some of you may want me to post a link to evidence supporting my contention that the US population has grown since 1910, but let's just use our imaginations for a moment.
> 
> This population change means each US representative, Dem OR Repub, has an average 770,000 constituants.
> 
> Realistically, there is no fucking way these guys are representing this many people: No other representative body on the face of the planet has such an absurd ratio.
> 
> _*If you really cared about the validity or representative government, then you'd stop the political hackary, and demand that congress vote to triple the size (at minimum) the number of representatives in the HoR.*_
> 
> Of course, this would open wide the door for MORE that BiPartisan government....hell, we might even be able to form an effective third party: GOD FORBID!!!


hmm...


----------



## emilynghiem

Dante said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt this thread will get much play because it challenges the USMB membership to think beyond their usual lemming limits of following whatever partisan hack's blog they read every single fucking hour, but here goes;
> 
> The HoR has had the same number of members since 1910.
> 
> I know some of you may want me to post a link to evidence supporting my contention that the US population has grown since 1910, but let's just use our imaginations for a moment.
> 
> This population change means each US representative, Dem OR Repub, has an average 770,000 constituants.
> 
> Realistically, there is no fucking way these guys are representing this many people: No other representative body on the face of the planet has such an absurd ratio.
> 
> _*If you really cared about the validity or representative government, then you'd stop the political hackary, and demand that congress vote to triple the size (at minimum) the number of representatives in the HoR.*_
> 
> Of course, this would open wide the door for MORE that BiPartisan government....hell, we might even be able to form an effective third party: GOD FORBID!!!
> 
> 
> 
> hmm...
Click to expand...


Dear Dante and Samson:
Sorry to eavesdrop on this very last bit of a long ongoing conversation.

I think the problem I find people having is
if "people = government" means people/civilians being their own govt, where govt REFLECTS the will of the people
or if "government = people" means govt IMPOSES or DICTATES the will of the majority rule on everyone else.

As long as both the Left and the Right feel that THEIR candidates and parties "represent the will and interests of the people" you can see how the Left fights to USE govt to establish the policies vs. how the Right fights to keep the policy and decision making in the hands of the people and LIMIT govt from dictating that process. These two sides are working at odds, if they don't work out the conflicts and make sure the policies passed satisfy the concerns and consent of both.

When we talk about "democratizing" govt to allow for LOCAL representation to be better covered, does this mean people governing ourselves and taking BACK control of resources and decisions and having more PARTICIPATION directly in the democratic process? Where the shift is AWAY from federal control in DC and more toward states and people investing in programs and policies governed locally?

or does it mean, as @Sampson seems to imply, injecting more bodies INTO the government institutions, and thinking that is going to diversity or change anything? instead, this is feared as growing bigger bureaucracies even MORE out of check and sync with the "people" ie the rest of the population.

@Sampson if the current system of depending on lawsuits or judges to decide conflicts
ISN'T WORKING to bring about consensus on policies,
what makes you think adding MORE people to govt is going to promote conflict resolution and consensus
that INCLUDES the different groups, angles and interests equally?

Shouldn't the APPROACH to govt change? to include and represent people by party or political beliefs,
instead of competing to outnumber, outvote, outbully and outspend each other and winning by domination,
coercion, collusion and censorship? Instead of real collaboration on solutions that DO include and represent the people's interests in all our diversity?

Doesn't the system and perspective have to change?
And not just take the given mess and multiply it by even more of the same??


----------



## regent

Perhaps, start with ending gerrymandering.


----------



## JimH52

regent said:


> Perhaps, start with ending gerrymandering.



But Gerrymandering and Voter Suppression are the two most effective GOP tools.


----------



## emilynghiem

If we organized local democratic representation so we could base public policy on consensus of all voters, taxpayers and property owners affected, what difference would it make who is in office, how long they have served, or how the boundaries are cut? If policies are made by resolving conflicts instead of bullying over any opposition, what would matter is the content and the writing of the policies, regardless who represents what.


----------



## Samson

Wiseacre said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why have any reps?
> 
> Perhaps you'd prefer a King.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thread was about increasing the number of reps, not doing away with them.   Your concept appears to be that having a lot more reps (triple) solves our problems of gov't.   I don't think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You realise the YOU are supposed to have a voice in the Federal government, right?
> 
> As astonished as I am with the seemingly bottomless pit of confusion (more representatives do NOT mean more representatives for YOU, only better QUALITY representation), it serves as a perfect reason why Americans are so disappointed in their government on the one hand, yet are too ignorant to change it on the other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I know damn well that I only get one rep for my district, I am getting the distinct impression that you are deliberately trying to piss me off.   Let me rephrase to avoid further confusion:   only a fucking idiot can possibly think that having 1300 reps in the HofR will lead to better quality of representation.   We've already got a mess, you want to make it a bigger mess.   Just what we need: more corruption, more cronyism, and a much larger Congress that is too fucked up as it is now.
Click to expand...



So the more reps in the HoR the Bigger the "Mess?" Gotchya.

We just need one rep?

All I'm saying is that having One representative for every 700,000 Americans probably doesn't allow constituents to have as much influence over the representative as One representative for every 70,000 Americans, or One representative for every 7,000 Americans. I'm not against representative federal government, but I'd like to make the ratio the size the last time it was changed: 1910!


----------



## Samson

Synthaholic said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*If you really cared about the validity or representative government, then you'd stop the political hackary, and demand that congress vote to triple the size (at minimum) the number of representatives in the HoR.*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's fine with me.
> 
> Let's see if you can do the same:
> 
> How about dividing each state into equal sized squares of a grid in order to determine each district?
> 
> No more re-districting into weird shapes and sizes in order to maximize Rep/Dem votes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the dems would never go along with it..
> 
> 
> see-
> 
> Civil Rights Division Voting Section Redistricting Information
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm asking if Samson (and you) would go along with it.
Click to expand...


Yes as long as the same number of people were forced to live within each square.


----------



## emilynghiem

Samson said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why have any reps?
> 
> Perhaps you'd prefer a King.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thread was about increasing the number of reps, not doing away with them.   Your concept appears to be that having a lot more reps (triple) solves our problems of gov't.   I don't think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You realise the YOU are supposed to have a voice in the Federal government, right?
> 
> As astonished as I am with the seemingly bottomless pit of confusion (more representatives do NOT mean more representatives for YOU, only better QUALITY representation), it serves as a perfect reason why Americans are so disappointed in their government on the one hand, yet are too ignorant to change it on the other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know damn well that I only get one rep for my district, I am getting the distinct impression that you are deliberately trying to piss me off.   Let me rephrase to avoid further confusion:   only a fucking idiot can possibly think that having 1300 reps in the HofR will lead to better quality of representation.   We've already got a mess, you want to make it a bigger mess.   Just what we need: more corruption, more cronyism, and a much larger Congress that is too fucked up as it is now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So the more reps in the HoR the Bigger the "Mess?" Gotchya.
> 
> We just need one rep?
> 
> All I'm saying is that having One representative for every 700,000 Americans probably doesn't allow constituents to have as much influence over the representative as One representative for every 70,000 Americans, or One representative for every 7,000 Americans. I'm not against representative federal government, but I'd like to make the ratio the size the last time it was changed: 1910!
Click to expand...


I would create a third unofficial house of Congress, where people can represent issues by party.
And then issue statements by consensus among the parties, listing points of agreement and dissension.

These position papers could then be presented to the official members and committees of Congress
to make reforms according to solutions all sides agree on, and to avoid mandating beliefs anyone is against.


----------



## candycorn

Samson said:


> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why have any reps?
> 
> Perhaps you'd prefer a King.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thread was about increasing the number of reps, not doing away with them.   Your concept appears to be that having a lot more reps (triple) solves our problems of gov't.   I don't think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You realise the YOU are supposed to have a voice in the Federal government, right?
> 
> As astonished as I am with the seemingly bottomless pit of confusion (more representatives do NOT mean more representatives for YOU, only better QUALITY representation), it serves as a perfect reason why Americans are so disappointed in their government on the one hand, yet are too ignorant to change it on the other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I know damn well that I only get one rep for my district, I am getting the distinct impression that you are deliberately trying to piss me off.   Let me rephrase to avoid further confusion:   only a fucking idiot can possibly think that having 1300 reps in the HofR will lead to better quality of representation.   We've already got a mess, you want to make it a bigger mess.   Just what we need: more corruption, more cronyism, and a much larger Congress that is too fucked up as it is now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So the more reps in the HoR the Bigger the "Mess?" Gotchya.
> 
> We just need one rep?
> 
> All I'm saying is that having One representative for every 700,000 Americans probably doesn't allow constituents to have as much influence over the representative as One representative for every 70,000 Americans, or One representative for every 7,000 Americans. I'm not against representative federal government, but I'd like to make the ratio the size the last time it was changed: 1910!
Click to expand...


Time to expand it.  No doubt.  What is the mechanism for doing that??


----------



## Samson

candycorn said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wiseacre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why have any reps?
> 
> Perhaps you'd prefer a King.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thread was about increasing the number of reps, not doing away with them.   Your concept appears to be that having a lot more reps (triple) solves our problems of gov't.   I don't think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You realise the YOU are supposed to have a voice in the Federal government, right?
> 
> As astonished as I am with the seemingly bottomless pit of confusion (more representatives do NOT mean more representatives for YOU, only better QUALITY representation), it serves as a perfect reason why Americans are so disappointed in their government on the one hand, yet are too ignorant to change it on the other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I know damn well that I only get one rep for my district, I am getting the distinct impression that you are deliberately trying to piss me off.   Let me rephrase to avoid further confusion:   only a fucking idiot can possibly think that having 1300 reps in the HofR will lead to better quality of representation.   We've already got a mess, you want to make it a bigger mess.   Just what we need: more corruption, more cronyism, and a much larger Congress that is too fucked up as it is now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So the more reps in the HoR the Bigger the "Mess?" Gotchya.
> 
> We just need one rep?
> 
> All I'm saying is that having One representative for every 700,000 Americans probably doesn't allow constituents to have as much influence over the representative as One representative for every 70,000 Americans, or One representative for every 7,000 Americans. I'm not against representative federal government, but I'd like to make the ratio the size the last time it was changed: 1910!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Time to expand it.  No doubt.  What is the mechanism for doing that??
Click to expand...


In 1929 Congress (Republican control of both houses of congress and the presidency) passed the Reapportionment Act of 1929 which capped the size of the House at 435 (the then current number).

Another bill would need to be made law.


----------



## konradv

I wouldn't want to increase the number of representatives until we change the way their elections are financed.  Greater numbers would just mean more corruption, as they sell their votes for campaign contributions.  If public financing were in effect, they'd have to listen to the public, not special interests.


----------



## Samson

konradv said:


> I wouldn't want to increase the number of representatives until we change the way their elections are financed.  Greater numbers would just mean more corruption, as they sell their votes for campaign contributions.  If public financing were in effect, they'd have to listen to the public, not special interests.



Greater numbers of reps mean fewer constituents.

Fewer constituents mean campaigns are less costly.

Less costly campaigns rely less on money.

Less Money means Less corruption.


----------



## konradv

Samson said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't want to increase the number of representatives until we change the way their elections are financed.  Greater numbers would just mean more corruption, as they sell their votes for campaign contributions.  If public financing were in effect, they'd have to listen to the public, not special interests.
> 
> 
> 
> Greater numbers of reps mean fewer constituents.  Fewer constituents mean campaigns are less costly.  Less costly campaigns rely less on money.  Less Money means Less corruption.
Click to expand...

I doubt the product of 'representatives X money' would go down.  IMO, the equation would still be 'money = corruption'.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Samson said:


> I doubt this thread will get much play because it challenges the USMB membership to think beyond their usual lemming limits of following whatever partisan hack's blog they read every single fucking hour, but here goes;
> 
> The HoR has had the same number of members since 1910.
> 
> I know some of you may want me to post a link to evidence supporting my contention that the US population has grown since 1910, but let's just use our imaginations for a moment.
> 
> This population change means each US representative, Dem OR Repub, has an average 770,000 constituants.
> 
> Realistically, there is no fucking way these guys are representing this many people: No other representative body on the face of the planet has such an absurd ratio.
> 
> _*If you really cared about the validity or representative government, then you'd stop the political hackary, and demand that congress vote to triple the size (at minimum) the number of representatives in the HoR.*_
> 
> Of course, this would open wide the door for MORE that BiPartisan government....hell, we might even be able to form an effective third party: GOD FORBID!!!



The population of Rhode Island is a little over one million; the population of the San Francisco Bay Area is a little over nine million.

Two Senators represent RI, two Senators represent not only SFBA but the metro areas of LA and San Diego and the rural areas to our far north and east of the Sierras.

I agree with the OP, enough is enough - these two bodies have done enough damage putting party / ideology over country.  

Each new member and each reelected member ought to take an oath to act pragmatically, and act in accordance with what's good for the nation, not themselves or those who give them the largest amount of money.


----------

