Is there a limit?

[Skull Pilot]

I've been pondering this question for a while.

Is there a limit to the size of a population that can effectively be governed by our type of democracy?

I can't help but think there is a population limit that bounds the effectiveness of such a government. Our 2 party system cannot represent all of our people and it is quite clear that it doesn't and hasn't for some time. We have become a country of to highly polarized ideological camps that dominate the country and leaves many feeling under or unrepresented.

Population limits seem to exist in all systems. Is government any different?

 

[AsianTrumpSupporter]

I'm all for third parties, but the people have to want a real third party for one to really gain hold. I do think third party candidates should be allowed into the debates, and I do not think the debates should be controlled by the GOP and the DNC exclusively.

 

[martybegan]

I've been pondering this question for a while.

Is there a limit to the size of a population that can effectively be governed by our type of democracy?

I can't help but think there is a population limit that bounds the effectiveness of such a government. Our 2 party system cannot represent all of our people and it is quite clear that it doesn't and hasn't for some time. We have become a country of to highly polarized ideological camps that dominate the country and leaves many feeling under or unrepresented.

Population limits seem to exist in all systems. Is government any different?

it's less about population, and more about the power of government being concentrated further and further away from the people. If federalism were truly followed power would be closer to the people it is exercised over, and the multiple layers would foster greater ease in running a democratic republic.

When population gets larger, you have to realize you can't please everyone, and if you let regional variations work themselves out, you get more effective government.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The issue remains, Marty, the Bill of Rights, which unifies civil liberties in the "regions", thus nationalizing the peoples' government.

 

[Mudda]

The two parties we have are shit, and you want to add a third turd to the pile?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

I've been pondering this question for a while.

Is there a limit to the size of a population that can effectively be governed by our type of democracy?

I can't help but think there is a population limit that bounds the effectiveness of such a government. Our 2 party system cannot represent all of our people and it is quite clear that it doesn't and hasn't for some time. We have become a country of to highly polarized ideological camps that dominate the country and leaves many feeling under or unrepresented.

Population limits seem to exist in all systems. Is government any different?

First off this country isn't a Democracy but a Representative Republic. I wish people would WTFU and understand this. Now as a Republic(for which it stands) for every 30,000 persons, there is a Representative for that district that goes to Congress. With states constantly trying to bring people to their states and other states losing people by hiking taxes, the representatives jockey around. But the Senators from the States(at one time appointed by the Governors) will always be 2(elected by the people, so the Senators can be lifetime appointments instead of changing with the governors) and are supposed to debate laws whether they will be beneficial to their state(but now for themselves). With the politicians there is one side who can only offer "freebies" to their constituents so then those poor people will continue to vote in those "PIMPS" to continue that funding, while the other side wants to bring economic prosperity knowing full well, that successful people wont vote for the other ones. Maybe if there were billions of people in the US would the population eventually make the Representative Republic not work, but as of right now, we can go hundreds of millions more.


Question... If you took all the people in the world and put them together, front to back, shoulder to shoulder, how much area would it take up???


Episode 1: Overpopulation: The Making of a Myth | Overpopulation is a myth

According to the U.N. Population Database, the world's population in 2010 will be 6,908,688,000. The landmass of Texas is 268,820 sq mi (7,494,271,488,000 sq ft).

So, divide 7,494,271,488,000 sq ft by 6,908,688,000 people, and you get 1084.76 sq ft/person. That's approximately a 33' x 33' plot of land for every person on the planet, enough space for a town house.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I've been pondering this question for a while.

Is there a limit to the size of a population that can effectively be governed by our type of democracy?

I can't help but think there is a population limit that bounds the effectiveness of such a government. Our 2 party system cannot represent all of our people and it is quite clear that it doesn't and hasn't for some time. We have become a country of to highly polarized ideological camps that dominate the country and leaves many feeling under or unrepresented.

Population limits seem to exist in all systems. Is government any different?

First off this country isn't a Democracy but a Representative Republic. I wish people would WTFU and understand this. Now as a Republic(for which it stands) for every 30,000 persons, there is a Representative for that district that goes to Congress. With states constantly trying to bring people to their states and other states losing people by hiking taxes, the representatives jockey around. But the Senators from the States(at one time appointed by the Governors) will always be 2(elected by the people, so the Senators can be lifetime appointments instead of changing with the governors) and are supposed to debate laws whether they will be beneficial to their state(but now for themselves). With the politicians there is one side who can only offer "freebies" to their constituents so then those poor people will continue to vote in those "PIMPS" to continue that funding, while the other side wants to bring economic prosperity knowing full well, that successful people wont vote for the other ones. Maybe if there were billions of people in the US would the population eventually make the Representative Republic not work, but as of right now, we can go hundreds of millions more.


Question... If you took all the people in the world and put them together, front to back, shoulder to shoulder, how much area would it take up???


Episode 1: Overpopulation: The Making of a Myth | Overpopulation is a myth

According to the U.N. Population Database, the world's population in 2010 will be 6,908,688,000. The landmass of Texas is 268,820 sq mi (7,494,271,488,000 sq ft).

So, divide 7,494,271,488,000 sq ft by 6,908,688,000 people, and you get 1084.76 sq ft/person. That's approximately a 33' x 33' plot of land for every person on the planet, enough space for a town house.

I am well aware that we are a republic which is why I said "our type of democracy". I have rehashed the fact that we are a republic so many times here I lost count

And I am not talking about world population I am talking about the limits of a governmental system when it comes to effectively governing that population.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I've been pondering this question for a while.

Is there a limit to the size of a population that can effectively be governed by our type of democracy?

I can't help but think there is a population limit that bounds the effectiveness of such a government. Our 2 party system cannot represent all of our people and it is quite clear that it doesn't and hasn't for some time. We have become a country of to highly polarized ideological camps that dominate the country and leaves many feeling under or unrepresented.

Population limits seem to exist in all systems. Is government any different?

it's less about population, and more about the power of government being concentrated further and further away from the people. If federalism were truly followed power would be closer to the people it is exercised over, and the multiple layers would foster greater ease in running a democratic republic.

When population gets larger, you have to realize you can't please everyone, and if you let regional variations work themselves out, you get more effective government.

I tend to agree that we have our governmental pyramid upside down. Far more should be done on the local level than the federal level. More of our taxes should be collected and spent locally which would, I think, make it easier to increase the population limits of our system but even if we did that is there still a limit?

 

[martybegan]

I've been pondering this question for a while.

Is there a limit to the size of a population that can effectively be governed by our type of democracy?

I can't help but think there is a population limit that bounds the effectiveness of such a government. Our 2 party system cannot represent all of our people and it is quite clear that it doesn't and hasn't for some time. We have become a country of to highly polarized ideological camps that dominate the country and leaves many feeling under or unrepresented.

Population limits seem to exist in all systems. Is government any different?

it's less about population, and more about the power of government being concentrated further and further away from the people. If federalism were truly followed power would be closer to the people it is exercised over, and the multiple layers would foster greater ease in running a democratic republic.

When population gets larger, you have to realize you can't please everyone, and if you let regional variations work themselves out, you get more effective government.

I tend to agree that we have our governmental pyramid upside down. Far more should be done on the local level than the federal level. More of our taxes should be collected and spent locally which would, I think, make it easier to increase the population limits of our system but even if we did that is there still a limit?

I would think there is a theoretical limit that once reached, only splitting the country up would allow representative government to continue. Federalism is an attempt to split things up without actually splitting things up, but I guess there comes a point where even that doesn't work.

 

[Boss]

I've been pondering this question for a while.

Is there a limit to the size of a population that can effectively be governed by our type of democracy?

I can't help but think there is a population limit that bounds the effectiveness of such a government. Our 2 party system cannot represent all of our people and it is quite clear that it doesn't and hasn't for some time. We have become a country of to highly polarized ideological camps that dominate the country and leaves many feeling under or unrepresented.

Population limits seem to exist in all systems. Is government any different?

This is an interesting question because it actually raises an important aspect about the governmental system our founders established. In their absolute brilliance, they knew that our nation would grow into a large expansive country with much diversity because they could already see diversity across the various colonies of the day. They realized a controlling centralized government would be problematic.

It is precisely why they established a small limited federal government with a mere handful of enumerated powers and then, left everything else up to the states and the people. I believe most of the inherent problems we face today are the result of a growing federal government and a weakening state government structure and we have to return power to the states. We achieve more in the name of individual liberty that way.

Think of individual liberty in the following hierarchy...
The Individual: Maximum liberty and autonomy. Minimum restriction.
The Household: Slightest limitations of liberty within the home.
The Community: Standards set collectively limiting liberty of the individual.
The County: A wider collective of community.
The State: A collection of communities limiting liberty.
The Federal Government: Maximum collective limitation of liberty.

So you see, as you move outward from the Individual, you lose increasingly more control over your liberty. Your voice is strong in your household. As you become part of larger groups, your voice becomes diluted. Once you understand this, it becomes clear why the framers of the Constitution gave us a small limited Federal government and why that was SO important to individual liberty.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I've been pondering this question for a while.

Is there a limit to the size of a population that can effectively be governed by our type of democracy?

I can't help but think there is a population limit that bounds the effectiveness of such a government. Our 2 party system cannot represent all of our people and it is quite clear that it doesn't and hasn't for some time. We have become a country of to highly polarized ideological camps that dominate the country and leaves many feeling under or unrepresented.

Population limits seem to exist in all systems. Is government any different?

This is an interesting question because it actually raises an important aspect about the governmental system our founders established. In their absolute brilliance, they knew that our nation would grow into a large expansive country with much diversity because they could already see diversity across the various colonies of the day. They realized a controlling centralized government would be problematic.

It is precisely why they established a small limited federal government with a mere handful of enumerated powers and then, left everything else up to the states and the people. I believe most of the inherent problems we face today are the result of a growing federal government and a weakening state government structure and we have to return power to the states. We achieve more in the name of individual liberty that way.

Think of individual liberty in the following hierarchy...
The Individual: Maximum liberty and autonomy. Minimum restriction.
The Household: Slightest limitations of liberty within the home.
The Community: Standards set collectively limiting liberty of the individual.
The County: A wider collective of community.
The State: A collection of communities limiting liberty.
The Federal Government: Maximum collective limitation of liberty.

So you see, as you move outward from the Individual, you lose increasingly more control over your liberty. Your voice is strong in your household. As you become part of larger groups, your voice becomes diluted. Once you understand this, it becomes clear why the framers of the Constitution gave us a small limited Federal government and why that was SO important to individual liberty.

But as population increases is it possible to keep the reigns on the size of the federal government?
Even with the intentions of the framers we have realized a bureaucratic behemoth of a government that has effectively turned the framers ideal governmental pyramid upside down

 

[Boss]

But as population increases is it possible to keep the reigns on the size of the federal government?
Even with the intentions of the framers we have realized a bureaucratic behemoth of a government that has effectively turned the framers ideal governmental pyramid upside down

I know, and this is why we MUST somehow return things to what our framers established. Whether that can be done through traditional efforts or has to be done through state Article V conventions, it HAS to be done.

I am convinced, the worst mistake we ever made was the 17th Amendment, allowing the election of Senators by popular vote. It effectively removed the States from having any control over the expansion of Federal government. Your state is supposed to be more powerful than the Federal government but almost no one considers that to be the case these days.

 

[Skull Pilot]

But as population increases is it possible to keep the reigns on the size of the federal government?
Even with the intentions of the framers we have realized a bureaucratic behemoth of a government that has effectively turned the framers ideal governmental pyramid upside down

I know, and this is why we MUST somehow return things to what our framers established. Whether that can be done through traditional efforts or has to be done through state Article V conventions, it HAS to be done.

I am convinced, the worst mistake we ever made was the 17th Amendment, allowing the election of Senators by popular vote. It effectively removed the States from having any control over the expansion of Federal government. Your state is supposed to be more powerful than the Federal government but almost no one considers that to be the case these days.

Excellent point, Thank You

 

[Marion Morrison]

I've been pondering this question for a while.

Is there a limit to the size of a population that can effectively be governed by our type of democracy?

I can't help but think there is a population limit that bounds the effectiveness of such a government. Our 2 party system cannot represent all of our people and it is quite clear that it doesn't and hasn't for some time. We have become a country of to highly polarized ideological camps that dominate the country and leaves many feeling under or unrepresented.

Population limits seem to exist in all systems. Is government any different?

This is an interesting question because it actually raises an important aspect about the governmental system our founders established. In their absolute brilliance, they knew that our nation would grow into a large expansive country with much diversity because they could already see diversity across the various colonies of the day. They realized a controlling centralized government would be problematic.

It is precisely why they established a small limited federal government with a mere handful of enumerated powers and then, left everything else up to the states and the people. I believe most of the inherent problems we face today are the result of a growing federal government and a weakening state government structure and we have to return power to the states. We achieve more in the name of individual liberty that way.

Think of individual liberty in the following hierarchy...
The Individual: Maximum liberty and autonomy. Minimum restriction.
The Household: Slightest limitations of liberty within the home.
The Community: Standards set collectively limiting liberty of the individual.
The County: A wider collective of community.
The State: A collection of communities limiting liberty.
The Federal Government: Maximum collective limitation of liberty.

So you see, as you move outward from the Individual, you lose increasingly more control over your liberty. Your voice is strong in your household. As you become part of larger groups, your voice becomes diluted. Once you understand this, it becomes clear why the framers of the Constitution gave us a small limited Federal government and why that was SO important to individual liberty.

But as population increases is it possible to keep the reigns on the size of the federal government?
Even with the intentions of the framers we have realized a bureaucratic behemoth of a government that has effectively turned the framers ideal governmental pyramid upside down

Absolutely it is, just watch the next year. Hang on! It's going to be a bumpy ride.

 

[Iceweasel]

I don't see size as a limitation unless government tries to be all things to all people. It's where we have been moving for some time and poor results don't seem to sway the left. They want us to be like Europe no matter what and the EU is falling apart.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I don't see size as a limitation unless government tries to be all things to all people. It's where we have been moving for some time and poor results don't seem to sway the left. They want us to be like Europe no matter what and the EU is falling apart.

I think a large part of it is what people expect the government to do. We seem to want the government to do more and more which results in a positive feedback loop where the more people there are the more ineffectual government is

 

[Iceweasel]

I don't see size as a limitation unless government tries to be all things to all people. It's where we have been moving for some time and poor results don't seem to sway the left. They want us to be like Europe no matter what and the EU is falling apart.

I think a large part of it is what people expect the government to do. We seem to want the government to do more and more which results in a positive feedback loop where the more people there are the more ineffectual government is

I'm not part of that "we" crowd. I want government scaled way back.