|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on May 24, 2008 15:36:22 GMT -6
Thirty-Thousand.org is an interesting site that makes a case that we not only need a larger number of Congressional representatives, but that our founding fathers actually designed the House of Representatives to have a larger number. More specifically, it was their intention to have 1 representative for each 50,000 people, not the 1 for every 700,000 that we have today. The author makes the point about the bigger picture as well -- that our government is controlled by big money and big money interests, not "We, the People" as it was intended. www.thirty-thousand.org/
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on May 25, 2008 5:26:12 GMT -6
I vaguely remeber from school that the number of representatives was intended to grow with the population
This is certainly one way to put the power back into the hands of the people rather than the special interests
|
|
|
Post by proletariat on May 25, 2008 7:31:39 GMT -6
I am not sure about that. But I think they ought to be increased. I like the idea of keeping the districts as they are but increasing the number of seats. We could then elect representatives proportionally through an IRV based system. Our goal should be our leaders being "representative" of the people, that cannot be so in a plurality or even majority based system. I think in my district it would work out to 7 seats. This may include some Democratic, Green, Libertarian, and Republican seats. Awhile ago I wrote how STV could be used for electoral college. This would also great for multi seat congressional districts. proletariat.wordpress.com/2007/07/28/wisconsin-must-lead/
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on May 25, 2008 8:09:34 GMT -6
Yes - I agree on the electroal college as well. Another step in returning the power back to a representative form of government will require some serious electoral reform
I have long advocated a either proportional or by congressional district system with the two senatorial votes going to the overall popular vote winner
I am intrigued by the idea of the STV system. I would definitely like to be able to rank in order my choices
|
|
jequidam
New Member
Founder, Thirty-Thousand.org, a non-partisan and non-profit 501(c)(3) organization.
Posts: 6
|
Post by jequidam on Jun 7, 2008 8:16:48 GMT -6
I just saw this thread. I had started another one at: unlawflcombatnt.proboards84.com/index.cgi?board=noneconomic&action=display&thread=3224 I like the idea of keeping the districts as they are but increasing the number of seats. We could then elect representatives proportionally through an IRV based system. One of the objectives of the smaller district is to drastically reduce, if not eliminate, special interest funding of elections. If you have multiple candidates competing in the same super-sized districts that we already have, then that will require even MORE money for a challenger to take on an incumbent. In a district of 50,000, a citizen can campaign against an incumbent for no greater expense than several pairs of walking shoes and several thousand photocopies. Our goal should be our leaders being "representative" of the people,... Exactly right, and if we had much smaller districts, we would have that diversity in the House. You would have many more independents, Greens, RonPaulies, Libertarians, Baptist ministers, whatever best represents the citizens of that district.
|
|
jequidam
New Member
Founder, Thirty-Thousand.org, a non-partisan and non-profit 501(c)(3) organization.
Posts: 6
|
Post by jequidam on Jun 7, 2008 8:30:28 GMT -6
Yes - I agree on the electroal college as well. Another step in returning the power back to a representative form of government will require some serious electoral reform Regarding the Electoral College, be sure to read about the "Neubauer-Zeitlin Analysis" which explains why Gore would have won the 2000 election if we had many more congressional districts. (This is strictly a mathematical argument, not a partisan one.) www.thirty-thousand.org/pages/section_IX.htm(Scroll to section B.) Just to make my position clear on this (but not to start a new thread), I am a strong supporter of maintaining the Electoral College subject to increasing the number of congressional districts. I also believe that the states should discontinue the winner-take-all convention with respect to the electoral votes (as Maine and Nebraska have already done).
|
|
|
Post by agito on Jun 8, 2008 14:49:12 GMT -6
First off- picturing the house meeting at national stadium is just damn funny.
Picturing them trying to organize themselves in such a scenario is just sad. There is a loud argument that it would be impossible to handle logistically.
that being said i do support the idea too. Throw the fuckers in the situation and at least 1 out of the 30,000 will come up with a way to stand out above the rest and organization will be maintained.
Thinking it would rely heavily on the internet, and we would all have to say a major thanks to its existence if this came to pass (like we don't already)
one major plus, the numerical representation of the states would have higher fidelity (rhode island could get "1.3" votes instead of just 1).
2 things lobbyist money would have less influence on the house, so they would spend more on senators. This would create drafts of bills that are more radically different, making it harder to reconcile, and slow the legislative process down
fighting for a voice out of 30,000 would lead to caucus forming (lobby alert there....) and intraparty squabbles. Such squabbles would lead to factionalism and the potential for party splits. translation: the 2 major parties are going to fight this heavily, but every other party should unite to make this happen.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jun 17, 2008 3:28:03 GMT -6
2 things lobbyist money would have less influence on the house, so they would spend more on senators. Yes, the Senate would be a problem. My solution would be to get rid of the Senate. We can get all the representation needed in the House. The Senate is a body that just lends itself to moneyed influence and creation of an aristocracy. The current role of the Senators is to be the expressed representative of the rich and powerful.
|
|
jequidam
New Member
Founder, Thirty-Thousand.org, a non-partisan and non-profit 501(c)(3) organization.
Posts: 6
|
Post by jequidam on Jun 17, 2008 19:59:06 GMT -6
The Senate is a body that just lends itself to moneyed influence and creation of an aristocracy. The current role of the Senators is to be the expressed representative of the rich and powerful. I fully support the role of the Senate in our republican form of government. Instead, I believe that the 17th amendment should be repealed (so that the states' legislatures can resume appointing the Senators). No election, no campaign finance problem. That plus 6000 congressional districts (of 50,000 each) will go along way to destroy special interest contol of the congressmen.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jun 19, 2008 16:50:38 GMT -6
The Senate is a body that just lends itself to moneyed influence and creation of an aristocracy. The current role of the Senators is to be the expressed representative of the rich and powerful. I fully support the role of the Senate in our republican form of government. Instead, I believe that the 17th amendment should be repealed (so that the states' legislatures can resume appointing the Senators) . No election, no campaign finance problem. That's an interesting idea. But the 17th Amendment was an attempt to remove special interest influence from the selection of Senators. If nothing else, the term of a Senator should be reduced to 2 years, just like the House. Everything possible should be done to reduce the monetary benefits of campaign contributions. Reducing term limits would at least make donating to political campaigns less profitable, as it would buy only 2 years of influence, instead of 6. Here again, I would ban consecutive terms. A representative could only serve 1 consecutive term. He or she could serve as many non-consecutive terms as they wanted. But the representative would not be able to serve more than roughly 1/2 of any given time period, be it 10 years or 40 years. This would eliminate incumbency advantage, and it would replace professional politicians with mainstream citizen representatives.
|
|