A “People’s House” or an oligarchy?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

OK, but consider that the apathy is caused by the insufficient breadth of representation. This is what I argue: that the average voter feels his/her vote makes no difference and, given the influence of special interests' money/clout in a district of 700,000+, maybe that is a rational conclusion. However, I believe that people would feel the power of their vote much more greatly in a district of 50,000.

 

I'd argue that the apathy comes not from district size but from the fact that nobody even knows what their representative is up to. Public attention is entirely on the President. Nobody knows or cares about their own representative's actions.

 

Were there a way to make the public aware of what their own representative is voting and arguing, voter interest would pick up.

 

(And in any case, if someone "feels the power of their vote" in a smaller district, they'd also realize that with several thousand representatives, their representative is a lot less powerful.)

[Pangloss]

I will explain how we can "make government better" for the citizens (and, with your protests, you will continue to explain how we can "make government better" for the elites and powerful special interests).

 

I know from experience that it's dangerous to assume you know what Swansont is going to do. (grin) You're doing well explaining the issue, let's not stray into evangelism and flames.

 

 

It's a strawman because the statement "If 435 was thought to be the appropriate size when the population was 91 million (per the 1910 census)' date=' should it be increased to reflect the fact that the total population has since more than tripled?" implies that the decision was based on population size. Where is your evidence that it was?

 

I can easily believe it was based on logistics of government, for various reasons brought up in this thread. That the congressional members felt that 435 was big enough, and more representatives would be detrimental. IOW, why did the measure pass? What were the arguments in favor of it? All you've presented is one dissenting view. [/quote']

 

I think the answer to your question is that it's based on logistics of government, as you put it. These two Wikipedia articles seem to cover the issue fairly well, with reasonable sources:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Size_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reapportionment_Act_of_1929

 

So I think your question is a good one.

 

 

The House of Representatives is the house intended to represent the people while the Senate is the house intended to represent the states. What reasons are there to keep the people's districts from crossing state lines?

 

The founders believed they lived in a collection of independent nations united by a common cause, and viewed representation as a state-based issue. It's a perfectly good question, though, as to whether that should still apply.

 

JEQuidam's reaction to that suggestion (opposing with his "last breath") indicates some of the origin of this movement, but should not be seen as invalid for that reason. I.E. I think a lot of this movement is based around modern libertarianism and neo-anti-federalism, which is very popular right now. It's an interesting movement to follow.

 

JEQuidam, I noticed you're in Atlanta, do you listen to Neil Boortz by any chance? Just curious. I'm a big fan of the guy -- his radio show birthed my interest in politics in the mid 1980s. But I mention it because he's the co-author of the Fair Tax book that's so popular right now, and a big leader of this movement.

 

 

OK, but consider that the apathy is caused by the insufficient breadth of representation. This is what I argue: that the average voter feels his/her vote makes no difference and, given the influence of special interests' money/clout in a district of 700,000+, maybe that is a rational conclusion. However, I believe that people would feel the power of their vote much more greatly in a district of 50,000.

 

They might, I agree. Or they might feel that it is less power, because each representative has less sway in the state delegation or the 6,000-member congress as a whole. But yes, I agree that it's a valid suggestion.

 

 

Also, those totals you referenced do not include the large sums that are raised by the 527s.

 

Quite right, I agree.

 

I'd argue that the apathy comes not from district size but from the fact that nobody even knows what their representative is up to. Public attention is entirely on the President. Nobody knows or cares about their own representative's actions.

 

Were there a way to make the public aware of what their own representative is voting and arguing, voter interest would pick up.

 

(And in any case, if someone "feels the power of their vote" in a smaller district, they'd also realize that with several thousand representatives, their representative is a lot less powerful.)

 

This is where I've been hoping new media will come in. The problem is in the basic structure of the community unit, and the fact that universal entertainment is national in scope, with "local" being defined as an entire metropolitan region, because that's how advertising dollars work.

 

What we need is more homogenous community communications. Something to give people a sense of belonging to an area larger than the dozen or so houses around them, but smaller than a 50-60 mile radius. Something like the 1-2 miles around them.

[JEQuidam]

I'd argue that the apathy comes not from district size but from the fact that nobody even knows what their representative is up to.

My contention is that, in most of the 50-person districts, it will behoove the Representative to proactively seek the involvement of his/her constituents. I probably can not convince anyone of this point in a posting, but I believe this will change the citizen-Representative dynamic in a profound way.

 

And in any case, if someone "feels the power of their vote" in a smaller district, they'd also realize that with several thousand representatives, their representative is a lot less powerful.

I understand your point, and perhaps that is how you would feel, but it is not how I would feel. I would feel that my 1/6,000 Rep is in a very good position to exert some influence, and that I have an opportunity to exert some influence on him/her. (That is, I would see my personal opportunity for influence with 1/50,000 + 1/6,000 to be greater than the current 1/700,000 + 1/435 ... if that makes sense.)

 

JEQuidam, I noticed you're in Atlanta, do you listen to Neil Boortz by any chance?

I do when I can. He is the most effective voice for the libertarian perspective out there (as well as a relentless self promoter). I probably agree with him on about 70% of his views. (But don't ask which 70%!)

[doG]

I would also leave the Electoral College intact but would apportion each legislative district with one elector and each state with two. I think the Presidential elector for each legislative district should vote as the result of the popular vote for that district and the State's electors should vote as directed by their state legislatures. This would also bring our current system in line with the 14th Amendment.

[JEQuidam]

I would also leave the Electoral College intact but would apportion each legislative district with one elector and each state with two.

I agree. In addition, the winner-take-all practice within each state should be discontinued (as Maine and Nebraska have already done).

 

Regarding the EC, you should read this section:

http://www.thirty-thousand.org/pages/section_IX.htm

In particular, scroll down to the "Neubauer-Zeitlin Analysis".

[doG]

I agree. In addition, the winner-take-all practice within each state should be discontinued (as Maine and Nebraska have already done).

 

That would be the result of what I laid out since the electors for each legislative district would go to the winner of that district. Those electors would represent the people of the United States and not the people of the states individually.

 

I would not advocate that the Constitution direct what the states must do with their two electors, that should be up to the state governments to decide. Let them award both or split them however they want. If a state legislature decides that their states electors shall be selected by drawing straws then they should be allowed to do that.

[JEQuidam]

I would not advocate that the Constitution direct what the states must do with their two electors, that should be up to the state governments to decide.

I agree. But I hope the states eventually decide to abandon the winner-take-all system, but it won't happen unless the citizens press for it.

[Sisyphus]

Overall I like the idea, for most of the reasons mentioned. Couple things I don't think anyone's mentioned:

 

Why no middle ground? If the problems with 10,000 representatives are too great, surely you could increase the number by some lesser amount, no?

 

Not necessarily pro or con, but I think this would probably give a huge boost to third parties. Less money to raise and fewer people to convince. Even more importantly, smaller districts are more likely to be more socially homogeneous, meaning there would be at least some who could consistently support more radical candidates of various ideologies, with less of the moderating (and, perhaps, paralyzing) need for a "big tent" to get sufficient support. I'm conflicted over whether this would be good or bad overall, but it would certainly be different.

 

Anyway, as I said, I like the concept. But do you really think this could actually happen? Or is there a general plan within the movement that accomplishes this via a series of plausible steps? (And no, armed rebellion is not an acceptable answer....)

[JEQuidam]

Why no middle ground? If the problems with 10,000 representatives are too great, surely you could increase the number by some lesser amount, no?

Well, that's why there needs to be a national debate on this issue. In any case, all who favor increasing our number of districts are basically in common agreement.

 

Thirty-Thousand.org argues for 6,000 congressional districts (for 300,000,000 Americans) for several reasons, the most compelling of which is that number of districts is required to come close to achieving the equality of district size needed to conform to one-person-one-vote. Also, the maximum district size of 50,000 was proposed in the uncorrupted version of "Article the first" (the defective version of which was proposed as the first amendment in our Bill of Rights).

 

...I think this would probably give a huge boost to third parties. Less money to raise and fewer people to convince. Even more importantly, smaller districts are more likely to be more socially homogeneous, meaning there would be at least some who could consistently support more radical candidates of various ideologies, with less of the moderating (and, perhaps, paralyzing) need for a "big tent" to get sufficient support.

Exactly right on all of that! And it's a good thing to reflect all the diversity of the citizenry's concerns and ideals.

 

...do you really think this could actually happen? Or is there a general plan within the movement that accomplishes this via a series of plausible steps? (And no, armed rebellion is not an acceptable answer....)

Could this happen? Yes. Is it likely to happen? Not without widespread support of the American people, and that does not seem so likely, especially since the Congressmen and special interests will fight this tooth and nail.

[doG]

But do you really think this could actually happen? Or is there a general plan within the movement that accomplishes this via a series of plausible steps?

 

I don't think we'll ever see 10,000 representatives or that we will see any significant change without the people throwing another Boston Tea Party and telling the government in place now that the "people" are taking it all back.

 

I also don't know that I would want to spend the tax dollars to pay that many of them. Then again, in today's day and age, with the growing technology we have at hand, I don't know that they all need to live and work full time, for the people, in Washington, D.C.

 

I think having 10,000 representatives working full time for the people is an impractical solution in the modern era. We need another approach that gives us the representation we should have without breaking us financially to get it or creating more gridlock in the legislative process. I think I would favor a structure similar to a board of directors and a population of shareholders.

 

In this structure I envision that the people would select 10,000 people amongst themselves as representatives. Most of these people would not go to Washington though, they would keep their regular 8 to 5 jobs in their communities. From among themselves these 10,000 people would choose a council of around 500 members that would go to Washington and write legislation as the House of Representatives does now. These 500 would work full time for the people, as our representatives do now, and basically do the same job our current representatives do. As legislation comes up for a vote though, it would be voted on by the whole 10,000, not just the 500 they have sent to Washington.

 

This would eliminate much of the backroom politics and deal making we have going on now. None of the 500 could negotiate with other council members in a you-vote-for-my-gift-and-I'll-vote-for-yours style of spending that we have now. Lobbyists would have to lobby the entirety of the 10,000 voters for the people because the 500 in D.C. wouldn't have any majority power to make backroom deals.

 

I also think it would be destructive to the current 2 party system that seems to dominate. No longer would it matter as much the percentage of each party made up by the 500 member council writing legislation when the 500 alone have no majority voting power to swing the vote one way or another. There would be nearly zero advantage to having a majority of any party on the council itself.

 

At any rate I'm just thinking out loud here but it's an opinion I think we all could benefit from. I am personally ready for the party to get started and I'd gladly toss the first crate of tea in the bay myself. It's time for the people to act and restore the principle of a government Of, By and For the people...

[JEQuidam]

I don't think we'll ever see 10,000 representatives or that we will see any significant change without the people throwing another Boston Tea Party and telling the government in place now that the "people" are taking it all back....

I agree, but just to clarify, Thirty-Thousand.org is recommending there be 6,000 congressional districts for 300,000,000 Americans (not 10,000), but that distinction does not invalidate any of your other points.

 

To pick up on another point you made: proven technologies allow us to finally abandon the archaic notion that all of the Reps must collect together in one location. Nothing in the Constitution requires they all be in one location; the Constitution was drafted decades before the advent of fancy new technology (such as trains or telegraphs). Of course, it was reasonably assumed that the men would have to assemble to communicate and vote.

 

I would envision assembled meetings of those Reps who are collaborating on specific legislation or issues before the House, and that committee (or subcommittee) would report out the the remainder of the Reps, who could be located in their own districts (where we the people can keep a close eye on them).

[Pangloss]

Well, that's why there needs to be a national debate on this issue.

 

That one act alone would be quite an accomplishment. Just getting people to talk about such a radical, yet well-reasoned (not emotional or crisis-driven) change in government would be astonishing in the extreme.

 

Incidentally, I have a question. The number (6,000) is intended to be flexible, as the population grows, yes?

 

What about if the population shrinks?

[Phi for All]

Sorry if it's been brought up before, but how do we pay for 6000 Reps? The average pay for a member of Congress is $169,300, and each member is vested into a government retirement program after five years, including health benefits that last even when they're no longer in office. They also get provisions for private secretaries and offices paid for by taxes after they leave office. And they can retire with 80% salary when they're 50. Congressional pension benefits are 2-3 times more generous than what a similarly-salaried executive could expect to receive upon retiring from the private sector.

[doG]

Sorry if it's been brought up before, but how do we pay for 6000 Reps?

 

We don't. See my post above.

[JEQuidam]

The number (6,000) is intended to be flexible...?

Yes. It's actually 1 Representative per 50,000 people as was specified in the amendment proposed by the House in 1789 (a defective version of that amendment became the first amendment inscribed in our Bill of Rights).

 

...how do we pay for 6000 Reps?

Please read Q&A #8 on the TTO home page:

Q8: Wouldn’t it be costly to add all these Representatives?

http://www.thirty-thousand.org/index.htm#Q8 (No ads or pop-ups.)

 

Additional support is provided by this paper:

“Constituency Size and Government Spending”

by Mark Thornton and Marc Ulrich, Public Finance Review, November 1999;

http://www.thirty-thousand.org/documents/Publlic_Finance_Review_1999.pdf (right button click to save it to your local drive)

[Phi for All]

We don't. See my post above.

Sorry, doG, I was responding to the OP. I tend to do that before responding to responses and alternatives.

 

I agree with you about the two-party system. I also agree that we need the passion that motivates a Boston Tea Party. And I agree that we need better representation. But if you aren't paying the 9500 other reps who aren't in DC, how are you motivating them? Would this be a mandatory service, like being drafted (don't laugh, I think we'd get some very qualified people who would otherwise be loathe to touch politics with a ten-foot poll [sic])?

[ParanoiA]

Hmmm...would these be a bad time to bring up the draft? Kind of a really long and drawn out version of jury duty...

[JEQuidam]

But if you aren't paying the 9500 other reps who aren't in DC, how are you motivating them?

I must have missed that point, if it was earlier made.

 

I strongly believe that they should be paid as much as they are now (but without any increase in their aggregate total staffing). Frankly, I don't care if we double their pay (but I know few will agree with that sentiment). We should want to draw the best qualified people from private industry and other institutions, etc. For the reasons provided at the links above (in my prior posting), they will more than offset their own costs through more judicious stewardship of the federal budget.

 

If you pay them too little (or not at all) you will only attract either the very wealthy or the crooked (or worse, those who combine both). That same point was made during the House debates on "Article the second" -- the second amendment in our Bill of Rights which was ratified 200 years later as the 27th amendment.

[Phi for All]

Please read Q&A #8 on the TTO home page:

Q8: Wouldn’t it be costly to add all these Representatives?

http://www.thirty-thousand.org/index.htm#Q8 (No ads or pop-ups.)

They'll be inclined to reduce the size of government and spend less?! That's more speculation than I'm comfortable with. I actually think 11 times more reps would come up with 11 times more expenditures. Don't forget that when you "open a door for the admission of the substantial yeomanry of our country", you also open the door for the admission of substantial corruption.

 

And telling me that, if I question the expense, I don't deserve to enjoy a better country is completely condescending, like telling me I don't support the troops if I object to the war. In fact, this now sounds like the kind of campaign that some businessmen and some politicians cooked up in order to fleece the taxpayers even more, by increasing the federal government while telling us that it will decrease the federal government.

[JEQuidam]

They'll be inclined to reduce the size of government and spend less?! That's more speculation than I'm comfortable with.

Many people will share your skepticism. I can only ask that you reconsider the arguments made in Q&A#8, and also read the paper cited above

 

“Constituency Size and Government Spending”

by Mark Thornton and Marc Ulrich, Public Finance Review, November 1999;

http://www.thirty-thousand.org/docum...eview_1999.pdf

(right button click to save it to your local drive)

 

Ultimately, a person's willingness to accept this argument may depend on whether they have faith that we can choose one of 50,000 of us that will conduct themselves as responsible stewards and fiduciaries of the public's budget. I have no doubt that we can.

[doG]

But if you aren't paying the 9500 other reps who aren't in DC, how are you motivating them?

 

Pay them some token fee for their voting service since that's basically all they'll be doing. They'll still have their regular jobs. The real work behind legislation would still be carried out in DC but the votes required to pass it would not.

[Phi for All]

Many people will share your skepticism. I can only ask that you reconsider the arguments made in Q&A#8, and also read the paper cited above

Done. I still haven't seen anything more substantial than, "This should work".

 

And many of the arguments are fallacious. You state that these extra reps should be paid the same to attract the best people, but clearly that isn't happening now, and I doubt it would change for the better with more reps.

 

The article states that the extra $2B/year in salaries should be viewed in context with the $2.7T in current federal expenditures. This is a Red Herring since it really does nothing to support your argument. It's like arguing that it's OK to hire more workers just because your company is making a lot of money. Shaky ground for supporting conclusions.

 

 

Ultimately, a person's willingness to accept this argument may depend on whether they have faith that we can choose one of 50,000 of us that will conduct themselves as responsible stewards and fiduciaries of the public's budget. I have no doubt that we can.

Why, because we're so good at it now?

[JEQuidam]

Done. I still haven't seen anything more substantial than, "This should work".

Then you have not read the article from "Public Finance Review" which provides data that supports this contention. (Or perhaps you have read it but are inclined to dismiss data that contradicts your cynical view.)

 

Let's get to the point: do you oppose allowing 300,000,000 Americans to have more than 435 congressional districts?

[swansont]

Yes. It's actually 1 Representative per 50,000 people as was specified in the amendment proposed by the House in 1789 (a defective version of that amendment became the first amendment inscribed in our Bill of Rights).

 

What? I thought the first amendment was "article the third," and the "defective" part was "article the first." You appear to be using the terminology inconsistently. The amendments are the ones that were adopted in some discussions, but they are the proposed amendments in others.

 

 

I also don't understand this part of your post on TownHall/DailyKos:

Though the National Archives' web site provides an image of the original Bill of Rights document showing all twelve articles, its "transcript" inexplicably omits (as of this writing) any reference to its first two amendments. However, they can be seen by downloading the high-resolution .jpg from their site and magnifying that image.

 

But the transcript says: Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the "Bill of Rights."

 

What's "inexplicable" about that? It clearly explains what is included in the transcript: the Bill of Rights. The measures not ratified were not transcribed.

[JEQuidam]

What? I thought the first amendment...

Swansot, I realize this is confusing. PLEASE see the list of amendments here:

http://www.thirty-thousand.org/pages/BoR_text.htm

What we call the "First Amendment" was "Article the Third", the "Second" was "Article the Fourth" and so fourth.

 

The defective "Article the first" was never ratified, though it was affirmed by all but one state.

 

"Article the second" was ratified 200 years later as our 27th amendment.

 

Believe me, they don't teach this stuff in the schools.

 

What's "inexplicable" about that? It clearly explains what is included in the transcript: the Bill of Rights. The measures not ratified were not transcribed.

This is their link:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

Everyone can compare that partial transcript with the complete one I provide at the link above and draw their own conclusions.