USMB Political Hackery

Discussion in 'Congress' started by Samson, Oct 20, 2012.

  1. Samson
    Offline

    Samson Póg Mo Thóin Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,357
    Thanks Received:
    3,742
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    A Higher Plain
    Ratings:
    +4,210
    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!!!
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 12
    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    Repeal the 17th Amendment, too.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    47,691
    Thanks Received:
    10,802
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +14,402
    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.
     
  4. Samson
    Offline

    Samson Póg Mo Thóin Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,357
    Thanks Received:
    3,742
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    A Higher Plain
    Ratings:
    +4,210
    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.
     
  5. Toddsterpatriot
    Offline

    Toddsterpatriot Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    26,145
    Thanks Received:
    3,655
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Chicago
    Ratings:
    +10,078
    Sounds good, but first, term limits!
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. Samson
    Offline

    Samson Póg Mo Thóin Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,357
    Thanks Received:
    3,742
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    A Higher Plain
    Ratings:
    +4,210
    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.
     
  7. spectrumc01
    Offline

    spectrumc01 I give you....the TRUTH

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Messages:
    1,823
    Thanks Received:
    257
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    The United States
    Ratings:
    +260
    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.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  8. Againsheila
    Offline

    Againsheila Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2008
    Messages:
    17,126
    Thanks Received:
    2,554
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Federal Way WA
    Ratings:
    +2,700
    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.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. Samson
    Offline

    Samson Póg Mo Thóin Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,357
    Thanks Received:
    3,742
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    A Higher Plain
    Ratings:
    +4,210
    :eusa_eh:

    Why would that be relevant to increasing effective representation?
     
  10. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    47,691
    Thanks Received:
    10,802
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +14,402
    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.?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

usmb political