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]

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]

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]

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]

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!

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]

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!

Why would that be relevant to increasing effective representation?

 

[Foxfyre]

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!

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]

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]

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!

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.

 

[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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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?

 

[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]

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.

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?

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]

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.

Someone should start a tread about term limits.

This is not it.