Discussion in 'Congress' started by Samson, Oct 20, 2012.
Perhaps, start with ending gerrymandering.
But Gerrymandering and Voter Suppression are the two most effective GOP tools.
If we organized local democratic representation so we could base public policy on consensus of all voters, taxpayers and property owners affected, what difference would it make who is in office, how long they have served, or how the boundaries are cut? If policies are made by resolving conflicts instead of bullying over any opposition, what would matter is the content and the writing of the policies, regardless who represents what.
So the more reps in the HoR the Bigger the "Mess?" Gotchya.
We just need one rep?
All I'm saying is that having One representative for every 700,000 Americans probably doesn't allow constituents to have as much influence over the representative as One representative for every 70,000 Americans, or One representative for every 7,000 Americans. I'm not against representative federal government, but I'd like to make the ratio the size the last time it was changed: 1910!
Yes as long as the same number of people were forced to live within each square.
I would create a third unofficial house of Congress, where people can represent issues by party.
And then issue statements by consensus among the parties, listing points of agreement and dissension.
These position papers could then be presented to the official members and committees of Congress
to make reforms according to solutions all sides agree on, and to avoid mandating beliefs anyone is against.
Time to expand it. No doubt. What is the mechanism for doing that??
In 1929 Congress (Republican control of both houses of congress and the presidency) passed the Reapportionment Act of 1929 which capped the size of the House at 435 (the then current number).
Another bill would need to be made law.
I wouldn't want to increase the number of representatives until we change the way their elections are financed. Greater numbers would just mean more corruption, as they sell their votes for campaign contributions. If public financing were in effect, they'd have to listen to the public, not special interests.
Greater numbers of reps mean fewer constituents.
Fewer constituents mean campaigns are less costly.
Less costly campaigns rely less on money.
Less Money means Less corruption.
Separate names with a comma.