Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.
That's fine with me.
Let's see if you can do the same:
How about dividing each state into equal sized squares of a grid in order to determine each district?
No more re-districting into weird shapes and sizes in order to maximize Rep/Dem votes.
The thread was about increasing the number of reps, not doing away with them. Your concept appears to be that having a lot more reps (triple) solves our problems of gov't. I don't think so.
You realise the YOU are supposed to have a voice in the Federal government, right?
As astonished as I am with the seemingly bottomless pit of confusion (more representatives do NOT mean more representatives for YOU, only better QUALITY representation), it serves as a perfect reason why Americans are so disappointed in their government on the one hand, yet are too ignorant to change it on the other.
I know damn well that I only get one rep for my district, I am getting the distinct impression that you are deliberately trying to piss me off. Let me rephrase to avoid further confusion: only a fucking idiot can possibly think that having 1300 reps in the HofR will lead to better quality of representation. We've already got a mess, you want to make it a bigger mess. Just what we need: more corruption, more cronyism, and a much larger Congress that is too fucked up as it is now.
At some point you evolve or die off. We had to interpet our HoR a little differently to reflect the increase of population. If anything a major shift of power to the states and away from the federal level thus making the importance of your state rep more powerful than your federal rep.
The US Constitution gives power of the federal government over state government.
WTF are you babbling about "shift of power?" Relative representation on the state vs. federal level is irrelevant.
Increasing the size of the federal HoR won't fix the percieved problem of inadequate representation. What might do it would be a shift in power from the federal government back to the states. Power shift means money. As Romney alluded to during the the first debate, I believe it was, he wants to shift the responsibility of federal programs to the states. If the state reps had more power than their federal rep than it wouldn't matter because the real power is closer to home.
How about dividing each state into equal sized squares of a grid in order to determine each district?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.
That's fine with me.
Let's see if you can do the same:
How about dividing each state into equal sized squares of a grid in order to determine each district?
No more re-districting into weird shapes and sizes in order to maximize Rep/Dem votes.
Repeal the 17th Amendment, too.
How about dividing each state into equal sized squares of a grid in order to determine each district?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.
That's fine with me.
Let's see if you can do the same:
How about dividing each state into equal sized squares of a grid in order to determine each district?
No more re-districting into weird shapes and sizes in order to maximize Rep/Dem votes.
Over-representing the glacier district today, are we? The left will be miffed.
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!!!
Who is going to pay for it?
Ok - unequal sized squares.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.
That's fine with me.
Let's see if you can do the same:
How about dividing each state into equal sized squares of a grid in order to determine each district?
No more re-districting into weird shapes and sizes in order to maximize Rep/Dem votes.
Districts are based on population, not area. Districts can't be a uniform size, because population density isn't uniform.
Just look to the UN to see what more representatives will get us. It is hard enough trying to get 435 representatives to agree on anything (look at congressional grid-lock now), how hard do you suppose it would be to get 3000 representatives to agree? If the problem for some is under representation, why not use our technology and let the people directly vote on major issues (money). Let the 435 reps take care of the mundane BS.
Ok - unequal sized squares.That's fine with me.
Let's see if you can do the same:
How about dividing each state into equal sized squares of a grid in order to determine each district?
No more re-districting into weird shapes and sizes in order to maximize Rep/Dem votes.
Districts are based on population, not area. Districts can't be a uniform size, because population density isn't uniform.
Who is going to pay for it?
i hadn't even gotten that far....
but it doesn't sound very small government conservative...
Just look to the UN to see what more representatives will get us. It is hard enough trying to get 435 representatives to agree on anything (look at congressional grid-lock now), how hard do you suppose it would be to get 3000 representatives to agree? If the problem for some is under representation, why not use our technology and let the people directly vote on major issues (money). Let the 435 reps take care of the mundane BS.
The UN is not the HoR.
Imbecile.
Aiyee!
Here's how it works, for those of you that have never been to DC : The House was stopped at 435 representatives because it's too small to hold any more.
As we need works programs and it's better to spend tax money on jobs than on war, it would make a great deal of sense to expand the Capitol Building. Expansion would give our reps decent office space, too, as well as making the place more energy efficient. It's not like expansion would destroy the asthetics of the current building.
As for representation, if we're going for one rep per 100,000 people, we need 3,000 reps. I like the idea. A lot. More individual communities, with individual interests, would get representation.
Do we just make a bunch of little squares? Of course not - the Mojave Desert doesn't need a representative, does it? And should a huge city like New York get a representative and two cattle ranches in west Texas also have a single representative? No, Congressional districts should be divided according to population. That's not to say we need squiggly lines, either, division to throw voter tallies is absolutely wrong.
Aiyee!
Here's how it works, for those of you that have never been to DC : The House was stopped at 435 representatives because it's too small to hold any more.
As we need works programs and it's better to spend tax money on jobs than on war, it would make a great deal of sense to expand the Capitol Building. Expansion would give our reps decent office space, too, as well as making the place more energy efficient. It's not like expansion would destroy the asthetics of the current building.
As for representation, if we're going for one rep per 100,000 people, we need 3,000 reps. I like the idea. A lot. More individual communities, with individual interests, would get representation.
Do we just make a bunch of little squares? Of course not - the Mojave Desert doesn't need a representative, does it? And should a huge city like New York get a representative and two cattle ranches in west Texas also have a single representative? No, Congressional districts should be divided according to population. That's not to say we need squiggly lines, either, division to throw voter tallies is absolutely wrong.
How about one rep for 200K or 300K?
As for how do we pay for them (not your comment) cut their salaries by 3/4.
Personally, I'm sick of my home state only having one rep.
With basically two political parties that's all the representation needed. If we had ten political parties it would be a different story. The two parties offer us a chance to support two groups, the world corporations or the average American. While that would seem a simple choice for Americans, add to the corporations tons of money spent on convincing us that corporations are here, not for profit, but to help America.
Corporations have had to become people, our friendly neighbor, just-plain-folk, and programs that help people presented as evil and socialistic. How effective are the corporations? Considering what they are trying to do, and with what, very effective-and needed to keep the two party system alive.
