USMB Political Hackery

[mamooth]

The downside is the smaller the district, the harder it is to gerrymander. And that any redistricting threatens the fortunes of the party which controlled the redistricting in 2010, which was overwhelmingly the Republicans. Hence, every Republican will fight it. At least until 2020, when the districts are redrawn again. Then the Democrats might fight it.

Point. I dunno. That you'd have to get this in as part of the decadal redistricting, in order for it to have any chance.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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[sic].

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!!!

The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Samson For This Useful Post:
alan1 (10-20-2012), Care4all (10-20-2012), hjmick (10-29-2012), Kevin_Kennedy (10-20-2012), kiwiman127 (10-20-2012), mal (10-20-2012), MeBelle60 (Today), Oddball (10-20-2012)

solution: larger government body

 

[Samson]

The downside is the smaller the district, the harder it is to gerrymander. And that any redistricting threatens the fortunes of the party which controlled the redistricting in 2010, which was overwhelmingly the Republicans. Hence, every Republican will fight it. At least until 2020, when the districts are redrawn again. Then the Democrats might fight it.

Point. I dunno. That you'd have to get this in as part of the decadal redistricting, in order for it to have any chance.

First you'd need to pass the resolution to expand the house.

Redistricting is done, regularly, at the state level, and challenged in Federal court, thus drawing boundries has nothing to do with the tread; How this is done would remain the status quo.

 

[Nightson]

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!!!

I agree with you. It's an epiphany--one's awakening to the absurdity of the machinery that governs us. All three hundred plus million of us. It's kind of an "So has this ever occurred you before?" kind of question (illuminated lightbulb pops up overhead). To which I emphatically, exasperatedly answer "Yes, of course, it's occurred to me, now let me get back to watching Dancing With The Stars". But seriously, as good an idea as better representation through multiplication of representitives is, the the machine knows no other way. Cold forged iron gears click and turn. Of the approximately 770,000 constituants each congressman represents, I am willing to count most of them--even the sentient ones among the majority, as happy to play this way so long as the quickie mart carries pop and go go juice for their ride. Bliss and remiss in acceptance.

 

[regent]

Perhaps some also realize the futility of pushing for a political change that has little or no chance of coming to pass. The Constitution did not create a government with multiple political parties in mind, in fact the founders had no political parties in mnd. d
There are vested interests that want no change to parts of our political system and those vested interests are required to make the change.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Perhaps some also realize the futility of pushing for a political change that has little or no chance of coming to pass. The Constitution did not create a government with multiple political parties in mind, in fact the founders had no political parties in mnd. d
There are vested interests that want no change to parts of our political system and those vested interests are required to make the change.

JEsus Christ, that old line again. The Framers and the Founders formed the first political parties, so can the bullshit.

What Madison warned against were factions. Factions have a specific set of interests separate from the whole. Parties used to speak to the whole.

It all stopped when the GOP around the time of Ronald Reagan chased out Republicans from the Big Tent of the Grand Old Party. Now the GOP is controlled lock, stock, and barrel by a faction .. right wingnuts

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The downside is the smaller the district, the harder it is to gerrymander. And that any redistricting threatens the fortunes of the party which controlled the redistricting in 2010, which was overwhelmingly the Republicans. Hence, every Republican will fight it. At least until 2020, when the districts are redrawn again. Then the Democrats might fight it.

Point. I dunno. That you'd have to get this in as part of the decadal redistricting, in order for it to have any chance.

First you'd need to pass the resolution to expand the house.

Redistricting is done, regularly, at the state level, and challenged in Federal court, thus drawing boundries has nothing to do with the tread; How this is done would remain the status quo.

Oh fuck off. Your pseudo-intellectual bullshit is nauseating

 

[mamooth]

I remember my first drunken dorm room discussion. Such happy times. We ranted about the sheep of the two-party system as well.

 

[midcan5]

Does this mean we should have bunches and bunches of presidents? The suggestions seems absurd in a nation in which states, counties, cities etc have lots of these so called legislatures and representatives. Maybe we need a counselor for every ten citizens too? I thought in America we did it all on our own or something like that.


"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist....We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together." Dwight D. Eisenhower

 

[regent]

Perhaps some also realize the futility of pushing for a political change that has little or no chance of coming to pass. The Constitution did not create a government with multiple political parties in mind, in fact the founders had no political parties in mnd. d
There are vested interests that want no change to parts of our political system and those vested interests are required to make the change.

JEsus Christ, that old line again. The Framers and the Founders formed the first political parties, so can the bullshit.

What Madison warned against were factions. Factions have a specific set of interests separate from the whole. Parties used to speak to the whole.

It all stopped when the GOP around the time of Ronald Reagan chased out Republicans from the Big Tent of the Grand Old Party. Now the GOP is controlled lock, stock, and barrel by a faction .. right wingnuts

The framers made no provision for political parties in the counstitution. It was believed by some that factions would offset factions. The irony was that the constitution caused the factions to coalesce into basically two parties, and the electoral college keeps them in two parties.
Wonder if the modern GOP came about when Truman began easing the southern Democrats out of the party and they became Republicans? But I agree the GOP today is controlled by far right wingnuts and they make no attempt to hide it, and it's where the money is, but where can the moderate Republican go?

 

[Samson]

The irony was that the constitution caused the factions to coalesce into basically two parties, and the electoral college keeps them in two parties.......

How does the Constitution promote bipartisan government? And how does the electoral college have to do with sustaining bipartisan government?

Niether of these has anything to do with promoting partisanship.

The proto-partisans formed around the issue of small states Vs large states, and populated states vs unpopulated states. The issue was resolved in forming the Senate and HoR.

Next, partisanship was defined by those that either liked the French (Jefferson), or hated the French (Adams).

 

[freedombecki]

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!!!

This is a good point to review, Samson, and I'm glad you brought it up.

In America, we have redefined government as a people who have gone through a process.

Along the way, we started employing extremists to help moderates make choices, but we lost moderation in the process, and now, government is by the extremists themselves, and not by representatives. That came about by legislating to a small number of people who benefitted the larger, and a press that doesn't give any but a myopic view.

At present, we have a press lockstepped into a faction of extremists who want to do a Bolshevik number on the founder's constitution which doesn't fit into the Government-as-owner-and-caregiver-of-everyone schema, and traditionalists who mind. The rift is pretty wide, and avails America to more extremism than ever, and it splits us in two, sadly.

Adding more people in government to make laws carries a common i.e.d. of centralized government blowing up states rights.

The founders set up a system to keep a country as large as ours operating through broad common goals that protect freedoms of individuals alive at the time the Constitution was written. So careful were they that when we are swayed by debaters with strong goal-oriented agendas to increase federal power, we lose integrity of agreements the nation made with low-population states guaranteed an equal voice in government. I realize this occasionally brings out some angst between large and small states, but it does keep smaller states in the position of having a voice and from being swamped by population centers that have completely different needs for keeping human systems and institutions in order.

Term limits viewed from the perspective that locals should have some say in who represents them is not desirable in certain areas of the country that view experience in politics wins them advantages. There was a reason the founders did not take that away from the people, whilst being themselves willing to back off after two terms to give younger men the opportunity and experience it would take to lead the nation at another given time.

My problem with adding more spenders to the rolls of Congress is that it might increase Congressional spending.

That's taking money out of private hands and putting them into an almighty federalist system.

The founders were chary of too much centralized power because it was too much like the European harpies they had just thrown off their backs.

The founders knew the weight of a big power was undesirable to the man on the street. That means something to this American.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well said Becki. The Founders intended for the people to govern themselves, not be governed by a central government. It was the first such concept in the history of the world and continues to be the only such concept in the history of the world. The purpose of the federal government was to secure our ability to do that without violating unalienable rights of those who chose to govern themselves differently than we chose for ourselves.

After giving this some thought, I'm not sure that enlarging the HOR would accomplish anything other than creating more factions. The goal should be to restore the federal government to its original purpose and then we could actually reduce the HOR with no problem at all.

 

[regent]

Well said Becki. The Founders intended for the people to govern themselves, not be governed by a central government. It was the first such concept in the history of the world and continues to be the only such concept in the history of the world. The purpose of the federal government was to secure our ability to do that without violating unalienable rights of those who chose to govern themselves differently than we chose for ourselves.

After giving this some thought, I'm not sure that enlarging the HOR would accomplish anything other than creating more factions. The goal should be to restore the federal government to its original purpose and then we could actually reduce the HOR with no problem at all.

Of course the founders did not intend the people to govern themselves, only somewhat. Of the three branches of govenment the founders the people selected one half of one branch. Democracy was a word that brought up fear to most of the framers, sort of like the word communism does today.
The ancient Greeks had a number their city-states try forms of democracy, even direct democracy. Might even check the heritage of the word "democracy."

 

[Foxfyre]

Well said Becki. The Founders intended for the people to govern themselves, not be governed by a central government. It was the first such concept in the history of the world and continues to be the only such concept in the history of the world. The purpose of the federal government was to secure our ability to do that without violating unalienable rights of those who chose to govern themselves differently than we chose for ourselves.

After giving this some thought, I'm not sure that enlarging the HOR would accomplish anything other than creating more factions. The goal should be to restore the federal government to its original purpose and then we could actually reduce the HOR with no problem at all.

Of course the founders did not intend the people to govern themselves, only somewhat. Of the three branches of govenment the founders the people selected one half of one branch. Democracy was a word that brought up fear to most of the framers, sort of like the word communism does today.
The ancient Greeks had a number their city-states try forms of democracy, even direct democracy. Might even check the heritage of the word "democracy."

I disagree. If you study the federalist papers and the anti-federalist papers as well as the plentiful transcripts of speeches, notes, commentary, letters, and other documents the Founders left behind for us, they agreed to a man what liberty is. Their sole motivation was to remove all concepts of a monarchy or dictatorship or fuedal kingdom or papal authority or any other form of authoritarian government so that the people would govern themselves and live their lives as they chose to do that. The role of the federal government was to secure their rights and provide a structure in which they could effectively do that without violating the rights of others.

 

[Foxfyre]

The United States of America is the only nation in the history of the world that was organized to respect and protect the God given unalienable rights of the people rather than the government assigning the people what rights they would have. It produced the most powerful, prosperous, innovative, creative, productive, and benevolent nation the world has ever known. But the Bible speaks of a people who enjoyed such freedom but who clamored for a king. And so they got one and the results were not satisfactory or happy for anybody. So we now have Americans who clamor for a king to provide for them and are willing to give him authority over them in hopes that he will be a benevolent king for them. And nobody is really happy with the results.

 

[Connery]

Quantity will not insure quality. We as interested parties need to hold those we elect responsible for decisions made on our behalf. Many of today's problems are caused by the citizenry as far as I am concerned. I do not want more government, I want effective government.

Quite frankly, less government would compel people to get off their asses and be responsible for their own destiny instead of this paternalistic approach to life that has been instilled in the US today. If we go back in the history of the US, the times of true growth as a society was when people needed to do for themselves such as the westward expansion or WWII when women had to essentially become the breadwinners in the family.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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 smoking?

TX-23 encompasses the parts of San Antonio and stretches west 600 miles engulfing multiple small towns and rural communities. Tell me how, exactly, that gives the people in those small communities any type of representation at the federal level. By the way, the state house of representatives uses the exact same district that Congress does, so the representation level is exactly the same at both state and federal levels.

 

[Foxfyre]

New Mexico has the fifth largest land area in the United States and three representatives in the House. District 3 is a larger area than many states and encompasses the southeastern counties that are all ranch land, oil fields, and generally redneck country and the southernmost counties that are mostly left of center. But one representative represents both.

But still, if we limited the functions of government as the Founders intended, the party representing us would not carry near the consequences that it now does.

 

[regent]

Quantity will not insure quality. We as interested parties need to hold those we elect responsible for decisions made on our behalf. Many of today's problems are caused by the citizenry as far as I am concerned. I do not want more government, I want effective government.

Quite frankly, less government would compel people to get off their asses and be responsible for their own destiny instead of this paternalistic approach to life that has been instilled in the US today. If we go back in the history of the US, the times of true growth as a society was when people needed to do for themselves such as the westward expansion or WWII when women had to essentially become the breadwinners in the family.

It was the during the Great Depression that America had an influx of people that wouldn't work, and whined for jobs and were not responsible. They were an awful, people, lazy wanted food, like little children, not real Americans, but then when WWII came along those bums left America, and a new breed immigrated to America, these new ones were hard workers, independent and winners of wars.
I still wonder where that old group of the lazy depression laggards went, and where the new breed of WWII workers came from. Now some are back wanting food stamps.