USMB Political Hackery

[emilynghiem]

Dear Samson:
Representation by District doesn't solve the problem of redistricting to either consolidate or split minorities. If representation is organized by Party, then people don't have to play games with demographics and geographics, but have more direct control over which policies they support and fund. This would also take care of the issue of "who is going to pay" for govt and programs - you pay for your own. If you don't like the two major choices, then go with the Greens or Libertarians. And have all parties agree what issues or areas to delegate to each party, so they don't conflict. If your policy is so bad or unsustainable, only the people who agree to experiment with their own tax dollars will fund it!

Dear Samson:
I was thinking the best way to organize mass representation is by Party.

Could we cap how much is paid to the federal govt in income tax? Such as keeping it at 10% where anything above that is considered a loan, and then giving states or parties an option of working out how to delegate that money "per issue" or "per Party" etc. So if Republicans want to take on the responsibility for the debts from under the Bush administration and Iraq War contracts, and how to redirect funds from supporters to Vets and military and national security; while the Democrats want to focus on "health care" and domestic policies that other groups/taxpayers DON'T necessarily want to fund, could we organize this by Party?

Also, I was thinking the big business contributors could get involved; what if the big business interests could formulate a plan to get China paid back, such as calculating how much debt is owed, issuing credits to China that they can redeem for labor or resources to re-organize their country into educational districts, and rework their economy and labor to gradually offer sustainable living conditions for their workers instead of slave labor where the money goes into the Chinese govt and military.

We wouldn't necessarily depend so much on assigning people to a rep by geographical district, if we could organize by Party or issue (such as addressing the death penalty, and redirecting funds into more cost-effective alternatives and deterrents, or gay marriage, or abortion, or immigration, etc.).

And given how people are ABUSING party politics to represent their own party agenda instead of the constituents in their districts, or states or whole nation; it's almost better to organize the representation and funding from taxpayers by the parties/issues of their choice.

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!!!

 

[Foxfyre]

If we could get through an iron clad law, preferably a constitutional amendment, forbidding the White House or Congress or Supreme Court to pass or order any legislation that provides any form of favor or benefit to one person, group, entity, demographic that does not provide equal benefit to all regardless of race, ethnicity, political party, or socioeconomic sitaution, we could reduce the House of Representatives to one for every million or more people even as all our budget and tax problems would be solved and we would have good government again.

 

[emilynghiem]

If we could get through an iron clad law, preferably a constitutional amendment, forbidding the White House or Congress or Supreme Court to pass or order any legislation that provides any form of favor or benefit to one person, group, entity, demographic that does not provide equal benefit to all regardless of race, ethnicity, political party, or socioeconomic sitaution, we could reduce the House of Representatives to one for every million or more people even as all our budget and tax problems would be solved and we would have good government again.

Look at the Code of Ethics for Govt Service, Public Law 96-303
There is an article about not putting loyalty to party or dept above govt duty.

Like the Bill of Rights, we just need agreements to enforce laws we already have!
And hold all people, whether citizens or corporations, lobbies, unions or PACs/parties
to the same standards. We protest when religious groups threaten to impose agenda
through govt, so why not respect the same for political beliefs and agenda to keep these privately funded by choice not public mandate and certainly not by majority rule of one party over another. We would not do that with religious groups, why let political parties do it?

http://www.ethics-commission.net
CODE OF ETHICS for GOVT SERVICE:

"Any person in Government service should:

"I. Put loyalty to the highest moral principles and to country above loyalty to persons, party, or Government department.

"II. Uphold the Constitution, laws, and regulations of the United States and of all governments therein and never be a party to their evasion.

"III. Give a full day's labor for a full day's pay; giving earnest effort and best thought to the performance of duties.

"IV. Seek to find and employ more efficient and economical ways of getting tasks accomplished.

"V. Never discriminate unfairly by the dispensing of special favors or privileges to anyone, whether for remuneration or not; and never accept, for himself or herself or for family members, favors or benefits under circumstances which might be construed by reasonable persons as influencing the performance of governmental duties.

"VI. Make no private promises of any kind binding upon the duties of office, since a Governmental employee has no private word which can be binding on public duty.

"VII. Engage in no business with the Government, either directly or indirectly, which is inconsistent with the conscientious performance of governmental duties.

"VIII. Never use any information gained confidentially in the performance of governmental duties as a means of making a private profit.

"IX. Expose corruption wherever discovered.

"X. Uphold these principles, ever conscious that public office is a public trust."

 

[Foxfyre]

If we could get through an iron clad law, preferably a constitutional amendment, forbidding the White House or Congress or Supreme Court to pass or order any legislation that provides any form of favor or benefit to one person, group, entity, demographic that does not provide equal benefit to all regardless of race, ethnicity, political party, or socioeconomic sitaution, we could reduce the House of Representatives to one for every million or more people even as all our budget and tax problems would be solved and we would have good government again.

Look at the Code of Ethics for Govt Service, Public Law 96-303
There is an article about not putting loyalty to party or dept above govt duty.

Like the Bill of Rights, we just need agreements to enforce laws we already have!
And hold all people, whether citizens or corporations, lobbies, unions or PACs/parties
to the same standards. We protest when religious groups threaten to impose agenda
through govt, so why not respect the same for political beliefs and agenda to keep these privately funded by choice not public mandate and certainly not by majority rule of one party over another. We would not do that with religious groups, why let political parties do it?

ethics-commission.net
CODE OF ETHICS for GOVT SERVICE:

"Any person in Government service should:

"I. Put loyalty to the highest moral principles and to country above loyalty to persons, party, or Government department.

"II. Uphold the Constitution, laws, and regulations of the United States and of all governments therein and never be a party to their evasion.

"III. Give a full day's labor for a full day's pay; giving earnest effort and best thought to the performance of duties.

"IV. Seek to find and employ more efficient and economical ways of getting tasks accomplished.

"V. Never discriminate unfairly by the dispensing of special favors or privileges to anyone, whether for remuneration or not; and never accept, for himself or herself or for family members, favors or benefits under circumstances which might be construed by reasonable persons as influencing the performance of governmental duties.

"VI. Make no private promises of any kind binding upon the duties of office, since a Governmental employee has no private word which can be binding on public duty.

"VII. Engage in no business with the Government, either directly or indirectly, which is inconsistent with the conscientious performance of governmental duties.

"VIII. Never use any information gained confidentially in the performance of governmental duties as a means of making a private profit.

"IX. Expose corruption wherever discovered.

"X. Uphold these principles, ever conscious that public office is a public trust."

You can post all the rules and regs you want, but the fact remains they still vote themselves power, prestige, influence, personal wealth and keep getting themselves re-elected by dispensing favors and benevolence on key constituencies or making promises to dispense benevolence to key constituencies. And it is the rare Congressman or Senator who is not corrupted by that one single thing. They can claim that none of the stuff in those posted rules and regs are a factor in the legislation they pass or the regulations they impose, but anybody who doesn't think they do it for personal advantage lives in a dream world.

Make it illegal to do it. That means move all the charitable and benevolent stuff out of the federal government entirely and let the states and local communities manage it.

And the problem of adequate representation will be solved.

 

[emilynghiem]

If we could get through an iron clad law, preferably a constitutional amendment, forbidding the White House or Congress or Supreme Court to pass or order any legislation that provides any form of favor or benefit to one person, group, entity, demographic that does not provide equal benefit to all regardless of race, ethnicity, political party, or socioeconomic sitaution, we could reduce the House of Representatives to one for every million or more people even as all our budget and tax problems would be solved and we would have good government again.

Look at the Code of Ethics for Govt Service, Public Law 96-303
There is an article about not putting loyalty to party or dept above govt duty.

Like the Bill of Rights, we just need agreements to enforce laws we already have!
And hold all people, whether citizens or corporations, lobbies, unions or PACs/parties
to the same standards. We protest when religious groups threaten to impose agenda
through govt, so why not respect the same for political beliefs and agenda to keep these privately funded by choice not public mandate and certainly not by majority rule of one party over another. We would not do that with religious groups, why let political parties do it?

ethics-commission.net
CODE OF ETHICS for GOVT SERVICE:

"Any person in Government service should:

"I. Put loyalty to the highest moral principles and to country above loyalty to persons, party, or Government department.

"II. Uphold the Constitution, laws, and regulations of the United States and of all governments therein and never be a party to their evasion.

"III. Give a full day's labor for a full day's pay; giving earnest effort and best thought to the performance of duties.

"IV. Seek to find and employ more efficient and economical ways of getting tasks accomplished.

"V. Never discriminate unfairly by the dispensing of special favors or privileges to anyone, whether for remuneration or not; and never accept, for himself or herself or for family members, favors or benefits under circumstances which might be construed by reasonable persons as influencing the performance of governmental duties.

"VI. Make no private promises of any kind binding upon the duties of office, since a Governmental employee has no private word which can be binding on public duty.

"VII. Engage in no business with the Government, either directly or indirectly, which is inconsistent with the conscientious performance of governmental duties.

"VIII. Never use any information gained confidentially in the performance of governmental duties as a means of making a private profit.

"IX. Expose corruption wherever discovered.

"X. Uphold these principles, ever conscious that public office is a public trust."

You can post all the rules and regs you want, but the fact remains they still vote themselves power, prestige, influence, personal wealth and keep getting themselves re-elected by dispensing favors and benevolence on key constituencies or making promises to dispense benevolence to key constituencies. And it is the rare Congressman or Senator who is not corrupted by that one single thing. They can claim that none of the stuff in those posted rules and regs are a factor in the legislation they pass or the regulations they impose, but anybody who doesn't think they do it for personal advantage lives in a dream world.

Make it illegal to do it. That means move all the charitable and benevolent stuff out of the federal government entirely and let the states and local communities manage it.

And the problem of adequate representation will be solved.

Yes, I agree to shift the social programs back to the states or parties to handle through business, schools, nonprofits and churches.

Let people pay for their own parties and programs, like we do with private churches!

This would also help meet the ethics principles on seeking the most economical and efficient means of getting tasks accomplished. If your party/program is not the most effective way, people won't pay money into it. We should vote with our money, with where our taxes or tax writeoffs go, so people can't manipulate the vote.

If public policy were based on consensus, that represents and includes all groups/views equally, then any conflict would mean delegating different policies/programs per state or party and not having one policy for the whole public if not everyone agrees religiously.

So it would not matter how much you paid politicians to run for office, the decisions would have to reflect public consensus anyway, in order to be Constitutionally inclusive, or else keep those policies private and fund them yourself.

The only people with any influence or authority would be people who can either coordinate a consensus among different groups, or organize each party to be separate from the others.
So you would not need to compete for power and dominance, people would decide policies based on what they support and are willing to fund themselves, and take back responsibility.

 

[kwc57]

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!

Todd, we already have term limits. They are called elections.

 

[Foxfyre]

Look at the Code of Ethics for Govt Service, Public Law 96-303
There is an article about not putting loyalty to party or dept above govt duty.

Like the Bill of Rights, we just need agreements to enforce laws we already have!
And hold all people, whether citizens or corporations, lobbies, unions or PACs/parties
to the same standards. We protest when religious groups threaten to impose agenda
through govt, so why not respect the same for political beliefs and agenda to keep these privately funded by choice not public mandate and certainly not by majority rule of one party over another. We would not do that with religious groups, why let political parties do it?

ethics-commission.net
CODE OF ETHICS for GOVT SERVICE:

"Any person in Government service should:

"I. Put loyalty to the highest moral principles and to country above loyalty to persons, party, or Government department.

"II. Uphold the Constitution, laws, and regulations of the United States and of all governments therein and never be a party to their evasion.

"III. Give a full day's labor for a full day's pay; giving earnest effort and best thought to the performance of duties.

"IV. Seek to find and employ more efficient and economical ways of getting tasks accomplished.

"V. Never discriminate unfairly by the dispensing of special favors or privileges to anyone, whether for remuneration or not; and never accept, for himself or herself or for family members, favors or benefits under circumstances which might be construed by reasonable persons as influencing the performance of governmental duties.

"VI. Make no private promises of any kind binding upon the duties of office, since a Governmental employee has no private word which can be binding on public duty.

"VII. Engage in no business with the Government, either directly or indirectly, which is inconsistent with the conscientious performance of governmental duties.

"VIII. Never use any information gained confidentially in the performance of governmental duties as a means of making a private profit.

"IX. Expose corruption wherever discovered.

"X. Uphold these principles, ever conscious that public office is a public trust."

You can post all the rules and regs you want, but the fact remains they still vote themselves power, prestige, influence, personal wealth and keep getting themselves re-elected by dispensing favors and benevolence on key constituencies or making promises to dispense benevolence to key constituencies. And it is the rare Congressman or Senator who is not corrupted by that one single thing. They can claim that none of the stuff in those posted rules and regs are a factor in the legislation they pass or the regulations they impose, but anybody who doesn't think they do it for personal advantage lives in a dream world.

Make it illegal to do it. That means move all the charitable and benevolent stuff out of the federal government entirely and let the states and local communities manage it.

And the problem of adequate representation will be solved.

Yes, I agree to shift the social programs back to the states or parties to handle through business, schools, nonprofits and churches.

Let people pay for their own parties and programs, like we do with private churches!

This would also help meet the ethics principles on seeking the most economical and efficient means of getting tasks accomplished. If your party/program is not the most effective way, people won't pay money into it. We should vote with our money, with where our taxes or tax writeoffs go, so people can't manipulate the vote.

If public policy were based on consensus, that represents and includes all groups/views equally, then any conflict would mean delegating different policies/programs per state or party and not having one policy for the whole public if not everyone agrees religiously.

So it would not matter how much you paid politicians to run for office, the decisions would have to reflect public consensus anyway, in order to be Constitutionally inclusive, or else keep those policies private and fund them yourself.

The only people with any influence or authority would be people who can either coordinate a consensus among different groups, or organize each party to be separate from the others.
So you would not need to compete for power and dominance, people would decide policies based on what they support and are willing to fund themselves, and take back responsibility.

Great post. And I don't even have any problem with a state or local government taking on some programs now administered or funded by the federal government because state and cities more often implement new programs by consent of the people, and are far more responsive to the opinion of the people about how anything is working or producing as advertised. But the ability of the federal government to impose one-size-fits-all mandates on everybody in a country of this size and diversity should be ended. And the ability of our elected leaders and their appointees to enrich themselves at our expense should also be ended.

If we do that, again it won't be nearly as much problem for an elected representative to meet the expectations of large groups of people. As the system now exists, enlarging the House of Representatives just increases the number and variety of pork barrel outlays stuffed into everything Congress does.

 

[Samson]

Dear Samson:
Representation by District doesn't solve the problem of redistricting to either consolidate or split minorities. If representation is organized by Party, then people don't have to play games with demographics and geographics, but have more direct control over which policies they support and fund.

Maybe there should be 12 Districts.

Each one could send two representatives every year to play in a nationally televised tennis tournament.

The winning team's district would be sent social security checks, food stamps, and cable TV the rest of the year. Losing teams' districts would have to hunt squirrels with bow-and-arrows, and listen to AM radio.

 

[Samson]

, enlarging the House of Representatives just increases the number and variety of pork barrel outlays stuffed into everything Congress does.

No.

Without exception, every influential political and economic special interest operating in this nation will strenuously oppose enlarging the House to the extent necessary to return political power to the citizens. The investment in the status quo is extensive and deep. Powerful special interest groups as well as the federal lobbyist industry depend on their ability to influence a very small number of House members (and Senators) in order to affect legislative and policy outcomes.

It will become impossible to effect the same level of influence upon the House when it consists of thousands of Representatives, especially if those many Representatives are living back in the real world — among their constituency — rather than being concentrated in the surreal parallel universe known as Washington, D.C.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Samson:
Representation by District doesn't solve the problem of redistricting to either consolidate or split minorities. If representation is organized by Party, then people don't have to play games with demographics and geographics, but have more direct control over which policies they support and fund.

Maybe there should be 12 Districts.

Each one could send two representatives every year to play in a nationally televised tennis tournament.

The winning team's district would be sent social security checks, food stations, and cable TV the rest of the year. Losing teams' districts would have to hunt squirrels with bow-and-arrows, and listen to AM radio.

1. The winning candidate could create positions for the nonwinning candidates to manage members of their party within that district. So everyone has representation and their leaders have to work together to include all input or else fund separate policies/programs per issue.

2. People who want to fund the amenities are free to do so through their own parties and management who is paying in and who is taking out -- ie good luck with that! Maybe people would learn that freebies don't work unless you are earning more than you spend. duh!

3. Minimalists who only want to pay for the basic structures and functions of govt can pay for that, but would not get all the fun freebies either.

And yes, if they have enough budget left, after paying back taxpayers for corporate corruption and govt abuses that have run up the debts, they can host tennis tournaments or XBOX matches where I'm sure warcraft contests are still cheaper than real life wargames.

Any costs involved can be covered by creating a reality show, and selling ads, where any extra profits can pay for Big Bird.

 

[Foxfyre]

, enlarging the House of Representatives just increases the number and variety of pork barrel outlays stuffed into everything Congress does.

No.

Without exception, every influential political and economic special interest operating in this nation will strenuously oppose enlarging the House to the extent necessary to return political power to the citizens. The investment in the status quo is extensive and deep. Powerful special interest groups as well as the federal lobbyist industry depend on their ability to influence a very small number of House members (and Senators) in order to affect legislative and policy outcomes.

It will become impossible to effect the same level of influence upon the House when it consists of thousands of Representatives, especially if those many Representatives are living back in the real world — among their constituency — rather than being concentrated in the surreal parallel universe known as Washington, D.C.

So you are going to do away with the Capital chambers altogether? And go to what. Teleconferencing? Or some such electronic means of voting?

 

[Samson]

, enlarging the House of Representatives just increases the number and variety of pork barrel outlays stuffed into everything Congress does.

No.

Without exception, every influential political and economic special interest operating in this nation will strenuously oppose enlarging the House to the extent necessary to return political power to the citizens. The investment in the status quo is extensive and deep. Powerful special interest groups as well as the federal lobbyist industry depend on their ability to influence a very small number of House members (and Senators) in order to affect legislative and policy outcomes.

It will become impossible to effect the same level of influence upon the House when it consists of thousands of Representatives, especially if those many Representatives are living back in the real world — among their constituency — rather than being concentrated in the surreal parallel universe known as Washington, D.C.

So you are going to do away with the Capital chambers altogether? And go to what. Teleconferencing? Or some such electronic means of voting?

Why not? We are no longer living in the 18th century.

It is no longer necessary, or even advantageous, to require that all Representatives convene in one location (nor is it explicitly required by the Constitution). Current technology makes available a host of other means for virtually assembling and voting on bills.

Imagine if four new federal cities were created in four distinct locations around the country (in addition to the one already established in Washington, D.C.). To the extent that assembly was required, it could take place within the regional federal capitol buildings, which could be further interconnected via video conferencing.

Implementing geographically distributed governance — geographically decentralizing the House of Representatives — would also greatly reduce the value of Washington as a strategic military target for our nation’s enemies.

 

[PixieStix]

Then why have any reps?

Perhaps you'd prefer a King.

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.

Exactly many of us are NOT represented and we know this, and have known this for a very long time.

 

[Samson]

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.

Exactly many of us are NOT represented and we know this, and have known this for a very long time.

It is reaching a critical point:

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

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.

January 2012 seems to have been the apex an influx of morons to USMB.

I didn't come in until a couple of months ago, so I guess I came after the apex. I always knew somehow I wasn't the BIGGEST moron here.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

No.

Without exception, every influential political and economic special interest operating in this nation will strenuously oppose enlarging the House to the extent necessary to return political power to the citizens. The investment in the status quo is extensive and deep. Powerful special interest groups as well as the federal lobbyist industry depend on their ability to influence a very small number of House members (and Senators) in order to affect legislative and policy outcomes.

It will become impossible to effect the same level of influence upon the House when it consists of thousands of Representatives, especially if those many Representatives are living back in the real world — among their constituency — rather than being concentrated in the surreal parallel universe known as Washington, D.C.

So you are going to do away with the Capital chambers altogether? And go to what. Teleconferencing? Or some such electronic means of voting?

Why not? We are no longer living in the 18th century.

It is no longer necessary, or even advantageous, to require that all Representatives convene in one location (nor is it explicitly required by the Constitution). Current technology makes available a host of other means for virtually assembling and voting on bills.

Imagine if four new federal cities were created in four distinct locations around the country (in addition to the one already established in Washington, D.C.). To the extent that assembly was required, it could take place within the regional federal capitol buildings, which could be further interconnected via video conferencing.

Implementing geographically distributed governance — geographically decentralizing the House of Representatives — would also greatly reduce the value of Washington as a strategic military target for our nation’s enemies.

I can't go along with this. It makes my cooping gang completely obsolete.

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

Even if you get the ratio down to 1 to 3, if the other two disagree with you, you are going to have no representation.

A more intelligent solution is to take a more active part in the politics of your area. In doing that, you may also find out why you have no representation. It could well be that the things you want that would you believe would benefit you, would not benefit the majority of the voters in your district.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well if we go to a congress that uses all teleconferences, how about each district teleconferencing with its congressperson? We vote our wishes within our district and our elected representative is obligated to cast his/her vote according to the majority vote in his/her district. Going on a district by district basis would eliminate the problem of the tyranny of the majority vote in a purely democratic system, or would it?

I am all for keeping options open and not necessarily doing everything the way it currently is or the way it 'has always been done' yadda yadda, and maybe there is a better way to have truly representative government.

And how do you get around the nitpickers who would say that those without computers or computer skills would be disenfranchised?

 

[zakdavis]

I know this shit is old, but India only has 552 members in its lower house, and 250 members in its upper house. The PRC National People's Congress has a little under 3,000 members. The nation right below us in terms of population, Indonesia, has 560 in its lower house and 360 in its upper house.

 

[candycorn]

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'm all for increasing the size of the HoR. Good post.

I think it is more important to have a House whose membership is determined by fair elections however. Currently, the heavily gerrymandered districts are not serving anyone except those who support this two party system and the parties themselves.