USMB Political Hackery

[Samson]

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?

There is no way around the nitpickers.

You must go through them.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Repeal the 17th Amendment, too.

OK, and let's repeal the Second Amendment too; doing so will allow each state or each political subdivision therein to establish laws in re (fire)arms. You do support states rights, don't you odd-person?

 

[freedombecki]

Repeal the 17th Amendment, too.

OK, and let's repeal the Second Amendment too; doing so will allow each state or each political subdivision therein to establish laws in re (fire)arms. You do support states rights, don't you odd-person?

States agreed to the Second Amendment before signing on.

Stay away from my Second Amendment rights. I don't own a gun, but I support the Second Amendment. It was placed near the top of the Bill of Rights on purpose by people who knew what they were doing for this nation.

They didn't include the garbage in the 17th Amendment has brought to this nation, either. They decided the Senate should come directly from the state governments and not the populus. What has resulted since its passage is a huge push to go pure democracy. Those types of government fold quickly. This one may if we do not get rid of the 17th Amendment that has brought a sentiment of hate-business into the arena. It is untenable and unsustainable to go that way, and the Clinton Administration Spin Room in its lust for power evilly acquired proved it.

 

[regent]

Repeal the 17th Amendment, too.

OK, and let's repeal the Second Amendment too; doing so will allow each state or each political subdivision therein to establish laws in re (fire)arms. You do support states rights, don't you odd-person?

States agreed to the Second Amendment before signing on.

Stay away from my Second Amendment rights. I don't own a gun, but I support the Second Amendment. It was placed near the top of the Bill of Rights on purpose by people who knew what they were doing for this nation.

They didn't include the garbage in the 17th Amendment has brought to this nation, either. They decided the Senate should come directly from the state governments and not the populus. What has resulted since its passage is a huge push to go pure democracy. Those types of government fold quickly. This one may if we do not get rid of the 17th Amendment that has brought a sentiment of hate-business into the arena. It is untenable and unsustainable to go that way, and the Clinton Administration Spin Room in its lust for power evilly acquired proved it.

If democracies go fast, what types of governments do not go fast?

 

[Samson]

OK, and let's repeal the Second Amendment too; doing so will allow each state or each political subdivision therein to establish laws in re (fire)arms. You do support states rights, don't you odd-person?

States agreed to the Second Amendment before signing on.

Stay away from my Second Amendment rights. I don't own a gun, but I support the Second Amendment. It was placed near the top of the Bill of Rights on purpose by people who knew what they were doing for this nation.

They didn't include the garbage in the 17th Amendment has brought to this nation, either. They decided the Senate should come directly from the state governments and not the populus. What has resulted since its passage is a huge push to go pure democracy. Those types of government fold quickly. This one may if we do not get rid of the 17th Amendment that has brought a sentiment of hate-business into the arena. It is untenable and unsustainable to go that way, and the Clinton Administration Spin Room in its lust for power evilly acquired proved it.

If democracies go fast, what types of governments do not go fast?

Well as governments go, Roman or Chinese Style Imperialism worked for 1000 years.

Democracies...not so much.

 

[freedombecki]

States agreed to the Second Amendment before signing on.

Stay away from my Second Amendment rights. I don't own a gun, but I support the Second Amendment. It was placed near the top of the Bill of Rights on purpose by people who knew what they were doing for this nation.

They didn't include the garbage in the 17th Amendment has brought to this nation, either. They decided the Senate should come directly from the state governments and not the populus. What has resulted since its passage is a huge push to go pure democracy. Those types of government fold quickly. This one may if we do not get rid of the 17th Amendment that has brought a sentiment of hate-business into the arena. It is untenable and unsustainable to go that way, and the Clinton Administration Spin Room in its lust for power evilly acquired proved it.

If democracies go fast, what types of governments do not go fast?

Well as governments go, Roman or Chinese Style Imperialism worked for 1000 years.

Democracies...not so much.

The thinking among some of the posters I've read here who really don't have a pony in the show for either party is that the 17th Amendment went against the Founder's Republic. I haven't seen a good refutation of their point, and they seem well-versed in wanting to remove what the 17th Amendment started in the way of frittering away at the Free Enterprise system. The claim seems to be if Free Enterprise is abolished, so will incentives and innovations. It seems a compelling case disparaged only by those willing to go the redistribution of wealth by removing the properties of people who have them. That tends to scare me a little because I am retired with enough to last 20 years, but not much more than that. It took such a long time to earn such a small bit of the American dream, and I'd like to enjoy the 20 years I have left on my own property. Unfortunately, since I've lived here in 3 years, they raised taxes from $5,000 a year to $6,000 a year, and now it's over $7,000 a year. They're out front building a new road, which tells me the county taxes will keep on going up. They're not even close to finishing what they started mid-summer. We lost tons of tall trees in the drought 2 years ago, and they fall on the fences.

Between the higher taxes and soaring utility rates, groceries, etc., our 20 years is dwindling down to 5 or 6 years. I'm worried about where they will put us when all our money is gone that we saved for 40 years but are now being taxed to death on account of replacing a road that was really not needing to be replaced, but for county reasons, are thoroughfares to 4 local prison facilities that keep traffic going 3 shifts per diem and loads of folks going to and from their security jobs in these facilities. We're being tapped with high taxes to accommodate thoroughfares for prison workers to speed back and forth to work. Nobody told us this was planned when we moved here, and the commissioners are saying we have to be farmers, when neither of us is able to withstand the rigors of surrogating horses and cows, goats, chickens, and other animals that need constant care and cleaning. We just came here to retire and enjoy the good life. High taxes for other people's agendas are taking away our plans of retiring. We can't jump their ever-moving bar of higher tax rope, except to be bled for all the money in our bank account and retirement savings accounts. Also, the insurance company puts us on hold when we call them for over an hour with static on the lines. One of us no longer has health insurance even though we paid into the same company insurance for 40 years. When Obamacare was announced they changed our $200 deductible to $2500 deductible, which means basically, we were not insured.

Now, my husband cannot get drugs because his insurance company won't answer the phone in a reasonable amount of time when we call. They put us on a no-help call phone, and they don't answer the line for over an hour of terrible static. I can't stand the racket because fibromyalgia makes my ears hurt too much listening to all that static, and my husband has dementia and doesn't know how to stand up for himself any more. We're screwed by everyone who wanted our money when we were working, but now that we're seniors, they don't want to help us and show us that by not helping us in a reasonable amount of time and put us through hell on earth so they hope we will cancel or not pay their ridiculous premiums. It's hell to be old these days. The insurance companies know how to get rid of people they have zero intention of helping, other than to collect fees. The last scam was we requested to have my husband's insurance come direct from our account. They played around with us for hours and came up with the "You have to remember to pays us for 1.5 months before your money will be taken from your account," which was our last contact with them several months ago when they decided we would never talk to them again, no matter how long they put us on perma-hold rather than dealing with our payments. My husband now cannot get any meds for his dementia, and they aren't answering their phones when I call them. Watch out, young people, when you retire, they will scam you out of 40 years of paying premiums to get rid of you when you need help the most.

I'm just sayin'. And I repeat, if you're a Republican, if you ask for help from the government which you supported over the years, the last time I went to the Social Security office and got there bright and early, they already had a room full of people, and I waited from 9:30 am until 4:30 pm, while they took the whole room full of people and everyone else who walked through the door after me until it was almost time for them to go home. If that were a business, they wouldn't last 10 minutes. But because the government pays them, they can wait on anybody they please, make any excuse they want, and bludgeon people who paid taxes for 50 years or more into a corner with no-help to American citizens, and all help for everyone else. We're screwed because we're senior citizens who belong to the wrong party.

 

[Samson]

If democracies go fast, what types of governments do not go fast?

Well as governments go, Roman or Chinese Style Imperialism worked for 1000 years.

Democracies...not so much.

The thinking among some of the posters I've read here who really don't have a pony in the show for either party is that the 17th Amendment went against the Founder's Republic. ....
Between the higher taxes and soaring utility rates, groceries, etc., our 20 years is dwindling down to 5 or 6 years. .....
Now, my husband cannot get drugs because his insurance company won't answer the phone in a reasonable amount of time when we call. ...
I'm just sayin'. And I repeat, if you're a Republican, if you ask for help from the government which you supported over the years, the last time I went to the Social Security office and got there bright and early, they already had a room full of people, and I waited from 9:30 am until 4:30 pm, while they took the whole room full of people and everyone else who walked through the door after me until it was almost time for them to go home. ....

Quite a rant.

I hope you cut it from some chain letter.

 

[Samson]

This thread has nothing to do with the 17th amendment.

Why can we not make congress larger?

 

[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.

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!!!

hmm...

 

[emilynghiem]

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!!!

hmm...

Dear Dante and Samson:
Sorry to eavesdrop on this very last bit of a long ongoing conversation.

I think the problem I find people having is
if "people = government" means people/civilians being their own govt, where govt REFLECTS the will of the people
or if "government = people" means govt IMPOSES or DICTATES the will of the majority rule on everyone else.

As long as both the Left and the Right feel that THEIR candidates and parties "represent the will and interests of the people" you can see how the Left fights to USE govt to establish the policies vs. how the Right fights to keep the policy and decision making in the hands of the people and LIMIT govt from dictating that process. These two sides are working at odds, if they don't work out the conflicts and make sure the policies passed satisfy the concerns and consent of both.

When we talk about "democratizing" govt to allow for LOCAL representation to be better covered, does this mean people governing ourselves and taking BACK control of resources and decisions and having more PARTICIPATION directly in the democratic process? Where the shift is AWAY from federal control in DC and more toward states and people investing in programs and policies governed locally?

or does it mean, as @Sampson seems to imply, injecting more bodies INTO the government institutions, and thinking that is going to diversity or change anything? instead, this is feared as growing bigger bureaucracies even MORE out of check and sync with the "people" ie the rest of the population.

@Sampson if the current system of depending on lawsuits or judges to decide conflicts
ISN'T WORKING to bring about consensus on policies,
what makes you think adding MORE people to govt is going to promote conflict resolution and consensus
that INCLUDES the different groups, angles and interests equally?

Shouldn't the APPROACH to govt change? to include and represent people by party or political beliefs,
instead of competing to outnumber, outvote, outbully and outspend each other and winning by domination,
coercion, collusion and censorship? Instead of real collaboration on solutions that DO include and represent the people's interests in all our diversity?

Doesn't the system and perspective have to change?
And not just take the given mess and multiply it by even more of the same??

 

[regent]

Perhaps, start with ending gerrymandering.

 

[JimH52]

Perhaps, start with ending gerrymandering.

But Gerrymandering and Voter Suppression are the two most effective GOP tools.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

 

[Samson]

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.

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.

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!

 

[Samson]

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 dems would never go along with it..


see-

Civil Rights Division Voting Section Redistricting Information

I'm asking if Samson (and you) would go along with it.

Yes as long as the same number of people were forced to live within each square.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

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.

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!

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.

 

[candycorn]

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.

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.

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!

Time to expand it. No doubt. What is the mechanism for doing that??

 

[Samson]

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.

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.

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!

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.

 

[konradv]

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.

 

[Samson]

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.