Changing America's Political Maps

[imawhosure]

I have to agree with Longknife on this. Increase the number of house seats to dilute their power and influence. Bring it into the range of 350,000 per representative. Minimum 250,000, maximum 450,000. This way, the lines could be drawn more squarely. ALL reps still have equal power. Every 10 years after census, you rebalance once data is released.

 

[imawhosure]

As far as senators.........repeal the 17th amendment. Why? Because the senate was put in soley as a branch of government to represent the states interest in congress. Today, a senator can get elected, and go with the party platform; even if it goes against the elected state officials wishes. What this means is..................the people who elected their state officials for their stance on issues are NOT served. If a state as a whole has a MODERATE view and elects MODERATES to their state legislature, what kind of senator do you think they would appoint? And if they went crazy and moved to the outskirts, the state legislature would recall them and appoint someone else.

You have a driving force of whomever is in charge as the minority/majority whip telling senators if they want contributions to their re-election campaign, you tow the party line. This is exactly how you lose states rights, and make the senate dysfunctional! I can almost promise you, that if the state legislatures appointed their senators, Presidents of BOTH parties would have their vetoes over ridden on a much more consistent basis, and you would have many more bills plopped on his/her desk to consider.

 

[Nyvin]

As far as senators.........repeal the 17th amendment. Why? Because the senate was put in soley as a branch of government to represent the states interest in congress. Today, a senator can get elected, and go with the party platform; even if it goes against the elected state officials wishes. What this means is..................the people who elected their state officials for their stance on issues are NOT served. If a state as a whole has a MODERATE view and elects MODERATES to their state legislature, what kind of senator do you think they would appoint? And if they went crazy and moved to the outskirts, the state legislature would recall them and appoint someone else.

You have a driving force of whomever is in charge as the minority/majority whip telling senators if they want contributions to their re-election campaign, you tow the party line. This is exactly how you lose states rights, and make the senate dysfunctional! I can almost promise you, that if the state legislatures appointed their senators, Presidents of BOTH parties would have their vetoes over ridden on a much more consistent basis, and you would have many more bills plopped on his/her desk to consider.

It actually didn't work out well at all using the original method. Senate Seats (one of the most powerful offices in the country) were regularly given out as favors or bribes or sometimes even just downright "purchased" to unqualified people back before the 17th amendment.

Also since most states have two chambers and usually the governor had to approve the candidate, it was very frequent that electoral deadlocks occurred which resulted in the Senate seat being empty for quite a while, sometimes years. With a popular vote method this never occurs.

Also the before the amendment passed congress it already was passed by 31 state legislatures anyway, even if Congress didn't pass it, it was just a matter of time until it was forced by the states.

 

[HenryBHough]

America's political map just got changed big time!