What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Don't you guys need more congree critters?

Dr Grump

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
31,213
Reaction score
6,246
Points
1,130
Location
From the Back of Beyond
I know most of you righties like smaller govt, but Art 1 sect II of your constitution said there should be 1 congressman/woman for every 30,000 constituants. Currently its 1 for every 700,000. At home (NZ) we have 1 MP for every 33,000 citizens.

Forget the big govt aspect of it, what about getting some time with your congress critter in order to put forward your concerns and arguments? Hard to do with so many other voice around, no? or do you get enough representation at state level?
 

del

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2008
Messages
52,099
Reaction score
10,835
Points
2,030
Location
on a one way cul-de-sac
I know most of you righties like smaller govt, but Art 1 sect II of your constitution said there should be 1 congressman/woman for every 30,000 constituants. Currently its 1 for every 700,000. At home (NZ) we have 1 MP for every 33,000 citizens.

Forget the big govt aspect of it, what about getting some time with your congress critter in order to put forward your concerns and arguments? Hard to do with so many other voice around, no? or do you get enough representation at state level?

actually, it says that the number of reps shall not exceed one for every 30,000.
 

jillian

Princess
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
85,490
Reaction score
17,761
Points
2,220
Location
The Other Side of Paradise
I know most of you righties like smaller govt, but Art 1 sect II of your constitution said there should be 1 congressman/woman for every 30,000 constituants. Currently its 1 for every 700,000. At home (NZ) we have 1 MP for every 33,000 citizens.

Forget the big govt aspect of it, what about getting some time with your congress critter in order to put forward your concerns and arguments? Hard to do with so many other voice around, no? or do you get enough representation at state level?

actually, it says that the number of reps shall not exceed one for every 30,000.

i think his point is that one per 30,000 is probably a reasonable number. i know i don't necessarily have the same interests as someone who lives in say... queens.
 

jillian

Princess
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
85,490
Reaction score
17,761
Points
2,220
Location
The Other Side of Paradise
I do think we should expand congress up to 500 or so, but one for every 30,000 would result in 10,365 congresscritters. Which would be too many.

fair assessment... but i do have to wonder if it's correct that it's not possible to address the concerns of that many constituents.

i also have to wonder how many people really avail themselves of the things that members of congress are able to assist their constituents with.
 

jillian

Princess
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
85,490
Reaction score
17,761
Points
2,220
Location
The Other Side of Paradise
I think the divisor right now is around 700,000. that is just too many and it makes for too much separation.

I am pretty sure the UK does like 700 MPs. It results in a divisor smaller than for a state rep here in Oregon.

i'm sure that's correct. and it's probably reasonable. we're larger than the UK, and us having fewer than 700 congress members is probably totally insufficient. as you saw, even NZ has 1 MP per 30,000. i know from having talked to grump about it, that there are MPs who specifically fill Maori seats so they can address the concerns of that community.
 

yidnar

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2011
Messages
15,174
Reaction score
8,307
Points
1,220
Location
Inside your head.
don't we have enough damn crooks in washington ??
 

del

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2008
Messages
52,099
Reaction score
10,835
Points
2,030
Location
on a one way cul-de-sac
I know most of you righties like smaller govt, but Art 1 sect II of your constitution said there should be 1 congressman/woman for every 30,000 constituants. Currently its 1 for every 700,000. At home (NZ) we have 1 MP for every 33,000 citizens.

Forget the big govt aspect of it, what about getting some time with your congress critter in order to put forward your concerns and arguments? Hard to do with so many other voice around, no? or do you get enough representation at state level?

actually, it says that the number of reps shall not exceed one for every 30,000.

i think his point is that one per 30,000 is probably a reasonable number. i know i don't necessarily have the same interests as someone who lives in say... queens.

i don't think we need 1000+ reps.

most of them do nothing and the rest of them steal
 

jillian

Princess
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
85,490
Reaction score
17,761
Points
2,220
Location
The Other Side of Paradise
actually, it says that the number of reps shall not exceed one for every 30,000.

i think his point is that one per 30,000 is probably a reasonable number. i know i don't necessarily have the same interests as someone who lives in say... queens.

i don't think we need 1000+ reps.

most of them do nothing and the rest of them steal

i'd disagree with that assessment. every member of congress offers constituent services. every one of them has people on staff to help whether you have a problem with the gas company or your landlord... they can't always help.. but if it's within their purview, they actually do good work. most of the ones i've met take their obligation pretty seriously... even if it's just a way to maintain a relationship with voters.
 

Quantum Windbag

Gold Member
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
58,308
Reaction score
5,094
Points
245
I know most of you righties like smaller govt, but Art 1 sect II of your constitution said there should be 1 congressman/woman for every 30,000 constituants. Currently its 1 for every 700,000. At home (NZ) we have 1 MP for every 33,000 citizens.

Forget the big govt aspect of it, what about getting some time with your congress critter in order to put forward your concerns and arguments? Hard to do with so many other voice around, no? or do you get enough representation at state level?

actually, it says that the number of reps shall not exceed one for every 30,000.

Isn't it amazing how many people have trouble reading?
 

Dont Taz Me Bro

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
57,219
Reaction score
23,012
Points
2,330
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada
Nobody can effectively represent 700,000 people. We definitely need more members in the House, but there is little will to do it. More representatives means a dilution of power for each member and they don't want that.
 

jillian

Princess
Joined
Apr 4, 2006
Messages
85,490
Reaction score
17,761
Points
2,220
Location
The Other Side of Paradise
Nobody can effectively represent 700,000 people. We definitely need more members in the House, but there is little will to do it. More representatives means a dilution of power for each member and they don't want that.

you've asked?
 

Quantum Windbag

Gold Member
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
58,308
Reaction score
5,094
Points
245
I know most of you righties like smaller govt, but Art 1 sect II of your constitution said there should be 1 congressman/woman for every 30,000 constituants. Currently its 1 for every 700,000. At home (NZ) we have 1 MP for every 33,000 citizens.

Forget the big govt aspect of it, what about getting some time with your congress critter in order to put forward your concerns and arguments? Hard to do with so many other voice around, no? or do you get enough representation at state level?

actually, it says that the number of reps shall not exceed one for every 30,000.

i think his point is that one per 30,000 is probably a reasonable number. i know i don't necessarily have the same interests as someone who lives in say... queens.

That would give us 10,000+ congresscritters. That should set anyone back, even progressives.
 
Last edited:

del

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2008
Messages
52,099
Reaction score
10,835
Points
2,030
Location
on a one way cul-de-sac
i think his point is that one per 30,000 is probably a reasonable number. i know i don't necessarily have the same interests as someone who lives in say... queens.

i don't think we need 1000+ reps.

most of them do nothing and the rest of them steal

i'd disagree with that assessment. every member of congress offers constituent services. every one of them has people on staff to help whether you have a problem with the gas company or your landlord... they can't always help.. but if it's within their purview, they actually do good work. most of the ones i've met take their obligation pretty seriously... even if it's just a way to maintain a relationship with voters.

then expand their staffs.

i see no upside to more media crazed egomaniacs yapping much and accomplishing nothing of worth to anyone who doesn't grease their palm in the form of campaign cash
 

Quantum Windbag

Gold Member
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
58,308
Reaction score
5,094
Points
245
I think the divisor right now is around 700,000. that is just too many and it makes for too much separation.

I am pretty sure the UK does like 700 MPs. It results in a divisor smaller than for a state rep here in Oregon.

It is actually around one rep for every 16 thousand people. That explains why they don't care about anyone who is not rich.
 
Last edited:

del

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2008
Messages
52,099
Reaction score
10,835
Points
2,030
Location
on a one way cul-de-sac
I think the divisor right now is around 700,000. that is just too many and it makes for too much separation.

I am pretty sure the UK does like 700 MPs. It results in a divisor smaller than for a state rep here in Oregon.

It is actually around one rep for every 16 million people. That explains why they don't care about anyone who is not rich.

your math is way off
 

Dot Com

Nullius in verba
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
52,842
Reaction score
7,862
Points
1,830
Location
Fairfax, NoVA
United States House of Representatives - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The only constitutional rule relating to the size of the House says: "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand."[4] Congress regularly increased the size of the House to account for population growth until it fixed the number of voting House members at 435 in 1911.[1] The number was temporarily increased to 437 in 1959 upon the admission of Alaska and Hawaii (seating one representative from each of those states without changing existing apportionment), and returned to 435 four years later, after the reapportionment consequent to the 1960 census.
Besides, The conservative (Republican) Robert$ Court said, inre: Citizens United, that corps & lobbyists can represent us :) :rolleyes:
 

Quantum Windbag

Gold Member
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
58,308
Reaction score
5,094
Points
245
I think the divisor right now is around 700,000. that is just too many and it makes for too much separation.

I am pretty sure the UK does like 700 MPs. It results in a divisor smaller than for a state rep here in Oregon.

It is actually around one rep for every 16 million people. That explains why they don't care about anyone who is not rich.

your math is way off

That it is, so I fixed it.

Thanks for the catch.
 

Dont Taz Me Bro

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
57,219
Reaction score
23,012
Points
2,330
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada
Nobody can effectively represent 700,000 people. We definitely need more members in the House, but there is little will to do it. More representatives means a dilution of power for each member and they don't want that.

you've asked?

Politicians cling to power like barnacles to a sunken ship.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$120.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top