Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

JEQuidam · 05-01-2008, 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

...a House with thousands of members would be insane.

Why?

And before you answer, consider this: no Representatative, even an honorable and well-intended one, can possibly represent the diverse interests and views of 700,000+ people. Instead, the Reprsentative becomes a compromising politician so instead of everyone being represented, nobody is (except for the special interests).

Maybe you can pick up the phone and communicate with your Representative, but the rest of us can't. In a district of 50,000 people, I am certain that we would be communicating with our Representative.

I believe we can replace 435 politicians with 6,000 citizen Representatives

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

In the words of James Madison: "Sixty or seventy men [in the legislature] may be more properly trusted with a given degree of power than six or seven. But it does not follow that six or seven hundred would be proportionably a better depositary. And if we carry on the supposition to six or seven thousand, the whole reasoning ought to be reversed."

I'm glad you brought up James Madison. He later reversed his position on this matter in a most conspicuous way. First, as one of his amendments to the Bill of Rights, he proposed changing the maximum population size of congressional districts to 30,000 (rather than that being the minimum). In defending his proposal, he stated the following on on August 14, 1789:
"I do not consider it necessary, on this occasion, to go into a lengthy discussion of the advantages of a less or greater representation. I agree that after going beyond a certain point, the number may become inconvenient; … but it is necessary to go to a certain number, in order to secure the great objects of representation. Numerous bodies are undoubtedly liable to some objections, but they have their advantages also; if they are more exposed to passion and fermentation, they are less subject to venality and corruption; and in a Government like this, where the House of Representatives is connected with a smaller body [the Senate], it might be good policy to guard them in a particular manner against such abuse."
Note he says that a large House "may become inconvenient". That's the sort of inconvenience that I believe would be good for the country. Anyway, he made several more such statements, but too many for a posting. Anyone interested in seeing those quotes (and their citations) should download the 70-page report (PDF) from this webpage:
http://www.thirty-thousand.org/pages/QHA-04.htm

It is also worth noting that in Madison's Federalist 55, he predicted there would be 400 Representatives by 1840. We now have only 35 more than that number. Believe me, Madison's ultimate position was quite different than is commonly known.