Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SecretMethod70
the House is not just about voting; it is also about debating. It's difficult enough for our 435 member House to debate the issues adequately.
...
I want a House where the members debate with each other and learn from each other - even if those other people don't represent the same constituents - and are swayed by arguments.
|
The notion that there is debate and deliberation in the House chamber is myth, at least relative to modern times. If you'll visit the House when it's "in session" it usually is about as populated as a museum at 3am.
Most of the real work gets done in committees, and that will remain so in a 6,000 member House.
I say more about this at:
Q9:
How would that many Representatives get anything done?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SecretMethod70
There's another thing that's being forgotten here: state governments. It's much more reasonable to fight for returning power to state governments - bodies which are necessarily closer to and more accountable to their constituents - than to drastically change the federal government to more closely represent citizens. The discussion here is going on as if the House is the part of government closest to the people, and that it is therefore unacceptable for House members to represent such large constituencies. But there are so many other governmental bodies which are closer to the people and more easily held accountable. You don't need a 6,000 member House when the state government has a more important role in the lives of its citizens.
|
Two comments. First, though this is outside TTO's mission, most state legislature's district are too large. There is someone in CA (who has kept in touch with me) who is leading an effort to reduce the size of California's massive state legislative districts.
Second, repeal the 17th Amendment (again this is unrelated to TTO, so that would be a better subject for a separate thread).