A "People's House" or an oligarchy? - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

ratbastid · 05-01-2008, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JEQuidam

Well, if you think that 300,000,000 people can deliberate and vote on legislation, then you should be quite comfortable with the prospect of 6,000 doing so.

Well, no, I'm not convinced they can. But I like the idea very much.

SecretMethod70 · 05-01-2008, 10:16 AM

Heh, yeah, I'll side with ratbastid on that one. The idea of one representative per 50,000 citizens is a great one. I just don't think it's practical at all.

JEQuidam · 05-01-2008, 10:22 AM

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).

SecretMethod70 · 05-01-2008, 10:28 AM

Oh, I agree that not much debating gets done in the House. I'm just saying there should be debating, and we should be making it more likely, not less likely, that it takes place.

Reducing the size of state legislative districts sounds like a more reasonable proposal, though I'd have to say I'm not nearly as familiar with the specifics of those when it comes to size, etc.

I go back and forth on the 17th amendment, but I definitely think it's something worthy of debate.

One interesting argument a friend of mine had in a recent debate I had with him over the 17th is that the best way to ensure states fight for and maintain their rights (because, we must recognize that states have less rights now because, for the most part, they've willingly allowed them to be taken or given away) is the make sure that states do not feel they have a significant voice in the federal government. Repealing the 17th could (and, likely, would) increase the illusion that states have significant influence in federal government, and should therefore not be too worried when federal government has power that the states do not.

(I should note, since I'm bringing this up, that I do think federal government needs to be larger than it was originally set up in the constitution, because our nation and world is increasingly interconnected, and our problems increasingly require the careful collaboration of those interconnected parts and the implementation of large scale solutions, but that is not to say that I don't also think there are plenty of things the federal government does that it does not need to do.)

JEQuidam · 05-01-2008, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

Oh, I agree that not much debating gets done in the House. I'm just saying there should be debating, and we should be making it more likely, not less likely, that it takes place.

I have no doubt that as the size of the House increases so will the amount of debate and, moreover, more citizens will be involved in the debate as the various Representatives have townhall meetings (in their small district) to publicly discuss critical issues and also educate their constituency. I believe that this would result in a considerable increase in civic involvement.

SecretMethod70 · 05-01-2008, 10:40 AM

Well, since neither of our assertions here are based on evidence, but rather based on gut feeling, I'll just say I disagree with that.

Willravel · 05-01-2008, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JEQuidam

I have no doubt that as the size of the House increases so will the amount of debate and, moreover, more citizens will be involved in the debate as the various Representatives have townhall meetings (in their small district) to publicly discuss critical issues and also educate their constituency. I believe that this would result in a considerable increase in civic involvement.

I find your take on this matter to be somewhat more religious than reasonable. I'm curious: why do you so strongly support something for which there's no data to support?

JEQuidam · 05-01-2008, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

...The idea of one representative per 50,000 citizens is a great one. I just don't think it's practical at all.

Democracy itself is an extremely impractical idea. I would argue that there is no form of government more "practical" than a totalitarian state.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

Well, since neither of our assertions here are based on evidence, but rather based on gut feeling, I'll just say I disagree with that.

You don't believe that more represenatives will increase debate? Really?

The_Jazz · 05-01-2008, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JEQuidam

Democracy itself is an extremely impractical idea. I would argue that there is no form of government more "practical" than a totalitarian state.

You forget anarchy, the ultimate in slacker utilitarianism.

I maintain that this will neither increase nor decrease voter apathy once the newness of it all wears off. This, if anything, requires MORE participation and attention than the current system, and the vox populi is too busy trying to catch glimpses of Britney's cooter to follow politics. If they weren't Bush would have been gone months ago.

ratbastid · 05-01-2008, 10:56 AM

Okay, JEQuidam--having thought about it some more, I'm less and less convinced that this can ever be accomplished, given the system we're starting with. So I'm curious about what approach you're taking. Obviously you're hitting the webroots rather hard. I'm curious: how many conversations are you having parallel to this one right now on other boards?

But then what's next? Do you have a legislative proposal drafted? Are you contacting congresscritters to sponsor it? Have you brought this before any legislators at any level? If not, who do you plan to start with?

SecretMethod70 · 05-01-2008, 10:56 AM

Let me rephrase for (possibly) more accuracy: I don't believe that more representatives will increase intelligent and productive debate. Certainly not with 5,500 more. The_Jazz touched on just one of many reasons.

JEQuidam · 05-01-2008, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I find your take on this matter to be somewhat more religious than reasonable.

Religious? I don't understand the comparison.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I'm curious: why do you so strongly support something for which there's no data to support?

Well, you need to be more specific about exactly what thing I have no data for. Yes, some of my assertions are based on my convictions about people and my fellow American. I do not mind holding up these convictions for ridicule, especially among my more cynical fellow citizens. However, on many points I have no shortage of data. There is a half a gig of information on the Thirty-Thousand.org website, and it is all wall cited. It would take one many weeks to read through all that info.

But at this point I am happy to get people to debate whether or not 435 is a sacrosanct number (as per Lozier's quote in my initial post).

SecretMethod70 · 05-01-2008, 11:05 AM

I don't think anyone here would say 435 is sacrosanct. The question is more accurately whether or not 435 needs to be significantly changed. I haven't seen anyone imply that even if there's evidence changing it would be good, that we shouldn't.

JEQuidam · 05-01-2008, 11:08 AM

Actually, you can call me "Jeff"

These are great questions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Okay, JEQuidam--having thought about it some more, I'm less and less convinced that this can ever be accomplished, given the system we're starting with.

Your pessimism is well warranted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Obviously you're hitting the webroots rather hard. I'm curious: how many conversations are you having parallel to this one right now on other boards?

Yes. That is the crux of my strategy now. Because, if the people don't care, this will certainly never happen. It's entirely up to us. I'm only trying to start the debate. In a society that questions everything, how did 435 become the unquestionable? Why not some different number? On what basis should that number be determined?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

But then what's next? Do you have a legislative proposal drafted? Are you contacting congresscritters to sponsor it? Have you brought this before any legislators at any level? If not, who do you plan to start with?

Actually. I don't know. I have some ideas, but they are not fully developed.

I have to sign off for now. Got to catch a plane, and do other things. I will come back in a day or two to see if this debate is still going.

Willravel · 05-01-2008, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JEQuidam

Religious? I don't understand the comparison.

Faith is the devotion to an idea without evidence being necessary. You seem to have faith in this idea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JEQuidam

Well, you need to be more specific about exactly what thing I have no data for.

Sorry, I'll try to be as specific as possible. Can you provide evidence or data that supports the idea that changing the number of representatives will be a boon in any way to the process of representation of the people?

roachboy · 05-01-2008, 11:31 AM

this is as baffling a proposal as i've seen anywhere...so the "insidious degradation of american "democracy"" can be rectified by expanding the size of the house of representatives how exactly?

and oligarchy is being used as a counter example in what sense?

i have looked around at the townhall (tm) blog space and assume that this proposal is somehow linked to a nostalgia for decentralized forms of american democratic practice, the sort of range that grew out of local necessity and a lack of centralizing or co-ordinating mechanisms and media...

but how one would get from there to an enormous house of representatives to a claim that making the house enormous would in itself do anything at all...i don't follow.

well, it's clear that it would make for a more convincing theater of representation in the context of which carl schmitt probably would appear to be correct about the interminable blah blah blah of democracy, which required the Intervention of a Decider in the Context of a State of Exception--so a pseudo-republic behind which an authoritarian state would operate--so a form of authoritarian state amongst the leading characteristics of which would be a tick for referring to itself as a republic and maintaining self-paralyzing rituals to go along with it....that is, if you were to imagine this strange idea as wedged onto the existing order.

no particular attention to procedural questions--no particular attention to implications--just a question (why 435?) and a counter (why not 300,000)---well, why not pay attention to procedural matters and move toward direct democracy--or don't pay attention and move toward an new and improved version of the american style of soft totalitarian government.

Cynthetiq · 05-01-2008, 01:35 PM

I don't think that increasing the representatives increases my "voice" better, especially since I live in an extremely dense city. The concerns that 1657 different apartments have in my cooperative apartment building vary depending on single, married, or family, but the major concerns of quality of life are met at a crossroads. How would additional people swing more influence where and when it mattered?

It gives much more representation to densely populated areas and less to areas with less population. Isn't that the other reason why there are 2 Sentators from each state to help even and balance it out?

Based on demopraphia.com Manhattan is 69,873 pop/sq mi., so NYC would generally always have a leg up on all legislation. As would LA, SF, Houston, and Seattle. The people in Utah, Nevada, or Alaska would be sorely under represented since they would barely be able to be vocal compared to other states.

The trends for all things has been to do the same or better job with less resources. I don't see how increasing the seats of congress makes it for a more balanced act.

Also, I don't want to pay more for anything. I pay what I feel is enough, and frankly will fight tooth and nail for any increased spending and expenditures. More congress means more offices in Washington DC. Most congressional people have a pie d'tierre to stay when they are in town. Taxpayers foot some of that bill.

Quote:

NJPoliticker.com
In 2000, Smith spent 73 days and 41 nights in his district, according to Congressional spending reports. That's 20% of his days (including travel days) and 11.23% of his nights. Since then, records show the number of days Smith spent in New Jersey has decreased almost every year.

2001- 59 days, 31 nights

2002 -56 days, 26 nights

2003- 47 days, 23 nights

2004 -43 days, 19 nights

2005 - 40 days, 15 nights

2006 - 29 days, 7 nights

2007 - 48 days, 22 nights

We also foot the bill for their normal day to day vehicles.

What Would You Drive, if the Taxpayers Paid? click to show

Quote:

View: What Would You Drive, if the Taxpayers Paid?
Source: NYTimes
posted with the TFP thread generator

What Would You Drive, if the Taxpayers Paid?
May 1, 2008
What Would You Drive, if the Taxpayers Paid?
By RAYMOND HERNANDEZ
Representative Anthony D. Weiner, Democrat of Brooklyn and Queens, drives a 2008 Chevrolet Impala, leased for $219 a month. Representative Michael R. McNulty, a Democrat from the Albany area, gets around in a 2007 Mercury Mariner hybrid, a sport utility vehicle, for $816 a month.

“It gets a little better than 25 miles a gallon,” Mr. McNulty said.

Charles B. Rangel, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, is not so caught up in the question of gas mileage. He leases a 2004 Cadillac DeVille for $777.54 a month. The car is 17 feet long with a 300-horsepower engine and seats five comfortably.

“It’s one of the bigger Cadillacs,” Mr. Rangel, of Harlem, said cheerfully this week. “I’ve got a desk in it. It’s like an airplane.”

Modest or more luxurious, the cars are all paid for by taxpayers. The use of a car — gas included — is one of the benefits of being a member of the House of Representatives.

There are few restrictions on what kind of car the members can choose, and there is no limit on how much they can spend. But the benefit can be politically sensitive, given the growing concerns about automobile emissions and an economy that has left many people struggling to pay for the rapidly rising cost of gas, which was averaging $3.63 a gallon nationwide earlier this week.

Not only does the federal government pick up the cost of the lease and the gas, but also general maintenance, insurance, registration fees and excess mileage charges. The perk itself may draw heightened attention in the coming weeks as members of Congress consider proposals to address gas prices, including one to suspend temporarily the federal excise tax on gasoline, 18.4 cents a gallon.

Congressional records show that about 125 members of the House make use of the benefit, which has been in place since at least the 1980s and is part of the allowance provided for their office operations. They include Representatives Charlie Melancon of Louisiana (2007 Chevy Tahoe), Bobby L. Rush of Illinois (2007 Lincoln Navigator) and Alcee L. Hastings of Florida (2006 Infiniti M45).

The Senate does not permit its members to lease cars with public money.

Of the 42 representatives from New York and New Jersey, at least a dozen lease cars, and their choices run the gamut. Some choose not to lease a car, in an effort to avoid yet one more headache.

“There are so many ethical issues people can raise,” said Representative Peter T. King, a Long Island Republican, who stopped leasing a car through his office in 2004. “I felt it just wasn’t worth the trouble or the aggravation. With the issues that people can raise against you, I just figured it didn’t make sense.”

Members have found themselves under fire in their districts for what their constituents may regard as extravagant tastes or for leasing foreign cars. Before the 2006 election, one Ithaca resident denounced Representative Maurice D. Hinchey’s lease of a BMW 530i to The Binghamton Press & Sun-Bulletin, saying that Mr. Hinchey, a Democrat, “sticks it to” the taxpayers and American workers. (Mr. Hinchey also leases a 2007 Nissan Altima for $200 a month for his chief of staff.)

In 2007, the House adopted a rule requiring members to choose cars from a list of low-emissions vehicles approved by the Environmental Protection Agency. Asked about their cars over the past week, many New York representatives offered environmental rationales, some more persuasive than others.

Representative Edolphus Towns, a Brooklyn Democrat, said he had begun to take fuel economy into consideration and recently traded in his 2005 Lincoln Town Car (at $845 a month) for a 2008 Lincoln MKX, called a crossover utility vehicle, (at $715 a month).

“I no longer have the big car because of the gas situation,” Mr. Towns said.

It turns out, however, that the Town Car and the MKX get the same gas mileage: about 16 m.p.g. in the city and 23 on the highway, according to the Department of Energy. House leaders were concerned enough about the issue that they sent a memo to members suggesting that they consider leasing hybrids, according to one lawmaker who leases. Still, among the New York and New Jersey delegation, only one member — Mr. McNulty — uses a hybrid, according to the best available information.

“I think more members are going to be going to the hybrids,” said Mr. McNulty.

Mr. McNulty would not offer an opinion of members who lease more luxurious cars. “I’m not going to judge another member’s decision,” he said. “Mine was utility.”

Other members stand out for their more downscale choices.

Representative Jim Saxton, a Republican of New Jersey, leases a 2004 Chevy TrailBlazer at what he views as a reasonable $310 a month.

“Congressman Saxton feels an elected public official should choose a car that doesn’t cost taxpayers an extravagant amount,” said Jeff Sagnip, his spokesman.

Of course, there are concerns beyond cost, other members say.

“I can tell you Lexus has one of the best services and is one of the most reliable cars I know,” said Representative Gregory W. Meeks, a Queens Democrat, who leases a 2007 Lexus LS 460 at $998 a month. Mr. Meeks, interviewed a few feet from the House floor last week, seemed reluctant to go into detail, saying he was worried that a story about members’ cars could be “distorted” or negative.

“These are never lighthearted stories,” he said. His spokeswoman declined to discuss details of his leasing agreement.

Mr. Towns said leasing makes sense when you put as many miles on a car as he does traveling his Brooklyn district. He typically turns in the cars every few years. “After two years of traveling in the district, that’s a lot of wear and tear,” he said.

For Representative Louise M. Slaughter, a Buffalo-area Democrat, safety was a worry, given her sprawling district. Ms. Slaughter used to drive her personal car to get around, she said. Then, in 2002, her political rivals in the Legislature in Albany redrew her district, in what she viewed as a deliberate effort to force her from office.

The new map, she said, resulted in a vast swath of western New York that is treacherous to travel in winter. She turned to a 2007 Buick Lucerne, which she leases for $808.29 a month.

“For the longest time, I didn’t do it at all,” she said of leasing. But the Lucerne, she said, had good traction and, perhaps more important, came equipped with a satellite tracking system. “I figured if I got stuck in a snow bank people could find me,” she said. “If I’m in an accident, they might be able to find me and not have to wait until the thaw.”

Mr. Rangel said he frequently offers rides to constituents so they can discuss their concerns in the luxurious confines of his DeVille.

“I want them to feel that they are somebody and their congressman is somebody,” Mr. Rangel explained. “And when they say, ‘This is nice,’ it feels good.”

MSD · 05-01-2008, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Representative Anthony D. Weiner, Democrat of Brooklyn and Queens, drives a 2008 Chevrolet Impala, leased for $219 a month. Representative Michael R. McNulty, a Democrat from the Albany area, gets around in a 2007 Mercury Mariner hybrid, a sport utility vehicle, for $816 a month.

“It gets a little better than 25 miles a gallon,” Mr. McNulty said.

Charles B. Rangel, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, is not so caught up in the question of gas mileage. He leases a 2004 Cadillac DeVille for $777.54 a month. The car is 17 feet long with a 300-horsepower engine and seats five comfortably.

Do they have credit ratings of 350? Do they just walk in and sign without negotiating? Are there contracts that allow this kind of gouging? I have a state job, and the "discounts" we get for our contracts have left us paying $13000 for installation of 4 lighting tracks with 8 lights. When we wanted to have the switches changed over to dimmers, it cost us another $1500. I assume this kind of shit is going on at the federal level, too, and it pisses me off that I'm paying for price gouging.

On a lighter note,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

with current technology its not like we would need all 6000 present at a location in order to vote etc.

Ladies and Gentlemen of Congress, it's time to make a decision on this year's defense spending appropriations bill!

If you're a member of the house, Text "Yay" to HOUSE(46873) if you approve of the bill
-or-
you can Text "Nay" to HOUSE(46873) to vote no!

And we didn't forget you, Senators -- you can Text "Yay" to SENAT(73628) if you agree with this year's proposed budget of "Nay" if you don't!

Don't wait, Vote Now! The first 10 members of congress to vote get a free Lil' Wayne ringtone and wallpaper, sized for US Government Blackberries.

Standard text messaging rates apply.

ASU2003 · 05-01-2008, 03:41 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...Party_of_China

It sounds like a communist idea to me. :b

I think you could have a system where you pick certain issues and have 50,000 randomly selected people from the US work on it before it gets to the House or Senate. Things like immigration and healthcare may benefit from a large number of people working on coming up with ideas that would work.

JEQuidam · 05-04-2008, 06:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Faith is the devotion to an idea without evidence being necessary. You seem to have faith in this idea.

Sorry, I'll try to be as specific as possible. Can you provide evidence or data that supports the idea that changing the number of representatives will be a boon in any way to the process of representation of the people?

Yes, I have total conviction that we should signficantly reduce the size of our Congressional districts. However, I respect your criticism.

Regarding "evidence", if you're really interested in considering this subject (rather than simply defending the status quo) then please read the 15 Questions & Answers on TTO's home page at
http://www.thirty-thousand.org.

Numerous arguments are provided that support my contention. Some you will accept, so let's focus specifically on those that you don't accept. There is a half a gig of well cited information on the TTO website, so there's a good chance that I can provide some level of substantiation for any point you want to challenge.

dc_dux · 05-04-2008, 06:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JEQuidam

....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.

I dont see where Madison reversed his position just because he proposed setting a population limit/district that was reasonable for the times.

I'm sticking with Madison, further expounded in Federalist #58:

One observation, however, I must be permitted to add on this subject as claiming, in my judgment, a very serious attention. It is, that in all legislative assemblies the greater the number composing them may be, the fewer will be the men who will in fact direct their proceedings. In the first place, the more numerous an assembly may be, of whatever characters composed, the greater is known to be the ascendency of passion over reason. In the next place, the larger the number, the greater will be the proportion of members of limited information and of weak capacities. Now, it is precisely on characters of this description that the eloquence and address of the few are known to act with all their force. In the ancient republics, where the whole body of the people assembled in person, a single orator, or an artful statesman, was generally seen to rule with as complete a sway as if a sceptre had been placed in his single hand. On the same principle, the more multitudinous a representative assembly may be rendered, the more it will partake of the infirmities incident to collective meetings of the people. Ignorance will be the dupe of cunning, and passion the slave of sophistry and declamation. The people can never err more than in supposing that by multiplying their representatives beyond a certain limit, they strengthen the barrier against the government of a few. Experience will forever admonish them that, on the contrary, AFTER SECURING A SUFFICIENT NUMBER FOR THE PURPOSES OF SAFETY, OF LOCAL INFORMATION, AND OF DIFFUSIVE SYMPATHY WITH THE WHOLE SOCIETY, they will counteract their own views by every addition to their representatives. The countenance of the government may become more democratic, but the soul that animates it will be more oligarchic. The machine will be enlarged, but the fewer, and often the more secret, will be the springs by which its motions are directed.

I read through your page over the last few days and ,IMO, you havent made a very good case for significantly increasing the size of the House...other than an ideological justification.

JEQuidam · 05-04-2008, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

... Federalist #58: AFTER SECURING A SUFFICIENT NUMBER FOR THE PURPOSES OF SAFETY, OF LOCAL INFORMATION, AND OF DIFFUSIVE SYMPATHY WITH THE WHOLE SOCIETY.

Well, let's skip over the fact that you're disregardng many of Madison't other quotes on this subject which produce a different conclusion, and we'll focus on your point: "...AFTER SECURING A SUFFICIENT NUMBER..." (If you want to debate that point, let's start a new thread so as to not bore everyone else.)

I assume you'll then agree that the people of this country should discuss and debate what that "sufficient number" is. I realize that "435" has now become a holy number for many, and that it is sacrilegious to challenge said number. But can the rest of us debate how large our districts should be? In which case, you should argue that reducing the size of the House would be best for the Republic.

Here is my fundamental argument: the total population of our country has tripled since the size of the House was first set at 435. Our average congressional district now consists of 700,000++ people, that will grow to approximately 1,300,000 people per Representative by 2100. I believe that it is NOT possible for a Representative to faithfully represent the diverse views and interests of 700,000++ people. You believe that they can properly represent 700,000++ people. So, we disagree on that fundamental point, which is a matter of belief, and neither of us can provide a certain proof that invalidates the other's view. Nonetheless, it is reasonable to debate what that number should be.

dc_dux · 05-04-2008, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JEQuidam

Well, let's skip over the fact that you're disregardng many of Madison't other quotes on this subject which produce a different conclusion, and we'll focus on your point: "...AFTER SECURING A SUFFICIENT NUMBER..." (If you want to debate that point, let's start a new thread so as to not bore everyone else.)

I assume you'll then agree that the people of this country should discuss and debate what that "sufficient number" is. I realize that "435" has now become a holy number for many, and that it is sacrilegious to challenge said number. But can the rest of us debate how large our districts should be? In which case, you should argue that reducing the size of the House would be best for the Republic.

Here is my fundamental argument: the total population of our country has tripled since the size of the House was first set at 435. Our average congressional district now consists of 700,000++ people, that will grow to approximately 1,300,000 people per Representative by 2100. I believe that it is NOT possible for a Representative to faithfully represent the diverse views and interests of 700,000++ people. You believe that they can properly represent 700,000++ people. So, we disagree on that fundamental point, which is a matter of belief, and neither of us can provide a certain proof that invalidates the other's view. Nonetheless, it is reasonable to debate what that number should be.

I would be happy to debate what is a reasonable number may be....My only point is that I dont believe the number set in 1790 is reasonable for 2008.

I would agree that at point in the foreseeable future, that number needs to be expanded...but never back to 1 Rep/30,000 pop.

JEQuidam · 05-04-2008, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

this is as baffling a proposal as i've seen anywhere. ...

Yes, and the rest of your commentary evidences your bafflement.

Before you reply again, I implore you to take a few minutes to read the 15 Questions and Answers on TTO's home page at
http://www.Thirty-Thousand.org (No ads or pop-ups.)
You will probababl agree with some of those arguments, so then we can focus our discussion on the ones that trouble you.

ratbastid · 05-04-2008, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JEQuidam

I realize that "435" has now become a holy number for many, and that it is sacrilegious to challenge said number.

I know willravel headed you into "religious" as a way to talk about this, but I don't think this sentiment I quoted here helps your cause. I assert that for most Americans (certainly this one), "435" isn't holy, it's just unconsidered. I'm not attached to it, it's just the number it's "always" been, and I've never thought about changing it. Changing it isn't sacrilege, it's just not something that's been on the table before. In other words, don't accuse me of being unreasonable when I am merely ignorant.

JEQuidam · 05-04-2008, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

It gives much more representation to densely populated areas and less to areas with less population.

Actually, the current apportionment arrangment tends to give "more representation to densely populated areas and less to areas with less population". Understanding this point requires explaining the arcane area of apportionment mathematics which, if I did, would kill this thread. Suffice it to say that as a resident of Dunwoody, Georgia, I appreciate your concern, but can assure you that all your fellow Americans would be properly represented were the House larger.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

Also, I don't want to pay more for anything. I pay what I feel is enough, and frankly will fight tooth and nail for any increased spending and expenditures. More congress means more offices in Washington DC. Most congressional people have a pie d'tierre to stay when they are in town. Taxpayers foot some of that bill.

I argue that reducing the size of our congressional districts (and increasing the number of Representatives) would ultimately reduce the net cost of the federal government; please read:
Q8: Wouldn’t it be costly to add all these Representatives?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASU2003

It sounds like a communist idea to me. :b

I'm hoping, for your sake, that your comment was intended to be humorous.

If not, then I should point out that China, Cuba and other totalitarian states suffer under one-party rule. We're one step away from that with the current two-party duopoly on political power.

I can elaborate on this point if necessary, but a substantial enlargement of the federal House would allow other political parties to flourish, and thereby end the two-party duopoly, which is why the two controlling parties, and their minons, will forever oppose enlarging the House.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I would be happy to debate what is a reasonable number may be....My only point is that I dont believe the number set in 1790 is reasonable for 2008.

Just to be clear: no number was set in 1790. The Constitution only specifies that the districts may be no smaller than 30,000 inhabitants. Hence, the present day problem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I would agree that at point in the foreseeable future, that number needs to be expanded...but never back to 1 Rep/30,000 pop.

Then we agree that it should be larger than 435. I believe most Americans will eventually arrive at the same conclusion, as they come to understand this matter.

dc_dux · 05-04-2008, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JEQuidam

Then we agree that it should be larger than 435. I believe most Americans will eventually arrive at the same conclusion, as they come to understand this matter.

yep...at some point in the future, but for now, as I stated earlier, 435 works for me.

And I dont think most Americans will ever support a House composed of 3,000+ members as is your goal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JEQuidam

I can elaborate on this point if necessary, but a substantial enlargement of the federal House would allow other political parties to flourish, and thereby end the two-party duopoly,

Do you foresee a much larger House, with a multi-party system, where one or two small parties can subvert the will of the majority by alligning together or creating coalitions around single issues? If that were to occur, is that a good thing?

Many here support a multi-party legislature. I am one of those who doesnt. I dont want small, extremists or single issue parties being in the bargaining position of deciding legislative outcomes.

JEQuidam · 05-04-2008, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

as I stated earlier, 435 works for me.

Well, dc_dux, rest assured that many who live inside the DC beltway (like you) share your view.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Do you foresee a much larger House, with a multi-party system, where one or two small parties can subvert the will of the majority by alligning together or creating coalitions around single issues? If that were to occur, is that a good thing?

No, but, even so, we already have a system where "where one or two" parties subvert the will of the majority of the people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Many here support a multi-party legislature. I am one of those who doesnt. I dont want small, extremists or single issue parties being in the bargaining position of deciding legislative outcomes.

Well, that could be its own discussion thread. But all I can say is that if you like the two-party system, they you would really love the one-party system!! Cuba or China never has to deal with "small, extremists or single issue parties being in the bargaining position of deciding legislative outcomes". It's really hard to beat totalitarianism when it comes to eliminating fractious politics.

dc_dux · 05-04-2008, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JEQuidam

Well, dc_dux, rest assured that many who live inside the DC beltway (like you) share your view. ...

...all I can say is that if you like the two-party system, they you would really love the one-party system!! Cuba or China never has to deal with "small, extremists or single issue parties being in the bargaining position of deciding legislative outcomes". It's really hard to beat totalitarianism when it comes to eliminating fractious politics.

When you play the "inside the beltway card" or the "if you like the two-party system, you will love the communist system" card....you really dont strengthen your position or validate your argument.

JEQuidam · 05-04-2008, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

When you play the "inside the beltway card" or the "if you like the two-party system, you will love the communist system" card....you really dont strengthen your position or validate your argument.

No, I'm actually playing the "being logical" card. Perhaps you could respond in kind.

The vast majority of those living or working inside the beltway are staunch defenders the political status quo and, in particular, the two-party duopoly. You are only one such example.

Moreover, any argument you can make in defense of the two-party system can be logically extended to expound the virtues of the one-party system, especially that annoying problem with "parties being in the bargaining position of deciding legislative outcomes."

loquitur · 05-04-2008, 11:56 AM

The British House of Commons has over 600 members. Is the quality of the discourse better? It's sharper, sure, but better? In what sense?

JEQuidam · 05-04-2008, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

The British House of Commons has over 600 members. Is the quality of the discourse better? It's sharper, sure, but better? In what sense?

If we wanted to improve "the quality of the discourse" then we could replace the Congress with a literary society made up of pipe-smoking professors. (And there are many who would support such a proposal.)

The only "discourse" I'm interested in is that between me and my Representative. As long as we live in super-sized congressional districts, such discourse will be rare and unsatisfying.

Cynthetiq · 05-04-2008, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JEQuidam

I argue that reducing the size of our congressional districts (and increasing the number of Representatives) would ultimately reduce the net cost of the federal government; please read:
Q8: Wouldn’t it be costly to add all these Representatives?

I have read your Q8, and find that the flaw is you aren't citing any more than regurgitating your opinion via a spam link. Please do us the courtesy and quote your information here.

Quote:

As governance improves — as the number of Representatives increases — the House will be inclined to reduce the size of the government. To put this in perspective, for the sake of argument, suppose that it would cost an additional two billion dollars annually to increase the number of Representatives to 6,000 (this includes both compensation and supporting infrastructure). Though a sizable sum, it must be viewed against total federal expenditures of approximately 2.7 trillion dollars. Thirty-thousand.org believes that this larger Representative body would more than offset their total costs through judicious stewardship: to recoup this additional expense they need only reduce federal expenditures by 1/10 of 1% (i.e., one-tenth of one percent). Because examples of government extravagance and waste are legion, it is quite feasible to beneficially achieve such a reduction in federal expenditures. With respect to extravagance alone, it is estimated that the 2007 budget contains $2.4 billion of blatant pork-barrel spending [Source: Citizens Against Government Waste].

I don't disagree that there are wasteful programs and pork. But YOU believe, kindly keep in mind that YOU are Thirty-thousand.org. I don't see any memberships or people who are agreeing or writing for you, so it's YOU who believe. It's you who makes the assumptions you are professing.

And what if they AREN'T judiciously stewarding the monies? You currently have 435 who currenlty aren't what makes several hundred more, that much more responsible?

loquitur · 05-04-2008, 04:29 PM

Dunno, guys, with more representatives you have more hands in the trough. The amount of pork will increase exponentially and there will be fewer constraints because there will be more people looking to deal and thus more deals available.

JEQuidam · 05-04-2008, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

I have read your Q8, and find that the flaw is you aren't citing any more than regurgitating your opinion via a spam link. Please do us the courtesy and quote your information here. ...
You currently have 435 who currenlty aren't what makes several hundred more, that much more responsible?

There is over a half a gig of information on the TTO web site. It is available to those who have an open mind and a desire to learn. I cannot possibly begin to include the mass of information in a little posting. You see, some arguments won't fit on a bumper sticker, and so they require a little effort to understand.

For example, related to the question you are raising, here is 10 page article (PDF):
CONSTITUENCY SIZE AND GOVERNMENT SPENDING which was published in "Public Finance Review" 1999 (not by me). There are several more articles which can be found listed at the bottom of this page: http://www.thirty-thousand.org/pages/Why_435.htm

You really should spend a little more time thoughtfully considering the arguments being made in these documents as then you would appear to be open minded.

In these postings, I'm not hoping to convince the unconvincable. Instead, I'm only attempting to find people who do not regard 435 as a sacrosanct number, and those who are not wedded to being ruled by an oligarchy that is largely controlled by special interests. As for the rest of you, please continue to protest real change; I'm enjoying it immensely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

Dunno, guys, with more representatives you have more hands in the trough. The amount of pork will increase exponentially and there will be fewer constraints because there will be more people looking to deal and thus more deals available.

OK, loquitur, I see we got past the "discourse" thing. Regarding pork, please read the paper referenced above (if you really want to understand this). It substantiates the point (previously revealed to me through common sense) that the closer the Representatives are to the people, the less they are a country club, and the less likely they will be to build bridges to nowhere, etc.

roachboy · 05-05-2008, 05:37 AM

so wait---the more i read of this, comrade, the more i am seeing your idea as essentially anti-democratic, like your objective is to paralyze the house by blowing it up, altering the notion of interaction away from coherent debate on the floor amongst representatives to interaction between repesentatives and constituents. you seem to think that this would be more "responsive" on the one hand--to whom? well, to you, of couse---and less able to actually do stuff on the other.

i would think that a more coherent approach toward the same end of making representatives more responsive would be to make them more revocable--so a more direct democratic approach---build a referendum process so that a constituency could revoke the representative--and since you seem to feel no particular need to attend to process, i will reciprocate.

personally, i think the american system is nowhere near democratic enough--the idea that the bush administration can remain in power agfter having launched a fucking war on false pretenses and that there is nothing to be done until the next single day, 4 years later, when americans are actually politically "free" rolls around...that has nothing to do with democracy.

and it seems to me that your proposal has even less to do with it---unless you have an idea of how legislation would be formulated and passed that did not involve "discourse"--which you seem to find pernicious (pipe-smoking professors? what, you have a problem with pipes?)---etc....

JEQuidam · 05-05-2008, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

... personally, i think the american system is nowhere near democratic enough ...

I agree. I believe that making the congressional districts much smaller will make our government far more democratic, as well as bring about the end to the two-party duopoly on political power.

You like keeping the congressional districts at 700,000++, and letting them grow to 1,300,000 by 2100. So we disagree on that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

....unless you have an idea of how legislation would be formulated and passed that did not involve "discourse"

It would be done in the same manner it is done now: in committees. That does not change. And instead of our Representatives spending almost every day raising money and campaigning, they will then have time to read the proposed legislation. I do not need my Representative to sit on the committee, I need him/her to vote up or down on proposed legislation based on his/her constituent's best interests.

roachboy · 05-05-2008, 08:10 AM

Quote:

You like keeping the congressional districts at 700,000++, and letting them grow to 1,300,000 by 2100. So we disagree on that.

you know, try as i might, i can't find the place in my post where i said anything remotely like this.

also: i don't understand how eliminating debate and confining most legislative work to committees increases anything democratic. explain please?

also: i don't see how you can really talk about democracy without talking about procedures--changing the number of representatives is not in itself doing anything except increasing the number of representatives. i understand the argument about smaller districts--but the proposal you advance only really seems thought out at this level. i don't understand what you take a democratic process to actually be--part of what you write sounds like you have a direct democracy idea, and part of it sounds like the opposite. this confusion follows from the above.

JEQuidam · 05-05-2008, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

you know, try as i might, i can't find the place in my post where i said anything remotely like this.

You are opposed to increasing the number of congressional districts; therefore, you are opposed to decreasing the size of the districts. If I misunderstand your position, then please correct me.

roachboy · 05-05-2008, 08:24 AM

i'm not necessarily opposed--i just don't see increasing the number as in itself a magical action. this is why i keep asking you about procedures, about debate, about content--what you are proposing seems to me formal. if procedures were not radically changed---if the stayed constant, in other words--the effect of radically increasing the number of representatives would seem to me system failure.

you say that you support a type of representative functioning that would happen almost entirely in committee--i don't understand why that is desirable.

you seem skeptical about the role or even the need for floor debate about bills or issues--that seems questionable to me.

this because it seems that a committee-oriented process is LESS transparent and by extension LESS democratic that what already exists.

and to be clear, i am not a fan of the existing order at all--but i don't think i operate from the same political viewpoint that you do. at the moment, i'm mostly trying to piece together what your claims are in terms that make sense to me--not that i have any particular problem understanding what you say (it's not that complicated, trust me)--it's more that there seems to be kinda huge holes inside what you say that may only be apparent to someone who does not share your assumptions.

this follows for lots of folk no matter what they're arguing as a function of who they understand themselves to be addressing--what you have to say, what you do not: all fluctuates with audience.

so this is a piecing together process, with expressions of skepticism thrown in as they arise for me.

05-01-2008, 10:16 AM	#42 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	Heh, yeah, I'll side with ratbastid on that one. The idea of one representative per 50,000 citizens is a great one. I just don't think it's practical at all. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

05-01-2008, 10:28 AM	#44 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	Oh, I agree that not much debating gets done in the House. I'm just saying there should be debating, and we should be making it more likely, not less likely, that it takes place. Reducing the size of state legislative districts sounds like a more reasonable proposal, though I'd have to say I'm not nearly as familiar with the specifics of those when it comes to size, etc. I go back and forth on the 17th amendment, but I definitely think it's something worthy of debate. One interesting argument a friend of mine had in a recent debate I had with him over the 17th is that the best way to ensure states fight for and maintain their rights (because, we must recognize that states have less rights now because, for the most part, they've willingly allowed them to be taken or given away) is the make sure that states do not feel they have a significant voice in the federal government. Repealing the 17th could (and, likely, would) increase the illusion that states have significant influence in federal government, and should therefore not be too worried when federal government has power that the states do not. (I should note, since I'm bringing this up, that I do think federal government needs to be larger than it was originally set up in the constitution, because our nation and world is increasingly interconnected, and our problems increasingly require the careful collaboration of those interconnected parts and the implementation of large scale solutions, but that is not to say that I don't also think there are plenty of things the federal government does that it does not need to do.) __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling Last edited by SecretMethod70; 05-01-2008 at 10:33 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

05-01-2008, 10:40 AM	#46 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	Well, since neither of our assertions here are based on evidence, but rather based on gut feeling, I'll just say I disagree with that. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

05-01-2008, 10:56 AM	#51 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	Let me rephrase for (possibly) more accuracy: I don't believe that more representatives will increase intelligent and productive debate. Certainly not with 5,500 more. The_Jazz touched on just one of many reasons. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

05-01-2008, 11:05 AM	#53 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	I don't think anyone here would say 435 is sacrosanct. The question is more accurately whether or not 435 needs to be significantly changed. I haven't seen anyone imply that even if there's evidence changing it would be good, that we shouldn't. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

05-01-2008, 10:56 AM	#50 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	Okay, JEQuidam--having thought about it some more, I'm less and less convinced that this can ever be accomplished, given the system we're starting with. So I'm curious about what approach you're taking. Obviously you're hitting the webroots rather hard. I'm curious: how many conversations are you having parallel to this one right now on other boards? But then what's next? Do you have a legislative proposal drafted? Are you contacting congresscritters to sponsor it? Have you brought this before any legislators at any level? If not, who do you plan to start with?

05-01-2008, 11:31 AM	#56 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	this is as baffling a proposal as i've seen anywhere...so the "insidious degradation of american "democracy"" can be rectified by expanding the size of the house of representatives how exactly? and oligarchy is being used as a counter example in what sense? i have looked around at the townhall (tm) blog space and assume that this proposal is somehow linked to a nostalgia for decentralized forms of american democratic practice, the sort of range that grew out of local necessity and a lack of centralizing or co-ordinating mechanisms and media... but how one would get from there to an enormous house of representatives to a claim that making the house enormous would in itself do anything at all...i don't follow. well, it's clear that it would make for a more convincing theater of representation in the context of which carl schmitt probably would appear to be correct about the interminable blah blah blah of democracy, which required the Intervention of a Decider in the Context of a State of Exception--so a pseudo-republic behind which an authoritarian state would operate--so a form of authoritarian state amongst the leading characteristics of which would be a tick for referring to itself as a republic and maintaining self-paralyzing rituals to go along with it....that is, if you were to imagine this strange idea as wedged onto the existing order. no particular attention to procedural questions--no particular attention to implications--just a question (why 435?) and a counter (why not 300,000)---well, why not pay attention to procedural matters and move toward direct democracy--or don't pay attention and move toward an new and improved version of the american style of soft totalitarian government. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

05-01-2008, 03:41 PM	#59 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...Party_of_China It sounds like a communist idea to me. :b I think you could have a system where you pick certain issues and have 50,000 randomly selected people from the US work on it before it gets to the House or Senate. Things like immigration and healthcare may benefit from a large number of people working on coming up with ideas that would work.

05-04-2008, 11:56 AM	#71 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	The British House of Commons has over 600 members. Is the quality of the discourse better? It's sharper, sure, but better? In what sense?

05-04-2008, 04:29 PM	#74 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	Dunno, guys, with more representatives you have more hands in the trough. The amount of pork will increase exponentially and there will be fewer constraints because there will be more people looking to deal and thus more deals available.

05-05-2008, 05:37 AM	#76 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	so wait---the more i read of this, comrade, the more i am seeing your idea as essentially anti-democratic, like your objective is to paralyze the house by blowing it up, altering the notion of interaction away from coherent debate on the floor amongst representatives to interaction between repesentatives and constituents. you seem to think that this would be more "responsive" on the one hand--to whom? well, to you, of couse---and less able to actually do stuff on the other. i would think that a more coherent approach toward the same end of making representatives more responsive would be to make them more revocable--so a more direct democratic approach---build a referendum process so that a constituency could revoke the representative--and since you seem to feel no particular need to attend to process, i will reciprocate. personally, i think the american system is nowhere near democratic enough--the idea that the bush administration can remain in power agfter having launched a fucking war on false pretenses and that there is nothing to be done until the next single day, 4 years later, when americans are actually politically "free" rolls around...that has nothing to do with democracy. and it seems to me that your proposal has even less to do with it---unless you have an idea of how legislation would be formulated and passed that did not involve "discourse"--which you seem to find pernicious (pipe-smoking professors? what, you have a problem with pipes?)---etc.... __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

05-05-2008, 08:24 AM	#80 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i'm not necessarily opposed--i just don't see increasing the number as in itself a magical action. this is why i keep asking you about procedures, about debate, about content--what you are proposing seems to me formal. if procedures were not radically changed---if the stayed constant, in other words--the effect of radically increasing the number of representatives would seem to me system failure. you say that you support a type of representative functioning that would happen almost entirely in committee--i don't understand why that is desirable. you seem skeptical about the role or even the need for floor debate about bills or issues--that seems questionable to me. this because it seems that a committee-oriented process is LESS transparent and by extension LESS democratic that what already exists. and to be clear, i am not a fan of the existing order at all--but i don't think i operate from the same political viewpoint that you do. at the moment, i'm mostly trying to piece together what your claims are in terms that make sense to me--not that i have any particular problem understanding what you say (it's not that complicated, trust me)--it's more that there seems to be kinda huge holes inside what you say that may only be apparent to someone who does not share your assumptions. this follows for lots of folk no matter what they're arguing as a function of who they understand themselves to be addressing--what you have to say, what you do not: all fluctuates with audience. so this is a piecing together process, with expressions of skepticism thrown in as they arise for me. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 05-05-2008 at 08:28 AM..