View Full Version : Increase Congress to 10,000 Reps?
http://youtu.be/RCNd7h0fsdE
I agree with the premise in the video that each representative has way too many citizens behind him/her. (750,000)
Madison's suggestion was one representative per every 30,000 citizens. The speakers in this video dismiss this idea out of hand because in a modern context, that would mean 10,000 congressmen, and that isn't feasible.
Why not?
With the advent of the Internet, high speed broadband and cheap video conferencing, why do all the people's representatives need to meet face to face in the capital to debate and vote? Could congress move into the 21st century and meet via secure computer connection from their home districts?
I think more representatives equals a more accurate portrayal of the needs and concerns of the citizenry. And as a side bonus, their pay could be cut down to that of a mayor or selectman, as they'd stay in their home district and have a mere 30,000 people to listen to.
Discuss?
China has the largest assembly in the works. It's unwieldy. This would be a disaster. Meaningful debate would be impossible.
My rep knows me by first name. Yours should too.
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-11-12, 23:38
That is what state govt is for. We send to much money and leave too much power in DC.
10,000 would mean 20 Cynthia McKinneys! Even more outrageous behavior to get noticed.
I want to go back to the Senate be selected by state legislatures. This democracy thing is getting out of hand, vote yourself other people's money.
China has the largest assembly in the works. It's unwieldy. This would be a disaster. Meaningful debate would be impossible.
My rep knows me by first name. Yours should too.
Doesn't need to be unwieldy if its all done via the Internet. Hell, they could have a forum kinda like this. We have, what, about 50,000 members, roughly?
And good for you that your Rep knows you by name. That would happen ALOT more if there was one per 30,000 people instead of every 3/4 of a million.
That is what state govt is for. We send to much money and leave too much power in DC.
Yes, and I hope that more and more states grow balls and declare 10th Amendment nullification of overbearing federal laws. But, no one said we can only go at the problem from one direction.
CarlosDJackal
12-12-12, 00:10
Increasing the number of Representatives and expecting the government to function better is like hiring 9 women wit the expectation that they can give birth to a baby in a month!!
Not only will this type of an increase the size of the Cluster **** that is DC; it will burn through the taxes in their salaries alone. You wanna make Congress and the Senate more effective? Limit their terms to no more than 6-years or 2 terms (whichever is longest).
Well, perhaps if there were 2,500 of them instead of 435, they'd get a much smaller salary.
432 x $174,000
Speaker - $223,500
Majority Leader - $193,400
Minority Leader -$193,400
Equals roughly $76 million
We could have 2,500 congressmen for that price if we paid each of them $30,000 per year. Which would also have the added benefit of ridding the system of career politicians. They'd have to have a job other than being a Rep. They'd have to rub shoulders with their communities and earn a living just like the rest of us.
So we'd have a congress full of businessmen and working class towns people.
xrayoneone
12-12-12, 00:51
Well, perhaps if there were 2,500 of them instead of 435, they'd get a much smaller salary.
432 x $174,000
Speaker - $223,500
Majority Leader - $193,400
Minority Leader -$193,400
Equals roughly $76 million
We could have 2,500 congressmen for that price if we paid each of them $30,000 per year. Which would also have the added benefit of ridding the system of career politicians. They'd have to have a job other than being a Rep. They'd have to rub shoulders with their communities and earn a living just like the rest of us.
So we'd have a congress full of businessmen and working class towns people.
WE don't vote for their salary, THEY do.
As far as term limits go they have them, it's called voting their asses out.
Imagine the difficulty counting votes or negotiating deals. Or how long committee meetings would take. Imagine how much seniority any one person would need to make a difference. We couldn't track the things they said even. We'd have no idea where most reps stood in the issues.
A bigger reform would be moving the Capitol to CO so we'd all be roughly equidistant from it.
A bigger reform would be moving the Capitol to CO so we'd all be roughly equidistant from it.
i disagree with that. One of my points: this is 2012. We have broadband Internet everywhere and the speeds are constantly increasing. The idea that a bunch of politicians in suits need to sit in a chamber together is antiquated. They can stay in their districts and connect digitally; embrace the future
Plus, moving the capital to CO would not make us "all" equidistant. A satellite photo alone demonstrates that the overwhelming majority of Americans live east of the Mississippi:
http://www.phoenix5.org/gallery/USearthlights.jpg
Business_Casual
12-12-12, 05:36
It isn't the system, the people or the number or any of that. It is simply that we have to have good citizens who pay attention and keep the criminals that run for office in check. That has ended, the dumbing down of the American population, or "low information voters" has reached the tipping point. They get their news from John Stewart. They don't have any clue Obama let four Americans die in Libya or Holder let guns "walk" across the border to drug dealers and if they do, they don't understand it. They don't know why it is wrong for the government to buy GM and re-order the creditors, they don't know why a carbon tax would crush our economy.
Thanks media and schools! You killed the last, best hope for freedom!
bc
I would much rather see the 17th amendment abolished and Senators reinstated as direct representatives of the state governments.
This was a KEY check installed by the Founders in their whole system of checks and balances; the House was to represent the people as a whole and the Senate, the States.
It was abolished at the beginning of the progressive movement and was supported because people were ignorant of the actual intent.
Obamacare wouldn't exist if this was the case. For example, the State of Fla stated they could not afford to pay for it and would have instructed their Senators to vote against it. Now, being that their Senators are popularly elected, they voted for it, against the best interests of the State of Fla.
The 17th Amend was a MASSIVE blow to States Rights. As an Amend it is part of the Constitution but its the only part that is fundamentally unconstitutional.
Business_Casual
12-12-12, 06:12
I would much rather see the 17th amendment abolished and Senators reinstated as direct representatives of the state governments.
This was a KEY check installed by the Founders in their whole system of checks and balances; the House was to represent the people as a whole and the Senate, the States.
It was abolished at the beginning of the progressive movement and was supported because people were ignorant of the actual intent.
Obamacare wouldn't exist if this was the case. For example, the State of Fla stated they could not afford to pay for it and would have instructed their Senators to vote against it. Now, being that their Senators are popularly elected, they voted for it, against the best interests of the State of Fla.
The 17th Amend was a MASSIVE blow to States Rights. As an Amend it is part of the Constitution but its the only part that is fundamentally unconstitutional.
Perfect example - how many of today's college kids, let alone High School Seniors, could articulate that let alone deduce it from a reading list? They all want to be singers and actors.
I say if you want a college loan, it should be to become an engineer or an accountant. If you want to study Women's Issues or become a lawyer, pay for it yourself, no financing.
bc
I'll admit it: I wasn't even aware of the wording of the 17th amendment nor the reason why some consider it so egregious.
To the topic post: More reps is not the answer. It's just one step closer to mob rule and doesn't address the real problems with the current system.
The right to vote needs to be stripped from the freeloaders and everything else will fix itself.
30 cal slut
12-12-12, 06:53
:fie:
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20070311214754/starwars/images/5/53/Galacticsenate.jpg
The right to vote needs to be stripped from the freeloaders and everything else will fix itself.
I think you're right. If there was an amendment that said something to the effect of:
Any citizen of these United States of America who collects financial assistance from the government shall forfeit his or her right to cast a vote in any federal election, until such a time as said citizen voluntarily stops collecting financial assistance. Social Security and Medicare are not to be construed as financial assistance.
Business_Casual
12-12-12, 07:19
I think you're right. If there was an amendment that said something to the effect of:
Any citizen of these United States of America who collects financial assistance from the government shall forfeit his or her right to cast a vote in any federal election, until such a time as said citizen voluntarily stops collecting financial assistance. Social Security and Medicare are not to be construed as financial assistance.
You guys don't get it - you still don't understand with whom you are dealing. The administration is Marxist - they WANT people dependent on government. All the people in Washington want people dependent on government, it is how they get their power and their graft. There is no way some statement like that will make it into law.
Reordering this democracy back to a Republic will have to start at the grassroots. The Republicans are about to agree to a huge tax hike. What possible signal do you need from Washington that they don't care about rights and freedom do you need?
bc
Belmont31R
12-12-12, 08:32
The real problem here is the constant gerrymandering and the fact the rnc/dnc control a lot of the funding house reps get. You get people like Allen West who was gerrymandered out of a job by republicans in their purge of tea party supporters.
We seriously need an amendment dealing with districting. Something like a reps district cannot extend either north or south more than 2 miles for every mile it goes east or west and vice versa. Some of these districts are so ****ed up they are designed for the sole purpose of rewarding loyalists and punishing those who don't vote how they are told or used for political advantage.
The other thing is the senate needs to go back to being elected by the state legislators. We aren't a friggen democracy. The senate is supposed to represent the states interests and the house is for the people.
I think term limits would be more beneficial than the risk of someone not having to worry about reelection. We currently have a huge good ole boy system and the only way to get rid of it is to get the string pullers out of office via term limitations. Being a representative should not be a long term career, and this perpetuates the gerrymandering in the first place. Our Vice President has not had a private sector job since the 1970's.
Sent from my iPad 4 using Tapatalk
These people go in to politics for the power and money. Any dilution effort will be met with an agitated fervor. (See: Michigan Right-to-Work protests for examples)
I would also like to see more states divide their electoral votes like Neb and Maine (that is if they keep the electoral college much longer).
I live in PA and Philadelphia basically decides how the whole state goes. Pa went for Obama, but if you take out Philly, it could have went Republican.
If they split it up Obama would have only got a handful of PA's electoral votes. It would be much harder for liberal cities to control the destiny of otherwise conservative states
The actual mechanics that control the people "leading" this country isnt the problem. The problem lies in the fact that those people have access to too much power. Change if from 435 to 10000 and all you'll have is 10000 people meddling in your affairs.
We need to remove as much power from the federal level as humanly possible. Move it down the food chain as far as humanly possible so that each individual voter has a direct and meaningful impact on the decision being made. It's easy to vote for spending that involves a 1/300,000,000 share vs 1/20000 share. That its only a couple of cents out of everyone's check argument becomes harder to sell when it turns to a couple of hundred dollars.
Eurodriver
12-12-12, 16:19
China has the largest assembly in the works. It's unwieldy. This would be a disaster. Meaningful debate would be impossible.
My rep knows me by first name. Yours should too.
My representative's district is over 2 million people...99% of them have more money than I do.
Imagine the difficulty counting votes or negotiating deals. Or how long committee meetings would take. Imagine how much seniority any one person would need to make a difference. We couldn't track the things they said even. We'd have no idea where most reps stood in the issues.
And this would be a problem, why?
Technology can be used for voting and tracking things.
I like the idea of going back to each Rep in congress representing a small number of people.
And the more gridlock you get in Congress, the fewer dumb things they can pass. Do we really need a full time Congress? How about 45 days a year, every other year, with 10K reps.
We don't need any more laws. We have more than enough already.
-
How about cutting the Confresses hours but not creating more Congressman? And there is no substitute for a face to face meeting. Congress capped the house at 435 a century ago when thy found even that number to be difficult to manage. What do you do when one tenth of the Congress each wants to make a two minute speech before a vote? Wait 2,000 through minutes of speeches?
The more you weaken Congress the more you strengthen the Presidency.
My representative's district is over 2 million people...99% of them have more money than I do.
Bullshit. The largest district in America is the state of Montana, with half of that. And I sincerely doubt there is even one district in Anerica where someone with an Internet connection is in the bottom 1%.
How about cutting the Confresses hours but not creating more Congressman? And there is no substitute for a face to face meeting. Congress capped the house at 435 a century ago when thy found even that number to be difficult to manage. What do you do when one tenth of the Congress each wants to make a two minute speech before a vote? Wait 2,000 through minutes of speeches?
I like the idea. I don't want Congress doing anything unless it is repealing laws and spending. And since they are unlikely to be doing that...
In addition to having 10K Congressmen, you make it a part time job. Pays $10k a year plus enough for one staff member in their local district.
You eliminate the sorts of bottom feeders that are attracted to running for Congress as a lifetime job in the first place. You would get a different level of people in Congress.
The more you weaken Congress the more you strengthen the Presidency.
Not really. The President can't pass laws himself.
Lots of states have part time Legislatures, and I believe Montana only meets every other year. That does not make the Governor super powerful.
--
Ten thousand congressmen debating national issues while advocating their specific regional projects. Hmm.....
Pass.
Yet the President is more powerful than any governor. He has an Army and a huge bureaucracy. What could go wrong when Congress is out of town? In the meantime we struggle to find five hundred decent people to go to Congress and now we have to find ten thousand? How many employees just to review their finances?
Congress capped the house at 435 a century ago when thy found even that number to be difficult to manage.
They didn't have shit like Sysco Telepresence a century ago
How is, say the majority whip going to pressure the 1,000 holdouts to pass a critical bill? How is he going to identify them, listen to their concerns and make a deal to get their vote?
I'm sure you understand modern networking but I'd be surprised if you've ever been in a House office building.
Also, my companies interests would now spread across 200 plus districts. How am I supposed to build relationships with each of those legislators to match the relationships I have now?
CarlosDJackal
12-12-12, 20:54
The right to vote needs to be stripped from the freeloaders and everything else will fix itself.
You mean just like the way it was from the get go? You mean like the only individuals who can cast a vote are those who actual own land?
I'm all for it!!
How is, say the majority whip going to pressure the 1,000 holdouts to pass a critical bill? How is he going to identify them, listen to their concerns and make a deal to get their vote?
He's not! They would pass very few laws! People would have to find their own solutions to their problems instead of running to government to solve everything.
I'll pass on the 10,000-member congress, though having a representative who at least knew, say, my town selectmen by name would be nice.
I'd rather just have the fed get its ****ing nose out of my business. They snort up money like an 80's junkie with an 8-ball of coke, and they do it on credit. **** that noise.
At this rate, we're far better off agreeing on one area of the nation for all the productive people to move to, taking over, booting all the useless folks and seceding. There's no hope for the federal government's repair anymore. If they had stayed within their intended path, we'd be fine. They'd deal with national issues-routing oil pipelines, building military bases, killing Iranian government officials with drones, and deporting illegal aliens.
They wouldn't tell me what to put in my body, they wouldn't tell me to buy health insurance, they wouldn't tell me to put useless shit in my car, they wouldn't tell me to disarm myself "for the children" and they'd stay out of my wallet. If the state of New Hampshire wanted to stick their fingers in those pies...I'd move to Texas, but I'd respect New Hampshire's right as a state to regulate (some) of those things.
...and they'd balance the goddamn budget, if they ran a deficit we'd have an angry mob on their doorstep.
But I should quit dreaming.
You guys don't get it - you still don't understand with whom you are dealing. The administration is Marxist - they WANT people dependent on government. All the people in Washington want people dependent on government, it is how they get their power and their graft. There is no way some statement like that will make it into law.
Reordering this democracy back to a Republic will have to start at the grassroots. The Republicans are about to agree to a huge tax hike. What possible signal do you need from Washington that they don't care about rights and freedom do you need?
bc
Yes. Allow me to explain:
This obviously has a snowballs chance in hell of gaining traction with the system we have now. BUT, the current system is failing, slowly, and will ultimately collapse under its own bankruptcy, incompetence, tyranny, stupidity, bloated-ness, etc.
So really, this discussion is more about what to change when we get to start over and build "The Republic: Reloaded". :D
Business_Casual
12-13-12, 07:05
Yes. Allow me to explain:
This obviously has a snowballs chance in hell of gaining traction with the system we have now. BUT, the current system is failing, slowly, and will ultimately collapse under its own bankruptcy, incompetence, tyranny, stupidity, bloated-ness, etc.
So really, this discussion is more about what to change when we get to start over and build "The Republic: Reloaded". :D
Perhaps, but the traditional model is more along the lines of republic, degenerating into democracy, then collapse followed by dictatorship. Said dictatorship lasts quite a long time... :mad:
bc
then collapse followed by ____________
That's where we come in!!! :angry::neo:
Also, my companies interests would now spread across 200 plus districts. How am I supposed to build relationships with each of those legislators to match the relationships I have now?
Why should your company get special consideration?
The more you speak, the more I like the idea.
--
How is, say the majority whip going to pressure the 1,000 holdouts to pass a critical bill? How is he going to identify them, listen to their concerns and make a deal to get their vote?
I'm sure you understand modern networking but I'd be surprised if you've ever been in a House office building.
I've been a couple of times. Why would they need these offices in the first place? They can work out of their homes for their *PART TIME* job as Congressmen.
I also walked through and paid personal visits to various Senators offices in DC to lobby for gun rights in 1994 when I was in DC for the big gun rights rally.
---
It would never cross my mind that more politicians would make anything better. More politicians means more corruption, more greed and more stupidity. We have to take the incentive to be a politician away. Nothing else will drive out the scum.
Why should your company get special consideration?
The more you speak, the more I like the idea.
--
I'm not asking for special consideration, merely pointing out that if there were 10,000 Congressmen businesses would be ****ed.
I've been a couple of times. Why would they need these offices in the first place? They can work out of their homes for their *PART TIME* job as Congressmen.
I also walked through and paid personal visits to various Senators offices in DC to lobby for gun rights in 1994 when I was in DC for the big gun rights rally.
---
While I'm sure the idea of Congress doing nothing appeals to you it's foolish. Their budgeting power alone makes sabotaging them a poor choice.
While I'm sure the idea of Congress doing nothing appeals to you it's foolish. Their budgeting power alone makes sabotaging them a poor choice.
Congress has not submitted a budget for something like 3 years.
But going to say, 10K representatives, is not sabotaging Congress, and making it a part time $10k / year job in addition could make Congress more effective.
It could make Congress more effective in actually doing the things that need to be done that are its right according to the Constitution, because they would only have so much time and resources to deal with issues and the important issues would hopefully rise to the top. The tactics and strategies to run Congress would have to change given the new format, of course. And the type of person who was in Congress would most likely change as well. From the career politician to the "gentleman" politician who is in it for real service, since the pay would not make it worth anything.
And you would much more likely KNOW your Congressman, because he would only represent approx. 30K people on average (approx 300Million people divided by 10K for rough numbers). That means for people in urban areas, he/she could very well live close to you. For more rural areas, it would mean he/she IS one of you.
And it would make it a lot harder for corruption to take root because any one vote is not worth a lot.
Obviously, there are issues and problems with implementing the idea that would have to be tackled - a 1 min post to a forum is not an all-encompassing answer. But so far, the protestations I have heard, have been in support of the status quo and assuming the status quo would continue with 10K reps. Which it would not.
---
I'm not asking for special consideration, merely pointing out that if there were 10,000 Congressmen businesses would be ****ed.
How so? I think businesses would be way better off. Less meddling by Congress forcing EPA/OHSA/etc on them and coming with the tax hammer as well.
Just how so would businesses be in for a world of hurt in such a scenario?
---
It would never cross my mind that more politicians would make anything better. More politicians means more corruption, more greed and more stupidity. We have to take the incentive to be a politician away. Nothing else will drive out the scum.
10k reps in a part time $10k/year job does take the incentive out.
Your 1 vote is not worth being bribed over, and the job does not pay a lot so the people inclined to take it would be different than the parasites there now.
---
You guys don't get it - you still don't understand with whom you are dealing. The administration is Marxist - they WANT people dependent on government. All the people in Washington want people dependent on government, it is how they get their power and their graft. There is no way some statement like that will make it into law.
Reordering this democracy back to a Republic will have to start at the grassroots. The Republicans are about to agree to a huge tax hike. What possible signal do you need from Washington that they don't care about rights and freedom do you need?
bc
No you don't get it. Giving freeloaders the right to vote is the fundamental root cause of all our problems.
You mean just like the way it was from the get go? You mean like the only individuals who can cast a vote are those who actual own land?
I'm all for it!!
Yes exactly.
Business_Casual
12-13-12, 18:40
No you don't get it. Giving freeloaders the right to vote is the fundamental root cause of all our problems.
I'm perfectly well aware of that, but I am not a Polly Anna, so save your bold text, thank you very much.
bc
If you don't know your Congressman now, you haven't been trying.
How so? I think businesses would be way better off. Less meddling by Congress forcing EPA/OHSA/etc on them and coming with the tax hammer as well.
Just how so would businesses be in for a world of hurt in such a scenario?
---
Sometimes you have a problem. You call your congressman. He makes phone calls. Problem goes away. So now you create a system where individual congressmen are of no consequence and are rarely working. Now I can't get congressmen to make my problems go away. Now the EPA says "who the fick are you?" when my congressman calls.
Actually Senators are infinitely more useful for that but still.
If you don't know your Congressman now, you haven't been trying.
It is not a question of me knowing him. It is he knowing me. When you have 1/2 million people in your district, you won't know most of them.
And you shouldn't be calling your congressman to make problems go away. That is called "corruption." Your Congressman won't make your problems go away anyway, unless maybe you are a big contributor to his campaign or something.
Of course, you shouldn't be having the problems in the first place.
----
Business_Casual
12-14-12, 06:55
Of course, you shouldn't be having the problems in the first place.
----
Bro, the system is set up so that you have problems and need to pay patronage to the congress criminals.
Google what Mark Twain said about congress.
Wow.
bc
montanadave
12-14-12, 07:11
Bro, the system is set up so that you have problems and need to pay patronage to the congress criminals.
Google what Mark Twain said about congress.
Wow.
bc
And with all that Twain may still have been giving Congress too much credit.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.