Posts
Hey, say Jane Delung and Judith A. Himes of the Population Resource Center in Princeton, N.J.:, let's consider inflating the membership in the House of
If we really are a single, United State, with 5
However,
- If we're 50 States United, then maybe jacking up the salary cost of the Federal Government isn't as good. Why pay for additional nitwits to avoid reading crucial legislation?
- Does the number of Presidential Czars proportionally increase, to keep the amount of Executive oversight at its comfortably low level?
| The solution to crappy government is not more government. |
Update, from the comments:
the founders wanted the house to increase with the population so that the house always remained the peoples house and did not turn into a small house of lords.Well, that idea got shot in the face circa 1913. So, while your point may be valid, it's unclear how adding more Pelosis and Murthas and Morans and Rangles and Duke Cunninghams is going to improve the situation one whit.
Update II: NYT has a related article on the effects of the 2010 census.
Smitty,
ReplyDeletethe number of seats in the house was capped in 1904 at 435. The population at that time was 100million. we now have a population of 300million with the same 435 reps. Which means that the avg voter's electoral power is 2/3rds less than it was in 1904. Less really because even more of the population has been added to the voting population with women and minorites. therefore the house members have become more powerful at the cost of the voter.
The very first Amendment to the consitution (which has never been ratified but is still able to be) dealt with increasing the house seats with increasing population. the founders wanted the house to increase with the population so that the house always remained the peoples house and did not turn into a small house of lords.
you will also notice that the Federal government has increasingly become more liberal since the law of 1904 was passed and less beholdened to the ideas of its citizens.
Actually, increasing the size of the House to the point of being "administratively unwieldy" might have the desirable effect of making it impossible for them to create new laws.
ReplyDeleteI'd be up for doubling the number of Representatives, and halving their pay and benefits/perks, etc..
ReplyDeleteOtherwise, no thank you
I'd be up for doubling the number of Representatives, and halving their pay and benefits/perks, etc..
ReplyDeleteOtherwise, no thank you
Wed Oct 28, 03:33:00 PM
Well considering that the house members are a bunch of crooks that ar eon the take. It might be better if we increase their salary to say 10million per year. In effect the taxpayers buy them off since they are up for the highest bidder. This would have the added effect of making the house elections like winning the lottery and would draw many many more people into the process and creat the incentive for massive turn over within the house and a 2 year basis.
also we should hold elections every year. this 2 year bullcrap is outdated. It allows the house to pass all kind of crap in the off year and then pretend to be something different during election years. The 2 year election was made when the mode of transportation was a horse and communication was the pony express.
If an assembly of 435 people is manageable, so is an assembly of 1305. Triple the number and we might get more decent representation. As it is now, the liberal city centers are dominating their more conservative suburbs by benefit of a concentrated population. The government would be more representative of the population with this change.
ReplyDeleteSmitty,
ReplyDeleteActually, it's a great idea! You can read one of my detailed arguments here:
http://the-classic-liberal.com/no-taxation-without-representation/
Only abolishing the Fed can reverse the crime of 1913, but having a massive House would indeed solve a lot.
Think of it this way ... The more reps there are, the harder they are to buy, the harder it is for them to collude, and the harder it is to get them to agree on anything (see JeffC).
It also changes the relationship between constituent and politician, and reduces the amount of money needed for campaigns, thus eliminating much of the ability for bribes.
And there's more ...
How will it improve the situation? Simple: by diffusing it. The nice thing about federalism is that power is kept as local as possible. While this would only be a tiny victory for federalism, a victory it would be - it's a lot easier to hold a politician accountable when his opponent only has to convince a few thousand people to change their minds.
ReplyDeleteEven better (if probably a pipe dream), make the new representatives live and work in their districts. The age of email doesn't require them to be in DC to vote.
Well, that idea got shot in the face circa 1913. So, while your point may be valid, it's unclear how adding more Pelosis and Murthas and Morans and Rangles and Duke Cunninghams is going to improve the situation one whit.
ReplyDeleteNow that depends if you believe in federalism and the concept that the more local control the better. If you increase the size of the house you decrease the area and population per rep which means that the rep (to get reelected)must govern and vote more along the lines of its district. gerrymandering of districts to have safe seats would be lessened and the turnover in the house would be greater. Which means that the politicians would listen more to the people's wishes since each person's vote would have more power.
an added plus would be with more reps the chance of consensus would be lessened and we would not have to worry everyday what freedom the federal government is going to try to take next.
a couple of addtional comments.
ReplyDeleteThe amendment was the first amendment propsed by the founders to the consitution before even the freedom of press and religion. The founders thought it was that important. Second it is still in force and can still be ratified by the states. without the need for any federal government action. If 27 states decided that the federal government is too powerful they can simply ratify the "amendment the first" and break a major power within the federal government and return more local control over the federal government. It is the dagger to the throat to the federal power grab i9f the states choose to use it. and since the state houses are closer to the people and major push by the citizens and conservatives could get this passed.
I'm all in favor of increasing the size of the House representation, and have been for a while. In addition, I would like to see an anti-gerrymandering amendment added, something along the following; the wording could perhaps be improved:
ReplyDeleteNo Congressional district shall be drawn where inside the bounding box drawn by east-west lines through the northernmost and southernmost points of the district and north-south lines through the easternmost and westernmost points of the district, there is more of its state's land area outside the district than inside.
In an ideal world, I'd want to increase the number of House Reps to the 3000-6000 range, pass the amendment I outlined above, and repeal the 17th Amendment to give the Senators back to the states.
Increasing the number of Reps just on its own is a good idea, though; we're always going to get the Pelosis and the like in the House, but with more Reps their influence would be watered down. Also, with smaller districts, the use of mass media to influence those elections gets more expensive, because the percentage of people that the ad buy reaches that live in a given district will be much smaller. Ideally districts would be small enough that campaigning door-to-door would be a viable way of campaigning in a district. In addition to media influence being less, it gets increasingly hard to game an election by playing groups off against each other the smaller a district is; the elections just get too volatile (think of how party affiliation gets less important at a local level).