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.
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.
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.
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 Fuck 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).
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.
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.
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:
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!
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.
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?
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 fucked 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.
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
