Americans are not well-represented in their government

[Taro T]

52 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

How am I being disingenuous or duplicitous exactly? You're insisting on focusing on me, or my motives, which you believe must be untrustworthy, rather than the content posted.

 

There've been proposals for this on both the left & the right. Try to talk about that instead of me, individually.

 

You have continually avoided the elephant in the room regarding this, whichis large states will see their representation increase to a greater degree than the states w/ 1 Congresscritter.  Thisis a HUGE matter, and you continue to pretend you don't support that element of it.  This would move the country closer to your stated goal of eliminating the EC and is a total non-starter.

 

The fact that a 1,000+ member body will necessarily be unwieldly simply make this idea impractical in addition to being a non-starter w/ the western non-coastal states.

[LA Grant]

10 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Congratulations, you're learning.

 

You're an idiot.

[3rdnlng]

Just now, LA Grant said:

 

You're an idiot.

You're getting even better.

[/dev/null]

In the 24 hour cable news cycle the debate has shifted from a courteous professional dialogue on the House floor to shouting matches on Fox, MSNBC, and CNN.  Adding additional members will just up the volume as they further cede authority to the Executive Branch

 

20 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

Bathroom graffiti > books

 

Some of the best poetry and prose I've read was scribbled in the loo.  

 

9 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

20 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Congratulations, you're learning.

You're an idiot.

 

Not only is he learning, but he seems to be learning from Tom

[LA Grant]

Just now, Taro T said:

You have continually avoided the elephant in the room regarding this, whichis large states will see their representation increase to a greater degree than the states w/ 1 Congresscritter.  Thisis a HUGE matter, and you continue to pretend you don't support that element of it.  This would move the country closer to your stated goal of eliminating the EC and is a total non-starter.

 

The fact that a 1,000+ member body will necessarily be unwieldly simply make this idea impractical in addition to being a non-starter w/ the western non-coastal states.

 

1000 member House of Reps wouldn't necessarily be unwieldy, but it would be different.

 

Maybe you'd have better success talking about "the elephant in the room" if you just asked directly? I get that you want to make this about presidential elections and the Electoral College, and yes, the current math for the EC means that votes in OH or FL have more worth than votes in NY or CA in a presidential election. This is only "good" if it works out for "your team" but it isn't good for... representative democracy. Theoretically, that would be an ideal that we share. Hence, I am trying to keep the discussion more holistic, as the House of Reps proportions have wider-ranging effects than simply as integers for the EC. 

 

Obviously, the more populated states would have more Reps than the less-populated states... exactly as they do now. Increasing the representation ratio to match the population is a problem if you think the votes for American citizens votes shouldn't matter equally. 

[Koko78]

25 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

A) Yes but with smaller districts, it's more likely for more third-party candidates to break through, is it not? You'd be more likely to see more independents like Rand Paul or Bernie Sanders. Like one of the op-eds pointed to, for example, it wouldn't be unlikely to see libertarian candidates emerge from California's conservative enclaves. 

 

B) Wouldn't smaller districts lead to more challenges to the money & partisanship establishment? There is clearly a desire for shaking up the crumbling two party system, on both sides. 

 

C) I think it would make it harder for career politicians to hold onto their seats if they're defying the will of their district. 

 

D) Before the limit was set over a century ago, the House of Reps increased in size with each Census... why shouldn't we return to this model of proportional government? At the very least, why not aim to get the ratio closer to what it was in 1913, when the average Rep spoke for 200k citizens instead of 700k? 

 

History shows us otherwise. As you pointed out, the number of reps went up each census for over a century, yet there has only ever been one viable third party - the GOP. Even then, it very quickly returned to a two party system.

 

The thing about increased competition and turnover rate that you have to remember is that while Congress has an approval rating in the 20's (on a good day), the incumbency rate is well over 90%. People hate Congress, but love their representative.

[DC Tom]

17 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:

Is this worth reading?  Can someone tl,Dr?

 

 

It starts with "No one pays any attention to me, so I'm starting a new thread!"

 

Then it rather surprisingly finds room to go downhill from there.

[row_33]

Just now, Koko78 said:

 

History shows us otherwise. As you pointed out, the number of reps went up each census for over a century, yet there has only ever been one viable third party - the GOP. Even then, it very quickly returned to a two party system.

 

The thing about increased competition and turnover rate that you have to remember is that while Congress has an approval rating in the 20's (on a good day), the incumbency rate is well over 90%. People hate Congress, but love their representative.

 

Wallace and Perot gave the people third parties which changed the election results.

 

 

 

 

[3rdnlng]

1 minute ago, DC Tom said:

 

It starts with "No one pays any attention to me, so I'm starting a new thread!"

 

Then it rather surprisingly finds room to go downhill from there.

No, no, I'm teaching Rant how to say what he means in fewer words. It's a public service.

[LA Grant]

2 minutes ago, /dev/null said:

In the 24 hour cable news cycle the debate has shifted from a courteous professional dialogue on the House floor to shouting matches on Fox, MSNBC, and CNN.  Adding additional members will just up the volume as they further cede authority to the Executive Branch

 

Idk, I reckon it'd lead to the opposite result, really. 

 

You're more likely to see more populist/independent Reps, I'd think. Obviously both Rand Paul & Bernie Sanders are Senators, but those kinds of voices could have more opportunity for representation, if there were more seats with smaller base of constituents. 

 

Electorate districts of 200,000 — instead of 700k currently — would be more likely to get their Rep on the phone, or to influence their vote. With 1000 House Reps, it then dilutes the "importance" of any one individual. Therefore, it's more likely that even the Cable News monstrosities would reflect a wider range of voices on their programs.

[/dev/null]

4 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

It starts with "No one pays any attention to me, so I'm starting a new thread!"

 

Then it rather surprisingly finds room to go downhill from there.

LAMPPP (Look at Me PPP)

[Koko78]

6 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

Wallace and Perot gave the people third parties which changed the election results.

 

 

You can say the same about the Bull Moose Party. None of them were viable as parties, other than accomplishing their goal as spoilers in a Presidential election. They all very quickly went away.

[Taro T]

56 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

1000 member House of Reps wouldn't necessarily be unwieldy, but it would be different.

 

Maybe you'd have better success talking about "the elephant in the room" if you just asked directly? I get that you want to make this about presidential elections and the Electoral College, and yes, the current math for the EC means that votes in OH or FL have more worth than votes in NY or CA in a presidential election. This is only "good" if it works out for "your team" but it isn't good for... representative democracy. Theoretically, that would be an ideal that we share. Hence, I am trying to keep the discussion more holistic, as the House of Reps proportions have wider-ranging effects than simply as integers for the EC. 

 

Obviously, the more populated states would have more Reps than the less-populated states... exactly as they do now. Increasing the representation ratio to match the population is a problem if you think the votes for American citizens votes shouldn't matter equally. 

 

FYI Florida & NY currently have the exact same representation in the EC.

 

 

[DC Tom]

1 minute ago, Taro T said:

 

FYI Florida & NY currently have the exact same representation in the EC.

 

 

 

Yes, but they don't have more WORTH votes.

 

Whatever the !@#$ that means. 

[LA Grant]

4 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

History shows us otherwise. As you pointed out, the number of reps went up each census for over a century, yet there has only ever been one viable third party - the GOP. Even then, it very quickly returned to a two party system.

 

The thing about increased competition and turnover rate that you have to remember is that while Congress has an approval rating in the 20's (on a good day), the incumbency rate is well over 90%. People hate Congress, but love their representative.

 

Right, but that's exactly it, isn't it?

 

A major factor for the incumbency rate is the size of the districts. Only 20% of the population votes in Congressional races, in part because they don't feel represented, and because the incumbent's victory always looks inevitable. Smaller districts = increased voter turnout, you'd think... because 1 vote out of 200k matters more than 1 out of 700k.

 

The situation now is a vicious cycle & self-fulling prophecy. Anybody in support of democracy should want better turnout in elections. Otherwise, our elections might as well be as staged as they are in Egypt or Russia. As we don't want that, we should advocate for better representation.

 

[row_33]

2 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

You can say the same about the Bull Moose Party. None of them were viable as parties, other than accomplishing their goal as spoilers in a Presidential election. They all very quickly went away.

 

Wallace got shot, he may have won the nod otherwise for the Dems in 1972 as they set up the primary system

 

saying that there hasn’t been a viable Third party isn’t truthful, or you forgot and are digging your hole error deeper....

 

[Koko78]

1 minute ago, row_33 said:

 

Wallace got shot, he may have won the nod otherwise for the Dems in 1972 as they set up the primary system

 

saying that there hasn’t been a viable Third party isn’t truthful, or you forgot and are digging your hole error deeper....

 

 

Viable does not mean screwed up a single presidential election for one side or the other. Viable means viable, as in they can regularly field candidates and win elections. The Libertarian and Green parties, for example, are not viable parties, because they cannot win elections.

 

You do remember that there is actually more than one position in the US government that is filled via election, right?

[LA Grant]

4 minutes ago, Taro T said:

FYI Florida & NY currently have the exact same representation in the EC.

 

Yes, correct. Thanks.

 

Let me ask — do you have any thoughts to increasing the size of the House outside of EC considerations? Are there any benefits you can see to creating a better ratio, or only drawbacks?

 

 

[Cinga]

Forgive me in advance, but this thread is some really stupid **** right here... 

 

Accordingly, we get a new rep for every 200.000 residents right? Ya know we do that about every month don't you? And we're also going to give them control of the purse strings to build a new capitol building every couple years?

 

All this stupid ass **** can be fixed much easier, and return us to the Republic we are supposed to be by simply repealing the 17th Amendment.... I know, won't help the idiots that think we are a democracy at all, but will certainly shut their mouths.... 

[keepthefaith]

37 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Don't you think "fair representation" should be a big priority for the federal government?

 

It's entirely possible that a House with 1000 Reps instead of 435 could find more coalition-based solutions, thereby curbing the dysfunction. Instead of 218 out of 435, you'd need 501 out of 1000 for majority. True, doing this wouldn't fix everything overnight, but it would probably lead to new ideas being presented, and more interesting debates.

 

 

Doubtful.  The larger the body the tougher it is to find consensus or a majority.  The political culture in Washington has to change or at least improve to some extent.  535 people is more than enough to solve a handful of issues.