Americans are not well-represented in their government

[Taro T]

51 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

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?

 

 

 

While theoretically such a proposal might increase the representation of individuals, really don't see it doing that effectively.  Would expect a couple of the unintended consequences being that for issues that aren't strongly advocated by special interests that gridlock would increase (which isn't necessarily a bad thing) and for those issues that special interests do hold dear, the big guys now have an even greater advantage as they have the resources to lobby the larger # of Congresscritters now required to pass legislation.

[keepthefaith]

14 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

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.

 

 

Term limits.

and

Many people don't vote because they simply don't care and/or don't pay attention.  The portion not paying attention is a significant majority IMO. 

[LA Grant]

Just now, keepthefaith said:

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. 

 

Representing American citizens better would help improve the political culture in Washington, which is dominated by corporate interests.

 

We know that a larger legislative body can still find consensus. It happens elsewhere in the developed world. In fact, you'll see that, whether the proposal comes from liberal or conservative writers, the question tends to be "Wait a minute, why are citizens in the UK represented better than in the US?" 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_legislatures_by_number_of_members

 

The disparity shouldn't be that high.

[LA Grant]

27 minutes ago, keepthefaith said:

Term limits.

and

Many people don't vote because they simply don't care and/or don't pay attention.  The portion not paying attention is a significant majority IMO. 

 

Right, but it's a "chicken or the egg" catch-22, isn't it? 

 

To get better representation, we need more voters to care. For more voters to care, they need to see better representation.

 

I don't think increasing the House would fix everything ... but that it could put the wheels in motion for more coalition-based solutions, and less ideological deadlocks. 

 

Reviving the demand for shorter term limits is a good solution. Improving the House ratio would be just as beneficial, if not moreso. IMO.

 

28 minutes ago, Taro T said:

While theoretically such a proposal might increase the representation of individuals, really don't see it doing that effectively.  Would expect a couple of the unintended consequences being that for issues that aren't strongly advocated by special interests that gridlock would increase (which isn't necessarily a bad thing) and for those issues that special interests do hold dear, the big guys now have an even greater advantage as they have the resources to lobby the larger # of Congresscritters now required to pass legislation.

 

Right. Well, I think the reason special interests are able to win as much as they do is because it's easier to control a small group within Congress than it would be to control a bigger group.

 

Answering to a smaller electorate means the Reps would have to be more accountable, even if the turnout ratio remains where only 20% of those 200,000 actually vote.

 

If the House increased to 1000 members, Congress would be at 1100 members (still well below the UK's total of 1430 with combined Houses of Lords and Commons) — and the House would need 501 votes for majority... which is more than there are current members of the House right now.

 

Herding 218 cats is one thing... herding 501 is going to lead to more scratches for the special interests/lobbyists.

 

Adding more voices may make the House more chaotic in some ways, but it's not unreasonable to think it would work at least as well as it does now, since one of the most comparable nations to the US is able to handle it effectively & pass laws. There's really nowhere to go but up for Congress at this point, so why not give the public more of a direct say in the matter?

 

All that said — I don't think Congress would ever want to do this on their own. Why would they want to limit their individual power? The only way it could happen is if more people advocated for it, on both sides. 

 

In terms of demanding that, I don't see why that couldn't be a universally-desired change? Everyone agrees that Congress is inept & special interest groups wield too much power. A lot of people feel like their government doesn't represent them, whether you have Obama as president or Trump. As we can only elect 1 President, and we have no direct influence on the Supreme Court, and the Senate makes all states equal... only the House presents an opportunity for adding better representation.

Edited April 9, 2018 by LA Grant

[boyst]

I am fairly certain I know grants logic. Eventually he will tell us what he's had in his mind for a long time. "At least I'm doing something about it, looking for a solution. You guys just simply gripe and don't think of any change. "

[row_33]

1 hour ago, Cinga said:

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.... 

 

It is strange that NY state has shrunk in reps from 45 to 27 or so since the 1950s

 

 

 

[Koko78]

1 minute ago, row_33 said:

 

It is strange that NY state has shrunk in reps from 45 to 27 or so since the 1950s

 

 

It's almost like people don't want to pay high taxes and be overregulated.

[row_33]

I would caution not to think a third or more parties would solve your problems.

 

Canada has three major parties, the third has not been a federal contender but often forms our provincial governments. We have had 4th parties, recently a party in Quebec was very powerful with its sole reason for existence being the removal of Quebec from Canada. The prairies and West have had interesting 4th parties as well from farmer cooperatives and social credit theories of monetary reform.

 

A minority government in a Parliament is handcuffed and waiting out the months until an election is forced by a motion of non-confidence, usually delivered on its first budget.

 

[row_33]

 

 

the US has an election cycle set on specific dates, the majority of Congresss cannot simply dissolve its government and force an election, not can the government declare an election at its whim at any time before statute requires an election.

 

 

[Azalin]

3 hours ago, Cinga said:

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.... 

 

That would certainly help, but as far as the electorate goes, a little common sense and knowledge of basic civics would go a long way too.

[Doc Brown]

4 hours 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.

 

 

Where would they find the office space?  If they were to increase the House they'd use the Wyoming rule and there'd be 545 Congressman using the 2010 Census with larger states (CA, NY, TX) gaining slightly more influence.  I'm apathetic to whether they change it or not. 

[LA Grant]

1 hour ago, Doc Brown said:

Where would they find the office space?  If they were to increase the House they'd use the Wyoming rule and there'd be 545 Congressman using the 2010 Census with larger states (CA, NY, TX) gaining slightly more influence.  I'm apathetic to whether they change it or not. 

 

They could use the office space they have already — maybe some of them have to share office space instead of having multiple rooms to themselves. I know you're joking with that but just saying -- I think the whole concept of career politicians needs a shake-up. Trump's election, if nothing else, speaks to that. Less royalty, more public service. Serving in the House of Representatives should be as profitable as jury duty, and just as glamorous... a bit of an exaggeration to make the point.

 

You're right about The Wyoming Rule giving more to CA, TX, NY, as the three most populous states in the US are relatively underrepresented because of the fixed limit -- but at least 40 States would gain at least 1 additional Rep, and you'd see even more States benefit with the next Census and redistricting. 

 

The other proposal is The Cube Root Rule, which is a bit more logical and fair, but either would be an improvement. When you look at the population/rep ratios for legislative bodies in comparable countries, the difference is staggering, and I don't think anyone would argue that the US Congress is some utopian body of legislators. So, we all agree that Congress needs fixing, it's just a matter of how.

 

It's interesting, the size of the House used to considered with some regularity by Congress before it was fixed 100 years ago. Over time, the 435 number has just been taken at face value..... but there's not any great reason for that. It's to no one's benefit — other than career politicians, and the lobbyists who can curry favor with them — to keep the cap fixed at 435.

Edited April 9, 2018 by LA Grant

[sherpa]

Violates the first law of commonsensodynamics.

If something is clearly broke, you fix it before you grow it.

[4merper4mer]

10 hours ago, Boyst62 said:

Is this worth reading?  Can someone tl,Dr?

 

This clown is exactly that. 

Summary: He's a commie.

[Wacka]

What LAG is proposing sounds like a Politboro.  Coincidence?

[TakeYouToTasker]

I oppose, in principle, ideas that move us closer to a democracy than a republic, and this is one such move.

 

The purpose of such a move would be to weaken the electoral and legislative power of the middle of the country, leading directly to a situation in which what we currently call red states are dictated to by California and New York.

 

A better solution would be for California to simply exit the United States, and to abolish the 17th Amendment.

[row_33]

No way that America outside of Hollywood  and Wall Street gives up its political power

 

 

[Cugalabanza]

1 hour ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

I oppose, in principle, ideas that move us closer to a democracy than a republic, and this is one such move.

 

 

I happen to agree with you on this.  It's a point I find myself making fairly regularly with left leaning friends who say we should do away with the electoral college.  I mention "The Great Compromise" and nobody ever seems to know what I'm talking about.  I often feel like I'm the only one who remembers that from social studies in middle school.  Anyway, I appreciate the thinking of our founding fathers on this.  It's a legit safeguard in a representative democracy.

 

However, gerrymandering... that's where it kind of gets !@#$ed up.

1 hour ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

A better solution would be for California to simply exit the United States, and to abolish the 17th Amendment.

 

This one I'm not with you so much on.

[TakeYouToTasker]

4 minutes ago, Cugalabanza said:

 

I happen to agree with you on this.  It's a point I find myself making fairly regularly with left leaning friends who say we should do away with the electoral college.  I mention "The Great Compromise" and nobody ever seems to know what I'm talking about.  I often feel like I'm the only one who remembers that from social studies in middle school.  Anyway, I appreciate the thinking of our founding fathers on this.  It's a legit safeguard in a representative democracy.

 

However, gerrymandering... that's where it kind of gets !@#$ed up.

 

This one I'm not with you so much on.

California exiting the United States is a recommendation for Californians who feel that they are under represented in our government.

 

I am of the opinion that America is too large, and too culturally diverse to be represented by a single federal government.  Many Californians desire a federal government lacking the constraints our Constitution demands.  There is a philisophical impasse in play.  As such, Californians may be better served by severing the ties binding them to the United States, and instituting a government more in line with their beliefs.

 

As much as I don't think California should have the authority to dictate to vastly different cultures in other states how they should live; I don't believe California should be dictated to either, and as such, it may be time for them to leave.

 

The Union should not be treated as a death pact.  When in no longer serves the interests of the several parties, it should be disolved.

[Cugalabanza]

6 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

California exiting the United States is a recommendation for Californians who feel that they are under represented in our government.

 

I am of the opinion that America is too large, and too culturally diverse to be represented by a single federal government.  Many Californians desire a federal government lacking the constraints our Constitution demands.  There is a philisophical impasse in play.  As such, Californians may be better served by severing the ties binding them to the United States, and instituting a government more in line with their beliefs.

 

As much as I don't think California should have the authority to dictate to vastly different cultures in other states how they should live; I don't believe California should be dictated to either, and as such, it may be time for them to leave.

 

The Union should not be treated as a death pact.  When in no longer serves the interests of the several parties, it should be disolved.

 

I hear you.  I think your points are valid.  I differ in that I think the nation as a whole can withstand the broader diversity.  I don't think any issue (or issues) is so split and essential that reasonable compromise cannot be found.

 

The divisiveness and combativeness that we're experiencing now is mostly due to ****ty politics.  You don't get off the plane in California and experience this overwhelming culture shock.  I think people watch too much ****ty news.  And I think way too much of the news is way too ****ty.  And I think our politicians generally behave terribly.

 

When we travel, when my kid plays with other kids, including families of different backgrounds, things are generally fine.  People generally care about the same things.

 

Politics tends to take relatively simple moral issues and confuse the hell out of them so that an absurd conclusion can be claimed to have been arrived at logically.  If we concentrate our efforts, as citizens, on minimizing corruption and fraud in our government, I suspect many of the other problems will fall away.