Americans are not well-represented in their government

[snafu]

Congressional approval rating is 14%.  And I'd be willing to bet that the reasons have nothing to do with people feeling as though they're under-served.  https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html

 

Heck, Trump's approval rating among Democrats is arguably within hailing distance of that number (9%). 

http://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx

 

I doubt the OP will be getting a lot of support around the country in favor of making Congress larger.  And for him to think that the extra members of Congress wouldn't be the product of party machines, and therefore partisan, is a total pipe dream.

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

4 minutes ago, snafu said:

Congressional approval rating is 14%.  And I'd be willing to bet that the reasons have nothing to do with people feeling as though they're under-served.  https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html

 

Heck, Trump's approval rating among Democrats is arguably within hailing distance of that number (9%). 

http://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx

 

I doubt the OP will be getting a lot of support around the country in favor of making Congress larger.  And for him to think that the extra members of Congress wouldn't be the product of party machines, and therefore partisan, is a total pipe dream.

 

He doesn't think that.  He's interested in changes which shift us away from republicanism and push the country towards his Marxist belief system, and this is one such change.

[LA Grant]

8 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

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.

 

You're the second poster in this thread to mention abolishing the 17th Amendment.... man, The Federalist blog really has a hold on PPP, huh? That belief system is fringe, utterly ridiculous, and can only be sustained in an alternate reality of hypothetical assumptions.

 

Repealing, or more clearly defining, the 2nd Amendment (easily the most ambiguous Amendment, and the one that's lead to the most collateral damage to America's collective safety) is ludicrous.... Yet you also advocate for repealing the 17th Amendment, wanting to return to the Senate being elected by State legislatures instead of directly by the public. Such a move would only increase the power of the establishment machinery & increase political corruption, and you are okay with that.

 

The purpose of increasing representation is to make the government more accountable to the public. The reason to oppose this, as you state yourself, is so that the power remains where it is — withheld from The People.

 

You want the republic to be more of an oligarchy, whereas I want it to be more of a democracy. True or false?

[Koko78]

The 2nd Amendment is only ambiguous if you're a dipschiff who ignores commas, historical context, common sense, Supreme Court precedent, and reality.

 

[LA Grant]

5 hours ago, snafu said:

Congressional approval rating is 14%.  And I'd be willing to bet that the reasons have nothing to do with people feeling as though they're under-served.  https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html

 

Heck, Trump's approval rating among Democrats is arguably within hailing distance of that number (9%). 

http://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx

 

I doubt the OP will be getting a lot of support around the country in favor of making Congress larger.  And for him to think that the extra members of Congress wouldn't be the product of party machines, and therefore partisan, is a total pipe dream.

 

Let me ask you then — what force in America is capable of keeping the government in check? 

 

The free press? Or no, aren't they all fake news?

 

The public? No, they cannot be trusted.

 

Trump's twitter feed?

 

You tell me.

 

1 minute ago, Koko78 said:

The 2nd Amendment is only ambiguous if you're a dipschiff who ignores commas, historical context, common sense, Supreme Court precedent, and reality.

 

Well that's funny, as it betrays your complete ignorance of history & context.

 

How many times has the 2nd Amendment been defined by the Supreme Court, and when? What did they decide?

 

How many times has the 1st Amendment been defined by the Supreme Court?

 

I'll wait.

 

6 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

What I said about President Trump was predictive.  I believe there is mounting evidence that our government is being returned to The People as bad actors within our government, and those external of our government who pull the strings are being put down.  I am convinced, that as the prosecution of these bad actors occurs, and what they were doing comes to light, that history will view President Trump as a great man.

 

I also believe that his election was, in part, a rebuke of New York and California by "flyover country"; and that the response by people opposed to the President are demonstrating why we should no longer live together.

 

You just advocated for repealing the 17th Amendment — direct election of the Senate — but you also want government returned to The People. ?

 

You should perhaps clarify in the future, exactly who you mean by "The People" since you also have said you oppose the "democracy" in "democratic republic," lest you be labeled again as "disingenuous." 

 

http://www.newsweek.com/im-holocaust-survivor-trumps-america-feels-germany-nazis-took-over-876965

[LA Grant]

5 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

He doesn't think that.  He's interested in changes which shift us away from republicanism and push the country towards his Marxist belief system, and this is one such change.

 

I've lost count of how many times you've tried now to label my belief system as "Marxist" (before that, according to you, I was an "Alinsky-ite"). You claim you're not disingenuous, you claim you're not intellectually dishonest. It's quite clear that we have different philosophies. What's less clear is your willingness to be truthful.

 

In spite of all the evidence, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here to ask you a more open-ended philosophical question: Can you articulate what you believe my beliefs are, without the use of "Red Scare" terms with loaded meanings? 

 

 

[LA Grant]

8 hours 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.

 

Hi Cugalabanza. I'm curious to know which part of Tasker's statement you agree with? If it's the benign observation that the US is a democratic republic, then we all agree.

 

If it's the proposal to repeal the 17th Amendment and have the Senate elected by State legislatures instead of the public — why?

 

Gerrymandering is incredibly !@#$ed up, and it's not because it's been advocated for by The Will of The People. Gerrymandering is one of the sneakiest and most crucial ways Congress holds onto their power. 

 

I'd like to see Congress be held more accountable. The only way I can see that happening is by The People having more power in changing Congress. Improving the ratio of the House, which was never intended to be a legislative body where 1 Rep = 700,000 citizens, would perhaps dramatically reshape the power imbalance.

 

What do you think? 

[keepthefaith]

6 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Trump is a great man 

 

 

Apparently a lot of woman agree.  Many want to sleep with him. 

[{::'KayCeeS::}]

To the OP:

 

Thank you for such a substantive post.

 

I would agree that the biggest problem with our government is representation.  The more local the representation, the more responsive the governance.  Doesn't matter what flag is flown (party wise).

 

Your proposal is something to begin a serious dialogue about.  But, unfortunately, the masses of this country are too buy cheering for their "teams" (parties).  This is by design, of course.  Otherwise we would have a parlimentarian system like every European country. 

 

Was it Napoleon who said "Divide and Conquer"?

 

It's very simple when you think about it.  How do you control (in the US) hundreds of millions of people?

 

Set them against themselves.  Like College Football Rivals.  We'll be to busy cheering/fighting amongst ourselves to notice.... especially in the current clickbait age.

 

Edited April 9, 2018 by {::'KayCeeS::}

[LA Grant]

7 minutes ago, {::'KayCeeS::} said:

To the OP:

 

Thank you for such a substantive post.

 

I would agree that the biggest problem with our government is representation.  The more local the representation, the more responsive the governance.  Doesn't matter what flag is flown (party wise).

 

Your proposal is something to begin a serious dialogue about.  But, unfortunately, the masses of this country are too buy cheering for their "teams" (parties).  This is by design, of course.  Otherwise we would have a parlimentarian system like every European country. 

 

Was it Napoleon who said "Divide and Conquer"?

 

It's very simple when you think about it.  How do you control (in the US) hundreds of millions of people?

 

Set them against themselves.  Like College Football Rivals.  We'll be to busy cheering/fighting amongst ourselves to notice.... especially in the current clickbait age.

 

 

Exactly this. You get it.

 

Thanks for posting.

[Cugalabanza]

1 hour ago, LA Grant said:

 

Hi Cugalabanza. I'm curious to know which part of Tasker's statement you agree with? If it's the benign observation that the US is a democratic republic, then we all agree.

 

If it's the proposal to repeal the 17th Amendment and have the Senate elected by State legislatures instead of the public — why?

 

Gerrymandering is incredibly !@#$ed up, and it's not because it's been advocated for by The Will of The People. Gerrymandering is one of the sneakiest and most crucial ways Congress holds onto their power. 

 

I'd like to see Congress be held more accountable. The only way I can see that happening is by The People having more power in changing Congress. Improving the ratio of the House, which was never intended to be a legislative body where 1 Rep = 700,000 citizens, would perhaps dramatically reshape the power imbalance.

 

What do you think? 

 

I was agreeing with Tasker about the electoral college. I see the value of it.  

 

I don’t support abolishing the 17th.

 

I see your point about representation, but I agree with others who pointed out that people are disgusted with our legislators—you won’t be able to make the case that we need more of them.  We need to work on the *quality* of representation, not quantity.

[LA Grant]

1 minute ago, Cugalabanza said:

I was agreeing with Tasker about the electoral college. I see the value of it.  

 

I don’t support abolishing the 17th.

 

I see your point about representation, but I agree with others who pointed out that people are disgusted with our legislators—you won’t be able to make the case that we need more of them.  We need to work on the *quality* of representation, not quantity.

 

I go back & forth on the electoral college, but the more troubling issue with it is how the math is calculated. 

 

You're right that it's hard to make the case, because the idea of "big government" is a specter, and the idea of "adding more" to Congress sounds like all it would do is make Congress even more of a bloated mess. But the proposal to increase the House would be working on the quality of the representation -- it makes it easier for citizen-legislators to plausibly be elected; more likely for elected officials to be held accountable; etc etc, as I've laid out. 

 

When we're talking about "representation" — for a population as diverse in so many factors like Americans are — quality & quantity are inextricably linked. IMO.

 

This, in addition to shorter term limits, would vastly improve the quality of representation. The struggle is — how do you make this into a snappy, digestible soundbite? That's the only way people seem to understand things, it seems — only in catchphrases on Cable News.

[Cugalabanza]

5 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

...shorter term limits, would vastly improve the quality of representation.

 

 

Term limits are intriguing, but I’m not sold just yet.  Ideally, voters would do the job of limiting terms as necessary.  The bigger problems to me are lobbying and campaign finance.  Lawmakers spend way too much time shmoozing, planning fundraisers and campaigning all the time.  With what little time they have left, they !@#$ around drafting memos and slinging mud at their enemies.  If we could have them actually put some energy into legislating, in the actual interests of their constituencies, that might be acceptable.

[LA Grant]

6 minutes ago, Cugalabanza said:

Term limits are intriguing, but I’m not sold just yet.  Ideally, voters would do the job of limiting terms as necessary.  The bigger problems to me are lobbying and campaign finance.  Lawmakers spend way too much time shmoozing, planning fundraisers and campaigning all the time.  With what little time they have left, they !@#$ around drafting memos and slinging mud at their enemies.  If we could have them actually put some energy into legislating, in the actual interests of their constituencies, that might be acceptable.

 

I agree with all of this... I think we all do. Nobody is happy with Congress, and you're right about how they spend the majority of their time. Career politicians & lobbyists desperately need to be checked. The question is how will that happen? And who will put that check on them?

 

So it's for the exact reasons you cited that I believe we need to limit the individual person's power in Congress, and return the legislative body more to what it was intended to be — the forum for debating legislation that shapes how The People live in society. 

 

I think it's utterly preposterous that citizens in the UK have more of a voice in legislation than US citizens. It's totally backwards. 

[3rdnlng]

2 hours ago, {::'KayCeeS::} said:

To the OP:

 

Thank you for such a substantive post.

 

I would agree that the biggest problem with our government is representation.  The more local the representation, the more responsive the governance.  Doesn't matter what flag is flown (party wise).

 

Your proposal is something to begin a serious dialogue about.  But, unfortunately, the masses of this country are too buy cheering for their "teams" (parties).  This is by design, of course.  Otherwise we would have a parlimentarian system like every European country. 

 

Was it Napoleon who said "Divide and Conquer"?

 

It's very simple when you think about it.  How do you control (in the US) hundreds of millions of people?

 

Set them against themselves.  Like College Football Rivals.  We'll be to busy cheering/fighting amongst ourselves to notice.... especially in the current clickbait age.

 

Mrs. Grant, it is frowned upon here to cheerlead for your offspring. Please keep these family discussions where they belong, at the dinner table.

[{::'KayCeeS::}]

36 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Mrs. Grant, it is frowned upon here to cheerlead for your offspring. Please keep these family discussions where they belong, at the dinner table.

 

#metoo

[Azalin]

6 hours ago, LA Grant said:

 

 Gerrymandering is one of the sneakiest and most crucial ways Congress holds onto their power. 

 

 

No, gerrymandering is not how congress holds onto power, it's how the respective parties either maintain or contrive to gain control in a given district or state.

 

And there are many reasons for drawing the districts as they are, both good and bad. Is it a bad thing to draw up a district in such a fashion as to give greater political clout to minority populations? What exactly would be your idea of what a proper congressional district look like?

[3rdnlng]

4 minutes ago, Azalin said:

 

No, gerrymandering is not how congress holds onto power, it's how the respective parties either maintain or contrive to gain control in a given district or state.

 

And there are many reasons for drawing the districts as they are, both good and bad. Is it a bad thing to draw up a district in such a fashion as to give greater political clout to minority populations? What exactly would be your idea of what a proper congressional district look like?

You're asking the wrong person.

[LA Grant]

46 minutes ago, Azalin said:

No, gerrymandering is not how congress holds onto power, it's how the respective parties either maintain or contrive to gain control in a given district or state.

 

And there are many reasons for drawing the districts as they are, both good and bad. Is it a bad thing to draw up a district in such a fashion as to give greater political clout to minority populations? What exactly would be your idea of what a proper congressional district look like?

 

Smaller!

 

Right now, one (1) Representative covers all of Montana. One person is supposedly representing the interests of 1 million people.  The average House rep speaks for about 700,000 people.

 

It was not always this way. When the House limit was set (over 100 years ago), the ratio was 1 Rep = 200,000. 

 

Look at the numbers for other legislative bodies. Look at them for a few minutes, and just think about it. Organize the list by the "population/seats" — it's crazy. We're more comparable to India than the UK in terms of proportional representation. That isn't good, if you ask me.

 

So I ask you: Why can't Americans have better representation in our government? Why would that be worse?

Edited April 10, 2018 by LA Grant

[Azalin]

6 hours ago, LA Grant said:

 

Smaller!

 

 

You've already established that's how you feel. That's not what I was talking about.