Posted on 11/05/2008 2:09:01 PM PST by TBP
One such intention is found in Federalist 56 where Madison says, "it seems to give the fullest assurance, that a representative for every 30,000 inhabitants will render the [House of Representatives] both a safe and competent guardian of the interests which will be confided to it."
Excellent research, found at http://www.thirty-thousand.org/index.htm, shows that in 1804 each representative represented about 40,000 people. Today, each representative represents close to 700,000. If we lived up to the vision of our Founders, given today's population, we would have about 7,500 members of the House of Representatives.
We might ask what's so sacrosanct about 435 representatives? Why not 600, or 1,000, or 7,500? Here's part of the answer and, by the way, I never cease to be amazed by the insight and wisdom of our Founders: James Madison, the acknowledged father of the Constitution, argued that the smaller the House of Representatives relative to the nation's population, the greater is the risk of unethical collusion. He said, "Numerous bodies are less subject to venality and corruption."
In a word, he saw competition in the political arena as the best means for protecting our liberties.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
interesting idea.
Not only would it reduce the propensity for corruption and reduce the influence of teh DC elites, but it might well allow more parties to have some representation in Congress than just Dhimmicraps and RINOWhigs.
You’d have members from the NY Conservative Party, the Constitution Party, America’s Independent Party, the Greens, the Independence Party, the Libertarians, and others. You’d have a more widely representative Congress. And your locl representative would be LOCAL.
Maybe in the idea of balanced budgets and budget neutral proposal the government cites for those paid by the government e.g. Medicare; I second the idea of increasing the number of representatives but also the idea of keeping the gross amount now paid to the 435 stable and paying each member the proportionate amount of the gross divided by the new total number of representatives.
To serve in the capacity should be an honor and a priveledge and not a full time job. Maybe if they didn’t get paid so much and limit their other abilities to make income off their titles, they would get the job done in a timely manner. They should be like other contracted labor and be penalized for not getting the job done in a reasonable time frame.
The reason we don’t have that many representatives, at least from this taxpayer’s view, is that I refused to pay what I’m paying now to that many more ‘lifetime’ politicians. If we can change the congress so they are limited in the time they can serve, [I think total of 8 years, excluding presidency] only make reasonable salaries which mean we include [as does the military] all the perks they get, remove their pension plan and make them live contribute to and live on SS like so many others, remove their health plans and make them do medicare when retired, require them to pay for their own health insurance, then I might support that.
Very interesting idea.
It would make such a huge difference in our Federal representation, and would enable us to get LESS done in Congress.
Dang, I must be extremely tired. ‘make them contribute to and live on SS....
getting “LESS done” is a good thing, by the way
btt
With this election bought and paid for by outside influences, and with the damage pelosi, reid and bho will do in the next 2-4 years with rigging election laws we may have seen the last Republican President GW Bush in our life times.
This is an excellent point. The representation could be raised from 40K without overwhelming the House of Representatives. If it is currently 700K, then raise the original 40K to to 100K, 150K or 200K TOPS! With today's technology and communication and make-up of the population in any particular district; urban, suburban & rural anywhere between 100 to 200K would be manageable.
I was just reading and discussing that very thing about the Representatives is what the people voted for. NOT the Senators. Originally, until the mid or late 1860's, the state legislatures voted for and sent the Senators to Washington. We the people only voted for Representatives and for president via the electoral delegates.
I've been wondering the merits of a "vote proportional" electoral college or just a straight popular vote (only for president). "Red state" "Blue state" what does it matter anymore? New York or New Jersey for instance, will always vote "Blue" so what happens to all the "Red" votes when the electoral college throws all it's votes every time to the Democrat? Other "Red" states with only a few electoral votes can't hardly affect an election anymore.
By the way, Virginia is now officially a "Blue state". Add it to New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota...etc.
Also, limit (and reduce) the number of staffers per representative.
Taht's one way, or do as Nebraska does and implement the district system. The person who wins the state would get 2 electoral votes for that, and then the winner of each Congressional district would get an elector to represent that district.
They have no power.
Reality is the only authority.
That's what this website is all about.
Something has to be done to return us to the "Original Intent" of a Representative Republic. We the people should elect our Representatives. If our Representatives represent smaller portions of 100K to 200K tops, then we're better represented. In Virginia, many districts are so large that the division between red and blue within a district make many want the district split...
If we don't feel represented, then we'll lose confidence in the system and not bother to vote. Why should conservatives in NY, NJ, MI, WI, MN bother to vote when their Senator will always be Democrat and the electoral college will always throw to the Democrat?
If I voted for a Representative that only represented 100K to 200K of us, then I would be more represented. If the state legislature elected the two Senators, then the state would have the responsibility to send to Washington the best for the state. [BTW, I'm for Constitutional Amendment of [2] 6-yr term limit on Senator; [4] 2-yr terms for Representative.]
As for President, why not straight popular vote nation-wide? That way, the Conservative's vote would have as much electing power as the Liberals. The "red" parts of the above States would have a lot more electing power than in several past elections. We don't want Conservatives in NY & NJ to be forever asking why bother to vote? the Liberal blue parts will always carry my state...
Even if each Representative and their staff cost a million dollars, having 7,000 of them would only cost $7 billion a year. That would be a small price to pay if it reduced the power of lobbyists and made Representatives more responsible to the people they supposedly represent.
It would just lead to more lobbyists. The only way to fix what has happened to our government is to actually make our vote count. My suggestion is to start grass roots organizations in as many states as possible to force the states to call a constitutional convention to amend the constitution to give the voters the right to recall their senators and representatives. It will never happen going through congress so we take the never used route to get it done 2/3RDs of the states call for constitutional convention. Doesn’t seem to me there would be any voter against getting that power, but the parties would fight it tooth and nail!
Even if we doubled the number, we’d reduce the number of constituents per district to roughly 350,000. That’s a good bit more managealbe, although I think it needs to get down even more.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.