Skip to comments.
Answer to redistricting: Enlarge Congress
Townhall.com ^
| 12-19-03
| Jonah Goldberg
Posted on 12/19/2003 7:26:07 AM PST by FairWitness
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-72 next last
To: FairWitness
I disagree. Because we have a small legislature the government is more wieldy. Too large a legislature can become cumbersome and make it harder to observe corruption in the government. We already have trouble watching the few hundred elected crooks in power.
To: FairWitness
I was surprised that a search did not show this article as being posted yet since Jonah's writing is generally posted here. Apologies if I missed it in my search.
I felt compelled to post this article since it coincided with a "vanity" that I posted a while ago: We are all "Disenfranchised" (Too Few Representatives)--Vanity.
To: FairWitness
Ugh, I don't know if I could stomach a LARGER congress.
To: FairWitness
Maybe the DUMBEST thing he's ever written....Marriage has turned his mind to mush...remember the old joke about Reagan's plan to cure poverty...50,000 teams in the NBA...
5
posted on
12/19/2003 7:32:50 AM PST
by
ken5050
To: DeuceTraveler
Yeah, good idea! Let's find some more jobs for untalented, sticky-fingered folks that act like organized crime figures!
6
posted on
12/19/2003 7:34:03 AM PST
by
Wombat101
(Sanitized for YOUR protection....)
To: FairWitness
Oh, come on, Jonah! More Congresscritters??!! You call that an answer? I think you are just blowing smoke! The idea is to get the House so big that it becomes completely unable to function, so no new laws can get passed. Then, all we have to do is let a lot of existing stupid laws sunset. Nice theory, but the current crop of Congresscritters wants to hold on to their perks and power, so will block any effort to dilute it, including increasing their number.
7
posted on
12/19/2003 7:36:05 AM PST
by
RebelBanker
(Deo Vindice)
To: FairWitness
Re-posting a table from my earlier
post, demonstrating how we (U.S.A.) have (except for India), the highest "population per representative" ratio amongst majot countries.
Population, Number of Representatives in House (Lower Chamber) of Congress and Ratio of Population to Representatives for Major Nations of the World
Nation |
Population (1) |
Representatives (2) ("Lower" Chamber) |
Pop./Representative |
India |
1,045,845,226 |
545 |
1,918,982 |
United States |
280,562,489 |
435 |
644,971 |
Indonesia |
231,328,092 |
500 |
462,656 |
Bangladesh |
133,376,684 |
300 |
444,589 |
Pakistan |
147,663,429 |
342 |
431,764 |
China (PRC) |
1,284,303,705 |
2,985 |
430,252 |
Philippines |
84,525,639 |
220 |
384,207 |
Nigeria |
129,934,911 |
360 |
360,930 |
Brazil |
176,029,560 |
513 |
343,138 |
Russia |
144,978,573 |
450 |
322,175 |
Japan |
126,974,628 |
480 |
264,530 |
Peru |
27,949,639 |
120 |
232,914 |
Iran |
66,622,704 |
290 |
229,733 |
Mexico |
103,400,165 |
500 |
206,800 |
Saudi Arabia |
23,513,330 |
120 |
195,944 |
S. Korea |
48,324,000 |
273 |
177,011 |
Vietnam |
81,098,416 |
498 |
162,848 |
Egypt |
70,712,345 |
454 |
155,754 |
Venezuela |
24,287,670 |
165 |
147,198 |
Argentina |
37,812,817 |
257 |
147,132 |
Kenya |
31,138,735 |
224 |
139,012 |
Germany |
83,251,851 |
603 |
138,063 |
Ecuador |
13,183,978 |
100 |
131,840 |
Australia |
19,357,594 |
150 |
129,051 |
Chile |
15,328,467 |
120 |
127,737 |
Thailand |
62,354,402 |
500 |
124,709 |
Ethiopia |
67,673,031 |
550 |
123,042 |
Turkey |
67,308,928 |
550 |
122,380 |
Guatemala |
12,974,361 |
113 |
114,817 |
Spain |
40,077,100 |
350 |
114,506 |
Netherlands |
15,981,472 |
150 |
106,543 |
Canada |
31,902,268 |
301 |
105,988 |
France |
59,765,983 |
577 |
103,581 |
Italy |
57,715,625 |
630 |
91,612 |
United Kingdom |
59,778,002 |
659 |
90,710 |
Poland |
38,625,478 |
460 |
83,968 |
Belgium |
10,258,762 |
150 |
68,392 |
Bolivia |
8,300,463 |
130 |
63,850 |
Czech Republic |
10,264,212 |
200 |
51,321 |
Israel |
5,938,093 |
120 |
49,484 |
Austria |
8,150,835 |
183 |
44,540 |
Portugal |
10,066,253 |
230 |
43,766 |
Switzerland |
7,283,274 |
200 |
36,416 |
Greece |
10,623,835 |
300 |
35,413 |
New Zealand |
3,864,129 |
120 |
32,201 |
Denmark |
5,352,815 |
179 |
29,904 |
Norway |
4,503,440 |
165 |
27,294 |
Hungary |
10,106,017 |
386 |
26,181 |
Finland |
5,175,783 |
200 |
25,879 |
Sweden |
8,875,053 |
349 |
25,430 |
Ireland |
3,840,838 |
166 |
23,138 |
1) Population (nations > 20,000,000) is the 2002 estimated population from
GeoHive-Global Data-Top 50, or for smaller nations (nations < 20,000,000), from
GeoHive-Global Data-All. 2) The number of members (Representatives) in the "Lower House" of each national parliament is taken from the
PARLINE Database of the International Organization of Parliaments of Sovereign States (IPU).
To: All
Lots of reactivity here. If you feel that being one of 650,000 people represented by your representative allows your "voice to be heard", good enough.
To: FairWitness
Yeah like if 435 of them don't work, 600 would? Sounds like an awful waste of money to pay even more people to be corrupt.
10
posted on
12/19/2003 7:41:41 AM PST
by
thoughtomator
(The Federal judiciary is a terrorist organization)
To: thoughtomator
600 more people wandering aimlessly around Capitol Hill? There's enough gridlock up there already.
11
posted on
12/19/2003 7:45:29 AM PST
by
cordeiro
(Never bring a knife to a gunfight)
To: FairWitness
The size of the Congress has increased from time to time, so I see no good reason not to enlarge it somewhat --not in the thousands, as suggested, but perhaps up to, say, 500. That would surely give the "red" states more clout, and therefore be more reflective of the true political tone of the country.
12
posted on
12/19/2003 7:46:16 AM PST
by
Salvey
To: FairWitness
Obviously the answer is to make the country's population much smaller. ;-)
A larger Congress is unlikely to make the country better. As long as the redistricting process makes most districts "a sure thing" for one party or the other, your voice (w/o some monetary "lubrication") is unlikely to be heard no matter the number of constituents.
13
posted on
12/19/2003 7:47:22 AM PST
by
Paladin2
To: FairWitness
Goldberg has a point, but I'm not convinced.
The number of constituents per Rep has increased, to the point that they can't give heed to individuals. Write your congressman and chances are you get an automated reply from a PR flack (unless you are Bill Gates or General Motors). Going door to door is impossible, a congressman would never get to see even a fraction of his constituents.
OTOH, I believe in the idea of limited government, and this is definitely not it.
14
posted on
12/19/2003 7:49:57 AM PST
by
ZOOKER
To: FairWitness
I can't agree more. The only way to talk to a congressperson these days is either be lucky, or have money. The congress should be like the political conventions of old. Hold sessions in a stadium. 5,000 would be good number to start. To keep costs down they all couldn't all be full time with the staffs that they have now. Perhaps only term limited chairpersons, etc.
15
posted on
12/19/2003 7:52:06 AM PST
by
glorgau
To: FairWitness
From the article: All of the ideas for fixing congressional districting call for more and more undemocratic intrusions into the process, particularly by unelected federal judges. Liberals and sympathetic judges want more minority representation. Fine. Most of us want representatives to reflect the values of their communities.
To: FairWitness
But a couple thousand wouldn't be a bad way to start.
Yep, another 1565 blowhards to suck up tax dollars and divy up more pork is all that's needed..... Much more efficient and responsive I'm sure....
Heck maybe they should reduce today's number by 1/2 and limit the session days to 180 days.... let them spend some time in their districts with their constituents.....
17
posted on
12/19/2003 8:09:34 AM PST
by
deport
To: glorgau; FairWitness
18
posted on
12/19/2003 8:11:35 AM PST
by
metesky
(Kids, don't let this happen to you!)
To: ClintonBeGone
My immediate reaction was NO, but he makes a good case....
..
19
posted on
12/19/2003 8:12:32 AM PST
by
expatpat
To: Paladin2
A higher number of smaller districts won't bring an end to gerrymandering. They make it even easier with more normal looking districts. Even with a total population of 1,000, ten districts, and evenly split political beliefs--you can gerrymander it so that one has a clear advantage. All it takes is mostly 60/40 districts favoring one party, and a few 100% districts favoring the other party. In this instance, the party that controls redistricting would have an 8-2 advantage.
20
posted on
12/19/2003 8:17:36 AM PST
by
mongrel
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-72 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson