Replies

RE: Multi-Member House districts

BAD IDEA. We have that here in West Virginia with our delegate districts to the State House and it stinks. In such districts, we end up with deadbeat ('Rat) delegates who ride on the coat-tails of the other delegate(s) who either do all the work or don't and then point a finger instead. As such, there's mass confusion, nothing gets done, and our state is a mess (and you thought California's was bad?). Of course, the 'Rats love this.

This is why there is a statewide drive now (by Republicans) for SINGLE Delegate districts where the delegate can and will be held individually responsible to his/her constituents. When politicians are held accountable, more good things than bad things tend to get done.

RE your suggestion for 3 senators - I think there was some discussion of this during the constitutional convention...will look it up. Of course, the real problem with the senate is that they're elected in the first place. The proper solution is to repeal the 17th amendment and go back to having the respective state legislatures choose their senators. Thus, citizen election of their state legislators becomes MORE important thus transfers more responsibility downstream... makes politics more local. Senators can then spend all their time actually working rather than campaigning/fundraising/sucking-up to lobbyists & special interests.

"RE: Multi-Member House districts. BAD IDEA . . . In such districts, we end up with deadbeat ('Rat) delegates who ride on the coat-tails of the other delegate(s) who either do all the work or don't and then point a finger instead"

In the case of WV, it would elect its 4 Representatives (it's currently 3, but after increasing the number of Reps to 570 WV would elect 4) from a 4-member district. Your district would almost certainly elect two Republicans and two Democrats. An important vote comes up, and only 1 of the Republicans votes the way you'd like, with the other Republican and the two RATs voting the wrong way. At the next GOP primary, where you can vote for 3 candidates, you vote for the guy who voted the right way and for two challengers (and not for the Republican who voted the wrong way). If the unfaithful Republican somehow makes it through the primary, you can just vote for the one good Republican in the general election (since you only vote for one candidate in the general anyhow). So you can hold both Republicans accountable. As for the two RATs who get elected, that's up to the RAT voters. If they want to send some idiot like Nick Joe Rahall to the House, that's their problem. But at least you'd have a couple of Republicans representing you instead of a single RAT-for-life who keeps voting to increase your taxes.

As for repealing the 17th Amendment and returning to a system in which state legislature elect Senators, while the idea appeals to me on federalism grounds, I don't think yoy'll get better representation that way. Do you think the WV legislature would ever vote against Byrd or Rockefeller? At least if a majority of West Virginians want to vote for Jay Wolfe instead of one of those two bozos they would be able to make a change in the Senate, but the RAT-dominated WV legislature would just keep sending back those two RATs no matter what the people think. Remember, it's easier to convince 50%+1 of West Virginians to oppose Byrd or Rockefeller and vote for Wolfe than it is to convince 50%+1 of West Virginians in each state legislative district to vote against their incumbent legislator merely because he or she voted for Byrd or Rockefeller. There are 1,000 other issues voters will concentrate on. Having state legislators elect Senators will make Senators even less accountable to the people than they are today.