“Which speaks to the importance of States’ Rights.
State Governors need to re-assert themselves and perhaps the disaster that is our Federal Government may bring it about.”
Yep. The problem is that when a state elects a moron for a governor, they typically view themselves as an extension of the federal government. That gives them someone to blame in the event of failure, and someone to go crawling towards begging for handouts when they foul up their state’s economy. I’m in total agreement with State’s Rights. However, I’m still focusing on the size of the US House (what this has to do with the original article is beyond me, sorry :-) ).
Again, I have to emphasize that I am talking about an expansion of representation, not an expansion of government in the entitlement sense. Moreover, I don’t expect a House of 5K or 10K members to have these extravagant salaries and retirement benefits ... that would have to change.
Even the location of the House may have to change ... you could keep part of it in DC, but the “physical” House itself would have to be split into, say, 6 or 8 buildings in various cities across the country in an effort to minimize travel expenses, etc. With our modern communications infrastructure, it is no problem at all to link these places together.
Just some thoughts ... I never see this idea discussed, so I suspect I am on the fringe or flat out wrong about something. I just have this gut feeling that the small size of the House is the top problem with OUR Federal Government. The Federal Government has been getting worse and worse in terms of size and control of our lives since the Civil War.
Also, think about the wealth out there ... buying off a majority of 435 people isn’t really that hard anymore! Buying off a majority of 5K to 10K Reps. would be a heck of a lot more difficult and much harder to keep a secret :-)! As the population of the USA grows, so does the House ... therefore, anyone thinking that corruption is a solution to their problems will be shooting at a moving target that changes substantially every 10 years.
You raise some very enlightened arguments.
I expect the Founders did not anticipate the huge changes in store from agricultural science, the industrial age, population explosion, medical advances, extended life expectancy, immigration etc., (In 1750 the world’s population was 700 million - today it is 7 billion).
Next up?
>>> I just have this gut feeling that the small size of the House is the top problem with OUR Federal Government. <<<
You have an excellent point. My memory of the founding fathers is that they believed that one representative for 30,000 people was a good size, so the rep would know most of the people he or she represents. Limiting the number of representatives has, as you say, made them more and more distant over time.
I would love to see a return to the representatives connected to an actual number of citizens. If we had one rep for 50,000 people, that would mean, in Alaska, we would have an Alaska Native rep for those of us here in the Bush, four reps for Anchorage, one for Fairbanks, and one for southeast. That would be a far more fair representation than what we have now.
That would give us 6000 representatives - about half the size of a basketball arena. It would sure be diverse, for certain. So they’ll have to build something like the Senate in the Star Wars series.
I like this idea.
On the size of the house.
I do not believe that the size of the house, or the numbers of constitutents per representative, is the problem at all.
The problem is that the fedgov is involved in so very much that is not constitutionally their business. Cut the 90% of federal law and activity that doesn’t need to exist and each rep would have tons of time to do his job.
The states need to assert theri rights and work for the repeal of the 16th(?) ammendment. Senators should be appointed by the legislatures of their states just as the founders designed. As it is now the states have NO voice in the federal government.