Replies

Ping! The thread has been posted.

Earlier threads:

I can agree with Cato so much about the number of representatives, but disagree with him on the purpose of the senate. The number of representatives in the U.S. Congress is a joke. One man can’t possibly represent 600,000 people. Districts are gerrymandered every ten years not to ensure adequate representation of the governed, but to protect the seat for the ruling party.

More representatives means smaller districts. It means constituents can meet with the representative face to face, not at high ticket speeches where the representative (candidate) mouths beatitudes and ignores the interests of all but the largest donors. Smaller districts mean that the common man can campaign for the seat and win it based on his character and perception in the community. The current system rewards fundraising first. All other measures of fitness for office are distant also-rans.

More representatives means that it will be more difficult for them to agree to do something, which is fine with me. Every time they do something, it comes out of my pocket. Every time they don’t do something, I’m happy. Government was supposed to be local first, so that it would know the needs of the citizens and respond to them. The congress knows only who throws the most money and makes the most noise. This is the aristocracy that Cato despised.

The senate envisioned by the constitution was likely to be an aristocracy, and that was its purpose. It was meant to represent the interests of the states at the federal level, not to be the subject of campaign mud slinging and platitudes. These days the senators campaign on the basis that they hauled in a cash cow for the state, rather than the founding principle that they forced the federal government to respect the independence of the state that sent them. On this, Cato was wrong. The popular election of senators quickly forgot the reason they were there. The senate became a promotion system for politicians who aspired to greater power.

Every time I read these documents I’m impressed at the quality of minds that were involved in the founding of this country in contrast the the hacks, intellectually vapid and deceitful dregs that now occupy the offices.

This particular paper is, in part, one of the more widely quoted offerings from the anti-Federalists, largely for the litany of complaints between 3 and 8, which ring delightfully in modern ears.

Fascinating. Educational. Outstanding.

Thanks.