We are all "Disenfranchised" (Too Few Representatives)--Vanity

9-26-03 | FairWitness

[Phantom Lord]

To return to a House of Reps with a rep for every 30,000 people would give us a House of nearly 10,000 members! You think we have gridlock and special interest coercion now, imagine the mess that a House with 10,000 reps would cause.

[hedgetrimmer]

This is interesting. One argument against the Eurpean Union is that the individual has less representation precisely because the number of people an official represents is greater in the EU, than in a sovereign government. Same argument applies for world government.

[FairWitness]

I didn't say one per 30,000; it is not up to me to decide anyway. But it would be worth a public and a congressional debate to decide if it could be improved from the current rediculous ratio.

[FairWitness]

One argument against the Eurpean Union is that the individual has less representation precisely because the number of people an official represents is greater in the EU, than in a sovereign government. Just so.

I think one of the oddest outcomes of the current situation is the case were a state (I think six of them currently) has only one representative, but of course the usual two senators. This is the easiest case to visualize how the current situation will leave large segments of the population "unrepresented".

[TexasNative2000]

George Will had an excellent piece on this subject several years ago. Allow me some time to find and post.

[SwinneySwitch]

I don't see any country on this table I'd rather live in. Let's just leave it alone for now!

[Phantom Lord]

The only way that I would begin to consider a change in the number of reps is with a corresponding Constitutional amendment limiting the number of terms in the House to 6 and terms in the Senate to 2. Barring that, I have no interest in increasing the number of lifetime politicians in Washington.

[DLfromthedesert]

I have a better solution. Get the Federal Government out of health care, education, etc and let it stick to defense and interstate highways.

Then we'll all be well represented by our STATE legislators.

[FairWitness]

I don't see any country on this table I'd rather live in. Let's just leave it alone for now!

I am not saying that we should have governments like any of these other countries (and I know you would not want to put words in my mouth), only that we are the outlier in terms of number of people per representative. The current number is determined by statute, not by the Constitution, so there is nothing sacred about it.

[FairWitness]

The only way that I would begin to consider a change in the number of reps is with a corresponding Constitutional amendment limiting the number of terms in the House to 6 and terms in the Senate to 2. Barring that, I have no interest in increasing the number of lifetime politicians in Washington.

Sounds O.K. to me.

[Elliott Jackalope]

My wife and I were talking about this very subject earlier this morning. I was making the case that when governments of any type get too large they become indifferent to the needs of the people they are supposedly serving. It's like buildings that get too big, such as the giant glass towers of so many major cities. The ugliness and indifference of those edifices eventually led to a new way of thinking in architecture, called the "human-scale" movement, which means buildings designed to serve the needs of the people who use them daily, instead of the ego's of those who build them.

I submit that the real answer is not to add more representatives, but to break up the U.S. into about twenty or so smaller nations, each with its own independant government. Face it, when you are a part of nation of three hundred and fifty million people, you are as relevant as a grain of sand on an endless beach. If you are a citizen of a nation of ten or twenty million people, you might at least have a chance of being slightly relevant to the ruling elite. We need human-scale government!

[Gunslingr3]

I didn't say one per 30,000; it is not up to me to decide anyway. But it would be worth a public and a congressional debate to decide if it could be improved from the current rediculous ratio.

One ratio that has shifted that I'm more interested in is the Senate side. Each Senator and representative counts toward and electoral representative. The early growth of representatives has never been offset with a corresponding increase in Senatorial (sovereign State) represenation. Consider how Bush won 30 States, but nearly lost the election.

The amendment to make Senators popularly elected, instead of leaving it to State legislatures to determine, further weakened importance of State sovereignty as a check on federal excess.

Perhaps a return to more Republican methods is warranted. The push toward Democracy is, as the Founders warned, imperilling individual rights and leading us to bankruptcy.

[Liberal Classic]

To return to a House of Reps with a rep for every 30,000 people would give us a House of nearly 10,000 members! You think we have gridlock and special interest coercion now, imagine the mess that a House with 10,000 reps would cause.

That's not necessarily a bad thing. ;)

[Guillermo]

So, are you for reducing the number of Reps in DC?

[FairWitness]

I have a better solution. Get the Federal Government out of health care, education, etc and let it stick to defense and interstate highways.

I would have no problem with that, though I think it is far less likely even than an increase in the size of the House.

[Gunslingr3]

We need human-scale government!

That is the purpose of federalism and limited powers. What we need a return to the experiment in human liberty. We know how socialism turns out, no need to prove we can do it too.

[FairWitness]

I submit that the real answer is not to add more representatives, but to break up the U.S. into about twenty or so smaller nations, each with its own independant government.

Not a totally bad idea, though I would put it in terms of making more states (at least three - five for California) rather than Independent nations. But state pride will never allow it.

[FairWitness]

The amendment to make Senators popularly elected, instead of leaving it to State legislatures to determine, further weakened importance of State sovereignty as a check on federal excess.

Plus a popularly elected Senate, rather than one elected by state legislatures, is largely responsible for the huge cost of current Senate races (and the alleged "need" for campaign finance reform).

[Arrowhead1952]

To return to a House of Reps with a rep for every 30,000 people would give us a House of nearly 10,000 members!

YIPES!!!! That is scary, very scary.

How much bigger would the House Chambers have to be?

.....imagine the mess that a House with 10,000 reps would cause.

Imagine the mess in the bathrooms during breaks!!