Reapportionment Act of 1929

[mosquitobite]

In order to keep the House in a "MANAGEABLE" number...
http://history.house.gov/Institution/Apportionment/Determining-Apportionment/

While the Constitution laid out a number (no more than one rep per 30,000 people) it was a way of setting a minimum, not a maximum.


Now, our population has tripled since 1929! Now our representatives "represent" close to or well over a million people in most districts.

Not only does this mean our representation suffers - because there's no way a representative can be all things to that many people... but it is also cheaper for lobbyists to "buy" legislation.

Think about it. They only need to "buy" 220 representatives and 51 senators to get their way. If the states still elected the senators, it would cost much more to buy the senate.

And if we had more reps, more in line with population growth, it wouldn't be so easy for crony capitalists or socialists to get their legislation through.

Our government would most likely look more like some other democracies with multiple parties forming coalitions.

The Reapportionment Act made Congress "manageable" alright...

 

[Swordsmyth]

In order to keep the House in a "MANAGEABLE" number...
http://history.house.gov/Institution/Apportionment/Determining-Apportionment/

While the Constitution laid out a number (no more than one rep per 30,000 people) it was a way of setting a minimum, not a maximum.


Now, our population has tripled since 1929! Now our representatives "represent" close to or well over a million people in most districts.

Not only does this mean our representation suffers - because there's no way a representative can be all things to that many people... but it is also cheaper for lobbyists to "buy" legislation.

Think about it. They only need to "buy" 220 representatives and 51 senators to get their way. If the states still elected the senators, it would cost much more to buy the senate.

And if we had more reps, more in line with population growth, it wouldn't be so easy for crony capitalists or socialists to get their legislation through.

Our government would most likely look more like some other democracies with multiple parties forming coalitions.

The Reapportionment Act made Congress "manageable" alright...

Actually we have too many, look how hard it is to find the few halfway decent politicians we have, hundreds more seats would be filled with corrupt sell-outs and the few good Reps we have would have even less power.

 

[Occam's Banana]

And this goes here ...

Is America Too Big?
Is America too big for democracy? Too big for its traditional republican form? What does it mean if the answer is yes? This video series proposes that the source of our biggest social and political problems is our SIZE. Like the, obese, 600 pound man who experiences heart failure, diabetes, and dozens of other ailments, so too does America, only its diseases go by the names Debt, War, Entitlements, Gridlock, and Corruption. Our problems cannot be fixed through any change in ideology or bi-partisan agreement in Congress, because those are not the root of our problems. The source is our size. As America's population increases, the level of representation and control each voter has must inexorably decrease. As power centralizes in a federal government, literally out of the hands of its citizens, conflicts and problems mount. What can be done? Please watch and join the conversation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCNd7h0fsdE

 

[r3volution 3.0]

it is also cheaper for lobbyists to "buy" legislation.

Think about it. They only need to "buy" 220 representatives and 51 senators to get their way.

I don't see why lobbying would be more expensive with a larger Congress. Sure, they'd have to physically visit more offices, have more dinners, etc, but that's minor. The real cost to purchase a Congressman is campaign contributions and/or outright bribes (or, by way of the stick, the cost to run attack ads etc), and the cost of these things per Congressmen would drop with an increase in the number of Congressmen, because each Congressman's importance would drop. This is why House races cost less than Senate races. It's not going to be exactly proportional, but basically if you double the number of Senators, for instance, you should expect the cost per Senator to fall by half, for the same cost to purchase a majority of Senators.

Our government would most likely look more like some other democracies with multiple parties forming coalitions.

...which are less corrupt or spend less money?

 

[mosquitobite]

Actually we have too many, look how hard it is to find the few halfway decent politicians we have, hundreds more seats would be filled with corrupt sell-outs and the few good Reps we have would have even less power.

I disagree.

The smaller the districts, the more the people can make a difference vs the heavy monied interests.

 

[Swordsmyth]

I disagree.

The smaller the districts, the more the people can make a difference vs the heavy monied interests.

There is a solution to both our objections, Hold the house elections at large at the national level, then give the candidates 1 vote for every 1/2% or 1/10% (or pick your own %) of the vote that they get, then we can give more votes to the few good ones we find but we can also see to it that even a very small number of people can get a representative elected.

 

[osan]

And this goes here ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCNd7h0fsdE

Dilemma? What dilemma? The solution is clear: kill off all liberal/progressives first, and then the most offensive 50% of the rest.

Just because a choice is ugly, it doesn't follow it isn't right.

ARF ARF ARF...