Should the congress or senate be bigger?

[Smart3]

I'd still call it East Washington.

I'd prefer Coolidge.... LOL

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I tend to want to have things small and simple. I think the way things already are is like trying to have your voice heard in a stadium and what speaks loudest is money.

I have heard the complaints about how Senators were appointed before the 17th Amendment, that's why I suggest a compromise where 1 is appointed and the other is elected.

Senators were indirectly elected before amendment 17. The advantages of having proportional representation in the house are more gridlock (preventing them from doing so many foolish things). I'm surprised to see self-proclaimed "Constitutionalists" here disinterested in proportional representation in the House. If you believe that the Federalists meant what they said, Congress should be much bigger now in order to more accurately represent the districts. As long as we're doing the Constitution thing, I say expand the house and return to indirect election of senators. JMHO.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I'm all for a Representative in one state representing close to the same number of voters as a Representative in another state. But if you increase the size of the House without increasing the size of the Senate then consider the impact upon the mix in the Electoral College.

But if you were to increase the Senate size it would defeat the purpose of the Senate...unless you kept the number of Senators per state equal. (6 per state, for example) I don't see that as any improvement though, as the Senate never was (and never will be) the chamber closest to "the people".

 

[FrancisMarion]

The Founders saw the problem with representation since the First Congress in sending to the States the very first amendment (unratified) would set the representation at one to 30,000 so today the House would be around 10k in membership. A larger representative body results in a smaller government (sound like an oxymoron) see thirty-thousand.org. This would allow for multi-subcapitals so a foreign military against the federal leadership would have to hit several places at once.

Interesting link you posted thanks. I found this excerpt that supports my train of thought on this thread:

Q15: Who would oppose the creation of such an amendment?

A15: Without exception, every influential political and economic special interest operating in this nation will strenuously oppose enlarging the House to the extent necessary to return political power to the citizens. The investment in the status quo is extensive and deep. Powerful special interest groups as well as the federal lobbyist industry depend on their ability to influence a very small number of House members (and Senators) in order to affect legislative and policy outcomes. It will become impossible to effect the same level of influence upon the House when it consists of thousands of Representatives, especially if those many Representatives are living back in the real world — among their constituency — rather than being concentrated in the surreal parallel universe known as Washington, D.C.

Consequently, there is a long list of powerful institutional forces that will oppose this amendment: multinational corporations, most industry trade groups, labor unions, the Republican Party, the Democrat Party, the House of Representatives, the Senate, the federal executive branch and last, but not least, most foreign governments. These disparate forces, which normally do not collaborate with one another, will be united in defending the oligarchy in the federal House of Representatives

 

[LibertyEagle]

The house should be bigger. Each congressman will represent less people and there will be more districts. It should be at least doubled or tripled in size.

There should be a larger amount of states as well. States need to be broken up.

Well, hell, let's make every citizen a congressman. We'll have real representation then. Of course, that will be akin to a pure democracy, which sucks big time, but what the heck, right?

 

[LibertyEagle]

Guys, isn't the idea that we REDUCE the scope of the federal government? If so, isn't the preceding discussion heading in the wrong direction?

I want to take away power from the federal government; hell ALL government. I most certainly do not want to pay for more people in government.

 

[FrancisMarion]

Guys, isn't the idea that we REDUCE the scope of the federal government? If so, isn't the preceding discussion heading in the wrong direction?

I want to take away power from the federal government; hell ALL government. I most certainly do not want to pay for more people in government.

I consider scope to be what they do, not how many there are. Scope involves the work not the worker.

As far as the salaries? This is really pennies when compared to the current scope and its transactions.

I do understand your sentiment, but I'm thinking that more in the house might ironically do just that.

 

[Keith and stuff]

More cronyism. Less interest in the people.

Make the House bigger. Pay them well (small expense % wise). We can't have only the rich who can afford to represent.

I support more US Reps but only if it is spending neutral. That would likely mean less staffers, lower pay and much worse retirement benefits. Even New Hampshire has 400 reps but NH does it by not giving them staff, offices, air conditioning or benefits and only paying them $100 a year.

 

[AFPVet]

Yep, just more bodies to pay sitting there. We are trying to cut costs. Maybe there should be half as many to pay.

Or increase the number of congressional members and pay them a military salary.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I consider scope to be what they do, not how many there are. Scope involves the work not the worker.

As far as the salaries? This is really pennies when compared to the current scope and its transactions.

I do understand your sentiment, but I'm thinking that more in the house might ironically do just that.

This^^

 

[LibertyEagle]

I consider scope to be what they do, not how many there are. Scope involves the work not the worker.

As far as the salaries? This is really pennies when compared to the current scope and its transactions.

I do understand your sentiment, but I'm thinking that more in the house might ironically do just that.

You're right. I should have said size and scope; instead of just scope.

I want to reduce government in all respects. I certainly don't want to make it bigger.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Guys, isn't the idea that we REDUCE the scope of the federal government? If so, isn't the preceding discussion heading in the wrong direction?

I want to take away power from the federal government; hell ALL government. I most certainly do not want to pay for more people in government.

You're a Constitutionalist and don't want fair representation? Does not compute.

 

[LibertyEagle]

You're a Constitutionalist and don't want fair representation? Does not compute.

That must be a first. An anarchist wanting to grow government.

I think adding more on the payroll, is not going to increase representation one iota. If you're worried about it, just go full out pure democracy. I'll take none though.

 

[Keith and stuff]

You're a Constitutionalist and don't want fair representation? Does not compute.

How do you define fair representative? 1 rep for every 3,300 people?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

That must be a first. An anarchist wanting to grow government.

I think adding more on the payroll, is not going to increase representation one iota. If you're worried about it, just go full out pure democracy. I'll take none though.

1) I'm not an anarchist. I don't really have a label. I just want voluntary relationship with governments. We've gone over this several times, and you should know it by now.
2) Your opinion is at odds with your revered founders.
3) If I were allowed to opt out of the regime, I wouldn't care how many representatives there are. As long as I'm forced into this game though, it is in my rational self-interest to create as many conflicts in government as possible to keep them at bay and to keep representation as local as possible.
4) Employing the slippery slope fallacy fails here. It's totally inaccurate.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

How do you define fair representative? 1 rep for every 3,300 people?

Article I, section 2 gives us a pretty good idea of how to figure it-1 rep for every 30,000 people. Any number you pick is going to be somewhat arbitrary, but the goal should be to reflect the population as best as possible.

 

[liberty2897]

That must be a first. An anarchist wanting to grow government.

I think adding more on the payroll, is not going to increase representation one iota. If you're worried about it, just go full out pure democracy. I'll take none though.

+rep

 

[LibertyEagle]

1) I'm not an anarchist. I don't really have a label. I just want voluntary relationship with governments. We've gone over this several times, and you should know it by now.

I can't keep track of your evolution, hb. It seems to change quite frequently.

 

[Pauls' Revere]

I'd sign a petition to abolish the office of President.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

I'd prefer Coolidge.... LOL

Grand Coulee isn't bad...