Thirty-Thousand: Is This a Good idea?

[Flash]

http://www.thirty-thousand.org/


Adding more seats to the House of Representatives?

 

[Epic]

In general, more seats is more better. The logistics of 30,000 would be tough though.

New Hampshire is benefiting from their arrangement of 400 people in the House.

Representatives tend to be in closer contact with their constituents, and money doesn't get you quite as much. More 'average' people can get elected.

Of course, I'd rather just abolish the federal government

 

[literatim]

More politicians, more corruption.

Actually, more equals less corruption. There is more corruption in the Senate than there is in the House.

 

[FSP-Rebel]

I support more legislators cause I see the logic in having more representation, but I think we have to work towards what we can really accomplish on a whole. It would be easier for people to just move up here to NH instead of spending the next 30 yrs beating your head against the wall for something that won't fly until we truly have a revolution.

 

[literatim]

So expanding departments and government is good, because then there will be less corruption.

Bureaucrats and elected representatives are completely different.

 

[Ethek]

I am a big fan of this organization. It decentralizes the legislature, makes the collection of power into one place (think lobbiest) less of an issue. The representatives are also far more accountable.

This is what the founders wanted... look at the Federalist papers.

I have often wondered at getting 'Ron Paul' republicans elected.. how would you keep them in office without them bowing to the big money. The Thirtypthousand is how.

Besides. Its not thirty-thousand legislatures its the goal of having one representative for every thirtythousand people. We'd have something like 6400 U.S. Congressmen... and 100 U.S. Senators. Nothing says they have to be in the same building to convene sessions, thats even better.

I'm all in this one.

 

[literatim]

95% reelection of congressmen are basically bureaucrats.

I see. So we should get rid of all of the Representatives and Senators and gvie all the power to the President?

 

[Njon]

3,000 would be a good number of people in the House. There's what, about 300,000,000 people in the U.S.A.? So that's one rep per 100,000 people; that's about right.

 

[literatim]

If you want to do that, that's your opinion not mine. 30,000 is unrealistic you and I both know, why are you even arguing, obviously its not because of this topic.

All I asked was a question. You said more elected representatives means more corruption. So by that logic, less elected representatives means less corruption. So only one elected representative means little to no corruption.

I don't think it is unrealistic at all to have thirty-thousand elected representatives.

 

[Ethek]

If you want to do that, that's your opinion not mine. 30,000 is unrealistic you and I both know, why are you even arguing, obviously its not because of this topic.

Why is this so unrealistic?


The site quotes Winston Churchill, normally not a fan but the man said we define our buildings and then our buildings define us.

Teleconferencing and other collaborative methods could be It would also have the effect of slowing everything down tremendously. Not a bad thing at all, if the Government was actually acting within its constitutional limits.

 

[amy31416]

If you want to add that many reps, and not increase the cost then the salary for our reps would have to be drastically reduced. If you want to add that many reps and keep their salary the same, then we're talking about more tax slavery.

So, no. I'll have to say that I don't approve of more reps if it increases the tax burden. If the ones we have were doing their jobs, things would be reasonably okay. Adding more will not help.

 

[LittleLightShining]

Plus its a dumb idea, 30 thousand come on! That's more than the entire state legislators combined.

a rep for every 30k people.

I am a big fan of this organization. It decentralizes the legislature, makes the collection of power into one place (think lobbiest) less of an issue. The representatives are also far more accountable.

This is what the founders wanted... look at the Federalist papers.

I have often wondered at getting 'Ron Paul' republicans elected.. how would you keep them in office without them bowing to the big money. The Thirtypthousand is how.

Besides. Its not thirty-thousand legislatures its the goal of having one representative for every thirtythousand people. We'd have something like 6400 U.S. Congressmen... and 100 U.S. Senators. Nothing says they have to be in the same building to convene sessions, thats even better.

I'm all in this one.

Me, too.

If you want to do that, that's your opinion not mine. 30,000 is unrealistic you and I both know, why are you even arguing, obviously its not because of this topic.

See above.

I think it's a great idea. The salaries should be lower anyway. And they shouldn't get retirement or health benefits, either.

 

[Imperial]

Make it 870 and double it for now. That'll make a free-for-all to get elected

 

[Anti Federalist]

In general, more seats is more better. The logistics of 30,000 would be tough though.

New Hampshire is benefiting from their arrangement of 400 people in the House.

Representatives tend to be in closer contact with their constituents, and money doesn't get you quite as much. More 'average' people can get elected.

Of course, I'd rather just abolish the federal government

I like this idea, always found it worked well here in NH.

Better yet, they don't get paid a salary.

So yeah, 30k at the federal level, at no salary, I like it.

 

[dr. hfn]

If we learned one thing from ron paul it's to consider the unintended consequences.

 

[demolama]

Congress does more than it is required... thus having 30-50k represented in Congress per seat should have been no problem. There was a reason why the federal Constitution required them to show up at least once a year. They were never intended to do more than Art. 1 section 8 allowed, which would have been an easy vote if limited to those certain delegated powers.

The flaw isn't the system... the flaw is the usurpation


6k representatives not getting anything accomplished? whats the problem?

 

[2young2vote]

The biggest problem for me is that congressmen have designated areas (districts) that vote for them. That means that if a person gets elected to be in congress and gets 51% of the vote while the other person got 49%, then that means that a huge portion of the population is without representation. Maybe there should be a limited amount of seats available for each state based on the population and people can vote for someone who represents their political interests. If there were atleast 200 seats per state, then i am SURE that atleast a few TRUE conservatives would get int per state. And if you add up the numbers on a national level then we could get some pretty good representation in congress.

Basically, i wouldn't mind having more congressmen as long as they don't have "districts" that they represent. I'd rather they represent a political belief.

 

[South Park Fan]

I like this idea because it would practically force radical decentralization to occur.

 

[literatim]

Basically, i wouldn't mind having more congressmen as long as they don't have "districts" that they represent. I'd rather they represent a political belief.

They are suppose to represent the people, not political beliefs.

 

[Flash]

They added forums which is nice: http://forum.thirty-thousand.org/

Heres the FAQs too: http://www.thirty-thousand.org/#Q1

Kind of a cool idea, I don't see it happening anytime soon though.