thirty-thousand.org ... 435 can not faithfully represent 300,000,000.

[muzzled dogg]

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

here's the basic idea:

thoughts?

 

[Knightskye]

More politicians = more bullshit.

Changing the number won't change anything. You have to change the people.

 

[libertythor]

Changing the number won't change anything. You have to change the people.

It would reduce the amount of money required to run an effective campaign.

 

[Conza88]

Hmmm this is interesting indeed. It would increase the chances of getting liberty minded candidates into power... (I'd like to think so anyway).

Would make things harder to manage.. for all those party elitists.

It would make things more local... (actually well I'm assuming that... make districts, more of them)...

 

[BarryDonegan]

i think this would be a good idea.

expanding the congress a little bit and working to legislatively return to the classic system of electing senators.

 

[Alawn]

This seems like it might be worth looking into. But it would be really hard to get it passed. I really doubt congress would go for it. We would have to go the convention route. Keep in mind though that even though the constitution states that it is a valid way to propose an amendment it has never been used.

The other really important change would be to eliminate the 17th Amendment and have senators be elected by state legislators instead of by popular vote.

 

[Conza88]

This seems like it might be worth looking into. But it would be really hard to get it passed. I really doubt congress would go for it. We would have to go the convention route. Keep in mind though that even though the constitution states that it is a valid way to propose an amendment it has never been used.

The other really important change would be to eliminate the 17th Amendment and have senators be elected by state legislators instead of by popular vote.

How would you propose an amendment to the people of the United States? Properly that is... i.e get them to vote on it; like a referendum.

"Have senators be elected by state legislators instead of by popular vote."

Hmm... what would that solve ? Really don't think that would be worthwhile... that'd make it far easier for the elites to control.

 

[BarryDonegan]

it is far more difficult for elite PAC's to fund and create a state house majority in order to get a senate candidate than for them to simply have to fund a single candidate in a state-wide race, especially considering the state house races are small, and no amount of money can fix high negatives for a small regions political race.

 

[Alawn]

How would you propose an amendment to the people of the United States? Properly that is... i.e get them to vote on it; like a referendum.

The constitution states 2 ways to propose an amendment and two ways to ratify them.

here is a good explanation of the process

The Amendment Process

There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.

The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).

The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.

Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too. The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.

The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment:

* Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
* Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
* Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
* Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)

It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification. This point is clear in Article 5, and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v Virginia (3 USC 378 [1798]):

No other ways are valid so a referendum like you mentioned wouldn't work.

"Have senators be elected by state legislators instead of by popular vote."

Hmm... what would that solve ? Really don't think that would be worthwhile... that'd make it far easier for the elites to control.

That is the way it used to be and it was much much better. That is one of the main reasons states have lost so much of their power. Almost all liberty groups are for this. Senators would not vote for anything that took power away from the states because the state legislatures would get rid of them. The constitution set it up that way for a reason. But stupid people were fooled into believing it would help them. The 17th Amendment killed federalism and states' rights. The senate is supposed to look out for the interests of the states. Now they only care about the interests of the federal government. It is actually much easier for elites to get a popular voted senator into power than to corrupt the majority of the state's legislature.

 

[Conza88]

That is the way it used to be and it was much much better. That is one of the main reasons states have lost so much of their power. Almost all liberty groups are for this. Senators would not vote for anything that took power away from the states because the state legislatures would get rid of them. The constitution set it up that way for a reason. But stupid people were fooled into believing it would help them. The 17th Amendment killed federalism and states' rights. The senate is supposed to look out for the interests of the states. Now they only care about the interests of the federal government. It is actually much easier for elites to get a popular voted senator into power than to corrupt the majority of the state's legislature.

Thanks for the Amendment lesson.

As for the legislators... power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I'm propose an amendment to get rid of the state entirely.. not fiddle with it's small print.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Hell, one cannot faithfully represent two, when you REALLY STOP AND THINK ABOUT IT.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/represent

DUH!

It's ALL BULLSHIT.

 

[rbu]

Anyone else notice the number of reps stopped going up when the fed reserve came into power in 1913? Less they have to payoff and/or control. Coincidence, I'm sure

 

[Truth Warrior]

Anyone else notice the number of reps stopped going up when the fed reserve came into power in 1913? Less they have to payoff and/or control. Coincidence, I'm sure

Yep, I've noticed.

A coincidence? I think not.

 

[werdd]

funny how they capped it off in 1913, a year that will always life in infamy.

 

[Truth Warrior]

funny how they capped it off in 1913, a year that will always life in infamy.

Yep, ya just gotta REALLY love them "Progressives" AKA socialists.

"Socialism in America will come through the ballot box."
by: Gus Hall
[Arvo Gustav Halberg ] (1910-2000) leader of the Communist Party USA and its four-time U.S. presidential candidate
Source: in an interview with the Cleveland Plain-Dealer (1996)

 

[Austin]

I saw this on reddit last night.. I'm still curious what the rest of RPFs thinks.. Should we start an effort to get the original 1st amendment passed?

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

How would 30,000 people fit inside one building?

 

[OferNave]

More politicians = more bullshit.

Changing the number won't change anything. You have to change the people.

Kind of. As an anarchist I agree with you that changing the number of politicians doesn't solve the actual problem.

However, since anarchy is not acceptable to most people , then I have to chime in in support of more representational government, not less.

For example, one of the primary factors in New Hampshire being chosen by the members of the Free State Project is that it has the most representational state government in the Union. It has 400 people in the House of Representatives, making it the third largest legislative body after the United States Congress and Britain's Parliament. With only 1.3M people, that works out to each State Representative only representing about 3000 people. In fact, in many cases, if you want to talk to your State Representative, you walk down the block and knock on their door.

This makes it:

1) Harder for lobbyists to bribe/pressure a majority into voting for crap
2) Easier for regular people to retake a corrupt seat - as the FSP is doing en masse this election

 

[OferNave]

How would 30,000 people fit inside one building?

Do they really need to be in one building? They don't have computers? Do we need to keep using tax money for Congressional offices, plane tickets, office staff, etc?

 

[slacker921]

.. it's worth digging for ..