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

[rockandrollsouls]

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

here's the basic idea:

thoughts?

Foolish. You forget we aren't supposed to be represented. This isn't a democracy. You don't pass law based on what the people want. This is a Constitutional republic.

 

[ronpaulhawaii]

Uh no, I'm fine with the cap on 435.

You are a lying cowardly idiot, and it is no wonder that you are fine with the status quo.

 

[Truth Warrior]

30,000 law makers in the perpetual "law factory"?

DOWNSIZE D.C.!!!

 

[TruckinMike]

Whoa!!! Whoa now folks... More reps = more accurate representation, And thats good for the House. Just as OUR FOUNDERS suggested. -- And yes it might slow down the law train express in congress, but that would be a GOOD thing, not bad.

Another change that we should make is yet another idea of OUR FOUNDERS - that we once again have strayed from. Let each of the state legislative bodies choose the two Senators. This will help keep them grounded and closer to home.

remember, these are not my ideas, but our founders. The question i have for you folks is, since when did you become superior to our founders? Yes, some of you have some pretty good ideas, and some of you don't. --- I think I'll stick with what our founders had to say.

TMike

 

[Truth Warrior]

Whoa!!! Whoa now folks... More reps = more accurate representation, And thats good for the House. Just as OUR FOUNDERS suggested. -- And yes it might slow down the law train express in congress, but that would be a GOOD thing, not bad.

Another change that we should make is yet another idea of OUR FOUNDERS - that we once again have strayed from. Let each of the state legislative bodies choose the two Senators. This will help keep them grounded and closer to home.

remember, these are not my ideas, but our founders. The question i have for you folks is, since when did you become superior to our founders? Yes, some of you have some pretty good ideas, and some of you don't. --- I think I'll stick with what our founders had to say.

TMike

As long as your preferred, selected founder AUTHORITY "shepherd" ain't Hamilton, OK! ​

 

[rockandrollsouls]

Whoa!!! Whoa now folks... More reps = more accurate representation, And thats good for the House. Just as OUR FOUNDERS suggested. -- And yes it might slow down the law train express in congress, but that would be a GOOD thing, not bad.

Another change that we should make is yet another idea of OUR FOUNDERS - that we once again have strayed from. Let each of the state legislative bodies choose the two Senators. This will help keep them grounded and closer to home.

remember, these are not my ideas, but our founders. The question i have for you folks is, since when did you become superior to our founders? Yes, some of you have some pretty good ideas, and some of you don't. --- I think I'll stick with what our founders had to say.

TMike

That representation is useless if the people want socialism. You forget, their oath is to the Constitution...not the people.

 

[OferNave]

Another change that we should make is yet another idea of OUR FOUNDERS - that we once again have strayed from. Let each of the state legislative bodies choose the two Senators. This will help keep them grounded and closer to home.

You're talking about repealing the 17th amendment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

I agree. It was a huge mistake. We're still suffering the consequences of nationalizing the Senate, and removing State representation. Look at the loss of State's rights since then.

 

[TruckinMike]

As long as your preferred, selected founder AUTHORITY "shepherd" ain't Hamilton, OK

Of course not!!! I'm talkin' Jefferson/Mason/Madison.

You forget, their oath is to the Constitution...not the people.

No, I have not forgotten. My point is that we the PEOPLE will know what they are up to, WE will know if they are violating their oath to the constitution, and WE will have more influence on them to stay in line. Example: If my congressman of 30,000 folks in a small geographic area went astray, I could make up 500 coroplast signs and cost him the election - Via my efforts alone. See what I mean by keep them in line. Its much easier to control them. As for my enemies, most socialists are to lazy to be effective. Its also MUCH MUCH harder for the powers that be(or lobbyists) to BUY-OFF representatives. Instead of having to control 435, they would have to control 10,000!!! And yet another benefit, it would allow opportunity for real people to run. Not nearly as much money is required.

You're talking about repealing the 17th amendment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevente...s_Constitution

I agree. It was a huge mistake. We're still suffering the consequences of nationalizing the Senate, and removing State representation. Look at the loss of State's rights since then.

Thanks.

TMike

 

[nullvalu]

I thought this was a very interesting site, and a terrific idea. The problem is, we can't just get the original amendment ratified, because of the rewording that made it pointless. We need it to be rewritten and proposed as a new amendment.

I think more representation will help a great deal, it'll make it harder for lobbyists and special interests to corrupt the few honest politicians we may have. Also it'll keep our elected officials on a tighter leash since most likely they'll live & work in our districts, rather than in DC and would utilize the internet & remote conferencing for replacing a great deal of what goes on in the chambers today.

 

[JEQuidam]

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

Another interesting coincidence: that is also the year the 16th amendment was ratified.

300,000,000 Americans should be allowed to have more than 435 Representatives. The oligarchy is slowly destroying the republic. For all intents and purposes, we have one-party rule masquerading as two-party rule.

We are no longer citizens; we are subjects.

 

[JEQuidam]

Article the first

How would you propose an amendment to the people of the United States?

Interestingly, such an amendment was already proposed, in 1789. In fact, it's the very first amendment inscribed on our Bill of Rights. But this is a long story.

As proposed by the House, “Article the first” was intended to ensure that the district size never exceed 50,000 people. While this amendment was in the Joint Committee, a subtle error was somehow introduced into it that rendered it inexecutable. It is not known when this error was eventually detected, but the amendment was ultimately ratified by all but one state.

This very interesting and important story can be found at: http://enlargethehouse.blogtownhall.com

 

[JEQuidam]

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?

OferNave: a virtual gold star to you for thinking outside of the box!

Please read:
Q10: How do all those Representatives fit into one building?

=============================================

Anyone with an open mind should read the 15 Questions & Answers on TTO's home page.

Please note: Thirty-Thousand.org is NOT proposing there be 30,000 Representatives.

 

[VoteForRonPaul]

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

here's the basic idea:

thoughts?

1913 again

 

[VoteForRonPaul]

More politicians = more bullshit.

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

I agree that we have to change the people but I do not agree that changing the numbers won't change anything.

Very legitimate topic!

 

[Chester Copperpot]

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

here's the basic idea:

thoughts?

Is it me or does it look like they fixed the number of house reps in 1913???

Can there be MORE bullshit that happened in that year??

Can we just dig up Wilson and impeach him for all this shit?

 

[JEQuidam]

Actually "fixed" in 1929...

Is it me or does it look like they fixed the number of house reps in 1913???

To be correct, the size was not actually fixed until 1929 (for the 1930 apportionment).

The number of Representatives was last increased as of the 1910 apportionment (effected as of 1913). In 1920, in violation of the Constitution, Congress did not re-apportion the House (proving that the Congress is above the Constitution, in case you had any doubts). Then the number was permanently fixed at 435 in 1929. As quoted on the TTO home page, a Representative in the House expressed this objection to that legislation:
"The bill seeks to prescribe a national policy under which the membership of the House shall never exceed 435 unless Congress, by affirmative action, overturns the formula and abandons the policy enunciated by this bill. I am unalterably opposed to limiting the membership of the House to the arbitrary number of 435. Why 435? Why not 400? Why not 300? Why not 250, 450, 535, or 600? Why is this number 435 sacred? What merit is there in having a membership of 435 that we would not have if the membership were 335 or 535? There is no sanctity in the number 435 … There is absolutely no reason, philosophy, or common sense in arbitrarily fixing the membership of the House at 435 or at any other number."

 

[Nate K]

You can't bribe as many politicians if we would have more. This is a fantastic idea, but, as they say, look at the year it ended.. 1913. Good luck

 

[ifthenwouldi]

You could either:

1. Have 30,000 representatives.

-or-

2. Divide up into many smaller republics.

I prefer option #2.

 

[JEQuidam]

Get the facts...

Thirty-Thousand.org is proposing one Representative for every 50,000 people. For 300,000,000 Americans, that would be 6,000 Representatives.

For additional information, please see the Questions and Answers referenced below:

Q1: Aren’t the districts’ populations supposed to grow along with the general population?

Q2: How did the number of Representatives become fixed at 435?

Q3: What is wrong with super-sized Congressional districts?

Q4: What is the Solution?

Q5: Do we need more politicians?

Q6: What about the diverse views and values of the American people?

Q7: Wouldn’t more Representatives mean a bigger government?

Q8: Even with reduced federal expenditures, wouldn’t it be too costly to add all these Representatives?

Q9: How would that many Representatives get anything done?

Q10: How do all those Representatives fit into one building?

Q11: Would Congress voluntarily increase the number of Representatives?

Q12: What is “Article the first”?

Q13: How could such an amendment ever come about?

Q14: Who would advocate and support the creation of such an amendment?

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

Thirty-Thousand.org is a non-partisan and non-profit 501(c)(3) organization.

 

[Alex Libman]

No one can "represent" anybody else without their explicit consent (the only exception being children granting implied consent to their parents until they're emancipated, either by jury or upon reaching the age of reason).

Even 299,999,999 should not be able to initiate aggression against 1!

And all taxation is theft, and all theft is a violation of the right to property, which constitutes initiation of aggression!