The First Hundred Days of the Obama Administration

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Originally Posted by Alex

I don't see why. It is inherent in the system unless you want to somehow separate government from contact with the people it governs.

You do realize that our Mideast envoy is just a lobbyist from our government trying to elicit specific responses from other governments. I'm looking upon it with horror that this concept exists.

An envoy or ambassador is a different story - government to government, supposedly equals (though not necessarily so in reality).

I'd feel a lot better about lobbying if it didn't include gifts, but even so, the inherent unfairness of being able to afford a "man in Washington" to look after one's interests grates on me. I know that groups organize in order to achieve this level of input, but I can't wholly support a system that doesn't at least pretend to represent each citizen equally, no matter their standing.

Yeah, I know, we can't each go whisper in our representative's ear, but perhaps if no one were whispering in their ears, they'd have to actually seek out the facts instead of having a very specific version of it presented on a silver platter.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

Yeah, I know, we can't each go whisper in our representative's ear, but perhaps if no one were whispering in their ears, they'd have to actually seek out the facts instead of having a very specific version of it presented on a silver platter.

From Federalist 56.....James Madison says, "It seems to give the fullest assurance, that a representative for every thirty thousand inhabitants will render the (House of Representatives) both a safe and competent guardian of the interests which will be confided to it."

He also said, in relation to the size of the House, the "Numerous bodies (meaning the number of representatives) are less subject to venality and corruption."

While a little off the subject, I don't think it is necessarily lobbying that is the problem....it is the relatively small number of representatives (each now represents approx. 700,000 citizens) that are being lobbied.

If I recall my history, prior to 1929 the number of congressional disctricts increased after every census. In 1929, the number of districts was fixed by law at 435.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

If I recall my history, prior to 1929 the number of congressional disctricts increased after every census. In 1929, the number of districts was fixed by law at 435.

It's a good thing too. If they hadn't done that, we'd have over 1,000 in the House of Representatives now! Can you imagine the damage over twice as many congresscritters could do?!?!

[Alex]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

If I recall my history, prior to 1929 the number of congressional disctricts increased after every census. In 1929, the number of districts was fixed by law at 435.

Enlarging the House of Representatives congress has long been one of the key components in my proposals for keeping the electoral college but getting it back to its original only mild geographic tilt.

My preferred method is to set statute so that after each census, the least populous state gets two votes seats in the House. That will set the baseline for how many people a single seat will represent. Take the mod of each other states populated divided by that number and that is how many they get.

This would, using current population result in Wyoming having 2 (compared to one now), each representing 266,334 people, and California having 138 as opposed to the current 54. And a total of 1,130 members of the the House of Representatives.

If that is too scary for most people, then it could be done by setting smallest to just one and then doing the same thing. This results in Wyoming having 1 (no change), each representing 532,668 people and California getting 69 (an increase of 17) for a total of 554 (just 119 more than now).

But really I think the biggest reason we've not increased the size of Congress is that the idea of having to build a new Capitol to house them and the supporting infrastructure is too scary. And that is, when you think about it, kind of lame.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Alex

Enlarging the House of Representatives congress has long been one of the key components in my proposals for keeping the electoral college but getting it back to its original only mild geographic tilt.

My preferred method is to set statute so that after each census, the least populous state gets two votes seats in the House. That will set the baseline for how many people a single seat will represent. Take the mod of each other states populated divided by that number and that is how many they get.

This would, using current population result in Wyoming having 2 (compared to one now), each representing 266,334 people, and California having 138 as opposed to the current 54. And a total of 1,130 members of the the House of Representatives.

Great idea...you've got my support.

But really I think the biggest reason we've not increased the size of Congress is that the idea of having to build a new Capitol to house them and the supporting infrastructure is too scary. And that is, when you think about it, kind of lame.

Very lame indeed. To think liberty and freedom are being stifled by architecture....there are sports stadiums that seat close to(and even over) 100 times the required number.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by Alex

But really I think the biggest reason we've not increased the size of Congress is that the idea of having to build a new Capitol to house them and the supporting infrastructure is too scary. And that is, when you think about it, kind of lame.

Originally Posted by sleepyjeff

Very lame indeed. To think liberty and freedom are being stifled by architecture....there are sports stadiums that seat close to(and even over) 100 times the required number.

It's not just the architecture, it's also the logistics of having that many in Congress. That's the deal breaker. And don't forget that all of those 11,000 people (and their staffs) would be paid!

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by JWBear

It's not just the architecture, it's also the logistics of having that many in Congress. That's the deal breaker. And don't forget that all of those 11,000 people (and their staffs) would be paid!

I am going to a Blazer game tomorrow night....20,000 fans plus hundreds of employees will all be inside one building.

How many office's are there in the Pentagon?

With that many congresspersons, each one could concentrate on just one committee and wouldn't need a staff. As for their pay.....we don't need professional legislators; each one should be paid a stipend to cover basic living expenses while away from home and nothing more. No pensions, no 6 figure salaries, etc. Think of it as a sort of voluntary jury duty.

[SacTown Chronic]

The solution is more politicians? I need a drink.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by sleepyjeff

I am going to a Blazer game tomorrow night....20,000 fans plus hundreds of employees will all be inside one building.

I'll leave it you to to organize a civil, productive debate amongst all 20,000+.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by sleepyjeff

I am going to a Blazer game tomorrow night....20,000 fans plus hundreds of employees will all be inside one building.

How many office's are there in the Pentagon?

With that many congresspersons, each one could concentrate on just one committee and wouldn't need a staff. As for their pay.....we don't need professional legislators; each one should be paid a stipend to cover basic living expenses while away from home and nothing more. No pensions, no 6 figure salaries, etc. Think of it as a sort of voluntary jury duty.

To the first part: Sure you can put 20,000 people in a building when all they have to do is sit there and not move. Once each of them has to have a desk, and an office, and staff... it adds up really quickly.

24,000 people work in the Pentagon. I'm not sure how many have their own office. But also consider: what's the annual budget of the Pentagon? Do you want to add that much to the federal government's budget?

And sure you can spread out congresspeople more when you have that many, but I don't buy that they could away without staffs. I doubt that one person could even read all of the legislation that gets considered, leaving no time to write any, or research any, or do anything else one might expect of members of congress (like listening to their constituents). And maybe you like the idea of non-professional legislators, but I think they're a disaster. The job is too big to do part-time, and won't be smaller with more legislators. There will still be just as many bills to vote on - actually a lot more, I'd wager, as you'd have a lot more legislators trying to make their mark.

Having said all that, if we, the American people, believe that increasing the size of Congress is in our interests, we should do it. But we should be aware of the costs.