The First Hundred Days of the Obama Administration

[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.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by SacTown Chronic

The solution is more politicians? I need a drink.

Amen to that!

[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+.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

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

Dancers and free T-shirts may help

[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.