|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
 Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 11:51 am Post subject: Unfreeze the Size of the House of Representatives |
 |
|
Americans are taught in school about how the House of Representatives was designed to grow with the population. At this time, it doesn't. It hasn't since 1910 when the house size was frozen (looking at the history of this decision, it was frozen due to concerns about the influence of immigrants).
We now have something like one representative per 500,000 people. By comparison, Britain has about 1 MP per 36,000 people (these stats may be old as the article I had about this was from 2000).
Fortunately, there is finally a source on the web promoting awareness of this problem and encouraging change.
Read more here:
http://www.thirty-thousand.org/
Of course, there are problems with making changes to the size of the house, but I don't think that they are compelling enough to keep the system as it is, which means that power is being constantly consolidated as a result of a growing population.
Disclaimer: That website looks fine to me, but I haven't really read it through thoroughly yet. But it's the only site I've found where the issue is being taken seriously. If you find more, please do post them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 12:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Good post. I was skeptical at first, but then I struck something I liked.
| Quote: |
| In growing super-sized districts, far too much of the Representative�s time is consumed by campaigning for reelection every two years. Campaigning to a district of 50,000, for example, would require far less time and effort than campaigning to nearly 800,000. Reducing the time spent campaigning would allow the legislator to devote more time to their primary responsibilities (e.g., reading legislation, providing constituency services, etc.). |
This is key. Campaigning IS taking up too much time.
But here's the problem, would representatives spend less time campaigning for 50,000 as 800,000?
And I very much doubt this reasoning:
| Quote: |
| The smaller the House, relative to the total population, the greater is the risk of unethical collusion or myopic groupthink. In contrast �Numerous bodies � are less subject to venality and corruption�. |
Seems the opposite to me. The more Representatives the easier it is to pursue your own district's pork-barrel politics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 1:27 pm Post subject: ... |
|
|
I'd make a few points about that.
1) The pork barrel gets spread thinner. It means more money is required to pork the barrel, if you will.
2) Pork barrel politics is really more a matter of campaign funding legislation than it is about the size of the house itself.
3) Whatever the argument is about pork barrels, is it more significant than having a more diverse house? By this, I mean giving third parties more influence (and again, pointing out the principle reason this issue remains in the backwaters; it's not in either parties interest to relinquish power).
4) It absolutely flummoxes me as to why this issue remains in the backwater while people harp on the electoral college.
5) I've emailed the site about their 50,000 proposal. I'm definitely for change, but not full-on with their 50,000 proposal. This would be a HUGE change. If it ever happens, I think it needs to be done gradually. (In other words, change is more important to me than making it specifically a 50, 000 cap). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 2:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| far too much of the Representative�s time is consumed by campaigning for reelection every two years |
From what I understand, the Representatives are not actually campaigning as such, but fund-raising in order to pay for the horrendously expensive campaigns. As I see it, this is where campaign finance reform is needed. We need to figure out a fair system that frees Representatives and Senators from spending so much time raising money just to stay in office and let them spend their time doing the job they were elected to do.
As to the number of Representatives in the House, I am indifferent. I see no particular reason to increase it. We've crossed swords on this issue before. I don't oppose increasing it; I just don't see any urgent need to do so. Having districts of 50,000 constituents would mean there would be 6,000 Representatives. That's a ridiculous size for any kind of body other than maybe an army. Even having 1,000 seems too unwieldy to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
keane
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 3:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
Good post. I was skeptical at first, but then I struck something I liked.
| Quote: |
| In growing super-sized districts, far too much of the Representative�s time is consumed by campaigning for reelection every two years. Campaigning to a district of 50,000, for example, would require far less time and effort than campaigning to nearly 800,000. Reducing the time spent campaigning would allow the legislator to devote more time to their primary responsibilities (e.g., reading legislation, providing constituency services, etc.). |
This is key. Campaigning IS taking up too much time.
But here's the problem, would representatives spend less time campaigning for 50,000 as 800,000?
And I very much doubt this reasoning:
| Quote: |
| The smaller the House, relative to the total population, the greater is the risk of unethical collusion or myopic groupthink. In contrast �Numerous bodies � are less subject to venality and corruption�. |
Seems the opposite to me. The more Representatives the easier it is to pursue your own district's pork-barrel politics. |
I visited Ireland a long time back, but it happened to be during an election cycle. If I remember correctly, campaigning was limited to 6 weeks.
Some will say there are first amendment issues, but I disagree. Running fair elections is a basic need for a republic. When the vote is held, campaigning withing 100 yards of polling places, etc., are codified. I think active campaigning should be, too. Make it a work requirement: if holding office, you can't miss votes due to campaigning. It's mis-use of the public's time. Equal time laws would then limit the time non-incumbents could campaign.
Or whatever.... There is too much time and money spent on this crap. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 7:43 pm Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I see no particular reason to increase it. We've crossed swords on this issue before. I don't oppose increasing it; I just don't see any urgent need to do so. |
That essentially means you don't care how many reps there are per capita because if it isn't changed we'll soon be looking at 1 rep per million people.
If you ask me, that's an extreme republican position.
Don't get me wrong. It's fine if you really feel that way, but don't trot around asking people whether they have considered the constitution as much as the founding fathers did while you declare this all hunky-dory.
The size of the house was frozen, based on my understanding, to combat the influence of foreign immigrants circa 1910. In modern America. do you think that's a good reason to keep the house the size it is?
The founding fathers set a limit at 36,000 per capita. That's what the Constitution says. The freeze essentially amended the Constitution without an amendment.
You're a former history teacher, no? If anything else, why are students being fed a line of utter BS about the structure of our country?
The most compelling reason this should be changed is that it doesn't jive with the original intent envisioned by the founders of our country.
I do appreciate your differentiation between democracy and republicanism.
In this sense, I guess you're a republican and I'm a democrat. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 5:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
The size of the house was frozen, based on my understanding, to combat the influence of foreign immigrants circa 1910. In modern America. do you think that's a good reason to keep the house the size it is?
|
What I read once upon a time was that the House was frozen because the room was full. I never questioned it or looked beyond that because it made sense. Do you have a link to something that discusses this?
| Quote: |
| but don't trot around asking people |
I think it's a fair request.
| Quote: |
| If anything else, why are students being fed a line |
Don't look any further than the hiring committees in the local school districts who staff history/civics classes with PE majors. SOME of them are fine teachers of their subject, but many, many of them just put in their time in the classroom during their sport's season. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
saw6436
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Daejeon, ROK
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
36,000 per capita was a good number when The Constitution was first written. For most folks travel was extremely rare. Communications were slow and unreliable. People also more closely identified with their local community or state rather than "national unity".
In the 21st century almost the opposite is true. A citizen may, if they wish, access the minute details of government and national issues. 36,000 is thus antiquated. What is the best number? I don't know. I do agree that the cap was a bit of a legal quibble and should be done away with. But we would be looking at amending The Constitution. That is something I'm not sure I want to get into. Fact is, once you open a Constitutional Convention ANY ISSUE can be inserted into the process not just the original issue. That, quite frankly, worries me given the "special interests" that rule in American society these days. Everyone is looking at fulfilling their desires rather than the National needs.
Thus we begin the process to ammend the representation caps and we end up with with a new ammendment sanctioning "gay interspecies marriage" or some such nonsense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 7:18 pm Post subject: ... |
|
|
Ya-ta,
My info came from, if i recall correctly, an MSNBC article from 2000-2001. It's not available now. Precious little is available on this issue period. From talking to the person who runs the site, one major problem is that, rather than consider the issue, people decide he's a whackjob. they simply don't believe that the house size has been frozen. Period.
To move on, you've read that the change was instituted because of the physical size of the Capitol Building. That's all good and fine that you've read it, and I don't doubt you have. But, come on, is the size of a building a good reason to change our government?
Just as a reminder, we'll soon enough have 1 rep per million people.
Britain= 1 rep per 40,000.
Whatever the reasons, is this a good idea?
Saw,
You seem to have missed one key aspect:
The freeze didn't happen via an amendment, so no constitutional convention is needed to make the change.
[As an aside, what's with the fear-mongering about amending the constitution?]
[disclaimer: what I'm talking about DOES NOT INVOLVE amending the Constitution] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 8:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
My info came from, if i recall correctly, an MSNBC article from 2000-2001. It's not available now. Precious little is available on this issue period. From talking to the person who runs the site, one major problem is that, rather than consider the issue, people decide he's a whackjob. they simply don't believe that the house size has been frozen. Period.
To move on, you've read that the change was instituted because of the physical size of the Capitol Building. That's all good and fine that you've read it, and I don't doubt you have. But, come on, is the size of a building a good reason to change our government?
Just as a reminder, we'll soon enough have 1 rep per million people.
Britain= 1 rep per 40,000.
Whatever the reasons, is this a good idea?
|
I don't remember which history book I read it in, so I can't cite it. Until someone can supply a substantive account of how the number 435 was arrived at in an attempt to control the influence of immigrants, I'll continue to rely on the history book.
I looked up Public Law 62-5, the law that regulates the size of the House. Here's the Wiki article that outlines it: Public Law 62-5, passed by the United States Congress on August 8, 1911, set the number of members of the United States House of Representatives at 435 effective with the 63rd Congress in 1913. It also included a provision for the addition of one seat each for Arizona and New Mexico when they became states. The number of members increased temporarily to 437 when Alaska and Hawaii were admitted as states during the 87th Congress, but the 1960 census reduced the number to 435.
That looks to me like there was tinkering going on in the late 50's, which does not lend itself to your assertion of anti-immigrant influence.
But that aside...
I can't imagine an effective legislative body being much larger than about 500 people. Much beyond that number and it becomes unwieldy, as I said. As a small 'r' republican, I don't have any problem with the present number of 435. I would vigorously object to a body of 4-6,000 members.
| Quote: |
is the size of a building a good reason to change our government?
|
I do not see this as a 'change' in our government. We are a representative republic and as long as the congressional districts are equitably distributed, I see no problem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 10:27 pm Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I don't remember which history book I read it in, so I can't cite it. Until someone can supply a substantive account of how the number 435 was arrived at in an attempt to control the influence of immigrants, I'll continue to rely on the history book. |
Fair enough,but a question: If I do find evidence citing immigrant influence, will it affect your opinion?
Based on below, I doubt it.
| Quote: |
That looks to me like there was tinkering going on in the late 50's, which does not lend itself to your assertion of anti-immigrant influence.
|
Well, it would seem kind of a raw deal deal if you were to become a state and not get any representatives in the house that's supposed to grow with the population, eh?
The 1950s acts were termed "re-appotionment". But let's get back to logic here. Changing the House size in the 1950s to accommodate new states is evidence that it wasn't frozen in 1911 because of concerns about immigration?
I don't think it supports my claim, but I don't see how it reduces it at all. I don't see how it it's related.
| Quote: |
| I can't imagine an effective legislative body being much larger than about 500 people. Much beyond that number and it becomes unwieldy, as I said. |
OK. Claim. Evidence?
| Quote: |
| As a small 'r' republican, I don't have any problem with the present number of 435. I would vigorously object to a body of 4-6,000 members. |
OK. Just for fun, how about 501? Would it suddenly spin out of control?
600?
750?
Not having a problem with 435 is one thing. Claiming it will be a problem if it goes over that is another.
| Quote: |
Quote:
is the size of a building a good reason to change our government?
I do not see this as a 'change' in our government. |
Right, so it doesn't matter if there's one rep per person or a million?
| Quote: |
| We are a representative republic and as long as the congressional districts are equitably distributed, I see no problem. |
Well, OK then. Let's reduce the size. By your argument, you wouldn't mind that, right?
What's with 435? Let's even it out. 400 would be more mathematically sound. 4 is a totally unwieldly number, so let's just make it 100. As long as we have equitable congressional districts, there's no problem, right?
To simplify it, you've stated that 435 is fine. 501 is no good. What is too small for you? And based on what? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 12:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
If I do find evidence citing immigrant influence, will it affect your opinion?
|
You're right. The reason the House stopped growing wouldn't affect my feeling about its size now. It seems to work fine at 435.
| Quote: |
| I don't see how it it's related. |
Fifty years after the House stopped growing there were a couple of years when it was enlarged by 2, then reverted to 435. Why? Was the reason in 1960 the same as in 1910?
| Quote: |
OK. Claim. Evidence?
|
Seems like common sense to me. Having committees of a thousand seems counter-productive.
| Quote: |
Claiming it will be a problem if it goes over that is another.
|
At some point, efficiency will begin to decline. I have no idea where the 'tipping point' is. A thousand seems too large to be very workable.
| Quote: |
so it doesn't matter if there's one rep per person or a million?
|
Obviously it makes a difference. If you have one representative per person, you have direct democracy. Considering what I've said about democracy, it isn't likely I'd go for that, is it?
One million? Why not? I would have no problem with that, as long as each representative has the staff to handle their constituent services obligations.
[/quote]Well, OK then. Let's reduce the size.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 9:14 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
Quote:
If I do find evidence citing immigrant influence, will it affect your opinion?
You're right. The reason the House stopped growing wouldn't affect my feeling about its size now. It seems to work fine at 435.
|
It seems to work fine doing what? Being based on the constitutional concept that the house grows with the population? In that case, it's not working at all.
| Quote: |
Quote:
I don't see how it it's related.
Fifty years after the House stopped growing there were a couple of years when it was enlarged by 2, then reverted to 435. Why? Was the reason in 1960 the same as in 1910? |
I've searched, but there appears to be very little in a way at all that explains the pro or the con to (or even the simple reason for) this decision.
Of course, reps voting about consolidating or expanding their power probably aren't going to vote to reduce it.
| Quote: |
Quote:
OK. Claim. Evidence?
Seems like common sense to me. Having committees of a thousand seems counter-productive.
|
If China suddenly adopted our position, would you reccomend 435 reps for them?
| Quote: |
Quote:
Claiming it will be a problem if it goes over that is another.
At some point, efficiency will begin to decline. I have no idea where the 'tipping point' is. A thousand seems too large to be very workable.
|
Because? I believe parliamentary procedure was based on a concept, not a number. In fact, I believe the whole concept was designed to accommodate growth. Do you have a case where a representative government grew too large to become workable?
I think we have quite the opposite in the USA right now. We have representation of the many being continually assigned to a smaller and smaller few. The house is essentially becoming a kind of senate. The huge problem of campaign financing only aggravates having 435 reps. IOW, the system is working less and less.
| Quote: |
Quote:
so it doesn't matter if there's one rep per person or a million?
Obviously it makes a difference. If you have one representative per person, you have direct democracy. Considering what I've said about democracy, it isn't likely I'd go for that, is it?
One million? Why not? I would have no problem with that, as long as each representative has the staff to handle their constituent services obligations. |
Well, I want someone to represent me. Of course, that's a bit of a dream. Maybe one rep per family. Also a bit of a dream. One rep per 36,000? OK. Now I'm down with the Constitution. 1 rep per 500,000? That's bigger than Seattle.
As for "handling constituent services", the primary constituent service reps provide is their vote. With our economy, one rep for everyone could surely handle constituent services (which I take to mean reading their e-mail and speaking for them). How's bout that for a republic?
| Quote: |
Well, OK then. Let's reduce the size.
Why? |
Well, it's based on your own argument. maybe 435 is too "unwieldly" (Britain has 600+reps for their republic). Wouldn't it make things more efficient.
In other words, you've put together a whole string of claims here and not much at all to back them up.
Do you plan to? Or is it all going to rest on, "I think it's fine"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 2:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
From Wiki: The Lok Sabha [in India's Parliament] is also known as the "House of the People" or the lower house... It is the more powerful of the two houses and can precede or overrule the Rajya Sabha (upper house) in certain matters.
The Lok Sabha can have up to 552 members as envisaged in the Constitution of India (Article 81).
...
If 552 (I said somewhere around 500) is good enough for India...
I'll be back after work. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 7:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| saw6436 wrote: |
36,000 per capita was a good number when The Constitution was first written. For most folks travel was extremely rare. Communications were slow and unreliable. People also more closely identified with their local community or state rather than "national unity".
In the 21st century almost the opposite is true. A citizen may, if they wish, access the minute details of government and national issues. 36,000 is thus antiquated. What is the best number? I don't know. I do agree that the cap was a bit of a legal quibble and should be done away with. But we would be looking at amending The Constitution. That is something I'm not sure I want to get into. Fact is, once you open a Constitutional Convention ANY ISSUE can be inserted into the process not just the original issue. That, quite frankly, worries me given the "special interests" that rule in American society these days. Everyone is looking at fulfilling their desires rather than the National needs.
Thus we begin the process to ammend the representation caps and we end up with with a new ammendment sanctioning "gay interspecies marriage" or some such nonsense. |
If I could comment on the issue of the best number for moment.
Some states have only 1 seat in the house and I think this is tragic.
IMMHO each state should have a minimum of 2 seats so that each district
nation wide would be in proportion to half of the population of the least
populated state.
SO that would be 1 seat per every 300,000 roughly, bringing the total
seats in the house to 1000 give or take a few. (this would also bring
some balnce to the EC).
Has this already been addressed? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
