| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mistermasan
Joined: 20 Sep 2007
Location: 10+ yrs on Dave's ESL cafe
|
 Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 7:56 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
heck. limit the population size of each state. put a cap on it. once a state reaches the limit is is required to split.
golly, as seen time and again...the US is simply to large to manage. split it back into a proper republic(decentralization of power) again consisting of three sub-nations: west of rockies, plains and east of the apps. relocate the capital to KC or STL or Omaha. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 11:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Well, I want someone to represent me. |
Refresh my memory on just why it is, specifically, you don't think you are represented. It was months ago when you said something about that and I've forgotten. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 10:22 pm Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
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? |
To answer your question: No.
We're having trouble moving on from the original concept of the house growing with population as opposed to the arbitrary number of 435 being permanently fine.
Yata likes the model of India having 535 reps for a billion people. I like the UK system of 600+ for a fraction of India's population.
BUT thanks for being interested.
I'm not averse to your 1000 rep idea, but i don't honestly have a number in mind. As long as we set a number based on population (some kind of ratio), I'll be happy.
The House of Representatives should grow (or even decrease) according to population.
"I like 435" is a non-argument. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 10:44 pm Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| Quote: |
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? |
To answer your question: No.
We're having trouble moving on from the original concept of the house growing with population as opposed to the arbitrary number of 435 being permanently fine.
Yata likes the model of India having 535 reps for a billion people. I like the UK system of 600+ for a fraction of India's population.
BUT thanks for being interested.
I'm not averse to your 1000 rep idea, but i don't honestly have a number in mind. As long as we set a number based on population (some kind of ratio), I'll be happy.
The House of Representatives should grow (or even decrease) according to population.
"I like 435" is a non-argument. |
I think if we go to a one rep/100,000 people ratio, that means we won't be able to put the 3,000 Representatives in the Capitol building. And thats just fine with me! This is 2007, people! We have the technology to vote remotely!
Representatives are exhausted from shuttling back and forth to their constituencies and back to Washington, DC. We are living in a time where Representatives can stay in their constituencies and can vote from there. I think we need to take better advantage of the technology.
Of course, you would have to pay all those Representatives... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pkang0202
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 8:28 pm Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
Its not broken, why change it?
The number of representatives in the House are proportional to the number of people that actually go out and vote.
My theory is, if you don't vote, you can't complain, moan, or offer any meaningful insights into politics and government. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mistermasan
Joined: 20 Sep 2007
Location: 10+ yrs on Dave's ESL cafe
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 9:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
except representatives are based on population of the states. growing states get more reps, shrinking states lose reps. the population numbers include illegal aliens. states w/ many illegal aliens can literally steal reps from other states. so, we have states within close proximity to mexico benefitting from illegal immigration (more reps, more pork) while penalizing states further away.
as to the old "don't vote, don't whine" mantra...voting is a right. the use of that right is for each person to make on their own. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2007 5:04 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
The number of representatives in the House are proportional to the number of people that actually go out and vote.
|
| Quote: |
| except representatives are based on population of the states. growing states get more reps, shrinking states lose reps |
No and no, the size of the House is frozen at 435. It doesn't change.
While pork is more of a campaign finance issue, more reps wouldn't necessarily mean more pork. Rather, it would mean the pork would have to be shared by more reps. That, in a small way, would be an improvement.
It's broken because there are now 500,000 people per rep. It's broken because the Constitution states that the House is supposed to grow with the population, but it doesn't.
| Quote: |
I think if we go to a one rep/100,000 people ratio, that means we won't be able to put the 3,000 Representatives in the Capitol building. And thats just fine with me! This is 2007, people! We have the technology to vote remotely!
Of course, you would have to pay all those Representatives... |
And what percentage of the federal budget goes to paying salaries for Congressmen? A miniscule amount.
Also, a larger population means more people paying taxes.
A bit off-topic, but while we're at it, Congressional salaries should be pinned to the minimum wage. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mistermasan
Joined: 20 Sep 2007
Location: 10+ yrs on Dave's ESL cafe
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2007 5:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
after each national census the seats for the house of representatives are reapportioned. these days there are, as you stated 435 seats. however, how many each state gets is not set in stone. illinois has lost something like 7 reps since 1950. the northern tier states have lost many reps. while the southern border states have gained alot from reapportionment.
the reps are determined by total population. so, illegal immigrants count as much in the equation as full citizens. sadly, the number of representatives a state is allocated also plays the greatest part in the number of electors in the all important electoral college. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:59 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
OK. I admit that I don't know exactly what you're talking about.
As far as i know, the census deals with congressional districts within states. This is what Kuros mentioned (here or elsehwere) about gerrymandering.
However, assuming you are right, that isn't the point I'm trying to make.
Playing games within the 435 doesn't justify having 435 reps.
It appears you're concerned about illegal immigrants.
This is a bipartisan issue. I'm not taking any stance on illegal immigrants, but if the House were actually growing with the population, the influence you mention would be dampened, rather than amplified (as you suggest is what's happening).
Can you provide a link about what you're claiming?
Again, not to doubt it. I just wish to be informed as much as possible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 1:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
OK. I admit that I don't know exactly what you're talking about.
As far as i know, the census deals with congressional districts within states. This is what Kuros mentioned (here or elsehwere) about gerrymandering.
However, assuming you are right, that isn't the point I'm trying to make.
Playing games within the 435 doesn't justify having 435 reps.
|
Are you saying that you didn't know the purpose of the Census was for the apportionment of representatives among the states? That every 10 years the number of representatives changes, some states gaining and some states losing? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 1:46 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
I'm saying I didn't know that the census reapportionments extended across state lines. I thought that was something that happened within a state, not beyond.
Did you spend years telling students that the House of Representatives grows with the population when it doesn't?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 2:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm not going to reply except to say that for a time there, I thought you were someone worth carrying on a discussion with, but with your behavior the last couple of days, I'm going to have to revert to my original judgement of you: You are too stupid for words. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mistermasan
Joined: 20 Sep 2007
Location: 10+ yrs on Dave's ESL cafe
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 2:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| wow. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 2:21 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
I'll take that as a "yes".
I'll miss the highly intelligent "If it's good enough for India, then why not us?" "debate" we've been having. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
