| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
 Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 7:05 pm Post subject: What's wrong with Congress? It's not big enough. |
 |
|
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/03/09/opinion/flynn-expand-congress/index.html
| Quote: |
| Congressional reform is gathering some momentum. But those in power will cling to the status quo. We need to fight for the right of representation envisioned by the founding fathers. |
Hurray for more coverage of this. A bipartisan issue that would facilitate other change. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 7:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| It is ridiculous that a member must be "present" to cast a vote in Congress in 2012. |
It really is. US Congressmen should be able to live in their districts and only have to come to DC twice a year for two weeks at a time at most. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 7:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Quote: |
| It is ridiculous that a member must be "present" to cast a vote in Congress in 2012. |
It really is. US Congressmen should be able to live in their districts and only have to come to DC twice a year for two weeks at a time at most. |
What about the process of drafting legislation, and committee meetings. Also important things like have access to other legislators to work out compromises and try to get enough votes. Obviously the congress is pretty flawed, but the job is too important to be just part time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unposter
Joined: 04 Jun 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 9:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| In the future, none of us will leave the house - it will be too expensive - the insurance costs will be unreal - we'll just "skype" and "tele-conference" everything. Welcome to the race to the bottom (of the accountant's ledger). Woo-hoo! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 10:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Quote: |
| It is ridiculous that a member must be "present" to cast a vote in Congress in 2012. |
It really is. US Congressmen should be able to live in their districts and only have to come to DC twice a year for two weeks at a time at most. |
What about the process of drafting legislation, and committee meetings. Also important things like have access to other legislators to work out compromises and try to get enough votes. Obviously the congress is pretty flawed, but the job is too important to be just part time. |
These things can be done through modern telecommunications. None other than Bill Clinton reported that Congress suffers because of all the commuting they do. They're exhausted between legislation haggling and fundraising, each of which happens in two different places, in many cases separated by an air flight.
Anyway, I think its a riot that you think Congress drafts legislation nowadays. There are DC law firms that corporations and lobbyists hire to draft legislation. The bills are then given to Congressmen to haggle over. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 10:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Quote: |
| It is ridiculous that a member must be "present" to cast a vote in Congress in 2012. |
It really is. US Congressmen should be able to live in their districts and only have to come to DC twice a year for two weeks at a time at most. |
What about the process of drafting legislation, and committee meetings. Also important things like have access to other legislators to work out compromises and try to get enough votes. Obviously the congress is pretty flawed, but the job is too important to be just part time. |
These things can be done through modern telecommunications. None other than Bill Clinton reported that Congress suffers because of all the commuting they do. They're exhausted between legislation haggling and fundraising, each of which happens in two different places, in many cases separated by an air flight.
Anyway, I think its a riot that you think Congress drafts legislation nowadays. There are DC law firms that corporations and lobbyists hire to draft legislation. The bills are then given to Congressmen to haggle over. |
Well, I don't think that they currently draft legislation, but yes that's what they should be doing. The commuting is absurd, but I think that there is a middle ground between twice a year and what there currently is.
Maybe the key is to regulate the campaigning so they don't have to spend all their time fundraising, or on the campaign trail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jrwhite82
Joined: 22 May 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 2:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
You mean limit rich people and corporations from donating money? Yeah, like that will ever happen.
2 weeks out of the year is a bit too little. But if they aren't required to be there physically we will miss out on all the chances to catch them napping at work and looking at porn. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2012 2:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jrwhite82 wrote: |
You mean limit rich people and corporations from donating money? Yeah, like that will ever happen.
2 weeks out of the year is a bit too little. But if they aren't required to be there physically we will miss out on all the chances to catch them napping at work and looking at porn. |
There were limits before Citizens United, and there have been attempts to make more limits. If it's made into an issue it's possible. It's no more unlikely than the whole two week thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NohopeSeriously
Joined: 17 Jan 2011
Location: The Christian Right-Wing Educational Republic of Korea
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 7:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_for_Democracy
This a book that every American (and Canadian) should read.
IMHO as a young religious mainline Protestant of Asian background, what the American Congress is doing is not a contemporary form of democracy that benefits the American citizens, it's a very weird adaption of Marxist-Leninism that harms the American citizens.
Here's my idea of how to run the American government.
1) A very big unicameral parliamentary system. Bicameralism actually harms American voters. You know, since Bicameralism is an unfortunate legacy of the British Westminster System. It's very un-American to have a bicameral system in the American political system in the first place.
2) Abolish the presidential system. Adopt the classical West German parliamentary system in the 1960s-70s.
(While at it, abolish the Common Law system and replace it with a German Civil Code.)
"What America needs is a Prime Minister, not a President." (This is how my church's pastor explained the American government) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 11:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| NohopeSeriously wrote: |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_for_Democracy
This a book that every American (and Canadian) should read.
IMHO as a young religious mainline Protestant of Asian background, what the American Congress is doing is not a contemporary form of democracy that benefits the American citizens, it's a very weird adaption of Marxist-Leninism that harms the American citizens.
Here's my idea of how to run the American government.
1) A very big unicameral parliamentary system. Bicameralism actually harms American voters. You know, since Bicameralism is an unfortunate legacy of the British Westminster System. It's very un-American to have a bicameral system in the American political system in the first place.
2) Abolish the presidential system. Adopt the classical West German parliamentary system in the 1960s-70s.
(While at it, abolish the Common Law system and replace it with a German Civil Code.)
"What America needs is a Prime Minister, not a President." (This is how my church's pastor explained the American government) |
While you're at it, abolish the common law system?
Worst idea I've seen on this forum in some time. I also love the phrasing, "while you're at it." Yeah, while you're at it reverse 800 years of political developments dating from the Magna Carta.
More and more law is being codified anyway. Criminal law is almost entirely codified. And most civil law systems around the world are placing increasing emphasis on case law as authority. But, while you're at it, eliminate and replace the foundation of Anglo-American law. You know, the one praised so highly by political philosophers from Montesquieu to De Tocqueville. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 11:34 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
Good lord bejeesus.
When I saw 8 replies, I thought peeps would be discussing enlarging the size of congress...
Commuting is , I s'pose, a minor aspect of that, and Congress is not nor was ever meant to be a "democracy", but suggesting that congress is some Lenininist-Marxist construct is :
a) not what this thread is about
and
b) just a little bit silly unless you're some cro-magnon who just woke up and got angry that the bronze age replaced the stone age.
Really, dude. Welcome, and please do post here. We have all kinds. BUT, questioning whether congress is Marxist is a thread within itself. Post it that way. Please. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 11:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I don't know if increasing the number of Congressmen will solve the problems claimed. But this is actually a traditionalist approach to solving a modern concern, and for that reason alone I support its adoption. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 4:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NohopeSeriously wrote: |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_for_Democracy
This a book that every American (and Canadian) should read.
IMHO as a young religious mainline Protestant of Asian background, what the American Congress is doing is not a contemporary form of democracy that benefits the American citizens, it's a very weird adaption of Marxist-Leninism that harms the American citizens.
Here's my idea of how to run the American government.
1) A very big unicameral parliamentary system. Bicameralism actually harms American voters. You know, since Bicameralism is an unfortunate legacy of the British Westminster System. It's very un-American to have a bicameral system in the American political system in the first place.
2) Abolish the presidential system. Adopt the classical West German parliamentary system in the 1960s-70s.
(While at it, abolish the Common Law system and replace it with a German Civil Code.)
"What America needs is a Prime Minister, not a President." (This is how my church's pastor explained the American government) |
Mmmm, caramel... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cwflaneur
Joined: 04 Aug 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 6:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| What the American legislature needs is something similar to the question time session in the British parliament, an opportunity for the legislature to grill the administration with tough questions. And then there's the lack of real debate within congress itself, the lack of back and forth exchanges. Nothing is more boring than the congressional speeches that broadcast on c-span: a practically empty chamber with about a dozen congresspeople giving timed speeches, everything scripted and controlled, no spontaneity or confrontation, no thinking on their feet... it's a pallid, insipid sham. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2012 9:12 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
Hello again Califlower!
You do have a point. It was illustrated at the start of the Iraq War. We have a one-way state of the union address, whereas Blair had to stand up and face down his detractors. I far prefer your system (aside from the green couches) of dealing with a head of state. The 2-way approach is better than one guy lipsticking the pig.
However, the critical point I've now been harping on for a good five years is that The UK has how many MP's?
Roughly 600.
For how many people?
Roughly 60 Million
The US has how many representatives in the House?
435
For how many people?
Roughly 300 million
The size of our House was frozen in 1911
when the population was 93 million
So...
we went from 435 representatives for 93 million people to:
435 representatives for 300 million people
The kick in the yarbles is that, as part of public school curriculum, we are taught that the house expands with the population, but it hasn't for over a hundred years.
What makes me semi-crazy is that this (non-amendment) issue is entirely non-partisan.
You want states rights?
Then decentralize the power of congress.
You want 3rd parties to be more viable?
Then decentralize the power of congress.
You want elected officials to change campaign finance laws?
Then decentralize the power of congress.
You want to be represented?
There's 1 rep per 750,000 people at this point, and it's growing.
Then decentralize the power of congress. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
