Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No it won't. I agree with Ralph_Kirk on something here...
Yep and to change that will require a constitutional amendment.
It wouldn't at all. Maybe just the perception. If anything it muddies the water even more.
I can't say that since my distinct stretches from the outskirts of the Phoenix suburbs to the western and northwestern borders of Arizona. In fact this district got gerrymandered when Arizona got a new district in 2012. Paul Gosar resides in Prescott. That office isn't a "10 minute drive" for me, more like an hour plus.
It don't at all. You and I both know that.
It does make them more answerable. You all just don't want to think it through.
How DO other countries manage, then? They must have some magical device to allow them to manage.
Using technology to keep representatives in their districts would make them easier to manage.
What countries have significantly larger "houses of representatives"? I've seen videos of fist fights breaking out in other country's "houses of representatives".
The number is not random, but it can be changed legislatively by reapplying the same formula to a newer census.
It is random. One day our Congress just decided that this is enough people. There was and is no reason behind the number 435.
And what it does is it screws up representation. That's why in one district may have a population of 650,000 and another district has a population of 1,000,000. That's not equal representation. The 435 cap doesn't just skew representation, and therefore the electoral college, it also screws people out of equal representation.
With modern technology, our representatives could cast their votes from their home districts. They would be scattered across the country instead of in one central location, making it harder for lobbyists to access them, but making it easier for their constituencies to access them. By having more representatives, but representatives more tied to their districts, it would loosen the influence of the political parties, making representatives more responsive to their constituents.
The cap serves a purpose, it allows the political parties to control the legislators, rather than allowing constituents to control the legislators. It muffles the voice of the people. It may have made sense a century ago, but it doesn't make sense anymore.
With modern technology, our representatives could cast their votes from their home districts. They would be scattered across the country instead of in one central location, making it harder for lobbyists to access them, but making it easier for their constituencies to access them. ...
No, part of the value to being together in a House or Senate is the debate. Which we saw recently.
Having more cats in the herd does not make a herd of cats any easier to herd.
I would have to contact more people for my issues of concern--that's not easier, that's harder.
It may be slightly harder for lobby groups--but they hire people to lobby full-time, so it makes it harder for me than it does for them.
I'm sorry, why would you have to contact more people? YOU live in ONE district. You have ONE Congressman, and TWO Senators. Removing the cap wouldn't change that.
And lobby groups would have to hire more people to lobby a larger Congress, and they would have to pay more in travel expenses if we kept our representatives in their districts rather than in DC. The lobbyists would have to take a back seat to YOU, the constituent, if we dilute the lobbyists' influence.
Wrong, but you know this already having been corrected many times by many posters.
I just wonder why you keep repeating this false narrative over and over despite historical evidence to the contrary?`
No one has ever corrected me. Mr. James Madison's words stand forever recorded:
"There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections. "
It's there plain as day. The use of presidential electors instead of the popular vote was a compromise resulting in the "fewest objections" because it made an adjustment for the non-voting "Negroes."
To reach any other conclusion is just partisan revisionism to satisfy an agenda.
What countries have significantly larger "houses of representatives"? I've seen videos of fist fights breaking out in other country's "houses of representatives".
EVERY developed country with a representative government has fewer constituents per representative.
Our lower house, the House of Representatives, has one representative per, on average, 725,000 people. In the United Kingdom, the lower house representation is one representative per 96,000 people. In Switzerland, it's per 40,000 people. In France, it's one per 115,000 people. In Germany, it's one per 130,000 people.
There are representatives in the United States who have constituencies of over a million people. That's overwhelming. It's far easier for a representative to take a meeting with a lobbyist who has a simple, straightforward agenda, and to adopt that position, rather than to try to figure out a position that adequately represents his constituency. And the representative likely gets money in the election warchest for taking that meeting.
The founding fathers didn't design the system with a cap on representation. The rest of the world recognizes the problems that come with such a cap. Here, we prefer to be short-sighted, and to blame the electoral college. Because actually thinking about why the electoral college isn't functioning properly is too darn difficult.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
