Slashdot Mirror

If every state distributed its electoral votes like Nebraska and Maine which is probably the most reasonable way to express both the interest of the people and the states in the President then Trump would have still secured the 270 electoral votes required.

You must be unfamiliar with the actual system used in those states. It isn't proportional in either state, but awarded by district, which if you are familiar with the gerrymandering of Congressional districts means it is anything but reasonable. Check out the aggregate House vote in North Carolina, Alabama, Pennsylvania and Florida, then compare it to the members. Arizona even tried to repudiate the state's voters to keep control rather than have it nonpartisan.

You are not proposing a reasonable solution. You are embracing the rot.

I have heard of no configuration of the electoral college that would resulted in Hillary securing 270+ electoral votes without going with the "winner of the popular vote gets all the electoral votes" scheme.

You're not getting out much then, though since you only said securing 270+ electoral votes you make it easy for me, since I can point you to Article the First. The proposal exists, and even with no other changes, it would be over 270.

You should have specifically stated victory, but being uninformed in the discussion, you made an errant statement without realizing it.

Ok, ok, so you're about to say that you meant a victory. Well, guess what? Implementation of the Wyoming Rule AND proportional award by population in a state gets Hillary a win. Without the Wyoming Rule, it can still be forced into the House. And adding Puerto Rico as a state also changes the outcome, if you want to know.

And then there is IRV,pref voting, and turnout penalty. Ok, that last is just going to hurt everybody, but stil, it exists. And then there is the federal tax flow option. Taker states get a penalty while net contributing states gain. It is a proposal, a wacky one, but it exists.

You need to get more informed, so you avoid unintended errors, but also so you know more of what is going on. People would appreciate it.

INTRO: Money and lobbyists in politics is the symptom, not the solution.
Federal Constitution specifies a census to count people to expand the number of seats in House of Representatives. This was capped in 1913, which allowed lobbyists and money to increase influence. We should have ~80,000 or less people per representative, so each person could conceivably have a group lunch with their rep. Now there are over 1 million people per representative, so only those with money (lobbyists) get access.

QUESTION: Instead of focusing on the symptom of money in politics, why not focus on returning to representative government by allowing the House to grow with population?

RESEARCH LINKS:
424 seats in small state of New Hampshire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Federal House seats capped in 1913 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
435 Representatives Can Not Faithfully Represent 300 Million Americans http://www.thirty-thousand.org...

Before smart-guys-and-gals say "30,000 people won't fit", consider meeting in a stadium once a year with tele-conferences the remainder of the sessions. Real representation, and the follow-on impotency of money and lobbyists, is worth the additional cost of paying 30,000 representatives.

Do you really think Citizens United magically transformed the U.S.? Really?
The House of Representatives has been frozen in size since 1910.
Since 1913:
- The IRS has eminent domain over your wallet.
- Your state, as such, is essentially voiceless in DC, now that Senators represent their parties.
- The federal government just borrows it forward to inflate the stock market and bind future generations in debt.
Blame Progressivism? Darn right I do.
Folks, it's time for a http://conventionofstates.com/

. . .planted the seeds that have bloomed, revealing what is tantamount to aristocracy.
1. The Big Senate no longer represents the people meaningfully.
2. The Little House no longer represents the 50 States United, or offers any thoughtful feedback to the Big Senate.
3. The federal government has eminent domain over your wallet.
4. DC is printing money at will, demolishing the value of what you think is in your wallet, and obstructing reform.
5. We're all modern monetary theorists now.
So shut up, peasants, and avert your gaze when your Progressive Overlords pass by.

. . .currently in the biz, the means to preclude future tyranny in all this are unclear. Maybe if the House of Representatives maintained anything like its original proportions, we'd have enough people actually elected by voters in place to give us more of a warm fuzzy about the oversight.

You can always push for Article the First to be ratified and finish ratifying the original 12 amendments. You'd have a representative for every 50,000 people so about 6000 representatives. Harder to bribe them all and more responsive to those who they represent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_the_first

http://www.thirty-thousand.org/

Cheers,

When the country had a population about the size of Brooklyn spread up and down the Atlantic coast that was probably true. Times have changed, and with the number of representatives set at a fixed amount the voices of the people get easier to tune out as the population grows. The federal government we have is not the right kind of government to oversee the nation we have become. It is time to dissolve, focus more on state level governments with cooperation akin to the EU (but not identical)

You (C0R1D4N) are probably already aware, but for other readers: http://www.thirty-thousand.org/.

Cheers,

From a previous post, here's the collected list of suggested actions people can take to help change the situation.

Have more ideas? Please post below.

Links worthy of attention:

http://anticorruptionact.org/ [anticorruptionact.org]

http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim.html [ted.com]

http://action.fairelectionsnow.org/fairelections [fairelectionsnow.org]

http://represent.us/ [represent.us]

http://www.protectourdemocracy.com/ [protectourdemocracy.com]

http://www.wolf-pac.com/ [wolf-pac.com]

https://www.unpac.org/ [unpac.org]

http://www.thirty-thousand.org/ [thirty-thousand.org]

Join the class action suit that Rand Paul is bringing against the NSA.

Suggestion #1:

(My idea): If people could band together and agree to vote out the incumbent (senator, representative, president) whenever one of these incidents crop up, there would be incentive for politicians to better serve the people in order to continue in office. This would mean giving up party loyalty and the idea of "lessor of two evils", which a lot of people won't do. Some congressional elections are quite close, so 2,000 or so petitioners might be enough to swing a future election.

Let your house and senate rep know how you feel about this issue / patriot act and encourage those you know to do the same.

If enough people let their representivies know how they feel obviously those officials who want to be reelected will tend to take notice. We have seen what happens when wikipedia and google go "dark", congressional switchboards melt and the 180's start to pile up.

Fax is considered the best way to contact a congressperson,especially if it is on corporate letterhead.

Suggestion #2:

Tor, I2dP and the likes. Let's build a new common internet over the internet. Full strong anonymity and integrity. Transform what an
eavesdropper would see in a huge cypherpunk clusterfuck.

Taking back what's ours through technology and educated practices.

Let's go back to the 90' where the internet was a place for knowledgeable and cooperative people.

Someone Added: Let's go full scale by deploying small wireless routers across the globe creating a real mesh network as internet was designed to be!

Suggestion #3:

A first step might be understanding the extent towards which the government actually disagrees with the people. Are we talking about a situation where the government is enacting unpopular policies that people oppose? Or are we talking about a situation where people support the policies? Because the solutions to those two situations are very different.

In many cases involving "national security", I think the situation is closer to the second one. "Tough on X" policies are quite popular, and politicians often pander to people by enacting them. The USA Patriot Act, for example, was hugely popular when it was passed. And in general, politicians get voted out of office more often for being not "tough" on crime and terrorism and whatever else, than for being too over-the-top in pursuing those policies.

Suggestion #4:

What I feel is needed is a true 3rd party, not 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th parties, such as Green, Tea Party, Libertarian; we need an agreeable third party that can compete against the two majors without a lot of interference from small parties. We need a consensus third party.

Suggestion #5:

Replace the voting system. Plurality voting will always lead [wikipedia.org] to the mess we have now. The only contribution towards politics I've made in years

From a previous post, here's the collected list of suggested actions people can take to help change the situation.

Have more ideas? Please post below.

Links worthy of attention:

http://anticorruptionact.org/

http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim.html

http://action.fairelectionsnow.org/fairelections

http://represent.us/

http://www.protectourdemocracy.com/

http://www.wolf-pac.com/

https://www.unpac.org/

http://www.thirty-thousand.org/

Suggestion #1:

(My idea): If people could band together and agree to vote out the incumbent (senator, representative, president) whenever one of these incidents crop up, there would be incentive for politicians to better serve the people in order to continue in office. This would mean giving up party loyalty and the idea of "lessor of two evils", which a lot of people won't do. Some congressional elections are quite close, so 2,000 or so petitioners might be enough to swing a future election.

Someone added: Vote them out AND remove their lifetime, taxpayer-funded, free health care. See how fast the health care system gets fixed.

Someone added:You can start by letting your house and senate rep know how you feel about this issue / patriot act and encourage those you know to do the same.

If enough people let their representivies know how they feel obviously those officials who want to be reelected will tend to take notice. We have seen what happens when wikipedia and google go "dark", congressional switchboards melt and the 180's start to pile up.

I added: Fax is considered the best way to contact a congressperson,especially if it is on corporate letterhead.

Suggestion #2:

Tor, I2dP and the likes. Let's build a new common internet over the internet. Full strong anonymity and integrity. Transform what an
eavesdropper would see in a huge cypherpunk clusterfuck.

Taking back what's ours through technology and educated practices.

Let's go back to the 90' where the internet was a place for knowledgeable and cooperative people.

Someone Added: Let's go full scale by deploying small wireless routers across the globe creating a real mesh network as internet was designed to be!

Suggestion #3:

A first step might be understanding the extent towards which the government actually disagrees with the people. Are we talking about a situation where the government is enacting unpopular policies that people oppose? Or are we talking about a situation where people support the policies? Because the solutions to those two situations are very different.

In many cases involving "national security", I think the situation is closer to the second one. "Tough on X" policies are quite popular, and politicians often pander to people by enacting them. The USA Patriot Act, for example, was hugely popular when it was passed. And in general, politicians get voted out of office more often for being not "tough" on crime and terrorism and whatever else, than for being too over-the-top in pursuing those policies.

Suggestion #4:

What I feel is needed is a true 3rd party, not 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th parties, such as Green, Tea Party, Libertarian; we need an agreeable third party that can compete against the two majors without a lot of interference from small parties. We need a consensus third party.

Suggestion #5:

Replace the voting system. Plurality voting will always lead to the mess we have now. The only contribution towards politics I'v

From a previous post, here's the collected list of suggested actions people can take to help change things.

Have more ideas? Please post below.

Links worthy of attention:

http://anticorruptionact.org/

http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim.html

http://action.fairelectionsnow.org/fairelections

http://represent.us/

http://www.protectourdemocracy.com/

http://www.wolf-pac.com/

https://www.unpac.org/

http://www.thirty-thousand.org/

Suggestion #1:

(My idea): If people could band together and agree to vote out the incumbent (senator, representative, president) whenever one of these incidents crop up, there would be incentive for politicians to better serve the people in order to continue in office. This would mean giving up party loyalty and the idea of "lessor of two evils", which a lot of people won't do. Some congressional elections are quite close, so 2,000 or so petitioners might be enough to swing a future election.

Someone added: Vote them out AND remove their lifetime, taxpayer-funded, free health care. See how fast the health care system gets fixed.

Someone added:You can start by letting your house and senate rep know how you feel about this issue / patriot act and encourage those you know to do the same.

If enough people let their representivies know how they feel obviously those officials who want to be reelected will tend to take notice. We have seen what happens when wikipedia and google go "dark", congressional switchboards melt and the 180's start to pile up.

I added: Fax is considered the best way to contact a congressperson, especially if it is on corporate letterhead.

Suggestion #2:

Tor, I2dP and the likes. Let's build a new common internet over the internet. Full strong anonymity and integrity. Transform what an eavesdropper would see in a huge cypherpunk clusterfuck.

Taking back what's ours through technology and educated practices.

Let's go back to the 90' where the internet was a place for knowledgeable and cooperative people.

Someone Added: Let's go full scale by deploying small wireless routers across the globe creating a real mesh network as internet was designed to be!

Suggestion #3:

A first step might be understanding the extent towards which the government actually disagrees with the people. Are we talking about a situation where the government is enacting unpopular policies that people oppose? Or are we talking about a situation where people support the policies? Because the solutions to those two situations are very different.

In many cases involving "national security", I think the situation is closer to the second one. "Tough on X" policies are quite popular, and politicians often pander to people by enacting them. The USA Patriot Act, for example, was hugely popular when it was passed. And in general, politicians get voted out of office more often for being not "tough" on crime and terrorism and whatever else, than for being too over-the-top in pursuing those policies.

Suggestion #4:

What I feel is needed is a true 3rd party, not 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th parties, such as Green, Tea Party, Libertarian; we need an agreeable third party that can compete against the two majors without a lot of interference from small parties. We need a consensus third party.

Suggestion #5:

Replace the voting system. Plurality voting will always lead to the mess we have now. The only contribution towards politics I've made in

From a previous post, here's the collected list of suggested actions
people can take to help fix the government.

Have more ideas? Please post below.

Links worthy of attention:

http://anticorruptionact.org/

http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim.html

http://action.fairelectionsnow.org/fairelections

http://represent.us/

http://www.protectourdemocracy.com/

http://www.wolf-pac.com/

https://www.unpac.org/

http://www.thirty-thousand.org/

Suggestion #1:

(My idea): If people could band together and agree to vote out the
incumbent (senator, representative, president) whenever one of these
incidents crop up, there would be incentive for politicians to better
serve the people in order to continue in office. This would mean
giving up party loyalty and the idea of "lessor of two evils", which a
lot of people won't do. Some congressional elections are quite close,
so 2,000 or so petitioners might be enough to swing a future election.

Someone added: Vote them out AND remove their lifetime,
taxpayer-funded, free health care. See how fast the health care system
gets fixed.

Someone added:You can start by letting your house and senate rep know
how you feel about this issue / patriot act and encourage others you
know to do the same.

If enough people let their representivies know how they feel obviously
those officials who want to be reelected will tend to take notice. We have
seen what happens when wikipedia and google go "dark", congressional
switchboards melt and the 180's start to pile up.

I added: Fax is considered the best way to contact a congressperson,
especially if it is on corporate letterhead.

Suggestion #2:

Tor, I2dP and the likes. Let's build a new common internet over the
internet. Full strong anonymity and integrity. Transform what an
eavesdropper would see in a huge cypherpunk clusterfuck.

Taking back what's ours through technology and educated practices.

Let's go back to the 90' where the internet was a place for
knowledgeable and cooperative people.

Someone Added: Let's go full scale by deploying small wireless routers
across the globe creating a real mesh network as internet was designed
to be!

Suggestion #3:

A first step might be understanding the extent towards which the
government actually disagrees with the people. Are we talking about a
situation where the government is enacting unpopular policies that
people oppose? Or are we talking about a situation where people
support the policies? Because the solutions to those two situations
are very different.

In many cases involving "national security", I think the situation is
closer to the second one. "Tough on X" policies are quite popular, and
politicians often pander to people by enacting them. The USA Patriot
Act, for example, was hugely popular when it was passed. And in
general, politicians get voted out of office more often for being not
"tough" on crime and terrorism and whatever else, than for being too
over-the-top in pursuing those policies.

Suggestion #4:

What I feel is needed is a true 3rd party, not 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th
parties, such as Green, Tea Party, Libertarian; we need an agreeable
third party that can compete against the two majors without a lot of
interference from small parties. We need a consensus third party.

Suggestion #5:

Replace the voting system. Plurality voting will

From a previous post, here's the collected list of suggested actions
people can take to help change the situation.

Have more ideas? Please post below.

Links worthy of attention:

http://anticorruptionact.org/

http://www.ted.com/talks/lawrence_lessig_we_the_people_and_the_republic_we_must_reclaim.html

http://action.fairelectionsnow.org/fairelections

http://represent.us/

http://www.protectourdemocracy.com/

http://www.wolf-pac.com/

https://www.unpac.org/

http://www.thirty-thousand.org/

Suggestion #1:

(My idea): If people could band together and agree to vote out the
incumbent (senator, representative, president) whenever one of these
incidents crop up, there would be incentive for politicians to better
serve the people in order to continue in office. This would mean
giving up party loyalty and the idea of "lessor of two evils", which a
lot of people won't do. Some congressional elections are quite close,
so 2,000 or so petitioners might be enough to swing a future election.

Someone added: Vote them out AND remove their lifetime,
taxpayer-funded, free health care. See how fast the health care system
gets fixed.

Someone added:You can start by letting your house and senate rep know
how you feel about this issue / patriot act and encourage others you
know to do the same.

If enough people let their representivies know how they feel obviously
those officials who want to be reelected will tend to take notice. We have
seen what happens when wikipedia and google go "dark", congressional
switchboards melt and the 180's start to pile up.

I added: Fax is considered the best way to contact a congressperson,
especially if it is on corporate letterhead.

Suggestion #2:

Tor, I2dP and the likes. Let's build a new common internet over the
internet. Full strong anonymity and integrity. Transform what an
eavesdropper would see in a huge cypherpunk clusterfuck.

Taking back what's ours through technology and educated practices.

Let's go back to the 90' where the internet was a place for
knowledgeable and cooperative people.

Someone Added: Let's go full scale by deploying small wireless routers
across the globe creating a real mesh network as internet was designed
to be!

Suggestion #3:

A first step might be understanding the extent towards which the
government actually disagrees with the people. Are we talking about a
situation where the government is enacting unpopular policies that
people oppose? Or are we talking about a situation where people
support the policies? Because the solutions to those two situations
are very different.

In many cases involving "national security", I think the situation is
closer to the second one. "Tough on X" policies are quite popular, and
politicians often pander to people by enacting them. The USA Patriot
Act, for example, was hugely popular when it was passed. And in
general, politicians get voted out of office more often for being not
"tough" on crime and terrorism and whatever else, than for being too
over-the-top in pursuing those policies.

Suggestion #4:

What I feel is needed is a true 3rd party, not 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th
parties, such as Green, Tea Party, Libertarian; we need an agreeable
third party that can compete against the two majors without a lot of
interference from small parties. We need a consensus third party.

Suggestion #5:

Replace the voting system. Plurality voting will

I will check those out and add this one as well: http://www.thirty-thousand.org/

We have too many people in each district. Thirty-Thousand.org, while they have an ancient website, does a great job explaining how the framers did not want more than 50,000 people per district. Though more focused on California, Project Represent Me does a great job at explaining the concept and why it is central to a representative democracy.

The 17th amendment certainly has some terrible effects on governance, but having 700,000 people per Congressional district is worse. Another huge blow is the Supreme Court's invention of 'Incorporation', which, along with enumerated powers of Congress, is at the heart of most issues, including those discussed on NPR and by the OP.

The average US constituency is massive , at around 700,000 people. This is much larger than originally envisioned when the country was founded, and guarantees that the little guy is drowned out. From Thirty-Thousand.org:

The framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights intended that the total population of Congressional districts never exceed 50 to 60 thousand. Currently, the average population size of the districts is nearly 700,000 and, consequently, the principle of proportionally equitable representation has been abandoned.

Such large constituencies as we see now in the US are also much larger than in other representative democracies. The Isle of Wight is an interesting comparison:

With a single Member of Parliament and 132,731 permanent residents in 2001, it is also the most populous parliamentary constituency in the United Kingdom.

While not widely known, the first article of the original twelve proposed for the Bill of Rights laid out the size of congressional constituencies, as an attempt to avoid that the dilution of individual votes seen in the modern US. From the US House of Representatives website:

Article the first

After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.

James Madison himself talked about how larger constituencies tend to favor those with land and property (i.e., the rich). He was writing about the justification for having larger constituencies and longer terms for the Senate than for the House, but his description of the basic political mechanics is sound. From page 155 of The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates by Ralph Ketcham:

Large districts are manifestly favorable to the election of persons of general respectability, and of probable attachment to the rights of property, over competitors depending on the personal solicitations practicable on a contracted theater.

I.e., large districts are more impersonal, favor the rich, and are less representative. This is precisely what we have in the US. I do not expect any real progress until this gross imbalance is corrected -- and frankly I suspect changing my citizenship would be much more productive for me personally.

Cheers,

While I mostly agree with you, I think you lay the blame at the wrong feet.

While I understand the point of things like the UN (to prevent something like WWII from happening again) it, along with all the other international organizations have defrauded the American people of their constitutionally guaranteed rights.

The UN itself has done no such thing. The ones defrauding the US public of their constitutionally guaranteed rights are the elected representatives in the US government, and by extension their financial masters (a.k.a. "donors"), using the UN and other international groups as cover to get what they want. Though given the state of voting in the US (black-box hackable e-voting machines, gerrymandering, overly large constituencies, etc. etc.), the term "elected" might not hold much meaning here.

Cheers,

And people in general have nominated the government as their representative by voting in parties that defend such policies.

That statement is misleading. When you have 700,000 people per district, you cannot have representation. This was discussed by many of the state constitutional conventions leading up to the ratification of the Constitution. In fact, there was only one last-minute change that resulted in the only smudge in the original ratified document, and that was to change the minimum district size from 40,000 people to 30,000 people (the number '4' to '3'), because they felt 40,000 was simply too many people for a district. Nowhere in the U.S. can you find any homogeneous geographic group of 700,000 people, which is what gives us our plutocratic de facto state.

If you care, you can read more about this topic at Thirty-Thousand.org.

Yeah, because a government with a trillion-dollar budget can't find $60 million anywhere else. Nice conspiracy theory.

It's not "the government" that needs to find the $60M, it's just a particular senator that wants to fund some pork project for his state that needs to find $60M. They will find it, and this is how they do it. When you have to have a balanced budget, you have to come up with a way to balance the books. This crap will continue until we get some real reform of the system, beginning with an unbiased redrawing of districts, and a dramatic reduction in the maximum size of those districts. Until we get the basics fixed, the system will continue to screw us.

I latched onto that point as well. You're not going to get many click-throughs without giving a tidbit though, so I'll post one here.

Excellent research, found at thirty-thousand.org, shows that in 1804 each representative represented about 40,000 people. Today, each representative represents close to 700,000. If we lived up to the vision of our founders, given today's population, we would have about 7,500 congressmen in the House of Representatives. It turns out that in 1929 Congress passed a bill fixing the number of representatives at 435. Prior to that, the number of congressional districts was increased every 10 years, from 1790 to 1910, except one, after a population census was taken.

In addition, the Senate was originally designed to represent the interests of each state, senators being elected by the state legislature. The logic behind this was that the desires of the state do not necessarily line up with the desires of its population. This is also why the Senate has the power to ratify treaties: they are contracts between governments. This was altered with good intentions (there were many deadlocks resulting in Senate vacancies for years), but I'm not convinced it was the right thing to do, since the House and Senate have very little difference between them now.

What's changed?

The number of voters represented by each congressman.

Seriously, have a look. A fascinating take on how the basic structure of our no-longer-so-representational government has changed over the years, watering down the significance of any single member of the electorate.

http://www.thirty-thousand.org/

Cheers,

The simple-but-dramatic solution: there should be a recognized right of secession. Communities should have the right to decide whether or not they wish to belong to a larger political entity. If they feel poorly served, they can go it alone, or agree to join some other political entity (Canada? Germany? Swaziland?).

This is true. I think it's been extremely thoroughly demonstrated at this point, that increasing population is almost the sole cause of virtually every human social and environmental problem. Even if it can't be argued as the direct cause, it can certainly be said that it doesn't help.

"According to Jefferson and Madison in 1825, the Declaration of Independence constituted an "act of Union of the States."

-- Mackubin Thomas Owens, The Case Against Secession, The Claremont Institute.

The above link essentially makes the case that, although of course revolution from England was desired, apparently the immediate establishment of a perpetual and insoluble federalism of their own was desired also.

Thomas Jefferson in particular, without attempting to attack him too harshly, was quite clearly an elitist. This can be shown by noting the creation of the electoral college, of which he was an advocate, and also that it was he who voiced the idea that limited republic rather than outright democracy was a necessary form of government.

The glowing summary of American foundational history generally consists almost exclusively, of the concept that the founders created a system allowing for an unprecedented degree of human freedom, while seeking virtually nothing for the government itself.

This, of course, sounds wonderful, and works particularly well as justification for foreign interventionism. Unfortunately however, when more thorough research is conducted, the situation becomes decidedly more murky.

To me there is more evidence to suggest that although, of course, there were considerably more legal restraints initially put in place, ultimately, a competing system with England was actually the real desire. We've seen the degree of imperialism which has become the contemporary result, as well.

I also just came across something else that is very interesting, relative to this discussion. Apparently there was the first of twelve amendments that were originally intended to be added to the Constitution, at the first Congress in 1789.

This amendment, apparently specifically sought to deal with the very issue of scaling population currently being discussed, and the Wikipedia article has a quote from James Madison to that effect.

It was never ratified; but as explained by Wikipedia, rather than creating an effect where the amount of representation within government actually scaled *up* with the population, with the proposed Amendment, it would actually be scaled further *down.* Current calculation of representative numbers, although not exactly using the Amendment system, is roughly the same.

There is some very interesting information about this issue here:-
http://www.thirty-thousand.org./

I've always wondered why proponents of term limits even bother. Even if we change the faces, we don't know what they're up to or who they're working for. Everything term limit proponents hope to gain by term limits can be achieved, and more, by simply requiring every public act of elected officials to be a matter of conveniently accessible public record. Until that happens we aren't electing public officials, we're electing rulers.

I came across this site http://thirty-thousand.org/ and had a good laugh. Basically they want one house rep per 30,000 citizens. It comes out to something around 6,000 house reps. Basically about the time of WWI the house froze the number of reps and it's been capped at 435 ever since then. The logic of it is that 6,000 house reps are harder to nationally lobby. They wouldn't have to have massive funds or campaigns to be elected. They don't have to represent the entire state either.

Given cities or small towns could basically get their guy elected into a house rep slot. Huckabee would easily swing Texarkana and Miller county in general for a house rep slot. It would be much more difficult for him to get the entire state or selected major state cities behind him. Basically their other big complaint is that the only reason that the house needs such large staffs is because their congressional districts are so large. If they were only 30,000, one person should be able to manage that. Plus most house stuff gets done in various subcommittees.

After reading some it, it does make sense. Why have a small handful of folks represent your state when you could have more? O.k. it would end up the population of a small town, but that's even better. That means nothing gets passed if not a large part of the country wants it.

From your post, I'm guessing you might find Thirty-Thousand.org to directly address your concern (although more with regard to representatives than senators).

The basic premise is that US congressional representative districts have become so blooming huge in population terms that it's simply impossible for normal (i.e. non-mega-rich non-corporate) constituents to have much real impact on what representatives do. The group argues that it's way past time to increase the number of representatives in congress (artificially capped at 435 since 1939) in order to reduce the constituent / representative ratio. This averaged 40K in 1804, and now averages around 700K -- a 17.5x difference. Boosting the number of representatives and shrinking representative districts would bring constituents into closer contact with their representatives, and thereby allow for (shocking, perhaps) actual representation.

Cheers,

There's actually some effort out there to pass that last unpassed amendment, about the size of the House of Representatives:

• http://www.thirty-thousand.org/
• http://www.lewrockwell.com/podcast/?p=episode&name=2008-11-16_069_the_case_for_bigger_government.mp3

Would this help?

I think our checks and balances in the Constitution, and the Bill or Rights are pretty good too. I just think they aren't followed like they should be.
The politicians treat the Constitution and it's Amendments as if they have to follow a little bit less every year.

I think fundamentally we have an open source government, but it's too heavy at the top. There are too few people with too much power.
This was mentioned as good idea and i have to say I kind of like it myself.

One good campaign to try and fix some of that is http://thirty-thousand.org/ , where they want to have 1 member of the house for at most every 30,000 people. Considering the House hasn't been expanded since 1910 aside from Hawaii and Alaska, it has been very distorted from what it should be.

Uh, yeah, right... That would put the number of reps in the House at over 10,000. I think fair representation is a must, but pick a more realistic number please. Could you imagine the elections for that?

One good campaign to try and fix some of that is http://thirty-thousand.org/ , where they want to have 1 member of the house for at most every 30,000 people.

On one hand, I can only imagine how paralyzed and ineffective a house with 10,000 members would be. On the other hand, yay! Go Big House!

One good campaign to try and fix some of that is http://thirty-thousand.org/ , where they want to have 1 member of the house for at most every 30,000 people. Considering the House hasn't been expanded since 1910 aside from Hawaii and Alaska, it has been very distorted from what it should be.

I actuall see no problem with more representation, currently we're getting less and less. You tell me, do you feel adequately represented by anyone, let alone by your congress critter?

"The bill seeks to prescribe a national policy under which the membership of the House shall never exceed 435 unless Congress, by affirmative action, overturns the formula and abandons the policy enunciated by this bill. I am unalterably opposed to limiting the membership of the House to the arbitrary number of 435. Why 435? Why not 400? Why not 300? Why not 250, 450, 535, or 600? Why is this number 435 sacred? What merit is there in having a membership of 435 that we would not have if the membership were 335 or 535? There is no sanctity in the number 435 ... There is absolutely no reason, philosophy, or common sense in arbitrarily fixing the membership of the House at 435 or at any other number."