Outlook QuoteFix. Quote sensibly, and the rest falls into place. You learn to appreciate the value of replying in context, and trimming out unnecessary stuff.
OTOH, I have been chastened by managers who told me "What's wrong with your emails???" *sigh*
I wasn't arguing that there is never a case where "the greater good of the nation" has to come first. I do not favor a "mob rule" type democracy. It's just that the earlier post sounded a lot like we should simply trust those in authority because they know what is best for us. It's that type of elitist thinking that I oppose.
It would be interesting to look at how many 3rd party candidates have been elected to the Unicam. I know that officially it is a non-partisan body, but anybody who actually believes that should come see me about a bridge I want to sell... Increasing diversity of representation would be a good motive for going back to a bicameral system.
You don't really need the House to be proportional. (Not having a relatively local representative has problems as well.) You simply need there to be a good electoral method such that people can be honest when voting. The "lesser of two evils" system we have now clearly doesn't work well.
If you find any of those sites that includes 3rd party candidates, please post it. I discovered the 3rd party movement through one like that back in 2000. I don't remember seeing any in 2004, and none for 2008 yet either.
The redistricting body should be composed of members of parties who received the least representation in the last election. Don't let the foxes guard the henhouse.
Maybe this would force the Duopoly to make voting more fair, so that Greens/Libertarians/Constitutionalists could get elected, just so that the Ds/Rs would have a chance of a member on the districting board!
But the country is We The People. The House represents the people directly, the Senate represents them indirectly via their agents the respective States. Yes, they are to serve the nation the best they can, but shouldn't what is "best" for the nation be determined in large part by the dictates of the people? I mean, if 95% of the people really want creationism taught in schools (to use your example) because they think that is best, why should the minority, the "elites" in federal office, get to determine otherwise?
How about leaving the house be geographically selected, and the Senate proportional?
If you're talking about at the State level, I'd agree. At the federal level, there are already two different modes of representation that work quite well. (In theory anyway...the 17th Amendment pretty much ruined the Senate, and it should be repealed.) There's very little reason to have a bicameral legislature if both houses are apportioned in exactly the same manner. Nebraska realized this back in the '30s (when money was tight) and went unicameral.
However, I do think that even members of the proportionally-apportioned house be geographically dispersed. Otherwise you end up with them all be lobbyist types that live near the capital, and I don't think that's a great idea. Maybe make it so that at most three people from each "party" can be from any particular district that is used in the other house.
I think it unlikely that residents at a city/county level are going to tolerate constant boundary shuffling to suit those gaming electoral districts for state/federal offices. Sure, cities can grow by annexation, but this is still at a local enough level that an active and concerned citizenry (big supposition there, I know) can make a difference.
As others have said, this is essentially like jury duty, and would be just as hated in practice. If people don't like bad laws, that's what jury nullification is for.
If you really want representation of the people, fix the House. Representing the People is its purpose. Fix the (plurality) electoral system so we aren't stuck with one of two bad options. If people can freely vote for whom they honestly feel is the best for the job, the House would become more representative of the typical citizen. There would be more turnover and less incumbency.
DC is a federal territory, entirely under the jurisdiction of the FedGov proper, and thus quite properly does not follow the normal rules applicable to States for representation in Congress.
That said, I would not be opposed to a constitutional amendment giving DC equal representation in the House in proportion to its population. The purpose of the House is to give a voice to the People of the United States--which residents of DC are. IMO, this is more important than giving them EC votes for president, as they already have. However, I would never agree to giving DC representation in the Senate, which is the house of the States. It is not a state, and that is intentional. DC's EC representation should be limited to the sum of its House and Senate representation, like any state--it merely has 0 Senate representation. If that bothers residents so much...move 5 miles in any direction.
The purpose of equal representation in the Senate is not to "offset" possibly-unequal representation in the House. Ideally, representation in the House should be the same proportion in every state, since it is the house of the people. The House serves the interests of the People at the federal level. The Senate serves the interests of the States at the federal level. These are two entirely different and complementary ways of looking at things. Thinking like yours, "we can have unfair apportionment here because it is made up elsewhere", is wrong. The representation in the Senate, exactly 2 per state, is precisely as it was designed--it is not "overrepresentation".
If there were no provision to protect small states, they'd never have joined the Union (why would they?), and there would be no United States today. Get it? It's more to a small state's benefit to remain 50 independent countries than to join an alliance where it would continually get shafted.
Heck, if that's an option, after the 2004 presidential election, California would've seceded and became the world's 7th largest economy on its own.
There are many that would be happy to see it go.
If you Wyomians like to oppress your own people, be my guest. But when YOUR opinion affects my outcome in a negative manner, that's an offensive measure.
This is an argument for federalism (i.e. decentralized government) not for popular representation. If we could trust the FedGov to stay the heck out of our business, most of this would be moot. Let the Californians do what they want, let the Wyomingites do what they want, etc.
Californians, by virtue of their numbers, overpower Wyomingites. WY residents needs extra representation as a safeguard against the majority. Giving WYites collectively the same power as CAns collectively does that. In the Senate, the state is given equal representation, not the people of the state. The Senate is the voice of the states--as sovereign entities--in the federal union, regardless of their population, and serves to ensure that the distinctive cultures/characters/needs of 50 disparate units is served and preserved and is not quashed simply because another is bigger. A state is (theoretically) a voluntary member of the union--if WY were a separate country, CA (nor any other state) would have any ability to affect it, regardless of numbers, right? Why would WY willingly subject itself to a system where its needs would be continually overpowered by others?
You're really concerned about the ability of 3 WY congresscritters to "impose their lifestyle" on CA, which has over 50? Seriously? That "65x power" talk is great sensationalist hype, but it's just that - hype. Face it, Senate "overrepresentation" is a defensive measure. WY is never going to change CA by virtue of its "awesome federal influence". Pffft.
Continuing to harp about the inequity of 2:500,000 to 2:36,000,000 just displays your ignorance of the fundamental character of the American system. Pure democracy is not a good in and of itself. The Founders understood that. (Two wolves and a sheep take a vote on what to have for dinner. How well does that democratic system work for ya now?) I thank God the US is a republican and not a democratic model. I know the "official US line" is about "exporting democracy" as you might say, but that really perplexes me. If anything, it would be better to export republicanism. In many cases, it is probably best to leave well enough alone!
If you can come up with a decent argument against the rationale of the Federalist Papers, by all means present it. I'll listen. I haven't seen one yet, and I even admit the FP are not perfect.
Following the original proportion of 1 representative to 30k people, we'd need 9381 today. That would be 16 for little Wyoming and 1129 for big California. Wow! The US sure was a tiny country in 1787 - only 65 representatives then.
If we use one "WY population" as the smallest unit of representation in the House, we'd need 570 representatives.
Using census 2000 figures and simple rounding*, I figure that if we followed my "compromise suggestion" of going from 435 to 1000 Representatives: AL 16 AK 2 AZ 18 AR 9 CA 120 CO 15 CT 12 DE 3 DC 2** FL 57 GA 29 HI 4 ID 6 IL 44 IN 22 IA 10 KS 10 KY 14 LA 16 ME 5 MD 19 MA 23 MI 35 MN 17 MS 10 MO 20 MT 3 NE 6 NV 7 NH 4 NJ 30 NM 6 NY 67 NC 29 ND 2 OH 40 OK 12 OR 12 PA 44 RI 4 SC 14 SD 3 TN 20 TX 74 UT 8 VT 2 VA 25 WA 21 WV 6 WI 19 WY 2.
*Which isn't perfect, if you add these up, but also partly due to not excluding DC's population. I'm not going to redo these 51 calculations now though.
**For EV only, cannot have more than smallest state according to the 23rd Amendment, though it would still be 2.
Didn't you take civics in high school? The Senate isn't designed to give fairness to the people of a state. It's designed to give fairness to the state as a sovereign political unit. The people of Wyoming have just as much right to be Wyomingites as the people of California to be Californians, despite the fact that there are far fewer of them. If national policy were a purely popular matter, that right would be overridden by the will (tyranny) of the majority. The government of the United States follows a republican, not democratic, model, and its institutions (like Congress) are designed to reflect that and save us from the effects of too much democracy. Majority will, sure, but protective of minorities as well!
I knew a bit about the history of representation before, and have thought for some time that we should increase the number of reps in the House, but even just skimming the home page was informative.
I agree that "career politicians" are not the American ideal. But I think the best way to remove them is education (which the fourth estate is increasingly failing at - more and more the press is in bed with government) and encouraging honest voting (which the plurality system fails abysmally at). If the citizenry is informed and empowered, they will take care of the problem. The real problem is that they are ignorant and apathetic.
If you view states as merely administrative subunits, not restricting electoral districts to state boundaries makes sense. If you respect states as sovereign entities of their own right, it does not. Historically, US states are the latter - sovereign entities enjoined in a mutually beneficial compact called the United States under a treaty called the Constitution. Unfortunately, this original view has reversed in the past 100 years or so.
True - no government is perfect because it is run by people who are imperfect. But, one of the primary justifications given (at the time) for direct election of Senators was that vacancies (when a Senator died or resigned) sat unfilled for extended periods because the legislatures would deadlock for between political factions. Meanwhile, the state went underrepresented, which didn't help anyone. A better solution to this problem would be to extend the power of recess appointment that governors have. If a Senate vacancy occurs during the legislative session, and the legislature can't fill it in, say, 2 weeks (a reasonable amount of time to get something this important, yet relatively easy, done), appoint someone until they come to a resolution!
Slashdot Mirror
Outlook QuoteFix. Quote sensibly, and the rest falls into place. You learn to appreciate the value of replying in context, and trimming out unnecessary stuff.
OTOH, I have been chastened by managers who told me "What's wrong with your emails???" *sigh*
Actually, it was invented in Europe, in places like Wittenberg, Geneva, Scotland. It was exported to America in the 1600s.
Hey, I'd settle for a source release of Word 5.1! That would be fantastic!
Well, too often politicians serve their own interests. That's the problem.
True, but many of those things will throw even undeclared/potential candidates into the mix.
I wasn't arguing that there is never a case where "the greater good of the nation" has to come first. I do not favor a "mob rule" type democracy. It's just that the earlier post sounded a lot like we should simply trust those in authority because they know what is best for us. It's that type of elitist thinking that I oppose.
It would be interesting to look at how many 3rd party candidates have been elected to the Unicam. I know that officially it is a non-partisan body, but anybody who actually believes that should come see me about a bridge I want to sell... Increasing diversity of representation would be a good motive for going back to a bicameral system.
You don't really need the House to be proportional. (Not having a relatively local representative has problems as well.) You simply need there to be a good electoral method such that people can be honest when voting. The "lesser of two evils" system we have now clearly doesn't work well.
If you find any of those sites that includes 3rd party candidates, please post it. I discovered the 3rd party movement through one like that back in 2000. I don't remember seeing any in 2004, and none for 2008 yet either.
The redistricting body should be composed of members of parties who received the least representation in the last election. Don't let the foxes guard the henhouse.
Maybe this would force the Duopoly to make voting more fair, so that Greens/Libertarians/Constitutionalists could get elected, just so that the Ds/Rs would have a chance of a member on the districting board!
But the country is We The People. The House represents the people directly, the Senate represents them indirectly via their agents the respective States. Yes, they are to serve the nation the best they can, but shouldn't what is "best" for the nation be determined in large part by the dictates of the people? I mean, if 95% of the people really want creationism taught in schools (to use your example) because they think that is best, why should the minority, the "elites" in federal office, get to determine otherwise?
If you're talking about at the State level, I'd agree. At the federal level, there are already two different modes of representation that work quite well. (In theory anyway...the 17th Amendment pretty much ruined the Senate, and it should be repealed.) There's very little reason to have a bicameral legislature if both houses are apportioned in exactly the same manner. Nebraska realized this back in the '30s (when money was tight) and went unicameral.
However, I do think that even members of the proportionally-apportioned house be geographically dispersed. Otherwise you end up with them all be lobbyist types that live near the capital, and I don't think that's a great idea. Maybe make it so that at most three people from each "party" can be from any particular district that is used in the other house.
I think it unlikely that residents at a city/county level are going to tolerate constant boundary shuffling to suit those gaming electoral districts for state/federal offices. Sure, cities can grow by annexation, but this is still at a local enough level that an active and concerned citizenry (big supposition there, I know) can make a difference.
As others have said, this is essentially like jury duty, and would be just as hated in practice. If people don't like bad laws, that's what jury nullification is for.
If you really want representation of the people, fix the House. Representing the People is its purpose. Fix the (plurality) electoral system so we aren't stuck with one of two bad options. If people can freely vote for whom they honestly feel is the best for the job, the House would become more representative of the typical citizen. There would be more turnover and less incumbency.
DC is a federal territory, entirely under the jurisdiction of the FedGov proper, and thus quite properly does not follow the normal rules applicable to States for representation in Congress.
That said, I would not be opposed to a constitutional amendment giving DC equal representation in the House in proportion to its population. The purpose of the House is to give a voice to the People of the United States--which residents of DC are. IMO, this is more important than giving them EC votes for president, as they already have. However, I would never agree to giving DC representation in the Senate, which is the house of the States. It is not a state, and that is intentional. DC's EC representation should be limited to the sum of its House and Senate representation, like any state--it merely has 0 Senate representation. If that bothers residents so much...move 5 miles in any direction.
The purpose of equal representation in the Senate is not to "offset" possibly-unequal representation in the House. Ideally, representation in the House should be the same proportion in every state, since it is the house of the people. The House serves the interests of the People at the federal level. The Senate serves the interests of the States at the federal level. These are two entirely different and complementary ways of looking at things. Thinking like yours, "we can have unfair apportionment here because it is made up elsewhere", is wrong. The representation in the Senate, exactly 2 per state, is precisely as it was designed--it is not "overrepresentation".
If there were no provision to protect small states, they'd never have joined the Union (why would they?), and there would be no United States today. Get it? It's more to a small state's benefit to remain 50 independent countries than to join an alliance where it would continually get shafted.
There are many that would be happy to see it go.
This is an argument for federalism (i.e. decentralized government) not for popular representation. If we could trust the FedGov to stay the heck out of our business, most of this would be moot. Let the Californians do what they want, let the Wyomingites do what they want, etc.
You just don't get it.
Californians, by virtue of their numbers, overpower Wyomingites. WY residents needs extra representation as a safeguard against the majority. Giving WYites collectively the same power as CAns collectively does that. In the Senate, the state is given equal representation, not the people of the state. The Senate is the voice of the states--as sovereign entities--in the federal union, regardless of their population, and serves to ensure that the distinctive cultures/characters/needs of 50 disparate units is served and preserved and is not quashed simply because another is bigger. A state is (theoretically) a voluntary member of the union--if WY were a separate country, CA (nor any other state) would have any ability to affect it, regardless of numbers, right? Why would WY willingly subject itself to a system where its needs would be continually overpowered by others?
You're really concerned about the ability of 3 WY congresscritters to "impose their lifestyle" on CA, which has over 50? Seriously? That "65x power" talk is great sensationalist hype, but it's just that - hype. Face it, Senate "overrepresentation" is a defensive measure. WY is never going to change CA by virtue of its "awesome federal influence". Pffft.
Continuing to harp about the inequity of 2:500,000 to 2:36,000,000 just displays your ignorance of the fundamental character of the American system. Pure democracy is not a good in and of itself. The Founders understood that. (Two wolves and a sheep take a vote on what to have for dinner. How well does that democratic system work for ya now?) I thank God the US is a republican and not a democratic model. I know the "official US line" is about "exporting democracy" as you might say, but that really perplexes me. If anything, it would be better to export republicanism. In many cases, it is probably best to leave well enough alone!
If you can come up with a decent argument against the rationale of the Federalist Papers, by all means present it. I'll listen. I haven't seen one yet, and I even admit the FP are not perfect.
The listed enumeration was based on 1000 reps. I didn't enumerate the "Wyoming-based" way, only mentioned it would yield 570 total.
I wrote something about this in Nov 2004.
Didn't you take civics in high school? The Senate isn't designed to give fairness to the people of a state. It's designed to give fairness to the state as a sovereign political unit. The people of Wyoming have just as much right to be Wyomingites as the people of California to be Californians, despite the fact that there are far fewer of them. If national policy were a purely popular matter, that right would be overridden by the will (tyranny) of the majority. The government of the United States follows a republican, not democratic, model, and its institutions (like Congress) are designed to reflect that and save us from the effects of too much democracy. Majority will, sure, but protective of minorities as well!
Get rid of the 16th and 17th amendments, and the States would again be the primary entity of governance, as they were intended.
I knew a bit about the history of representation before, and have thought for some time that we should increase the number of reps in the House, but even just skimming the home page was informative.
I agree that "career politicians" are not the American ideal. But I think the best way to remove them is education (which the fourth estate is increasingly failing at - more and more the press is in bed with government) and encouraging honest voting (which the plurality system fails abysmally at). If the citizenry is informed and empowered, they will take care of the problem. The real problem is that they are ignorant and apathetic.
If you view states as merely administrative subunits, not restricting electoral districts to state boundaries makes sense. If you respect states as sovereign entities of their own right, it does not. Historically, US states are the latter - sovereign entities enjoined in a mutually beneficial compact called the United States under a treaty called the Constitution. Unfortunately, this original view has reversed in the past 100 years or so.
True - no government is perfect because it is run by people who are imperfect. But, one of the primary justifications given (at the time) for direct election of Senators was that vacancies (when a Senator died or resigned) sat unfilled for extended periods because the legislatures would deadlock for between political factions. Meanwhile, the state went underrepresented, which didn't help anyone. A better solution to this problem would be to extend the power of recess appointment that governors have. If a Senate vacancy occurs during the legislative session, and the legislature can't fill it in, say, 2 weeks (a reasonable amount of time to get something this important, yet relatively easy, done), appoint someone until they come to a resolution!