Thirty-Thousand.org - Return the House of Representatives to the People (Home Page) (http://www.thirty-thousand.org/)

Proposes that instead of 435 members of Congress, that we have 1 representative for every 50,000 people.

I was look @ stuff for D.C. voting rights (And the near passage of a voting rights bill that will give DC a voting member of the House (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/rawfisher/2009/02/dc_vote_as_constitutional_as_y.html)) and I wondered "how many seats could they fit into that chamber?"

And I stumbled onto this article.

All nighters. Silly me.

The concept is pretty silly. So you get more personalized attention from your rep, but your rep is now diluted by 29,999 other representatives. You need federal funding for a new bridge in town, all you have to do is convince 15,000 other people for it. Not to mention this would cost an absolute fortune and logistically is impossible.

We can't find 435 people reasonably qualified for the job, how the hell does anyone think we'll find 30,000? This sails past stupid without even slowing down and lands right on downright idiotic.

Screw that - abolish the House of Representatives and put every single issue up to a popular vote, to be held every day at 10, 2, and 7.

You should have just masturbated the conventional way. At least you'd likely have gotten some sleep.

Good idea. But instead of voting on the reps, they should be randomly drafted with no choice to turn down the office.

Good idea. But instead of voting on the reps, they should be randomly drafted with no choice to turn down the office.

Somebody would sue for the right of free agency.

If the first few who refused were hanged on national TV I think compliance would increase in future years.

Good idea. But instead of voting on the reps, they should be randomly drafted with no choice to turn down the office.

This was actually a ballot question in my city.

"Shall the state representative from this district be instructed to vote in favor of a proposal to amend the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to replace the state Legislature with 100 randomly selected adult residents of the Commonwealth, each serving a one year term, to be called the Commonwealth Jury and to have all the legislative and other powers of the current Legislature?" [This will appear as Question #5 in the 25th Middlesex (Somerville) state representative district in the November 2008 election.]

It did not pass.

You should have just masturbated the conventional way. At least you'd likely have gotten some sleep.

I was doing work, Mr. Executive Director. You know, what us peons on the bottom do while the fat cats in the E-suite rock out and send orders down?

;)

Qualifications are overrated. How hard is to stay in touch with people in your neighborhood and vote on issues that matter to you?

You really think we send the cream of the crop to Washington now? Shit?

Seemed like the most sensible part of his idea was "why do we need to go to Washington to meet and vote?"

Think of the money we'd save, think of how much more locally connected folks would be and how more effective they would be if they were actually at home and accountable, rather than ghosts who just bring back a bridge every once in a while?

Not saying its feasible, but his plan wasn't so much ridiculous as it was, fundamentally lacking any realistic chance of ever happening. But I think he's probably 30 years too early. Boomers will suffocate this country if its the last thing they do. Bankrupting the future isn't enough, their reign will end when they're all 150, due to all of the drugs they create to keep their lives going forever.

[/boomer rage]

The concept is pretty silly. So you get more personalized attention from your rep, but your rep is now diluted by 29,999 other representatives. You need federal funding for a new bridge in town, all you have to do is convince 15,000 other people for it. Not to mention this would cost an absolute fortune and logistically is impossible.
The reference is 30,000 residents per representative which would translate into about 10,000 reps. If you did 50,000 residents, it's only 6,000 reps.

I actually could get behind the idea but not necessarily for the nutty, whack job reasons these folks do. You would almost completely remove lobbyists from the equation -- who has the money and power to buy 3,000 votes and not get caught?

Your point about the bridge is even a better case for it actually. Congress is essentially our board of directors for the country. Can you imagine running the Disney Company board determining how much money in advertising the company is going to spend on building each ride at the theme parks, bidding out contracts for plush animals and approving casting decisions in films? The job of the board is to set the agenda and let the staff handle the nuts and bolts. Congress should be determing minute details -- they would be better off setting a budget for bridge construction and hiring a professional staff to determine how is the best way to get it done.

You could actually save money this way too. The first Congress got paid $6 per diem in today's dollars. Today's reps make $169,300. The "founder's intent" was never for Congress to be a professional lawmaking body. And if you're going to have a 6,000 member House, you don't really need to meet in DC. We have the Internet -- teleconference these things and vote electronically. Reps should be in their districts more anyway.

That said, I don't think there is every any chance of it happening and there are other problems to consider but frankly I don't think it's that crazy.

If we're going to do this, can we also scrap direct election of Senators?

I wish I knew what you guys were talking about -- you have individuals that you vote for, and they get to vote on laws? That doesn't make sense.




:D

You could actually save money this way too. The first Congress got paid $6 per diem in today's dollars. Today's reps make $169,300. The "founder's intent" was never for Congress to be a professional lawmaking body. And if you're going to have a 6,000 member House, you don't really need to meet in DC. We have the Internet -- teleconference these things and vote electronically. Reps should be in their districts more anyway.

Of course, if we're going to use inflation with regards to salary, probably ought to look at population inflation, too. The Constitution says 'shall not exceed one for every 30,000' but in 1789, there were 3 million people (2.4 million recognized citizens, 600k slave). Today, it's about 100x that. I'm not sure the founders looked at that and said "Hmm, we better plan for equitable representation in a nation of 320 million, let's go ahead and cap the number of Representatives at...yeah, one per 30,000 sounds good."

Right now, we average one representative per ~700,000 citizens, or about a 20x increase in burden on the representative. That's not THAT out of line when you consider the 100x increase in population we've undergone in that time.

Maybe an increase in the number of Representatives is in order, but too many cooks spoil the soup - I don't think going from 435 to umpteen thousand is going to do anything more than cause either waste or gridlock on a massive, massive scale. Nothing gets done, nobody gets represented because everybody's preening with self-importance trying to get money for their district (basically what happens now, only multiplied a few thousand times), and as a result the federal budget either doesn't get passed annually, or swells to many times its current size as people say "ah, fuck it" and vote for whatever appropriations just to get 50,000 representatives' ducks in a row to get the damned thing passed.

If we're going to do this, can we also scrap direct election of Senators?

Why do you want this to happen?

Why do you want this to happen?

I'd like to see how a portion of the legislative branch functions if elections are removed from the equation. :p

I'd like to see how a portion of the legislative branch functions if elections are removed from the equation. :p

Not likely it could do much worse, so the idea has that going for it at least.

[QUOTE=RainMaker;1953096]You need federal funding for a new bridge in townQUOTE]

And that's the crux of my libertarian arguments. Why the @%#$! does one need to go to Washington DC to get funding for something local??? Constitutionally, it should come from the State, where the bulk of our taxation should go, not to Washington, with a larger share going to your local entity (city, county or whatever). There, you can have a louder voice and more accountability, relatively speaking. It's a whole lot easier to keep it local than to try and fight Sen. Byrd in Washington.

Why the @%#$! does one need to go to Washington DC to get funding for something local??? Constitutionally, it should come from the State, where the bulk of our taxation should go, not to Washington, with a larger share going to your local entity (city, county or whatever).

But until you get that shifted back, DC is where the money is so there isn't any choice but to go there.

And given the history of successful efforts to get any governmental agency to turn loose of money once they have it, seems you'd have better luck spitting into the wind than trying to get DC to say "okay, here states, why don't you just keep most of this to begin with". Hell, even trying to imagine such a thing happening gives me the giggles.

It would help if the party that claims to be the party of federalism had actually done something to improve the situation during the 6 years it held power.

I'd like to see how a portion of the legislative branch functions if elections are removed from the equation. :p

Not likely it could do much worse, so the idea has that going for it at least.

Depends on how you structure it. Back in the day, Senatorial appointments were basically backroom deals. Think Blago-Burris.

If you want to remove elections from the equation, great - but how do you structure it for the least likelihood of corruption in the Senate?

[quote=RainMaker;1953096]You need federal funding for a new bridge in townQUOTE]

And that's the crux of my libertarian arguments. Why the @%#$! does one need to go to Washington DC to get funding for something local??? Constitutionally, it should come from the State, where the bulk of our taxation should go, not to Washington, with a larger share going to your local entity (city, county or whatever). There, you can have a louder voice and more accountability, relatively speaking. It's a whole lot easier to keep it local than to try and fight Sen. Byrd in Washington.

Damn, I love Bucc. You had me at 'Why the @%#$!'.

Depends on how you structure it. Back in the day, Senatorial appointments were basically backroom deals. Think Blago-Burris.

If you want to remove elections from the equation, great - but how do you structure it for the least likelihood of corruption in the Senate?

Public stonings for officials convicted of fraud or corruption charges.

I want my own personal representative.

But I would love to see 30,000 people arguing... imagine the Pistons/Pacers game a few years back...

My strong bias comes from the Ye Olde Towne Meetings of Colonial New England, and their subsequent telling of King George to fuck off.