It is absolutely a problem. We should go back to the one representative for every 30,000 to 50,000 people. With modern communications, this can be dome. Representatives can actually speak and represent their constituents.The United States have the least representativeness per person in federal level among all the developed countries, do you think this is a problem?
That's the point. It is harder to buy enough congress votes to matter.no. managing 438 Divas is already like herding cats
Congress cant do anything now.. add in more? is only going to make it worseThat's the point. It is harder to buy enough congress votes to matter.
Not to mention the nearly 25,000 House staffers and about 6,000 Senate staffers.no. managing 438 Divas is already like herding cats
I think it would make sense to go back to the original plan. We are seeing too many problems with stuff like gerrymandering and bribery with the current number of districts.The United States have the least representativeness per person in federal level among all the developed countries, do you think this is a problem?
Other - comprehensive campaign finance reform.The United States have the least representativeness per person in federal level among all the developed countries, do you think this is a problem?
I'd have no problem with repealing the 17th amendment.It is absolutely a problem. We should go back to the one representative for every 30,000 to 50,000 people. With modern communications, this can be dome. Representatives can actually speak and represent their constituents.
The senate should stay at two per state, and also selected as the original constitution was laid out.
I think it would make sense to go back to the original plan.
The United States have the least representativeness per person in federal level among all the developed countries, do you think this is a problem?
I would be fine with it. It would be a lot harder for the rich to bribe ~6,000 congress critters than 438.Ratify Article the First!
Last of the original 12 amendments proposed.
The Constitution when written gave the representation at 30,000 per representative. This was a time prior to modern political parties, when chances were that most of the folks in a district would know the individuals running or know of them to represent them. But with the advent of the modern political party, most folks now vote political party instead of individuals or candidates themselves. That isn’t about to change, so increasing the number of representatives wouldn’t do anything about this. There’s only around 10-15% of the electorate who don’t vote political party. Then again, with all the gerrymandering going one, increasing the number of representatives wouldn’t affect that either.The United States have the least representativeness per person in federal level among all the developed countries, do you think this is a problem?
The Constitution when written gave the representation at 30,000 per representative.
This was a time prior to modern political parties, when chances were that most of the folks in a district would know the individuals running or know of them to represent them. But with the advent of the modern political party, most folks now vote political party instead of individuals or candidates themselves. That isn’t about to change, so increasing the number of representatives wouldn’t do anything about this. There’s only around 10-15% of the electorate who don’t vote political party. Then again, with all the gerrymandering going one, increasing the number of representatives wouldn’t affect that either.
It is absolutely a problem. We should go back to the one representative for every 30,000 to 50,000 people. With modern communications, this can be dome. Representatives can actually speak and represent their constituents.
The senate should stay at two per state, and also selected as the original constitution was laid out.
So you want the House of Representatives increased to 11,000 seats?
Homework assignment? All the AI engines dead this morning?
NO!!! Congress is already too big/powerful. If anything, it needs to be trimmed down.Do you think it is better to expand congress size(both senate and house of representatives)?
It is absolutely a problem. We should go back to the one representative for every 30,000 to 50,000 people. With modern communications, this can be dome. Representatives can actually speak and represent their constituents.
The senate should stay at two per state, and also selected as the original constitution was laid out.
Google’s AI Overview ‘feature’ seems to be operational.
NO!!! Congress is already too big/powerful. If anything, it needs to be trimmed down.
"I am convinced that there are more threats to American liberty within the 10 mile radius of my office on Capitol Hill than there are on the rest of the globe." -- Ron Paul
"As government expands, liberty contracts." - Ronald Reagan
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?