Do you think it is better to expand congress size(both senate and house of representatives) so there will be more representativeness per person?

[SavannahMann]

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 see we are planning on Amending the Constitution again. What riders will be attached to this one?

 

[Peacenik]

Just saying, seems suspect first thread for a new DP member.

It's a pretty interesting new idea to discuss.

 

[Peacenik]

I see we are planning on Amending the Constitution again. What riders will be attached to this one?

The American Anti Corruption Act.

 

[Peacenik]

Just saying, seems suspect first thread for a new DP member.

Particularly since it was only one post and no follow-up.

 

[SkyChief]

A larger Congress doesn't make it more powerful. Where did you get such a crazy idea?

Of course it does. When Congress was small (in number of representatives), Americans had the most liberty and freedom. As the number of representatives grew, so did the number of laws Congress passed which restricted the liberty and freedom of Americans.

"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

 

[j brown's body]

Of course it does. When Congress was small (in number of representatives), Americans had the most liberty and freedom. As the number of representatives grew, so did the number of laws Congress passed which restricted the liberty and freedom of Americans.

"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

Millions were slaves. Many others were not allowed to vote.

The Constitutional power of the the Congress does not grow with its size.

 

[SkyChief]

Millions were slaves. Many others were not allowed to vote.

The Constitutional power of the the Congress does not grow with its size.

Of course it does.

Before the 16th Amendment, Americans had the right to keep the money they earned. Then the first "progressive" administration came into power (Woodrow Wilson), and immediately Congress amended the constitution and granted themselves "the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived". The amendment forced Americans to surrender their earnings to the government.

As government took in more money from the People (income taxes), even more laws were made which restricted liberty and freedom. It snowballed, and government has turned into a monstrosity of control and power over the citizens.. Government needs to be downsized - not expanded even more.

"As government expands, liberty contracts." - Ronald Reagan

 

[bythoughts]

It's a small reform, but returning representatives to the original ratio should be a net positive.

Someone pointed out the current representatives have many staffers - with smaller districts, they can't afford them. If you get rid of the staffers and have poorer representatives forced to work collaboratively with like-minded members as equals, rather than as commanders of a staff, the process should be more democratic.

 

[AZRWinger]

Other - comprehensive campaign finance reform.

There is already government funding for Presidential candidates. Barack Obama broke his promise to abide by public financing once he found there was more $ to be had from private sources. That marked the end of Presidential campaign public financing for the major political party candidates. But don't worry, in both successful campaigns Trump won with less campaign money than his Democrat opponents.

 

[mrjurrs]

The United States have the least representativeness per person in federal level among all the developed countries, do you think this is a problem?

It's not the number that is wrong, it's the way the number is reached and distributed.

Amend or repeal the Permanent Reapportionment Act of 1929.

 

[mrjurrs]

There is already government funding for Presidential candidates. Barack Obama broke his promise to abide by public financing once he found there was more $ to be had from private sources. That marked the end of Presidential campaign public financing for the major political party candidates. But don't worry, in both successful campaigns Trump won with less campaign money than his Democrat opponents.

Are you forgetting the illegal !/4 of a billion dollars Elon gave in the last months of the campaign? I wonder why the FEC and DoJ are not pursuing this case of public lawlessness?

 

[KingLeo]

The size of the US House was capped at 435 members in 1911.
And the size of the US Senate was set at 2 members per state in 1787.
More than 100 years later and the growth of the US population resizing of both should be considered.

 

[lynnwinslow]

There is already government funding for Presidential candidates. Barack Obama broke his promise to abide by public financing once he found there was more $ to be had from private sources. That marked the end of Presidential campaign public financing for the major political party candidates. But don't worry, in both successful campaigns Trump won with less campaign money than his Democrat opponents.

Obama and Trump’s campaigns both showed the same things. The public financing system is too weak to matter, which is exactly why it needs reform. And that current FEC regulations are too weak and too easy to circumvent.

 

[AZRWinger]

Obama and Trump’s campaigns both showed the same things. The public financing system is too weak to matter, which is exactly why it needs reform. And that current FEC regulations are too weak and too easy to circumvent.

No, McCain and Obama both promised to abide by public financing. McCain kept his promise. Obama broke his promise, destroying public financing. Obama lied. Trump never made any representation that his campaign would be publicly financed just like every other major party candidate since Obama.

Trump demonstrated in 2016 and 2024 the candidate with the most momey doesn't always win. Dispelling one of the cherished myths of public financing.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

Ratify Article the First!
Last of the original 12 amendments proposed.

Yes. Ratify the Apportionment Amendment.

 

[lynnwinslow]

No, McCain and Obama both promised to abide by public financing. McCain kept his promise. Obama broke his promise, destroying public financing. Obama lied. Trump never made any representation that his campaign would be publicly financed just like every other major party candidate since Obama.

Trump demonstrated in 2016 and 2024 the candidate with the most momey doesn't always win. Dispelling one of the cherished myths of public financing.

Cherished? That’s a little dramatic.
You’re talking about reported money? Where are your links? And why did you ignore my point about FEC rules and punishments?

 

[AZRWinger]

Cherished? That’s a little dramatic.

The central justification for public campaign financing is the claim the candidate with the most $ always wins. It's not an exaggeration to say advocates cherish it.

Not a word about Trump demonstrating the main justification for public financing to be false.

You’re talking about reported money? Where are your links? And why did you ignore my point about FEC rules and punishments?

I note the absence of any attempt to dispute Obama's responsibility for breaking the public financing system for Presidential candidates. Instead, you offer a vague conspiracy theory about unreported money, demand links, and suggest the universal Democrat solution for failed government bureaucracies, reward them with more authority. Anything to avoid the discussion of Obama's deceit.

 

[lynnwinslow]

The central justification for public campaign financing is the claim the candidate with the most $ always wins. It's not an exaggeration to say advocates cherish it.

Not a word about Trump demonstrating the main justification for public financing to be false.

I note the absence of any attempt to dispute Obama's responsibility for breaking the public financing system for Presidential candidates. Instead, you offer a vague conspiracy theory about unreported money, demand links, and suggest the universal Democrat solution for failed government bureaucracies, reward them with more authority. Anything to avoid the discussion of Obama's deceit.

You’re talking about reported money? Again, where are your links? If you make a claim you should be prepared to back it up. That’s how this works.

 

[AZRWinger]

You’re talking about reported money? Again, where are your links? If you make a claim you should be prepared to back it up. That’s how this works.

Another weak attempt at deflection on your part.

Please write a list of specific questions you want verified by links.

 

[mrjurrs]

The size of the US House was capped at 435 members in 1911.
And the size of the US Senate was set at 2 members per state in 1787.
More than 100 years later and the growth of the US population resizing of both should be considered.

435 was last capped in 1929.

Senate resizing requires a Constitutional Amendment. Resizing the HoR requires an amendment to the Permanent Reapportionment Act of 1929.

 

[lynnwinslow]

Another weak attempt at deflection on your part.

Please write a list of specific questions you want verified by links.

You've responded with so many unsubstantiated claims in this thread. Why don't you pick a few and show your work?

There is already government funding for Presidential candidates. Barack Obama broke his promise to abide by public financing once he found there was more $ to be had from private sources. That marked the end of Presidential campaign public financing for the major political party candidates. But don't worry, in both successful campaigns Trump won with less campaign money than his Democrat opponents.

No, McCain and Obama both promised to abide by public financing. McCain kept his promise. Obama broke his promise, destroying public financing. Obama lied. Trump never made any representation that his campaign would be publicly financed just like every other major party candidate since Obama.

Trump demonstrated in 2016 and 2024 the candidate with the most momey doesn't always win. Dispelling one of the cherished myths of public financing.

The central justification for public campaign financing is the claim the candidate with the most $ always wins. It's not an exaggeration to say advocates cherish it.

Not a word about Trump demonstrating the main justification for public financing to be false.

I note the absence of any attempt to dispute Obama's responsibility for breaking the public financing system for Presidential candidates. Instead, you offer a vague conspiracy theory about unreported money, demand links, and suggest the universal Democrat solution for failed government bureaucracies, reward them with more authority. Anything to avoid the discussion of Obama's deceit.

 

[Fearandloathing]

The United States have the least representativeness per person in federal level among all the developed countries, do you think this is a problem?

America has to abandon the two party system.

Neither properly represents a true majority. Virtually every voter has to make concessions and the result is low turn out.

Allowing secondary parties would break the stranglehold the insiders have and allow more widespread representation.

Laws and measures will alter greatly when you have to meet the demands of a wider range of people. Currently five parties (out of seven i think) and one independent are represented in Parliament

 

[Nickyjo]

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.

What next, only male property ownes can vote?

The Senate is the most undemocratic institution we have. It may have made some sense to the Founders as a compromise when we were 13 former colonies hugging the Atlantic, but has given too much power to people who represent the wide open (empty) spaces. And the way they used to be selected invited control by industrial powers, not people. But true, I believe it was the John Birch society that saw the decline of the country as dating from when the people got to decide who represented them in the Senate.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Congress cant do anything now

...good?