Are More Polititcians The Answer?

[TastyWheat]

It must be a slow day for CNN to cover this topic:
h ttp://amfix.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/10/gut-check-time-to-tweak-the-system/

I agree with the proposal though, mostly because it would slow legislation down to a screeching halt. Their suggested size of 10,000 is very daunting logistically, but that would give us a Representative-Constituent ratio of 1:30000.

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

(mods: fix topic misspelling if you could)

[pcosmar]

Are More Polititcians The Answer?
:confused:
What is the question?

I'm guessing that answer would still be NO. As a rule Politicians are the problem, not the solution.

[mediahasyou]

more politicians = more taxes to pay for more politicians' salaries

[TruckinMike]

Are More Politicians The Answer?

A resounding YES, is the answer. The problem we are facing is human nature, it will always let you down.

So what can we do?

Solution: Bring in so many congressman that the establishment lobbying effort could in NO way buy off. Right now they only have to buy off roughly 250 congressmen -- and 50 or so Senators. Thats easy.. now imagine those money men running to every po-dunck district in the US trying to buy votes. --- 10,000 congressmen in 10,000 cities.

Our founders had it right 1:30,000, NOT 1:600,000.

One more point:

Have you every had a meaningful, real conversation with your congressman? NO? If we went back to the founders recipe of 1:30,000 you would most likely know him personally. The problem we have been having is that WE don't know our congressmen, and they don't know us.

Think about it.

TMike

[RM918]

While it may sound like a terrible idea at first, thinking about it further makes you wonder. It would force far more attention on local occurrences, it'd be extremely difficult for two parties to control them all, and each politician would be far less powerful than they are now.

[foofighter20x]

While it may sound like a terrible idea at first, thinking about it further makes you wonder. It would force far more attention on local occurrences, it'd be extremely difficult for two parties to control them all, and each politician would be far less powerful than they are now.

Spoken like James Madison in The Federalist No. 10.

"Extend the sphere..." !!

[TastyWheat]

more politicians = more taxes to pay for more politicians' salaries
Even if we reduced salaries I do think we'd likely end up paying more overall. Unless we change how Congressmen receive their salary.

This just came to me. Businesses are usually more accountable than politicians because people vote for businesses every day with their money. We only vote for politicians once every few years so all they need to do is pander and pretend to listen for a few months to get our vote.

What if Representatives' salaries came entirely (or almost entirely) from donations?

If we want a Representative to stay in office longer we'd donate more to his/her general fund, which can be used for campaigning or personal expenses. A Representative that receives very little in donations won't be able to afford to stay in office (unless he/she is already rich). About the only [obvious] problem I see is that very wealthy individuals may prop up their favored politicians when the constituents aren't very fond of that person (but keep re-electing him/her anyway to keep out someone worse). This be a very good way to redress grievances, and it also favors policies that put more money in constituents' pockets so they have more to donate (as opposed to "paying" them with services).

[Fox McCloud]

this is something that, even before I was a full blown libertarian, pondered over.

Now that I am a libertarian, I support this, primarily because it would clog up the entire process and make it incredibly difficult to get anything major done (I'd be willing to bet a lot more libertarians would get elected too)...it's an interesting situation though; the Senate would remain the same, which would have the side effect of making them even more powerful.

Of course, IMHO, the Senators should still be selected by the State legislators and answer to them, and not the people directly as they currently do....sadly, I think there's far less of a chance of that happening than increasing the house of representatives.

[Chester Copperpot]

Yes yes and yes... Like so many other bad ideas that happened in 1913, I think freezing the number of reps in congress was one more.

[cindy25]

the most successful state legislature is New Hampshire, which is by far the largest

[mediahasyou]

This just came to me. Businesses are usually more accountable than politicians because people vote for businesses every day with their money. We only vote for politicians once every few years so all they need to do is pander and pretend to listen for a few months to get our vote.

Businesses are more accountable than government. That's why...

A more effective system would to have businesses instead of government. Businesses are guided by profit. They know they are doing it right because they are making money. The market for liberty outlines this structure: http://bit.ly/marketforliberty

[Rancher]

Are More Polititcians The Answer?

It must be a slow day for CNN to cover this topic:
h ttp://amfix.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/10/gut-check-time-to-tweak-the-system/

I agree with the proposal though, mostly because it would slow legislation down to a screeching halt. Their suggested size of 10,000 is very daunting logistically, but that would give us a Representative-Constituent ratio of 1:30000.

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

(mods: fix topic misspelling if you could)

NO. Respect for: Peace, Sovereign Property, Individual Liberty, Laissez Faire Free Market Capitalism and the "Golden Rule" is the answer.

[MelissaWV]

While great in theory, I'm not entirely sure what it would accomplish in practice, other than costing an arm and a leg.

Let's make up some fake numbers. Let's pretend right now we have 100 Congresscritters, and 1 is following the letter of the Constitution, voting Liberty, etc.. Okay. Let's increase the number of Congresscritters to 1000. This increase nets us 9 more liberty-minded Congresscritters. So now we have... 10/1000 which is... 1/100. The ratio stayed the same.

Now, who here thinks that it would be so very difficult to redraw districts or control small-town voting so that party politics continue?

Of course, this is all going on as elections increase (more ballots, more polling places, more red tape, more money), salaries increase (more people, more salaries, unless we go to donations... which probably means more people to watch over donations, which still means more cost), a new Capitol Building is built (I'm not sure where, but to have that many people seated, one would certainly need more seats), a longer session is required (everyone's got to get their say, no?), a rewrite of various procedures becomes needed (or do we really have to depend upon a quorum of that size?), and by God that is going to be one long roll call...

I haven't even touched on the problem of a commute, because perhaps they can build the new Capitol Hill out in the boonies in Maryland or Virginia, with a really huge parking lot. That is going to be one honey of a commute for the Congresscritters and the lobbyists (though the latter makes me smile; let's move Capitol Hill and make them all scramble to follow).

[RM918]

While great in theory, I'm not entirely sure what it would accomplish in practice, other than costing an arm and a leg.

Let's make up some fake numbers. Let's pretend right now we have 100 Congresscritters, and 1 is following the letter of the Constitution, voting Liberty, etc.. Okay. Let's increase the number of Congresscritters to 1000. This increase nets us 9 more liberty-minded Congresscritters. So now we have... 10/1000 which is... 1/100. The ratio stayed the same.

Now, who here thinks that it would be so very difficult to redraw districts or control small-town voting so that party politics continue?

Of course, this is all going on as elections increase (more ballots, more polling places, more red tape, more money), salaries increase (more people, more salaries, unless we go to donations... which probably means more people to watch over donations, which still means more cost), a new Capitol Building is built (I'm not sure where, but to have that many people seated, one would certainly need more seats), a longer session is required (everyone's got to get their say, no?), a rewrite of various procedures becomes needed (or do we really have to depend upon a quorum of that size?), and by God that is going to be one long roll call...

I haven't even touched on the problem of a commute, because perhaps they can build the new Capitol Hill out in the boonies in Maryland or Virginia, with a really huge parking lot. That is going to be one honey of a commute for the Congresscritters and the lobbyists (though the latter makes me smile; let's move Capitol Hill and make them all scramble to follow).

There's no way to tell what could happen. Would it be that much worse than what we have, worst-case scenario? I don't think so. I think it will bring much needed diversity of opinion.

[teacherone]

never thought I'd see the majority of posters on this forum advocating the enlargement of government :eek:

a resoundingly retarded idea...

[MelissaWV]

There's no way to tell what could happen. Would it be that much worse than what we have, worst-case scenario? I don't think so. I think it will bring much needed diversity of opinion.

There's no way to tell that going from what we have now to 10,000 Representatives would require a new Capitol Building, additional offices, create additional salary obligations, more election requirements (and expenses), redrawing of districts (I'm sure that will be done fairly?), and all the additional logistical concerns I already posted, for very little or no real effect?

Consider this, then. For every liberty seat we now struggle to put into place, we'd have to put in 23 in the scenario being proposed. You'd need to find 22 other Ron Pauls, and you'd also have to hope that Ron Paul's district didn't get drawn in such a way as to give an opponent an advantage against him. Established politicians, however, are a dime a dozen and there would be absolutely no difficulty in digging up thousands of extra ones. Remember, this is entirely a discussion about population. The states that you are going to give a lot more representatives to are places like Florida, New York, California, and Texas.

However, you're right, no one has a crystal ball. I'll go much simpler and just say... I think it's a terrible idea.

[mczerone]

More or less doesn't matter if they retain the power to instigate violence. I'll allow you to try more politicians, and I'll allow others to try less politicians. I'd just like to try to actually have representation.

[Rancher]

Yes yes and yes... Like so many other bad ideas that happened in 1913, I think freezing the number of reps in congress was one more.

Growing government is good?

[pcosmar]

Growing government is good?

That was my reaction.

I can see the point that some are advocating here, however, I would rather see the Federal Government neutered, rather than expanded.
I would rather see more localized government take precedence.
I don't think we need more Lawmakers, We need a lot less laws.

[RileyE104]

Yes yes and yes... Like so many other bad ideas that happened in 1913, I think freezing the number of reps in congress was one more.

I'm pretty sure they froze the seats at 435 in 1911..

I said in another post that I'd settle if we had at least 1 or 2 thousand reps instead of 435..

Someone noted in my thread that the UK has 650 and does fine.

[pcosmar]

Someone noted in my thread that the UK has 650 and does fine.
:confused:
Does fine at what? Exactly?

[RileyE104]

:confused:
Does fine at what? Exactly?

I assume they meant it as a response to people saying nothing would get done.

[MelissaWV]

I'm pretty sure they froze the seats at 435 in 1911..

I said in another post that I'd settle if we had at least 1 or 2 thousand reps instead of 435..

Someone noted in my thread that the UK has 650 and does fine.

They are doing awesome!


The United Kingdom Parliamentary expenses scandal is a major political scandal triggered by the publication of expense claims made by members of the United Kingdom Parliament over several years. Public outrage was caused by disclosure of widespread actual and alleged misuse of the permitted allowances and expenses claimed by Members of Parliament (MPs), following failed attempts by parliament to prevent disclosure under Freedom of Information legislation. The scandal aroused widespread anger among the UK public against MPs and a loss of confidence in politics. It resulted in a large number of resignations, sackings, de-selections and retirement announcements, together with public apologies and the repayment of expenses. It also created pressure for political reform extending well beyond the issue of expenses and led to the Parliament elected in 2005 being referred to as the 'Rotten Parliament'.

In the United Kingdom MPs can claim expenses, including the cost of accommodation, "wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred for the performance of a Member’s parliamentary duties". A February 2008 Freedom of Information Act request for the release of details of MPs' expenses claims was allowed by an Information Tribunal. The House of Commons Authorities challenged the decision on the grounds that it was "unlawfully intrusive". In May 2008, the English High Court ruled in favour of releasing the details of MP's expenses claims. In April 2009 the House of Commons authorities announced that publication of expenses, with certain information deemed "sensitive" removed, would be made in July 2009.

However before this could take place, a full uncensored copy of the expenses records and documentation was leaked to the Daily Telegraph, which began publishing details in daily instalments from 8 May 2009. These disclosures dominated the British media for weeks, with the findings being considered to show flagrant and sometimes gross misuse of the expenses system for personal gain by many MPs (including Government and shadow cabinet ministers) across all parties.

On 18 June 2009 the details of all MPs' expenses and allowance claims that were approved during the period 2004 to 2008 were published on the official Parliament website. However items of detail such as addresses were blacked out (or "redacted"), and the publication excluded claims that were not approved for payment by the Commons authorities as well as any correspondence between MPs and the parliamentary fees office. These omissions resulted in further accusations of unnecessary secrecy, and widespread assertions that the most serious abuses would not have come to light had the censored documentation been the only information available. Details of voluntary repayments by MPs amounting to almost £500,000 were also officially published.

A panel was established to investigate all claims relating to the second homes allowance between 2004 and 2008. Headed by former civil servant Sir Thomas Legg, the panel published its findings on 12 October as MPs returned to Westminster following the summer recess. Each MP received a letter in which they were informed whether or not they would be required to repay any expenses they had claimed.

It was announced on 5 February 2010 that criminal charges would be prosecuted against Labour MPs Elliot Morley, David Chaytor and Jim Devine, and Conservative peer Lord Hanningfield in relation to false accounting. On 11 March all four anounced they would plea not guilty to charges of false accounting.

One might remember this scandal based on one great example:


Douglas Hogg - who repaid £2,200 apparently claimed for clearing a moat at his country estate - says he will not fight the next election.

It's obvious that this huge body of elected officials is very in touch with their constituency. :rolleyes:

[TastyWheat]

NO. Respect for: Peace, Sovereign Property, Individual Liberty, Laissez Faire Free Market Capitalism and the "Golden Rule" is the answer.
So a dictatorship would be fine with you as long as those things are respected?

[Rancher]

So a dictatorship would be fine with you as long as those things are respected?

Where in my post did you get that question? I prefer a constitutional republic.

[pcosmar]

I assume they meant it as a response to people saying nothing would get done.

Things like Gun control?
Surveillance of the population?
Civil liberties?
Global Governance?

Yup, there doin' fine work. for a better world. :rolleyes:

[TastyWheat]

Where in my post did you get that question? I prefer a constitutional republic.
Well, the point is to try and create a government that is conducive to liberty. That may seem like a contradiction, but again, if you want liberty to flourish in America we shouldn't try to work in a system that favors tyranny and corruption.

[nobody's_hero]

Who can afford that much tar and feathers?

[paulitics]

It's not growing government, but growing the checks and balances of government. Congress should be the most powerful, not the president.

The cost is simply as a drop in the bucket, compared to the liberty lost each day of expensive legislation. The founders were smarter than us.

[TastyWheat]

Just for fun I did a comparison of ratios (Citizens per Representative) of other countries and provinces:


Region ____________ Population ___ Representatives __ Ratio ____ Party Diversity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
British Columbia __ 4,419,974 ____ 85 _______________ 52,000 ___ 2 (more diverse before 2001)
Canada ____________ 34,034,000 ___ 308 ______________ 110,500 __ 4
France ____________ 65,447,374 ___ 577 ______________ 113,427 __ 10+
Texas _____________ 24,782,302 ___ 150 ______________ 165,215 __ 2
Japan _____________ 127,430,000 __ 480 ______________ 265,479 __ 8
USA _______________ 308,871,000 __ 435 ______________ 710,048 __ 2

Now that's bullshit. Japan seems off since it's ratio is worse than that of Texas, but Texas doesn't use proportional representation.

[Fox McCloud]

Just for fun I did a comparison of ratios (Citizens per Representative) of other countries and provinces:

Now that's bullshit. An obvious positive effect for these other areas is that they all have more than two active parties. Although Japan has a worse ratio than Texas it still has several active parties because of proportional representation.

I did one for the UK, as well:

UK
Population: 62,041,708
Representatives (house of commons): 650
ratio: 95,449

and Switzerland:
Population: 7,782,900
Representatives (national council): 200
ratio: 38,915

very interesting...

[RyanRSheets]

I would expand on this by making it a lottery democracy.