It's been almost a 100 years

[serryjw]

since we have set the number of members of the House of Representatives at 435. OUR population then was 92 million. Our population today is over 3X as much.
My contention is that 50% of our citizens do not vote because they think no one represents their interests( of course they are right). BY adding the 150 members needed we would have smaller districts and be closer to our Representative. I also like the argument that the Congressman's staff would get smaller, so there would be less power and influence from (unelected) 'behind the scenes staff', and minority representation would have more opportunities ( in place of the ridicules gerrymandering that we now see).


http://www.prb.org/Content/NavigationMenu/PT_articles/Growth_in_U_S__Population_Calls_for_Larger_House_of_Representatives.htm

(look around this fabulous site.my new favorite)

[CrownPrinceBandar]

1. I think folks would be happy if we implemented.........

proportional representation. Europe's been doing it for years.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/BeginnningReading/howprwor.htm

[serryjw]

3. You're talking about election reform

which if IVR were implemented we would truly have a democracy....never happen....UNLESS we start at state levels. MY problems is we would pass it in BLUE states and it would NEVER get on the ballot in RED states.

I just finished a State petition (CO) to have the 'right' to petition in local municipalities (cities/counties). I was on my local college campus and asked a middle age man to sign the petition. He said to me "So,you want Democracy?".."I said Yes, that would be nice"...he said.." "Then I won't sign it!"

[CrownPrinceBandar]

6. I am talking election reform..............

I think its the means to the end that you described in your original post. The fact is that our current situation is a result of a broken, outdated election system.

Instant runoff voting has a pretty good track record abroad and theoretically could work here; much more effectively than the electoral college, I would suspect. However, I could see many Americans would be resistant to that kind of political upheaval, and would prefer to stick with the cronyist status quo. Or they would react biliously to all the "fringe" elements that would suddenly have a voice in government.

[SoCalDem]

2. We should have a rotating group of representatives, and they should

serve no more than 150k Constituents.. Don;t tell me it would be too large of a group.. It wold be what it is..representative..

There should also be term limits and no lobbying allowed.. The time has come when the people we hire to do OUR bidding, should be doing JUST that and NO MORE..

I do not send a representative for ME..in order for HIM/HER to become ridiculously wealthy by selling MY interests down the river..:(

With the electronic wizardry and television capabilities, they don;t even have to live in DC.. They could telecommute except for the few times a year they would have to convene..

if conventions can regularly convene thousands of people, there's no reason we could not dismantle the fiefdom that is DC, and set up, in its place, a true representative government..

[serryjw]

4. I'm 2nd in line behind you

NOW...How do we do it?

[Silverhair]

22. One person's lobbyist is another person's messenger to congress.

If I have a particular item that I am very interested in I would naturally want to meet with and organize with others who share that same interest. Naturally we would want to communicate our ideas and knowledge on that matter to congress. We can't all go to congress personally, so we would find an articulate person to go to congress to speak on our behalf. I would call that person my messenger. You would call him a lobbyist.

[SoCalDem]

23. Representing smaller groups of constituents and NOT remaining in DC

would allow for many town hall meetings and perhaps even face-to-face meeting with constituents..no need for lobbyists :hi:

[Silverhair]

27. I agree with changing the number of representatives.

The original idea was that they were supposed to be close to the people. I was just pointing out that one man's lobbyist is another messenger.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

36. There are more than 50 registered lobbyists per member.

[serryjw]

39. I knew that sounded low

quote.......
but Abramoff is only one lobbyist—one of the comparatively modest 16,342 registered lobbyists in business before Dubya moved from Austin to D.C. He is not one of the registered lobbyists who doubled that fraternity's ranks to 34,785 between 2000 and 2005
end quote........
http://slate.msn.com/id/2121381/

[ret5hd]

29. no PAID lobbyists...

you or me or anyone else should be free to "lobby" (talk to regarding our interests) our representatives...as long as we aren't getting paid to do so.

[SoCalDem]

34. No corporate lobbyists..

The "do-gooder" lobbyists would need to make a living, so i do not mind them getting paid something, but there is no reason for the large corporations who already have mega access, to be allowed to lobby behind OUR backs..

[benddem]

5. before anything is done

we need to get real campaign finance reform!!! The reps we have both Dem and Repug have to raise so much money they do not represent the people (look at some of the stuff they've passed that hurts citizens) but the conglomerates that buy them. But I really believe a bigger congress would make it more ineffectual than it already is.
NO citizen congress... the term limits thing in OR was a disaster. No one in the legislature knew what they were doing. The whole thing was run by staffers and lobbyists.

[teknomanzer]

7. Good but that is just one of a number of reforms needed

We also need to put an end to the two party system, abolish the electoral college for the election of the president, reduce the power of the executive branch, and elections must be won by a majority of the votes (51% or more) if not the contest would be settled by a runoff election. Oh - and election day should be a national holiday celebrated with pomp and circumstance in honor of our civic responsibilty.

[serryjw]

13. I have a problem with that

With IVR we will have minority parties better represented. As stated below; Americans are not ready for DIRECT Democracy proved by the election of Bushit & the Terminator. I want the Federal Government to have MORE power, not less.. EVERY important issue I can think of should be uniform across the country.
VOTING needs to be mandatory ( like Australia??). IT is your responsibility to learn the issues...and yes, voting needs to be a Federal holiday

[teknomanzer]

19. I have a problem with your problem...

If Americans are not ready for direct democracy then nobody is. As it stands right now only 30% (or thereabout) of the people eligable to vote in this country do so. The two party system is one of the major causes of voter apathy... I believe the electoral college is also another cause of such apathy, coupled with the belief that only big money has real access to the political system. People do not feel they are being represented in the current system so they stay home, or at work rather... where most of us are on election day.

The system is built to promote apathy... this is exactly the way the establishment wants it to be. If you got the other 70% thinking that they could make a change the result would not be in favor of the wealthiest 1% (as in tax cuts.)

America is past being ready for direct democracy... Bush lost the popular vote in 2000... I and still believe something stinks here in Florida... How the rest of the nation can stand that stench I can't imagine... as for The Gropenator's election... DIEBOLD. 2004... DIEBOLD. Which leads me to the part I left out in my first post... electronic voting must me accompanied by a verifiable paper trail!

[serryjw]

20. We disagree

When votes can be bought, when an idiot can be pResident twice, when money and power can remove a sitting Governor with an actor, when MOST of your fellow citizens can not tell you whom their representative is..We are not ready for direct Democracy. I support IVR and proportionate Representation.
Hillary is ahead right NOW because of name recognition NOT because of her voting Record.

BTW.....about 65% of eligible voters, voted in 2004 for President

[teknomanzer]

31. Yes, we do disagree...

I believe that the current state of American politics is due to the lack of real representation in this so called democracy. People are not motivated to participate in a system where they feel they have no share in the power.

Now I may have made an error in a previous posted when I mentioned "eligible" voters. Your definition obviously means folks registered to vote while my definition is folks old enough and otherwise qualified to vote both registered and unregistered. 65% of registered voters is still a pretty poor showing at the polls when you consider how many people should be voting.

As for mandatory voting, I would love to see that. But isn't it the eqivalent of forcing someone to be free? Sort of an oxymoron. What is the penalty for not voting - a fine I suppose? Suppose the electorate was to vote to do away mandatory voting - what then? People won't vote becasue they have to... they vote because they know they are having an impact... that is what needs to be restored to american politics.

As an afterthought I wonder if by "direct democracy" you mean that the voting public would create and pass legislation and such... well I don't think that is possible in a complex technological society where a great many matters require the expertise of a specialist. You wouldn't want a plumber performing a triple bypass surgery on you, just a you might not want a cardiologist working under your sink. Our representatives however need to be well enough educated and intelligent enough to listen to the advise of specialists. As it is now ideology and greed have left the specialists on the side lines, and the media chooses to comment on a politicians appearance and style rather than explain how that persons ideology will affect policy.

If the Amercian electorate is ignorant it is due to faulty education, and media that spits forth programming that appeals to the lowest common denominator. All of which is the result of a postmodern society using a political system that is in serious need of an overhaul. The United States is one of the oldest if not the oldest democracy in the world, it may be that the system devised in 1789 is not appropriate for 2005. The founders of the nation would barely recognize the world today. To think that any one nation would wield the power to totally destroy the entire world would have been unthinkable to them... and that is only one major difference between then and now. I think America needs a new constitutional convention, however that is not very likely to happen... because as I said before the system works perfectly for those who have the power now.

[serryjw]

37. We agree on some issues

A conventional Congress is not likely to happen
The media appeals to the lowest common denominator
Our education system certainly needs lots of work

Now...We need to define some wording.
Direct Democracy
http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Direct_democracy

Now, Please understand we have NEVER been a Citizen Democracy. We are
a citizen REPUBLIC. A very different form of government. As far as I am concerned this country is NOT ready for Citizen Democracy as stated in other posts. After all thse years I would support IVR and proportional representation as the next step TOWARDS Citizen Democracy.The demographics in this country are changing and NOT for the better. By mid century latino's will be the largest population in this country. Now this may sound bigoted but they are less educated and elections prove they are less likely to participate in the process. UNTIL we can change this citizen Democracy is a dream
http://www.worldnewsstand.net/freedom/democracy.htm

As for eligible electorate..I stand by my numbers. 60-65% (not 35%)of the (over 18,citizens not in prison or on parole) eligile voters vote in national elections and much less in mid term

[IChing]

8. Decentralize and Network the Federal Government Now

A very interesting article: This could make the increased representatives possible.

By John C. Dvorak
Some years ago I was flabbergasted when Congress banned the use of laptops by U.S. representatives. The rules are more relaxed now, and computers are part of the day-to-day life of a legislator. But I think it's time for us to consider taking things to the 21st century by completely virtualizing Congress, letting the representatives and senators work from within their districts instead of living and working in Washington, D.C.

Things would work more effectively with teleconferencing, and the Congress folks wouldn't be so hounded by lobbyists in a corrupting environment. Lobbyists would have to travel to the districts.

More important is the security issue. As things sit today, one suitcase nuke set off near the Capitol buildings would pretty much wipe out the federal government and kill all the representatives and senators at once. This would be a serious problem. Just look at the devastation a submegaton bomb caused in Hiroshima. Well, imagine D.C. being in that condition. Why does it remain a sitting duck?

Times have changed, and a centralized federal government that has to meet in one location all the time is no longer what we need. That makes no sense. It barely made sense once the telephone was invented, but now it makes no sense whatsoever. For a few committees or major hearings I can see the rationale for a gathering. But for debate, votes, and even discussion, it's nonsense. Watch C-SPAN and you'll see people yakking to empty rooms. Suddenly everyone runs in to cast a vote, then they're off to lunch or dinner with lobbyists.>>>>>snip

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,,1863486,00.asp

[serryjw]

10. I love it!

To respond to previous posters.
I have posted many times before...I am for Mandatory Publicly funded Federal elections that will cost every voting citizen about $5/yearly....no lobbyist, no raising outrageous money weekly to get re-elected to either chamber of Congress. It would eliminate all campaign corruption.

I am for IVR and proportionate representation so we do not have to eliminate the electoral College. In theory I would love direct democracy BUT Americans have proved to me after Bushit & the Terminator that they are not ready.

..and the idea of increasing House representation and leave them in their districts is something I had not thought about......BUT LOVE!!

[IChing]

12. Yes the lobbyist would be scrambling with having to increase their

staff by over 500%. I like that idea the most.

[kentuck]

9. Excellent idea !

This would add @ 3 Represntatives per state. This would make it much more difficult to gerrymander and would restore more democratic representation back to our government.

[newswolf56]

11. Interesting, compelling idea and a reform long overdue:

It could be the source of a new voting-rights movement based on the argument that Congressional refusal to expand the House to keep up with the growing population is a defacto denial of representation.

As to the potential success of such a movement, note this concluding paragraph from the linked report:

Nonetheless, there are a number of potential supporters outside the political arena. Rob Richie, of the Center for Voting and Democracy, noted that, "In state legislatures, women do better in districts that are smaller," and that there would be (with more House members) "more opportunities for districts drawn to facilitate racial minorities without contorting lines." Richie speculated that enlarging the House would appeal to populists, because smaller House districts might elect more "ordinary folks."

The oligarchy and its hired politicians would of course fiercely oppose any such expansion of liberty, as would the corporate media. But such an effort could provide precisely the means for a grassroots take-back of the Democratic Party: returning the Party to the ever-more-desperately needed principles of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the New Deal.

[serryjw]

15. Tears come to my eyes

returning the Party to the ever-more-desperately needed principles of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the New Deal.

[mzteris]

14. this topic needs more attention!

I like the ideas I'm reading here, more representation, publically funded elections, telecommuting.....

[IChing]

16. I nominated it too, it has a positive progressive thoughts n/t

[serryjw]

17. This is what the Democratic Party SHOULD stand for.....

We are a participatory form of government. We want to get involved and take action....THEY march lock step behind the KING and question NOTHING!

[eallen]

18. Wrong idea. The better idea is proportional representation.

Whether there are a 100,000 or a 500,000 people in a district, it's absolutely impossible for them to elect one person that represents them in any substantive sense. With winner take all voting, he will represent the winning coalition.

The cure for this is not smaller districts. Just the opposite. The cure is to elect several representatives from each district, using some form of proportional representation. Then, even minority parties get their fair slice of representatives, even though there is no district where they have a majority of the electorate.

[Silverhair]

24. That is a pipe dream.

It would require a rewrite of the constitution, not just an amendment. Any 13 states can block a constitutional amendment.

[JanMichael]

28. Well after we see the results of, ie. failures, a totally corrupt...

...government perhaps it won't be a "pipe dream". There are some serious systemic economic issues that crony representational gummint may find impossible to correct.

We shall see.

[eallen]

30. The Constitution allows each state to determine this. No rewrite needed.

All it takes is grassroots movements in some of the states that have multiple reps.

Of course, it might still be a pipedream.

:hippie:

[serryjw]

40. This is one of best things written into the Constitution

STATES rights and they can amend their STATE constitution anytime they want. Nebraska & Maine have proportionate presentation.

[newswolf56]

21. Nominated! ("Come on, people...let's get together...")

[timtom]

25. I second that nomination!

My vote is the 5th vote.

[Pepperbelly]

26. I LIKE it.

It is about time that we did this.

[dretceterini]

32. My problem is

how would we pay for it?

[Darth Lib]

33. Do we really want more of them?

I mean really. Think about it.

[serryjw]

41. Do I really want more of

DK, Boxer, Lee , McKinney.....YOU BET!!

[stillcool]

35. lots of great ideas....

especially more representation and clean elections. The representation we have appears to be uninformed, not only about their constituents but what's going on right under their noses. Either ignorant or complicit.

[me b zola]

38. I'm onboard!

kicked & recomended:)


:kick:

[theboss]

42. Isn't this Jonah Goldberg's idea?

The reason he supports it is that NOTHING would get accomplished in a legislative body that big.