The US should have 10,000 members of congress...

[ⒶⓁⒾⒶⓈ]

Interesting read here...it argues that the country is in trouble because congress isnt big enough to enable adequate representation
What's wrong with Congress? It's not big enough - CNN.com

The highlights

Congress no longer represents the will of the people, and it hasn't for a very long time. The House of Representatives has become another U.S. Senate where a rarefied few supposedly represent the needs of the many. And that's the main reason that hyper-partisanship and special interests seem to control the legislative agenda. We have all been disenfranchised.
A quick trip back to fifth grade history class reminds us that the House of Representatives was established as the lower house, intended to be "of the people," according to James Madison. It was to ensure that individual citizens had a voice in federal legislation while the Senate was meant to be more deliberative and represent the interest of the states.
But population growth has cut the ties between representatives and those they represent. A seat in the House of Representatives has gone from representing 33,000 people to more than 700,000 today

With each member of Congress representing a very large number of people, representatives receive tremendous attention from special interests. It is relatively easy for these groups to buy the support of the 218 members it takes to pass a bill, and congressional seats have increased in value as the economy and government have grown. It's not surprising that running for Congress has become a multimillion-dollar fundraising challenge in many districts around the country. And, it is also not surprising that many members become millionaires once they leave Congress -- if they are the rare ones who weren't rich to begin with.

For the first 140 years of the republic, the House increased in size with the population in varying degrees, going from 65 members originally to 435. A Republican Congress and president enacted the Reapportionment Act of 1929, which arbitrarily capped the number at 435 members. Although the U.S. population has more than doubled since 1929, the individual's voice in the federal government has diminished. Now is the time to re-establish that voice with a Congress that is closer to the level of representation envisioned by the founders.
If we use the original ratio (1 member per 33,000), we would have a House with nearly 10,000 members, which seems extreme and more like direct, as opposed to representative, democracy. However, staying at 435 also seems arbitrary and extreme.
The founders envisioned population growth and proposed a maximum ratio of 1 per 50,000, which today would produce a Congress of slightly more than 6,000 members.
Let's assume they were off by 100%, and we might envision a Congress with 1 member per 100,000 people or 3,000 members. As points of comparison, a constituency in the U.K. House of Commons is roughly 90,000 people, and the Iraqi government that the U.S. helped establish is at 100,000 people per representative. Yes, that's right: today Iraq's legislature is seven times more representative than our federal government.

Many might argue that such a large number would lead to gridlock based on sheer numbers. Really? More unproductive than where we are today? Properly used technology can enable large numbers of people to collaborate effectively, as they do in some leading corporations. For example, Amazon.com operates a disparate group of businesses around the world with very few physical meetings in headquarters.

As we can see, in the United States, the average constituency size (or "district" size in the case of the US) is nearly 600,000. This is comparable to representation for member states of the EU in many cases. This total can also vary considerable from state to state, with the largest states having the largest district sizes. This is based on the population of each state divided by the number of members of Congress in each state (using current Census data):

It makes an interesting case..10000 seems chaotic to me tho..the infrastructure needs alone ,offices , assistants and interns would be insane

But it would make a representative republic viable once again as opposed to whatever this is now.

thoughts



Thoughts

 

[Scoop]

10,000 is too much but the article does have a point.

UK has 650 for just 65M people = 1 rep per 100,000 people
France has 577 for just 66M people. = 1 rep per 114,000 people
Spain has 350 for just 46M people = 1 rep per 131,000 people

US has 435 for 325M people = 1 rep per 747,000 people

 

[ⒶⓁⒾⒶⓈ]

10,000 is too much but the article does have a point.

UK has 650 for just 65M people = 1 rep per 100,000 people
France has 577 for just 66M people. = 1 rep per 114,000 people
Spain has 350 for just 46M people = 1 rep per 131,000 people

US has 435 for 325M people = 1 rep per 747,000 people

I thought as much...using that ratio for the UK would put a similar rep. level at roughly 3500 which is more workable

 

[NERO]

More reps is just more politicians for various corporations to buy.

 

[Idaeo]

I never really thought about the static number of congressmen, but it's a very valid point. There needs to be a better representation in congress of the actual population. The old white guys of America have done enough.. it's time to release the reins.

 

[plushcarpet]

yes things would surely get accomplished with 10,000 members of congress

let me just get 5,001 people to agree on an issue

fukkin eh, does CNN even try anymore?

10,000 is too much but the article does have a point.

UK has 650 for just 65M people = 1 rep per 100,000 people
France has 577 for just 66M people. = 1 rep per 114,000 people
Spain has 350 for just 46M people = 1 rep per 131,000 people

US has 435 for 325M people = 1 rep per 747,000 people

These are unitary states, the US is a federation, its not comparable

 

[newworldafro]

Interesting, but where you gone house 10k Reps or even 5k. That's stadium seating.

 

[ⒶⓁⒾⒶⓈ]

Interesting, but where you gone house 10k Reps or even 5k. That's stadium seating.

It would have to be virtual..maybe broken up into several locations and debates simulcast and secure electronic voting...the tech is already available .

 

[ⒶⓁⒾⒶⓈ]

yes things would surely get accomplished with 10,000 members of congress

let me just get 5,001 people to agree on an issue

As opposed to now? when did you ever get to speak to your congressional rep or senator... you even know where his office is??In fact have you actually seen them in person and it wasn't on TV .

These are unitary states, the US is a federation, its not comparable

Nope not really...They are parliamentary systems .. so they are representative democracies....they vote for their individual members of parliament no differnt than you voting for your congressman and senator

 

[tmonster]

More reps is just more politicians for various corporations to buy.

basically
the corps will lobby against this

 

[ⒶⓁⒾⒶⓈ]

More reps is just more politicians for various corporations to buy.

Which makes corruption more expensive...and thats actually a good thing

right now all they have to do is buy a few key committee members and party leaders..you probably could get a bill passed with just paying off the right 10 people

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

They could add 100 more members and i'd be content

 

[ill]

They could add 100 more members and i'd be content

I'd say we need more than that. I personally think more reps would be a great thing. It would give far more representation to our citizens and it would make "buying up" all the politicians harder or at least far more costly.

 

[plushcarpet]

As opposed to now? when did you ever get to speak to your congressional rep or senator... you even know where his office is??In fact have you actually seen them in person and it wasn't on TV .







Nope not really...They are parliamentary systems .. so they are representative democracies....they vote for their individual members of parliament no differnt than you voting for your congressman and senator

That's what I'm saying though, they barely get shyt done now, how would they get anything done with 10,000 members

Me personally I do know where my congressman's office is (only because i've had to do paperwork there before for some reason, never met him though), but i get what you're saying with that. I think one of our biggest problems as a country is people only get involved with politics every 4yrs when its one big popularity contest between two presidential candidates.

However I don't think the solution is to add more congressmen, i think the solution is to utilize the internet more to allow people direct access to politicians and their assistants and whatnot, hell we can even make a whole new group called "Internet Congress Reps" or something

as for the differences in the countries, you're right they are both representative democracies, but here is a good list of differences

Following are the basic differences between federal and unitary government.

• In unitary government system powers remained at central place and central government have the authority to make all the decision while in federal government most of the powers except powers related to international affairs are delegated to local governments or provinces.
• Unitary government is not as much democratic form of government due to decision making power at central place while federal government is a pure democratic government in which local governments, territories, constituents states or provinces can enjoys some powers regarding governing and decision making in their respective regions.
• Unitary government have just one government that’s why it is also known by the name of central government while in federal government there are two governments, one at central position and other at state or province level.
• Unitary government may or may not have constitution. Like England has no constitution while France has constitution and both are unitary government. While federal government must have a constitution.
• In case of disputes between institutions in federal government or any bill passed by parliament, judiciary will interfere in the matter. While in case of unitary government, even highest court cannot give judgment or remarks on the law or bill passed by parliament.
• In the federal government, there is a hierarchy of power from federal level to state and local level. In unitary government, the powers and authorities are shared with the lower level government when needed.
• There are the common set of rules and regulations in the entire country under the unitary system of government. In a federal government system, there can be variations in rules and regulations at central and state level.
• So, the unitary government is a government system where there exist only one national tire of government. There can be more self-governing territories as well but in most of the cases, it remains mostly centralized.
• In the federal government, the central and government and the independent states government can form a collation or agreement to operate jointly. While it is not common practice in the unitary government system where the independent regions or states exist by the permission of the central government. This permission can be revoked anytime by the unitary government.
• In both federal and unitary government, the power of devolution rests with the central government however the process for the establishment of federation starts from the below level while in unitary government it is established by the self-governing regions at their own.
• In the unitary government, despite the fact how many states are connected in a central government, the people remain the nationals of a central government and territories are also considered as the territory of a single national government. Federal government system in this regard is entirely opposite where the nationality of anyone depends upon the component of state from where a person belongs.
• The federal government is the name of democracy, diversity, freedom of choice and expression. The unitary government is the name of unity, identity and consistency.
• To some extent, the federal government is the form of democratic government that believes in the decentralization of power and authorities and giving more freedom to the people. The unitary government system is much similar to the dictatorial government where there is a concept of centralization of power and authorities and no choices and freedom of expression for the people.
• In the case of emergency where timely decisions are required, unitary government is more responsive as compared to the federal government that believes more on the formalities and legal aspects.
• Federal government system requires more budget to be properly maintained as numbers of people will be required to be elect to hold the public office. As in unitary government, there are is a very narrow chain of command, so the budget expenses to manage the public offices remains significantly low.
• United States government system is federal government system while the United Kingdom government system is unitary government system.

Difference Between Federal and Unitary Government

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

I'd say we need more than that. I personally think more reps would be a great thing. It would give far more representation to our citizens and it would make "buying up" all the politicians harder or at least far more costly.

the only problem with money in politics is that its legal. Make it illegal, or harder to use loopholes...and problem solved.

Oh, and pay them and their staffers more.

More pay, less corruption.

This is the USA, not a banana republic.