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

[Domingo Halliburton]

Those house of representatives dudes will talk to you. Or at least their staff will pass something on....we tell them to put their name on certain projects endorsing them if it's in their district. all you have to say is it creates jobs and they can take credit. Usually only do this if there's some sort of government guarantee involved.

 

[ⒶⓁⒾⒶⓈ]

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

If warren buffet can get 25000 shareholders to meet decide and vote every year i dont see why uncle sam cannot...some companies like Amazon and walmart have thousands of executives spread out over several continents and they communicate and work together daily

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

Youre still talking 1 person for 750,000 people on average but in larger states like CA NY TX its actually 1/3,000,000 sometimes in the case of senators

even if you had T1 internet and 10 assistants theres no way one person can effectively represent 3 million people.

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

The differences between Parliamentary and Presidential Representative democracies are beyond the scope of this because we are disagreeing on the Ratio and effectiveness of the representation itself

 

[Jhoon]

Are these paid posts?

 

[plushcarpet]

If warren buffet can get 25000 shareholders to meet decide and vote every year i dont see why uncle sam cannot...some companies like Amazon and walmart have thousands of executives spread out over several continents and they communicate and work together daily

breh we all know business is more efficient than government, they only have one goal: profit
the government has many goals and many people who want different things[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[ⒶⓁⒾⒶⓈ]

Another good aspect of increasing the number of reps will be lower campaign costs..the cost of winning a seat in some places is in the tens of millions of dollars range

Senate
Raised
1. Pennsylvania Senate $29,743,468
2. Ohio Senate $25,183,797
3. Wisconsin Senate $22,569,824
4. New York Senate $22,294,935
5. Illinois Senate $20,962,685
6. Florida Senate $18,410,869

Because the candidate has to reach millions of people..if it was only 100,000 people the costs would be similar to running for mayor on a small town..

that way less representatives will have to bend over for blue chip corporations to win...and more people would run.... and there would be alot less reps who have sold their souls and owe too many favors to lobbyists .

 

[Deutsche Bank]

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







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

We don't need to expand Congress, we need to expand states' rights, like Marc Faber said. If State Houses had more autonomy, we could actually reduce the motherfukking cocksucking number of Congressmen.

But the Bolshevik dumbasses on here can't tie their own goddamn shoes without federal guidelines, so we're gonna drive right into the same fukking idiocracy as the EU now.

 

[ⒶⓁⒾⒶⓈ]

We don't need to expand Congress, we need to expand states' rights, like Marc Faber said. If State Houses had more autonomy, we could actually reduce the motherfukking cocksucking number of Congressmen.

But the Bolshevik dumbasses on here can't tie their own goddamn shoes without federal guidelines, so we're gonna drive right into the same fukking idiocracy as the EU now.

@ bolshevik dumbasses

That thought had hit me but realistically the federal govt will NEVER willingly shrink itself

But youre right that would be more logical choice ..more state autonomy =better management of the tax farm......smaller herds per manager=happier livestock

 

[Misanthrope]

We don't need to expand Congress, we need to expand states' rights, like Marc Faber said. If State Houses had more autonomy, we could actually reduce the motherfukking cocksucking number of Congressmen.

But the Bolshevik dumbasses on here can't tie their own goddamn shoes without federal guidelines, so we're gonna drive right into the same fukking idiocracy as the EU now.

All well and good until Alabama or Mississippi reinstates the poll tax or bans interracial marriage, or some other shyt. Some states have proven they're too dumb to survive without the feds holding their hands.

 

[ⒶⓁⒾⒶⓈ]

Are these paid posts?

you couldnt afford me

 

[Json]

Interesting thread on the weirdness of a close House and absent members

It brings up that the 435 number hasn’t been changed since the 1920s

Would it help to expand the House like we talk about the Supreme Court? Take the bite out of the need to gerrymander?

 

[FromStLouis]

Sure, expand congress but do it outside of Washington DC. Put senates and houses in other parts of the country.

Send a new york senator to the bible belt, send a california congresswoman to the rust belt. It's a big country, they should see it.

 

[dora_da_destroyer]

Sure, expand congress but do it outside of Washington DC. Put senates and houses in other parts of the country.

a new york senator to the bible belt, send a california congresswoman to the rust belt. It's a big country, they should see it.

Why would this matter? The house represents a particular district and their issues/concerns. A California rep going to Ohio isn’t helpful, they weren’t elected to propose legislation, vote on, or solve issues for Ohio, they are supposed to be the voice of their constituents in California

 

[Json]

Sure, expand congress but do it outside of Washington DC. Put senates and houses in other parts of the country.

Send a new york senator to the bible belt, send a california congresswoman to the rust belt. It's a big country, they should see it.

It’s a deliberative body. You’re supposed to be able to articulate to your peers why certain issues are important in your area and the country and deserve funding.

Picking idiots particularly undermines the point of this no matter how many “senates and houses” you have outside of DC.

 

[FromStLouis]

It’s a deliberative body. You’re supposed to be able to articulate to your peers why certain issues are important in your area and the country and deserve funding.

Picking idiots particularly undermines the point of this no matter how many “senates and houses” you have outside of DC.

Idiots, yeah. Yeah, I'd still rather have more representation and outside of DC. There's a lot of blue cities in red states not represented at all on the senate floor. It's a problem. How to remedy that is anyone's guess but the status quo ain't it.

 

[OfTheCross]

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







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

The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives

On this date, the House passed the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929, fixing the number of Representatives at 435. The U.S. Constitution called for at least one Representative per state and that no more than one for every 30,000 persons. Thus, the size of a state’s House delegation depended on...

history.house.gov

I've made this point to attorneys in the past and no one cared to challenge it.

The Constitution says we're supposed to have a rep for every 30k people, yet with a simple law, Congress capped it. This is something that should've taken an Amendment.