JEQuidam

Your assumption is not supported by the facts; if we compare those state's assemblies with the smallest district sizes to those with the largest, the evidence is contrary. In fact, in our oversized districts today, low voter turnout creates a political vacuum that is frequently filled by mobilized fringe interest groups which can exert an inordinate influence over the outcome of elections. This is yet another reason why our Reps usually do not express positions of conviction. For example, if a Rep in a 700,000+ person district took a strong stand in favor of protecting our international borders (e.g., with a fence), then it would take a relatively small group of offended persons to throw the election to that Rep's mealy-mouthed opponent. I can assure you that on that issue (national borders), the Reps in the vast majority of American districts of 50,000 would not have that same problem. The same is true for "gay marriage", earmarks and a host of other issues. (Please let's not debate those issues in this thread; they are examples.) Agree, and the fundamental point of allowing 300,000,000 Americans to have more than 435 districts is to bring the full diversity of views and ideals into the federal House. Could you please announce your country to the forum? That way, we might be able to admire all the superior virtues of your government in comparison to our republican government. If you are referring to judicial fiats by a judiciary which is not accountable to anyone, I agree (and so do most Americans). But that is not a problem inherent in the republican form of government; instead, it is a problem inherent in having a federal House comprised of people without balls. The Electors are indeed elected (you obviously have not seen one of our ballots). With respect to the the EV vs. the PV, if we had 6,000 congressional districts, the EV would always equal the PV.

In response to that challenge, I can only offer (at this time) the following arguments for everone's consideration:Q8: Wouldn’t it be costly to add all these Representatives? http://www.thirty-thousand.org/index.htm#Q8 And the following research paper: “Constituency Size and Government Spending”, Mark Thornton and Marc Ulrich, Public Finance Review, November 1999; http://www.thirty-thousand.org/documents/Publlic_Finance_Review_1999.pdf In addition, two more minor points: first, with respect to retirement benefits (assuming they are there long enough to qualilfy), their total number would be miniscule compared to the number of retired military and guvment employees (the latter which need to be reduced in number). Second, a great reduction in travel and per deim expenses would result if we kept these guys and gals at home, with us, where we can keep an eye on them. I should caution you that you're coming dangerously close to expressing a position on this matter. Well, if someone wants to argue that we reduce the size of the House to 200, or less, then have at it. The only thing more efficient than a small oligarchy would be a totalitarian regime, which has none of those discomforting "group dynamics". However, more to your point, I find the arguments raised in this book to be far more compelling: "The Wisdom of Crowds" http://www.randomhouse.com/features/wisdomofcrowds/ I recommend that to anyone interested in this subject. Quite the contrary, I am quite grateful to everyone for indulging me in the exploration of this subject. Believe it or not, my primary goal at this point is not so much to gain widespread "acceptance"; instead, I am only trying to get people to consider and debate the question of how many Representatives 300,000,000 Americans should have. I believe that the number which was thought correct in 1910 should be subject to a national debate. Additional info about Thirty-Thousand.org is available here: http://www.thirty-thousand.org/pages/about.htm

If I understand what you are describing, I believe it would nearly require re-writing a section of the Constitutution. It also doesn't make sense to me as a better solution than simply allowing 6,000 Reps. However, consider this analogue to that notion: out of 6,000 Reps there would be a far smaller number on the various committees and subcommitees that produce the legislation. I can only guess what that number might be, but for a hypothetical let's say it's somewhere around 200 to 250. That smaller group would be chosen by the larger group for various reasons which would probably include experience and seniority.

Uhhh, yeah sure. OK, then can you answer the question posed by Sisyphus: "Are you in favor of increasing the number of Congressional districts?" It's not an argument, it's called making a decision and taking a position, or say "I don't know." That's how the rest of us in the real world operate; we all don't live in the ether. Then I would add this second question: "If you are opposed to it, are you also opposed to putting the amendment (for a maximum district size of 50,000) before the people to let them decide?" Is that acceptable? Exactly right!!

So please point out the bias, if any, in this question: "Are you opposed to allowing 300,000,000 American citizens to have more than 435 congressional districts?" OK, if you interpret that as strictly as possible, they could all collect in one place for one day. Or they could redefine "assemble" as meeting in multiple locations and then teleconferencing. (You're really desperate to oppose this idea, aren't you?) Just because it is not written in the plural does not prevent them from doing so. Perhaps so, but now that you've brought up Article the first, don't you think most people would find it interesting that the very first amendment inscribed in our Bill of Rights was never ratified after being affirmed by all but one state? Do you think that the fact it was made defective with an inexplicable math error makes it worthy of inquiry? If not, why not?

That question is analogous to Swansont's "have you stopped beating your wife?" because it contains an assumption that conspicuously biases the question: it implies that all 6,000 Reps must be "crowded" into one place. Those who have read the proposal understand that there is no pressing Constitutional or business reason that all 6,000 Reps assemble in one location. That is an archaic paradigm that certainly made sense when the Constitution was drafted, as not even the telegraph or train had yet been invented. So allow me to re-word that question: do you favor allowing 300,000,000 American citizens to be represented by 6,000 federal Reprentatives? Or conversely, would you rather be a citizen in a congressional district of 50,000, 700,000 or 1,300,000? (The latter number being the projected average district size by 2100.) My interest in asking the question really isn't so much whether or not you think it is a good idea; instead, the point is: should the people (through their state legislatures) be allowed to vote for or against an amendment which would establish a maximimum district size of 50,000?

Here is the primary benefit: if we the people want to regain control of the federal House, then we need to regain control of our Representatives. Because the average congressional district in the U.S. consists of 700,000 people, the Representatives must raise millions of dollars every two years in order to finance their reelection campaigns. Of course, it is far easier for an incumbent to raise those amounts than it is for a challenger. Because of this barrier to entry, incumbent Representatives are assured of 90%+ reelection rates. As a result, the incumbent is beholden to numerous powerful special interests for their financial and political support; these groups comprise the Representatives' primary constituents. The citizenry has become the Representatives' secondary constituency. If we reduced the population size of congressional districts from 700,000 to a much smaller size, such as 50,000, it is easy to see why the citizens would once again become the Representatives' primary constituents. It would no longer require millions of dollars to seek election in a district of 50,000. In fact, if an incumbent were not held in high esteem by his/her constituents, then any competent citizen could mount an effective challenge at no more expense than the cost of several pairs of walking shoes and several thousand photocopies.

Well, I guess it depends what you mean by "argue". When someone poses an objection, I respond, but I think that is called a "debate". I will not "argue" with anyone who declares they are resolute in their opposition to allowing us to have more congressional districts, I will only ask them why. Otherwise, I assume the challenger is someone who is open to the prospect and is simply exploring the pros and cons of the matter. The fact is that some people don't have the courage to announce their position, or they don't have the humility to acknowledge that they have not yet reached a conclusion.

Why not just simply say: "I am opposed to allowing 300,000,000 Americans to have more than 435 districts"? Why can't you just come out and say that? I don't understand. Or alternatively, you could say: "I don't know yet what my position is on that matter". It would appear that some of you are aspiring politicians. People who avoid answering that question do so because they don't want to have to defend their answer if it is "yes" or "no". The only answer that requires no defense is "I don't know."

What are the other ways to answer that question than "Yes", "No" or "I don't know"? OK, to be sure I understand: you are NOT opposed to allowing 300,000,000 Americans to have more than 435 congressional districts, right?

When I ask people if they oppose allowing 300,000,000 Americans to have more than 435 congressional districts, they can usually answer "Yes", "No", or "I don't know". It's really a straightforward question.

Swansot, I realize this is confusing. PLEASE see the list of amendments here: http://www.thirty-thousand.org/pages/BoR_text.htm What we call the "First Amendment" was "Article the Third", the "Second" was "Article the Fourth" and so fourth. The defective "Article the first" was never ratified, though it was affirmed by all but one state. "Article the second" was ratified 200 years later as our 27th amendment. Believe me, they don't teach this stuff in the schools. This is their link:http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html Everyone can compare that partial transcript with the complete one I provide at the link above and draw their own conclusions.

Then you have not read the article from "Public Finance Review" which provides data that supports this contention. (Or perhaps you have read it but are inclined to dismiss data that contradicts your cynical view.) Let's get to the point: do you oppose allowing 300,000,000 Americans to have more than 435 congressional districts?

Many people will share your skepticism. I can only ask that you reconsider the arguments made in Q&A#8, and also read the paper cited above “Constituency Size and Government Spending” by Mark Thornton and Marc Ulrich, Public Finance Review, November 1999; http://www.thirty-thousand.org/docum...eview_1999.pdf (right button click to save it to your local drive) Ultimately, a person's willingness to accept this argument may depend on whether they have faith that we can choose one of 50,000 of us that will conduct themselves as responsible stewards and fiduciaries of the public's budget. I have no doubt that we can.

I must have missed that point, if it was earlier made. I strongly believe that they should be paid as much as they are now (but without any increase in their aggregate total staffing). Frankly, I don't care if we double their pay (but I know few will agree with that sentiment). We should want to draw the best qualified people from private industry and other institutions, etc. For the reasons provided at the links above (in my prior posting), they will more than offset their own costs through more judicious stewardship of the federal budget. If you pay them too little (or not at all) you will only attract either the very wealthy or the crooked (or worse, those who combine both). That same point was made during the House debates on "Article the second" -- the second amendment in our Bill of Rights which was ratified 200 years later as the 27th amendment.

Yes. It's actually 1 Representative per 50,000 people as was specified in the amendment proposed by the House in 1789 (a defective version of that amendment became the first amendment inscribed in our Bill of Rights). Please read Q&A #8 on the TTO home page:Q8: Wouldn’t it be costly to add all these Representatives? http://www.thirty-thousand.org/index.htm#Q8 (No ads or pop-ups.) Additional support is provided by this paper: “Constituency Size and Government Spending” by Mark Thornton and Marc Ulrich, Public Finance Review, November 1999; http://www.thirty-thousand.org/documents/Publlic_Finance_Review_1999.pdf (right button click to save it to your local drive)

I agree, but just to clarify, Thirty-Thousand.org is recommending there be 6,000 congressional districts for 300,000,000 Americans (not 10,000), but that distinction does not invalidate any of your other points. To pick up on another point you made: proven technologies allow us to finally abandon the archaic notion that all of the Reps must collect together in one location. Nothing in the Constitution requires they all be in one location; the Constitution was drafted decades before the advent of fancy new technology (such as trains or telegraphs). Of course, it was reasonably assumed that the men would have to assemble to communicate and vote. I would envision assembled meetings of those Reps who are collaborating on specific legislation or issues before the House, and that committee (or subcommittee) would report out the the remainder of the Reps, who could be located in their own districts (where we the people can keep a close eye on them).

Well, that's why there needs to be a national debate on this issue. In any case, all who favor increasing our number of districts are basically in common agreement. Thirty-Thousand.org argues for 6,000 congressional districts (for 300,000,000 Americans) for several reasons, the most compelling of which is that number of districts is required to come close to achieving the equality of district size needed to conform to one-person-one-vote. Also, the maximum district size of 50,000 was proposed in the uncorrupted version of "Article the first" (the defective version of which was proposed as the first amendment in our Bill of Rights). Exactly right on all of that! And it's a good thing to reflect all the diversity of the citizenry's concerns and ideals. Could this happen? Yes. Is it likely to happen? Not without widespread support of the American people, and that does not seem so likely, especially since the Congressmen and special interests will fight this tooth and nail.

I agree. But I hope the states eventually decide to abandon the winner-take-all system, but it won't happen unless the citizens press for it.

I agree. In addition, the winner-take-all practice within each state should be discontinued (as Maine and Nebraska have already done). Regarding the EC, you should read this section: http://www.thirty-thousand.org/pages/section_IX.htm In particular, scroll down to the "Neubauer-Zeitlin Analysis".

My contention is that, in most of the 50-person districts, it will behoove the Representative to proactively seek the involvement of his/her constituents. I probably can not convince anyone of this point in a posting, but I believe this will change the citizen-Representative dynamic in a profound way. I understand your point, and perhaps that is how you would feel, but it is not how I would feel. I would feel that my 1/6,000 Rep is in a very good position to exert some influence, and that I have an opportunity to exert some influence on him/her. (That is, I would see my personal opportunity for influence with 1/50,000 + 1/6,000 to be greater than the current 1/700,000 + 1/435 ... if that makes sense.) I do when I can. He is the most effective voice for the libertarian perspective out there (as well as a relentless self promoter). I probably agree with him on about 70% of his views. (But don't ask which 70%!)

Well, I guess I'm expressing a belief about what would happen; i.e., that the supra-state federal districts would become their own soveriegnties and that would be dangerous to the republic. That is the only thing I hope to accomplish at this stage: to get people to begin challenging Why 435? I believe the the arguments for "direct democracy" are really fueled by a failure to maintain the type of HoR we are supposed to have. I do want direct democracy to the extent that I elect my Representative to the House (without having that decision pre-ordained by the Parties or the Special Interests). On the other hand, I believe that the 17th amendment should be repealed (which is a different discussion).

I agree with all that, except I endorse a maximum district size of 50,000 (as proposed by the House version of Article the first before it was made defective in the joint committee). The 17th amendment could (and should) be repealed in conjunction with expanding our number of districts.

OK, but consider that the apathy is caused by the insufficient breadth of representation. This is what I argue: that the average voter feels his/her vote makes no difference and, given the influence of special interests' money/clout in a district of 700,000+, maybe that is a rational conclusion. However, I believe that people would feel the power of their vote much more greatly in a district of 50,000. Well, I would oppose that idea with my last breath, mainly because I believe it undermines the sovereignty of the states and would effectively replace the states with even more powerful supra-state congressional fiefdoms wherein the people would not be afforded any additional protection from the federal government. I'm trying to take political power back for the citizenry; supra-state districts would strengthen the role of the already powerful special interests. The federal House will not be accountable until the districts are small enough for the citizenry to control their Representatives. I mean to refer to the aggregate spending required for the two-party duopoly to maintain power. To be fair with your data, you would need to preclude those races where the incumbent runs unopposed. This is why there are 90%+ reelection rates. If you want to see how difficult it is to raise half a million dollars, try it. If you want to see how much more an incumbent can (and does) raise, then challenge that incumbent. The money is there if they need it. Also, those totals you referenced do not include the large sums that are raised by the 527s. First, the only thing I require my Representative to be an "expert" on is the concerns, interests and ideals of the members of his/her 50,000-person district. Second, the additional expertise they need to understand specialized or complex matters can be obtained from that constituency, from the central staffs of the Congress, and from other Representatives who they trust to understand the particular subject matter in question. There is no shortage of expertise. Third, if you had ever personally dealt with the Representatives' staffs, you would know how hilarious your presumption is with respect to their having any expertise beyond answering the phone and planning lunch dates.

Better for whom? I will explain how we can "make government better" for the citizens (and, with your protests, you will continue to explain how we can "make government better" for the elites and powerful special interests). In order to "make government better", the citizenry needs to take it back from the special interests that largely control it now. This requires that we the people regain control of the federal House; therefore, we must regain control of our Representatives. Because the average congressional district in the U.S. consists of 700,000 people, the Representatives must raise millions of dollars every two years in order to finance their reelection campaigns. Of course, it is far easier for an incumbent to raise those amounts than it is for a challenger. Because of this barrier to entry, incumbent Representatives are assured of 90%+ reelection rates. As a result, the incumbent is beholden to numerous powerful special interests for their financial and political support; these groups comprise the Representatives' primary constituents. The citizenry has become the Representatives' secondary constituency. If we reduced the population size of congressional districts from 700,000 to a much smaller size, such as 50,000, it is easy to see why the citizens would once again become the Representatives' primary constituents. It would no longer require millions of dollars to seek election in a district of 50,000. In fact, if an incumbent were not held in high esteem by his/her constituents, then any competent citizen could mount an effective challenge at no more expense than the cost of several pairs of walking shoes and several thousand photocopies. All this is further explained by the 15 Questions & Answers on the Thirty-Thousand.org home page (no ads or pop-ups). Thirty-Thousand.org is a non-partisan and non-profit 501©(3) organization. Even so, because they did foresee a world with 400 Reps by 1840 (as per Federalist #55), they certainly would expect that at 300,000,000 we would have more than 435. Bear in mind that the Federalist's projection of 400 was made decades before any fancy new technology was invented (like trains and telegraphs). Here's another quote (from the bottom of TTO's home page): “...the House of Representatives will, within a single century, consist of more than six hundred members.” — James Wilson, November 30, 1787 (Delegate to the Convention of the State of Pennsylvania, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution.) James Wilson was known for his keen intellect. These guys had a sober grasp of the population boom that would result from the westward expansion.