A “People’s House” or an oligarchy?

[JEQuidam]

Many people do not realize that our total number of congressional districts (and therefore our total number of Representatives in the U.S. House) has been limited to 435 ever since 1913 (except for a four-year period when it was temporarily increased to 437).

 

In 1929, this number (435) was made permanent by an act of Congress. During the debates preceding that act, Missouri Representative Ralph Lozier stated:

“I am unalterably opposed to limiting the membership of the House to the arbitrary number of 435. Why 435? Why not 400? Why not 300? Why not 250, 450, 535, or 600? Why is this number 435 sacred? What merit is there in having a membership of 435 that we would not have if the membership were 335 or 535? There is no sanctity in the number 435 ... There is absolutely no reason, philosophy, or common sense in arbitrarily fixing the membership of the House at 435 or at any other number.”

 

The challenge posed by Representative Lozier in 1928 is still valid: is 435 a sacrosanct number or should it be subject to debate?

 

Many of those who framed and ratified the Constitution & Bill of Rights expected that the population of congressional districts would never exceed 50,000. Today their average size is 700,000; by 2100 their average size will be 1.3 million. As a result, it is no longer possible for federal Representatives to faithfully and honorably represent the diverse interests of their constituents. This could be the root cause of why our government has become “broken” and, in any case, violates the principle “That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed” (from the Declaration of Independence).

 

Related to this matter is the fact that the very first amendment proposed in our Bill of Rights was never ratified. As proposed by the House, “Article the first” was intended to ensure that the district size never exceeded 50,000 people. While this amendment was in the Joint Committee, a subtle error was somehow introduced into it that rendered it inexecutable. It is not known when this error was eventually detected, but the amendment was ultimately ratified by all but one state. This very interesting and important story can be found at: TownHall.com (for red people), or at DailyKos (for blue people). Both articles are identical and contain links to supporting information.

[swansont]

From the links:

"Is 435 the right size? If so, why? If not, should the House of Representatives be larger or smaller? If 435 was thought to be the appropriate size when the population was 91 million (per the 1910 census), should it be increased to reflect the fact that the total population has since more than tripled?"

 

Is a strawman. It hasn't been established that anyone thought that 435 was a priori the "right" number. It was the number of representatives when congress decided that getting larger would be problematic. Any link to other debate about the size, rather than just a dissenting opinion?

 

 

 

(and as this is clearly politics I'll move it to that forum)

[Rev Blair]

As long as the limit doesn't lead to gerrymandering, it doesn't really matter. The important thing is that Congressional districts reflect the population that lives there.

 

The problem is that when districts are redrawn, there's some very partisan wrangling that occurs to try to give the party in control an edge. There's a whole whack of gerrymandering that goes on.

 

If you think you guys have trouble though, you should have a look at the Canadian system. Representation by population is a huge joke here and our Senate is even funnier.

[ParanoiA]

Interesting OP. Disregarding the introduction of new problems, a direct democracy would seem to solve much of the issue. I know, I've always preferred it, although I admit I haven't researched the ramifications enough to be passionate about it.

 

The representative democracy seems to be nothing more than a compromise forced by the seemingly unmanagable complexity of direct democracy. I would like to see a hybrid, where the representative serves as more of a default, while the people can use their weight at any time to insert their authority. Not sure how that would look logistically.

[JEQuidam]

Is a strawman. It hasn't been established that anyone thought that 435 was a priori the "right" number.

Of course the Democrat Representative from Missouri (who is quoted in the initial posting) did not see 435 as a strawman. I encourage you to re-read his quote.

 

The fundamental issue is simple: should 300,000,000 American citizens be allowed more than 435 congressional districts? Most people are able to answer that question with a "Yes", "No", or "I don't know".

 

As long as the limit doesn't lead to gerrymandering, it doesn't really matter. The important thing is that Congressional districts reflect the population that lives there.

Reducing district sizes to 50,000 (from the current average of 700,000+) will effectively eliminate gerrymandering. Maybe you can push the funny house at the end of the street (painted orange, with the 48 cats in the yard) into the next district, but that's about it.

 

... a direct democracy would seem to solve much of the issue.

Speaking for myself, I am an ardent supporter of the republican form of government. I'm only intersted in fixing the House to make it a representative body.

[ParanoiA]

Speaking for myself, I am an ardent supporter of the republican form of government. I'm only intersted in fixing the House to make it a representative body.

 

The representative body is at question though. If you reduce district size to 50,000 then we will be left with thousands of representatives. How manageable is that? If we're going to have to deal with that kind of number, then why not invite a form of direct democracy? Isn't that even better?

 

It's still a republic. The power still comes from the people. I've never really understood the insistence that agents or representatives be a requirement to be defined as a republic. Although, I admit, the lexicons are certainly playing along.

 

It's interesting, regardless. It would seem to be better to increase to as many representatives as we could manageably get away with.

[Pangloss]

The fundamental issue is simple: should 300,000,000 American citizens be allowed more than 435 congressional districts? Most people are able to answer that question with a "Yes", "No", or "I don't know".

 

Reducing district sizes to 50,000 (from the current average of 700,000+) will effectively eliminate gerrymandering. Maybe you can push the funny house at the end of the street (painted orange, with the 48 cats in the yard) into the next district, but that's about it.

 

Speaking for myself, I am an ardent supporter of the republican form of government. I'm only intersted in fixing the House to make it a representative body.

 

It's an interesting point of discussion, thanks for bringing it up. I admit it is a discussion I've not participated in before, though I've seen similar discussions on other politics forums. I think it's a reasonable suggestion, worthy of further exploration, but from what I've seen of this issue in the past, it's been my general impression/opinion that the negatives outweigh the positives.

 

For example, we already face a situation where the majority of those 435 districts typically run for re-election completely unopposed. Put another way, the threashold for notice of a representative's work by a citizen is already too low. I think there should be term limits to make it higher, but if you put in term limits on 50,000 districts then you may well end up with districts with NO representation, because nobody stepped up to be elected.

 

Still, I have an open mind on the issue and I can think of at least one other positive to go along with the negatives (making it harder for the reps to focus on "bringing home the bacon"), so I welcome further discussion on the subject.

[JEQuidam]

...For example, we already face a situation where the majority of those 435 districts typically run for re-election completely unopposed.

Allow me to explain why 50,000-person districts eliminates that problem: 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.

 

I can think of at least one other positive to go along with the negatives (making it harder for the reps to focus on "bringing home the bacon")...

Bingo!!! A gold star for you, sir.

[Rev Blair]

Reducing district sizes to 50,000 (from the current average of 700,000+) will effectively eliminate gerrymandering. Maybe you can push the funny house at the end of the street (painted orange, with the 48 cats in the yard) into the next district, but that's about it.

 

That's very true, gerrymandering would become meaningless at that point. It would give you 6,000 people sitting in the House though, plus their staffs. That's a lot of salaries. Plus you'll have to draft a whole lot more unpaid pages and volunteers, and most of them get at least some of their living expenses covered in one way or another. Then there are all of the incidental costs...office space, travel costs, expense account bourbon. It would drive the cost of elections through the roof too. I'm not convinced the people of the US are going to want to pick up the tab for that.

 

The mechanics of holding a vote of representatives would be nightmarish too. Every one of them would have a right to speak if they wanted, so contentious issues would bring the whole body to a standstill. Then just calling the rollcall for a vote would become so unwieldy that it would collapse under its own weight.

 

I am a big believer in representation by population, with checks and balances added later to achieve representation of the people instead of the special interests and to ensure some semblance of parity between the regions. I just think you need a better plan than the one you've presented.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The mechanics of holding a vote of representatives would be nightmarish too. Every one of them would have a right to speak if they wanted, so contentious issues would bring the whole body to a standstill. Then just calling the rollcall for a vote would become so unwieldy that it would collapse under its own weight.

I'm thinking some sort of electronic system like they use on America's Funniest Home Videos and so on. Each desk has a Yea button and a Nay button, and the representative presses it at the appropriate time.

[JEQuidam]

If you reduce district size to 50,000 then we will be left with thousands of representatives. How manageable is that?

How "manageble" are the 435? To the lobbyists and special interests who appear to be doing the best job of managing them, they do appear to be more manageble. That's why the special interests would strongly oppose a number of Reps so great that they couldn't manage them.

 

What is more important is how well we the people are managing our particular Reps. I have no doubt that the citizens of a district of 50,000 will be able to far better manage their Rep than can the citizens of a district of 700,000+

 

What is truly unmanageble is 700,000 citizens per Representative.

 

It would seem to be better to increase to as many representatives as we could manageably get away with.

A fair and reasonable debate could be had on how many districts (and representatives) 300,000,000 Americans should be allowed. I argue that we the ratio should be 1:50,000, which would cause us to have 6,000 Representatives.

 

Think outside the box: they no longer need to all collect in one location.

 

It would give you 6,000 people sitting in the House though, plus their staffs. That's a lot of salaries.

The total number of staff should NOT be allowed to increase as the number of Reps increase. The Reps shall be dealing with their constituents directly. The Reps did not begin getting personal staffs until the districts became enlarged; the entire rationale for those staffs was the need to provide services to hundreds of thousands of constituents.

 

Also: I argue, at the link below, that having additional representation will actually reduce the overall net cost of the federal government. Please consider that point of view:

Q8: Wouldn’t it be costly to add all these Representatives?

http://www.thirty-thousand.org/index.htm#Q8 (No ads or pop-ups.)

 

 

The mechanics of holding a vote of representatives would be nightmarish too.

I'm far more concerned that we are properly representated in our national legislature than how inconvenient that voting process may be for the Reps. Nor do I see how the citizenry may be disadvantaged by a more cumbersome voting process. We do not need more legislation; instead, we need to protected from the federal government.

 

Each desk has a Yea button and a Nay button, and the representative presses it at the appropriate time.

That is essentially how they vote now, in the House chamber (unless it's a voice vote).

[Pangloss]

Allow me to explain why 50,000-person districts eliminates that problem: 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.

 

Millions? Hmm, I believe that's often true in the Senate, but not the House. Well let's see -- I just took a quick peek at OpenSecrets.org, one of my favorite electioneering sites, and found some stats that may be of use here. The average amount currently banked for this fall's election by incumbent candidates is $785,187 (wow that is up there, but still not millions). The average amount currently banked for this fall's election by challengers is $185,013. (There's a record number of those, by the way, at 457, though many of those are running for the same seat. I haven't seen a statistics yet on how many seats are currently running unopposed but it's usually over 50%.) Open seat candidates are clocking in at $273,683.

 

The overall average is $431,970.

 

Source:

http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/incumbs.php

 

Of course, $400k is still a lot of money. I can see how increasing the number of districts would make it cheaper to get elected. I'm not sure this is really desirable, though -- see my question below.

 

 

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.

 

Yes, it's possible, but other possibilities exist as well, and I'm thinking that the real problem isn't the number of representatives, but the apathy of the American voter. How does any of this increase people's willingness to pay attention? And if they don't pay more attention, doesn't your proposal make things worse?

[Rev Blair]

The total number of staff should NOT be allowed to increase as the number of Reps increase. The Reps shall be dealing with their constituents directly. The Reps did not begin getting personal staffs until the districts became enlarged; the entire rationale for those staffs was the need to provide services to hundreds of thousands of constituents.

 

Having been at least peripherally involved in politics, I kind of reject the idea that staffs can be significantly reduced.

 

No one person can be an expert on everything. They need people around them who are well-versed in the basics and can go out and learn the particulars.

 

They also need at least one good speech writer (it's very much a specialized craft), a good executive assistant/secretary, and a press liason/spokesperson or two to deal with the press and weird writers who leave strange messages on their machines in the middle of the night.

 

My riding here in Canada is about the size you are suggesting, and my MP has about a half dozen paid staff and a whack of volunteers. This is a good MP...hardworking and personable. He's actually called me up personally about a couple of things, and I know he reads every e-mail and letter sent to him. I'm gonna miss him when he's gone.

 

The reality is that if the government doesn't pay for that staff, somebody else will. Then the politician will be beholden to that somebody, which is what I think we're trying to get away from.

 

I'm far more concerned that we are properly representated in our national legislature than how inconvenient that voting process may be for the Reps. Nor do I see how the citizenry may be disadvantaged by a more cumbersome voting process. We do not need more legislation; instead, we need to protected from the federal government.

 

We'll just have to disagree on that. I lived under a provincial government that worked on that basis, at least when they weren't stealing the government coffers, and they buggered things up so badly that I had to move to the next province over.

 

I'm thinking some sort of electronic system like they use on America's Funniest Home Videos and so on. Each desk has a Yea button and a Nay button, and the representative presses it at the appropriate time.

 

Each of them should still have a chance to speak on any given issue though. Part of representing people is giving their thoughts and concerns a voice, after all. Now most of the time that's not going to matter much...they'll just vote...but when a big issue comes up, the kind that will get them in the press, they'll all want to speak. How do you deal with that?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Yes, it's possible, but other possibilities exist as well, and I'm thinking that the real problem isn't the number of representatives, but the apathy of the American voter. How does any of this increase people's willingness to pay attention? And if they don't pay more attention, doesn't your proposal make things worse?

 

Any representative political system has to have faith in its constituents or the principles don't hold up. We could have dozens of other threads on what's making people apathetic, although the easiest solution is "shoot the media."

[Pangloss]

Any representative political system has to have faith in its constituents or the principles don't hold up. We could have dozens of other threads on what's making people apathetic, although the easiest solution is "shoot the media."

 

Quite right. I'm just thinking that many of the points he's addressing with this change may be caused by voter apathy rather than insufficiently granular representation.

 

I'm just playing devil's advocate here, though, tossing out another point for discussion. I don't feel I have a good enough handle on it yet to say whether I agree or disagree.

[doG]

A representation of 1 for every 30,000 was the intent of the founders. Their reasoning for this is explained in Federalist Papers 55 and 56. Having refreshed my own memory of these texts I must say that I agree with them.

[Rev Blair]

Their reasoning is generally pretty good...I have a lot of respect for your founding fathers. I don't think they foresaw a world where there were 300,000,000 people in the US though, or the complexities of modern life and the additional governmental work that requires.

 

It would be interesting if we could get their input on what's required in the modern world...I have a feeling they'd have some pretty good ideas...but we have to remember the context of their times as well.

[swansont]

Of course the Democrat Representative from Missouri (who is quoted in the initial posting) did not see 435 as a strawman. I encourage you to re-read his quote.

 

I read the quote. I understand the quote. The quote is irrelevant. 435 is arbitrary, and the statement not a strawman, only if there was no reasoning presented in support of the limit. Was Rep Lozier the only member of congress who stood up to debate the measure?

 

It's a strawman because the statement "If 435 was thought to be the appropriate size when the population was 91 million (per the 1910 census), should it be increased to reflect the fact that the total population has since more than tripled?" implies that the decision was based on population size. Where is your evidence that it was?

 

I can easily believe it was based on logistics of government, for various reasons brought up in this thread. That the congressional members felt that 435 was big enough, and more representatives would be detrimental. IOW, why did the measure pass? What were the arguments in favor of it? All you've presented is one dissenting view.

 

The Constitution says "The actual Enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct. The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand"

 

which means that Congress gets to set the rules on how to enumerate representatives. There is nothing unconstitutional about capping the number.

 

——

 

The point of all this? I think the appeals to the past — the article that was never added, the objection of a representative — weaken the argument. There are plenty of old ideas that don't fit today, and plenty of situations the founding fathers did not foresee. That's why we have amendments to the Constitution.

 

Give me an honest assessment of how this will make government better . Right now it just seems like an appeal to nostalgia.

[JEQuidam]

Give me an honest assessment of how this will make government better.

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.

 

I don't think they foresaw a world where there were 300,000,000 people in the US though,

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.

[doG]

Another question for the mix.

 

The House of Representatives is the house intended to represent the people while the Senate is the house intended to represent the states. What reasons are there to keep the people's districts from crossing state lines?

[JEQuidam]

I'm just thinking that many of the points he's addressing with this change may be caused by voter apathy rather than insufficiently granular representation.

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.

 

What reasons are there to keep the people's districts from crossing state lines?

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.

 

Millions? ...

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.

 

I kind of reject the idea that staffs can be significantly reduced. No one person can be an expert on everything.

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.

Edited May 27, 2008 by JEQuidam
multiple post merged

[doG]

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.

 

Would you claim that the 14th Amendment undermines the sovereignty of the States by making the citizens of the states citizens of the U.S. as well? Wouldn't an application of the 14th to the citizen's representation strengthen the people's political power proportionately?

 

Part of the reason the representation is limited now is because Congress repeatedly tried changing the formula of apportionment to fairly enumerate the inevitable fractional districts that resulted from dividing the national population by the 50 states. Resetting the districts to sizes of 30,000 as originally stated in the Constitution and allowing those districts to bridge state lines would eliminate the fractional districts and bring the people's representation and power in line with the federal citizenship given by the 14th Amendment.

 

BTW, the States would do well by themselves to repeal the 17th Amendment so that they again will be the constituents of the Senators.

[JEQuidam]

Resetting the districts to sizes of 30,000 as originally stated in the Constitution and allowing those districts to bridge state lines would eliminate the fractional districts and bring the people's representation and power in line with the federal citizenship given by the 14th Amendment.

 

BTW, the States would do well by themselves to repeal the 17th Amendment so that they again will be the constituents of the Senators.

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.

[ParanoiA]

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 not getting the logic here. Not taking issue with it, I just don't understand. How does an interstate district paralyze the federal government's protections for them?

 

Part of the reason the representation is limited now is because Congress repeatedly tried changing the formula of apportionment to fairly enumerate the inevitable fractional districts that resulted from dividing the national population by the 50 states. Resetting the districts to sizes of 30,000 as originally stated in the Constitution and allowing those districts to bridge state lines would eliminate the fractional districts and bring the people's representation and power in line with the federal citizenship given by the 14th Amendment.

 

I like that logic too. It would seem to compliment the intent of representation of the populace in the first place. It makes sense that the house of reps was more about sheer numbers of people; the senate representing the state entities.

 

_________________________________________________________

 

What a cool thread. JEQuidam and doG have really made me rethink my impulsive dislike of representative democracy. So many new problems with direct style, and a saturation of representatives does seem to directly address the things I've always been turned off by representation.

 

I would like to see some other dissention though, as I'm kind of dumbstruck to any contrarian arguments at the moment.

 

Pangloss, you had mentioned some negatives to this in previous threads, so what were they?

[JEQuidam]

I'm not getting the logic here. Not taking issue with it, I just don't understand. How does an interstate district paralyze the federal government's protections for them?

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.

 

What a cool thread. JEQuidam and doG have really made me rethink my impulsive dislike of representative democracy. So many new problems with direct style, and a saturation of representatives does seem to directly address the things I've always been turned off by representation.

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).