A “People’s House” or an oligarchy?

[Phi for All]

Then you have not read the article from "Public Finance Review" which provides data that supports this contention.

I didn't care much for its conclusions. I'm not sure I trust that increasing representation will lower legislative costs in every instance. It may be a factor in many instances but the article fails to show that increasing representation by a factor of 11 will necessarily result in a corresponding decrease in government and government spending.

 

 

(Or perhaps you have read it but are inclined to dismiss data that contradicts your cynical view.)

Let's be careful. Skepticism is not cynicism. Don't be inclined to dismiss my concerns because they may contradict yours.

 

 

Let's get to the point: do you oppose allowing 300,000,000 Americans to have more than 435 congressional districts?

False dilemma. I don't have to oppose allowing more congressional districts in order to oppose what you and Thirty Thousand are proposing. And I'm not sure it would end up being a bad thing to have more reps, I'm just pretty sure it would be bad to have 6000 reps at the same pay scale and benefits package they have currently. I don't think your system takes that seriously enough. Remember that a two-term rep that gets voted out still gets benefits that will last the rest of his/her life. It's bad enough now; I don't like to think of it being 11 times worse.

[JEQuidam]

False dilemma.

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.

[iNow]

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.

 

As has already been pointed out to you, no, it's not. There ARE other options.

[Phi for All]

Pay them some token fee for their voting service since that's basically all they'll be doing. They'll still have their regular jobs. The real work behind legislation would still be carried out in DC but the votes required to pass it would not.

No token fee would be enough before it became too much. I think the draft is a better approach, or like jury duty, as ParanoiA mentioned. It's everyone's duty to serve when selected, part of being a citizen.

 

 

It's really a straightforward question.

It's still a False Dilemma and now it's also a Strawman, since I never argued that we shouldn't have more districts. I only questioned whether or not your approach was the right one.

 

I think you're hearing, "ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!" when I'm just saying, "Why that way?".

[JEQuidam]

As has already been pointed out to you, no, it's not. There ARE other options.

What are the other ways to answer that question than "Yes", "No" or "I don't know"?

 

I think you're hearing, "ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!" when I'm just saying, "Why that way?".

OK, to be sure I understand: you are NOT opposed to allowing 300,000,000 Americans to have more than 435 congressional districts, right? Edited May 30, 2008 by JEQuidam
multiple post merged

[swansont]

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.

 

Most poll questions are, but that doesn't mean that it's the only way to formulate the question, nor does it guarantee that asking it in a different way won't give you different results.

 

"Have you stopped beating your wife?" is a straightforward question. But it's not a yes or no question.

[JEQuidam]

Most poll questions are, but that doesn't mean that it's the only way to formulate the question,

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."

[ParanoiA]

"Have you stopped beating your wife?" is a straightforward question. But it's not a yes or no question.

 

Exactly. Depends on whether or not she's learned to listen.

 

I didn't care much for its conclusions. I'm not sure I trust that increasing representation will lower legislative costs in every instance. It may be a factor in many instances but the article fails to show that increasing representation by a factor of 11 will necessarily result in a corresponding decrease in government and government spending.

 

Yeah, and I think this is a great contrarian argument for 30 thousand proponents to defend. I love the idea of the extra reps, but this point needs to be dealt with.

 

I think the draft is a better approach, or like jury duty, as ParanoiA mentioned. It's everyone's duty to serve when selected, part of being a citizen.

 

Ever since a buddy of mine mentioned this, I've always thought it would be a cool idea. The obvious problem though, is difficult to work around, though the high number of reps could contain it a little - and that's talent, and lack thereof.

 

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."

 

I think you're looking to argue rather than discuss. Don't worry I get it. Some folks express their ideas better in combat. It's a bit pretentious though, as the specific people you're at odds with right now are critical thinking scientists and are professional skeptics by their very nature.

 

Don't take offense, use it to measure your movement. If you're correct, it should survive any scrutiny by them.

[JEQuidam]

I think you're looking to argue rather than discuss.

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.

[ParanoiA]

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.

 

Well if it's humility you're looking for let me be the first to acknowledge my lack of leaping to the newest conclusion presented to me in a politics forum. I wasn't sure much of anybody had reached a conclusion but you and doG, did I miss something?

 

So far I love the idea, but I want to see it tested with the points brought up above.

[iNow]

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.

I am not for or against it. I want to know what benefits having more will offer us, and (more importantly) what negative effects it will have. You have not addressed this, nor (AFAICT) have any of your links. I have seen only opinion, and little data.

 

 

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.

 

Yeah, again you present a false choice. It's not a lack of "courage" that prevents people from responding, it's their recognition of your loaded, biased, and misframed questions.

[JEQuidam]

I am not for or against it. I want to know what benefits having more will offer us...

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.

[swansont]

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".

 

Or you could ask, "Do you favor crowding more than six thousand elected officials into the house of representatives?"

 

It's the same question, isn't it?

 

It would appear that some of you are aspiring politicians.

 

No need to get nasty.

[JEQuidam]

Or you could ask, "Do you favor crowding more than six thousand elected officials into the house of representatives?"

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?

[doG]

I am not for or against it. I want to know what benefits having more will offer us, and (more importantly) what negative effects it will have. You have not addressed this, nor (AFAICT) have any of your links. I have seen only opinion, and little data.

 

I think it would be difficult at best to come up with data on a model that hasn't been tested. For me it does seem obvious that more granular representation than we have now would more closely model the will of the people and the will of the people is what the people's representatives should represent.

 

The big negative is cost but I don't think we need 6,000 or 10,000 professional representatives. I think the 435 we have now is sufficient for writing good legislation if we take away their majority power to pass it and disperse it among a larger population of legislative voters. We can continue to pay the legislative writers comparatively to what we do now and the voters a minimal fee like that given for jury duty.

[swansont]

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.

 

Yes, that was my point — that the phrasing of the question biases the response.

 

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.

 

What about the part that says Congress shall assemble at least once a year? And the part about being able to adjourn to another place (not plural)? (Article I and 20th Amendment)

 

Why isn't a defeated article from 220 years ago also an archaic paradigm?

Edited May 30, 2008 by swansont
fix typo

[JEQuidam]

Yes, that was my point — that the phrasing of the question biases the response.

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?"

 

What about the part that says Congress shall assemble at least once a year?

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?)

 

And the part about being able to adjourn to another place (not plural)?

Just because it is not written in the plural does not prevent them from doing so.

 

Why isn't a defeated article from 220 years ago also an archaic paradigm?

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? Edited May 30, 2008 by JEQuidam

[john5746]

I second doG's idea of splitting it up. I was thinking more along the lines of having local survey/analyst types that provide data to the DC guy. I am thinking more in terms of how to improve the communication between the two. I have no details to offer, but it just seems that we are too big to stick with legislators trying to do it all. Let them do the legislating and free up the communication/feedback to another group. The people could still have some direct access to the legislator, but Billionaire Bob on the phone every day would have to stop.

[swansont]

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?"

 

It has "oppose" in it, which has a negative connotation. Not supporting something doesn't necessarily mean you oppose it, so it garners some "yes" answers from those people.

 

(You're really desperate to oppose this idea, aren't you?)

 

You shouldn't assume. Scientists don't necessarily argue the same way as politicians.

 

Just because it is not written in the plural does not prevent them from doing so.

 

Depends on how you (or, more to the point, judges) interpret the Constitution.

 

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?

 

The people also adopted the third amendment, which is another example of something being important back then not necessarily having much relevance today. So, I think what was or wasn't adopted is of limited interest. I think it has to stand on its merits, not on its history.

[Sisyphus]

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?"

 

I think I can answer that. First: "allow." Implying that is what those 300,000,000 want and are trying to do. The phrasing of the question indicates that more districts is better, when that is precisely what is up for debate. Compare: "Will you allow them to have fewer than 435 districts?" Or: "Will you deny each representative even a 1/435th vote?" Etc.

 

I suggest: "Are you in favor of increasing the number of Congressional districts?"

 

(You're really desperate to oppose this idea, aren't you?)

 

Now come on. That's rather ad hominem and almost certainly not true. What would be Swansont's motive? I happen to know he's not a Congressman.

[Mr Skeptic]

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 agree with this. The problem is not that representatives are not influential enough, it is that people are not influential enough on the representatives. If each representative is doing the will of the people, how much influence each of them individually has is of little concern.

[JEQuidam]

It has "oppose" in it, which has a negative connotation.

Uhhh, yeah sure. OK, then can you answer the question posed by Sisyphus: "Are you in favor of increasing the number of Congressional districts?"

 

You shouldn't assume. Scientists don't necessarily argue the same way as politicians.

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.

 

I suggest: "Are you in favor of increasing the number of Congressional districts?"

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?

 

The problem is not that representatives are not influential enough, it is that people are not influential enough on the representatives. If each representative is doing the will of the people, how much influence each of them individually has is of little concern.

Exactly right!!

[ParanoiA]

I think it would be difficult at best to come up with data on a model that hasn't been tested. For me it does seem obvious that more granular representation than we have now would more closely model the will of the people and the will of the people is what the people's representatives should represent.

 

The big negative is cost but I don't think we need 6,000 or 10,000 professional representatives. I think the 435 we have now is sufficient for writing good legislation if we take away their majority power to pass it and disperse it among a larger population of legislative voters. We can continue to pay the legislative writers comparatively to what we do now and the voters a minimal fee like that given for jury duty.

 

I like this, but how would you frame this? 435 legislators, and 6,000 or so voting delegates of some kind? Obviously the reps we're wanting to add to this are for greater representation by the people, but would their legislative initiative authority be inferior to the 435?

 

And are we sure these extra reps aren't taintable within this structure as well? Sure there's more of them, but if the 435 are the ones writing and proposing legislation, I'm not so sure a good ole boy club won't still manifest itself. Either way, it's still better than today though.

 

 

 

And I still think Phi has a great point on spending. How do we know we're not creating a little army of spend-aholics putting us in even worse shape financially?

[Phi for All]

OK, to be sure I understand: you are NOT opposed to allowing 300,000,000 Americans to have more than 435 congressional districts, right?

I'll say I'm not opposed to having more congressional districts, with the caveat that you don't assume I necessarily support your method of increasing them. I think 6000 Reps at their current pay scale and retirement benefits would be a crippling burden after a few decades go by (and let's not forget about their reimbursable expenses). You'd need to show me how you'd change that, especially since, according to you, 6000 Reps would have less to do overall than Reps in the current system.

 

I like the idea of having senior Reps (maybe still 435?) and junior Reps. The seniors can do the legislative groundwork and the juniors could just gather consensus from the constituency and vote accordingly. Better representation is the goal here, no? Not just pushing one group's agenda.

[swansont]

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.

 

Yes it is.

 

I don't necessarily disagree, but I don't find your main arguments to be very compelling.

 

There was a story published recently that contended that committees lose effectiveness if they have more than about 20 members — they aren't able to make good decisions because the group dynamics get in the way. More representatives not only impact the overall dynamics, but the individual committees, if they increase in size as well. If they don't, you will have some representatives with considerably more power than others because they have paces on committees and others don't. You'll get that as well if you increase turnover; as fewer reps will have seniority, and the power will concentrate with them.

 

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/33926;jsessionid=1A24AA6D9F7797F06919A88B08CDCB63

 

One thing that happens is you lose the ability for one dynamic individual to have the same impact, since it's diluted by the size of the group. You increase the probability of doing nothing when action is required, because there's more inertia to overcome.