A “People’s House” or an oligarchy?

[iNow]

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.

Thanks, doG. This is the kind of response I was searching for, and you've expressed it quite well.

 

 

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.

 

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.

+3.

[ParanoiA]

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.

 

Doesn't the Senior/Junior rep proposal present a reasonable solution to this?

 

Seems to me the benefit we're trying to achieve is saturation of "representation" in order to curtail corruptive lobbying and special interest techniques. Representation in the form of votes, not necessarily in assembly and debate. So, wouldn't that resolve the problem of inertia for exigent change?

 

Of course, I'm left wondering just how powerful that leaves the Senior rep. Is he still valuable as a corruptive tool for special interests?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Of course, I'm left wondering just how powerful that leaves the Senior rep. Is he still valuable as a corruptive tool for special interests?

I'd imagine so. A senior representative could still slip various unwanted measures into an otherwise popular bill and have them pass.

[JEQuidam]

435 legislators, and 6,000 or so voting delegates of some kind?

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.

[Pangloss]

It sounds like we're approaching the end of the basic exploration of this question. I'm executing the old suicide rule on this thread, closing it within 24 hours (the thread will remain in place, though), in order to keep it at the high level it's at presently.

 

JEQuidam, I appreciate your bringing this issue to our attention here. We welcome such introductions when intelligently presented and thought-out. Our purpose, of course, is not the evangelism of specific issues, but the long-term observance and discussion of important issues of the day, so I invite you to remain, participate in other discussions, and update us on this topic from time to time, as you feel suitable. Bear in mind that single-issue promoters often have trouble in this area, getting frustrated at people's lack of acceptance, while they conversely get annoyed at his or her lack of range. (Just as an obvious example, there's a reason our long-time member "Peak Oil Man" doesn't post in Politics anymore.) We want you to stay and add to our community in all areas, not just this particular subject.

 

Thanks again. A very interesting idea.

[JEQuidam]

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.

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 don't necessarily disagree, ...

I should caution you that you're coming dangerously close to expressing a position on this matter.

 

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.

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.

 

Bear in mind that single-issue promoters often have trouble in this area, getting frustrated at people's lack of acceptance, while they conversely get annoyed at his or her lack of range.

 

Thanks again. A very interesting idea.

 

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

Edited May 30, 2008 by JEQuidam
multiple post merged

[JohnB]

Fascinating idea.

 

One point not brought up is that with electorates of 50,000, small special interest groups have much more clout. To get a 1% swing in 700,000 voters means that 3,500 must change their minds, for 50,000 it's only 250. Your reps may spend all their time pandering to every little crackpot group out there.

 

The interesting thing about "We the people" type groups is that they tend to operate from the assumption that everybody thinks the same way they do, that they represent the "Silent Majority" somehow. This is not generally true.

 

That being said, the two tiered system seems like an idea worth exploring as it appears to have merit.

 

Alternatively, you could admit to making a mistake, apologise to HRH Elizabeth Regina and ask for the Commonwealths help in creating a proper government.

 

Seriously though, exactly what is so great about your "Republic" government? The rest of the world can see the type of government it is and nobody is impressed. No nation is falling over itself to copy it, nobody wants it.

 

From the outside it looks seriously unrepresentative. Your Constitution can be changed without the vote or consent of the people. And what's with the Electoral College? Unelected party hacks voting for the Presidency? Overriding the popular vote? No wonder the word "Democracy" is not in your Constitution. (And yes, I have read it.)

[JEQuidam]

One point not brought up is that with electorates of 50,000, small special interest groups have much more clout. To get a 1% swing in 700,000 voters means that 3,500 must change their minds, for 50,000 it's only 250.

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.)

 

The interesting thing about "We the people" type groups is that they tend to operate from the assumption that everybody thinks the same way they do, that they represent the "Silent Majority" somehow. This is not generally true.

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.

 

Seriously though, exactly what is so great about your "Republic" government? The rest of the world can see the type of government it is and nobody is impressed. No nation is falling over itself to copy it, nobody wants it.

 

From the outside it looks seriously unrepresentative.

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.

 

Your Constitution can be changed without the vote or consent of the people.

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.

 

Unelected party hacks voting for the Presidency? Overriding the popular vote?

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.

[ParanoiA]

Seriously though, exactly what is so great about your "Republic" government? The rest of the world can see the type of government it is and nobody is impressed. No nation is falling over itself to copy it, nobody wants it.

 

The greatness of the republic, I think anyway, lies in the principles that aren't readily noticeable, nor apparently obvious in practice. The fact that the power comes from the people themselves - that they invest their governing in an idea (in the abstract)- a document (in the tangible) rather than a man or group of men. So, the laws and so forth are continuous, and follow the document, regardless of the leader who created them.

 

We've all heard, and most have agreed, in the power of an "idea" as it relates to terrorism, and how that keeps it from being easily defeated. That's because it's an abstract system of thought that cannot be defeated by killing men. Others still "think it".

 

I believe the power of the republic is similar in that it's a system that essentially 300 million americans, more or less, are invested in its ideal. It makes it incredibly difficult for anyone to thwart our system and oppress us.

 

There's probably much better reasons than that, but that's the first thing that came to mind.

 

From the outside it looks seriously unrepresentative. Your Constitution can be changed without the vote or consent of the people. And what's with the Electoral College? Unelected party hacks voting for the Presidency? Overriding the popular vote? No wonder the word "Democracy" is not in your Constitution. (And yes, I have read it.)

 

The electoral college was necessary at one time to help with the lack of accessability by rural americans to get to a voting booth. It's way out dated, and I'm thinking most of us are ready to ditch it.

 

As for changing the constitution, well sure you're right. The state governments can pass amendments the people don't agree with, the federal courts can interpret the document to compliment an agenda. But these are a consequence of the check and balance system. Its thankless brilliance has blessed us with a government that seems impervious to organized nefarious infiltration.

 

The implication is that state governments were elected by their people, and so represent them at a state level - not to mention historical logistics legitimate the United "States" of America. We are grouped as states, so obviously we have to enter the union, and maintain the union, under that premise. I guess that's somewhat arguable, for the future status, but I think we still like being represented as individual states, rather than one big state. There are subtle differences in laws between them. (Like better beer in Missouri than Oklahoma - no constitution is worth destroying good beer).

[doG]

The electoral college was necessary at one time to help with the lack of accessability by rural americans to get to a voting booth.

 

You have a gross misunderstanding of the Electoiral College system and why it was used. There was never any intent or design that the President would be a representative of the people or a President over the people. The President was by design an executor over the union of the states which are themselves separate entities than the people of the states. A system was needed to allow the states to elect the President of their union and the Electoral College was devised.

 

It was left completely up to each state to decide how they would decide whom they would vote for. Each state could use any method they chose, a vote by their people, a poll of their legislature or even a drawing of lots if they so chose. The point is that it was an individual elected by the states and not the people thereof.

 

The system is FAR from obsolete. It does need to be updated to reflect the changes we have endured, particularly the federal citizenship created in the 14th Amendment. A simple fix would be to reallocate the electors so that each district of the people gets one elector and each state still gets one for each of its Senators. This would separate and isolate the will of the people from the will of the states while maintaining the sovereignty of each.

[ParanoiA]

You have a gross misunderstanding of the Electoiral College system and why it was used. There was never any intent or design that the President would be a representative of the people or a President over the people. The President was by design an executor over the union of the states which are themselves separate entities than the people of the states. A system was needed to allow the states to elect the President of their union and the Electoral College was devised.

 

Then why do the "people" even vote? Not contesting your explanation, I trust your historical review, I'm just confused as to why the people would even be consulted if the president is merely the executor over the states. Apparently the states have all agreed at this point anyway, that the president should represent the people, since they all seem poll the people.

 

I guess my next question is, how should it be? Personally, I prefer the president represent the people, by popular vote. Is there perhaps a good reason why that shouldn't be so?

[JEQuidam]

A simple fix would be to reallocate the electors so that each district of the people gets one elector and each state still gets one for each of its Senators.

Is this what you meant to say? That's how it works now: one Elector per congressional district and one per Senate district (plus 3 for DC per the 23rd Amendment). 435 + 100 + 3 = 538 Electors.

 

By the way, I also support maintaining the Electoral College system, subject to the following two modifications: 1) increasing the number of congressional districts (so that EV will normally equal PV); and 2) the states should abandon the winner-take-all convention (as Maine and Nebraska already have).

 

Then why do the "people" even vote? Not contesting your explanation, I trust your historical review, I'm just confused as to why the people would even be consulted if the president is merely the executor over the states.

The states have chosen to have their citizens choose the electors (or more to the point, we the people demanded that our state legislatures allow us to choose the electors).

[doG]

Then why do the "people" even vote?

 

Because that's how the states chose to appoint their electors. The states are perfectly free to choose their electors in the manner prescribed by the legislatures thereof.

 

I guess my next question is, how should it be? Personally, I prefer the president represent the people, by popular vote. Is there perhaps a good reason why that shouldn't be so?

 

The executive branch is not a branch of representation, it is the branch intended to execute the will of the government as prescribed by Congress. The people and the states have their representatives in their respective house of Congress.

 

Is this what you meant to say? That's how it works now: one Elector per congressional district and one per Senate district (plus 3 for DC per the 23rd Amendment). 435 + 100 + 3 = 538 Electors.

 

Yes, its exactly what I meant to say. I am simply advocating that the states no longer have control over how the people's electors are appointed as they do now. The state legislatures may continue to decide how the two electors the state gets for each Senator get appointed. The electors for the congressional districts should be appointed in a manner prescribed by the people of that district, not the legislatures of the states. This would effectively divide the current Electoral College system into one where the will of the people is separated from the will of the states.

[JEQuidam]

I am simply advocating that the states no longer have control over how the people's electors are appointed as they do now. The state legislatures may continue to decide how the two electors the state gets for each Senator get appointed. The electors for the congressional districts should be appointed in a manner prescribed by the people of that district, not the legislatures of the states. This would effectively divide the current Electoral College system into one where the will of the people is separated from the will of the states.

OK. I see your point. (And of course, repealling the 17th Amendment would help as well.)

[ParanoiA]

The executive branch is not a branch of representation, it is the branch intended to execute the will of the government as prescribed by Congress. The people and the states have their representatives in their respective house of Congress.

 

Well, that does make sense, considering it is the executive branch. I'm going to have to chew on that a while to truly grasp the consequences between representation and executing the will as prescribed by Congress. Since the president is often at odds with Congress, it's not obvious to me how exactly the executive branch is executing their will.

 

I guess I need to refamiliarize myself with my government. These fundamentals are important.

[doG]

Since the president is often at odds with Congress, it's not obvious to me how exactly the executive branch is executing their will.

 

Jefferson stated this well in the famous "Wall Of Separation" letter in which he wrote,

 

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" thus building a wall of eternal separation between Church & State. Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts,[/b'] I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect,

 

The Executive is only authorized to execute the acts of Congress. His/her power is limited to that granted by the Constitution and Congress has the sole power over the Constitution itself. By Constitutional Amendment the Congress can grant or take away the power of any branch.

[ParanoiA]

The Executive is only authorized to execute the acts of Congress. His/her power is limited to that granted by the Constitution and Congress has the sole power over the Constitution itself. By Constitutional Amendment the Congress can grant or take away the power of any branch.

 

Yeah, after rereading the responsibilities of the executive branch, I'm not sure why I had so much trouble making the partition. The Executive branch executes the legislature created by congress. It's just that I don't witness this execution by their authority - to me it just gets executed "somehow". I guess I haven't been considering the source of execution, when it should have been obvious all along. While I feel stupid admiting that, I'm glad I understand it better now.

[Pangloss]

Your Constitution can be changed without the vote or consent of the people.

 

No, that's not the case. I suppose you could make a technical case for it, but it's not something that could happen via demagoguery. Amendments have to be ratified by the states, where, by the way, representation (which is the subject of this thread) is in far closer ratio. Most amendments are never passed, and some have taken over a century to do so.

 

 

Seriously though, exactly what is so great about your "Republic" government? The rest of the world can see the type of government it is and nobody is impressed. No nation is falling over itself to copy it, nobody wants it.

 

Er, what? I guess that might be technically true since virtually every democracy on Earth already HAS copied it. But if you mean the "true" nature of government, and how it is often subverted by special interests and partisanship, or the convoluted nature of the electoral college as discussed above, I can see your point there, although I think those factors are often very much in evidence in other governments around the world.

[JEQuidam]

Your Constitution can be changed without the vote or consent of the people.

I assumed he meant by judicial fiats (that "interpret" the Constitution) by a judiciary which is not accountable to anyone.

 

There have been over 500 views of this discussion thread! This must be an interesting topic.

[Pangloss]

Maybe, but that wouldn't be consistent with his comment about international acceptance, which seems to recognize the value of a co-equal judiciary.

 

(The right wing argument about activist judges doesn't play well with me, and the fact that it may resonate with "most Americans" says more to me about demagoguery and partisanship than it does about its necessity.)

[ParanoiA]

There have been over 500 views of this discussion thread! [/i']This must be an interesting topic.

 

I think it's a great thread. So far, it seems to solve more important problems than it creates. I'm usually not for an exchange of problems, but in this case the principles involved are too important not to fix.

 

The more I think about though, the more I don't like the two teir Senior/Junior rep angle. Just seems like it leaves a potential hole for the Senior rep to become the corruptable influence over Junior reps in some way. While the expense seems daunting, I'm thinking they all need to be of equal status, officially. There's no reason why certain reps wouldn't take lead roles and produce the legislative particulars, it would certainly seem to keep them popular with their constituency.

 

But as soon as we class them hi (few) low (most), it would seem to create a consolidated pool of power for corruption to focus on. (Perhaps the special interests will focus on corrupting the language of the bills, rather than on votes, which gets as back, essentially, to 435 targets for influence rather than the 6,000).

 

(The right wing argument about activist judges doesn't play well with me, and the fact that it may resonate with "most Americans" says more to me about demagoguery and partisanship than it does about its necessity.)

 

Same here.

[doG]

Maybe, but that wouldn't be consistent with his comment about international acceptance, which seems to recognize the value of a co-equal judiciary.

 

Co-equal with whom? Technically the Legislative branch trumps both the Executive and Judicial branches. The legislature can even pass laws that the Judicial branch has no jurisdiction over.

 

The more I think about though, the more I don't like the two teir Senior/Junior rep angle. Just seems like it leaves a potential hole for the Senior rep to become the corruptable influence over Junior reps in some way.

 

That's why you vest the sole power to pass legislation with the junior reps. Checks and balances is the key.

[JEQuidam]

The more I think about though, the more I don't like the two teir Senior/Junior rep angle. Just seems like it leaves a potential hole for the Senior rep to become the corruptable influence over Junior reps in some way.

I agree. A formal two-tiered representation would not be acceptable for a number of reasons. Moreover, we already have an upper house (the Senate).

 

However, to address the underlying rationale for that proposal, I suggested (in an earlier post) this analogue: 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.

[doG]

I agree. A formal two-tiered representation would not be acceptable for a number of reasons. Moreover, we already have an upper house (the Senate).

 

Ummmmm...No. The Senate is not the "upper" house. It has no power over the House Of Represenatives, it is equal. It simply houses the state's representatives while the other houses the people's representatives.

[JEQuidam]

The right wing argument about activist judges doesn't play well with me, ...

I view that is a bipartisan issue; for example, I don't believe that the "left wing" is in favor of expanding the government's power of eminent domain.

 

(For those who don't know to what I am referring:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062300783_pf.html)

 

And, using that example to illustrate my larger point, I have no doubt that a truly representative federal House (e.g., 6,000 districts) would overrule (with legislation) the Supreme Court's decision on that matter.

 

Ummmmm...No. The Senate is not the "upper" house. It has no power over the House Of Represenatives, it is equal. It simply houses the state's representatives while the other houses the people's representatives.

My definition of "upper house" is more consistent with Wiki's:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_house