Democrat wants to expand House of Representatives by 150 seats to create smaller voting districts
- Thread starter hubman
- Start date
The geographic center of the lower 48 states is Lebanon, Kansas in north central KS.
The geographic center of all 50 states is a little north of Belle Fourche, South Dakota. North of the Black Hills and near the borders of Wyoming and Montana.
You might not be able to find a liberal progressive willing to serve there.
I'm thinkin' that's genius.
The population center of the USA is in Wright County, Missouri. About 3 hours SW of St. Louis, but only an hour east of Bass Pro Shops in Springfield. By reputation the word's greatest sporting goods store. (Been there. Got the T-shirt.)
Pretty sure the preferred dress is still realtree and not black tie.
Pretty humorous...
You move the nation's capital to Lebanon, Kansas...things like that have been done in places like Brazil...and Nigeria. As a result, YOU think Lebanon, Kansas, remains as it is? Right. In 50 years, it would be a BIG government town in a BIG government state.
Worth a conversation...won't happen here, I realize.
The "pulse of the people" branch of government is supposed to be the House of Representatives. It's a conversation worth having...at the time of our founding, each house member served the needs of about 30,000 people. Today, it's more than 800,000.
Maybe a larger body, that represents fewer people, causes the reliance on big money to diminish...just a thought. I know, I know...all bad...proposed by a D...would expand the number of people serving in the central government...all bad...and, most importantly, we wet our pants when change is discussed.
The "pulse of the people" branch of government is supposed to be the House of Representatives. It's a conversation worth having...at the time of our founding, each house member served the needs of about 30,000 people. Today, it's more than 800,000.
Maybe a larger body, that represents fewer people, causes the reliance on big money to diminish...just a thought. I know, I know...all bad...proposed by a D...would expand the number of people serving in the central government...all bad...and, most importantly, we wet our pants when change is discussed.
Last edited:
Global average is 146,000 people per parliamentarian (all kinds of countries with different systems, degrees of freedom, fairness of elections). India's parliament is 1 rep per 1.5 million people. We're up there pretty high.
I'm not advocating this...just a thought experiment, which many of you are terrified of because some whore on Fox or one of those other channels is screaming at you on the telly.
I'm not advocating this...just a thought experiment, which many of you are terrified of because some whore on Fox or one of those other channels is screaming at you on the telly.
Costa
Well-known member
The ones we have now are all self serving jack holes who don't have a care in the world for the people they are supposed to represent. Why expand on that LOL
Yes, this is a textbook MAGA response...what I would expect...LOL (hey, I can LOL too).
Maybe you'd get better governance (just a thought) if the rep served 300,000 rather than 800,000...
Guillotine
Well-known member
The Capitol isn't big enough for 150 more congressmen and their staffs and nobody is talking about expanding congress by taking on more territory.
Is that how you argue in court? You're terrible.
Guillotine
Well-known member
As long as the power to decide the haves and have nots resides at the federal level most of the money to influence those decisions will go there.
The money goes to the people who have the power, and that's not freshman in the House.
Your daughter on Fox?
Why is 800,000 to many to represent? A hundred years ago those 30,000 has a much more difficult time expressing their views and feelings to their representatives than 800,000 do today.
Costa
Well-known member
Or maybe we would just get more corrupt self serving jack holes who would further run the country into the ground
y2h
Well-known member
The problem with our representation isn't the number of HOR members...it's that illegals count for distribution of seats (and federal dollars)
Only citizens should be counted for representation purposes.
y2h
Well-known member
No you wouldn't. You'd just get more grifters sucking off the teat.
We have plenty of representation. 95% of people never have an interaction with a member of Congress or need their personal intervention in any way.
True story...
One of my children came home from college for Christmas about 10 years ago. When the kid returned to college, the kid realized that very detailed notes for an upcoming test were left at our house and the kid needed them ASAP. My wife did the USPS overnight and they were lost. The kid was in danger of failing a test in a really technical area. We contacted our Congressman (Dennis Kucinich). Whatever you may think of Dennis, he always had a reputation for great constituent service. A Kucinich staffer went to work and found the package in a small state post office facility near the state where the kid attended college. The kid got the stuff, did well on the test, got a few degrees since, and lived happily ever after.
I don't know...is 800,000 too many to represent? How about 4 million? Does it matter? Your comments suggest it doesn't matter. How about 200,000 (the approximate number when 435 seats were established in 1915ish)? The challenges of representative government are obvious. It's not as simple as "it doesn't matter"...is it? And I understand that change can be costly...
How about a unicameral Congress?
For a time and a place that we are living in, what's a good number if you could start from scratch?
There ya go...now you're gettin' good and riled up.
How you doin' Costa? Got a job? Road paved in front of your house? Cops come when you call them? Someone pickin' up your garbage? Library nearby? Good fire department? F-15's keepin' the Chinese away? Your mother-in-law gettin' her Medicare and Social Security?
Costa
Well-known member
Self Employed; taxed for road repair; Never called the cops but am taxed for them; I pay for private trash removal; I'm taxed for a library I haven't used in 30 years; I never called the fire department but I am taxed for them also; Not sure about the F-15's; mother in law has been dead for 12 years.
Anything else? Like, are the welfare scumbags paying for all the institutions that you mentioned? Nope. but everyone pays their fair share, right?
Also, I never get riled up watching you people make fools of yourselves.
OK...so I'll put you down as a guy who sees no use for police, fire, library, sketchy on the necessity of F-15's...and dump social security and medicare because your mother in law has passed on.
nutsnbolts
Well-known member
What do you attribute the partisan voting to for every single issue? You really believe the majority of constituents feel partisan about every single issu, all the time? Now that’s funny.
ACA certainly wasn’t passed to provide what the majority of constituents wanted.
nutsnbolts
Well-known member
Why did you pull him away from doing his job? You are that big of a egomaniac? You are more important than all the other constituents?
A really caring dad would have taken them to him. Definitely would not have used USPS for something that important!
Evidently you really didn’t care about him representing all his constituents, and didn’t think he represented too many. You just wanted him to be your private servant.
See how your story can look to someone who thinks our elected officials should serve all of us collectively, not each one individually?
Well, then, you're pretty damn stupid. Congressmen have offices (usually several); they have staff. They serve their constituents IF their constituents ask them for help involving federal matters. We asked for help. He helped. We were grateful. The wife always voted for Dennis even though, frequently, his politics and ours, didn't always "comport".
Yappi
Go Buckeyes
I'm willing to double the numbers for both the House and the Senate with one caveat.
No member of the House or the Senate can be a congressperson or Senator when the number is increased. This can be accomplished in one of two ways:
1. Increase the number in a specific future year (say 20 years) with all current politicians unable to serve in either chamber from that point further.
2. Wait until all current politicians are voted out or retire. If AOC serves until she is 80, then the increase won't happen for 47 years.
This would prevent one party from implementing a rule that would favor them and give both parties (and any future parties) an opportunity to game plan for the future.
No member of the House or the Senate can be a congressperson or Senator when the number is increased. This can be accomplished in one of two ways:
1. Increase the number in a specific future year (say 20 years) with all current politicians unable to serve in either chamber from that point further.
2. Wait until all current politicians are voted out or retire. If AOC serves until she is 80, then the increase won't happen for 47 years.
This would prevent one party from implementing a rule that would favor them and give both parties (and any future parties) an opportunity to game plan for the future.
Some whore?
So 10 years ago there weren't to many people to represent for your representative. Apparently he was able to handle the number he had in his district then given the service his office delivered.
It seems that the key was your representative having enough staff to help his constituent.
More representatives would not necessarily mean better service.
Costa
Well-known member
And you would be, typically, wrong.
Costa
Well-known member
Libs are just hateful creatures.