Political Monopoly Power (idea to increase size of House of reps)

[Larry]

Proportional is a bad idea. It gives the parties the ability to name the reps, and as a result, they will choose the most hardened, extreme party loyalist.

Yes. A proportional system well elect people who follow the party platform. (In fact, as I understand it, in countries that have proportional representation, representatives can be impeached for deviating from the party's platform.

But the result of this is that voters select candidates based on the issues, rather than on who he had to dinner 20 years ago or what club the candidate's husband belongs to. People would vote based on the issues, and would be reasonably confident that they'd get what they voted for.

With an increase in the number, we would get the same result as the proportional system, but without the extremists.

Absolutely untrue. If you took my current Congressional district, and divided it into ten districts, they'd still be winner-take-all. The Libertarians would still have to win 51% of the vote in some district in order to get a seat. You'd still have a Congress that was 99% D or R, no other choices allowed.

[JohnLockesGhost]

So, Larry, would you be in favor of a unicameral, proportionately representative legislature?

(I think, that's what they have in Turkey.)

[PokerPacker]

2 points.

One- we need more. The reason it was limitted to 435 is simple, those in power got the idea to vote themselves MORE power. And the sheople allowed it.

Two- Proportional is a bad idea. It gives the parties the ability to name the reps, and as a result, they will choose the most hardened, extreme party loyalist.

With an increase in the number, we would get the same result as the proportional system, but without the extremists.

That is why I think Party-based proportional representation is a bad idea. I hate political parties to my very core and it should not be a party that controls politics. I would agree to a people-based proportional representation where basically just everyone who runs is on the ballot and the top x people get in. It could still be done by state, just not by district.

[Larry]

So, Larry, would you be in favor of a unicameral, proportionately representative legislature?

(I think, that's what they have in Turkey.)

I kind of like the idea of having two houses of Congress, if for no other reason than because it makes it tougher to get things through.

Although I'll also admit that I can't think of a second reason.

I understand that the original intent of the Senate was to prevent the Big States from beating up the Little States.

OTOH, I have to ask myself: If the Little States didn't have grossly disproportional power in the Senate, would we have nearly as much agricultural subsidies?

(OTO,OH, if it weren't for the Senate, would places like the big, empty, states out west, that have a lot of land but not many people, have interstate highways running through them?)

I don't feel strongly, one way or the other.

[SnyderShrugged]

I'm pleased that this thread is still alive! great dialog going on in it!

[skinfan133]

I kind of like the idea of having two houses of Congress, if for no other reason than because it makes it tougher to get things through.

Although I'll also admit that I can't think of a second reason.

I understand that the original intent of the Senate was to prevent the Big States from beating up the Little States.

OTOH, I have to ask myself: If the Little States didn't have grossly disproportional power in the Senate, would we have nearly as much agricultural subsidies?

(OTO,OH, if it weren't for the Senate, would places like the big, empty, states out west, that have a lot of land but not many people, have interstate highways running through them?)

I don't feel strongly, one way or the other.

This ties in a lot with my arguments over amending or abolishing the 17th Amendment. The original intent of the senate was to be the States' legislative chamber. the House was the people's chamber.

I'm pleased that this thread is still alive! great dialog going on in it!

you said as your thread died

hopefully this bump will revive it a little...

[Predicto]

Dunno. Seems like a recipe for mob rule to me.

[skinfan133]

Dunno. Seems like a recipe for mob rule to me.

democracy in general is mob rule, that's why we aren't one. :2cents:

[SnyderShrugged]

Dunno. Seems like a recipe for mob rule to me.

To me, it's the opposite of "Mob rule". It disperses the power to such an extent that the lobbyists cannot have very much influence on any one representative without it costing them way more than they could get in return.

It's also how our representative government was intended to work. There is no way a representative can truly represent their constituents now, not with so many falling into their district.

Oh, skinfan13 NICE BUMP! I never expected to see a thread I started 2 years ago come up on the front page again!

[skinfan133]

Oh, skinfan13 NICE BUMP! I never expected to see a thread I started 2 years ago come up on the front page again!

happy to do my part

[Hubbs]

Dunno. Seems like a recipe for mob rule to me.

So you'd define the America of the early 1800's as "mob rule"?

[HighOnHendrix]

I say abolish the House and let all of America vote on everything via the internet or other electronic means. The Senate could be the check on us simpleton regular folks.