mhd24 Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 Congressman used to represent 33k, and now represent at least 700k. If you expanded the house, I think it would be far less expensive to run for congress, thus mitigating the the daily 4 hour fundraising calls that congressman partake in. Interesting article I found: http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/09/opinion/flynn-expand-congress Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 The pessimistic side of me says, "please god no!" Just what we need is another few dozen blood suckers. The analytical side of me says, "it makes perfect sense." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 more Texas congresscritters not sure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 Who are you kidding! They represent donors and spend most of their time raising money. 700k my foot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostofSparta Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 It would certainly give a greater opportunity for 3rd party candidates. Which, while possibly resulting in an even bigger cluster**** somehow, at least it would be a more fun one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebluefood Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 The pessimistic side of me says, "please god no!" Just what we need is another few dozen blood suckers. The analytical side of me says, "it makes perfect sense." I wonder if there's any way we could do a little constitutional revising and have the House become a more parliamentary-style House to open things up for third parties and independent candidates. Not sure how it would work or if it would work, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 Been proposing proportional representation for decades. And, far as I'm aware, it could be implemented at the state level. There's nothing in the constitution that says Congresscritters must be elected from gerrymandered, winner take all, districts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 Didn't I start a thread like this 2 years ago? Yes, yes, yes! Compensation will have to be re-jigered. Maybe double it. Of course if it doesn't fix the two-party-rule system (they seem to like it when the other party can block, what if 3rd/4th parties block and force compromise?) might as well just go back to having 435. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 Sure give more one term reps retirement for life and health care for life outside of obamacare. Lets unite to pay retirement for our people. Let the people unite. Can I get in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeluCopter29 Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 We really should make the house smaller. Too big to be functional IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted July 18, 2013 Share Posted July 18, 2013 No. I'd even change the Senate. Every state should be gauranteed only one senator. The other 50 should be based on population. So some states could have more than one senator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.