The Lost Amendment.

Discussion in 'Politics & Law' started by Kazmarov, Mar 14, 2007.

  1. Kazmarov

    Kazmarov For a Free Scotland

    I was looking up the Bill of Rights, and came across this.

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

    When the BoR was ratified, two articles were not approved by 3/4ths of the states; article I (the link above) and article II (congressional pay raises do not take effect until the next session of Congress). Article II, after about two centuries, was finally approved by enough states and became the 27th amendment. However, this article I was never approved, though it remains still in petition.

    I looked over it and saw something I've always wanted in American government: a sliding representative scale. Currently in California (my home state, for the new ones here), representatives are responsible for well over 500,000 constituents. While the CAA sets 30,000 (which is now outdated) what do you think about the idea in theory? Currently representation is zero-sum; every Census states gain seats or lose seats so as to keep at 435 representatives. This creates two things:

    -What I coin a 'representative decay,' that is that representaive federal government becomes less representative as population increases (dramatically so)

    -Makes elections so big that only the two big parties can legitamtely win more than a negligable amount of seats. Until he was elected to Senate in 2006, Bernie Sanders of Vermont was the only Independent in the House, mostly because he was from a rather small state in a rather small area.

    ====

    Germany has slightly over 600 seats for a population of ~80 million. We are almost four times that size, yet we have a slightly smaller combined Congress. I see no reason that we shouldn't have something like the CAA to make sure that representation cannot be signifigantly diminished.
    ====

    Thoughts? Also, if you are repulsed by the notion of a federal government, please abstain from this thread or discuss it only in the context that you do support a federal government.

    [Kazmarov]
     

  2. blenderboy55

    blenderboy55 Guest

    I think it would be a necessary thing to increase the representation, because it's what the founders wanted and is important to a demcracy, but I think it should still be a set number.
     
  3. Kazmarov

    Kazmarov For a Free Scotland

    I do agree that a set number is needed (to prevent an unmanagable amount of delegates), but that number could be something in the range of 700+. England's House of Commons is 646, and because of it local concerns can defeat major party members. Thus, they have very good representation, and MP's are quickly defeated for re-election if they fail to be good representatives.

    There. Function and representation. Having more representatives doesn't impede the legislative function, it improves it (in case that argument is forwarded).
     
  4. blenderboy55

    blenderboy55 Guest

    I agree, though I also think that eventually, there's a such thing as too many.
     
  5. Stay Away

    Stay Away Guest

    Yes lets spend more money on elections and treating elected officials like their monarchs.

    Congress will flounder and fail regardless of how many trained chimps it holds, the only difference will be the amount of road they take up leaving the capital.
     
  6. Kazmarov

    Kazmarov For a Free Scotland

    Have you seen the MP's of the House of Commons? They're mostly middle to upper middle class competent people who have helped their community. More representatives increases representation and allows for skilled people (who get considerably amounts of money from their party, not their own party) to get elected, rather than rich ones.

    Comparison:

    435 "trained chimps": 2 parties, many millionaries.
    612 "trained chimps" (the Bundestag): 5 parties, lots of normal skilled people who got elected because they're good at advocacy and helping their communities.

    Your cynicism is disgusting, as well as untrue.
     
  7. Stay Away

    Stay Away Guest

    Forgive me for not buying into what is obviosly a PR campaign.

    If you can call me cynical, I belive I'll call you naive
     
  8. Kazmarov

    Kazmarov For a Free Scotland

    Considering your response to every single post seems to be a violent and pure rejection, I think you've got a perspecive issue. Also, by having a mechanical and repeated response, you would be a 'trained chimp' of sorts.

    More congressmen and perhaps eventually a party list system, ends the focus of individual candidates and starts the focus on ideology and policy. Thus, there is no monarch worship anymore.
     
  9. wyldesykosis

    wyldesykosis Feral


    Thanks for pointing that out Kaz...I was going to!
     
  10. Stay Away

    Stay Away Guest

    I said nothing abou worship, just typical political annoitment. Like monarchs.

    My point is, more representation doesn't mean better representation.

    I doubt it means anything, I see your belif as flawed, and of course, that makes me a jerk.
     

Share This Page