Representation

#1
T

therealUT

Rational Thought Allowed?
Joined
Mar 9, 2006
Messages
30,347
Likes
4,191
#1
What is a good ratio of federal representatives to citizens?

According to the Constitution, the ratio must not be greater than 1:30,000; however, there is was not cap put in place. Today, the ratio is roughly 1:700,000.

I would argue that the ratio should not be less than 1:100,000. That way, citizens would have reasonable access to their representatives; less money would have to be raised for campaigns; powerful lobbies pushing controversial issues would, presumably, have to shell out more money to "buy" more votes, which would make the task, in itself, harder; oh, yeah, and Representatives would be more representative of their constituents.
 
#2
#2
Same format should be used by all States to establish the number of Reps but I would not be interested in seeing more Representatives especially not seven times as many, unless there was a significant cut in their benefits & pay and where/when/how they met.

People Per Representative | DataMasher
 
#3
#3
WillisWG said:
Same format should be used by all States to establish the number of Reps but I would not be interested in seeing more Representatives especially not seven times as many, unless there was a significant cut in their benefits & pay and where/when/how they met.

People Per Representative | DataMasher
Click to expand...

IIRC, the number of Representatives (435) and was capped in 1911. The States are certainly not to be blamed for the apportionment.

If the number had not been capped and reapportionment occurred every ten years (as per the Constitution), I highly doubt that the pay and benefits for Representatives would have exploded to what it is today.
 
#5
#5
How about one per state. Salary costs reduced. Clucking during debates reduced. Every comment and vote on issues would be dissemenated statewide increasing transparency. Every lobby dollar received could be easily compared/contrasted to every vote. Having to appeal to a wider range of voters could increase moderation and voter participation. Promises to constituencies would be monitored more closely and acted upon by voters. All states would have equal voice.
 
#6
#6
JTrainDavis said:
What was the purpose of the cap when instituted?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

My take:

At the time, the impoverished "voters" did not so much live in cities in the NE as much as they were spread out over rural areas in the middle of the country. Cities were growing with upper middle class and above "voters". The cap, in theory, would have given more representation to the rural voter, which the progressive movement, at that time, depended on.

This argument, IMO, is given credence by the timeline in which states ratified the 16th Amendment. States with large population centers and a "gentrified" populous were reluctant to ratify.
 
#7
#7
CSVol said:
How about one per state.
Click to expand...

This is the opposite of representation.

CSVol said:
Salary costs reduced.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

CSVol said:
Clucking during debates reduced.
Click to expand...

The House is already filibuster proof. The Senate is not.

CSVol said:
Every comment and vote on issues would be dissemenated statewide increasing transparency.
Click to expand...

Every comment and vote on issues is already publicly available. congress.gov

CSVol said:
Every lobby dollar received could be easily compared/contrasted to every vote.
Click to expand...

I believe systems are now in place in which this occurs. This was a response to the Abramoff incident.

CSVol said:
Having to appeal to a wider range of voters could increase moderation and voter participation.
Click to expand...

I imagine this would actually do the exact opposite. Senators are not exactly moderate; in most states, they are even more extreme.

CSVol said:
Promises to constituencies would be monitored more closely and acted upon by voters.
Click to expand...

Promises can already be monitored and acted upon by voters; fact is, they are not and that is due to an apparent voter apathy.

CSVol said:
All states would have equal voice.
Click to expand...

States have an equal voice in the Senate; they were never intended to have an equal voice in the House (citizens were supposed to have an equal voice in the House).
 
#8
#8
TRUT, I know you were licking your chops for responses but I was simply having a little fun "speculatin' on a hypothesis". To answer your OP, I don't think we need more inmates running the asylum. I believe we need more informed/engaged voter participation. Your responses concerning voters gaining available information depend on voters actually caring about real issues. Sadly, most do not.
 
#10
#10
therealUT said:
IIRC, the number of Representatives (435) and was capped in 1911. The States are certainly not to be blamed for the apportionment.

If the number had not been capped and reapportionment occurred every ten years (as per the Constitution), I highly doubt that the pay and benefits for Representatives would have exploded to what it is today.
Click to expand...

poorly worded on my part....was thinking about gerrymandering...just didn't get that across
 
#12
#12
not sure. more representitives means more districts that will want their own pork project.
 
#14
#14
I like the general idea of it.

I wish the people would vote to ban politcal parties more than anything.
 
#15
#15
I'm not sure the number of representatives is the problem. The problem, as I see it, is the way we've divided up the federal part of the representation puzzle. Congressional districts cut across counties, townships and cities, effectively negating the needs or interests the citizens in those districts. For example, Tood Platts represents the 19th District in PA which includes York and Adams counties and part of Cumberland county. For the citizens in Adams County everything revolves around Gettysburg and tourism, for York it is a mixture of manufacturing, an urban center, farming and commuting to Harrisburg or Baltimore. The folks in Cumberland County really only care about what is happening in Harrisburg. In short, there are distinct issues for each part of the district and no one man can represent it accurately.

My solution would be to establish representation based on how each particular state organized to meet their needs in their urban centers as well as the areas between. For most that would mean counties and larger municipalities. In the simplest terms each county would get a representative and each major municipality would get one. Sure, some states would have more representatives than others and the total number of reps would grow to somewhere around 3418 (3,143 counties, parishes and boroughs +275 cities of 100K+), but that would put is in a more representational set up.
 
#17
#17
For any who are interested, here are some numbers I ran:

For 1 Rep per 500,000 Constituents, and a $74,000 cut to annual salary ($100,000 v. $174,000):


  • 196 seats would be added, upping the total to 631
  • The biggest gains would go to Texas (+.41% of total representation), Arizona (.38%), Utah (.26%), Nevada (.26%), and Georgia (.18%).
  • The biggest losses would go to Ohio (-.49%), New York (-.49%), California (-.46%), Pennsylvania (-.41%), and Illinois (-.25%).
  • U.S. taxpayers would save $12.5M in annual salary expenses for Congressional Representatives.
For 1 Rep per 300,000 Constituents, and a $74,000 cut to annual salary ($100,000 v. $174,000):

  • 602 seats would be added, upping the total to 1,037
  • The biggest gains would go to Texas (+.55% of total representation), Arizona (.28%), Utah (.27%), Florida (.23%), and Georgia (.19%).
  • The biggest losses would go to New York (-.40%), Ohio (-.38%), California (-.32%), Pennsylvania (-.32%), and New Jersey (-.19%).
  • This move would cost U.S. taxpayers an extra $28M in annual salary expenses for Congressional Representatives (which, I think would be worth the extra representation).
 
#18
#18
let's not forget teh benefits: healthcare, pension, office staff, housing, that congressmen get on top of their salary.
 
#19
#19
droski said:
let's not forget teh benefits: healthcare, pension, office staff, housing, that congressmen get on top of their salary.
Click to expand...

I would imagine that more Congressmen would lead to smaller staffs (Congressmen could focus more on one or two committees, instead of five or six). I do not mind the pensions, as most Congressmen never qualify for one, and even less, I would think, would qualify with smaller constituencies and lower annual salaries (many can find much more lucrative careers outside of Congress and will not stay on for twenty).

I do not mind the healthcare, and I think that the COLA expense should be set at the same limit that an O-3 in the military would make for the zip code.
 
#20
#20
With so many people in Congress, how will they agree on anything and what will ever get done?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#21
#21
therealUT said:
For any who are interested, here are some numbers I ran:

For 1 Rep per 500,000 Constituents, and a $74,000 cut to annual salary ($100,000 v. $174,000):


  • 196 seats would be added, upping the total to 631
  • The biggest gains would go to Texas (+.41% of total representation), Arizona (.38%), Utah (.26%), Nevada (.26%), and Georgia (.18%).
  • The biggest losses would go to Ohio (-.49%), New York (-.49%), California (-.46%), Pennsylvania (-.41%), and Illinois (-.25%).
  • U.S. taxpayers would save $12.5M in annual salary expenses for Congressional Representatives.
For 1 Rep per 300,000 Constituents, and a $74,000 cut to annual salary ($100,000 v. $174,000):

  • 602 seats would be added, upping the total to 1,037
  • The biggest gains would go to Texas (+.55% of total representation), Arizona (.28%), Utah (.27%), Florida (.23%), and Georgia (.19%).
  • The biggest losses would go to New York (-.40%), Ohio (-.38%), California (-.32%), Pennsylvania (-.32%), and New Jersey (-.19%).
  • This move would cost U.S. taxpayers an extra $28M in annual salary expenses for Congressional Representatives (which, I think would be worth the extra representation).
Click to expand...


weren't you supposed to be studying?
 
#24
#24
VOLatile said:
With so many people in Congress, how will they agree on anything and what will ever get done?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Can't filibuster in the House, so legislation would still be written in committees and voted for on the floor. Party control and party lines would be less influential, though.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#25
#25
first step, repeal the 17th amendment.

then, how about 1 representative per county? They meet twice a year in DC. A legislative session lasts 1 month. Each state is also able to maintain a permanent DC office composed of 3 members that will vote during emergency sessions only.

There are just over 3000 counties in the US, which would mean that a legislative session wouldn't be much larger than a corporate convention. Representatives are permitted a staff, but staff are not allowed to travel to DC for a legislative session.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top